President Obama has put a lot of effort into attempting to convey the perception that “transferring” command of the Libyan conflict to NATO makes America a minor, supporting actor and makes someone else accountable for the heavy lifting.

To understand what it will likely mean for NATO to be in charge consider another, ongoing NATO operation, the war against Al Qaeda and The Taliban in Afghanistan.

Most Americans correctly perceive Afghanistan as an almost exclusively American effort, being run by an American Commander, General Petraeus.   Many Americans may not realize that in Afghanistan, The U.S. and 39 other nations are under the command of a NATO-led organization called The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).  As with the operation in Libya, NATO in Afghanistan operates under the authority of UN resolutions.  As the chart shows 70% of the troops in Afghanistan are American, even though 39 nations are involved.

.

National Caveats

Many of the troops from other nations carry even less of the burden than their small numbers would suggest because of various “national caveats” or restrictions imposed by their governments.  Some countries prohibit their troops from engaging in combat except in self-defense.  Others restrict their troops to certain regions.  Before General Petraeus can order non-American NATO troops who are theoretically under his command to undertake any mission he must first review the fine print in their caveats.

Troops from some nations are even less useful because they don’t have NATO compatible equipment and therefore cannot function in concert with other NATO forces.

Fewer nations are participating in the Libyan operation and the number is likely to decline over time.  As of Wednesday, the immediate Commander is a Canadian General, but the superiors he reports to up the NATO chain of command are Americans.

/

The bottom line

Based on previous experience we can assume that we’re seeing the maximum level of international participation in the Libyan exercise this week.  In the future, America’s share of the burden will grow as others reduce their contributions and begin to impose caveats.

But The President’s Monday evening message was such a jumble of contradictions it demands critique.

After making a case for our intervention in Libya because Qaddafi is a ruthless tyrant Obama bragged about progress so far:

In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and partners.

Next, Obama tried to plant in the mind of of his audience the perception that he was keeping his earlier promise that after a short, limited mission America would pull out and “transfer responsibility to our allies and partners.”  He announced that on Wednesday there would be a transfer from the United States to NATO.

But announcing a transfer from the US to NATO like announcing a “transfer of responsibility” for a football game from the coach to the players, while the coach continues calling plays.  It’s a nearly meaningless announcement.

The NATO alliance depends on the US for most of it’s military capability, especially the close air support we’ve been giving the rebel forces on the ground in Libya. The commander of the NATO Libyan operation will be a Canadian general who reports to an American, the commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Naples, who in turn reports to the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, a position that, under NATO’s charter, is always held by an American.

Obama seemed to be making a case for removing Qaddafi in order to ensure the success of what he said was the mission of the Libyan operation, protecting civilians.

Qaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous.

But a couple of minutes later he contradicted himself:

…just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Qaddafi and usher in a new government.

Of course, there is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power…But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.  The task that I assigned our forces -– to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone -– carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support.  It’s also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do.  If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter.

We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air.  The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater.  So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

Not only did Obama contradict himself, he contradicted reality.  For a week he has given critical military aid to rebel forces whose goal is to defeat Qaddafi’s army and kill him.  Indeed, the narrow mission of “protecting civilians” cannot be accomplished as long as Qaddafi remains in power, commanding an army and a secret police force that can terrorize and kill civilians a few at a time, without being detected by aerial surveillance.

It’s likely that a few more weeks of the same military support we’re already giving rebel forces will be “whatever it takes” to bring down Qaddafi without any help from US ground troops.  His remaining soldiers will eventually desert and he will be killed either by the rebels or by someone in his inner circle.

If Obama knows who has organized the opposition forces, and provided arms, fuel, food, vehicles and leadership, he has not disclosed that information to the American People.  He doesn’t seem to know who might emerge as leader of a new Libya.  His apparent lack of critical information does not inspire confidence in his military decisions.

Obama’s “policy” lacks grounding in any coherent, long term principles or strategies.  The range of possible negative outcomes is limited only by one’s imagination. But based on the President’s lack of coherence it appears the possibility of an outcome that would benefit the Libyan people, avoid empowering Al Qaeda or a new despotic regime, and serve the interests of the United States is, as of this moment, remote.

