via Instapundit, Victor Davis Hanson highlights the Obama administration’s contribution to the “deficit of trust.”
The problem with Obama’s new hedging on taxing those who make below $250,000, or his administration’s taking credit for victory in the Iraq war that they so once fervently tried to abort, or the flip-flop on renditions and tribunals, or the embarrassments over closing Guantanamo and trying KSM in New York or Mirandizing the Christmas Day bomber,or trashing/praising Wall Street grandees, is not that presidents cannot change their minds as circumstances warrant, or even that all politicians are at times hypocritical. No, the rub is that Obama is not merely flipping and triangulating on issues in a desperate attempt to shadow the polls, but he is doing so on matters that he once swore were absolutely central to his entire candidacy and his signature hope-and-change agenda, critical to the future of the U.S., and proof of his opponents’ either ignorance or disingenuousness
Indeed.
February 12th, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
Economy, GWOT, Medicine, Military, Politics |
no comments
I’m not entirely sure how I got on the mailing list for a candidate for VA’s 2nd Congressional District in Virginia Beach but I apparently did. GOP Candidate Kenny Goldman announces that he’s delivered a draft resolution to the General Assembly on the matter of a proposed move by the US Navy to relocate one (or possibly more) of its nuclear aircraft carriers from Norfolk to Mayport, FL. Goldman’s resolution was crafted and delivered because, “Congressman Nye and Senators Warner and Webb have failed to make a cohesive argument against the Navy’s proposed move of at least one carrier to Florida,” says Goldman in the e-mail I received. He continues, “The resolution I delivered to Delegate Robert Tata of Virginia Beach lays out the logical case against the relocation of any aircraft carrier to Florida, and why such a move would be a disaster for national security, fleet preparedness, and fiscal sensibility.”
Fair enough. But it’s resolutions like this one that, frankly, make me cringe when I see a Republican offer them and suggest they’re doing so as a matter of national security. Honestly, folks, I understand full well what they’re trying to do and, as a fellow Virginian, I want to support them. But when you start mixing in hotbutton items of local concern in with the rest of it, you actually wind up diluting the argument. Here’s the resolution, annotated with my thoughts as I read it:
Whereas the recent release of the Quadrennial Defense Review calls for the relocation of a Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carrier from Hampton Roads to Naval Station Mayport, Florida;
Whereas such a move portends the loss of more than one carrier from Hampton Roads;
And? How does Hampton Roads losing a carrier to take care of cause a national security issue for Ohio, or Iowa, or Wyoming?
Whereas the loss of a single aircraft carrier would have a significant negative impact upon the economy of the Commonwealth, to include the loss of a minimum of 10,000 jobs and over one percent of Hampton Roads’ gross regional product;
That’s certainly bad news for Hampton Roads. But, considering that it’d be good for Mayport, FL, how is this supportive of a national security argument?
Whereas the cost to American taxpayers to convert Naval Station Mayport into a port capable of handling a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is estimated to be as high as $1 billion;
Now, there’s an argument. There had better be a compelling reason for the Navy to be doing this, and it better be a helluva lot better than that some Floridian congresscritter managed to squeeze something into a bill during the commitee write-up.
Whereas there has been a troubled history of maintaining conventional aircraft carriers at Naval Station Mayport;
Oh? I’d certainly like to hear more about this. If there’s been issues in competence at Mayport then that’s a real good reason to keep the carriers away from that port. Does the Navy not know about these issues, or do they already know about them and found they’re not as severe as Mr. Goldman thinks they are?
Whereas the move of an aircraft carrier from its industrial base in Hampton Roads would involve increased maintenance costs for the Navy and, thus, an increased burden upon the American taxpayer;
Again, that’s a good argument.
Whereas the proximity of Naval Station Mayport to the mouth of St. John’s River makes it more vulnerable to potential terrorist attack;
More vulnerable than Norfolk?
Whereas no aircraft carrier or any other naval vessel has been damaged by a terrorist attack or manmade disaster in Hampton Roads;
The previous item made it sound as if Mayport hasn’t suffered a terrorist attack, either. For that matter, I’ve not heard of any at San Diego, San Francisco, or any other domestic military port. If none of them have, why is it significant that Norfolk hasn’t?
Whereas no aircraft carrier, conventional or nuclear, has ever been damaged by a hurricane or any natural disaster in Hampton Roads;
That’s an excellent point. Has any such damage occurred at Mayport? Does Mayport have a greater history of getting hit by such events than Norfolk?
