McChrystal got 25 Minutes with Obama.

President is AWOL as our commander
Last Updated: 4:54 AM, October 4, 2009
Posted: 3:42 AM, October 4, 2009
NY Post
Michael Goodwin

IF you still doubt Presi dent Obama is trying to do too many things and is giving short shrift to the most important ones, consider this pathetic scene at the Copenhagen airport. It was Friday, and the president went to Denmark to make his pitch for the Chicago Olympics.

Before Air Force One took off for home, Obama met with Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Our commander in Afghanistan was summoned from London and got 25 minutes of face time with the commander-in-chief.

That's it -- 25 minutes on the plane for the man Obama picked to lead 68,000 troops and rescue a war he calls one of "necessity." Compare that to the 14 hours or so Obama wasted flying and speaking about the Olympics, and you get a snapshot of a president off course.

Not incidentally, that was the same day the unemployment rate climbed to 9.8 percent, the highest since 1983, as employers shed 283,000 more jobs in September.

Barack Obama, phone home.

Yes, the president is trying to do too much. Even worse, much of what he is trying to do are things most Americans don't want.

Exhibit A is the massive health-care overhaul that has become an Obama obsession in his race with history. In the two months before he addressed Congress on Sept. 9, he held six health-care town halls and an evening news conference.

He then hit the road for more town halls and interviews, culminating in his TV blitz on Sept. 20, when he appeared on five Sunday shows, followed by an appearance on David Letterman. (No sex jokes, please.)

All Obama has to show for this reckless push is declining support, with the latest Rasmussen Reports survey finding a record low of only 41 percent backing him. Several polls show that up to 70 percent of the public doesn't believe his claims about the cost and impact on the deficit and their insurance.

As I have written, Obama is squandering the mandate and public trust he worked so hard to win. But the waste doesn't just hurt him.

His Hamlet-like second-guessing of the Afghanistan strategy he backed in March runs the risk of undermining the men and women in harm's way. In fact, the McChrystal meeting was hastily scheduled after the general conceded he had talked with the president only once in the last 70 days.

It's one thing to take your time to get the strategy right. It's quite another not to spend sufficient time on the problem.

Obama needs to align his priorities with the nation's.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the nightmarish Iranian-nuke issue, the painful recession -- these are the core challenges facing America. It's time the president gives them the attention they deserve.

CBS, Cowards and Hypocrates, removes Letterman video. We found another one.

CBS removed all the videos about David Letterman and his painful revelation comedy stint. We posted it here. Just to irritate CBS, I post it again.

Ugly in Afghanistan

Musharraf says Americans need to prepare for the likelihood that more U.S. troops will be needed in Afghanistan and that they will be there many years. The former president of Pakistan said so in Iowa Saturday.

Pervez Musharraf, who resigned under pressure last year, said it would be "disastrous" for the United States to pull out of Afghanistan now. If the Taliban are allowed to return to power, he said, they surely would allow al-Qaeda terrorists to rebuild strength in Afghanistan, destabilizing the region and posing a major threat to the United States.

Musharraf says we need to stay.A few days ago an Afghan soldier killed some Americans in their sleep. Today we have a bold attack where 8 Americans are killed and their Afghani police cohorts are kidnapped? Is this a new tactic? Infilltrate from within? Keep the Americans nervous, sleepin with one eye open, suspicious of their Afghani allies?

Is Musharraf right?


_________________
Hat tip: Doug


Eight U.S. Soldiers Dead in Bold Attack in Afghanistan

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and SANGAR RAHIMI
Published: October 4, 2009 NY Times

KABUL, Afghanistan – Groups of tribal militia attacked two American outposts in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, the American military said, killing eight American soldiers and two Afghan police officers in a bold attack that was the deadliest for American soldiers in months.

The attack took place on Saturday night in the Nuristan province, a remote area that shares a border with Pakistan.

Tribal fighters staged the attacks from a mosque and from a village close to the outposts, small bases shared by American and Afghan forces, the military said in a statement on Sunday. The military did not say whether the outposts had been overrun.

The commander of the American unit, Col. Randy George, called the strike "a complex attack in a difficult area."

