Deny, Deny, Deny - The strategy of a Failed Administration

The WSJ lays it out bare - The last 4 years have been a fiasco and the Village Idiot from Chicago needs to go.  Read the whole thing....

Dorothy Rabinowitz: The Unreality of the Past Four Years

The Benghazi fiasco is a brutally illuminating portrait of the Obama White House in crisis mode.

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

In the 1967 film "A Guide for the Married Man," a husband, played by a peerless Walter Matthau, is given lessons in ways to cheat on his wife safely. The most essential rule: "Deny! Deny! Deny!"—no matter what. In an instructive scene, he's shown a wife undone by shock, and screaming, with reason: She has just walked in on her husband making love to a glamorous stranger.

"What are you doing," she wails, "who is that woman?"

"What woman, where?" the husband serenely counters, as he and the tart in question get out of bed and calmly dress.

So the scene proceeds, with the distraught wife pointing to the woman she clearly sees before her, while her husband, unruffled, continues to look blankly at her, asking, "What woman?" Confused by her spouse's unblinking assurance, she gives up. Two minutes later she's asking him what he'd like for dinner.

For much of the past four years, the Obama administration's propensity for asserting views of reality wildly at odds with those evident to most rational citizens has looked increasingly like a page from that film script.

All administrations conceal, falsify and tell lies—this is understood—but there's no missing the distinctive quality of the prevaricating issuing from the White House in these four years.

It's a quality on vivid display now in the administration's mesmerizing narrative of the assault on the U.S. consulate in Libya. Here's a memorable picture, its detail brutally illuminating, of Obama and company in crisis mode over their conflicting stories about who knew what when. The resulting costs to truth-telling and sanity, or even the appearance thereof, are clear. Nor can we forget the strong element of farce—think U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on those five Sunday talk shows, reciting with unflagging fervor that official talking point regarding mob violence and a YouTube video. Farce, but no one is laughing.

Team Obama clung to its original story—the attack had come spontaneously at the hands of a mob enraged by that now famous video insulting to the Prophet—long after it was clear that it had been an organized terrorist assault by an al Qaeda affiliate. By Tuesday's debate, we saw a Barack Obama in high dudgeon over suggestions that his office might have deliberately misrepresented the facts. It was, he fumed, an intolerable insult that such charges could have been made about him, the president who had had to receive the bodies of the slain Americans—and who then had to set about getting to the bottom of this murderous terror assault.

Profound and urgent concerns indeed—which, the president neglected to say, had not prevented him from jetting off to his fundraiser in Las Vegas the day after the murders. His administration was not given to politicizing serious matters, the president sternly informed the nation in that second debate:

 "That's not what we do."

 

Good to know. Americans might otherwise have gotten the wrong impression in the past four years, not least from Attorney General Eric Holder, who heads the most openly politicized Justice Department in the nation's history. Among his more recent noteworthy pronouncements, this one relevant to the coming election, Mr. Holder declared that photo ID requirements intended to prevent voting fraud were nothing less than a "poll tax." He was referring to an infamous institution from the days of Jim Crow, whose aim was to suppress black voting. Mr. Holder—so famously fastidious about group sensibilities that he has never been able to bring himself to utter any description identifying a terrorist as Muslim—has apparently had no inhibitions about smearing whole segments of the population as racists.

Mr. Obama's outrage notwithstanding, the administration's prolonged efforts to muddle the picture of the Benghazi attack raised proper suspicions. The Obama team's instant response—that Republicans were attempting to politicize a tragedy—was entirely characteristic. If ever a story screamed its politicized nature, it was the administration's Scheherazade-like tale, now five weeks old and rolling on, about that Sept. 11 assault. A tale that left little doubt of its motivation: fear of the impact, so close to the election, of a successful terrorist attack—the clear indication that al Qaeda was not, as claimed, on the run.

It didn't hurt, of course, that a crude video like the one insulting to Islam is exactly the kind of fodder to which the Obama ministry is partial: Here was an opportunity for right-minded condemnation of bigotry, and if that bigotry was directed at Muslims, all the more opportune. It would be hard to say which member of the Obama administration most invoked the power and influence of that bit of film, officially to be known, now and forever, as the disgusting and reprehensible video.