Whereas the Hampton Roads area is known as the “birthplace” of nuclear aircraft carriers;
Uhhhh… so? Kitty Hawk, NC is the “birthplace” of aviation. Does that mean the Air Force should only keep our strategic bombers there?
Whereas the Hampton Roads area has the largest navy base in the world, and is renowned for its industrial support capacity and professional workforce;
That’s a good point. Based on the news item I linked, above, it appears that several hundred million will need to be spent at Mayport just to bring it up to the same capability Norfolk has today. That’s definitely something to keep in mind.
Be it therefore resolved that We, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, unanimously call upon the Governor and the Commonwealth’s congressional delegation to take immediate and necessary action to ensure the Navy’s East Coast aircraft carriers remain in Hampton Roads.
I’m curious as to why Golden thinks Gov. McDonnell, the General Assembly, and our Congressional delegation isn’t doing this already? I mean, it’s one thing to note that the Navy hasn’t issued a retraction of their plans to relocate a carrier but another thing entirely to suggest that proves our Congressmen, Senators, and Governor aren’t trying to do anything about. By all means, feel free to ask someone in the GA to submit a bill like this but understand this: it’s not really calling for any specific action to be performed. Which, frankly, makes it sound less like a real resolution and more like someone standing up in a room and yelling, “Do something!” rather than actually doing something.
We Republicans were very successful in the last elections because we appealed to the Virginia voters’ sense that we were interested in getting real solutions enacted to real problems Virginia is facing. We need to stay on that track. I’m not saying this resolution is terrible or that we shouldn’t be fighting to keep carriers based here (I think we should) but we need to be careful about looking like we’re only concerned with bringing the dollars home to our districts while making the argument that it’s all about national security.
February 8th, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
Economy, GWOT, Military, Politics, Virginia Politics |
no comments
…same as the old boss, as the lyrics go. I give you President Obama, speaking to a VFW Post in Phoenix:
“If a project doesn’t support our troops, we will not fund it,” he said to a meeting of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix. “If a system doesn’t perform, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with that kind of pork, I will veto it. “
That’s from this Fox News report on the pork in the defense appropriations bill signed by the President last week. How much pork? There are 1720 earmarks in that bill reportedly totaling $4.2 billion. Listed highlights:
∙$5 million for a visitors center in San Francisco
∙$23 million for indigent health care in Hawaii
∙$18 million for the Edward Kennedy Policy Institute in Massachusetts
∙$1.6 million to computerize hospital records in Oakland
∙$47 million for anti-drug training centers around the country
∙$20 million for the World War II Museum in Louisiana
∙$3.9 million grant to develop an energy-efficient solar film for buildings
∙$800,000 for minority prostate cancer research
∙$3.6 million for marijuana eradication in Kentucky
∙$2.4 million for handicap access and a sprinkler system at a community club in New York
I’m sorry, where does the military support come in from a visitor center in San Fran? From burning marijuana fields in Kentucky? And that sprinkler system in the New York community center? Perhaps any of these things are worthy projects, but how do they belong in a defense bill?
They don’t. They shouldn’t be there at all and the President promised on multiple occasions not to allow them – change, remember? Neither this Congress nor this President are the first to engage in serious pork-barreling. One of my major complaints with the previous administration and in the Congress elected between 2000 and 2005 was their drunken-sailor approach to the public’s money. They also weren’t the first but they sure didn’t put on any brakes in the spending, either. Obama campaigned extensively saying that was going to stop, the one and only bright spot I ever found in his rhetoric. I am hardly surprised he’s casually busted this promise, too, but I’m also not going to just dismiss it as business-as-usual. I would have hoped that his supporters wouldn’t, either, but that’s not going to happen. It’s actions like this – both the passage of this bill and the signing of it – that give rise to and fuel the Tea Party actions around the country. Perhaps this time we can get serious about throwing the bums out and start over with people for whom fiscal prudence isn’t a punch line.
January 1st, 2010
Posted by
ricjames |
2008 Presidential Race, Economy, Military, Politics |
one comment
On this date in 1941, America was attacked by the naval forces of Japan. President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed Congress the following day:
Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:
Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The number of veterans who saw that day with their own eyes is dwindling, of course, and that makes it all the more important for those of us who wish to avoid repeating history’s mistakes to mark well this day. An interesting development is taking place in today’s remembrances, however. It turns out that one of Pearl’s veterans is making his 1st return to Pearl Harbor since the end of WWII.
Retired firefighter Ed Johann was a teenage apprentice seaman on Dec. 7, 1941, when he spotted Japanese planes coming in over Pearl Harbor.