U.S. troops have had trouble there before: nine American soldiers were killed when 200 insurgents stormed their small outpost in the village of Wanat in 2008.

The governor of Nuristan province, Jamaluddin Badar, reached by telephone on Sunday, said that 11 Afghan police officers, including the district police chief, had been kidnapped in the strike. He described one of the outposts as a district police station, and identified the attackers as Taliban fighters, not tribal militia.

The attack took place in the Kamdish district in the eastern part of the province, he said. The American military statement said American forces had "effectively repelled the attack and inflicted heavy enemy casualties," but did not give the location of the attack.

Mr. Badar said the fighting left at least five dead insurgents in the area. He believed the insurgents had come from Pakistan after military operations pushed them out of bases in the area, and that the operation was led by a Taliban commander in the area named Dost Muhammed.

A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahed, claimed that Taliban fighters overrran the outposts. He said Taliban fighters were holding the district police chief, and an intelligence chief hostage. He said seven Taliban fighters had been killed, and that the fighters eventually withdrew because the area came under bombardment.

The area had suffered civilian casualties in the past, and villagers there are extremely wary of American forces.

American forces had planned to pull out of the sparsely populated area, as part of a stragetic shift to place more troops in heavily populated centers. The American military statement said that plan "remained unchanged."

The battle of Wanat in 2008 is being described as the ''Black Hawk Down'' of Afghanistan, with the 48 American soldiers and 24 Afghan soldiers outnumbered three to one in a four-hour firefight that left nine Americans dead and 27 wounded in one of the bloodiest days of the eight-year war.

Is it all about , dare I say, oil and gas?

Gays in the military: Does anyone really care?

Obama is fretting over when. Here is a suggestion. Do nothing. We have enough problems. Announce nothing, but quietly and respectfully allow the whole issue to just evaporate. The military code of conduct allows plenty of room to get rid of someone that is over the top. Years ago tattoos were banned, but rarely did anyone do anything about it.

Give them the Bronx cheer and just "fugetaboutit'"

__________________


Obama to take on 'don't ask' at 'right time'

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

President Obama will focus "at the right time" on how to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military, his national security adviser said Sunday.

"I don't think it's going to be -- it's not years, but I think it will be teed up appropriately," retired Gen. James L. Jones said.

The Democratic-led Congress is considering repealing the 1993 law. Action isn't expected on the issue until early next year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, recently wrote Mr. Obama and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to ask them to share their views and recommendations on the contentious policy. In Sept. 24 letters, Mr. Reid also asked for a review of the cases of two U.S. officers who were discharged from the military because of their sexuality.

"At a time when we are fighting two wars, I do not believe we can afford to discharge any qualified individual who is willing to serve our country," Mr. Reid wrote.

Gen. Jones said Mr. Obama "has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time, and he has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I'm sure the president will take it on."

As a candidate, Mr. Obama signaled support for repealing the law. To the disappointment of gay-rights supporters, he has yet to made a move since taking office in January. The White House has said it will not stop the military from dismissing gays and lesbians who acknowledge their sexuality.

Last year, 634 members of the military were discharged for being gay, or 0.045 percent of the active-duty U.S. force, according to an Aug. 14 congressional report.

The largest number of gays who were ousted under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came in 2001, when 1,227 were discharged, or 0.089 of the force.

The House is considering legislation to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow people who have been discharged under the policy to rejoin the military.

Gen. Jones appeared on CNN's "State of the Union."

In the wake of the financial crisis or in the middle of one?

The latest news this weekend is: Regulators close banks in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota.

Ninety-eight banks have failed so far this year as losses have mounted on commercial real estate and other soured loans in the wake of the financial crisis and the recession that has gripped the economy. The failures have cost the fund that insures bank deposits about $25 billion, the FDIC said Tuesday.

The fund has been so sapped by the wave of collapsing banks that it now has fallen into the red. The FDIC now expects the cost of bank failures to grow to about $100 billion over the next four years — up from an estimate of $70 billion made in the spring. Most of the $100 billion in costs are expected to come from failures this year and next.

