OHIO spells FAILURE for OBAMA

" You didn't build that..."

It is very likely he would have been thrown over the side......sounds like a great idea.

What an idiot.  A failure who has been exposed by his own words....Time to go Mr.Obama.

True to form....Obama stiffs restaurant for Father's Day Meal

Somehow, this should not be surprising to anyone....after all, he likes leaving everyone else to pick up the tab for his failures....He asks four men out for a Father's Day meal and then stiffs the restaurant.

What a piece of work

You just can't make this shite up.

From ABC NEWS

"Amid the bustle of President Obama’s surprise stop for barbecue Wednesday the White House apparently overlooked one key detail: the bill. Celebrating Father’s Day early, the president had lunch with two service members and two local barbers at Kenny’s BBQ on Capitol Hill.

As the group chatted about fatherhood, the president enjoyed a steaming plate of pork ribs with hot sauce, collard greens, red beans and rice and cornbread. The bill for the president and his four guests was $55.58, but was left unpaid at the point of sale, according to pool reports."

President Obama admits he didn't like ethics as a subject in school...

It appears that President Obama is like someone who can't help himself and who wants to tell the world that even HE thinks he is not capable of doing the job of being President.

Ethics and ethical leadership are two absolute requisites for leaders. There can be no compromise in this area and to not embrace as a foundation of knowing why you you need it is a failure to understand what is required of a leader.

This comes as no surprise to those who have witnessed Obama's utter failure in Leadership...This guy is a world class elitist putz.

The concept of " self identification " is based on the principle that people will at some point display by actions or words who their " true self " really is....POTUS has done this handily on several occasions and this is just one more....or maybe he'll blame it on someone else....After all, that is his normal MO (modus operandi)

You really didn't like ethics during your formative years ?? Shocker.


Obama: 'I Don't Think Ethics' Was My Favorite Subject
By Terence P. Jeffrey
September 29, 2011

(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama told an audience of high school students in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday that he was “not always the very best student” and that ethics “would not have made it on the list” of his favorite subjects.

“I was not always the very best student that I could be when I was in high school, and certainly not when I was in middle school,” Obama said, speaking at Benjamin Banneker Academic High School.

“I did not love every class I took. I wasn’t always paying attention the way I should have,” Obama said. “I remember when I was in 8th grade I had to take a class called ethics. Now, ethics is about right and wrong, but if you’d ask me what my favorite subject was back in 8th grade, it was basketball. I don’t think ethics would have made it on the list.”

The President of the United States needs to " Man Up " as his failure is an embarrassment to the citizens of our great country

The tantrums coming from the White House and the non-stopping stammering are the signs that the Obama Administration is toast.

No one believes them and the markets showed that to the world.

Be a MAN Mr. President and take a lesson from HARRY TRUMAN who had a sign on the same desk you sit at each day that said " The BUCK stops here !"

Obama is unworthy to even think he should sit at that desk as he is only keeping the chair warm for the next occupant of the Oval Office. He needs to MAN UP, accept that his failing as President is his responsibility and admit it to the voters. To continue to deny what is obvious to the rest of the world is both immature and delusional.

Let us PRAY that it is someone with more sense than this embarrssing poser that was elected in 2008 who has been a national embarrassment since day one.


Ron Hart: Stop the blame. Do something!
By RON HART - Orange County Register

As they always do, our representatives in Congress raised the debt ceiling and said they were going to make cuts later. Then they fled Washington to go on a long vacation. Why not address this now? Why the suspense? Congress has not left so many things dangling in front of so many Americans since Anthony Weiner left.

They called what they did a "two-step deal." It looks like both were side steps.

Remember, Obama kept using the word "bankrupt" and threatened not to pay Social Security checks. The country was not nearly bankrupt; he just used the word as a scare tactic to get his way. Obama blames everything on someone else: the Tea Party for forcing budget cuts or Japan for having an earthquake. I guess he is blaming God, too.

Blame and threats are not a strategy.

The Democrats called those wanting to cut the spending "terrorists" who were holding the country hostage. Obama might want to be careful; being unable to negotiate the release of hostages invites even more comparisons to Jimmy Carter.

It is getting more dangerous in the Obama administration. Last week a man hopped over the White House fence and made a run for it. Then the Secret Service caught him and told Mr. Geithner he had to finish his term as Treasury Secretary. It turns out it is much easier being the problem than the solution.

