Why We Went To War In Iraq.

NOTE: The Public Law that authorized war against Iraq in 2002 never stated that Iraq had nuclear weapons at that time.  Nonetheless, it was clear, according to intelligence reports at the time, that Iraq had a clear desire to develop a nuclear weapon capability.  Read Public Law 107-243 below for the reasons that we went to war with Iraq. 

PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY 
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 


116 STAT. 1498 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 

Oct. 16, 2002 

[H.J. Res. 114] 
Public Law 107–243 

107th Congress 
Joint Resolution 

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. 

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against 
and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a 
coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order 
to defend the national security of the United States and enforce 
United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; 

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into 
a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to 
which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate 
its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the 
means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for 
international terrorism; 

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United 
States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery 
that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and 
a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had 
an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was 
much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence 
reporting had previously indicated; 

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, 
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify 
and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and 
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal 
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; 

Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded 
that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs 
threatened vital United States interests and international 
peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable 
breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the President 
‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution 
and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into 
compliance with its international obligations’’; 

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security 
of the United States and international peace and security in 
the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable 
breach of its international obligations by, among other things, 
continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and 
biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons 
capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; 

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations 
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression 
of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace 
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, 
or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, 
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property 
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; 

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability 
and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other 
nations and its own people; 

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing 
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, 
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President 
Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United 
States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the 
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; 

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility 
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, 
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are 
known to be in Iraq; 

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist 
organizations, including organizations that threaten the 
lives and safety of United States citizens; 

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, 
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition 
of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist 
organizations; 

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use 
weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi 
regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise 
attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide 
them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme 
magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and 
its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by 
the United States to defend itself; 

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) 
authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United 
Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent 
relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities 
that threaten international peace and security, including the 
development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or 
obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation 
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression 
of its civilian population in violation of United Nations 
Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors 
or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United 
Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994); 

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against 
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1), Congress has authorized 
the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to 
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order 
to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 
661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’; 

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that 
it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals 
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent 
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against 

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of 
its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council 
Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, 
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress, 
‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the 
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’; 

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338) 
expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy 
of the United States to support efforts to remove from power 
the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic 
government to replace that regime; 

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the 
United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council 
to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work 
for the necessary resolutions,’’ while also making clear that ‘‘the 
Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just 
demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be 
unavoidable’’; 

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war 
on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist 
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass 
destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 
cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions 
make clear that it is in the national security interests of the 
United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that 
all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be 
enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; 

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war 
on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding 
requested by the President to take the necessary actions against 
international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including 
those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, 
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 
11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; 

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue 
to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists 
and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, 
or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided 
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or 
harbored such persons or organizations; 

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to 
take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international 
terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in 
the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force 
(Public Law 107–40); and 

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States 
to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf 
region: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for 
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’’. 

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. 

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by 
the President to— 

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security 
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq 
and encourages him in those efforts; and 

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security 
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, 
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies 
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. 

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the 
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary 
and appropriate in order to— 

(1) defend the national security of the United States against 
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council 
resolutions regarding Iraq. 

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the 
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force 
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter 
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising 
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his 
determination that— 

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic 
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately 
protect the national security of the United States against the 
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead 
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council 
resolutions regarding Iraq; and 

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent 
with the United States and other countries continuing to take 
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist 
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or 
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist 
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. 

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with 
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress 
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory 
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 
War Powers Resolution. 

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in 
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War 
Powers Resolution. 

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. 

(a) REPORTS.—The President shall, at least once every 60 days, President. 
submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint 
resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of 
authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts 
that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, 
including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation 
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338). 

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT.—To the extent that the 
submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with 
the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this 
joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress 
pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution 
(Public Law 93–148), all such reports may be submitted as 
a single consolidated report to the Congress. 

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—To the extent that the information 
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military 
Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1) is included in 
the report required by this section, such report shall be considered 
as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution. 

