Friday, December 31, 2010

His Hawaii VayCay will only cost taxpayers
1.5 million (give or take a million or so)

The Lecturer-in-Chief has let us all know that "everyone" must sacrifice during these tough economic times: "Everyone must have some skin in the game," he said when lecturing the country about the greater good. Everyone, that is, except Barack Obama and his lovely wife Michelle. Evidently "sacrifice" is just for the little people, many of whom are enjoying a holiday StayCay while Obama and Company enjoy themselves in Hawaii on the taxpayer's dime, to the tune of almost a million and a half.

Some commenter somewhere asked this question recently, and I think it's a good one: Did the Obamas ever spend "Christmas" vacation in Hawaii before they won the White House lottery? Did they ever before actually pay for their own vacations? Because this Hawaiian family vacation thing is being couched as some sort of Obama family "tradition." Yeah, a tradition that began when Obama could stick the country he has so much love for with the bill.

h/t to Jim Hoft at GatewayPundit

The Washington Examiner details the cost to the taxpayers of the Obama's delightful vacation. Actually, it turns out the 1.5 million price tag doesn't take into account a number of significant costs, upping the total to somewhere in the multi-million dollar range. Nice job, Champ. You obviously (think you) deserve it.

There are more cost estimates from the Hawaii Reporter:
  • $250,000 overtime pay for the Honolulu Police Dept. to guard the president. Who pays for that?
  • an 18-automobile entourage whenever Obama leaves his residence, even for a 5-minute outing to buy shaved ice. Who pays for that?
  • the two-dozen White House staff member group, staying at the Moana Surfrider, descirbed as "exclusive, prestigious, quaint, and expensive." Who pays for that?
  • Before the president and family arrive, homeowners accommodate weeks of inspections by Secret Service agents who can appear at any time. The Secret Service performs ground, sea and air surveillance of the homes and surrounding properties and background checks on the homeowners’ employees, contractors and neighbors. The telephone company spends several days adding secure phone lines underground. The Secret Service disables the homeowners’ security systems, sets up their own and erects some sort of force field that detects movement in the area. Who pays for that?
I am also sick to death of hearing that Obama's living-large vacation/lifestyle is "in line" with other presidents, particularly George Bush. That is simply absurdly laughable. George Bush cutting brush on his ranch in Crawford, TX hardly is cost-equivalent to our fey little Obama golfing in Hawaii. Give me a break.

Update. MooChelle is a total no-show on this photo-embargoed taxpayer-paid-for-extravapalooza. One of the commenters at my favorite website, Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog, refers to her as "Our Lady in Hiding." The commenters there are suggesting that we haven't seen any sign of her because the surgery hasn't healed. I do have a question. Why do prominent AfAm women like MooChelle Obama and Orca Winfrey get White Women's nose jobs? Just askin'.

Update #2. Thanks to Granny Jan at Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog for this one, single sighting of MooChelle on VayCay. Obviously not yet ready for prime time. And by the way, who travels around with their DH using earphones? I guess she's as sick of listening to Big Zero as everyone else. Can this marriage be saved? Heh.

Update #3. Seriously, a must-must read from Jeannie DeAngelis at American Thinker: "Foie Gras and Other Healthy Fare." An excellent article. These Obama people are so far beyond "let them eat cake," it's simply astounding that unwashed crowds with pitchforks and brickbats haven't yet taken out the White House windows. They really, really don't get it--and wouldn't give a damn if they did.

President and Mrs. Obama promote one lifestyle for the peons, but when it comes to their lifestyle it’s another story. After awhile it gets to the point where Americans just have to say, “Who cares?”

This New Year’s we should all care, because watching the spectacle that has become the Obama administration coupled with Mama Michelle’s carping over what everyone should or should not be eating has more to do with duplicity and exclusivity than vacations and menu choices.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

I give him all the respect he deserves. . .