After months of indicating that he might leave his post as Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner said he would stay. In the end, he decided to keep his safe government job since he determined there is no way of finding a good job in this economy.

Interestingly, last week it was also reported that Washington, D.C. has the highest use of cocaine, pot and alcohol. That explains a lot. The S&P downgrade was not a decision; it was more like an intervention.

It is like Obama and the Democrats were called into a room to find S&P, Moody's, the U.S. dollar and the stock market, who told them, "We love you, but you have a spending addiction." I don't care if they have a drug problem; it is their spending that is hurting others.

If Obama wants to borrow again soon he is going to have to get his financier buddy, George Soros, to co-sign for him.

Let's be as clear as we can. Federal spending has gone to $3.8 trillion per year and tax revenue remains at $2.1 per year. We run annual losses of $1.7 trillion – and climbing – and Geithner and Obama are blaming S&P and the Tea Party for the downgrade? Wow.

The $14 trillion dollar debt is not so much the problem; we are projected to have a $27 trillion debt in 10 years. For Obama and Geithner to blame S&P for it is like being late for two years on payments for their big screen TV and then shooting the repo man who comes to get it.

Their new stall is the "Super Committee" to be appointed to cut the budget down the road. They are just so delusional that they will call on Superman, Captain America, Green Hornet, Iron Man, Superwoman, Spiderman and Batman to cut the budget. I presume Barney Frank will be Batman; he spends his time with Robin, who spends a lot of time on the bat pole. Only those egomaniacs in Washington could call themselves "super" anything. I still snicker when they are called "The Honorable...."

Obama used his media arms, NBC, CBS and ABC, to make political points in prime time and told people to call their representatives. The "post-partisan president" was surprised that few called to support his spending on entitlements and that the vast majority favored spending cuts. Voters do not wait on hold for an hour to talk to a congressman's intern in order to leave the message "Just compromise."

The dysfunction of Washington is such a disaster that al-Qaida is claiming responsibility for it. The good news is Obama will soon be making taxpayer-funded visits to swing states in the Midwest, and he will be trying to save jobs – mainly his.

Ron Hart is a syndicated op-ed humorist, award-winning author and TV/radio commentator. Email Ron@RonaldHart.com or visit www.RonaldHart.com

Political Reality - "It's a performance-based job.." - The only people cheering for Obama are his " kool-aid drinking fools"

A basic principle of LEADERSHIP is that when there is an issue, as the Leader, you are responsible. Just like the Captain of a ship, it doesn't matter whether you were on the bridge, or down below in your quarters, when the ship runs aground, you are responsible. No arguments, no rationalization. It is your responsibility.

This basic principle is lost on President Obama and his minions. They desperately want to be able to pin the blame on someone else. OBAMA is PRESIDENT and he can't accept the responsibility for his poor performance. He pathetically is trying to find someone else to fault when the fault is his and his alone.

The Congress has not distinguished itself and will be held accountable for their actions BUT the ultimate fault for what has occurred over the past 2 1/2 years and the decisions that were made falls to the Chief Executive. HE will be the one held responsible, no matter how desperately Obama's Kool Aid Drinking fools think they can sidestep the avalanche that the 2012 election will be for the feckless fool that was elected in 2008.


Analysis: Economy dealing blow to Obama's 2012 hopes
By John Whitesides

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With every gloomy economic report, debt crisis and mood swing on Wall Street, President Barack Obama's fight for re-election in 2012 gets a little tougher.

The recent rash of bad economic news has deepened a sour public mood and threatens to turn a re-election campaign that Democrats once hoped would be a cakewalk into an unpredictable brawl.

"The economic head-winds Obama faces are extraordinarily difficult," said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst at the American Enterprise Institute think tank.

"The level of public pessimism and the duration of the negativity is something I haven't seen before," she said. "It's a performance-based job, and people want to start seeing the economy turn around."

Polls show at least two-thirds of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction, consumer confidence is hitting two-year lows and majorities disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy.

His job approval was slumping even before last week's global stock sell-off and twin debt crises in Europe and in the United States, which featured a U.S. credit rating downgrade and chaotic talks on a deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling.

In the last week of July, Gallup put Obama's approval at a weekly low of 42 percent.