More and more clearly, the Obama administration has put its faith in the view that the governed, who must be told what is best for their lives, whether they want it or not (see ObamaCare), can also be told that they have not seen what they've seen, have not heard what their ears clearly told them. When the "if you've got a business, you didn't build that" speech proved to be a political land mine, team Obama instantly charged malicious, out-of-context distortion. The president was only talking about—infrastructure! About government-built roads vital for businesses, transportation, etc.

It isn't likely that Americans who had heard the Obama address failed to understand, rightly, its sneering tone directed at those who believed they had a right to think they were responsible for their own success. Not likely that they didn't notice the icy thrust of those words, "I'm always struck by people who feel, 'Well, it must be because I'm just so smart.'" The president had revealed, with unforgettable clarity, his contempt for faith in individual enterprise—a value Americans of every station hold dear. So clear was this contempt, the Republicans knew enough to make it the Day One theme of their convention—the only good day. Democratic Party representatives meanwhile went forward en masse to charge the Republicans with dishonesty.

In the books yet to be written about this presidency, the Obama administration's exceptional readings of reality will deserve an honored place, and a large one. One that should also acknowledge the fact that, in the end, the American people inevitably recognize the difference between lies and truth, illusion and the real thing.

The most telling example of this capacity—the October surprise that shouldn't have been surprising—came with the first presidential debate. The nation saw a superbly cogent Mitt Romney, speaking to them in terms instantly recognizable, words without artifice that addressed their real lives. Viewers saw the life in him, the play of mind, felt the sense of powerful will—that of a leader. It didn't matter all that much that the president looked most unpresidential, a man lost. What mattered was the other man before them, who had brought home to Americans what they had been missing the past four years.

Not surprisingly, when the debate's effects were clear, Obama squads were again deployed to cry fraud. Mr. Romney, we were told, had done nothing but lie. This would now be the official story. It would have no effect. People had seen what they had seen and that would not be changed, not by an improved, fighting Obama as he was last Tuesday, or by a heroically transformed one on Monday night.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board

The "Oh Sh-t" moment.....we've been living it for the past three 1/2 years.....

Bill Clinton isn't a genius, but he figured it out when the phrase " It's the economy, stupid!" became the catch phrase of his election to the White House.

It should be no surprise that the feckless fool in the White House doesn't have a clue when it comes to the economy.  He spent his time in office trying to wreck the economy and catering to his idiot supporters.

The key quote in this piece is "Another former administration official called it an “ 'Oh, sh-t' moment.” "

That's rich as the American Public has been having an "Oh Sh-t" moment  every day for the past three 1/2 years.

Time to go Mr. President.....really.  You haven't got a clue and it's over. 

Worst. President. Ever.


Jobs report upends 2012 race
 By Amie Parnes - TheHill.com

A dismal May jobs report is being perceived as a possible game-changer in the presidential battle between President Obama and Mitt Romney, with Republicans saying the numbers provide further proof that the economy isn’t improving.

 The report showing unemployment increasing to 8.2 percent and the creation of only 69,000 jobs shook some Democrats, crystallizing their fears that the economy could tip the election in Romney’s favor in November.

It also threatened to turn Obama’s argument that the economy is improving on its head and provided flashbacks to the spring economic slowdown of last year.
“It is a little scary,” said one former White House official. “There’s no sugarcoating this one.”

Another former administration official called it an “ 'Oh, sh-t' moment.”

“It’s not good,” the former official said. “I’ll say this, I’m glad it’s June and not October.”
The bleak report led to a terrible day on Wall Street, where the Dow Jones was down nearly 300 points in trading late Friday afternoon.

Romney seized on the report, calling it “devastating” in a CNBC interview and blasting Obama’s policies as ineffective.

“The president’s policies and his handling of the economy has been dealt a harsh indictment this morning,” Romney said in the interview. “Their policies have not worked; in many respects, their policies have made it harder for the economy to recover.

“And I think that’s why people are looking for a new direction,” Romney added. “The most significant thing we can do in the near term is get a new president.”

With their public remarks, Obama — along with White House officials and other top Democrats — sought to ease concerns that the economy isn’t rebounding fast enough.

In a speech in Minnesota on Friday, the president acknowledged that while the economy is “growing again … it’s not growing as fast as we want it to grow.”

“The economy still isn’t where it needs to be,” he said. “We’ve got a lot of work to do until we are where we need to be."

But, speaking to a crowd at the Honeywell plant, Obama vowed, “We will come back stronger. We do have better days ahead.”

 Reaction to the report on the left and the right highlighted the concern for Obama. The conservative Drudge Report’s lead headline, under a photo of Obama, was “Hell Day.”

