Is America Vulnerable?

Has our military become so weakened and overextended that the American homeland is now ripe for attack?
What other factors are contributing to the weakness of our country?
How can anyone ever attack America given her large inventory of nuclear missiles?

Let me first say that the American military is without equal on the face of this planet in all aspects: leadership, training, and equipment. If American civilians were as strong, well motivated, and successful as her military, she would stand another 200+ years. America does not emulate her military as she did in the past though. She has grown weak for a variety of reasons and her military may no longer be sufficient to protect her in the world. She is currently weak in how she utilizes her military, her nuclear strategy is outdated, all exacerbated by a variety of other factors, including serious economic problems.

Using Her Conventional Military
- The American military is hobbled by political meddling. Military might is only as good as the government that wields it. American politicians often lack the political will to win or make the tough choices.
- Part of the success of the American military is due to its use of intensive energy. The American military is the largest single entity oil user in the world. America can deploy more assets more quickly than anyone else...as long as there is unlimited fuel. As such, America has supply line vulnerabilities. Our Navy and Air Force help maintain the security of these lines. As long as all arms of the military are functioning smoothly, America can project her might anywhere in the world...as long as there is unlimited fuel.
- Her armed forces are the most technologically sophisticated in the world but numerically, small. If the technology edge is ever blunted, American forces become extremely vulnerable.
- The American military is currently overextended and may be near exhaustion, being asked to perform too many missions in too many places with too few personnel.

Using Her Nuclear Weapons
America is greatly feared for the nuclear might she commands. Again, her missiles are unmatched in number and sophistication. This should make her completely invulnerable but there are a few sticking points:
- MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, no longer valid. During the Cold War this balance of terror kept both sides from pushing the big button. But with the rise of supra-national terror organizations, this philosophy is no longer a deterrent. If al Qaeda explodes a nuke on US soil, who is America going to nuke?
- Enemies may be willing to absorb a nuclear counter strike. Russia and China both have active civil defense programs. They have shelters for their civilian population as well as routine drills in major urban areas. America's program has been dismantled. Do you know where to go if the sirens start blaring? Assuming a first strike from Russia, they could have their civilians safely squirreled away when we counterattack. Major damage to Russian cities? Yes, but they can rebuild. In the meantime, the heavy loss of civilian life in America would severely limit her ability to recover. Winner: Russia and their ally, China. Not a cheap victory but a victory.
- Political vacillation may delay response. Over the last 2-3 decades, the American military has been repeatedly hobbled by political interference. The same lack of conviction could prove fatal during a nuclear exchange.
- Americans are extremely afraid of all radiation. Radiation at any significant level is feared by most Americans. Too many years of fear mongering by the press has left the population uninformed about the true nature of radiation. In a radiation emergency, I fear too many will act like drowning victims, panicking, and ultimately doing themselves great harm.

A Weakened America
America's strengths, he military and nuclear might, may not be able to protect her adequately in today's world. A whole host of additional problems plague American society and government, including:
- High national debt
- High personal debt
- The dollar is very weak, near collapse
- The economy is near credit lock-up, the so called credit crunch
- Only short-term gain is valued by American political leaders
- Over 40% of the American economy is government
- Too much of America's debt is owned by foreigners
- Imperfect computer security, possibly leaving her vulnerable to cyber-attack
- Manufacturing has moved offshore; almost everything is imported
- Not exploiting her natural resources. She has oil, mineral, and timber wealth. Much of it is left untapped
- Excessive regulations choke new business growth, especially environmental regs
- America has a poor image abroad
- The American sense of entitlement, that somehow everyone else is responsible for our well-being except ourselves.

