Video: Ralph Peters Blasts Obama’s “False Humanitarianism” In Iraq

Lt. Col Ralph Peters (ret) appeared on Fox News, this morning to talk about the lackluster U.S. air campaign in Iraq – where 75% of our pilots are returning to base without dropping any ordnance at all due to the delays in decision-making process.

Last week, a former U.S. Air Force general who has led air campaigns over Iraq and Afghanistan, placed the blame for the failure right on the White House front steps. Due to Obama’s micromanagement the campaign, the process for ordering strikes has been so slow that the enemy is frequently allowed to escape.

“You’re talking about hours in some cases, which by that time the particular tactical target left the area and or the aircraft has run out of fuel. These are excessive procedures that are handing our adversary an advantage,” said retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, a former director of the Combined Air Operations Center in Afghanistan in 2001.

“The ultimate guidance rests in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” he said. “We have been applying air power like a rain shower or a drizzle — for it to be effective, it needs to be applied like a thunderstorm.”

“It’s false humanitarianism,” Peters told Bill Hemmer on America’s Newsroom. “Let’s apply simple logic. In our refusal to accept hundreds of civilian deaths in Syria and Iraq in air strikes, we condemn millions of people in the Middle East to live under the tyranny of the Islamic State.”

“Warfare will never be perfectly clean,” Peters continued. “Now, we had a problem with over-worrying about civilian casualties in the Bush administration – but it’s become a mania with the Obama administration.”

“You heard Josh Earnest talking about two civilian casualties in November – and suddenly we have to put the breaks on our airstrikes? Against a ruthless, fanatical, uncompromising enemy like the Islamic State militants? – If you elevate worries about civilian deaths and casualties above the will to win, you will lose – and we are losing,” Peters said.

Forum: What Effect Will The Busload Of GOP Candidates Have On 2016?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: What Effect Will The Busload Of GOP Candidates Have On 2016?

Ask Marion : I’d say the biggest immediate issue with nearly 20 Republican presidential primary candidates is logistics. Where do you put them all for the first couple of debates, before the numbers thin? How do you fit them all on one stage in the first debate set for August? Do you leave some out, including current and former governors and senators? Or do you hold two different debates in one night — with nine or ten candidates in one hour, and another nine or ten the next? And would either of those approaches be fair? Those were all questions after an earlier suggestion that Republicans might cap the first debate to nine… to twelve participants, which would mean that some prominent names might be excluded. The National Journal reports that the Republican National Committee (RNC) is now walking back the talk about a cap.

On the flip side, the Republican bench is deep and wide giving America some real choices while the Democrat Party has Hillary… yesterday’s politician, equally old and problematic Elizabeth Warren, old self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders and a couple stragglers.

I say the greater issues for the GOP are:

The Republicans’ lack cohesiveness and a strategy, plus they have let the Dems get far ahead of them in the use of technology, however often underhanded, in getting out the vote!

Plus the Republican Establishment, who runs the RNC, favors the moderates and ignores some of the candidates that would be the true answers to America’s problems and just might be the dark horse winners. They along with the progressive media have even convinced some staunch conservatives not to follow their heart out of fear.

In today’s climate, the 2016 elections, especially after the GOP’s landslide in 2014, should be theirs, if those obstacles can be surmounted and if the base gets out to vote.

 Virginia Right! : We have a massive field of candidates already ranging from very good to very bad (in my not so humble opinion).

Having such a large number of candidates can be cumbersome, but it is good to get the ideas out all across the party spectrum. As Jeb Bush struggles in every category but money, it lets the Republicans who watch these things closely know that money may not be the deciding factor.

After 8 years of national devastation by Democrats, the last thing voters are clamoring for is another dynasty. Especially a Bush dynasty.

One of the most dramatic effects of the large field is the effect on the polls. The liberal press is positively awash in glory as Hillary tops pretty much every Republican in their “head to head” polling. But remember, these are the same pollsters that called the UK elections too close to call and completely missed the blowout for the Conservative party and let’s not forget the abysmal results of the last US election where the polls showed Democrats doing much better than they actually did.

Now toss in the huge Republican field and there is absolutely no way any “head to head” polling will produce any meaningful results. Few people are really paying attention at this point, and the responses cannot be trusted. Many Republicans will pick Hillary in a poll over a Republican candidate that is not to their liking. I’d probably pick Hillary in a poll over Lindsey Graham or Chris Christie. But I wouldn’t vote for her on election day.

And we now have O’Malley entering the race along with elderly Socialist kook Bernie Sanders. So far, the Democrats have only had Hillery to pick from. If nothing else, O’Malley will provide some of the Democrat on Democrat mud slinging that has been the mainstay of the GOP so far.

It is much too early to get too worked up on the large field. We are still 18 months away. The cannibalism has just begun. And the dialog will be interesting and enlightening as time goes by.

 JoshuaPundit : Ah hah hah hah!!! The Stupid Party strikes again. This is absolutely the Left’s dream come true.

