The Conservative Soldier

“If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” (Ronald Reagan)

The Conservative Soldier header image 1

Half-coherent media expert could have saved McChrystal

June 22nd, 2010 · No Comments

Any half-coherent media relations expert would have advised Gen. Stanley McChrystal to sprint for cover from freelance writer Michael Hastings’ request for a series of interviews on behalf Rolling Stonemagazine.

After McChrystal survives his Wednesday encounter with the always fuming Barack Obama in the Ogre Office, he should demand a private session over at The Pentagon with whomever hired the civilian “communications strategist” to shadow McChrystal in Afghanistan. Whatever degree of smack down the general endures from Obama should be imposed in equal measure on McChrystal’s assembled p.r. geniuses.

Hastings’ experiences as a war correspondent include the death of his fiance in Iraq, which understandably made him hyper-sensitive to the price of human conflict. The circumstances of his loss are detailed in his book, “I Lost My Love in Baghdad: A Modern War Story”.

That communications strategist, Duncan Boothby (who resigned as soon as word of the provocative Rolling Stone profile spread), might also have taken five minutes to review Hastings’ bio at the entrepreneurial journalism site True/Slant (recently acquired by Forbes).

Hastings is cut from tightly woven, left wing journalistic cloth, it appears. Excerpts from his bio at True/Slant, where he has blogged since the site’s inception in 2009:

“I was the Baghdad correspondent for Newsweek magazine. My work has appeared in The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, Slate, Salon, Foreign Policy, the L.A. Times, and other publications of repute.”

How could McChrystal’s advisors not have suspected an ambush? Most of those publications still regard Afghanistan and Iraq as “Bush’s wars”.

The bio offers other red flags:

“Where I’d like to be 10 years from now: Living in the Second Republic of Vermont.”

According to its web site, “The Second Republic of Vermont is a nonviolent citizens’ network and think tank opposed to the tyranny of Corporate America and the U.S. Government, and committed to the peaceful return of Vermont to its status as an independent republic and more broadly to the dissolution of the Union.”

Reverse Libertarianism, perhaps? Disdainful of government tyranny (like most Americans, and certainly all Libertarians), but also opposed to for-profit companies and the existence of the United States (the Union). In other words, not so much in common with a four-star, hard-as-nails general.

Presumably, in jest, the bio concludes with a curious description of Hastings’ secret ambition: “To maintain and cultivate an enemies list.”

While there is growing criticism of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, with little clarity coming from Obama’s White House on a victory plan, even liberal columnist Joe Klein of Time, writing today online, concedes the U.S. is better off militarily with McChrystal in charge than without him. But Klein concludes that the animosity expressed by the general in Rolling Stone will force Obama to fire him.

“It is a real tragedy,” Klein blogs, “because Stanley McChrystal is precisely the sort of man who should be leading American troops in battle.”

→ No CommentsTags: Punditry

Interrogation of BP chief is no clean-up remedy

June 18th, 2010 · No Comments

Video images and statistical projections related to the BP oil well disaster are nauseating. The reaction is shared universally. Equally nauseating were Thursday’s Congressional hearings during which hours were committed to the interrogation of BP chief executive Tony Hayward.

Shepard Smith, the Fox News anchor known for a left-of-center world view, said bluntly, “Today’s public dress down is as much about politics as it is getting to the bottom of this national tragedy.”

Members of the Congressional subcommittee who spent the day grilling, rebuking, admonishing, even mocking, Hayward have a lot more in common with the reserved Brit than any would care to admit. It is also shared by President Barack Obama. The lawmakers, Hayward and Obama did nothing on Thursday to further reduce the volume of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, nothing to dramatically step up the containment or removal of oil from the vulnerable waters.

Blaming BP is not a solution. Feeding populist rage is not proactive. It is reactive.

If blame is essential amid this crisis, why are Obama, his administration and members of Congress so unwilling to accept any responsibility for their complacency at the outset of the explosion and failure to recognize the magnitude of the uncontrolled oil flow? Why does President Obama travel to the Gulf Coast for photo ops but not to oversee a massive clean up effort that marshals experts and technology from around the world? Why does Obama hesitate to waive a law that prohibits foreign vessels from being dispatched to the Gulf to help collect oil?

And one other question trumps the rest: Why is there so little outrage among lawmakers and American citizens toward the nauseating politicization of the BP accident that took the dangerous turn Wednesday of subverting the rule of law? The U.S. government effectively seized $20 billion in assets of a multinational corporation, then selected the “independent” body that will determine who has been a victim of the disaster and how much money they need to be “made whole”.