His answer, in part:

First, I want to Step back and say the the reason for wanting to close Guantanamo was my number one priority which is keeping us safe…and Guantanamo is probably the number one recruitment tool that is used by these Jihadist organizations…It has become a symbol and I think we can do just as good a job housing them somewhere else.

So what would the Jihadists do if Guantanamo were closed?  Would they become unable to recruit?  Is their recruiting effort so delicate it would fail if detainees were held in another prison?  Of course not.  They would simply substitute the name of the new facility in their recruiting message!  The Jihadist war on America would continue without missing a beat.

Does the President think we’ve forgotten there was no prison at Guantanamo Bay in 2001 when Al Queda successfully recruited 19 men and even taught some of the to pilot airplanes, all for a suicide mission against America?  Or maybe he just thinks were dumb.

Yesterdays vote confirms people are frustrated with the pace of economic recovery…they want jobs to come back faster, they want paychecks to go further and they want to give their children the same chances they had in life…we’ve made progress but clearly too many Americans haven’t felt that progress yet…As President I take responsibility for that.

One might have gotten the impression that he was willing to alter course.  But as he answered questions from reporters he contradicted that impression.  He remained subdued but his words were defiant.

When asked if the voters weren’t rejecting his policies he merged into a more subtle version of it’s-Bush’s-fault:

Over the past two years we’ve made a series of very tough decisions but decisions that were right in terms of moving the country forward in an emergency situation where we had the risk of slipping into a second great depression…Maybe folks thought this was the agenda rather than a response to an emergency…

He must think voters either are stupid or forgot what Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of staff famously told us was their guiding doctrine: “Never let a crisis go to waste.” Obama and his team deliberately used the emergency, or crisis as it was called then, as justification for vast expansion of government.  Voters think that’s the agenda because it is the agenda!

Asked if voters rejected his policy ideas he responded:

I think that what I think is absolutely true is voters are not satisfied with the outcomes. If right now we had 5 percent unemployment instead of 9.6 percent unemployment, then people would have more confidence in those policy choices…And so my job is to make sure that I’m looking at all ideas that are on the table. When it comes to job creation, if Republicans have good ideas for job growth that can drive down the unemployment rate, and we haven’t thought of them, we haven’t looked at them but we think they have a chance of working, we want to try some.

Obama constantly uses the word “we” when “they” or “them” would be more appropriate.  But in this case “we” seems to mean himself and his advisers.  So if “WE” meaning Obama thinks an idea has “a chance of working” he’ll OK it.  But he considers himself supreme commander of the economy and will not try anything that isn’t consistent with his personal dogma.

Here’s the problem with his dogma: Low unemployment is a result of, an indicator of prosperity.  But prosperity also brings a lot of indicators he and the hard left dislike: high business profits, high returns on investments and more millionaires.

He was asked if the new health care law was “in danger” of being repealed by the new Republican Congress.  He agreed that Republicans “feel strongly” but dismissed the notion of repeal:

I think we’d be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years relitigate arguments that we had over the last two years.

He then expressed the more of the same defiant attitude that he is the final judge of the wisdom of any idea:

Now, if the Republicans have ideas for how to improve our health care system, if they want to suggest modifications that would deliver faster and more effective reform to a health care system that has been wildly expensive for too many families and businesses and certainly for our federal government, I’m happy to consider some of those ideas.

In fact, Republicans and various think tanks and insurance companies did offer serious, realistic ideas during the health care debate but he dismissed them all without consideration.  His response indicates again, as with the economy, that he places himself on the pedestal, the supreme judge of what would or would not be “more effective.”

Obama offered “the 1099 provision” as an example of something he might “take a look at.”  This requires small businesses to keep records of, and report to the IRS the amounts spent for goods and services they purchase from each store or vendor.  While repealing this requirement is a good idea it has nothing to do with health care or health insurance.  It was included in the bill on the hope of extracting a small amount of additional tax revenue from businesses to offset health care costs.

By mentioning 1099s instead of any of the draconian new insurance regulations or the requirement that every citizen purchase health insurance, or any of the scores of new bureaucracies, Obama has signaled that he is unwilling to consider any substantive change to the health care law.

