Chickenhawk in Chief

Barack Obama scored big points during the 2008 campaign by reminding voters of his opposition to the war in Iraq in 2002 (when he was an Illinois State Senator without an actual vote). He called it "Bush's war of choice" and repeatedly spoke of its folly; later, as a United States Senator in 2006 and 2007, he voted against the Bush "surge" and consistently called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces. At the same time, in an obvious effort to push his "tough on terrorism" credentials, Obama repeatedly criticized Bush for ignoring the all-important war in Afghanistan, and made it clear that as president, he would finish the job of destroying Al Qaeda there. "Afghanistan is a war of necessity, not of choice" he has said many times. Many conservatives (myself included) always suspected that Obama was using Afghanistan as a cudgel with which to beat Bush (and McCain) around the head and shoulders on the unpopular war in Iraq -- a calculated political move that was more about getting elected than it was about really winning in Afghanistan. Back in February when I was a guest on a John Andrews' talk show Backbone Radio, I talked about Obama's emerging foreign policy as one of "valuespolitik". When I was asked about Obama's plans for Afghanistan, I made the comment then that I believed Obama would never allow a growing war in Afghanistan to get in the way of his domestic agenda -- making the comparison to how LBJ tried to manage the war in Vietnam so as not to destroy his "Great Society" programs. Obama would temporize, stall, delay and find some reason to abandon the war, because it is clear that the fierce opposition to the war from Obama's left-wing political base would make having "guns and butter" not possible -- particularly for this president with his grand plans to remake American society.

I never saw making such a prediction as going out on a limb, of course, because I always saw Obama as a "chickenhawk" -- someone who talks tough about military action but never puts himself (or his interests) in the cross-hairs. I always knew that Obama's true goals were redistributionist, and that his primary objective was (and is) to remake America in a "kinder, gentler" image that removes the rough edges in favor of a safer place for union members, ACORN supporters and others needing protection from the jungle of American capitalism. Obama-the-opportunist used tough talk on Afghanistan to convince the American people into believing that he was up to the job. Like everything else in his campaign, it was pure manipulation.

But posturing never stands up to reality, and this month events on the ground in Afghanistan are going to push Obama to making a real decision on Afghanistan. General Stanley McChrystal was sent to Afghanistan to develop a "Patraeus-style" counterinsurgency plan, and to come back with a recommendation (and request) for the forces he needs to be successful. He has now done so. But based on comments made over the weekend by Obama on his round-robin of talk show appearances, the president is now hesitating on his commitment to finishing even the "war of necessity". My bet is that he will use the compromised Afghan national elections of the past two weeks to make a case for pulling back -- and that he will find some "middle-ground" approach that will reduce the number of troops in favor of reliance on "high-tech" weapons like pilot-less drones, cruise missiles and the like. An "offshore" war fighting strategy.

Leslie Gelb has an interesting take on Obama and Afghanistan in the Wall Street Journal this morning entitled "Obama's Befuddling Afghan Strategy". Gelb is no conservative, and supported Obama in the 2008 election. He seems to be confused by Obama's flip-flop on support for the mission in Afghanistan, though he also clearly understands that Obama's left-wing base wants an immediate withdrawal. "Americans are now confused and caught somewhere between remembering the president's insistence on Afghanistan's importance to U.S. security and rapidly rising pressure from his party to bring the troops home." For Gelb, however, "the president's failure in Afghanistan would be America's failure, and we cannot allow this to happen."

It is good that someone on the left understands that central point -- but it gives me little confidence that the president will not let our efforts in Afghanistan go down the proverbial rat hole. Temporizing on Afghanistan would be just like Obama-the-chickenhawk. And it is exactly what we should expect from a president who seeks accommodation with Iran, Russia and other states who manifestly do NOT have our interests at heart. Obama said he wanted to "reset" our relations with the rest of the world and he is certainly doing so. We are now forsaking our friends and embracing our enemies, and are now on the verge of abandoning a critical component of the war on terror.

That certainly is change -- but not the kind I can believe in.

Edgar Obama & Charlie McRitter

It's amusing to be a Republican spectator at the feverish Democratic huddle that is Bill Ritter's email list. Day after day, some revved-up copywriter churns out breathless warnings about the sinister threat posed by my side to their side, the dynamic duo of our Governor and our President. Obama hero-worship may be waning in other quarters, but the Ritter campaign still seems to view it as their lifeline for 2010. Reading these bulletins is almost like (and here I date myself) the old ventriloquism act where Edgar "Barack" Bergen threw his voice into the cherubic cheeks of Charlie "Loyal Bill" McCarthy.