Approved October 16, 2002. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46): 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–721 (Comm. on International Relations). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002): 

Oct. 8, 9, considered in House. 

Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate. 
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002): 

Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement. 

How to Deal With U.S. Citizens Who Become Radical Islamic Terrorists

It is inscrutable to all rational thinkers that our elected officials are pathologically incapable of addressing the chronic issue of U.S. citizens traveling to the Middle East, fighting with radical Islamic terrorists against the U.S. and then returning to this country to perpetrate death and destruction across the Nation.  The solution is painfully simple — and effective — and applies equally to local self-radicalized Islamic terrorists who spread death and terror across this country.

The United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 23 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death."  This is precisely the sort of issue that firing squads are so perfectly designed to deal with and in a fashion that dramatically reduces recidivism.  How difficult can it be!

POSTSCRIPT:  Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 people and injured more than 30 others at Fort Hood, Texas, on November 5, 2009.  Today Hasan is alive and well and living off the U.S. taxpayer.  On August 28, 2014, his attorney announced that Hasan had written a letter to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — head of the notorious Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which has proclaimed a caliphate in Iraq and Syria and has been designated a terrorist organization by the US, UN, and many Western countries.  In the letter, Hasan requests to be made a citizen of the Islamic State and included his signature and the abbreviation SoA (Soldier of Allah).  And this is justice in the U.S. today?

The War in Iraq Revisited

War On Terror

Investors Business Daily (editorial)

The Islamic State somehow now possesses the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein never had. If the U.S. had finished the job in Iraq, neither IS nor its WMD would exist.

The New York Times boasts admittedly great reportorial skill, but the Old Gray Lady has a lot of trouble connecting the dots of what she uncovers.

A massive eight-part front-page extravaganza on Iraqi chemical weapons on Tuesday reported that during the Iraq War, U.S. forces found "roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs," sickening numerous soldiers, who were then ordered not to talk.

But in a story dripping in supposed irony, the Times never puts two and two together: If stumbling upon Saddam Hussein's buried WMD made our troops ill, what could he have done had he been allowed to recover what he buried? After all, 5,000 Kurds and thousands of Iranian troops were gassed by Saddam in the mid-1980s during the Iran-Iraq War.

The Times also never notices a particularly weighty gorilla in the room: At the Persian Gulf War's conclusion back in 1991, United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 required Iraq to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless" of all its chemical and biological weaponry.

In 1997, of course, Saddam began closing down WMD inspections by the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq, accusing it of being a U.S. spy agency.

The so-called "rush to war" with Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that critics of Bush's invasion talk about, charging it was all based on misinformation, actually took place over some 12 years, during which the civilized world patiently stood by amidst 17 U.N. resolutions against Saddam, all of which were based on widely accepted fact and Saddam's documented mischief.

It wasn't George W. Bush or neocon icon Paul Wolfowitz who described the "kind of threat Iraq poses now" as being "a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists." President Bill Clinton did — in 1998.

Nor did Bush say, "Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program," and, "if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." That was then-Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2002.

Bush didn't say in 1998: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology ... and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi did.

No wonder more than 50 countries supported the U.S. liberation of Iraq in 2003, dwarfing the international coalition that went to war to reverse Saddam's invasion of Kuwait more than a decade earlier.

When the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed Res. 1441, "a final opportunity" for Saddam to disarm in November 2002, all it wanted to lift sanctions and avoid war was overflights and unannounced inspections. Saddam refused, knowing WMD would be found.

Now that the chemical weapons that weren't really there are in the hands of the Islamic State monster that has emerged after Obama's premature military withdrawal from Iraq, how many of the Democrats quoted above wish their president had not dismantled the victory Bush left for him?

Obama's Foreign Policy In Action

Our US Ambassador to Libya being dragged through the streets before being murdered.

These are pictures you will not see in the Obama media.

Here is our American Ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, diplomat, father, husband, and American Citizen, being dragged through the streets of Benghazi, and your President does NOTHING! . . . except go to Las Vegas for a fund raiser, plus two more today.