He was asked about spending and deficits.  His defiant answer in part:

We already had a big deficit that I inherited, and that has been made worse because of the recession.

Bush’s fault again.  But in fact, Obama has proudly boasted of all the additional spending he and the Democrats added to the 2009 and 2010 budgets.  He did not “inherit” Trillion dollar deficits.  He caused them with profligate increases in spending, even as tax revenues declined due to the recession.  If he was truly an unwilling heir he would have tried to bring spending down, closer to revenues.

Having grown up in Post-colonial India Mr. D’Souza experienced and understands anticolonialism, a political movement, set of moral assumptions, and world view that most Americans know nothing about.  Anticolonialism was the life’s mission of Barack Obama’s Harvard-educated, Kenyan father, who was a powerful influence on his son.

Drawing from Obama’s aut0-biography, named “Dreams from My Father,” D’Souza demonstrates that the son’s bizarre policies are the implementation of his father’s largely fallacious ideology.

The powerful conclusion:

Colonialism today is a dead issue. No one cares about it except the man in the White House. He is the last anticolonial. Emerging market economies such as China, India, Chile and Indonesia have solved the problem of backwardness; they are exploiting their labor advantage and growing much faster than the U.S. If America is going to remain on top, we have to compete in an increasingly tough environment.

But instead of readying us for the challenge, our President is trapped in his father’s time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father’s dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.

Story of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church here

This is the second post on this topic.  In the previous post I discussed President Obama’s defense of an Islamic Mosque adjacent to ground-zero where Islamic terrorists murdered some 2,700 people on 9-11.  During a speech to a group of Muslims last week The President said, in part:

I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.

In the previous post I reviewed a few of the battles Christian churches have had with local zoning authorities all across the country and wondered if the President was equally concerned about the property and religious freedom rights of all churches.

Email, Twitter and comment reaction to my previous post indicates that I did not make my position clear.  So I’ll give it another try.

First, lets consider the tiny St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, built in the 1960s.  It was across the street from the World Trade Center and was destroyed on 9-11.  It still has not been rebuilt.

Before 9-11 St. Nicholas was on a small parcel of land and was surrounded by a parking lot.  After 9-11 the Port Authority took over planning, zoning and permitting for the entire Ground Zero area, purchased the parking lot, and announced plans to turn it into a park.

Several years ago the Port Authority offered the church another, nearby parcel in exchange for it’s land, which would become part of the park.  But later the Port Authority apparently reneged on the land exchange offer and has since blocked the church from rebuilding on it’s own land.

A 2008 New York Times article quoted Port Authority Director Chris Ward:

We understand the church’s mission.  It is part of the history of the site and we want to maintain that. We just need to put the project in the right context.

Context?

Isn’t context why a majority of Americans and a majority of New Yorkers oppose siting a Mosque adjacent to what even President Obama called “hallowed ground?”  Apparently municipal authorities can raise “context” as a condition to be met by a Christian Church.  But The People have been rebuked from the President’s bully pulpit for objecting that Ground Zero is the wrong context for a Mosque.

If local authorities across America and in New York consistently adhered to the principles of religious freedom and property rights enshrined in America’s founding documents any church would be free to pick any location that did not infringe on the property rights of others.  If that were reality in America I would, however reluctantly, agree that the Muslims had religious and property rights to occupy the site they have chosen near ground zero.

But throughout the country powerful and capricious zoning boards regularly infringe on property rights, and when churches are involved, they infringe on religious freedom as well.   New York and Port Authority zoning officials appear to be among the most powerful and capricious in the nation and could easily respect the will of The People and reject a Mosque at ground zero, especially if “context” were a consideration!  Instead they have offended The People and stirred up unnecessary conflict.

I agree with Randy Altschuler, a candidate for Congress from a nearby district in New York who called the President’s statement “political correctness run amok.”   By invoking religious liberty and property rights only on behalf of Islam Obama demonstrates rank hypocrisy.

But this isn’t really about religious rights.  It’s about Obama’s desires to see himself as more “tolerant” than the rest of us, and to be embraced by the Islamic world.

By planning a Mosque at Ground Zero Islam offends the memory of those who perished on 9-11 and offends the sensibilities of millions of Americans.  Obama’s sanctimonious call for us to stifle and respect the religious rights of Muslims, when the same rights of other religions are regularly infringed, turns offense into outrage.