A Quinnipiac University poll taken after the debt-ceiling deal last week found a majority in the battleground state of Florida did not think Obama deserved re-election. His approval among independents in the state plunged from a 47-45 percent split in May to 61-33 percent disapproval now.

"Elections with incumbents are always referendums on the incumbent, and the first question for voters is 'does he deserve another term?' At this point, these numbers show the answer is not necessarily yes," Quinnipiac pollster Peter Brown said.

The president's slump gives new hope to Republicans, who saw several potential contenders pass on a 2012 White House race earlier this year amid speculation Obama would be too strong and too well financed to lose re-election.

Republicans plan to remind voters often of the job losses, stalled economic recovery and stagnant housing market on Obama's watch. They stepped up their criticism of the president after Friday's U.S. credit downgrade.

'OBAMA NOT WORKING'

"Barack Obama has been in office for three years and what he's done hasn't worked. It's time for him to go," Republican contender Tim Pawlenty said while campaigning in Iowa.

Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney has signaled a potential general election strategy, shadowing Obama's travels around the country with targeted criticism of the president's economic record in those regions.

When Obama returned home to Chicago to celebrate his birthday last week, Romney aired a Web ad slamming Obama's economic leadership and saying Chicago had seen a 48 percent increase in unemployment under Obama.

In recent speeches, Obama made clear he wants to focus on spurring job growth now that the debt-ceiling talks are done. He welcomed Friday's jobs report showing the unemployment rate ticked down slightly to 9.1 percent but said more was needed.

He will need to show significant improvement in the jobless rate to ease public worries, and he will need to do it early enough in 2012 that it sinks in with voters.

Obama also faces a tougher political map next year, with his approval plunging in traditionally Republican states he captured in 2008 like Indiana and North Carolina and in critical Rust Belt states like Ohio.

"I'm a Democrat but there is no sugar-coating it, things aren't good," said Democratic consultant Dane Strother. "The only thing on Obama's side right now is time. A week is an eternity in politics and we have 15 months."

Polls show Obama remains personally popular, and Democrats find hope in 2004. That year many voters unhappy with President George W. Bush's performance were reluctant to oust him amid the Iraq war and economic challenges.

"When people are frightened, they are more likely to stick with the guy they know than take a chance on the guy they don't know," Democratic strategist(read kool-aid drinker) Karen Finney said.

"They still like Obama. As long as people feel like he's trying and he's making some progress, that matters," she said.

Republicans, beset by internal battles between conservative Tea Party movement activists and a more moderate pro-business faction, also must provide a viable challenger. Romney trails Obama in polls and faces a challenge winning over his party's own conservative base.

"At the end of the day it's two people, one on one, and it will be a new dynamic," Strother said. "But there is no question if 15 months from now the economy is in the tank, the election will be tough for Obama. Doable, but tough."

(Editing by Vicki Allen

What part of " conflict of interest" doesn't the VP of the UNITED STATES get ???

Headlines have been recently full of issues involving federal contracting and the waste of federal tax dollars by federal contractors and/or conflicts of interest.

These are serious issues and ones the FEDS don't take lightly because they are violations of Federal law. The law applies to all citizens equally as that is the foundation of our legal system.

For reference :

From the GSA (General Services Administration)

https://www.acquisition.gov/Comp/far/current/html/FARMTOC.html

Part 3—Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest

Subpart 3.6—Contracts with Government Employees or Organizations Owned or Controlled by Them
3.601 Policy.
(a) Except as specified in 3.602, a contracting officer shall not knowingly award a contract to a Government employee or to a business concern or other organization owned or substantially owned or controlled by one or more Government employees. This policy is intended to avoid any conflict of interest that might arise between the employees’ interests and their Government duties, and to avoid the appearance of favoritism or preferential treatment by the Government toward its employees.

(b) For purposes of this subpart, special Government employees (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202) performing services as experts, advisers, or consultants, or as members of advisory committees, are not considered Government employees unless—

(1) The contract arises directly out of the individual’s activity as a special Government employee;
(2) In the individual’s capacity as a special Government employee, the individual is in a position to influence the award of the contract; or

(3) Another conflict of interest is determined to exist.


Subpart 3.10—Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct
3.1000 Scope of subpart.
This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for the establishment of contractor codes of business ethics and conduct, and display of agency Office of Inspector General (OIG) fraud hotline posters.