To most Americans this is an act of war.  To our president it's just another act of office violence like Fort Hood. He and the Secy of State have already apologized and will soon send them another $6.3 Billion in foreign aid. This is as sad as it gets. 

Obama Ushers In A Nuclear Iran

President's Policy On Iran's Nuclear Program Lacks Coherence

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

 Posted 09/13/2012

There are two positions one can take regarding the Iranian nuclear program: (a) it doesn't matter, we can deter them, or (b) it does matter, we must stop them.

In my view, the first position — that we can contain Iran as we did the Soviet Union — is totally wrong, a product of wishful thinking and misread history.

But at least it's internally coherent.

What is incoherent is President Obama's position. He declares the Iranian program intolerable — "I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon" — yet stands by as Iran rapidly approaches nuclearization.

A policy so incoherent, so knowingly and obviously contradictory, is a declaration of weakness and passivity. And this, as Anthony Cordesman, James Phillips and others have argued, can increase the chance of war.

It creates, writes Cordesman, "the same conditions that helped trigger World War II — years of negotiations and threats, where the threats failed to be taken seriously until war became all too real."

This has precipitated the current U.S.-Israeli crisis, sharpened by the president's rebuff of the Israeli prime minister's request for a meeting during his upcoming U.S. visit. Ominous new developments; no Obama response. Alarm bells going off everywhere; Obama plays deaf.

The old arguments, old excuses, old pretensions have become ridiculous:

1. Sanctions. The director of national intelligence testified to Congress at the beginning of the year that they had zero effect in slowing the nuclear program. Now the International Atomic Energy Agency reports (Aug. 30) that the Iranian nuclear program, far from slowing, is actually accelerating. Iran has doubled the number of high-speed centrifuges at Fordow, the facility outside Qom built into a mountain to make it impregnable to air attack.

This week, the IAEA reported Iranian advances in calculating the explosive power of an atomic warhead. It noted once again Iran's refusal to allow inspection of its weapons testing facility at Parchin, and cited satellite evidence of Iranian attempts to clean up and hide what's gone on there.

The administration's ritual response is that it has imposed the toughest sanctions ever. So what? They're a means, not an end. And they've had no effect on the nuclear program.

2. Negotiations. The latest, supposedly last-ditch round of talks in Istanbul, Baghdad, then Moscow has completely collapsed. The West even conceded to Iran the right to enrich — shattering a decade-long consensus and six Security Council resolutions demanding its cessation.

Iran's response? Contemptuous rejection. Why not? The mullahs have strung Obama along for more than three years and still see no credible threat emanating from the one country that could disarm them.

3. Diplomatic isolation. The administration boasts that Iran is becoming increasingly isolated. Really? Just two weeks ago, 120 nations showed up in Tehran for a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement — against U.S. entreaties not to attend. Even the U.N. secretary-general attended — after the administration implored him not to.

Which shows you what American entreaties are worth today. And the farcical nature of Iran's alleged isolation.

The Obama policy is in shambles. Which is why Cordesman argues that the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran without war is to establish a credible military threat to make Iran recalculate and reconsider. That means U.S. red lines: deadlines beyond which Washington will not allow itself to be strung, as well as benchmark actions that would trigger a response, such as the further hardening of Iran's nuclear facilities to the point of invulnerability and, therefore, irreversibility.

Which made all the more shocking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's dismissal last Sunday of the very notion of any U.S. red lines. No deadlines. No bright-line action beyond which Iran must not go. The sleeping giant continues to slumber. And to wait. As the administration likes to put it, "for Iran to live up to its international obligations."

This is beyond feckless. The Obama policy is a double game: a rhetorical commitment to stopping Iran, yet real-life actions that everyone understands will allow Iran to go nuclear.

Yet at the same time it does nothing, the administration warns Israel sternly, repeatedly, publicly, even threateningly not to strike the Iranian nuclear program. With zero prospect of his policy succeeding, Obama insists on Israeli inaction, even as Iran races to close the window of opportunity for any successful attack.

Not since its birth six decades ago has Israel been so cast adrift by its closest ally.

