fargingbastige's blog

A lot of people out there try attribute all of the blundering political speech to George Bush, the following is a collection of Obamaisms - and he's not even the president!

"Just this past week, we passed out of the out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee -- which is my committee -- a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon." --referring to a committee he is not on, Sderot, Israel, July 23, 2008

 "Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain...administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change." --Amman, Jordan, July 22, 2008

 "How's it going, Sunshine?" --campaigning in Sunrise, Florida

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

 "I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." --at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon

"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" --after being asked a foreign policy question by a reporter while visiting a diner in Pennsylvania

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." --explaining his troubles winning over some working-class voters

 "The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

 "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." --on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people

and a couple from Biden...

  "You've got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". --Joe Biden

"You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent." --Joe Biden

Does anyone really believe that either presidential candidate is in touch with what us "regular people" go through on a daily basis?  I don't think that either of them have any concept of that form of reality.

Think about it.  When an air conditioning unit goes out in one of McCain's homes, does he sweat (no pun intended) how to get it fixed, when or how he's going to pay for it?  Has Obama had to scrape change out of the ashtray of his 14-year old vehicle to buy a jug of milk for his kids' breakfast?  That's just a couple of examples of what "regular people" deal with - there are more; we all know it.

Thus, the "I'm more in touch with Americans" argument is null and void to me.  We need someone to lead the country.  How many homes he has or how much his home cost is irrelevant to the equation. 

From the Democrats themselves:

Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (Democrat - Nebraska): "John McCain is a known quantity ... You don't look at John and say, 'Who the heck is he?' he's a veteran, he's a guy who got pretty banged up in Vietnam. He can deal with crisis. There's some uncertainty about Senator Obama."

Draw your own conclusions.

OK Langford supporters, please defend this:

I just heard about Mayor Langford's request for a Cadillac Escalade - he later recanted that request, but then suggested that he be given a $750.00 a month vehicle allowance plus gas for the vehicle. 

I don't know about most of you, but I certainly don't pay $ 750.00 a month for a car; I mean that would be a really nice car. 

Mayor Langford is supposedly, allegedly a public servant.  Should he not be a little more fiscally conservative with the tax payer's money?  I have no gripe with supplying the mayor a car for the discharge of his official duties.  It's probably fairly common practice.  How about allowing him a full-size sedan of some sort?  There are any number of nice cars available for far less than $ 750.00 a month.  Better yet, he could be assigned a municipal vehicle from the city motor pool.  What's wrong with that?

Ah, but that would not give him the all-important image to which he has become accustom.  He would not be able to impress himself in such a lowly vehicle as a Ford Crown Victoria.

What's next - does the mayor also want the taxpayers to foot the bill for the chrome 22-inch wheels and low-profile tires?

The headlines of recent violence and shootings grabbed my attention this morning.  Why am I surprised?  It's gotten to be "business as usual" in Birmingham for this type of violence.  We in the area are not the only people that notice it.  I traveled a bit last week and in airports and at my destination it was the topic of choice among an inquisitive crowd.  Anoher black-eye in the national realm.

So why is violece so prevelant in Birmingham?  I'm not in law enforcement or politics; I merely consider myself an informed citizen with an opinion, but this is the way I see it.  We have a distinct lack of city leadership - starting at the top and cascading down through the ranks.  That lack of leadership transitions to lackadaisical citizens.  Honestly, I think the citizens in the most affected areas have been lackadaisical for years, maybe compounded by years of ineffective city leadership.  Lackadaisical citizens and poor leadership form a symbiotic relationship.

Leadership is about motivating and inspiring a group of people toward a common goal.  The current mayor has been unable to do that.  He lacks a CLEAR vision and FOCUS.  I emphasize "clear" because he claims to have a vision.  However, there's no debate on a "focus" - he has none.  He's cleaning up neighborhoods one day (neighborhoods that a month later were indistinguishable from their former state), building a domed stadium the next, giving free bus rides the next and renaming the airport the next.

His first goal should be establish a safe and secure environment.  Now I'm not so naive as to believe that all crime can magically come to a screaching halt.  However, all the fun, feel-good endeavors amount to nothing wthout a safe and secure environment in which the general public can enjoy them.  Otherwise, you end up with what we have right now - areas ravaged by increasing violence where no one in their right mind would tread unarmed.