Most readers are aware of the heated national debate over plans to build a 13 story Islamic Mosque (and maybe it’s also a cultural center – the propaganda is inconsistent) adjacent to ground zero in Manhattan where some 2,700 people were slaughtered by Islamic terrorists on 9-11.

Astoundingly,  President Obama, who has no obligation to become involved in this local issue, chose to step up in vigorous support of a Ground Zero Mosque in remarks at a White House event Friday evening.  After insincere acknowledgment of the World Trade Center site as “hallowed ground” and the pain and suffering of those who lost loved ones, he simply dismissed without consideration any objections to allowing the Mosque to be built:

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.

The President’s sanctimonious invocation of the right to practice religion is a diversion.  Nobody is calling for denial of the right to “practice” Islam.  The controversy is over the location of one Mosque, in a city that already has scores of Mosques, where there are no restrictions of “practice.”

As a former member of a Church Board, I happen to have learned that what Obama claims is a right – to build a place of worship on private property – is, in pratice, not really a right at all.  Churches are subject to the authority of zoning officials and routinely face barriers that secular building projects do not.

The President should, and probably does know that where local governments are dominated by people with his Leftist point of view, churches are often denied what he claims is their right unless they have the resources and time to litigate in court. In fact, if the Muslims have to find another site in Manhattan their setback will have been be less than zoning setbacks suffered by of Christian churches all across the country.

Local zoning boards publish lists of land-use designations with the types of uses permitted within each designation “as a matter of right,” meaning no special action by the zoning board is required.  For example, in a “commercial” zone one may build a retail store as a matter of right, but not a factory.  To use a property for an activity not on the list for that property’s zoning designation, one must apply for a “variance” which can be granted or denied, for virtually any reason, at the discretion of the zoning board.

A study of over 200 municipalities by the Chicago law firm Mauck & Baker, found that more than half had no zone whatsoever where houses of worship could locate as a matter of right. Thus, worship is virtually the only activity that may not locate anywhere in those municipalities without first applying to and receiving permission from zoning officials, who operate with the power to deny permission for any reason or no reason.  Here are just a few of numerous examples:

• Just last week in Pemberton Borough New Jersey, 80 miles South of Manhattan, the local zoning board rejected a church’s application for permission to renovate an abandoned cheese factory for use as a worship center.  The Board admitted its land use plan did not permit a church to locate anywhere without applying for and being granted a variance.
• In 2004 the Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Evanston, Ill had to sue in federal court after the zoning board ruled it could convert an old office building for use as a concert hall but not a for worship.  Any legitimate justification to reject a house of worship, such as traffic congestion would, of course, also apply to a concert hall.
• In May the 10Th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Rocky Mountain Christian Church and school that had been denied building permits to expand its facilities by the Boulder County Colorado zoning board.   The Court found that in considering the church’s application for a building permit officials had used a different interpretation of zoning regulations than it had applied when granting permission to a non-religious private school to expand on land with the same zoning and similar circumstances.

These examples were noticed and documented by the media because of litigation.  But there is little public record of cases where a church that lacks the resources to mount extended litigation simply gives up after application for land use is denied by local officials.

In a case that was reported Miami’s Church of God Holiness in Christ wanted to convert an abandoned commercial building in the impoverished, crime-ridden, Little Haiti section of Miami.  After enduring the city’s autocratic zoning process they finally received permission and made a $40,000 down payment on the property.  But then a neighboring business, a strip club, objected and city zoning authorities withdrew permission.

Opponents of the Mosque project note that its name, Cordoba House proves the intended purpose is to serve as a shrine to Islamic triumph over the “infidels” of American liberty and free markets.  The original Cordoba Mosque was founded in what is now Spain after Muslims conquered and occupied the area in the eighth century, and sold much of the local population into slavery.

If the real reason for building this Mosque is a genuine need for one more in a city that already has many, the Muslims could do what Christian churches have had to do all across the nation, find another site.

If New York officials wanted to support the 9-11 survivors and respect national sensibilities they have the authority and could easily find justification within the City’s byzantine zoning regulations to rule against a Mosque in this particular location.