3.1003 Requirements.
(a) Contractor requirements

b) Notification of possible contractor violation. If the contracting officer is notified of possible contractor violation of Federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity violations found in Title 18 U.S.C.; or a violation of the civil False Claims Act, the contracting officer shall—

(1) Coordinate the matter with the agency Office of the Inspector General; or

(2) Take action in accordance with agency procedures.

So you might be wondering what does all this have to do with the price of Tea in China?

President Barack Obama promised to run the most transparent White House in history—disclosing donations, shunning lobbyists, and broadcasting important meetings on C-SPAN.

Well it seems that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is highly likely it is a duck.

VP Joe Biden is a "vendor" on a Federal Contract to rent a piece of property he owns to the Secret Service.

As the vendor on a fixed-price contract, Mr. Biden technically now is a federal contractor. In this case, we are talking about a huge conflict of interest on the part of the Vice President who cannot be " vendor" and VPOTUS at the same time as being on a government contract as that is a text book case of " Conflict of Interest ".

Any 1st year law student could see it and the fact that it was set up and put in place w/o a bid or review shows a glaring inability of the VP or the Administration to understand that violating Federal Law is NOT acceptable for the holder of the second highest office in the land.

Of course this will be dismissed by the Administration as a "non-issue" but should raise the ire of anyone who expects that the VPOTUS needs to learn that unethical means unethical and that leadership & integrity are non-negotiable. Either you are an ethical leader or you are not - there is no grey area.

In this case, the Administration and the VP are a case of "Classic Failures". And this doesn't surprise me but it should be a prime reason to send him & his buddy the "empty suit in residence" at the White House packing in 2012.


Biden charging Secret Service for cottage rental

The U.S. Secret Service does more than protect Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. — the agency also pays him rent.
By Jim McElhatton
-The Washington Times
Sunday, July 31, 2011

Since April, Mr. Biden has collected more than $13,000 from the agency charged with protecting him and his family for use of a rental cottage adjacent to the waterfront home he owns in a Wilmington, Del., suburb.

Mr. Biden, listed not as vice president in federal purchasing documents but as a “vendor,” is eligible for up to $66,000 by the time the government contract expires in the fall of 2013, the records show.

Officials say the arrangement came about when a previous tenant moved out of the cottage and the Secret Service moved in.

Edwin M. Donovan, special agent in charge at the Secret Service's Office of Government and Public Affairs in Washington, said the agency pays $2,200 in rent per-month, the same amount a previous tenant had paid before moving out.

He said the close location provides a level of security for the Biden family the agency might not have had otherwise. Asked if the Secret Service typically pays rent to the people it protects, he said, “It’s a rental property so we pay rent there.”

Taxpayer watchdogs say the Secret Service should do everything it can to protect Mr. Biden, but they wonder whether he should be collecting rent from the agency while it’s doing its job.

“He should be afforded every single protection available to him and his family, as should every vice president and president,” said Leslie Paige, spokeswoman for the Washington-based Citizens Against Government Waste.

“But this arrangement seems bizarre to me,” she added. “You’d think the vice president, who shepherded the deficit committee, would think twice about charging the Secret Service rent. Why would he need the money? I don’t get it.”

According to Mr. Biden’s office, the vice president’s mother lived in the cottage until she died in January 2010. At that time, the Secret Service had been renting properties in the Wilmington area for agents who were providing a protective presence at Mr. Biden’s personal residence.

Mr. Biden later asked the Secret Service if the agency wanted to rent the cottage property, but the Secret Service declined and Mr. Biden rented it instead to a private tenant, according to the vice president's office. But almost a year later, when that tenant moved out, the Secret Service approached Mr. Biden about renting the cottage.

“The cottage was an existing rental property at the time the Secret Service signed its lease,” said Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Mr. Biden.

Last year, Mr. Biden and his wife, Jill, reported earning $379,178, including $11,000 in income from the cottage, according to the Bidens’ tax return. The Bidens did not list any rental income for 2009.

The Secret Service was the contracting agency on the two purchase orders so far that have paid Mr. Biden $13,200 combined for use of his cottage.

The first purchase order to Mr. Biden, for $2,200, was signed April 1, and the second, for $11,000, was signed June 2. The records both list Mr. Biden by name as the vendor under a section of the purchase order called “contractor information.” The purchase order describes Mr. Biden as a sole proprietor with no employees and no annual revenue.

