A bit OT: The new government in Germany is apparently going to push to have our few remaining atomic weapons in Germany removed. This is not what I consider a high-priority issue, but if it pleases the pacifists, it may dampen objections to other decisions the government will have to make. It’s the same old pattern of using the US as a scapegoat. I have no confidence in the foreign policy inclinations of the FDP, which will most likely occupy the Foreign Office. They all seem to be enthralled by Obama and are looking forward to Germany and Europe finally assuming their “rightful” place in world affairs.

I also seem to recall that FDR refused to confer with Hoover for the same reason. See this:

Hoover, according to Alter, tried to involve Roosevelt in end-of-term actions, suggesting to the then-President-elect that they jointly appoint delegates to a World Economic Conference to be held in June 1933 (three months after FDR’s inauguration), a highly touted meeting which was arranged to tackle the global Depression. Roosevelt rejected the overture, fearing that his New Deal would be seen as just a continuation of the Hoover Administration if he worked with the departing President.

For his part, years later, Hoover wrote the bank crisis that ensued “was the most political and unnecessary bank panic in all our history” and “it could have been cured by simple cooperation.”

Hmmm—I may feel a post coming on.

I don’t think Bush wanted to involve Obama for cover. I think he genuinely wanted to avoid doing anything that would screw up Obama’s freedom of action. The similarity in both cases is that Bush tried to cooperate with the new administration, and the latter bungled it. It’s all of a piece with Obama’s citing his 9-month “reign” as proof that America is salvageable.

Uh oh…

The simple question I and all servicemen and women ask of our leaders is, “who do you want in your foxhole?”.

Cheney or Obama?

I can state with absolute certainty that Obama is absolutely detested by 75% of our armed forces - only a handful of pathalogic liberals, who can separate reality from their ideals, still support the guy.

The Obama administration’s vacillation over Afghanistan is due to domestic politics, not the region’s “political side”, “military side” or “strategic side” - and whether they’re prepared to admit it or not, every serviceman and woman knows this to be fact.

You’re NOT supposed to carp about them sitting around in their well-padded chairs waiting impatiently for the next wave of adulation for the genius with which they inhale and exhale.

Tsk!!

Obama’s strategy, even vis a vis domestic politics, is stupid. He’s given hostages to Fortune. Thanks to ill-advisedly running his yap, and letting himself be perceived soft on terrorism, his record on preventing terrorist attacks has to be absolutely perfect or he will carry the can for any attack.

Imagine if, by contrast, he’d praised and thanked the outgoing Administration for its efforts, and promised to keep up the fight they’d begun. Then Obama would not be on the hook if an attack should occur. This way, he’s 101% behind the eight-ball. It’s an unnecessary risk, and a stupid one to take.

Dick Cheney is someone who could wipe the floor with ∅bama in a debate.

He has a long history of jumping in at the end and claiming credit for legislation. (Heck, I don’t even think he wrote his first autobiography.) So it is no surprise that he took credit for the outgoing Bush administration’s plan on Afghanistan.

I had the same thought, and think it also pertains to the Harvard Law Review.

There’s another, younger Cheney with a good ticker and a winning debate style – Liz Cheney. I like her even more than Sarah Palin – and I like SP a lot. She has co-founded an organization. I think we will be hearing more about Liz in the coming years. I would not be at all surprised to see her on a Presidential ticket someday.

Liz’s debate technique: http://tinyurl.com/ykkjvp4

http://www.keepamericasafe.com

Whoa…. Whoa…. Whoa…. I thought that detailed analysis and plan was a product of the Office of the President Elect.

(remember that horseshit?)

Then I got a bigger kick out of the thought of a Palin/(Liz) Cheney ticket!

Can you imagine the apoplectic reaction of the left - especially among groups like NOW - to a Republican ticket that had a female in both roles on the ballet instead of a transparent effort at a token female to prop up some old worn out RINO?

And before anyone with qualms about women in high office speaks up I got 4 words for ya - Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher - aka, the Iron Lady.

Lastly, just gotta say - I miss Cheney being in the White House…..

Yep, she was the only real man in NATO until Reagan took office. Pity nobody in the UK seems to be made of the same stern stuff these days.

Devastating.