In a rare occurrence, the left-leaning Huffington Post went with a similar headline on its website, coupling a picture of a frowning Obama with the headline “Jobs Report Disaster.”

Political observers argued the latest report just doesn’t jibe with Obama’s latest campaign slogan, “Forward.”

“I think it’s a real problem for the president,” said Susan MacManus, a professor of political science at the University of South Florida. “The argument was that we’re going forward, and all of a sudden it comes to a screeching halt.”

And MacManus said the timing, right before the thick of summer, couldn’t be worse for Obama. “This is kind of the last big thing people will pay attention to before they tune out during the summer doldrums,” she said. “You’d rather enter the summer on a high note than a reverse note.”
 But one former White House aide said it’s a minor blip on what the White House and the campaign see as a broader picture.

“Look, we obviously wanted a bigger number, but it’s a continuum. It’s not a snapshot,” the former aide said. “But if we would’ve had today’s numbers in 2008, people would’ve been thrilled.

“Things have gotten better,” the former aide said. “That’s the bottom line.”
One prominent economist said the White House should take heart because Friday’s report didn't capture the true growth of the labor market.

"I really do think that underlying job growth is higher than this, and we're going to see that in the coming months," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics.
Vicki Needham contributed.

President Trainwreck

Andrew Malcolm of Investors Business Daily nails it.

Mr. "Hopey- Changey" is really President Trainwreck. His administration is the proverbial "Three Stooges" of politics when you add in Geitner, Napolitano, Biden, etc.

Yeah, Romney is not the guy who thrills people but right now we need Competent & Steady Leadership, not this Chicago Village Idiot who has been in over his head for the entire time he has been in office. He was elected by those who had no clue as to what he would do and his term in office has been nothing but more misery for Americans.

" This 2012 Obama is strident and mean, even deceitful, divisive, telling half-truths after half-truths. He's using Air Force One as his personal Brinks truck with wings to collect cash all over the country, disguising the trips as official."

Yup. No doubt about it - Obama has got to go. November can't come soon enough.

Who is this guy pretending to be president?
By ANDREW MALCOLM - Investors Business Daily

Has anyone seen Barack Obama recently?

You know, the optimistic hopeful fellow with the charming smile who promised so many positive things four and five years ago, how he was going to change the harsh, partisan tone of our nation's capital and bring the country together as its first African American president.

Even allowing for political hyperbole, his empty resume and the invisible witnesses from the past, Obama was such a Real Good Talker that even some who didn't vote for him still had hope that he could change some things for the better in what seemed a sadly-splintered society.

WTH did that Obama go? Have you listened recently to this Chicago Doppelganger who's replaced him? This 2012 Obama is strident and mean, even deceitful, divisive, telling half-truths after half-truths. He's using Air Force One as his personal Brinks truck with wings to collect cash all over the country, disguising the trips as official.

He tries to intimidate the Supreme Court, an equal branch of government, when its thinking might stray from his. He distorts history, and if no one calls him, then it's true. If he's caught, this Obama says you obviously mis-heard. Because, as everyone knows, he could never mis-speak.

The economy, like everything else adverse, is someone else's fault. But if only we borrowed and spent a trillion dollars, unemployment would stay beneath 8%, Obama promised. It soared far above. It's still above. No apology. No acknowledgment. Now, he hails any dip as proof of progress when, in fact, it comes because so many just give up seeking work.

He chastises House Republicans for their draconian budget when his Senate Democrats haven't written a single one in three years; so, the fiscal drift abides. And wait till he exaggerates the frightening things the GOP wants to do, instead of presenting his own ideas.

Obama claims credit for the bottom half of a pipeline he had nothing to do with, when he killed the top half. He brags that domestic oil drilling is up when the part he's responsible for is down.

He says no one should ever go to Las Vegas on the taxpayer's dime. Then his wife, daughters and entourage do just that.

This year's Obama talks of the importance of windmills, algae and green energy, but he takes a 17-SUV motorcade to a photo op with an electric car. He lambasts oil companies for getting the same legal tax incentives (he calls them "subsidies") that other companies receive, hoping to aim anger at them so voters won't notice that gas prices have doubled since his inauguration.

Take this Tuesday. The 2012 Obama flew to Florida for an official presidential speech on the economy, then three fundraisers. That way his campaign only pays a fraction of Air Force One's $182,000 per flight hour cost. All presidents do that, though none have done near as many.