The Washington Times inquired about the rental arrangement after Mr. Biden’s name appeared as a vendor in federal spending records. As the vendor on a fixed-price contract, Mr. Biden technically now is a federal contractor.

He’s been outspoken in calling for greater accountability in federal contracts. When Mr. Biden and President Obama launched the “Campaign to Cut Waste” last month, Mr. Biden said, “The President and I are committed to changing the way government works and we are stepping up the hunt for misspent dollars.”

During the presidential transition, Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama pledged to end the abuse of no-bid contracting and require competitive bidding on nearly all contract orders for more than $25,000 across the federal government.

Though the overall rental contract has a total value of up to $66,000, the agreement was approved through simplified acquisition procedures that do not require bidding.

“To an outside observer who pays the taxes that help fund protective services, this might seem like an odd arrangement, but apparently there’s some law or administrative procedure that facilitates it,” said Pete Sepp, vice president of the National Taxpayers Union in Alexandria, which monitors federal spending.

Mr. Sepp also had a thought on what Mr. Biden could do with the rent money he collects from the Secret Service: “Every elected official can do the same thing average Americans can, which is to write a check to the Bureau of the Public Debt to bring down the national debt.”

The Secret Service, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is required by law to ensure the safety of current and former national leaders and their families, such as the president, past presidents, vice presidents and presidential candidates.

A Lack of TRUE LEADERSHIP in Washington has lead the US to possible 2nd place status in Space Exploration going forward

The lack of LEADERSHIP in Washington has been apparent for decades. The genuine Leaders we had in the past have given way to the political hucksters that dominate the halls of Government.

People's confidence in Congress & the Executive Branch are at all time lows.

It seems difficult to comprehend that we have not had any real LEADERS in the White House for almost 50 years....The list of the past nine Presidents since JFK reads like a train wreck of POLS who wanted to leave a legacy but only passed through leaving some accomplishments, but not the legacy that we saw from those who lead us through the first 2/3rd of the 20th century. Johnson (Lost Vietnam),Nixon (Lost it, period.), Ford (Placeholder), Carter(Another placeholder), Reagan (nice man but only really a figurehead - bankrupted the Soviets), Bush Sr. (Did well with the Gulf War but was dumped for Bubba), Clinton ( a True POL's POL ), GW Bush ( Another nice guy but light in real Leadership chops) and lastly, and the least (scraping the bottom of the barrel) Obama.

None of these men had the LEADERSHIP qualities of JFK, IKE, Truman or FDR. Comparing the "True Leadership" abilities held by the four men from 1932-1963 to the nine men from 1964 - 2011 shows that the real issue we have suffered over the last 48 years is a lack of genuine leaders. We have elected people who said they could lead but in the end, inspired little and left behind messes for those who followed them.....Now we have another group of " Wannabees" all jockeying to get into the Oval Office to replace the worst President we've seen since Hoover.

Well we need LEADERSHIP to stay ahead in the areas of Space Exploration as that was JFK's true legacy....He took us to the MOON and man has marveled at all that followed that effort.....to stop now due to inept political folly and lack of vision is not only wrong, it is a crime.


Kennedy targeted the moon within a decade, we'll be lucky if in ten years, we are where we were ten years ago
Posted By David Rothkopf Wednesday, July 6, 2011 - http://www.foriegnpolicy.com/

Last week, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said in reference to Friday's launch of the last of 135 space shuttle missions,

" Some say that our final shuttle mission will mark the end of America's 50 years of dominance in human spaceflight. As a former astronaut and the current NASA Administrator, I want to tell you that American leadership in space will continue for at least the next half-century because we have laid the foundation for success -- and here at NASA failure is not an option. "

No, Charlie, at today's NASA, failure is not an option. It's an inevitability.

It's inevitable not because the quality of the men and women of NASA has declined. They remain among the best the United States has to offer. However, they have been drawn to a fabled program more because of what it has done in the past than what it is likely to do in the future. And that fact reveals the root cause of NASA's crisis -- and make no mistake, the program is more deeply in crisis than even during the dark hours around tragedies from the Apollo launch pad fire to the Challenger explosion to the disintegration of the Columbia on re-entry in 2003.

NASA is on a course to cede more than half a century of leadership in manned spaceflight not because of what has happened in Houston or at Kennedy Space Center in Florida or because of something that happened in space. No, NASA was undone by a loss of vision among America's political elites.