Mayor Langford, if you want to "do something", start by putting the smackdown on crime and violence.  You cannot be successful by trying to be everything to everyone.  Sir Winston Churchill is attributed to having said, "I cannot give you a formula for success, but I can give you a sure-fire way to failure - just try to please everyone".

The city leaders should focus on doing the right thing and stop trying to be liked by everyone.  Doing the right thing will yield respect from the citizens - a much more enduring quality of a leader than being liked.

It appears that General (Retired) Wesley K. Clark has opened mouth and inserted foot.  I'm not going to question or debate his military service or politics here, rather I'm offering my opinion of what many of these "experts", especially the retired military type, should do.  General (Ret.) Clark suggests that McCain's time in the military he didn't have considerable "command" time and thus he's not as strong as many think he is.  However, what about Obama's "command time"?  That argument doesn't hold water.

Clark further mentioned something to the effect that "driving an airplane and getting shot down doesn't qualify one for president".  I agree with that statement.  That act alone doesn't really qualify anyone for anything.  It's the way that McCain conducted himself while being held as a POW for seven years or so that speaks volumes of his character.  No amount of military service qualifies an individual for the Office of the President of the United States of America.  The military does give one an opportunity to gain valuable leadership experience.  That experience can be developed and could possibly prepare one to be president.  But it's not - and should never be - a requirement.

I call them the "Arm Chair Generals", although I'm quite certain that I'm not the only one that coined the phrase and can most assuredly not take credit for it.  It equates to the "Monday Morning Quarterback".  While I still believe that retired generals can speak in generalities (no pun intended) about values, leadership, etc., I would suggest that they not act is if they are still in the chain of command and know more about what is going on in current operations that those actually on the ground.

General (Ret.) Clark was involved with the NATO campaign in Kosovo, an entirely different operation that what is going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran or the Horn of Africa.  I would bet that he would try to "fight the last war", as that is where his experience lies.  General (Ret.) Colin Powell suggested that General (now Retired) Tommy Franks didn't have enough troops to take Baghdad.  I'm not debating tactics here, but the bottom line was that General Franks did, in fact, have enough troops to take Baghdad.  The lack of troops on the ground was compensated for with huge advances in precision munitions delivered from varying weapons platforms; muntions and platforms that were not available in Desert Storm when General Powell and General Schwarzkopf were running the war.

I guess General (Ret.) Clark is as entitled to his opinion as we are ours, however, I believe that he should qualify his statements as "his opinion" and not as "fact".  And the Arm Chair Generals should stick to talking about things that don't change such as leadership and values.

It is said that Candidate Obama is consulting with a number of former Clinton Administration and Cabinet  members and officials as well as 40 retired generals and admirals. 

On the former Clinton Administration members:  has not Obama been chastising McCain for "campaigning for Bush's third term"?  Does not the sound like Obama campaigning for (Bill) Clinton's third term?  Where is all the "change" in that?

On consulting with retired generals and admirals:  there is no doubt that these officers who have served our country have a wealth of knowledge and experience that may be beneficial.  However, an element of caution is required here.  As with all people - human nature, if you will - we base our beliefs quite often on our experience.  Ask General George S. Patton what to do in Iraq and he'll give you the massed armor formation answer because that's what he did in WWII to beat the Germans in Africa.  Ask General Colin Powell (and for the record, I admire General Powell) and he will tell you that we didn't have enough troops to take Baghdad because Schawrzkopf had over twice as many when he did it in Desert Storm.

What I'm saying is that we can't afford to "fight the last war".  What I'm saying is that the tactics, techniques and procedures required to fight in contemporary conflicts require constant refinement and the ability to adapt faster than ever before.  What worked last year, may not work this year (month, day, etc.).  The enemy that we fight has a vote in this thing and he's not just sitting back and taking it.

So, is Obama really for change or just Bill Clinton's third term?

How about this?  Two women wearing traditional Muslim headscarves were asked to move from behind Candidate Obama in a recent engagement in Detroit.  They were asked to move so that they would not be in any of the photos.  So much for diversity.  One was told to move because of the "political climate" and the other was told to move because no one wearing any kind of headgear was allowed to sit behind the podium.  Obama later issued an apologetic statement. 

