Free Markets, Free People
That’s pretty much all that President Obama is left with when it comes to Iraq:
President Obama declared Friday that the United States has now “begun the work of ending this war” in Iraq as he announced the withdrawal of most American forces by the summer of next year while leaving behind as many as 50,000 troops for more limited missions.
Nearly six years after American troops crossed the border into Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, Mr. Obama said “renewed cause for hope” produced by improved security would allow Americans to begin disentangling militarily and turn the country over to the Iraqis themselves.
“Let me say this as plainly as I can,” the president told thousands of Marines stationed here. “By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”
Sound a bit like “major combat operations have ended?”. Of course it does. He’s imposing a semantic marker here in an effort to declare he is fulfilling his campaign promise.
Of course, he’s not. In fact, it’s not even close.
Very carefully he’s declared “combat operations” to be complete by that date. In fact they’ve been complete for a while. But he’s not declaring our presence in Iraq is over, which was the crux of his campaign promise.
His word salad hasn’t fooled Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid:
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, who complained Thursday that a 50,000-member residual force was too big, put out a more tempered statement Friday, calling Mr. Obama’s plan “sound and measured,” while adding that he still wants to keep “only those forces necessary for the security of our remaining troops and the Iraqi people.”
A person briefed on the closed-door White House briefing for Congressional leaders said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, was particularly upset about the residual force. She kicked off the public criticism on Wednesday by saying she did not understand “the justification” for 50,000 troops staying.
The justification, of course, is “reality”, a concept the “reality based community” has difficulty with at times. As with many of the decisions Obama has made, it was an attempt to please everyone all while spinning it as something it isn’t . In this case I’m fine with that.
But let’s call it what it is.
In fact, with the residual force in Iraq through 2011, Mr. Obama has agreed to Mr. Bush’s withdrawal plan while pretending he hasn’t.
A lot of high-fives on the left concerning a portion of the budget dealing with energy. The Center For American Progress, in a post entitled “Energy Budget Is Sunlight After Eight Years of Darkness” says:
The most significant energy proposal in this budget is the inclusion of revenue in 2012 from the auction of all greenhouse gas emission allowances to major polluters under a cap-and-trade system. The budget assumes that this program will raise $646 billion between 2012 and 2019. Some of these funds would create jobs via a $120 billion investment in clean energy technologies over the same period. The auction revenue would pay for a “global warming tax cut” for working families with $526 billion. It would fund Making Work Pay, which provides a refundable income-tax credit for low-income working families. Any remaining funds would go to other families and businesses to offset higher energy prices.
In other words, CAP believes that adding huge additional costs onto the already high cost of producing goods, services and energy will “create jobs” to offset those lost apparently. And the money collected will be redistributed to make things fair.
As so-called members of the “reality based community”, you have to wonder if they’ve ever bothered taking off the rose colored glasses and glanced around the real world.
Alan Wood in Australia asks:
CAN the Senate save Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong from their global warming folly? It can, and it might, if it rejects the Government’s attempts to prematurely lock Australia into a flawed carbon trading scheme. Ask yourself, do you believe that the worst global recession since the Depression, with job losses accelerating, is the time for Australia to introduce a carbon trading scheme that will squeeze growth, jobs and investment? Business certainly doesn’t.
Is there anyone in the Congress who can do the same for Barack Obama? Probably not. Do they understand that the carbon trading schemes in place around the world are literally melting down? Again, probably not.
And jobs? Well right here at home we can learn from the impact of the draconian regulations and resultant costs imposed on industry by such schemes and what that means. California, as usual, provides the case study:
California regulators Thursday adopted the world’s first mandatory measures to control highly potent greenhouse gases emitted by the computer manufacturing industry. “The financial impact is going to be severe,” Gus Ballis, a spokesman for chip maker NEC Electronics America Inc., a subsidiary of NEC Electronics Corp. in Japan, told the board. Ballis warned, “We’re potentially on the chopping block — whether they are going to keep us or pull our production back to Japan.”
