Friday, October 23, 2015

Street Light Truth


AM:  Contrary to Democrat claims and even the New York Times Editorial Board position of “nothing new here,” yesterday’s Benghazi hearing revealed a lot.

IM:  I agree.  It demonstrated what I call street light truth, where the one who controls the streetlight, controls what is illuminated (even by the very objective, by their standards, New York Times).  Yesterday, there was a tug-of-war for control of the street light.  Republicans tried to shine light on how the Benghazi narrative was developed and Democrats tried to move the light to trivial or unrelated matters; but, worse, Democrats accused Republicans of political smear. 

Old Gadfly:  What made the greatest impression on you?

AM:  Evidence of deception and obfuscation.  In the run up to the Presidential election, many of us suspected the “video claim” was a deliberate deception.

IM:  At the time, I thought American leadership was being somewhat duplicitous by impugning freedom of speech if there really was such a video.  And our government even “tracked down” the video creator, arrested him, and sent him to prison.  The word, “fraud,” seems to have been the central reason for the conviction.

Old Gadfly:  Ironic isn’t it?  Fraud means deceit or trickery for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.  I watched the hearing and what Republicans revealed was a clear case of fraud for political gain.

AM:  Remember, this attack occurred not only on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, but within weeks of a Presidential election.  Obama’s campaign slogan was:  “GM alive, bin Laden dead, al Qaeda on the run.”

IM:  Within 72 hours of Obama’s second-term inauguration, Hillary testified before a Senate Committee.  During this testimony, she still defended the video narrative.  When she said, “What difference will it make,” I got a chill up my spine (no, not down my leg) that Hillary was actually being transparent—Obama won the election, after all, so let’s press forward. 


Even Harry Reid was finally transparent in admitting he lied on the Senate floor to defeat Romney. 

AM:  This was further evidence, in my mind, that the current cohort of Democrats truly believe in a win-lose strategy.  They subscribe to any means to achieve this end.  And if they can’t win, then both must lose.

Old Gadfly:  This dynamic explains to a certain extent the circumstances in Iraq—Bush had bipartisan support before going into Iraq; yet when it was reported that Bush had nearly 90% approval ratings for doing this, I anticipated Democrats would recognize the balance of political capital would favor Republicans.  Sure enough, Democrats and a complicit media forced Bush into a two-front war against foreign-born insurgents in Iraq and an opposing political party in America. By the way, the Democrat victory in this case is still providing fraudulent ammunition for today’s political contest.  But we’ll save this for a future discussion.

AM:  Wow, the street light is illuminating some serious corruption in American politics.  This brings me to the second impression the hearing made on me:  obfuscation.  Congressman Cummings was the lead pit bull in this effort.  He worked very hard to defend Hillary while viciously attacking committee Republicans.  Cummings and other Democrats kept complaining that the seven previous hearings found nothing, had consumed 18 months and nearly $5 million in taxpayer funding; Chairman Gowdy asked where were the Democrat complaints when it was revealed the Administration had invested $50 million to train four or five Syrian rebels.  Chairman Gowdy’s point was right on target, except the amount was $500 million, not $50 million.  The obfuscation by Democrats was to shift the light on Hillary strengths and successes.  But, if you were to listen to a progressive news analyst like Rachel Maddow of MSNBC News, you see more evidence of street light truth by criticizing the waste of $500 million and then linking that criticism not to Obama but by suggesting none of the current Republican Presidential candidates should be taken seriously.  See the pathetic analysis here.

IM:  You would think Congressman Cummings would keep a lower profile.

Old Gadfly:  Why?

IM:  While mainstream media is reluctant to shine a light on it, Cummings has fingerprints on the IRS scandal (for example, see here, here, and here).   Cummings and his staff were involved in clear attempts (and an unconstitutional abuse of power) to silence political opposition.

AM:  Aren’t we missing the 800 pound gorilla in this discussion?

Old Gadfly:  Shine a light on it.

AM:  Think “cover up.”

Old Gadfly:  You’re teasing us.

AM:  How many Americans died during the Watergate incident?

IM:  None.

AM:  At Benghazi?

IM:  Four.

AM:  That’s correct.  What was the motivation for the Watergate break-in (the Democratic Committee National Headquarters)?

IM:  It involved breaking and entering in an attempt to discover democrat strategy.

AM:  Correct.  But it was the “cover up” that generated the greatest interest and outrage. 

IM:  So who is the gorilla?

AM:  Hillary Rodham as a recent Yale law school graduate and staff member of the House Judiciary Committee doing legal groundwork to impeach Nixon.  While there are conflicting recollections (for example, see here and here) between some key members of the staff, two facts are undisputed:  Hillary wrote a memorandum that declared Nixon had no legal right to counsel during an impeachment process, and she collaborated in concealing evidence (in other words, made arrangements to prevent public access to relevant legal documents).  The concealed evidence in this case established a precedent in terms of the right to counsel in a previous impeachment proceeding involving US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.  Let me repeat, Hillary and others concealed it. 

IM:  Of course, Hillary was also intimately aware of the legal maneuvering involved an impeachment attempt against her own husband when he was President.