America is vulnerable and in danger of losing her status as sole superpower. America is the most dynamic nation in the world but first needs to realize there is a problem, a big problem. America also must have the leaders with the strength of character and belief in their convictions to correct these problems and bring America back to her former glory. All I see though is denial, denial in the populace and ostrich-behavior in DC. Great leaders? Where are they? Ron Paul is the only political leader with an ounce of common sense and the understanding of what America really faces. Is he in charge? The fact that he is not speaks volumes about America. Like an alcoholic, until America admits she has a problem, no solution is possible. America better wake up soon or start hiring more Russian and Mandarin teachers for her children.

Take your medicine. It's good for you.
CodLiverOilGuy

John Kerry was NOT a war hero and how it pertains to the 2008 election

In addition to my duties blogging for the Twin Cities Conservative, I’m also a sports nut (primarily football and baseball). Thus, I listen to local sports talk courtesy of KFAN. Often the various programs delve into material other than sports, politics, movies, music, etc. This morning, I heard one of the local radio personalities discussing how the Republicans will completely discredit Barry Obama by the time the presidential election rolls around; he then cited John Kerry’s complete dismantling at the hands of the Republican Party in 2004.

His quote, “The man was a war hero.”

My response: BS.

The man was a seditious liar who distorted the realities of the Vietnam War. Note the following:

He concocted phony war crime charges against his fellow servicemen.

He exaggerated his own heroism during his tour.

He misrepresented the effectiveness and purpose of his purported “missions.”

Yet somehow, it’s the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group that are the villains. I’ve heard the arguments, many of these former military personnel neither served with Kerry nor knew him. Regardless, Kerry’s anti-war activism was a betrayal to his fellow servicemen and detrimental to those still fighting in Vietnam..

The bottom line: John Kerry served his country, but he negated his service when he betrayed his fellow servicemen; he sold them out.

A couple of points pertinent to the 2008 campaign.

Hmmm, we’ve seen exaggerated claims recently; note Democratic presidential candidate and New York senator Hillary Clinton, who claimed during a 90’s trip to Bosnia that she ran scrambled from her helicopter to the cover of safety while under sniper fire.

The Democrats love to lecture us on their patriotism and their support of the truth, but do so as they blame this country for causing terrorism and indicting our own for war crimes and phony atrocities. We’ve seen Pennsylvania congressmen and all-around buffoon John Murtha perform this tap dance. We’ve heard Barry Obama and Clinton turn a blind eye to reality while the surge of the past year+ have achieved significant, tangible results.

But, we’re talking about Democrats, so does it surprise you?

S.D. county approves rezoning for new oil refinery

According to the Associated Press, voters in Union County, South Dakota have approved a proposal to build the first new U.S. oil refinery in more than 30 years.

A blow for "going green," indeed, in my estimation. My face is contorted by a Jack Nicholson-as-the-Joker smile knowing that the greenies are going to be up in arms.

The bottom line is that the distorted, misrepresented views of the environmental moment may soon be overruled by practical needs and common sense, both root strengths in American that have been neglected for far too long.

Of course conservation is a good thing, but within reason, but essentially the environmental movement has lied to us.

I found two segment sof the article, courtesy of the liberal Minneapolis Star-Tribune, quite telling:

"Union County residents voted 58 percent to 42 percent Tuesday to endorse the rezoning of almost 3,300 acres of pristine farm land north of Elk Point for the oil refinery."

Pristine...subjective comment in a supposedly objective piece of journalism. Telling statement, that our environment naturally supersedes the need for cheap energy in this country, especially with our economy on the verge of collapse.

Second, a 58-42 vote was contentious? Why, because the environmentalist groups yelled louder? What about the jobs created; decreasing oil dependence from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela; the myth of ethanol; higher food prices, etc.?

How can a liberal, or specifically an environmentalist, be opposed to this?

Because it promotes "big oil," "global warming," "pollution," etc. Well the bottom line is that REGULAR folk, which makes up a majority of this country, are getting tired of taking out a second mortgage to pay for their fuel and food.

Barry Obama won't acknowledge the truth in Iraq

I came across this article, written by martial arts expert and action movie star, Chuck Norris courtesy of Townhall.com. In the article, Norris warns the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barry Obama, that he is in for a rude awakening if he visits Iraq, for he will not like what he sees.