Really, what more needs to be said? "Our President," circa 2010.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

The Perky One Gets Her Journalistic Head
Handed to Her by Condi Rice

One of the people I most respect in public life is Condoleezza Rice. One of the people I least respect, in terms of how she does her job as a professional (leaving the personal aside) is Katie Couric. In a recent interview, evidently Couric thought she was interviewing a Sarah Palin-type intellect ("So, what newspapers do you read?") when she interviewed Condi Rice (Dec. 3). Heh. Here is Rice, eating Couric's lunch when Couric "asks" (in one of those questions-that-isn't-a-question) about how intelligence was incorrectly analyzed and cherry-picked to build an argument for war. Rice stops Couric cold, and then proceeds in a verbal smackdown of The Perky One. Perky never had a chance, but what stumps me is that she didn't seem to see it coming. I would have given her a little more credit than that, although why I'm not sure. Couric, you are so out of your league here, I was (almost) embarrassed for you. But you've had this coming for a long time.

A partial transcript follows, but the visual is interesting.

KATIE COURIC: On Iraq, books have been written, as you know, many, many books; documentaries have been made about how intelligence was incorrectly analyzed and cherry-picked to build an argument for war, and memos from that time do suggest that officials knew there was a small chance of actually finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, wait a second, what?

COURIC: (Chuckles.) There are -- there are some things that seem to suggest that in the buildup to the actual war that there was some doubt about that, wouldn't you say --

RICE: No. (Laughter.)

COURIC: Well --

RICE: Actually, I don't agree with that premise at all.

COURIC: You don't?


COURIC: Even with -- when Tony Blair met with the president in Washington --

RICE: Well, you always -- are you 100 percent sure when you're dealing with an opaque, secretive country in which there have been no inspections for years? No, you're not 100 percent sure. But the preponderance of intelligence analysis -- the preponderance of intelligence analysis from around the world was that he had had weapons of mass destruction. We knew he had used weapons of mass destruction. That was not a theoretical proposition.

COURIC: Right. That's correct.

RICE: He'd used them --

COURIC: Against the Kurds.

RICE: Against the Kurds, against the Shia and against the Iranians. So he'd used them several times. And the preponderance of intelligence was that he was reconstituting or had actually, in the intelligence estimate, reconstituted his biological and chemical capabilities.

There was some debate about how far he had gotten on the nuclear front, some saying that with foreign help it could be a year; others saying it would be several years.

So no, it's simply not the case that there was, if you're in a position of decision-making, evidence to say that it was likely that he did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Now, what we found is that he was indeed breaking out of the constraints that had been put there -- we all know the scandal of oil-for-food -- that he was not as far along in that reconstitution as the intelligence had suggested. But the idea that somehow Saddam Hussein was not pursuing or was never going to pursue weapons of mass destruction, I think, is as misplaced as an argument that he had fully reconstituted.

RICE: Well, that's a pretty good rationale. (Laughter.) But let me -- let me go back to the premise, the question, in the absence of weapons of mass destruction, what was the -- it's true that you can only -- that what you know today can affect what you know and do tomorrow, but what you know today cannot affect what you did yesterday.

So the premise that somehow, because weapons of mass destruction were not found in stockpiles, the rationale for the war was flawed leaves out the fact that at the time that we decided to go to war, we thought there were weapons of mass destruction. So let's stipulate that.

Now, we didn't worry about weapons of mass destruction particularly in the hands of Russians. The Russians had the hundred thousand -- a hundred times the weapons capability of Saddam Hussein. The problem was that Saddam Hussein had taken the world to war in really destructive wars twice, Iran and the Gulf War in '91; dragged us into conflict again in '98, as President Clinton had responded to the problem there; violated repeatedly Security Council resolutions. The efforts that we were making to keep him in his box, whether it was oil-for-food or the -- or trying to keep his air forces on the ground through flying no-fly zones -- he was shooting at our aircraft every day, he still refused to acknowledge that Kuwait was an independent country, and so on and so on.