20 or so candidates, all kissing up to the legacy media for space, all fighting tooth and nail like a pack of wild dogs for the same donor money, all saying things it will be impossible for the average low information voter to keep track of,, and ultimately boring quite a few of them. The Democrats will appear focused and centered by comparison, especially with the media helping them,

 And of course, all providing oppo research,nasty quotes  and video loops free of charge to the Democrats on whomever survives the massacre. Since most of them label themselves as conservatives, one beneficiary will likely Jeb Bush. This is exactly how we would up with John McCain and Mitt Romney.

There are really only two possible bright spots I see. Hopefully we’ll be down to 3 or so serious candidates by the end of 2015. And two, if this many clowns are vying to be ringmaster of the circus, the real polls they’ve commissioned as opposed to the propaganda fed to the peasants by the media must be a lot more favorable to a Republican in the White House than we’re being lead to believe.

The Glittering Eye : The large Republican field tells us several things. Keep in mind that every U. S. senator at least at some point imagines him or herself a president-in-waiting. One of the things that the large field tells us is that there are a lot of youngish but very senior Republican senator and governors or ex-governors. That’s sometimes referred to as a “deep bench” but I think that’s overly kind.

The other thing that it tells us is that today’s Republican Party, although much more ideological than it used to be, still brings together some pretty disparate elements. Social conservatives, libertarians, and the “Republican establishment” (to the extent that there is a Republican establishment any more). That would yield a minimum of three candidates if each candidate represented only one of those elements. But they don’t. They represent combinations of those elements plus a few others so it shouldn’t be surprising that there are a lot of candidates.

As an outsider the advice I’d offer is to heed Reagan’s old Eleventh Commandment: thou shalt not speak ill of they fellow Republican. They should keep their sights trained on the president, Hillary Clinton, and the Democrats. Speaking ill of Republicans is the press’s job.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: : What is a Republican? Looking at the cast of candidates and potential candidates running for president on the GOP ticket, very few can be considered true Republicans. Traditionally, a Republican is someone who supports free market capitalism, limited federal government, conservative social values, a strong military, and above all respects the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

Who among the current candidates can be counted as a true Republican? I believe this is what is hurting the party, and not necessarily the number of candidates. The big government progressives who call themselves Republicans are hurting the base and the party platform. Libertarian Rand Paul has the Young Republicans’ support for all the wrong reasons. It is becoming more and more difficult for the average voter to know where a candidate stands and that they can be trusted to keep their campaign promises once elected.

Sadly, I expect the number of candidates will hurt the party leading up to the presidential election in 2016, dividing Republican voters based on the issues most important to them. I also believe this will help propel Jeb Bush to the top of the list as the candidates drop out and throw their support, and money, behind him.

Wolf Howling : What a deep bench the Republicans are fielding this year, with sixteen people declared or expected to declare soon. It is an embarrassment of riches, and the amazing thing is that most of them are serious candidates who could in fact gain the nomination. There are just a few – Donald Trump, Chris Christie and Lindsey Graham – who, in my view, likely stand no chance. This deep field stands in direct contrast to the Democrat field of one tired old scandal ridden lady.

The problem for Republicans will be to quickly winnow the field. Inevitably, some who are worthy of consideration are going to get shafted because of limitations on who will be able to appear at the initial debates. But still, by the time the later rounds of the primaries arrive, we should have several strong candidates who have distinguished themselves from the pack. I think this is good for the party. It adds a real element of drama to the race, and that should capture national attention and most of the headlines as the primary season unfolds.

Bookworm Room: Considering how often the mainstream media cuts conservative voices out of the debate, there’s something to be said for having a wide variety of conservatives advocating their particular brand of conservativism, from Rand Paul’s loopy libertarianism (I prefer the Charles Murray variety myself) to Mike Huckabee’s old-fashioned southern Democrat demagoguery dressed up as conservativism, each of them adds something.

My fear, of course, is that Americans, rather than listening to the candidates, will tune out the tumult of voices — especially after the mainstream media gets done pillorying them as racists, homophobes, misogynists, warmongers, wacko birds, and whatever other labels it can stick on people who believe in the Constitution and believe in a constitutional America. My hope is that the most articulate voices among the crowd, such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Carly Fiorina, even if they don’t prevail in the primaries, are able to turn voters on to the virtues of a true constitutional republic.

My other fear is that the big money in politics (including Left-wing groups intent upon making mischief), will keep Jeb’s candidacy afloat long enough for disaffected, confused, or disgusted voters to go for a familiar name.

Bottom line: Win or lose, these candidates have the potential to be good. They also create an irresistible target for the MSM, which will treat the Republican primary like a turkey shoot — and unfortunately, the establishment Republicans, like the pledges in Animal House, will bend over and show the target on their craven backsides:


GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
:Most likely solidify the message.