Dishonorable Disclosures

On August 15, 2012, Special Operations OPSEC released this 22 minute video (link below) that describes how the Obama administration deals with U.S. national security ---

Dishonorable Disclosures

Intelligence and Special Operations forces are furious and frustrated at how President Obama and those in positions of authority have exploited their service for political advantage. Countless leaks, interviews and decisions by the Obama Administration and other government officials have undermined the success of our Intelligence and Special Operations forces and put future missions and personnel at risk. 

The unwarranted and dangerous public disclosure of Special Forces Operations is so serious -- that for the first time ever -- former operators have agreed to risk their reputations and go 'on the record' in a special documentary titled "Dishonorable Disclosures." Its goal is to educate America about serious breaches of security and prevent them from ever happening again.

Use of military ranks, titles & photographs in uniform does not imply endorsement of the Dept of the Army or the Department of Defense.  All individuals are no longer in active service with any federal agency or military service.

War Is On The Way!

Gaffney: Rise of Sharia Law Will Bring War to the Middle East

Monday, October 24, 2011 06:56 PM

By: Martin Gould and Kathleen Walter

War is on its way in the Middle East as Muslim countries are determined to force a showdown over the future of Israel, Ronald Reagan’s assistant defense secretary Frank Gaffney warned in an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview.

“I’m afraid there’s a war coming, a very serious, perhaps cataclysmic regional war,” he said. “It will be presumably over, at least in part, the future existence of the state of Israel. It may involve all of its neighbors, as they have in the past, attacking Israel to try, as they say, to drive the Jews into the sea.

“It may involve the use of nuclear weapons,” Gaffney predicted. “But whatever form it takes and whenever it occurs, it is unlikely to be contained to that region, and we must do everything we can to prevent freedom’s enemies from thinking they have an opportunity to engage in that kind of warfare.”

That means standing “absolutely, unmistakably” as one with Israel and doing everything to prevent Iran getting its hands on nuclear weapons.

Gaffney, who now heads up the nonprofit Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., was speaking on the day that the “moderate” Islamist party Ennahda claimed victory at the ballot box in Tunisia and the day after Libya’s new rulers declared that country will be run on Islamic principles and under Sharia law.

Gaffney does not believe Ennahda is really a moderating force. “I don’t believe there is such a thing as a moderate Islamist party,” he said. “The challenge with Islamists is that they seek to impose what they call Sharia on everybody, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

“They may, as a matter of tactical expediency, choose to do so in incremental ways, often nonviolently, at least initially.

“The problem is that, because ultimately they must — according to Sharia, according to what they believe is God’s will — make everyone feel subdued in order to achieve their God-mandated direction, they will not remain moderate. They will not be satisfied with anything less than the ultimate supremacy of Sharia and they certainly will not resist the use of violence when it becomes expedient to get their way.”

Gaffney, who writes a regular column for Newsmax, foresees a rising tide of Islamist governments growing throughout Middle East and North Africa and spreading even further.

“We’re witnessing not just the violent kind of jihad that these Islamists believe God compels them to engage in, but also, where they must for tactical reasons, a more stealthy kind, or civilizational jihad as the Muslim Brotherhood calls it. We’re witnessing that playing out, not only in places in the Middle East but also in Europe, in Australia, in Canada and here in the United States as well,” he said.

The spread of Sharia, which Gaffney said often is referred to as “Communism with a god,” is “the most urgent and grievous challenge we face as a free people.

“Those who follow this program of Sharia believe that God is directing them to engage in jihad or whatever form of warfare is necessary to accomplish their goals . . . .Through stealth, they have successfully penetrated important parts of the free world including our own government and civil society institutions.”

The Obama administration has to stop “embracing” the Muslim Brotherhood, Gaffney said.

“This is legitimating our enemies,” he said. “It is facilitating their influence operations and their penetration and it greatly increases the prospect that they will be successful at what the Muslim Brotherhood’s own documents indicate is their desire, which is to destroy western civilization from within.”