He thought they were U.S. aircraft conducting drills until explosions and flames erupted from stricken ships in the harbor.
Then came screams of sailors; the stench of burning oil and flesh.
The 86-year-old is due to return Monday to Pearl Harbor for the first time since World War II to attend a ceremony marking the 68th anniversary of the attack on the U.S. naval base that pulled America into the war.
“I really don’t know how I’m going to handle it,” said Johann, from his home in Oregon. “When I think about it, all I have is unpleasantness. I’m sure it’s not like that now.”
It’s not. But I’m sure the memories will come back plainly enough. Welcome back to Pearl Harbor, Mr. Johann. We salute your service and your return.
December 7th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
GWOT, History, Human Interest, Military |
no comments
One of the unsung stories of WWII was the involvement of the Navajo Code Talkers in the Pacific Theater. In our always-on, digital world we forget that secure communications over large distances was incredibly difficult 70 years ago. Computers as we know them today simply didn’t exist, making electronic encryption an impossibility. Radio and telephone communications could be secured but only through the use of code language. The Japanese had studied English and America for years before the war and had a distressing success rate in breaking our codes.
When the Marines were engaged in the island-hopping campaigns in the Pacific they needed the ability to communicated in a secure manner but also faster than the more complicated code languages could support. Those complicated codes made things secure but it could take hours to decrypt. So they approached the problem from another angle. If you couldn’t make the codes fast and secure, then use a different underlying language. Enter the Navajo, a people with a language virtually unknown outside of the United States.
It was effective. The Japanese never broke the Najavo code language and that cost them dearly at places like Iwo Jima. After the war, the entire program was kept classified since it had been so effective and could be used again. The program stayed classified until 1968 but the efforts of the Navajo during the war was a story that didn’t get spread as far as it could have. And should have, frankly. Indeed, the first many people heard of this was when the Nicholas Cage movie “Windtalkers” came out in 2002.
Now, with their numbers dwindling, the surviving Code Talkers are concerned that their story will fade in the haze of lost history when they are gone. They are making an effort at getting the word out and, as part of that, they are participating in the New York City Veterans Day parade. There will be 13 of the 50 or so surviving Talkers present.
I am extremely glad to see this and I hope their participation, both in the parade and in the war, gets the attention it deserves. Without these men and their efforts in the war, things could very easily have turned out much worse. Take the time to read the story and then go for a Google spin to get more detail. It’s a story worth knowing.
November 11th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
History, Human Interest, Military |
one comment
To those who served, to those who still do…
to those who came home in glory, or in silence, or not at all…
to those fought pitched battles in war, quietly watched in peace, or did the myriad of thankless little jobs no one ever heard about but upon which campaigns were won…
to all of those who chose to put on a uniform and serve in this nation’s and our allies’ defense…
my family and I thank you and we wish you well.
November 11th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Human Interest, Military |
one comment
On this date in 1775, Congress chartered the United States Marine Corp. They:
…passed a resolution stating that “two battalions of Marines be raised” for service as landing forces with the fleet. This established the Continental Marines and marked the birth of the United States Marine Corps. Serving on land and at sea, early Marines distinguished themselves in a number of important operations, including their first amphibious raid on foreign soil in the Bahamas in March 1776, under the command of the Corps’ first commandant, Capt. Samuel Nicholas.
And so began an illustrious chapter in military history, one that fine young men and women continue to write to this day.
Happy Birthday, Devil Dogs!
November 10th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Human Interest, Military |
2 comments
An interesting comment appeared on my initial post regarding the Loudoun Independent story basically re-spreading some unsupported gossip. Someone claiming to be the husband of the woman who filed the initial complaint against then-Lt. Tag Greason decided to weigh in on my post. He says his name is David DesRosier, Major, US Army, Retired and that he and his wife have now come out from behind the Loudoun Independent’s anonymity shield. When I asked him to show me where that’s been reported he directed me to the comments section of the original story. Let’s look at that particular response first:
ricjames, go to the http://WWW.loudouni.com and look at the article and the comments generated. Since we never brought this out and since we don’t even have a clue where else this story is being reported she has responded to the comments and calls for her to identify herself. Hopefully that is good enough for you.
Comment by David DesRosier | September 27, 2009
OK, Major, what you’ve given me is a comment entered by an unverified, unauthenticated user of a newspaper’s public web site. A web site that requires absolutely no credentials to post on. Would that be good enough for you? You talk about yourself and your wife and reference using Google to look things up, as if you and she are on the top 10 responses from Google. For the record, a Google search on “major David DesRosier Army” produces about 225,000 hits. I don’t see anything in the first several pages that appeared to be you, so you’ll have to forgive all of us for not looking up your dossier.