Obama and the Democrats keep jabbering about “comprehensive immigration reform” as they refuse to secure the border.

This 90 second video will likely “go viral” this week:

Senator Kyle tells a town hall audience that President Obama told him:

The problem is, if we secure the border then you all (Republicans in Congress) won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.

Gasps are heard from the audience.

While it is perhaps startling to hear in such frank language, this isn’t new information.  The President has made no secret of his determination to prevent any consideration of border security as a stand-alone issue.  Whenever the subject comes up he conflates border enforcement with immigration.

This Administration is now engaged in extortion, threatening to allow continued chaos at the border,  unless Congress and the voters submit to “comprehensive reform,” code for amnesty for some 12 million people who are already here illegally.  Last week the Obama Justice Department confirmed a bomb-shell leak from Secretary of State Clinton: it is preparing to sue the state of Arizona to stop it from implementing a new law that would empower local police to identify and arrest people who have crossed the border and entered the country illegally.

“Comprehensive Immigration Reform” will turn out to be another of those two-thousand page monstrosities from Congress, making hundreds of changes in the law all at once.  As with ObamaCare, there will be no way to predict how all the intended and unintended consequences will interact in the future, but unpleasant surprises are guaranteed.

Last month Mexican president Calderon visited the White House and during a joint appearance Obama made a pitch for his vision of “reform”:

…comprehensive reform means accountability for everybody: government that is accountable for securing the border…

Apparently, Obama hopes we’ll forget that the federal government is already accountable for securing the border. That responsibility is mandated in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution.  No “reform” should be needed for the Administration to obey the Constitution.

By willfully refusing to secure the border The Obama Administration stands in defiance of the Constitution.

Obama’s speech continued…

…[comprehensive reform means] people who break the law by breaching our borders being held accountable by paying taxes and a penalty and getting right with the law before they can earn their citizenship.

“Before they can earn their citizenship?”   Who decided they should become citizens?  Inadvertently, his real goal was revealed: that the 12 million illegals who  are already here not only be allowed to stay, but to become citizens.  So they can vote.  Democrat.

But the American people are increasingly resistant to immigration flimflam.  By wide margins the people tell pollsters that border security is a core responsibility of government to be addressed immediately, and by itself, not as a subordinate piece of  “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Since immigration policy is, at its core, about who should be permitted to live here and who should not, there can be no effective policy if the border is not secure.

How will Obama respond to Senator Kyle’s statement in the video?  Will he deny what Kyle said, even though his public statements support it?  Will he say or do something to try to convince us he’s a hawk on border security?  Most likely he’ll say nothing, hoping the oil gushing into the Gulf will distract us from the people gushing across the border.

UPDATE:

A White House spokesman was asked by reporters if Kyle’s account was true.  His response, in part:

No, that statement’s not true.  And, we’re going to continue to work and hopefully get the support of senators like Senator Kyle for comprehensive reform.  Because that’s the only way we’re really going to be able to address this problem.

So, the White House denies what Kyle said, but reaffirms the President’s refusal to “address this problem” outside the context of so-called “comprehensive reform.”  By insisting that comprehensive reform is the only way it will deal with border security the Administration just confirmed Kyle’s claim.

I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is,”

Regrettably, The President emphatically affirmed his determination to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, despite the opposition of scores of credible, military authorities.  Until today, part of the plan was to send several Guantanamo detainees to Yemen, where Al Qaeda is emergent and where they trained the Christmas bomber/terrorist.  Obama said they have decided not to send anyone to Yemen but they would definitely close the prison because it…

…has damaged our national security interests and become a tremendous recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. In fact that was an explicit rationale for the formation of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Penensula.

So because Al Qaeda told potential recruits the prison where captured terrorists are housed is “bad,” we must close it down?  What would keep Al Qaeda from telling potential recruits the new prison is even worse?  Does the President actually believe this enemy will stop recruiting and training terrorists if America shuts down structures or institution they criticize in their propaganda?

How can a man who is so naive have been elected President?

On 8/30 General Stanley McChrystal submitted his comprehensive plan to accomplish the Afghanistan mission President Obama declared.  He and the troops continue to struggle, and continue to wait for their Commander in Chief to make a decision.

