On leadership...

A lot has been said during these last few weeks about our president...and his feckless foreign policy.

A lot.

The "back story":

• Across the Pacific, the Chinese are "projecting power" with their growing blue water navy, harassing neighboring nations and threatening expansion. The ChiComms are being so aggressive that Vietnam is turning to its old nemesis, Japan, for aid; and Japan, no friend of nuclear weapons, is giving serious thought to changing its constitution to allow its military to have nukes. (The wild North Koreans also figure into the equation.)
• In Eastern Europe, Vlad Putin is doing his best to restore some bizarro version of old Imperial Russia. First, it was Crimea (now a wholly owned subsidiary of Moscow); and now, Ukraine is seeing its sovereign territory nibbled away...daily. Next up: Lithuania? Can we get a Estonia? Latvia? How about Poland? (And you thought the Cold War had ended.)
• The worst appears in the guise of a rogue bunch of "non-state actors," who are tearing-up the Middle East and threatening everyone else. Known as ISIL, ISIS or "those bat-sh** crazy bastards," the group (once called the "jayvee" team by President Barack Obama), has now swelled to more than 20,000 strong. Nerves were further rattled when, last week, Obama said he had "no strategy" in place to deal with ISIL/ISIS...a group that has been steadily menacing for close to a year. (Even The Washington Post's editorial board took notice!)

Which brings us to the following. Below is a perfect dissection of the problems at hand...chief among them: a lack of leadership -- on the part of our president.

This piece is by Kevin Elliott, a Bay Area public relations professional who knows a thing or two about leadership, strategy and communication. The White House would be smart to follow his lead(s) here. But then, that's probably expecting waaaaay to much.

The Bliss Index gives you Kevin Elliott:

I've been trolling the news this morning and it is interesting to see how ideology colors pronouncements by various news outlets. Various outlets that are either balanced or conservative in their editorial policy point to the British Prime Minister -- the man with a plan -- as the example of leadership. 

The same outlets reflect the frustration of the nation at the President's announcement that he doesn't have a plan to deal with the growing threat that his defense secretary has called, "unlike anything we've ever seen." 

Enter the other side... The Huffington Post is beside itself that American conservatives are praising David Cameron's no-nonsense tough talk. HuffPo points out that at least we are bombing the terrorists. And then they go on to lament the daily cost of the military action on the Islamic State. 

In Britain, the left opposition is answering Cameron with a call for (wait for it) mandatory programs for deradicalization for young jihadi wanna-bees. Okay, so if some nut wants to run off and fight for the terrorists, the Labor Party wants to send them to a mandatory government program. 

Great. 

Where is Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill? Okay, at least the British have their clear leader... But why is it wrong for us to ask -- no, demand -- clear and unambiguous leadership? 

President Obama has made his position clear repeatedly. The threats against our country are of our own making, he believes. They are the result of generations of exploitation at home and abroad. He was elected, he believes, to get us out of foreign conflicts and he has declared those wars in the Levant and Afghanistan to be over. 

We will not get a firm, clear word from the White House that we are committed to defeating or destroying the Islamic State. It's not his style and doesn't fit his narrative. So, instead, we will have an election this year...and another in 2016. 

And if anyone doesn't believe that elections have consequences, you need look no further than this week...either here in the US or over in the UK.

Spot-on.

Bonus add: Dilbert gets it.

Rubbing his face in it...

In case you missed it, Russian Czar-For-However-Long-He-Wants Vladimir Putin had some (new) choice words for the United States and its leader-in-name-only, Barack Hussein Obama, regarding the current stand-off with Syria.

Those words appeared, in of all places, America's "Paper of Record"...aka: the New York Times (aka: the U.S. edition of Pravda).

Read it here...

It appears The Manly One has thrown down the gauntlet...or at least rubbed Mr. Obama's face in it.

Bonus: From the presidential debates last year -- President Obama puts Gov. Mitt Romney in his place, citing Romney calling Russia "a threat." Sheesh. Talk about a guy who's out of touch...




Super bonus: A quick collection of Tweets/reactions to the Putin op-ed:

--Putin's only suggestion to the NYT op-ed editor: "Cut what you need to cut. Just please post it on 9/11."

--This is Putin doing a home run trot pantless in Yankee Stadium.

--"Bad news is Assad bailed on his piece. Good news: We landed Putin!"

--Countdown to Assad’s inevitable “Just try and stop me” NYT op-ed

--The Russian president just trolled an embarrassed United States in its paper of record on September 11th. Everything I love is dead.

--"Vlad there's a typo here." "Are you sure?" (Lowers brow, makes stern face) "Oh no no, my mistake."

--Putin's next act of Obama trolling: a series of YouTube lectures on Constitutional Law

--Only a matter of time before Putin has a Hangout on Google+

--Lay off Putin's op-Ed. Can you write an essay while simultaneously bedding a gymnast and strangling a rare Siberian tiger?

--Putin's take on the situation on the ground in Syria is accurate. On the gas thing, he's been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh.