As for suggesting that I (and any other HoodaThunk? reader) peruse those comments left at the original article, I’m not sure you’re doing yourself a service. First, you have the same issue as your wife allegedly does: simply posting your name on a comment over there proves nothing about your identity. That’s why I pinged the Loudoun Independent to confirm your wife was the source of the story. They haven’t responded, not at all. They are the only participant in this story that can confirm where they got the story and to whom they spoke, so we’re really going to need to hear that from the Independent to consider that to be a solid sourcing.
But just for the sake of completeness, let’s look at the 1st comment left here anyway and see what we can address:
Yet another hack job on summarizing a story without really telling the whole story. The woman in question, my wife, has come forward and revealed her name. The charges were not filed two years later. The initial report went to her 1SGT who dismissed her. Her sister did file a complaint. WE also filed a Department of the Army IG complaint when it became apparent the Fort Polk IGs office was doing nothing with the complaint. Another misstatement on your part, the woman never came forward, she was called out of the blue by the reporter to verify that she still stood by the claims she made in 1994, and again in 1996. She didn’t want the story to go forward but the reporter stated it would regardless of her request. Thanks for calling my wife a moron without any knowledge of who she is. Let me tell you a bit about the accuser, she is still in the military, She has attained the rank of SSG. She has served her country in peace time and in war time doing a tour in Afghanistan. She was extremely brave to have brought these charges against then LT Greason; I am sure you can imagine why it takes a certain kind of strength to level a charge like this. Because of that article Loudoun Independent readers have verbally assaulted my wife and I, and no one believes we didn’t initiate this. That is there right of course. but they spew out BS based on no knowledge of who we are and what happened. And let me repeat, NEITHER of us brought this case forward, as to how this got into the hands of a reporter, I can only imagine but do a google search every now and then and see what comes up. FOIA requests can get you lots of information. I guess just one more thing before I end this. There was no Military Court that reviewed this, otherwise my wife would have had to testify. Many will find this hard to believe but the Federal Court case was a complete mystery to us until this article came out. Had Sherry been notified of any court case she would have been there and any interviews with Tag Greason would have had to be from his prison cell in Fort Leavenworth.
Respectfully,
David DesRosier, Major, United States Army, Retired.
Comment by David DesRosier | September 26, 2009
Well, where to start with this one? I don’t normally go into full Fisking mode but when the situation demands it, I guess we must. You’ve got a lot of nerve calling my post a “hack job” considering the story that got this whole sorry situation started. You want to know who to blame for not going into the whole story? You head right over to John Geddie’s office. The reason no one who wrote about that gossip-rag review posing as “news” story told the “whole story” is because the Independent’s article was woefully deficient in that department. (Part of my complaint, if you’ll actually read my post in its entirety, I might add.) You complain about the reference to the charges being filed 2 years after the fact. The US District Court records are quite plain about that, if the story is to be believed at all: the charges were filed with them in 1996. Do the math. That’s 2 years. If you have a complaint with the way the IG’s office handled things, take it up with them. I commented on the facts as they were reported in the Independent and they said the charges were filed 2 years after the fact.
To address your next point, that I made a misstatement about your wife coming forward with this story, how about we go to the text of my actual post?
And how, exactly, did this story come up? The report says the woman expresses “concern” for Greason and hopes the incident doesn’t impede any good work he’s doing now. First off, what moron would think that an accusation like this wouldn’t hurt a person’s reputation and impact any work they’re doing? If she was so concerned about it and considers this “something in the past”, as she’s reported to say, then why come forward about it now?
Unless she didn’t come forward. Unless she was actively pursued by the reporters. Which, if true, calls the reporters’ motivations into question.
Emphasis done here. Not a misstatement, Major, it’s a question and it’s one the original “reporting” left open. I’m the one who suggested it might be either and that knowing which one it was would be important, not the one making the definitive call.
Strictly speaking, I didn’t call your wife a moron. I suggested that anyone who came forward repeating an unsubstantiated rumor like this and then expressed concern that it not harm any “good work” being done by the target of the unsupported accusation would be a moron. You say she didn’t come forward with this, she was pursued. Fine. Then it doesn’t apply to her, does it? But even if you think it does, your thanks belongs to John Geddie and the Independent, not me. His story is what leads the reader to think she was an active participant in this.