On October 20, White House Press Secretary Gibbs told reporters that consideration of General McChrystal’s report and resource request continues, with no sense of urgency:

I have continued to say a decision will be made in the coming weeks as the president goes through an examination of our policy.’

Administration officials have suggested that President Obama may not approve McChrystal’s strategy and instead order something less than a fully resourced commitment to success in Afghanistan because the Afghan government is less than ideal, with apparent corruption at high levels.  Some officials have said the strategy should focus training Afghan forces instead of continuing to fight back against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

In his strategy recommendation, McChrystal asserted four “main pillars.”  Numbers one and two are the very issues Administration officials have recently floated as pretexts for not accepting McChrystal’s plan and denying his request for additional troops:

1. Improve effectiveness through greater partnering with the Afghanistan National Security Forces. We will increase the size and accelerate the growth of the ANSF, with a radically improved partnership at every level, to improve effectivenes and prepare them to take the lead in security operations.
   
2. Prioritize responsive and accountable governance. We must assist in improving governance at all levels through both formal and traditional mechanisms.
3. Gain the initiative.  Our first impreative, in a series of operational statges, ist to gain the initiative and reverse the insurgency’s momentum.
4. Focus Resources. We will prioritize available resources to those critical areas where vulnerble populations are most threatened.

In 66 pages McChrystal lays out detailed strategies and tactics for each of his four pillars, including training Afghan security forces and making the government more responsive and accountable.  He explains why all four must be pursued in order to ensure success.

Yet the Vice President and the Political-media establishment, utterly bereft of competence, have tried to plant the impression in the public mind that General McChrystal failed to consider, or was unaware of the need to improve the Afghan government and security forces.

One wonders if the President and his people have even read the report.  McChrystal begins with a statement of his commitment to the mission that was assigned to him by President Obama:

NATO’s…Military Plan and Pesident Obama’s strategy to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda and prevent  their return to Afghanistan have laid out a clear path of what we must do.  Stability in Afghanistan is an imperative; if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or has insufficient  capability to counter transnational terrorists – Afghanistan could again become a base for terrorism, with obvious implications for regional stability.

Contrary  to the impression left by media reports, McChrystal did not simply emerge from nowhere to start harassing the Administration for more troops and resources.  McChrystal, who was appointed by Obama to command the Afghanistan operation, did exactly what the Commander in Chief ordered.  He exhaustively assessed the situation and developed strategies and tactics to achieve Obama’s stated goals.

More from McChrystal’s report:

The situation in Afghanistan is serious; neither success nor failure can be taken for granted…many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating…there is also a crisis of confidence among Afghans — in both their government and the international community — that undermines our credibility and emboldens the insurgents.

Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.

Obama’s response has been nearly two months of public dithering and vacillation.  High-profile administration officials, including the Vice President, have publicly proposed ill-considered half-measures.  This public display of angst and incompetency and has only made things worse by confirming the Afghan perception that America lacks resolve.

General McChrystal did his best to convey a sense of urgency:

Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.

So far, nearly two of those near term 12 months have been lost to Presidential temporizing.

At Midnight on Saturday the White House issued Van Jones’ letter of resignation.  Jones accused his critics of being  “opponents of reform,”  and of “using lies and distortions to distract and divide.”

Let is not forget that what he called “lies and distortions” were

• several videos of  Jones making offensive and outrageous remarks in speeches and interviews, and
• his signature  on a petition promoting the 9-11-was-an-inside-job conspiracy.

There will likely be an effort from the left to turn Jones into a martyr/hero victim of a a conservative/corporate smear.

By Drew, our contributing writer from the world of banking and corporate finance

The issue of President Obama’s “green jobs czar” Van Jones has dominated the airwaves recently.  Appointed without the advice and consent of the Senate because his position is one of a newly created – “czar” – (what next, Mr. President, the position of “Most Excellent and Exalted Leader?”) that isn’t subject to those rules.  No, this fine chap is one of the Obama Administration’s own picks.  And what a doosey.

