About a week ago, President Obama gave a speech at West Point wherein he increased the US troop strength in Afghanistan by 30,000. Interestingly, they are to be deployed in the Kandahar District where our soldiers have been fighting due to the fact that it is the most dangerous spot in all of Afghanistan. Canadian Soldiers deserve quite a pat on the back for single-handedly keeping that area under control awaiting American reinforcements.
Anyway, I digress.
I thought his speech deserved an A (ie 8/10) but was surprised by the comments from both sides of the debate in America. The Right roundly condemned it for being unlike FDR - ie "a Day that will live in Infamy' and not Churchillian enough (ie) "we will fight them on the beaches.."
But Obama was not reeling from an attack or preparing the nation for imminent invasion - he was only adding 30,000 fresh troops to the mix.
The Left, in turn, cried 'sellout' and compared Obama with George W and his Surge in Iraq. But Afghanistan is not Iraq. The attacks on the Trade Buildings were planned and originated from Afghanistan.
My 'A' for the speech was based on the fact that Obama had to walk a tight rope between these two camps and the fact that he upset them both tells me he succeeded. He authorized the additional troops, requested by his Commanders in the field and he set an arbitrary timetable to get out which he hoped would appeal to his leftist base.
Having said that, both sides arguments have some merit. First, the Surge worked wonders for the Republicans in Iraq and hopefully it will do the same this time. No guarantees though.
Second - setting the arbitrary timetable puts the Afghan Administration on notice that they will soon have to take care of their own security - as it should be. It also puts NATO on notice that the US is not going to continue to spend vast sums of money and blood when most Member Countries sit back with their feet up.
As I have said before it is no longer just a philosophical discussion - the USA is going broke. With Trillions in debt, they simply can no longer afford to play the World Policeman as much as they and we may like for them to do just that.
I have serious concerns re President Obama. I have yet to figure the guy out but do know that he is spending too much and building too great a government empire.
What I do know is that I liked his speech and think it worthy of an 'A'.
As I see it...
"Galagher"
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Taliban Prisoners...Peter MacKay
Note: below I am critical of Peter MacKay for allegedly saying Richard Colvin was a lackey of the Taliban. The Press had widely reported that he had said just that but MacKay has come out and denied it. With the little regard I have for our leftist Press, I will take MacKay's word any day... That said, I still think his overall criticism of a public servant was not becoming a Minister of the Crown. Unless it is a criminal act or some wantoned disregard of duty, He and Harper should leave criticisms to a public servant's senior managers.
A tempest in a teapot.
Iggnatieff and the Liberal Press believe they have Defence Minister MacKay 'on the ropes' over the Detainee / Torture Issue. Both are simply deluding themselves.
The fact is, Canadians really don't give a damn if heartless murderers are roughed up a bit in detention.
More to the point, if the Defence Brass only became aware of one case as of yesterday, how does that implicate MacKay in a cover-up? Where do Iggy and the Press expect MacKay to get his information from - the Taliban?
Iggnatief has a habit of getting on the wrong horse at the right time and I believe he has done it again. Moreover, I cannot see this issue surviving the Christmas break since Liberal MPs are likely to get an earful from their constituents - in support of Mackay - over that period.
MacKay though is not without criticism; his over the top attack on Ambassador Richard Colvin was not called for. I too question Colvin's motivation in all of this but for MacKay to suggest he was being a lackey of the Taliban was a bit much.
That brings me to recent speculation that there will be a small Cabinet Shuffle over Christmas.
The feeling is that MacKay will be transferred out of Defence.
If I was MacKay, I would not fight that move - not because of the 'Colvins' of this Country, but because the real Defence Minister is none other than Stephen Harper himself.
I get the sense that there is no love lost between the two - this despite the fact that Harper could never have become Leader of the new Conservative Party without Peter's help. Simply stated, he is not likely to advance in the current situation. Plus he has already had his shot at Leadership when he led the Progressive Conservative Party before its amalgamation with Reform.
Peter MacKay needs to look ahead - to his next step. And might I suggest a Senate appointment. This coming from me - a staunch opponent of everything Senate.
I make this suggestion though not in what MacKay could add to this tired old Institution, but rather to what he could do for the Conservatives outside its stifling walls. He could become the true and lasting God Father for Atlantic Canada in the same way in which the wily old Senator Allan MacEachen performed this role for the Liberals.
If I was Harper I would refrain from making such an appointment until right after the next Election but circumstances could force his hand sooner.
As I see it...
"Galagher"
A tempest in a teapot.
Iggnatieff and the Liberal Press believe they have Defence Minister MacKay 'on the ropes' over the Detainee / Torture Issue. Both are simply deluding themselves.
The fact is, Canadians really don't give a damn if heartless murderers are roughed up a bit in detention.
More to the point, if the Defence Brass only became aware of one case as of yesterday, how does that implicate MacKay in a cover-up? Where do Iggy and the Press expect MacKay to get his information from - the Taliban?
Iggnatief has a habit of getting on the wrong horse at the right time and I believe he has done it again. Moreover, I cannot see this issue surviving the Christmas break since Liberal MPs are likely to get an earful from their constituents - in support of Mackay - over that period.