Also put an especial emphasis on Nat’l Security and Foreign Policy. Iowa will tell the tale – a culling if ye will – getting the top tier cats on the top tier. For now – the more the merrier!

Well, there you have it!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it… or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Obama Worried a Terrorist Attack Could Happen if Senate Delays Renewal of Patriot Act

The controversial PATRIOT Act surveillance bill advanced in the Senate Sunday evening, but not enough to prevent it from expiring at midnight.

Via The Washington Examiner:

The Senate voted 77-17 to bring the USA Freedom Act to the floor for debate. The bill would extend surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act with significant reforms aimed at ensuring privacy rights, including a ban on the practice of bulk domestic data collection by the National Security Agency.

Under the bill, only phone companies will collect that data, and they will only hold it for 18 months.

But thanks in large part to objections from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a staunch opponent of the spying law, Senate passage is at least days away. That means several sections of the USA Patriot Act will expire June 1, including the provision the National Security Agency interpreted to allow the unwarranted collection of phone and electronic data of Americans for the purposes of preventing terrorist attacks.

There are other sticking points, besides Paul’s, but I don’t really want to get into any of that, right now. There are decent people of good faith on both sides of this issue, and I hope that Congress is able to reach a compromise that is amenable to all. I tend to agree with Paul that the government does not need to be spying on every single one of us – even if it only “metadata” –  to keep us safe.

I want to talk about the person who is arguing in bad faith – as he always does because that is the only way he seems to know how to communicate.

Yes, I’m talking about our beloved Commander in Chief.

President Barack Obama sounded the alarm about what could happen if there is a delay in renewing the USA Patriot Act.

“I don’t want us to be in a situation in which, for a certain period of time, those authorities go away and suddenly we are dark, and heaven forbid, we’ve got a problem where we could have prevented a terrorist attack or apprehended someone who was engaged in dangerous activity but we didn’t do so simply because of inaction in the Senate,” Obama told reporters Friday after meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the White House.

Can you believe the cajones on this president pretending he’s actually concerned with  keeping Americans safe after six + years of making it abundantly clear that that is the least of his concerns.

What a joke.

This is the guy who pulled all of our troops out of Iraq, even as a terror grew in Syria, waiting to fill the void.

Pop quiz: What happens to American security when huge swaths of territory are taken by apocalyptic jihadis who have vowed to destroy us? That’s a question that should be keeping him awake at night – but, don’t worry, it isn’t –  any more than the terror attack on Benghazi kept him awake on 9/11/2012.

“I don’t want us to be in a situation in which, for a certain period of time, our troops go away and suddenly terrorists take over and heaven forbid, we’ve got a problem where we could have prevented a terrorist attack or apprehended someone who was engaged in dangerous activity but we didn’t do so simply because…. I wanted to fulfill a campaign promise to my base and get reelected in 2012.”

And how about that Taliban 5 swap for Army deserter Beau Bergdahl, huh?

The five former Gitmo detainees were set to be released to rejoin the battlefield on June 1 – but the media spotlight has the Regime scrambling now to have their stay at Club Qatar extended for awhile longer. But whether it’s for a few days, or a few months – these bad hombres are getting out.

John Bolton told Jeanine Pirro, Saturday night, “…it’s a near certainty by most estimates (that the Taliban 5 will return to the battlefield) and I think that this was really a matter of indifference to the Obama administration. I do think their intention is to close down the detention facility, and the prisoner exchange…was just an easy way to to get five particularly troublesome prisoners out of the way.”

“I don’t want us to be in a situation in which, for a certain period of time, those Taliban jihadists are set free and heaven forbid, we’ve got a problem where we could have prevented a terrorist attack or apprehended someone who was engaged in dangerous activity but we didn’t do so simply because…. I wanted to close Club Gitmo come hell or high water.”

Obama’s got a plan to reform police departments all across the nation – to make them safer and more accommodating to — criminals. 

Here’s J. Christian Adams discussing the president’s “Better Policing in the 21st Century” on the Kelly File:

These agreements make cops spend time doing reports, cops have to go to sensitivity training taught by people contracted by the DOJ. . . .  Places where the DOJ has done this like Los Angeles has resulted in more crime, more lawlessness more mayhem.  But that doesn’t matter to the ideological bureaucrats who are pushing these actions.  They care about an anti-police agenda more than they care about safe streets.  This is part of a broader effort to make cops beholden to Washington D.C. instead of good policing on the streets.

Thanks to his efforts, the nation is experiencing a crime wave like we haven’t seen for decades.

“I don’t want us to be in a situation in which, for a certain period of time, criminals feel empowered and heaven forbid, we’ve got a problem where we could have prevented some heinous crimes and apprehended someone who was engaged in dangerous activity but we didn’t do so simply because…. I wanted to make cops beholden to Washington DC.”

In his weekly address, Obama asked Americans to speak with one voice to the Senate to “put politics aside, put the safety of the American people first, and pass the USA Freedom Act now.”

Like I said – the cajones.