This was the most dangerous tyrant in the middle of the Middle East, and he had repeatedly flaunted (sic) the efforts of the international community to control him after '91. And so I think there is an argument that in those circumstances, getting Saddam -- getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a very good thing.

COURIC: So absent of the presence -- or if you had known at the time that Iraq wasn't as far along with its weapons program as it ultimately turned out to be, would all of those other things you mentioned provide rationale for the war?

RICE: Katie, I'm going to repeat: What you know today can affect what you do tomorrow, but not

COURIC: No, but just put yourself back there --

RICE: I did -- I can't -- I can't --

COURIC: I mean, you're saying that that seemed like a good rationale. Do you think it is?

RICE: I can't speculate on what I would have thought if I had known. I think it's not a fruitful exercise. We knew what we knew, and we made the decisions based on that intelligence and that knowledge.

Now I still believe that even in the absence of finding weapons of mass destruction, the world and the Middle East are much better places without Saddam Hussein. And you always can know what happened as a result of what you did. What you can't know is what would have happened had you not done it.

The Iraq that we're talking about today, our debate about Iraq today -- our concerns about Iraq today are, of course, about continuing violence. But the conversation is whether Shias, Sunnis, Kurds can within their new democratic institutions form the first multi-confessional democracy in the Arab world. That's a really interesting discussion, and it's different than a discussion that we might have been having about whether or not the nuclear competition between Ahmadinejad in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq is a greater danger than having taken Saddam Hussein out.

COURIC: Do you --

RICE: So I actually think that might have been where we were.

COURIC: Do you think that democracy will hold in Iraq?

RICE: I do. The Iraqis are a tough people, and they're not easy. But I do think that they've got a chance in these new institutions to find a way to resolve their differences without somebody having to oppress somebody else, which has been the whole history of Iraq and in fact the whole history of the Middle East.

It will take some time. The first couple of outcomes may not, in fact, be very pretty to watch. But history has a long arc, and I think they've got a pretty good chance.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

"We don't want to make HER mad"

Well, it's official. We certainly know now, if we didn't before, who wears the pants in Obama's family. This is quite simply the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen a sitting U.S. president do.

Not only did Obama hand over his podium to his pal Bill Clinton, but then after standing around looking bored to be there, he suddenly looked at his watch and said, "I've been keeping the First Lady waiting for about a half an hour. So I'm going to take off. You're in good hands. Gibbs will call last question." And Clinton's response? "Please go. . . .we don't want to make HER mad."

So Bill Clinton, evidently playing "President for a Day," stayed around for the next 30 minutes of the press conference on the Tax Bill, answering any and all questions. And no, Gibbsy-boy did NOT "call the last question"--Clinton did that.

So where did Obama have to run off to in such a hurry that he couldn't finish a press conference on the Tax Bill? Why, to his daughter's school party, of course. Could the "First Lady" have gone ahead without him and apologized that he was unavoidably delayed? Evidently NOT. This man has priorities, and they sure as hell don't include running the country. What they do include is keeping wifey happy. Good luck with that one, Champ.

h/t to my favorite blog, Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog for the picture.

The guys at HotAir ask the obvious question: "How important is this deal to Obama? Less than a Christmas party and dealing with his spouse's irritation." The incredible shrinking president. I also thought Ace of Spades said it well: "equal parts funny, pathetic, and quite frankly a little scary."

Update. From the New York Post and John Podhoretz. "What happened here has, to my knowledge, never happened. When the president finishes speaking, whenever the  president finishes speaking, the event ends. Period.

"Not any longer.

"Obama can change the rules of etiquette governing his White House if he wants. The problem for him is that those rules of etiquette exist for a reason. They are intended to enforce the standing of the presidency itself. By breaching them, Obama did harm to his own standing, and at a time when he can ill afford to lose any more of his authority."

Sunday, December 05, 2010

I'm taking a little break from the blog for a bit so that I can get some other writing work done. But I'll be back! These fools in the Obama administration may have been slapped down by the November election, but none of us are so naive as to believe that they're done with their dirty tricks. We'll be watching!