MacKay though is not without criticism; his over the top attack on Ambassador Richard Colvin was not called for. I too question Colvin's motivation in all of this but for MacKay to suggest he was being a lackey of the Taliban was a bit much.
That brings me to recent speculation that there will be a small Cabinet Shuffle over Christmas.
The feeling is that MacKay will be transferred out of Defence.
If I was MacKay, I would not fight that move - not because of the 'Colvins' of this Country, but because the real Defence Minister is none other than Stephen Harper himself.
I get the sense that there is no love lost between the two - this despite the fact that Harper could never have become Leader of the new Conservative Party without Peter's help. Simply stated, he is not likely to advance in the current situation. Plus he has already had his shot at Leadership when he led the Progressive Conservative Party before its amalgamation with Reform.
Peter MacKay needs to look ahead - to his next step. And might I suggest a Senate appointment. This coming from me - a staunch opponent of everything Senate.
I make this suggestion though not in what MacKay could add to this tired old Institution, but rather to what he could do for the Conservatives outside its stifling walls. He could become the true and lasting God Father for Atlantic Canada in the same way in which the wily old Senator Allan MacEachen performed this role for the Liberals.
If I was Harper I would refrain from making such an appointment until right after the next Election but circumstances could force his hand sooner.
As I see it...
"Galagher"
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Somethings Rotten In the State of Denmark
Global Warming is finally beginning to smell..
I have always had trouble believing that CO2 - a colourless, odorless gas used in photosynthesis, poses a threat to the world's climate.
That said, I view myself as an environmentalist since I am - and I expect you are - opposed to pollution of any type. After all, the world we live in is the only one we have and we would like to pass it on to our children and our children's children in as pristine of condition as possible.
For some reason though the left has seized on CO2 as being the bad guy in it all. I can see why Al Gore has done so - he of many mansions, has been able to increase his wealth tenfold due to this scam.
But what of the rest? Where is their concern when it comes to dirty air and water? Why do they not take a better look at the hidden contents of the food and water we drink and eat?
Why should trillions of dollars be transferred to so-called underdeveloped countries (I say "so-called" since China falls under that category) to reduce their CO2 emissions when we know well that this is unlikely to happen?
Would these trillions not be better spent providing food, medical and housing assistance to the world's poor and education for their children? It is a scandal that the United Nations has been in existence for over 60 years and these terrible issues remain unresolved. But the UN finds time to criticize Israel for everything under the sun!
As a Libertarian I see government's role to be a very limited one. But there is one important area where they can be useful and that is in the area of R&D. Working in conjunction with Industry and Universities - Governments can spearhead research in the area of Environmental Protection. We know that the burning of fossil fuels is not Environmentally friendly - so we desperately need to find viable alternatives and government is best placed to do that.
Much has been done in this area but so much more remains before Western Civilization can ween itself off fossil fuels. It is too bad that the oil crisis of the 1970s was allowed to pass without a serious attempt to find alternative power sources. We have lost 40 years due to this inaction.
The Left would have us in the West live in tents while the Rest of the World continues to pump CO2 into the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts.
It won't happen. The instinct for our survival is just too strong.
Let's though work together and clean up all Pollution - CO2 included, in a structured and reasoned fashion.
In the meantime, monies for transfer to the Underdevelops should be targeted to ending poverty where it will do so much good.
As I see it...
"Galagher"
I have always had trouble believing that CO2 - a colourless, odorless gas used in photosynthesis, poses a threat to the world's climate.
That said, I view myself as an environmentalist since I am - and I expect you are - opposed to pollution of any type. After all, the world we live in is the only one we have and we would like to pass it on to our children and our children's children in as pristine of condition as possible.
For some reason though the left has seized on CO2 as being the bad guy in it all. I can see why Al Gore has done so - he of many mansions, has been able to increase his wealth tenfold due to this scam.
But what of the rest? Where is their concern when it comes to dirty air and water? Why do they not take a better look at the hidden contents of the food and water we drink and eat?
Why should trillions of dollars be transferred to so-called underdeveloped countries (I say "so-called" since China falls under that category) to reduce their CO2 emissions when we know well that this is unlikely to happen?
Would these trillions not be better spent providing food, medical and housing assistance to the world's poor and education for their children? It is a scandal that the United Nations has been in existence for over 60 years and these terrible issues remain unresolved. But the UN finds time to criticize Israel for everything under the sun!
As a Libertarian I see government's role to be a very limited one. But there is one important area where they can be useful and that is in the area of R&D. Working in conjunction with Industry and Universities - Governments can spearhead research in the area of Environmental Protection. We know that the burning of fossil fuels is not Environmentally friendly - so we desperately need to find viable alternatives and government is best placed to do that.
Much has been done in this area but so much more remains before Western Civilization can ween itself off fossil fuels. It is too bad that the oil crisis of the 1970s was allowed to pass without a serious attempt to find alternative power sources. We have lost 40 years due to this inaction.
The Left would have us in the West live in tents while the Rest of the World continues to pump CO2 into the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts.
It won't happen. The instinct for our survival is just too strong.
Let's though work together and clean up all Pollution - CO2 included, in a structured and reasoned fashion.
In the meantime, monies for transfer to the Underdevelops should be targeted to ending poverty where it will do so much good.
As I see it...
"Galagher"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)