Simply put, they have forgotten how to lead and as a consequence, they have sacrificed our ability to lead as a nation. The national dialogue is devoid of a compelling vision of tomorrow, of the kind of lift that is essential if we are to head in any direction but down.

When I talk about such a dialogue, I'm not talking about the kind of reflexive, simplistic and misleading debate about whether we can afford a manned space program when the country is broke. No, I'm talking about the debate that real leaders, clear-eyed men and women who aspire to a better future, should continuously be having about how we ensure the country has the resources it needs to do those things it cannot afford to do without…including the exploration of new frontiers, the development of new technologies, and the inspiration of future generations.

You see, brain-dead political posturing of the sort that marks the current childish and irresponsible budget bickering in Washington has been going on for years. And as a consequence, the national patrimony has been given away in the form of tax breaks for rich individuals and companies that do not need them, deserve them or, in many cases, even want them. Whether George W. Bush offered up tax cuts and went into wars of choice because of deep seated ideological beliefs or for political gain, in so doing he didn't just obliterate America's surplus, he helped doom us to the period we are now entering: a period of austerity-induced withdrawal and decline.

When Republicans make the specious and childish arguments (see both David Brooks and David Leonhardt in the New York Times -- Leonhardt's piece is especially good) about not "raising taxes" at a time when we need to do everything to balance the budget, they are not just risking disaster and seeking to sacrifice the poor to pay for indulgences for the wealthy, they are effectively inviting China, Europe, India, and others to lead in the century ahead.

Manned spaceflight will continue…and Russians, Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, and others will step up to fill the void left by the fat, feckless Americans. We will be left with grainy images of John Kennedy setting the bold goal to reach the moon within a decade and wonder why such things could be achieved by greater generations that came before. How is it that once political leaders inspired by setting great goals and today our goals seem to be so defensive, so retrograde?

"We choose to go to the moon," said Kennedy in the late summer of 1962, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because the goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win…."

Now, our goals are what? To get back to where we were a decade ago? Back to a budget surplus? Back to a fairer tax code? Back to American global leadership that was untainted by missteps from Iraq to Guantanamo to Afghanistan?

To paraphrase another Kennedy, there are those -- among today's politicians -- who look at things the way they are and ask why…and then they dream of things that never were and do everything in their power to ensure we can't achieve them. In fact, in some cases, in the case of NASA and manned spaceflight -- the real stuff of dreams and inspiration and innovation and national pride and historical accomplishments -- it appears that we are going to stop even trying. As a consequence, when the Atlantis touches down, it will not just be a remarkable reusable spacecraft coming back to earth, it will also be, in a real way, a country's dreams grounded…at least until a true leader emerges again to set goals that lift us and drive us forward.

“This is a political decision, not a military decision,” - OBAMA shows it is all about his desire to get re-elected, not what should be done

“This is a political decision, not a military decision....” - Damned Straight.

The cheers you heard last night were the Taliban getting exactly what they wanted from the President last night. They are more than happy to wait for things to go back to the way they were before the Surge pushed them to the brink....It will be a year before the 30000 extra leave but "Barry-From-Chicago" isn't worried about the economy or the terrorists, unless those issues can be used to bolster his re-election campaign....what a feckless POL.

Hopefully he'll be ousted and when we have to detail why we let the terrorists catch a break and allow them to return to their murderous ways, we'll owe the world an explaination on why we made decisions on the fate of this effort based solely on what POTUS hoped would help the empty-suit get relected....not based on what the military experts said we should do.

The people of Afghanistan have always feared we would only give this a half-hearted effort and then leave....It may be that their worst fears about the future of this place will be realized based on what the "Community Organizer" told the world last night.


To Obama, Afghan war no longer seems so smart
By: Glenn Thrush - Politico
June 22, 2011 11:16 PM EDT

If Afghanistan doesn’t fit President Barack Obama’s definition of a “dumb war” – his famous description of the conflict in Iraq — he’s no longer entirely confident it’s still a smart war worth blood, treasure or his own political capital.

In a primetime address Wednesday night announcing the withdrawal of 33,000 U.S.troops in the next year, Obama trumpeted the fulfillment of two goals first articulated nine years in the same Chicago speech in which he defined George W. Bush’s intervention in Iraq — killing Osama bin Laden and denying a safe haven to al Qaeda.