But read the four speeches. You can't tell which is official and which is political. They're all political. He can't be a real president for one lousy speech? Why the phony presidential fig leaf? To chintz the United States of America out of a few thousand bucks when he plans to raise a billion?

The Buffet Rule? Americans have always admired the successful. The only thing wrong with rich people is we're not one of them -- yet. But now he's pitting most of us against rich folks, which is him, come to think of it. The only way he's bringing us together now is to resent their paying a smaller legal rate because theirs is a different kind of income.

And speaking of taxes, whch are due Monday, how can the president of the United States allow 36 of his own White House aides to fall $833,000 behind in their tax payments?

How is that what the first Obama offered, making him an example of American success? (Hint: His GOP opponent is far richer than Obama and earned it the old-fashioned way through work, not fronting books.)

OK, Obama wants political skirmishes all over on any petty thing so people won't notice the absence of any conceivably positive record to run on. Risky when Americans start paying attention. But if that's his only card. It's all the Republicans' fault, of course. That's the candidate in him, the one that prefers performing for adoring crowds instead of performing Oval Office duties.

But whatever happened to the president part? The leader. The principled man who through his personal story, skills and charm was going to inspire, convince, cajole Americans as diverse as himself to work together for a common national success? That official part has merged with the political, like the four Florida speeches. Now, he's just trying to fool everybody about everything.

In a way, this could be good news for Republicans. The duplicate Ernst Blofeld makes Mitt Romney look like Mr. Rogers.

But without real presidential leadership, Obama's hand-picked harpie atop the Democratic National Committee feels empowered to assign a hired gun to dismiss his opponent's wife, the cancer-surviving mother of five sons, as someone who's never worked a day in her life. Are they that scared already?

Seriously? We're going to pit now one kind of working woman against another? The guy who talks about having so many women in his life isn't going to fire the women responsible for that? He thinks American women will buy this stuff?

OK, Obama was raised by grandparents because he didn't always have a stay-at-home mom or dad. But this is a nation, not a dysfunctional family or a windy city party where factions are left to their own wards and Solyndras.

Obama is the guy who said his own wife was off limits politically, the guy whose mother-in-law has resided since Day One in the White House at taxpayer expense as a live-in nanny so the first lady can campaign for money and healthy foods? But a woman who stays at home with her kids at no public expense can be trashed because of her party?

Mulligan

Two word answer - " Not Happening "

Obama to the Russians, " After My Election I Have More Flexibility.."- REALLY ?? I don't think so...you will not be getting reelected.

This is one of the BEST reasons why NO ONE should want to reelect the idiot who is keeping the seat warm at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

He tells the Russians, " After My Election I Have More Flexibility.."-

REALLY ?

Really ??? Are you f%^king kidding me ? Why not just hand over all the secret info they want why you're at it ?? The Russians are not someone we want to be loosy-goosy with especially as they don't want us to maintain a tough defense....we would like to work with them but first and foremost is the defense of our nation and our allies in the West. Sending signals like this to Putin is NOT what our President should be doing.

I don't want to give OBAMA the "flexibility" he'll have after getting reelected as he will have NO ACCOUNTABILITY to anyone.

This is a Prima Faci case of why he SHOULD NOT BE REELECTED.

What happened to " Protect, preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States ??" His statement speaks to someone who has no care what he does once he is reelected....this is dangerous for anyone who believes in our country.

I have said it before, and I will say it now -

OMG - Obama MUST GO. Vote this idiot out of office. Really.


President Obama Asks Medvedev for ‘Space’ on Missile Defense — "After My Election I Have More Flexibility" - ABC NEWS

SEOUL, South Korea — At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”

The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.

The exchange:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

When asked to explain what President Obama meant, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes told ABC News that there is room for the U.S. and Russia to reach an accommodation, but “there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue — there always is — in both countries.

A senior administration official tells ABC News: “this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we’re about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we’re going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there’s an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying.”

-Jake Tapper

The truth - Obama has failed and doesn't deserve re-election.

Earlier this morning, I thought there was nothing worth writing about this morning.

Guess I was wrong. Looks like the "Village Idiot from Chicago" gave me what I needed.
The President's re-election team has set up " truth teams ' to make sure the truth gets out about his record.

Here is the truth - He has been the worst President ever. We needed leadership and all we got was lefty looney politics. That's the truth. He has spent us into a larger hole and rewarded his political allies.