My purpose here isn't to debate the merits of what the Ritter campaign is asserting, but merely to marvel with admiration at the strident sycophancy they manage to sustain. Three recent examples...

One from 9/10 entitled "Failing Us All" said in part:

America's broken health care system is failing us all. As President Obama noted last night, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage every day. It could happen to anyone....Thousands of RitterforGovernor.com activists have already emailed their Members of Congress, urging them to rally behind President Obama. But with all the misinformation circulating out there, we must do more to confront the cynics and make our voices heard throughout Colorado.

Earlier this week, the 9/8 dispatch called "A Pep Talk for Colorado's Kids" lamented:

Unfortunately some cynics have decided to use this totally apolitical pep talk to students as an opportunity to gin up fear and anger against the President. With impressively straight faces, extremists like Glenn Beck alleged that the President is trying to "indoctrinate" American children with his political ideology. It's the same folks manufacturing the so-called "birther" controversy, the "death panel" controversy, and every outrageous claim in between. They are dedicated to undermining the President -- no matter what. So I was troubled that some schools here in Colorado gave in to the calls of a very radical fringe by deciding not to allow their students an opportunity to watch the President's important speech in class this morning.

Yup, I was troubled too, Governor. It's gotten even worse than you warned us it would two weeks ago, in an 8/27 message headlined "Trashing Colorado's Progress:"

Our political opponents are courting a radical fringe here in Colorado. One of Governor Ritter's challengers has fully embraced rabidly anti-government "tea parties" and suggested Colorado should reject federal recovery funding -- funding that has already created or saved thousands of jobs in Colorado. Meanwhile another challenger recently dismissed the significance of transitioning to a New Energy Economy in an interview with the Colorado Statesman. He even added that if elected he would throw Governor Ritter's ban on expanding the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site "in the trash," a fringe position which puts him at odds with many in his own party. All this begs the question: what other key accomplishments would our political opponents throw "in the trash" if elected?... One year ago Governor Ritter stood before tens of thousands of Coloradans at the Democratic National Convention... Shortly thereafter Barack Obama took the stage to accept our party's presidential nomination...

"Radical fringe," oooohhh. Doesn't it give you the shivers? But all this does raise (not "beg," thank you) the question: With Obama's poll numbers so low, why does Ritter cling doggedly to his dwindling coattails? Maybe because Ritter's own numbers are low as well. Misery loves company, and besides, what other hero-figure is there for a Democrat in trouble these days? Little Charlie McCarthy had to stay perched on Edgar Bergen's knee and keep mouthing whatever his big pal put forth. It was that or fold up in the vaudeville trunk and go silent altogether.

Czars to the right, czars to the left

Much conservative angst has been expressed of late about a proliferation of federal positions designated as “czars.” These officials are given broad responsibility for a specific area with few obstacles to the exercise of their authority, hence the title, “czar.” There does indeed appear to be a raft of autocratic authorities in a presidential administration only seven months old. But, in fairness, it must be acknowledged that the president is doing nothing unprecedented in establishing these positions, which require no Senate confirmation, for the practice began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

According to Wikipedia, FDR offered the country 10 czar positions, filled by 15 people during his 12 years in office. Thereafter, there were only either one or two of them, except for six in Harry Truman’s administration and seven in William Clinton’s. A total of 133 have served.

The biggest increase occurred under the administration of Barack Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, who authorized a full 36 during his eight years. Obama so far has established 32. The latter has at least three years and five months to surpass the former.

What matters have these czars been responsible for? Interestingly, all of Roosevelt’s czars were appointed during the Second World War, dealing with manpower, prices, rubber, censorship and economic stabilization (“the czar of czars”).

Most readers will remember the drug czar first established by Richard Nixon, a position continued by his successors., and an energy czar, which has not. The drug czar has since become subject to Senate confirmation.In fact, other czars have been regularized in that way, while retaining the same broad, largely untrammeled authority. The new automobile czar was appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury alone.

Some of these czars do not survive the administration in which they are brought into being, such as Bush’s for abstinence, bioethics and bird flu. Clinton’s AIDS czar has been continued. Other new czars deal with Iran, the Middle East, technology, urban affairs, weapons proliferation and weatherization.

So criticizing Obama for establishing so many czars is a baseless charge. Fair enough, although like anyone else serving in the government of the United States, they are accountable directly to the president and ultimately to all the citizens.

But it is worth remarking that a new administration that has been so determined to distinguish itself in multiple ways from its predecessor seems to be carrying on with multiple czars. Perhaps there is this distinction, that what it took Bush to do in eight years Obama looks like he will accomplish in eight months.