Mr. Jones has proved himself to be quite the poster boy for the current crop of crass Democratic/leftist “statesmen.”  In February he thought it wise to go into a public forum and describe Republicans as “assholes” in response to a question about the relative legislative effectiveness of Democrats and Republicans.  He’s a YouTube hit right now. This might appeal to the kiddies – they were all giggling at the meeting -, or the left wing of the Democratic Party (what’s the difference?) but it’s not what we expect from high level public officials.

And here is Mr. Jones’ acumen on display when it comes to business and the “green jobs czar” position he holds:

Remember, a big chunk of the African-American community is economically stranded. The blue-collar, stepping-stone, manufacturing jobs are leaving. And they’re not being replaced by anything. So you have this whole generation of young blacks who are basically in economic free fall.

If we can get these youth in on the ground floor of the solar industry now, where they can be installers today, they’ll become managers in five years and owners in ten. And then they become inventors. The green economy has the power to deliver new sources of work, wealth and health to low-income people—while honoring the Earth. If you can do that, you just wiped out a whole bunch of problems. We can make what is good for poor black kids good for the polar bears and good for the country.”

Now I’m all for entrepreneurship and the American dream.  But I’m also a seasoned investor.  In the last three months alone we’ve seen a whole host of solar ventures that have gone bust.  Some crazy notion of economic viability, you see.  Solar energy is a very high cost and in most geographies unreliable source of energy.  It’s a niche product.  It’s great to an article about how some guy in Arizona built a solar house.  But on a grand scale?  Not yet.

Unless oil spikes up to $150 a barrel, the numbers just don’t work for solar.  And no politician can change the laws of physics or economics.  So I have to say, I’m not worried about the polar bears.  But I do worry about those kids being duped into pursuing something as likely to happen as making it to the NBA.

But here is the most important issue:  Van Jones is a “9/11 truther.”  That’s right, a truther.  His signature appears as #46 on a petition demanding an official inquiry into:

…unanswered questions that suggest that people within the [Bush] administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.

If you’ve never read some of the truther’s theories they make great party topics, if you’ve had some adult beverages.  I’m talking about straight faced accusations that VP Cheney was there first hand.  Can’t you just see him scampering through over a hundred stories, setting off controlled detonations in the World Trade Towers? And two buildings!!  No bad ticker that guy.  It was just a head fake!!

These people are just absolute, bottom of the barrel whack jobs.

There are only three possible explanations for Mr. Jones truther beliefs:

1. He’s really, really dumb,
2. He’s mentally unstable,
3. He’s so blindly partisan and reckless that he would lend his name to this lunatic effort.

Oh, I suppose we could be conciliatory and say he forgot to take his meds for a week.  But no explanations reflects well on Mr. Jones.

More importantly, the possible explanations reflect so terribly on Mr. Obama’s judgment – if not character – that it leaves one confounded as to just what people meant when they called him “smart” or possessing the talent and traits to lead.

Appointing truthers?  What next?  People who claim to have been abducted by space aliens??

If I was President and it came to light that I had let 9/11 truthers get into key positions in my administration I’d fire them so fast it would make your head spin.  It’s professionally embarrassing.  But as of this morning (Friday) White House Press Secretary Gibbs indicated there are no plans to cashier Mr. Jones.

Perhaps even scarier, we have a President who believes it wise to appoint a truther to lead us into the wild blue yonder of a green economy.  Go to your dictionary and look this up:  g-r-o-s-s  i-n-c-o-m-p-e-t-e-n-c-e.

Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff & Presidential Advisor

Rahm Emanuel is President Obama’s Chief of Staff and senior adviser.  He’s deeply involved in decisions about how to deploy Trillions of taxpayer dollars to rescue banks and financial institutions that have become insolvent.  The Administration is now considering ways to penalize executives of these institutions by confiscating through the tax system all or portions of their compensation.

The Chicago Tribune has done rigorous research and thorough reporting on Mr. Emanuel’s “service” on the Board of Directors of Freddie-Mac.  Here’s a little sample:

Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant  Freddie-Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.

One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel  – now chief of staff to President Barack Obama – who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.

Click on the logo to read this fascinating article.  Then call the White House and demand that Emanual’s sub-prime lucre be treated the same as Congress is preparing to treat the AIG bonuses, confiscated via a punative, retroactive, 90%  tax. (202) 456-1111