The truth - it hurts. I hope he gets that when he is voted out of office as the truth is no one needs another term from this poser.

OMG - Obama Must Go.

Feb 13, 2012
Obama campaign sets up 'Truth Team'

By David Jackson, USA TODAY
AP - President Obama's re-election team is seeking help from Internet and on-the-ground backers to spread the word about Obama's record in office, and to bash his Republican critics.

The purpose of the "Truth Team" is to "promote the President's achievements, respond to attacks on his record and hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable," said the announcement from the Obama re-election team.

OPSEC & Protecting our Warriors - Something lost on the President

Those who go in harm's way learn and understand the first lesson of how to stay safe - OPSEC. This is short for " Operational Security ". The need to keep all info about mission, operations and tactics secure and by doing so, not allow the enemy to gain intelligence.

Too bad this simple concept doesn't extend to the President or the Vice President who have been using the SEALs exploits for political gain. They are " users ' and use people like the SEALs for their own benefit. By doing so, they put these warriors at risk.

Don't take my word for it, read the enclosed written by a Navy SEAL who feels pretty upset by what the idiot in the White House has been doing.


Obama Exploits the Navy SEALs
There may be political value in detailing how our special forces hunted bin Laden, but doing so threatens troop safety and future missions
By LEIF BABIN - Wall Street Journal

America's premier Special Operations force is once again in the headlines after a team of Navy SEALs rescued two hostages from captivity in Somalia last week. Elite U.S. forces have carried out such operations periodically over the past decade, always with skill and bravery. The difference in recent months is that the details of their work haven't remained secret. On the contrary, government officials have revealed them for political gain—endangering our forces in the process.

The floodgates opened after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last May, and the Obama administration's lack of discretion was on display again at last week's State of the Union address. As President Obama entered the House chamber, in full view of the cameras, he pointed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and exclaimed: "Good job tonight, good job tonight." Clearly something had happened that he wanted the world to know about.

After delivering his speech, which included multiple references to the bin Laden raid, the president again thanked Mr. Panetta. "That was a good thing tonight," he said as if to ensure that the viewing public, if they missed it initially, would get it a second time around.

Sure enough, shortly thereafter, the White House announced the successful rescue of the hostages in Somalia by U.S. Special Operations forces. Vice President Biden appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America" to highlight the success the next morning, and Mr. Panetta also publicly praised it. Then came the "anonymous U.S. officials" to provide extensive details of who conducted the raid and how. As with the bin Laden operation, the top-secret unit that carried it out was again front-page news, as were its methods and tactics.

Our special operators do not welcome this publicity. In fact, from conversations I've had in recent days, it's clear they are dismayed by it.

Adm. William H. McRaven, America's top special-operations commander, wrote in his 1996 book "Spec Ops" that there are six key principles of success in special operations. Of paramount importance—especially given the risk and sensitivity of the missions and the small units involved—is what the military calls "operational security," or maintaining secrecy. If the enemy learns details and can anticipate the manner and timing of an attack, the likelihood of success is significantly reduced and the risk to our forces is significantly increased.

This is why much of what our special-operators do is highly classified, and why military personnel cannot legally divulge it to the public. Yet virtually every detail of the bin Laden raid has appeared in news outlets across the globe—from the name of the highly classified unit to how the U.S. gathered intelligence, how many raiders were involved, how they entered the grounds, what aircraft they used, and how they moved through the compound. Such details were highly contained within the military and not shared even through classified channels. Yet now they are available to anyone with the click of a mouse.

It's difficult for military leaders to enforce strict standards of operational security on their personnel while the most senior political leadership is flooding the airwaves with secrets. The release of classified information has also opened a Pandora's box of former and retired SEALs, special operators, and military personnel who have chosen to violate their non-disclosure agreements and discuss intricate details of how such operations are planned and executed.

We've already begun seeing specific examples of strategic harm from the post-bin Laden leaks. In June, Pakistan arrested several individuals who allegedly provided information to the CIA in advance of the raid. One of those charged with treason was a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi. This Sunday, Mr. Panetta confirmed to "60 Minutes" that Dr. Afridi had provided "very helpful" intelligence to the CIA. That may have condemned Dr. Afridi to death or life imprisonment.

Such disclosures are catastrophic to U.S. intelligence networks, which often take years to develop. Recklessness not only puts lives at risk but could set U.S. intelligence-collection efforts back decades. Our ability to carry out future operations is significantly degraded—something not lost on Pakistan.

