So Sarah, Where Are You Going?

Sarah Palin and FOX News have parted company.  I wasn't surprised to hear it because she has lost a degree of relevance. Out of sight out of mind you know.  I'm not even sure where she resides any more since she and Todd bought a fortress in Arizona.  Perhaps, like we ordinary folks, she has joined the ranks of snowbirds who winter where it's warm.

Reports weren't clear either whether or not her parting with FOX was warm or chilly.  I understand they didn't fight too hard for a contract renewal, she claiming she wants to broaden her horizons.

Yet she is still our old feisty Sarah. We have not yet begun to fight she tells us, we have to quit preaching to the choir. I do agree with her on that last point, but I'm wondering how she plans to accomplish what is a lofty goal for Republicans.

Heck, as long as they remain divided, she doesn't even have a whole choir!  As for the fight, what exactly are they fighting for?  Therein lies the problem.  Nothing new.  It's their inability to articulate.  Take Marco Rubio and his immigration plan.  He's still dithering around with the Republicans trying to come up with something coherent while Obama is planning to announce his own plan next week.

The Republicans go on about a spending problem without out making it comprehensible to the 4th grade level of understanding necessary to reach the masses.  Obama says we don't have a spending problem.  End of story.

So where is Sarah going to go to fight the good fight?  I agree it needs to be fought, but with the media beholden to the President I don't see that she has a base from which to work.  Even on the blogs, which I imagine are probably pretty evenly split, she's at an unfair advantage because those who read them read the ones with which they agree.

I've been visiting No Labels to see what sort of dialog they have going about subjects they tout like how to make government work, but I've not found those discussions.  Not that it matters because without a ground swell it floats off into cyberspace never again to be seen.

I'll be watching to see when and where she reappears. I'll be watching to see if the Republicans can find an acceptable balance between social issues which many of us deem personal and national issues which rightly affect all of us.

Could she be the voice that Republican Party so sorely needs?  I don't think so because she is too much a social conservative. I'll give her credit, however, for stating the obvious.  If she can see it so clearly, certainly others can.  Other than those of us who incessantly pound the keyboards about it.

If there is someone out there with a platform that can actually be heard and understood, my bet is it will be from somewhere other than Washington. Come out, come out where ever you are!

Benghazi - Not Again!

I'm beginning to wonder if U.S. intelligence is an oxymoron.  There obviously wasn't much of it when the Consulate in Benghazi was attacked on 9/11/2012.  If there was any it never reached the Secretary of State's desk.  By her own admission. If I were in the foreign service I'd not be comforted by the lack of revelations in yesterday's hearings.

The last thing I ever expected would be an opportunity to revisit the subject.  Especially so soon. The Wall Street Journal   reported that  several European governments have once again urged their citizens to vacate Benghazi.  The U.K. described the reason as "a specific and imminent threat to Westerners." The Netherlands and Germany also issued the warning. As I continued browsing for more news I found that France  too has added it's voice.

Is there a voice missing here?  Not that I'd expect Americans to be taking a holiday in beautiful downtown Benghazi, but then we sometimes do things that make no sense.  That being understood the State Department did reiterate an old travel warning. "Although there is no specific information pointing to imminent threats against U.S. citizens, the potential for violence and kidnappings targeting Westerners in Benghazi is significant." 

Wow. The statements couldn't be more different.  Does the U.S. not consider it's people as 'Westerners'? I think maybe al Qaeda just might. Well, let's see now.  Great Britain, the Netherlands, Germany and France have warned of 'specific' and imminent' threats.  The U.S. separates us from those 'Westerners' by indicating there are none against U.S. citizens, nor for that matter, the afore mentioned. In other words, you pay your money you take your chances and quite possibly your lumps.

Who are you going to believe?  Frankly, with our State Department's record I'd side with the Europeans. After all, the U.K.Ambassador was attacked before ours, fortunately survived and was withdrawn. Ours couldn't even get his wires read.

It seems to me if four of our allies share the same intelligence and only ours differs we must have a different definition of specific and imminent.  Of course Hillary is a Clinton and they do like word games.  I just hope this time it doesn't cost any one their life.

Technology And The Inhumanity Of Drones

It would be naive to think the use of unmanned drones could make war any more palatable. Of course it doesn't.  What it might do is make us more insensitive to it.

Consider the human life it spares and doesn't.  It could at some point make a huge impact on the need for boots on the ground.

On the other hand drones cannot decipher  between civilians and militants thereby causing unwanted civilian deaths.  Pakistan has been particularly hard hit by our drones going after Taliban and al Qaeda at which they've been quite successful.  Yet there are the civilians of whom we are constantly reminded.

I wonder how long it will be until 'war' is no more than a giant chess game with the 'soldiers' apply their strategies other from afar.  The losers of course are those who do not yet have the advanced technology.  But they will.

That is why, in response to requests by China, Russia and Pakistan, the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has launched an investigation into whether or not drone strikes and the resulting civilian casualties constitute war crimes.

The fear is that this technology will escalate into an untenable situation. The face of war would change dramatically.  I certainly would like it to no longer be our young men and women and the too often tragic results of combat.  On the other hand seeing it become the innocent who are victims for no more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not an acceptable alternative.  Consider Syria.

It brings to mind an old episode from M*A*S*H where a young pilot had to bail and was languishing at the 4077th until he could get back to his base and evening meals at the officers club. He saw the war as an inconvenience to the pleasure he derived from flying. A severely injured child was then brought in and the sight shocked him.  He questioned who had hit her village.  The Chinese or the Americans?  Hawkeye responded, "Does it matter?"