--Not sure why some people think it's funny a foreign anti-American thug just lectured us using one of America's biggest papers...

--Putin now just basically doing donuts in Obama's front yard.

--Putin wrote that op-ed shirtless, with an enigmatic smirk, and immediately after having someone killed.

--It's a good thing Vladimir Putin followed the letter of international law when it intervened in Georgia. Wait....

--What time is Obama's Op-Ed in Pravda?

--Putin just won the world champion belt in concern trolling...

--The Vladimir Putin op-ed in the @nytimes may contain more chutzpah per square inch than any op-ed in history.

From Russia...With Love?

Last March, President Barack Obama and his crack diplomatic team "announced a major new U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty, gaining a critical victory as U.S. diplomats head into an intense period of international meetings aimed at keeping the devastating weapons out of the hands of rogue states and terrorists."

At the time, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, called the treaty, “vital to US national interests” and said it “has the full support of your uniformed military [who] all support its ratification.” He added, “The Joint Chiefs and I are confident that the treaty does not in any way constrain our ability to pursue robust missile defenses.”

Foreign policy experts, Democratic leaders and administration officials said "defeat of the treaty would have been a debacle for US foreign policy. 'Champions of the measure believe approval will avoid a ‘devastating’ blow to US prestige on the world stage and end Mr. Obama’s year on a victorious note,' the Financial Times noted. According to the Washington Post, 'Defeat would have severely damaged Obama’s global standing, hampering his ability to negotiate other treaties.'”

A significant majority of Senate Republicans voted against the agreement, saying the "the document’s preamble, which refers to the 'interrelationship between offensive and defensive strategic weapons,' could interfere with the creation of a US missile defense shield in Europe, which is opposed by Moscow."

In the end, the treaty was ratified/signed by both sides and everything is just hunky-dory, right?

This just in - "With Russia's $650 billion rearmament plan, the bear sharpens its teeth." So while we’re saying goodbye to strategic/deterrence tools, the Russians are bulking-up. As the Christian Science Monitor notes, “The graying bear is getting a make-over. Russia's military is launching its biggest rearmament effort since Soviet times, including a $650 billion program to procure 1,000 new helicopters, 600 combat planes, 100 warships, and 8 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. The goal now, experts say, is to equip Russia's new lean-and-mean, largely professional armed forces to face 21st-century threats. These are mainly considered to be regional conflicts such as the brief 2008 Russo-Georgian war, which highlighted military shortcomings.”

Nothing to worry about. Right?

The Internet is open...

...but for how long?

The headline in today’s Washington Post: “Obama administration joins critics of U.S. nonprofit group that oversees Internet”

Obviously, this is not good...

“The California nonprofit organization that operates the Internet's levers has always been a target for such global heavies as Russia and China that prefer the United Nations to be in charge of the Web. But these days, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is fending off attacks from a seemingly unlikely source: the Obama administration,” according to the story. “The U.S. government, which helped create ICANN in 1998, has been reprimanding the nonprofit group to give foreign nations more say over the Web's operations."

Wait, what? We want to give other nations more say - especially over free speech? A free press?

The story continues: “Other nations have been mobilizing against ICANN. China, which monitors dissident activity on the Web, has been leading a campaign among dozens of developing nations to lobby the U.N. for oversight over ICANN, according to former and current ICANN officials. And a coalition of former Soviet states led by a Russian minister has been pushing the U.N. to obtain veto power over ICANN.

What a brilliant idea! I mean, especially since so many other nations - including some we call "friends" - are just as dedicated to freedom as we are. I'm sure this will all end superbly.

After all, when countries like Egypt, Libya and China have control over the Internet, they've been nothing but wonderful. Right?

He's a regular James Bond...

What else is behind (those) blue eyes?

From The Mail Online: "Is there no end to Vladimir Putin’s talents? The Russian Prime Minister already has a reputation as an accomplished fighter-jet pilot and Siberian tiger-hunter, and is a black belt in judo. Now you can add jazz crooner to the list. The 58-year-old former KGB chief stunned an audience at a charity event on Friday that included Sharon Stone and Kevin Costner with his rendition of 'Blueberry Hill.'"

It is done.

They did it.

It came down to a vote straight along party lines: 60-40 (which further underscores the importance of every political race – big and small; it also shows how important - and long – President Barack Obama’s coattails were in the last election). In short, we are now on the road to Nationalized Health Care.

According to the New York Times, “The vote was 60 to 40 — a tally that is expected to be repeated four times as further procedural hurdles are cleared in the days ahead, and then once more in a dramatic, if predictable, finale tentatively scheduled for 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve.”

The battle raged in the nation’s Capitol as forces of light and darkness worked far into the night on the most significant health care/insurance reform bill to ever make its way through Congress.


Burning the midnight oil...

Just months ago, Republicans swore that this would be Obama’s Waterloo. Now, with the weather outside the Capitol building cold and snowy and the GOP in the Capitol but unable to do anything with it, it seems more like the Republicans’ own version of the French invasion of Russia of 1812.

