Friday, January 01, 2010
Janet Napolitano is a person of “unlimited potential”
The phrase "potential energy" has two parts. We may consider each in sequence. In the sense that potential energy is a measure of how much will be released by a rock falling off of a table then yes Napolitano has vast potential. There may be no absolute limit to how low she could go. In the sense that energy refers to a capacity to achieve useful work then there is no evidence that I am aware of that she has any energy at all. She may be more like a bureaucratic black star floating through the Adminosphere and draining energy from all that pass near.
Some words would be useful to the CIA. Words like, "Attorney General Holder has been told to end investigations of interrogation and rendition policies that were carried out under proper legal directive" would help. Even better would be, "Find the people responsible for this and kill them." That would be almost as good as, "I can hear you."
America has never lost a major warship at sea since (WW-II)
Thresher, OK probably not hostile. Liberty, certainly not friendly. Pueblo.
Claiming that they do not attack target "X" a school, mall or public gathering is proof of a symbolic targeting strategy has very little consistency and almost no predictability. It is like trying to solve a problem with two independent variables. If they do attack one of mentioned target set on Wednesday then the same analysts who were concocting a theory of the superior symbolism of the WTC over the Mall of America on Tuesday would on Thursday cite the new event as proof of the soundness of their theory.
Yes they do choose symbolic targets. They do understand the intended effects of their terror. They can observe resources being expended to defend targets they are not attacking and to their purposes that is not a failure on their part but a success.
It does nothing for the honor of France to try and defend Chirac and Villepin by saying that everyone was doing it. You would do your own position more good if you shrugged Gallicly and noted that everyone has politicians and sometimes they get caught.
Dick Cheney is the boss you want to have, knowing you could get your butt kicked.
My concern at the moment is that there is no way to secure the US Mail. It is incredibly easy to sabotage or paralyze and it is crucial to the economy.
Jan 1, 2010 - 2:32 pm
The Army CoS Casey's statement was the most reprehensible thing I have heard from a 4 star officer in my lifetime. It is far worse than the SEAL prosecution. The later might be wrong but I have heard it defended by decent people like Max Boot. The former, as a response to a combat event, was incompatible with any function of military management. That is true even if you sincerely do want to change the culture of the organization for a greater good.
If Obama had truly wanted to indicate that he gave a damn about the troops he would have responded, in some appropriate manner, with an indication that he knows that under current DoD structure the CoS is a purely administrative slot but that the POTUS as NCA is directly in command of the troops and cares about them. If such a Mutt and Jeff were acted out with a wink to boost BHO's credibility that would have been OK. The gesture even if contrived would have been good. As it is both Casey and Obama were serious in seeing nothing wrong with a senior officer responding that way.
I do not know General Casey. He may be a fine man with a fine record. In an off the record statement to staff or congressional aides the statement might have been understandable. In these circumstances I think it should earn him a trip to talk to Trump.
Jan 1, 2010 - 3:03 pm