The service and record of your wife – and you, for that matter – are wonderful things. The service you two have rendered to your country (and that she continues to render) are respected a great deal by my family and I. It buys neither of you a thing in accusing a man of unethical, dishonorable, and illegal behavior. Even if it did buy you some additional credibility over the average joe, it’s precisely the same service rendered by Tag Greason, also an officer in the US Army. Why should it mean something when weighing your claims and mean nothing when weighing his? Your service is commendable but it’s meaningless for the purpose of validating an accusation. I have no need to imagine the strength required for a woman to bring such charges. I am fully cognizant of what it requires. That does not excuse anyone from having to justify those accusations with evidence and, to date, I’ve not seen anything to indicate such evidence exists. In fact, the dismissal of the charges says that such evidence does not exist.
As to your contention that no one believes you two didn’t bring this story forward, that’s not true. I actually do believe that and I suggested it might be the case in my original post, as I’ve already mentioned. Which, of course, brings up the question of why she elected to contribute to the story if she really didn’t want it to go forward. I read somewhere that she was told by the reporter that the story would go ahead with or without her cooperation. If that was true, what was the point of contributing? If she really didn’t want the story to proceed and she was powerless to stop it, she certainly wasn’t in the position of being required to assist it. She made the call the she did and it was her call. The ramifications of that decision include criticism for doing it. You don’t get to contribute to re-airing baseless allegations and then not be subject to the commentary that flows from that action.
You say that you never knew about the Federal Court case and that many will find this hard to believe. You’re right, I do. I have some working knowledge of how the Federal Courts work. The notion that the IG’s office would forward them a case and that the District Court would file criminal charges against someone without ever contacting the purported victim to build that case is just a huge stretch. Especially considering your wife’s still on active duty and a simple phone call to the IG’s office would be able to produce your locations, it just makes no sense that they would pursue multiple extensions in court without ever attempting to notify you. Or, rather, your wife since you technically weren’t a party to the case.
Your closing comments reveal a bit of either ignorance or confusion on certain matters. For Google searches to be effective you need pretty specific search criteria. Nothing in that story nor in any of your comments produces a search specific enough to definitely identify you as I’ve already said. FOIA deals with public agencies and documents, not newspapers, unless you’re suggesting I FOIA the court documents. You’re missing the point of my post if that’s what you mean. My entire anger over this story was centered on the newspaper’s insistence on printing an accusation already determined to be unsupported without asking all of these questions. And what would I really find if I did issue that FOIA request? That the case was dismissed? What would that prove that I don’t already know? Nothing.
Your closer’s a real howler, too:
Had Sherry been notified of any court case she would have been there and any interviews with Tag Greason would have had to be from his prison cell in Fort Leavenworth.
Says you. Which is the whole problem with the whole thing, isn’t it? Anyone can make an accusation. That’s why our legal system is “innocent until proven gulity” and not vice-versa. You say no review was made of this. Garbage. No review was made that resulted in support for the allegations, you mean, and that’s not how it works. The accusations were completely without supporting evidence and that’s why the case was dismissed. My issue all along has been with the decision by the Loudoun Independent to print this story as if it were news. It’s not news, it’s gossip. It’s gossip that’s aimed directly at hurting the reputation of a man who’s been a class act and a fine Loudoun citizen and who, incidentally, is running for public office. The running of this story is a dirty political trick. Neither you nor your wife should have been involved in that and neither of you is really the story, here. The story is who is attempting to utilize the Independent as a political knife to stab Tag Greason in the back and whether the leadership at the Independent is complicit in that arrangement or merely possessed of extremely bad judgment.
Good luck to you and your wife, Mr. DesRosier. Assuming you are who you say you are and that you and your wife really don’t want to be involved, I suggest you prove it and drop the matter. Go back to your lives wherever that is, since that’s all you’ve supposedly wanted to do, and leave Loudoun politics to Loudouners. G’day.
Nothing in any of this has changed what the real focus of this situation should be. The accusation was baseless and without merit years ago and it still is. The Loudoun Independent has seen fit to repeat what amounts to vicious gossip on its pages, rendering their entire credibility in news reportage suspect. Who pointed them at this unfounded rumor remains the question as does whether they decided to help someone stage a personal attack against an opposing candidate or if their judgment on what’s news and what’s gossip is deficient. That’s all this story really means.
September 28th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Military, Virginia Politics |
4 comments
The US Air Force was formed today, 62 years ago in 1947. Happy Birthday, Air Force! Unus super omnia!
September 18th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Human Interest, Military |
no comments
Search the web:
RSS Feed
Ric's Twitter