A week after the bin Laden raid, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed dismay about Washington's loose lips, telling a town hall meeting of U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune: "Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday—the next day."

Do the president and his top political advisers understand what's at stake for the special-operations forces who carry out these dangerous operations, or the long-term strategic consequences of divulging information about our most highly classified military assets and intelligence capabilities? It is infuriating to see political gain put above the safety and security of our brave warriors and our long-term strategic goals. Loose lips sink ships.

Mr. Babin is a former Navy SEAL officer who served three tours in Iraq, earning a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart. He left active duty six months ago

President Obama is the one who is "lazy"

The infantile idiot who has been keeping the chair warm in the White House for the last three years said that he feels that the United States has gotten a "little bit lazy" when it comes to bringing in new businesses in to the states.

Businesses have been hesitant to hire more workers due to excessively high costs and economic uncertainty. I feel businesses need to bring on more people and provide wage increases that have been missing for the past 3 years BUT the President has no room to call anyone in America " lazy " after his piss poor work ethic.

This lecturing fool has been on vacation more than any President in recent time and between him and his cow of a wife, they have been overtly lazy and wasteful with our tax dollars. If they think they can stand there and lecture Americans who have been working harder for much less over the three years of Obama's term, then they will find out how much free time they will have when the voters send Obama packing in November 2012.

Mr. President, the American people can do without your insults and lectures. Here's the opinion of a resident of Hawaii who wishes the President would stay away from Hawaii. Having been to Hawaii many times, I have to agree. Stay in Washington DC and do the work you are being paid for. YOU and your wasteful lecturing wife have had enough time off on the taxpayer's dime.

Hawaii Can Do Without President Obama's Style of Aloha

BY JAY ZABLAN - Hawaii Reporter - I just read the Hawaii Reporter article on the cost of President Barack Obama’s last Christmas vacation and wondered why he isn't more considerate of the costs he runs up every time he visits here. With America in such dire financial straits he still thinks nothing of spending a few million here or there, especially lately on his cross-country campaign jaunts and on Canadian buses.

I endured the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation traffic snarls when I carelessly left my Honolulu condo to visit a friend in Wahiawa, and had to wait quite a bit while the Obama entourage passed last year in Kailua. And now he announces the “good news” that he’ll be back with his family AGAIN during the holidays.

I was furious when he claimed, “Americans have been lazy and need to do a better job of selling America”. Yet his own type of “laziness” was thoughtlessly evident in not asking leaders to wear the custom-made Hawaiian shirts for the APEC group photo shoot, which would have been seen worldwide and been a boon in promoting Hawaii. He just doesn’t get it.

I believe it would be a good time for a poll on how Hawaii residents feel about his multi-million dollar Hawaii vacation expenditures and the traffic delays he causes every time he visits. Many are already upset at him for dissing Hawaii and our Aloha shirt. Oh, and Hawaii is NOT Asia.

P.S. I would gladly sign an online petition asking him to please not come back here. Hawaii can do without his manner of “Aloha”.

Jay Zablan is a resident of Oahu

"We always suspected you would abandon us again. Now your President has said it..."

The stakes our "Community Organizer" are gambling in a bid to feather his re-election are not small.

The stability of the AF/PAK region effects much more than just this dusty corner of the world. There is no need to remind anyone with a bit of common sense that the Whacki-Pakis have Nukes and the Taliban/Al Qaeda would just LOVE to get their hands on a few. The stability of Afghanistan has helped keep Pakistan from teetering further into the abyss. What do you will think will happen when we are a smaller presence in this area ??

To the people of this region, time is a much different thing than to the west. We look at troops being here until 2014 and people back home *groan* about how long that is...Meanwhile, our enemies look at waiting 3 years until they can return to terrorizing the local populace here and they see that as hardly anytime to wait at all.

The " Empty Suit " has placed his own needs/wants/desires over what his military has recommended and our country, along with the rest of the western world will likely pay for his naive decision.

"The Haqqanis and their Arab friends will build their training camps on our graves when you leave us," stated the Village Elder. Funny, but I trust the wisdom of this Afghani more than that of the Village-Idiot-From-Chicago. The Village Elder has real "skin" in the game whereas when Obama mucks it up, he'll be safely ensconced stateside, giving another speech about how things didn't quite work out the way he thought they would. The Village Elder and his family, not so much.