The painful loss of 1850 jobs at Pacific Brands in NSW, Victoria and Queensland is more than a byproduct of the global recession. The main reason for shifting to China, chief executive Sue Morphet said on Wednesday, is that manufacturing in Australia “is no longer a competitive advantage” to the company. The Prime Minister owes it to businesses large and small, as well as to Labor’s core constituency, workers, to re-evaluate the impact on employment of his emissions trading scheme, especially in mining, where Australia has such a strong comparative advantage.
The German biofuels industry is facing bankruptcy according to their industry association, despite millions of state-sponsored subsidies in recent years. “It is five to twelve, but few politicians understand,” said the chairman of the Association of German Biofuel Industry (VDB), Kurt Stoffel. “The biodiesel market for trucks has come to a complete halt,” said Stoffel.
Britain said on Thursday it backed the building of new coal plants and would make a decision soon on whether these must have expensive, climate-friendly technologies fitted called carbon capture and storage (CCS). “We will need new fossil fuel plants including coal if we are going to maintain diversity in energy mix and energy security….”,
Yet here we are getting ready to implement a scheme that is already seen to be worsening the economic conditions around the world (and being abandoned by those realing the losses). Unsurprisingly our implementation would most likely occur just as we are beginning to see an end to the recession.
The administration certainly seems to be aware of the cost of such legislation but still plans on pursuing it:
Steven Chu, President Barack Obama’s new Secretary of Energy, told The New York Times earlier this month that reaching agreement on emissions trading legislation would be difficult in the present recession because any scheme to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would probably cause energy prices to rise and drive manufacturing jobs to countries where energy was cheaper.
Yet, with blinders fully in place, and giddy at the prospect of sticking it to evil corporations while redistributing their ill-gotten gains, the left applauds a plan which will cripple our economy for decades to come.
If ever there were budget proposals poised to send us into darkness, it is this plan put forward by the Obama administration.
In the Washington Post, David Broder ends his op-ed with:
When we elected Obama, we didn’t know what a gambler we were getting.
Is he kidding? Certainly for most of the campaign, we didn’t have the fiscal calamity hanging over our heads, but if Broder thinks that anything that has come out of the Obama administration to this point is a surprise or represents a gamble, I have to wonder what he actually expected.
Obama signalled everything he’s been doing and planed to do for two years, for heaven sake. Where was Broder during all of that? This isn’t a “gamble”, it’s an agenda.
Health care? Check. Tax increases on the rich? Check. Education “reform”? Check. Green tech/cap-and-trade? Check. Infrastructure “investment” (the fiscal mess just gave him the appropriate excuse for huge deficit spending)? Check. Gitmo, Iraq and A’stan? Check, check, check.
The fact that the Obama administration is moving on all fronts at once is ambitious, no question, but surprising or a gamble? Well only to those who somehow missed what he was saying and projected onto the “hope and change” mantra what they expected instead.
Seems Broder, and much of the MSM, can raise their hands and nod yes to that.
Eric Holder talked about reviving the assault gun ban. But he’s meeting opposition from unexpected quarters.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will join Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat will preserve his traditional pro-gun rights voting record.
“Senator Reid would oppose an effort (to) reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future,” Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night.
There’s a pretty political explanation for the opposition.
A) gun bills are always losers for Democrats. It seems that Pelosi and Reid have finally figured out (at least in this case) that it is rather stupid to hand your opposition ammo (no pun intended).
B) unpopular legislation like this wastes time and goodwill. They have a much more ambitious plan to sell us down the river than piddling stuff like this, and they don’t want to be distracted by something that will be virtually ineffective the second it is signed into law (but put the pro-gun lobby front and center for a while).
A number of House Democrats lost their seats after being targeted by the National Rifle Association for voting for the 1994 ban.
And finally, it is a way to make sure the Obama administration knows that it is Congress they must coordinate these things with before they go shooting their mouths off. Eric Holder said, without such coordination, that he planned on trying to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Pelosi and Reid used the opportunity to send a message.
That said, be aware that Holder certainly appears to have an anti-gun agenda, or, at least, so it seems.