In his treatise, Norris offers the following points:

1.) Barry Obama has one made trip to Iraq, and that was two years ago.
2.) Obama either receives his updates regarding Iraq from reliable sources or chooses not to believe the "facts on the ground."

Let's face it, Obama is not going admit that the Iraq War is progressing nicely, or that "we" are winning, ESPECIALLY not in an election year. Any tacit admission of success would reinforce the notion that President Bush 1.) invaded Iraq legally; 2.) has justification to do so.

If Obama were to concede that the surge, for example, has been working, he would alienate the far-left, anti-left base. Those groups blithely think that we can talk to our enemies while presuming that there is good in all people.

Furthermore, you can't admonish the war effort but "support the trips," a craft the Democrats have attempted to perfect the last few years. For example, how many times have we seen a Democrat discuss the war effort in a negative fashion while speaking in front of a "support our troops" banner?

These gestures are thinly veiled disguises, nothing more.

How to curb rising food costs?

According to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon food production must rise by 50 percent to meet growing demands.

What you won't hear in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, or the majority of the liberal media outlets, that rising food prices are a direct result of our love affair here in the United States with ethanol. We're using more farm land to grow corn, conversely using less land to grow other crops, and subsequently drive up food prices.

Why? For an arguably cleaner burning fuel? For a fuel that consumes too much energy to create it?

All for the myth, the lie if you will, of global warming.

Here's the answer, and it's one the Liberals do not want to embrace; open our Alaskan oil fields; drill off shore; build more refineries.

This isn't a solution that can occur overnight, but it's one we should get started on. Here's something I virtually guarantee: before long, the general populace will be clamoring for the government to lower gas prices, "global warming" be damned.

Here's the complete piece:

ROME - World food production must rise by 50 percent by 2030 to meet increasing demand, U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon told world leaders Tuesday at a summit grappling with hunger and civil unrest caused by food price hikes.

The secretary-general told the Rome summit that nations must minimize export restrictions and import tariffs during the food price crisis and quickly resolve world trade talks.

"The world needs to produce more food," Ban said.

The Rome-based U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization is hosting the three-day summit to try to solve the short-term emergency of increased hunger caused by soaring prices and to help poor countries grow enough food to feed their own.

In a message read to the delegates, Pope Benedict XVI said "hunger and malnutrition are unacceptable in a world which, in reality, has sufficient production levels, the resources, and the know-how to put an end to these tragedies and their consequences."

The Pope told the world leaders that millions of people at threat in countries with security concerns were looking to them for solutions.

Ban said a U.N. task force he set up to deal with the crisis is recommending the nations "improve vulnerable people's access to food and take immediate steps to increase food availability in their communities."

That means increasing food aid, supplying small farmers with seed and fertilizer in time for this year's planting seasons, and reducing trade restrictions to help the free flow of agricultural goods.

"Some countries have taken action by limiting exports or by imposing price controls," Ban said. "They only distort markets and force prices even higher."

The increasing diversion of food and animal feed to produce biofuel, and sharply higher fuel costs have also helped to shoot prices upward, experts say.

The United Nations is encouraging summit participants to start undoing a decades-long legacy of agricultural and trade policies that many blame for the failure of small farmers in poor countries to feed their own people.

Wealthy nations' subsidizing their own farmers makes it harder for small farmers in poor countries to compete in global markets, critics of such subsidies say. Jim Butler, the FAO's deputy director-general, said in an interview ahead of the gathering that a draft document that could be the basis for a final summit declaration doesn't promise to overhaul subsidy policy.

Congress last month passed a five-year farm bill heavy on subsidies, bucking White House objections that such aid in the middle of a global food crisis wasn't warranted.

The head of the summit's U.S. delegation, Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer, insisted on Monday that biofuels will contribute only 2 or 3 percent to a predicted 43 percent rise in prices this year.