Michael Waltz: Obama's Dangerous Message
Commentary - www.foreignpolicy.com

"We always suspected you would abandon us again. Now your president has said it," the deeply lined leader of a key Mangal subtribe scolded me across a small wooden table set with a bowl of Afghan raisins and nuts. To his left, dozens of other Afghans nodded in agreement. We were sitting in the small office of a women's center on the outskirts of Khost city that was apparently funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and abandoned years ago.

I had been working closely with him for most of the year to garner his support along with his 500 arbakai, or tribal militia, during my most recent tour in Afghanistan. This meeting was supposed to be the final step toward winning over this historically pro-government subtribe.

He and his tribal council were now withdrawing their support completely. It was only week after U.S. President Barack Obama's 2009 speech at West Point, where he announced the surge of U.S. forces but undercut the policy with the simultaneous announcement that he would begin their withdrawal by July 2011.

"We appreciate all that you have done for us -- wells, roads, schools," the elder continued. "But until you are prepared to commit your children to stand side by side with our children, we cannot work with you."

"The Haqqanis and their Arab friends will build their training camps on our graves when you leave us," he concluded before walking away.

The president's speech on Wednesday, June 22, outlining his strategy to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces is evidence that American policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan is more about U.S. domestic pressures than it is about making any sort of long-term commitment to stabilize the region so that terrorist sanctuaries can no longer be used to attack the West.

The debate within the administration and among Washington's pundits over numbers of troops and timelines misses the point. According to former colleagues still at senior levels of the military commands and at the Pentagon, the differences between the most extreme options offered to the president amounted to only a few thousand troops and several months on the timeline.

The larger strategic issue is the broader signal Obama has sent to U.S. allies and the region: America is leaving. This signal, which was received loud and clear by those Afghan elders in 2009 and reinforced Wednesday night, presents four fundamental problems.

First, the entire region has begun to maneuver for a post-American Afghanistan and mostly in ways that run counter to U.S. interests. What this administration doesn't fully realize is that the Afghans, their government, the Pakistanis, the Indians, the Iranians, and the rest of South and Central Asia aren't listening to the policy nuances of Wednesday's announcement. All they hear is U.S. withdrawal and abandonment. More disturbingly, all the Taliban and al Qaeda hear is that they have survived the worst of it and they only need to last a few more years until 2014. Three and a half years is nothing in that part of the world. Although Obama attempted to emphasize that significant U.S. forces will remain after the withdrawal of the surge, their very mission to win over the populace will be severely undercut by the message he sent Wednesday night. The entire region is now hedging against the United States rather than siding with it.

Second, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recently addressed very bluntly, the United States cannot let the withdrawal of a few thousand U.S. troops be the green light for the Europeans to run for the exits. Unfortunately, despite the attacks on Madrid, London, and Denmark, we know that will likely be the case. At least the planned drawdown of U.S. civilian capacity is something we can control. During my most recent visit to Kandahar, one senior U.S. military commander described USAID as a source of instability rather than stability due to its continued lack of a meaningful presence in the provinces and therefore its inability to fulfill its promises to Afghans.

Declining troop numbers will also affect the ability of U.S. government civilians -- most of whom operate under military protection as they provide aid and guidance on agriculture, governance, and the rule of law -- to go out in the field. From what my former colleagues have told me, the civilian agencies have their own withdrawal schedule, with plans to pull back their already meager presence from forward bases.

Third, every Afghan I've spoken to recently, from ministers to my former interpreters, is increasingly concerned about the prospect of civil war. My Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara friends believe the United States is cutting a deal with Pakistan, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and the Taliban at their expense. A multitude of notable Tajik leaders -- the late Deputy Interior Minister Daoud Daoud, former intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh, former Minister for Reconstruction Ehsan Zia, former Interior Minister Hanif Atmar, and others -- are increasingly spending time in their home turf reconstituting old alliances and networks. The Northern Alliance is getting the band back together and that includes outreach to its old allies in Iran, Russia, and India -- all of whom are increasingly viewed as more reliable than the United States. The U.S. policy of withdrawal based on timelines rather than conditions -- not to mention excluding minorities from talks with the Taliban -- are only exacerbating the situation.

Finally, Obama's policy is based on the assumption that al Qaeda is defeated and cannot reconstitute itself in the seams of an increasingly unstable Pakistan, a diminished U.S. and coalition presence, ethnic tension, and Afghan army and police forces that are years away from independent operations. This is a very dangerous assumption. Al Qaeda can and will restore itself as the United States invariably loses its hard-fought gains with the Afghan people due to diminished resources and will. A counterterrorism strategy must be nested within a counterinsurgency strategy, as the populace won't risk their necks to work with the coalition unless they feel they will be protected. It takes a network to defeat a network.