Napoleon couldn't do anything in another important capitol, either...

It was all made possible because Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) threw in with his fellow Dems, promising his filibuster-breaking vote in exchange for some big money for his state. According the Washington Post: ‘Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax. He also was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.” (h/t:reason.com)

“Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) declared, ‘This process is not legislation. This process is corruption,’ referring to the last-minute flurry of dealmaking that enabled Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and the White House to lock in the 60 votes needed to approve the legislation.”(h/t:sfgate.com)

The man of the moment: Ben Nelson...

This, of course, means an Obama signing party in the not-too-distant future as well as a host of additional questions and/or problems. Some things to consider:

Be careful what you wish for, pt. 1: “Poor Barack Obama. All he wanted for Christmas was a health-care reform bill -- and all he got was a lousy insurance industry bailout that few can love.”

Be careful what you wish for, pt. 2: Is the Democrats’ likely “paper-thin” margin of victory actually a Pyrrhic victory? (And the conservative pundits aren’t the only ones who feel this way.) Plenty of “progressives” are hopping mad about the final version and blame Obama for it. Over at Newsweek, Robert Samuelson goes so far to say, “Barack Obama's quest for historic health care legislation has turned into a parody of leadership.”

Pyrrhus...

“According to the American Medical Association’s National Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government’s health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers.”

Nelson wasn’t the only one who was bought-off. That old, principled socialist from Vermont – Sen. Bernie Sanders – got a payout, too. He didn’t get the Single Payer system he dreamed of but he did get some other favors.

Megan McArdle points out in her blog over at The Atlantic: “No bill this large has ever before passed on a straight party-line vote, or even anything close to a straight party-line vote. No bill this unpopular has ever before passed on a straight party-line vote. We're in a new political world.”

As is true in many legislative efforts, there’s a lot of back scratching going on in D.C. right now. Votes are being traded for favors…and the favors are many.

If it really is a win, then who loses? (The GOP is hoping this bill is the straw that breaks the senior senator from Nevada’s back. Even his hometown paper is poking at him.)

Add Nelson: Some big names in Nebraska are none too pleased.

Well if Joe says so: According to the most well-spoken Vice President since Dan Quayle, the health care, er, insurance reform bill is something that “represents the culmination of a struggle begun by Theodore Roosevelt nearly a century ago to make health care reform a reality.” Forgive me if I’m being nit-picky here, but I thought I heard the president back in his speech a few months ago say the effort started about 50-plus years ago. I’ve heard everyone from Harry Truman (Dems, of course) credited with trying to move this effort along.

Ending on a bit of “rosy” news from Reuters: “Revised Senate health bill cuts deficit: CBO: The revised healthcare overhaul in the Senate would cut the federal deficit by $132 billion over 10 years, non-partisan budget analysts said on Saturday. The Congressional Budget Office also said the bill as revised by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid would have coverage costs of $871 billion over 10 years. Both figures meet President Barack Obama's goal of cutting the deficit and having a total cost of about $900 billion over 10 years. The rosy report card could help the proposal gain support.” Only that much? What terrific news! Just remember to stay well.

What hath Reid wrought?

News you can use...

Can you hear the bubble popping? (Get ready for another big dive…)

You know Van Jones, the former “Green Jobs Czar” who quit? Um, that whole quitting thing? Yeah, not so much…


The red, er, "green jobs czar"...

How many more are going to Afghanistan? The word is 30,000-35,000. (John Batchelor tells me a full one-third will be “trainers” or non-combat support troops.)

A war tax? Really? Isn’t that something our tax money is supposed to pay for, already?

More on the way to Afghanistan? It looks like it...

Will this be Mike Huckabee’s “Willie Horton?”

Iran seizes Brit yachtsmen. Will this result in, a.) a British special forces operation to free the hostages; b.) additional sanctions on Tehran; c.) a terse complaint – in writing – from the America’s Cup Competition Committee; or, d.) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad enjoying next Sunday afternoon on the new “Presidential Yacht?”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: air quote or devil horns?

Here’s some more great foreign policy news: “The United States is about to lose a key arms-control tool from the closing days of the Cold War -- the right to station American observers in Russia to count the long-range missiles leaving its assembly line.” (h/t: Lucinanne.com) Meanwhile, those pesky Rooskies are going to start building weapons in nearby (friendly!) Venezuela…aka: the House of Hugo.

He can see Russians from his house...

You know, if you’re going to campaign for a greener/cleaner Earth is taking private jets everywhere the best way to make a statement?

Some not-so-smart moves by some supposedly “smart” people…

That sound you hear is John Harvard spinning in his grave (or sitting down really hard on his chair)...

Finally, The latest on the gatecrashers…

Samantha Appleton/The White House

In a photo released by the White House, President Obama greeted Michaele and Tareq Salahi, right, at his first state dinner on Tuesday. (h/t: NYT)