Figures by other international organizations, including the International Monetary Fund, show that the increased demand for biofuels is contributing by 15-30 percent to food price increases, said Frederic Mousseau, a policy adviser at Oxfam, a British aid group.

"Food stocks are at their lowest in 25 years, so the market is very vulnerable to any policy changes" such as U.S. or European Union subsidizing biofuels or mandating greater use of this energy source, Mousseau said.

Brazil is another large exporter of biofuels, and President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva was expected to defend biofuels at the summit.

Several participants won't even be talking to each other at the summit.

Australia's foreign minister decried as "obscene" Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's participation in the summit. The longtime African leader has presided over the virtual transformation of his country from former breadbasket to agricultural basket case.

Zimbabweans increasingly are unable to afford food and other essentials with agriculture paralyzed by land reform and the world's highest rate of inflation.

The Dutch ministry for overseas development pledged to "ignore" Mugabe during the summit.

EU sanctions against Mugabe because of Zimbabwe's poor human rights record forbid him from setting foot in the bloc's 27 nations, but those restrictions don't apply to U.N. forums.

Jewish leaders and some Italian politicians were among those denouncing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's attendance at the meeting. On Monday, Ahmadinejad repeated his call for the destruction of Israel, which is also participating in the summit.

Ahmadinejad was scheduled to give a summit news conference Tuesday afternoon.

Schafer, asked about the presence of the Zimbabwean and Iranian leaders, told reporters in Rome that the two were welcome to attend the summit, but that U.S. delegates would not be meeting with them.

So what do we make of Barry Obama?

Good news, Obama-Bots!

He renounced his hometown church based on a recent spat of racist, demeaning sermons. Keep in mind that it finally took him 20 years to get the picture. With that said, he did it!! In the last two months he admonished his erstwhile confidant, Reverend Jeremiah Wright while packing his bags and forlornly leaving his religious sanctuary of the past 20 years.

So everything is copasetic with the good senator from Illinois, correct? The Obama-bots can stand down now and concentrate on electing him to a term in the White House, thus ensuring four years of socialized medicine, advancement of alternative lifestyles, appeasement at the hands of terrorists, open borders, higher taxes, increased focus on global warming, ETC.

You get the picture.

With that said, does anyone with a brain (sorry Liberals, this excludes you) really believe that Barry Obama was NOT affected by the inane ramblings of one Reverend Wright. If you do, Earth to you...

I have had conversations with Democrats who believe the views of Wright are either DEAD-ON, are much ado about nothing.

I personally find it fascinating that a man who has discussed "racial healing" in this country by stressing "change" marinated in venom for the past 20 years. Should we not assume that either some of Wright's message SUNK IN or was at least TACITLY endorsed by Obama?

Would he intentionally tune out the reverend when he embarked on a tirade against the American government or the evils of "whitey?"

Messing with the Democrats

This morning, I was reading Robert Novak's latest op-ed piece, courtesy of Townhall.com; in the column, Novak essentially discusses former Bush Administration Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new book, in which he specifically discusses the SUPPOSED Valerie Plame scandal.

I think we can make the following assumptions, ones that Democrats do NOT want to believe, but should:

1.) Valerie Plame was not some undercover agent, as the Liberal Mainstream Media purported her to be;
2.) Plame's "status" as CIA agent, in which she was almost nothing more than a desk jockey, was not leaked by Vice President Dick Cheney, but rather Secretary of State "mole" Richard Armitage.

McClellan proffers the same tired talking point as so many liberals have uttered over the past 5-6 years: we were MISLED into war, based on faulty evidence.

Keep in mind that the following:

1.) Saddam WAS working on a clandestine weapons program, in violation of United Nations mandates.
2.) Saddam defied over a dozen UN resolutions to make said weapons program transparent, with military action as a consequence.
3.) The Democratic Clinton Administration examined the same evidence years before George Bush won the presidency, and implored the world to act against Saddam.
4.) If we were "misled," we, along with other global intelligence agencies, were misled as well, not by George Bush, but by SADDAM HUSSEIN.