This is what the International Monetary Fund says about the global recovery:

Beyond 2010

Sustaining healthy growth over the medium run will depend critically on addressing the supply disruptions generated by the crisis and rebalancing the global pattern of demand.

To complement supply-side efforts, there must also be adjustments in the pattern of global demand. Specifically, many economies that have followed export-led growth strategies and have run current account surpluses will need to rely more on domestic demand and imports. This will help offset subdued domestic demand in economies that have typically run current account deficits and have experienced asset price (stock or housing) busts, including the United States, United Kingdom, parts of the euro area, and many emerging European economies.

To accommodate demand-side shifts, there will need to be changes on the supply side. This will require actions on many fronts, including measures to repair financial systems, improve corporate governance and financial intermediation, support public investment, and reform social safety nets to lower precautionary saving.

They're talking about a major restructuring of the way the whirled does business. This could take a lifetime, especially if the lords and rulers try to force one failed change after another. There has been talk lately of how Roosevelt's interventions prolonged the Great Depression. I don't how valid those arguments are but the market is organic and has developed over time despite the interventions of governments. Time heals all wounds.

David Letterman says he is creepy.

Letterman inappropriately involved his audience in his revelations, by bringing it into his comedy routine.

Why are they applauding?

What did he have to say about Sarah Palin and her family?

"Am I guilty of poor taste?"

What do you think?

Is a successful Israeli strike against Iran even possible? Doubtful.

Hugh Hewitt and others who are foolishly calling for a strike against Iran, have no concept of what is involved in doing so. How would they? Almost all of them never served in the military, let alone saw combat. I would like to hear from one military strategist that can define how it is even possible, puting aside the blow back. Wishing something can happen is not the same as making it happen. Any thoughts?

Big changes for the internet. US ceding control.

US relinquishes control of the internet
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 September 2009 20.50 BST

• Icann ends agreement with the US government
• Move will give other countries a prominent internet role

After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system.

Icann – the official body that ultimately controls the development of the internet thanks to its oversight of web addresses such as .com, .net and .org – said today that it was ending its agreement with the US government.

The deal, part of a contract negotiated with the US department of commerce, effectively pushes California-based Icann towards a new status as an international body with greater representation from companies and governments around the globe.

Icann had previously been operating under the auspices of the American government, which had control of the net thanks to its initial role in developing the underlying technologies used for connecting computers together.

But the fresh focus will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens – opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet.

Icann chief Rod Beckstrom, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur and Washington insider who took over running the organisation in July, said there had been legitimate concerns that some countries were developing alternative internets as a way of routing around American control.

"It's rumoured that there are multiple experiments going on with countries forking the internet, various countries have discussed this," he said. "This is a very significant shift because it takes the wind out of our opponents."

He added that the changes would prove powerful when combined with upcoming plans to allow web users to use addresses with names in Chinese, Arabic or other alphabets other than Latin. Many countries have lobbied for the shift in recent years, as the expansion of the web reaches out deeper into society and business.

While the issue reached critical mass in emerging economies such as China, it is not the only country that has lobbied for a change. Earlier this year European officials said that they did not think it was proper for America to retain so much control over the global computer network.

Viviane Reding, the EU's commissioner for information society and media, said she was pleased that Washington chose to make the shift.

"I welcome the US administration's decision to adapt Icann's key role in internet governance to the reality of the 21st century," she said. "If effectively and transparently implemented, this reform can find broad acceptance among civil society, businesses and governments alike."

Meanwhile Nominet - the British organisation that handles the day-to-day running of .uk domain names - said that Icann had started a trend for companies with internet influence to appear more open and accountable.

"Putting public interest first will also be a focus for the UK internet community over the coming months as there is growing support for Nominet to develop more of a public interest role," said Nominet's chief executive, Lesley Cowley.

The new agreement comes into force immediately. It replaces the old version which had been in place since 1998 and was scheduled to expire today.

Beckstrom suggested that bringing more countries to the table was the best way of ensuring the long term future of the internet.

"We're more global, period. The chances of the internet holding together just went up, the cohesion just went up," he said. "We expect more active involvement from governments, a higher level of participation from many governments and we're already hearing about more governments joining the team… This was, ironically, a power move from the US."