One additional achievement unmentioned in the 14-minute address: The role Obama’s Afghan surge played in bolstering his national security credentials at a time when Republicans portrayed him as just another weak Democratic president lacking the guts to wage war for a just cause.

But that just cause, in Obama’s view, is no longer reason enough for what had essentially become an open-ended U.S. commitment. So the president has opted for a faster-than-expected withdrawal timetable against the advice of senior military advisers, including Gen. David Petraeus.

“These long wars must come to a responsible end [and] we must learn from their lessons,” said Obama, articulating a more surgical approach to U.S. military intervention than he was able to describe during a speech on Libya earlier this year.

History will tell if the speech Wednesday night was a form of capitulation, a well-earned victory lap or combination of both.

Obama’s “dumb” vs. “smart” war meme, first outlined in his October, 2002 speech as an unknown state senator, didn’t seem to be far from his thoughts. Now as then, he made the argument for extricating the country from an unpopular war without losing political face — or bitterly-won gains against al Qaeda.

“We must chart a more centered course,” he said after announcing that 10,000 troops would be pulled out of Afghanistan by year’s end.

“We must embrace America’s singular role in the course of human events but we must also be as pragmatic as we are passionate, as strategic as we are resolute. When threatened we must respond with force – but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas.”

Robert Kagan, a former adviser to his 2008 opponent John McCain, warned that a quick withdrawal threatens recent gains against the Taliban – and popular opinion could swing against the president if an emboldened enemy takes the speech as a cue to step up attacks.

“This is a political decision, not a military decision,” he told POLITICO. “Americans are tired of this war, that’s true. But they hate losing more, and if there’s the perception that we’re being run out of there, the public will turn on him fast.”

Stephen Hayes, a writer with the conservative Weekly Standard, summed up the view of many hawks when he told Fox News that Obama seemed to be “declaring” victory even though Afghanistan teeters on the verge of violent chaos.

“I think we’ve undercut a strategy that was working,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned. “Having all the surged forces leave by next summer is going to compromise next summer’s fighting season.”

Liberals, on the other hand, think the speed of the pull-out is too sluggish, with Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) expressing disappointment and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) telling MSNBC the 30,000 troops “ought to come home by the end of the year.”


Yet the politics of Afghanistan are scrambled and unpredictable, with many Republicans citing the fiscal strains of waging two full wars – and the House GOP threatening to pass legislation de-funding Obama’s controversial intervention in Libya.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) seemed skeptical but not overtly hostile to Obama’s speech. “Congress will hold the administration accountable for ensuring that the pace and scope of the drawdown does not undermine the progress we’ve made thus far,” he said in a statement.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) didn’t reject the plan out of hand either, focusing on the need for the White House to adjust their timetable according to conditions on the ground.

“The drawdown of forces described by the president needs to be conducted in a manner that respects the professional judgment of our military commanders, preserves the security gains of the last year and allows for a slower pace of withdrawal if necessary,” McConnell said.

In the hours leading up to the address, Obama’s staff emphasized a triumph without triumphalism.

Yet it was hard to mistake Obama’s valedictory tone, despite his acknowledgement that the gains in Afghanistan could be fleeting and that “dark days” of fighting remained prior to a larger pull-out in 2014.

“Mission Accomplished” it wasn’t – the best Obama offered was “The tide of war is receding.” But he mentioned the killing of Bin Laden no fewer than six times while praising the surge and he began with an explanation of his decision to transfer military resources from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Obama aides emphasized that “Operation Enduring Freedom,” which has cost the lives of more than 1,600 Americans over the last decade, has finally achieved many of its objectives under his stewardship. With the terror threat migrating to Yemen and Pakistan, they declared that the smart war simply doesn’t look quite so smart anymore.

“On the threat side, we haven’t seen a terrorist threat emanating from Afghanistan for the past seven or eight years,” a senior national security official told reporters.

“There has been clearly fighting and threats inside of Afghanistan,” the person said, adding that that there is “no indication at all that there is any effort within Afghanistan to use Afghanistan as a launching pad to carry out attacks outside of Afghan borders.”

Smart, dumb or otherwise, Afghanistan remains an easily forgettable, if not altogether forgotten war. And Obama’s speech didn’t seem to attract the attention of previous addresses he’s delivered.