I was reminded of a "conversation" I had a few weeks ago with two liberal co-workers; as I implored them to listen to reason, they were absolutely convinced that the "leaker" or at least the mastermind behind the leak was one Dick Cheney.

Here's the complete piece:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In Scott McClellan's purported tell-all memoir of his trials as President George W. Bush's press secretary, he virtually ignores Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's role leaking to me Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee. That fits the partisan Democratic version of the Plame affair, in keeping with the overall tenor of "What Happened."

Although the media response dwelled on McClellan's criticism of Bush's road to war, the CIA leak case is the heart of this book. On July 14, 2003, one day before McClellan took the press secretary's job for which many colleagues felt he was unqualified, my column was published asserting that Plame at the CIA suggested her Democratic partisan husband, retired diplomat Joseph Wilson, for a sensitive intelligence mission. That story made McClellan's three years at the briefing room podium a misery, leading to his dismissal and now his bitter retort.

In claiming he was misled about the Plame affair, McClellan mentions Armitage only twice. Armitage being the leaker undermines the Democratic theory, now accepted by McClellan, that Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and political adviser Karl Rove aimed to delegitimize Wilson as a war critic. McClellan's handling of the leak by itself leads former colleagues to suggest he could not have written this book by himself.

On page 173, McClellan first mentions my Plame leak, but he does not identify Armitage as the leaker until page 306 of the 323-page book -- then only in passing. Armitage, anti-war and anti-Cheney, cannot fit the conspiracy theory that McClellan now buys into. When Armitage after two years publicly admitted he was my source, the life went out of Wilson's campaign. In "What Happened," McClellan dwells on Rove's alleged deceptions as if the real leaker were still unknown.

McClellan at the White House podium never knew the facts about the CIA leak, and his memoir reads as though he has tried to maintain his ignorance. He omits Armitage's slipping Mrs. Wilson's identity to The Washington Post's Bob Woodward weeks before he talked to me. He does not mention that Armitage turned himself in to the Justice Department even before Patrick Fitzgerald was named as special prosecutor.

McClellan writes that Rove told him this about his conversation with me after I called him to check Armitage's leak: "He (Novak) said he'd heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. I told him I couldn't confirm it because I didn't know." Rove told me last week he never said that to McClellan. Under oath, Rove had testified he told me, "I heard that, too." Under oath, I testified that Rove said, "Oh, you know that, too."

McClellan writes, "I don't know" whether the leaker -- he does not specify Armitage -- committed a felony. He ignores that Fitzgerald's long, expensive investigation found no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, if only because Plame was not covered. Nevertheless, McClellan calls the leak "wrong and harmful to national security" -- ignoring questions of whether Plame really was engaged in undercover operations and whether her cover long ago had been blown.

A partisan Democratic mantra began earlier in the book. McClellan writes George H.W. Bush's 1988 campaign "acquiesced to certain advisers, including Roger Ailes and the late Lee Atwater," who opposed Bush's "civility and decency." (McClellan, then 20 years old, played no part in that campaign.) McClellan contends that thanks to Rove in 2002, "the first cracks appeared in the facade of bipartisan comity."

McClellan's fellow Bush aides do not remember him ever saying anything like that. At senior staff meetings discussing policy, they recall, he was silent. His robotic performances from the White House podium seemed only to disgorge what he had been told, and "What Happened" has the similar feel of someone else's hand.

The book so mimics the Democratic line that Ari Fleischer, McClellan's predecessor as press secretary, asked him last week whether he had a ghostwriter. "No," Fleischer told me that McClellan replied, "but my editor tweaked it." (McClellan did not return my call.)

The bland book proposal McClellan's agent unsuccessfully hawked to publishers early in 2007 is not the volume now in bookstores. How and why McClellan changed is a story so far untold.