The czar of this independent body is attorney Ken Feinberg, the same Ken Feinberg who presided over the Obama attack on executive pay among the nation’s financial institutions. This is the Feinberg who “independently” ruled these institutions — many of which never asked to be bailed out and, in some cases, repaid the money — were prohibited from honoring their compensation agreements with selected senior-level officers. Feinberg is an Obamatron, period.

Texas Rep. Joe Barton called the seizure of $20 billion from BP a “shakedown”.  Later, he was compelled during the Hayward hearing to reiterate that he holds BP responsible for the environmental disaster. The two are completely unconnected. The $20 billion transfer of wealth to the U.S. government represents naked exploitation in the aftermath of the rig explosion, and another example of a government takeover of a private enterprise. By the way, that $20 billion is an initial amount. The U.S. likely with extort more. And it is separate from $100 million allocated to compensate for Obama’s worst decision since the accident: shutting down all offshore drilling for six months, crippling an industry. When Obama says BP will pay he apparently means “for my reckless decisions.”

Conn Carroll, writing The Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell analysis Thursday, gets to the heart of it. “Yesterday’s ‘voluntary’ deal between BP and the Obama administration was nothing less than a continuation of (Obama’s) ongoing assault on the rule of law,” he concludes. “From Fannie Mae to Freddie Mac, from GM to Chrysler, from AIG to Citibank, our government continues to subvert the established rule of law. This lawlessness creates uncertainty in the business environment, and it is a huge reason why our economy is not recovering as it should be.”

An environmental crisis meets an economic crisis. Which will take longer to clean up?

→ No CommentsTags: Stop Obama

Obama The (Diminished) One

June 10th, 2010 · No Comments

David Broder. James Carville. Maureen Dowd. Thomas Frank. Peggy Noonan.

These are not folks you will find wandering around a Tea Party rally. These are elite pundits, authors and former White House insiders who, on January 20, 2009, were either overcome with joyous emotion or, at the very least, ideologically aligned with the transformational inauguration of The One, Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States.

Dowd (New York Times), Frank (Wall Street Journal) and Carville (CNN and former Bill Clinton advisor) write/comment from the far left and bask in their enlightened elitism. Broder (Washington Post) and Noonan (Wall Street Journal and former Reagan speechwriter) are considered moderate, less agenda driven than some in the D.C.-New York corridor.

In recent days, all have expressed concern, disappointment, frustration, even outrage, toward the current state of the Obama Administration. Some have concluded, to paraphrase, that Obama might not have what it takes to do the job. For most on the list, this marks a first.

Anyone who has watched or been subjected in everyday life to the realities of Illinois and Chicago politics (read Liberal Democrat controlled cronyism and corruption) probably saw this coming. The Chicago Way was uniquely capable of elevating a former community organizer from the streets to the U.S. Senate. Then, despite his relative obscurity, the Chicago Way kept building momentum for their man all the way to the White House.

Now, the boundless optimism that swept over Grant Park on Election Night 2008 is replaced by stunned disbelief toward the unraveling of the Obama Era (Rasmussen Reports: Obama 53% disapproval. Gallup: 47% approval, down from 64% a year ago), hastened by his failure to demonstrate leadership amid the BP oil spill catastrophy.

“He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation,” writes the Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz, “because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class.”

Not by coincidence, many in that class are themselves falling into disarray. Individuals who might have expected to be politically entrenched heading into the fall elections are on the ropes, including Governor Pat Quinn, U.S. Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (IL-9th).

In a recent poll of likely Illinois voters by Rasmussen, 57% somewhat or strongly (34%) disapprove of Quinn’s performance. In the same poll, Obama insider Giannoulias trails Republican opponent  and U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (IL-10th) 42%-39%. Kirk led 46-38 at the end of April. He is losing ground because of inaccuracies about his military service allowed to stand uncorrected for years. And Schakowsky is facing scrutiny for her support of a largely ignored federal bailout of Chicago’s ShoreBank, a micro-financing institution to which Obama & Co. have longstanding ties, as well as her recent praise for White House correspondent Helen Thomas. Thomas resigned this week on the heels of an anti-Semitic rant. Only a few weeks ago, she had appeared with Schakowsky as a featured speaker at a fundraiser.

As leaders of Chicago’s failed bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games discovered, there is no guarantee that the Obama Effect will turn anything around. Quinn, Giannoulias and Schakowsky might even find themselves better off downplaying the President’s Chicago ties come November.

The Journal’s Thomas Frank, as hardened a left-winger as they come, expressed utter exasperation in his weekly column this week. “We are now experiencing the biggest environmental disaster in generations—a disaster, mind you, that follows hard on the heels of a campaign in which Mr. Obama’s opponents chanted, “Drill, baby, drill”—and yet the party of environmentalism is unable to make political capital out of it. What set of circumstances makes such a perverse outcome possible?”

→ No CommentsTags: Stop Obama