More generally, the resort to czars is explained by at least two factors. First, as was the case with FDR, wartime demands untrammeled authority if victory is to be obtained, so his czars, which understandably repugnant to republican sensibilities, are sometimes necessary.

But peacetime presents a challenge. Why do need czars then? I submit it is a way of coping with the huge growth in the federal bureaucracy, particularly in New Deal days, when FDR began with an annual budget of $3 billion dollars and a few thousand civilian employees, and grew to tens of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of civil service workers. (We are leaving out the military personnel here.) Today, of course, it's three trillion dollars and millions of civilian personnel.

Civil service reform was intended to put an end to the abuse of political patronage (known as the “spoils system”) by establishing professional standards and providing protection against capricious employers.

Those familiar with civil service know that it has long since tipped to the other extreme so that it is virtually impossible to fire an incompetent person. The millions who serve see cabinet secretaries and other administrators come and go, but they go on forever.

It is not surprising, and not unforgivable, then, that presidents have appointed czars to get around the bureaucracy in order to accomplish what they intended to when they ran for the office. Still there are concerns. 

Like everything else, we must judge officials and institutions by their results, and we must expect obedience to the U.S. Constitution by czars no less than officials with less restricted authority. Too, we must be mindful of the spirit that informs the choice of these czars, to be sure that they aren’t tempted to ignore the consent of the governed.

After all, we did not fight a revolution, establish a constitution, and fight a civil war and two world wars so that we would be indistinguishable from those despotic regimes of the old world, which also had kaisers, and which like czars, derive from the word Caesar.

Parental boycott grows

As the entire civilized world now knows, President Barack Obama will be addressing the nation’s school children this Tuesday. As soon as this was announced, and the accompanying Department of Education lesson plan released, a storm of controversy arose and suddenly schools were being besieged by angry parents. Bombarded principals, administrators and superintendents all across the country were almost overnight in a mad scramble for cover. I received the following email yesterday from the superintendent of the private school that my children attend. It did save me from having to make the decision as to whether or not take the proactive step of pulling my children out of school on Tuesday. I’m not sure I would have because I trust the Christian educators to whom I have entrusted my children’s education to not be fawning, drooling idiots when discussing the mere mortal who is currently occupying the oval office.

Dear Parent(s)/Guardian(s): I received the below request from the U.S. Department of Education yesterday.

A MESSAGE FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

President Barack Obama to Make Historic Speech to America's Students C-SPAN and White House Web Site to Broadcast Speech Live Speech Scheduled One Hour Earlier to Noon Eastern Time

On September 8, 2009, history will be made. Will you be a part of it? At 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time (ET), President Barack Obama will deliver a national address to the students of America. During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation’s children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. The U.S. Department of Education encourages students of all ages, teachers, and administrators to participate in this historic moment by watching the president deliver the address, which will be broadcast live on the White House Web site and on C-SPAN at 12:00 p.m., ET.

[School name] highly respects the position of the President of the United States and believes whatever he says always has impact and historical significance. With that said, we do not feel it is our place to show this address to the children at [this school]. We strongly believe this should be a decision for each family! Thank you for your continued support .

[Name withheld]

The concern for most in the public school system is less about the speech itself than the worshipful “historic moment” tomfoolery that passed as a lesson guide from the Department of Education. The best way to reach the parents is through the youth and Mr. “Mandatory Volunteerism” knows it as much as anyone. I’ve been urging everyone I know to boycott the speech and keep their children at home if their school is going along with it. Now my local school district (the public one) will now not be showing it live either. It will be taped and each teacher will have to get both parental and administrative permission to broadcast any of it and it will have to be rolled into some sort of other curriculum or lesson plan as well. Obama has managed to become a serious polarizing figure quicker than any elected president in my lifetime and his administration has become a mere bloopers reel of idiocy and badly scripted public relations stunts. Too bad, The One had shown such promise…

This school address is the gruel that liberal teachers turn into propaganda and cheerleading or misty-eyed moments of awe. Don’t tell me that this will not become a “hurrah for Barack Hussein Obama” pep rally in thousands of classrooms across the nation. I’m glad that people are raising a ruckus and I can’t tell you how many people are beating the heck out of each other over this. I can’t hardly find a conservative parent at the moment who is letting their child participate. It has become a four day weekend for thousands of children. I encourage everyone to turn it into a conservative, family day free from President Obama and his damaging agenda. It was the Left who created the idiotic, sickening hero worship that now so permeates anything and everything that Obama says or does and we'll see that repeated by vast numbers of reporters and teachers on Tuesday. How sad and embarassing for everyone involved.