Success in Afghanistan and the region is going to be tough and expensive. Most importantly, it will take time. Nearly every commander and civilian who has served there, including me, cites the progress that has been made in the last 10 years, but caveats his or her response with the need for more time. Although the costs are great, they will be far greater if the United States leaves too soon. The people of the region will never trust America again, and the cost of re-engagement if our assumptions are wrong will be nearly insurmountable.

Michael Waltz is a former South Asia advisor to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and a Special Forces officer (reserve component) with multiple tours in Afghanistan. He is now vice president of Metis Solutions, a strategic international consulting firm.

MICROMANAGEMENT and what the Fools in WASH DC could learn from Warren Buffett

I have written on the subject of MICROMANAGERS and the poison they are to good work groups, morale and trust - Take a peek at the 2 previous articles here:
http://usnavyjeep.blogspot.com/search/label/micromanagers

Mr. Tom Ricks is a well establish commentator of note and does some good work on issues that concern us all especially politics, military issues and geopolitical relations. I have recieved personal emails from him after commenting on his Blog and that is the sign of a good writer, specifically that he pays attention to his readers.

He has written an exceptional piece on how President " Do As I Say, Not As I Do " could learn something, specifically about how to let people do their jobs instead of micromanaging them, in OBAMA's case, the military. The last President who did that was Lyndon Johnson, and due to his micromanagement of the Vietnam war, missions had to be approved at the White House before they could go forward....sound familiar??

LEADERSHIP is an art, and not all have the requisite skill set. Learning from the success of others is the best method. Hopefully, the Village-Idiot-from-Chicago is listening for once as he needs all the help he can get. Take a good look at the body langauge of the two men in the enclosed picture....

The smarter one on the left is showing the Nobel Prize winner a few things...likely he needed it more than any of us could ever imagine.

Learning from General Buffett: How not to micromanage your subordinates
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Friday, June 10, 2011 - http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/

I did this last year, but we can learn about military affairs from Warren Buffett every year. The military is not a business, and should not be run like one. But still, the defense establishment could learn a lot from a person as wise as Buffett.

If I could, I would ban all those business fad management books I see senior officers reading and instead make them study the annual reports from Buffett's company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. You may not know Berkshire Hathaway, but if you buy insurance from Geico, drink Coca-Cola, eat See's Candies, read the Buffalo News, use goods transported by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, or wear Fruit of the Loom underwear, then products and services of companies owned in part or whole by Berkshire are touching your life.

For example, the U.S. military, and especially the Army, have been plagued by micromanagement since the mid-1950s, so long that no one now in the Army has much experience in any other way to run it. I see generals constantly scurrying endlessly to meetings where they often sit in the dark while subordinates read aloud to them bedtime stories (AKA Powerpoint briefings).

Well, there is another way, and it is laid out by Buffett in his annual report for 2010:

At Berkshire, managers can focus on running their businesses: They are not subjected to meetings at headquarters nor financing worries nor Wall Street harassment. They simply get a letter from me every two years…and call me when they wish. And their wishes do differ: There are managers to whom I have not talked in the last year, while there is one with whom I talk almost daily. Our trust is in people rather than process. A "hire well, manage little" code suits both them and me.

Berkshire's CEOs come in many forms. Some have MBAs; others never finished college. Some use budgets and are by-the-book types; others operate by the seat of their pants. Our team resembles a baseball squad composed of all-stars having vastly different batting styles. Changes in our line-up are seldom required.

Imagine a military run like that, that trusted people rather than process, a military where the Army chief of staff could boast that XVIII Airborne Corps is run so well that he has kept the commanding general in place for several years, and hasn't seen him in two years or even talked to him in one. But, the chief of staff would continue, he does talk to the Army commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan daily, in part because they need his help, and in part because he isn't distracted by checking on the XVIII Airborne Corps. My view: People who spend most of their days in regularly scheduled meetings too much probably are wasting their time and others'.

Also, because Buffett keeps successful people in place, staffs and subordinate managers are not constantly in turmoil and adjusting. Instead of constantly adapting to new bossses, they can focus on the tasks at hand. And the boss can leave them alone because he knows how to tell when they need help and when they don't.