Of the three broadcast networks, only one – CBS – led with the Obama speech on their evening news shows. ABC and NBC both featured the floods in North Dakota at the top of their broadcasts.

That reflected a larger focus, adopted by Obama himself, on tending to the country’s internal affairs, especially the economy, and pulling back from the international entanglements of the Bush years.

“We have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times,” Obama said. The president acknowledged the popular frustration with seeing schools and roads built abroad at American expense while an atmosphere of fiscal austerity reigns in the U.S.

“America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home,” Obama declared.

Under Obama’s plan, roughly 68,000 U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan by late next year — about twice as many as were in the country when he took office. He vowed to continue to withdraw troops “at a steady pace,” though he offered no further details on the timetable.

“This is the beginning – but not the end – of our effort to wind down this war,” he said. “We will have to do the hard work of keeping the gains that we have made, while we drawdown our forces and transition responsibility for security to the Afghan government.”

Shocker - Lack of "adults" in Washington, DC

The POLS are on a rant about who or who is not an "adult" - Really?

Here's a frickin' clue.....As far as the voters are concerned, NO ONE in Washington, DC acts "adult"

The POLS act like spoiled brats and it makes all of America sick....The people we elect go to Washington and act like petulant teenagers.

We need Leadership, not the crappy adolescents we've elected.....Both parties hold responsibility for the way Washington DC has turned into a mess.....PLEASE, we are asking nicely, get on with the business of managing our countries' business....I know this is tough for you to understand but people's lives are at stake.

The men & women of our military are out at the "tip-of-the-spear" risking everything so you can sit in Washington and carp about how tough things are for you. Yes, there are those who are staunch supporters of our military BUT it comes back to the "spoiled brat" attitude that pervades the halls of government. Those in uniform have greater burdens placed on them than the Pols as they salute the flag and carry out the mission because otherwise people's lives would be lost.

To the elite in DC - Time to MAN UP and get it done. We (the taxpayers) have had enough.....get on with it already.


In Washington, squabbling over who's an adult

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press
Thu Apr 7, 3:07 am ET

WASHINGTON – Suddenly everyone in Washington wants to be an adult.

President Barack Obama says he wants to have an adult dialogue on the budget. Republican lawmakers contend they're the ones trying to have a grown-up talk. Both sides are pointing fingers yet both have agreed to repeated delays in completing a budget to keep the government open for the last six months of the fiscal year.

The bickering might seem, well, childish, but the stakes are high as each side tries to win public opinion and display the leadership qualities to attract voters at the ballot box through 2012 and beyond.

The rhetoric heated up this week with Republicans and Democrats jockeying furiously for advantage as the prospect of a government shutdown Friday grew more real. Each day that passes with no deal seems to bring more talk of who's an adult and who's not.
Obama on Tuesday emerged from a meeting with Democratic and Republican leaders and proposed "that we act like grown-ups."

That same day House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., released a budget plan calling for dramatic cuts and laid down a challenge to Obama: "Americans are ready for honest talk. They're ready to be spoken to like adults."
When the White House attacked Ryan's plan, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, jumped in to criticize the president.
"If he wants to have an 'adult conversation' about solving our fiscal challenges, he needs to lead instead of sitting on the sidelines," the speaker said Wednesday.

Then the Republican National Committee added its voice, accusing Obama of ducking a meeting on the budget. "Adults don't say one thing and do another," the committee said.

Later Wednesday it was Obama trying to seize back the adult mantle at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania. Voters, he said, want politicians to "act like adults, quit playing games, realize it's not just 'my way or the highway.'"

For Obama, who first called for an adult conversation on long-term fiscal issues at a press conference in February, it's an attempt to put himself above the partisan fray, demonstrate firm leadership in a chaotic world and remind voters of his promise to change the way politics works in Washington.

For their part, Republicans are trying to set themselves up as the ones who can tackle the tough issues of leading Washington through the economic recovery and bringing down debts and deficits over the long term.

To voters, though, it might sound like the typical Washington back-and-forth, not adult behavior at all.
Yet perhaps for a politician the only thing worse than not acting like an adult, is acting like one, said Jack Pitney, a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California.

"Most people would agree that politicians should act like adults by making tough choices even when they are unpopular. So it's popular for politicians to say that they'll do the unpopular thing. But when they actually do the unpopular thing, they are...unpopular," Pitney said. "The lessons of adulthood are seldom happy ones."