That's the point, isn't it?  No matter how technically sophisticated the necessities to fight a war become those who have no ambition but to survive will suffer the most.  Those not involved in the fighting, or if there is no fighting because of these great advances, will still be on the receiving end of the bullets or rockets or bombs that will inadvertently hit them.

That is and always will be the other face of war.  Not those whose ambitions call for them nor the countries who fund them.  Just the people.  Men of all ages, women, children, the elderly.

If looking at our own wounded warriors isn't enough, perhaps we need to see up close and personal those we don't have to look at here because they aren't here.  They're there, where ever that may be.

This may be one instance when technology is doing us no favor and those who would condemn it are.

Hillary, It Makes A Lot Of DIfference

Hillary Rodham Clinton's testimony today was political theater at it's best.  Or worst depending on how you perceive political theater.

I always get antsy watching those doing the questioning because they inevitably give a full fledged speech in the process.

The answers were the important thing however.  Or the lack of them.  We don't have any more  answers than we had before.

I learned a few things though.  One is that Hillary,  for one taking full responsibility, was remarkably disengaged.  Two, that bad decision making and management are not grounds for dismissal at the State Department.

Now I realize State is a huge bureaucracy and being on top of everything isn't an easy task.  It also makes me wonder if Mrs. Clinton had stayed more at her desk than in her plane she'd not have worked herself into a state of exhaustion and would have had a better handle on what was going on.  Especially around the anniversary of 9/11.

There was so much contradiction of information that had come out before it makes me wonder if anyone to this day has a clue as to what happened.  We know they don't know for sure who is responsible and that no one has been held accountable.  That she was disengaged from much of the following investigations surprises me considering it was her ambassador, as in a State employee, that was murdered among others. I would have demanded to be kept in the loop.

I'm not going to go into the testimony line by line with the purpose of discrediting Hillary.  She has done a pretty good job of that herself and she will soon be out of office.

What matters, though, other than an explanation that is feasible for the families of the dead, is how dysfunctional the department seems to be and what that means for our country as a new Secretary takes over.

We know the President has no interest in foreign policy.  We don't have one.  We know our allies are beginning to understand we will not have their back.  So do our enemies.  Without the threat of a strong America willing to keep a lid on things, I expect they will act with impunity. I expect there will be little other than war spreading across northern Africa while continuing in the middle east.

Those directly affected will do the best they can with what support they can muster from elsewhere.  I expect at sometime the terrorists within our own country will stage another attack.  Will those who've been left to fight their own battles offer any aid? Will they have totally exhausted any asset they might otherwise offer?  Or will they say "Where were you when we needed you?"

I keep emphasizing the dangers of not engaging with the rest of the world.  I don't mean pacifying.  I don't mean boots on the ground either. There is a difference and there are other ways.

I have my doubts about how successful the President's domestic agenda is going to be.  People are already uncomfortable with the tax burdens that are beginning to take hold. His view on foreign issues is out of sight out of mind. Will they be out of mind for the rest of the country?

Should the world suddenly turn peaceful and we see the end of all war I'll be shouting his praises to the sky.  I don't think I need to save my voice.

Four years from now, we're looking at the top two Democrat presidential pretenders to be a questionably successful former Secretary of State and a Vice President who couldn't define diplomacy if his life depended on it.

This is a situation to be taken one day at a time.  Looking at the big picture is too overwhelming.

To Thine Own Self Be True - Unless You're President

Well, here we go.  Term 2.  Unless you're a die hard liberal there was nothing encouraging in yesterday's inaugural speech nor do I expect anything in the upcoming State of the Union.

As usual I'm trying to understand.  Let me say I have no doubt what so ever that the President believes he is right about what does and does not ail our country and how or how not to fix it. Any one who disagrees is wrong. To make sure they understand that he bullies them or is contemptuous or dismissive of them.  Even if he were divinely right he certainly hasn't chosen a Divine way to show it.

But he's not and he's not willing to go there.  He won.  Well, yes, he did.  He won election to be the President of the United States, not merely the Democratic party.  And his win was by no means unanimous.

Many people of my generation have a problem with his style.  What ever happened to common courtesy?  What ever happened to  listening to other points of view?  He isn't alone with those issues.  Take the Tea Party types within the Republican Party who will not budge from a stand.  They are just as much to blame for stalemate, but no more so than the President and the Democrats.

I look at the leadership outside the White House and it too puzzles me for most are closer to my age than they are that of the President's.  Why won't Harry Reid bring Republican legislation to the floor of the Senate?  Why is Nancy Pelosi holding House minority leadership?  Why is Joe Biden allowed to even open his mouth?  Are they really that like the younger in your face set?  Or is it just misplaced party loyalty run amok? Most in my generation were taught better manners and had a modicum of reason. Of course we were actually taught manners and taught, period.

Those who are 'tweens' like Boehner are caught between the old school and the new and haven't yet figured out a way to bring them together. I do hope they do.

I believe a president is elected to lead the country where the people want it to go, not where he alone wants. I believe the people want us to be the leader of the free world and stand by our allies, not charge them to help in the most minuscule of ways if at all.  I believe the country wants our money to be spent wisely, not on personal whims.  I believe the people want both sides of the aisle to discuss our common problems in a civilized manner and determine solutions that take the best ideas from each and form reasonable legislation.  That's called negotiating and compromise.  Words that have languished of late.

I believe the people want the president to have more concern for them than special interest groups.  I believe they want him to acknowledge we do have a spending problem and that no amount of taxation is going to cure it.

 I do not believe the people want the President to turn our nation into his vision without our consent.  Do we understand that is exactly what he is and wants to continue doing?