Politics as usual, say what you want, do what you want and then just issue a half-hearted apology for it.  I'm sure that Obama is doing everything possible to distance himself from any Muslim connection or appearance of anything Muslim.  I'd be doing the same thing if I was him; he'd be stupid not to.  Likewise, had those women been in the photos, they'd have been circulated like crazy on the internet with all kinds of outlandish stories stating why they were there - and they'd have all most likely been false.

Both candidates need to get to the core of what they intend to do.  So far all I've seen is a bunch of smoke and mirrors, staging events and photo ops, and grade-school-level petty garbage directed toward each other.  When are we ever going to get to the issues and let the candidates debate them in an open forum, rather than some canned-speech thing? 

Honesty and integrity have all but disappeared from our lives.

I cannot help but think about terrorism given that we are in the midst of electing a new president for our country and commander-in-chief for our military.  Candidate Obama speaks of late about "failed policy" in dealing with world affairs.  I think the failed policies were in effect prior to the current administration and that the current president has actually developed and implemented a very robust and successful foreign policy. 

Let's recall the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 - I realize that many of the readers of the blog may not have even been born in 1983, but it was among the first incidents of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism with which the US had to deal.  Remember the truck bomb that detonated in the basement of the World Trade Center in 1993 - another strike against us from terrorists with the goal of detroying our country and our way of life.  That same year was the incidents in Mogadishu made famous by the book (and subsequently movie) "Black Hawk Down".  It is suspected that that entire operation was planned and executed by Osama Bin Laden-trained terrorists.  The Khobar Towers were bombed in 1996; once again, Americans targeted by terrorists.  The USS Cole was bombed in Yemen in 2000, leading up to the 11 September 2001 World Trade Center and Pentgon attack.  I would suggest that this entire string of incidents started with the Iran Hostage episode in 1979.  Yes, friends, almost thirty years of being bullied by terrorists.

So the WMD never materialized in the vast quantities that our government thought in Iraq.  Does that mean that the Hussein regime was innocent of any wrong-doing?  Did he not use WMD on thousands of his own countrymen?  The vast majority of decision makers in our country (republicans and democrats alike) and our allies believed that Iraq had these weapons - and would use them.  We had flawed intelligence.  We realize that now.  I would submit that that was yet another part of the previous failed foreign policy dating back to the Carter Administration, but most certainly after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  With the collapse of the Soviet Union and that huge threat, our country basically all but abandoned our Human Intelligence (HUMINT) in favor of other methods; signal, etc. 

That lack of HUMINT puts our operations at a huge disadvantage.  What good is it to be able to read a license plate from outer space if you don't know the guy driving the car?  Wars are won by troops on the ground and no other method can replace it.  Air Power supports and shapes operations, but Soldiers (Marines, Sailors and Airmen) on the ground ultimately win the wars.

Thirty years of terrorist attacks on our country and our people; thankfully we're doing something about it now.  The hard, slow work that will ultimately win the war and help protect the United States of America.

This is an excerpt from an AP article by Jill Lawless:

Michael Cox, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, said Obama's win "has sent out a lot of positive signals around the world."

"He has a very appealing persona - elegant, fluent, strings lots of sentences together into paragraphs," Cox said. "But in terms of (his) actual policies towards the Middle East, Iraq, Iran, China, Europe - actually, we don't know."

---end of article excerpt---

Isn't that the point?  No one can say with any conviction where Obama stands on any issue.  So, he's willing to talk with Iran, North Korea and Cuba.  Great; talk all day long.  Do not negotiate - there is a difference.  I'm not convinced that there are democrats that voted for the guy that can say what he really stands for - other than "change".  Let's put aside the non-flag wearing, non-pledge saying issues and look at what he really brings to the table - or more importantly the Office of the President of the United States of America.  (I hear crickets chirping)  Nothing; at least nothing that I have heard.  "Change" - Got it.  Heard it.  Change is not inherently good.  If you read my blogs, you've heard that one before.

Charisma.  It's a dangerous thing.  It does not make a person a good leader.  "Good" is the operative word here.  History is full of charismatic people who have done some incredibly heinous things.

So, we've got the democratic nominee for President:  a charismatic person who's platform is "change", yet "in terms of (his) actual policies...  we don't know".