A six year old is too young to distinguish propaganda from information.

So how do liberals see Obama when he gives an address like this? Denver Post columnist Tina Griego gushed this way about him.

You may look at Obama on television and see a politician with whom you agree or disagree, but he is something else too. He is the son of an immigrant, abandoned by his father, raised by his mother. He is a black man who studied hard, who excelled in college and who, only 10 months ago, made history when he was elected leader of this country. The president hopes to inspire all children in this country to go to class, to do their homework, to believe that if they do the work, education will open doors to worlds they cannot even imagine. But he chose to deliver that message from a school that brims with promise for a reason. He chose a school full of brown and black children from struggling families because they are the children he once was, and he is the success they could one day become. If they work hard. If they believe in themselves. If people believe in them. If that’s indoctrination, then I only have one thing left to say: Preach it, Mr. President. Preach it. When you are done dry-heaving please continue reading.

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to be a bit less star struck by the latest success story of the corrupt Chicago political machine. If you can judge a man by his friends, President Obama fails miserably. He has surrounded himself all his life with mentors, friends and spiritual advisors which run the gauntlet of race-baiters and radicals, terrorists and Marxists. He is the most Left wing radical to ever occupy the white house who seeks to impose environmentalist extremism, mandatory-volunteerism and government-rationed health care on all those he seeks to bless with his oratory on Tuesday.

Conservatives are not fooled by the reassurances of partisans that President Obama exercises no agenda as he lurches from one bumbling political event to the next. I have strongly urged conservatives to wage an unceasing conservative guerilla war against the Obamanization of the country and I couldn’t be prouder of each and every person who is angrily denouncing the showing of the President’s speech on Tuesday to a captive audience and the idiotic Department of Education gobbly-gook lesson plan that accompanied it.

David Huntwork is a conservative activist and freelance columnist in Northern Colorado where he lives with his wife and three young daughters. He strongly believes in the importance of Faith, Family, and Freedom as the formula of success for a good life and a healthy nation. You may view his bio and past columns at: http://DavidHuntwork.tripod.com.

Why Obama isn't trusted

Dear Mr. President: I believe I can help you understand why the American people are rejecting your efforts at health care reform and why you have lost the trust of so many. The following quote comes from a letter you wrote to me on February 26, 2009; “Michelle joins me in remembering Staff Sergeant Hager, who we lost on February 23, 2007, and honoring him and all the men and women in uniform who carry forward his brave mission.”

Mr. President, you did not lose Staff Sergeant Hager, his mother and I did. In fact, my son played a significant role in what became the turning point in Iraq, the Anbar Awakening. Every time you were asked about the surge you opposed the effort and claimed they would fail. My son gave his life and our forces saw great success. Throughout your campaign I sought to have a meeting with you and offered to arrange a meeting with 25 Gold Star Dads, “any where, any time.” My efforts were rejected by you and your staff.

Mr. President, it is my belief we have but one true possession as human beings, that is our personal word. When a person speaks they either speak honestly or falsely. There is no middle ground. You own everything you say. We all own our words.

Sir, you change your words to meet your needs as you see those needs in the moment. Americans know they cannot, they dare not, trust your words. It is that lack of trust that makes me angry when I hear you claim this fact is true or this law will work for everyone. Your words are neither honest or trustworthy, based upon results.

Mr. President, if you desire a better American I suggest the following simple correction to your presentation. First, stop claiming 47 million Americans are uninsured. There may be 47 million persons in the United States without medical insurance, but many millions of those are illegal aliens. Giving that group equal status with hard working American citizens may make political sense for some in your party, but that is a glaring example of your false words. We know you know the truth, and yet you would rather make false claims than be honest with us all.

Second, and most importantly, stand before the American people and make the following pledge. And having made the pledge, ask every member of Congress to join you.

“I believe the major legislation I am about to sign will improve our country and our future. It will not increase the national debt nor will the middle class face any increase in fees or taxes directly or indirectly caused by this bill. Health care will improve for all and no American will see a reduction in quality or availability of care. If these facts prove to be wrong and this legislation fails to deliver as I claim, I will resign my office as will my Vice President and the Speaker of the House. We will turn over control to those who opposed us as they were in fact right.”

Mr. President take responsibility for your words. And having taken that responsibility, act on the behalf of all Americans, not just those with whom you agree. The anger in America comes not from racial animus or ideology. It comes from being worn out by lies and spin. I am tired of asking for a five minute call from any Democratic leader in Congress or from you. America is waking up and you may not like the music we have selected. You can either start being honest or keep wasting your words, the only possession you really have.

Sincerely, Kris Hager, Gold Star Dad.