AM:  And look how they trashed those who brought scrutiny to Bill Clinton—not just Monica Lewinsky, but Paula Jones, and others who were sexual assault victims.  My good friend and former professional colleague, Buzz Patterson, a former military aid to President Bill Clinton, had the courage to present first-hand testimony about the Clinton’s abuse of power and varied corrupt behaviors in his book, Dereliction of Duty.  Buzz made a special point that there was a plastic box of files that never left Hillary’s presence.  Hmmmmmm . . . do you think they might have included files of evidence in the Whitewater case?  After all, a constant refrain from the Clintons when asked about wrongdoing in Whitewater was not that they were innocent of any wrongdoing; the response was “there is no evidence.”  So, is there any surprise that Hillary made sure there was no evidence of any wrongdoing while she was Secretary of State?

Old Gadfly:  Notice, none of the Benghazi hearings inquired about what the American presence at Benghazi was all about.  We, however, have discussed this in previous discussions (see here, here, and here) about CIA gun running for Syrian rebels.  Was this legal?  Now we know the Syrian rebel force consists of a formidable force of four to five men.  But where have all the arms gone?  How did the Jordanian fighter pilot get shot down?  Where did that missile come from?  But I digress.

AM:  Wouldn’t honesty be refreshing?

Old Gadfly:  The progressives sadly believe, as did Jack Nicholson in the movie, “A Few Good Men,” “you can’t handle the truth.”  Even after this latest Benghazi hearing, Hillary still has 53% of the vote in Iowa.  That is a large segment of our population that is truly drunk, looking for truth under the street light controlled by progressives.

Friday, October 2, 2015

Women in Combat Units


AM:  Gadfly, while we were discussing the mugging that took place two days ago, I noticed you had received an article on women in combat jobs.

Old Gadfly:  The article was penned by a professional colleague of mine who has dealt with security policy issues at the national and international level.  Besides being a Marine fighter pilot, he also has a master’s degree from Princeton and a Ph.D. from Columbia.  Here is what he wrote (published here with permission):

Ray Mabus, current SecNav, has “made it clear he opposes the proposal from [Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford] and has recommended that women be allowed to compete for any Navy or Marine Corps combat jobs” (Lolita C. Baldor, WashPost.com, September 19, 2015). This was predictable and there is no practical value of railing against his decision. There is, however, a sound alternative to integrating women into mixed combat units.

We should form all-female combat units. The SecNav and others claim that women who meet standards are equal to the men who meet the same standards. Based on this assertion, the combat efficiency of an all-female unit should be equal to any all-male unit and any argument to the contrary would weaken their opening assumptions.

There are some very serious reasons for doing this:
  • There is an inherent protectiveness on the part of most men toward women and this could get men killed if they treat a female comrade any differently than they would a male comrade. While the frequency would be hard to predict, it is certain that this would happen at least occasionally in integrated units.
  • It is impossible in any mixed organization for attractions not to emerge between men and women and the bonding (especially if it is sexual) will be different than male-male bonding (unless this too is sexual). In addition, sexual harassment, while regrettable and criminal is pervasive in all of our society and will not be different in integrated units.
  • There is an inherent intimacy that is associated with the normal elimination of bodily waste. Men have a preference for privacy relative to other men and this is much more important for men in the presence of women and women in the presence of men. In live combat, privacy is near impossible.

Each of the above seriously impacts unit cohesion and unit effectiveness and all-female units are seen as the best way of addressing these concerns.

Over time, opportunities for promotion for women in combat arms would be available and increase proportionally as the number and size of all-female units increased. Further, female commanders certainly could be considered for command of company level and larger units comprised of all male platoons or a combination of male and female platoons so there would be no discrimination in the opportunities for promotion.
           John R. Powers

Colonel   USMCR (ret.)


            IM:  Colonel Powers offered a logical set of arguments.  Why is the Secretary of the Navy so compelled to go against empirical studies and the advice of the former Marine Commandant, now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?


            AM:  Obviously for political reasons.  Women are an important “instrument” in politics.  Small battles such as this reinforce the image that one political faction is committed to protecting against another faction and its “war on women.”  In this case, the political faction accumulates political capital and our overall capacity to fight and win actual wars is diminished.

            Old Gadfly:  Yet, Colonel Powers advanced a well-reasoned solution that would protect a woman’s presumed right to serve in combat.  Further, his solution would be a win-win for both political factions.

            IM:  Win-win means compromise.  However, my recent experience reveals a win-lose or lose-lose perspective from the left.  They will not tolerate the other political faction accumulating any political capital.  They want it all and will resort to any means (think Saul Alinsky) to get it.  Generating discontent, then amplifying mass agitation justifies the need to organize for political unity.  Similar behavior resulted in disastrous totalitarian regimes today (e.g., North Korea) and during recent times in history.

            AM:  Sad.  Very sad.   

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Another Mugging



AM:  America got mugged last night.

Old Gadfly:  Are you referring to a funding bill that includes Planned Parenthood?

AM:  Yes.

Old Gadfly:  Explain.
 
AM:  Democrats said to Republicans, give us the money or we’ll shoot.

Old Gadfly:  You are saying “shoot” metaphorically?

AM:  Yes.  Democrats, who are heavily supported by Planned Parenthood lobbying and campaign contributions, said they were essentially committed to shutting down the government, knowing Republicans would get blamed for it.

IM:  Such corruption and collaboration is not new in our history.  Don’t forget the Barbary Pirates.  Here is an interesting passage in Rudyard Kipling’s poem, “Dane-Geld,” that rings so true of the Planned Parenthood-inspired mugging:

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”
 


AM:  Is the soul of our nation lost?

Old Gadfly:  If we can’t grow a backbone and stand on principle, then, yes.  However, we overcame the Barbary Pirates.  Can we overcome Planned Parenthood?