Gaffney noted that Ennahda had won what appears to be a clean election in Tunisia, but that doesn’t mean there ever will be another vote there.

“The problem is not simply democracy. People are pointing to Tunisia as a perfect example of democracy at work. Democracy is fine if all you want is one-man-one-vote one-time. That is precisely what the Muslim Brotherhood and its like-minded Islamist friends want.”

The Obama administration must apply pressure to ensure that democracy has a future there and elsewhere in the region, Gaffney said.

“The president and his administration are not even pursuing that,” he said. “What we are likely to wind up with, not just in Tunisia, not just in Libya, not just in Egypt, but probably in due course in Syria — as we have in Lebanon, as we have in Gaza and probably will have down the road in Yemen, Bahrain, maybe Saudi Arabia — is the takeover, the unmistakable takeover, perhaps through the ballot box, of people who will not seek or allow others freedom, who will impose Sharia and who will use whatever resources they amass as a result, not only to suppress their own people, but to endanger us.”

"Iran And The Bomb" Coming To A Theater Near You!

Iran to Test First Nuclear Bomb by 2012?

Reports claim that Ayatollah Khamenei has ordered the testing program to proceed immediately.

June 9, 2011 - 11:00 am - by 'Reza Kahlili'

According to sources in the Revolutionary Guards of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei has ordered them to proceed immediately with the completion of the Iranian atomic bomb project, including testing and arming of missiles with nuclear payload.

Ayatollah Khamenei’s decision is based on a belief by the Islamic regime’s strategists that both America and Israel lack the courage and the ability to dismantle the Iranian nuclear facilities. The Iranian regime believes that America and Israel fear Iran’s retaliation, and that it has had them frozen in place and confused as to what action to take next. They have concluded that this presents a great opportunity for the Iranian regime to become a nuclear-armed state without any interference from the outside.

Khamenei offered the same message on June 1 at the Imam Hussein Military Academy:

The Great Satan, since the early days of the Revolution, has mobilized its military, financial, propaganda, and political empire to defeat the Islamic Revolution and the Iranian nation, but the political realities in Iran and the region show that the U.S. has been brought to its knees by the Islamic Revolution.

He further stated that the failure of the U.S. policies in the Middle East and the promising revival of Islam in the region are the realization of the divine promises to the Iranian nation — and that the recent events herald the realization of God’s promise that Islam and the Muslims will ultimately triumph.

The authorization for nuclear weapons by the supreme leader has been followed by the recent announcement by the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), Fereidoon Abbasi, that Iran will start the installation of more advanced centrifuges at the previously secret site, the Fordo plant near the city of Qom. He also said that this will triple Iran’s production of 20 percent enriched uranium.

A chilling article titled “The Next Day after the Iranian Nuclear Bomb Test Will be a Normal Day” recently appeared on an Iranian website, Gerdab.ir, which is run by the Revolutionary Guards. This is the first time that an outlet belonging to the Iranian government openly talked about a nuclear bomb — Iran has insisted repeatedly that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

The commentary states that after the Iranian nuclear bomb test, everyone will be able to go about their business as usual. The explosion will not be so strong as to bring destruction to the neighboring areas, though not so weak that the Iranian scientists have difficulties with their test. But it will be a day for Iranians to be filled with pride. The article even predicts playfully how Western media will cover the event.

Most chilling is how the article ends with a quote from the Quran (Al Enfal 60):

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah.

Iran, which was for years enriching only to the 3.5 percent level due to fear of retaliation by the international community, started its enrichment to the 20 percent level last year after the Obama administration’s soft approach toward the regime. Twenty percent enrichment is 80 percent of the way to weaponization.

Iran currently has over 3600 kilograms of enriched uranium at 3.5 percent, enough for three nuclear bombs if enriched further. It also has an announced inventory of 40 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium. If true, it will take the Iranians only two months to further enrich that stockpile into 20 kilograms of enriched uranium over 90 percent, sufficient for one nuclear warhead.

The IAEA revealed in a recent report that Iran has sought and experimented with certain technologies that could make a type of atom bomb known as an implosion device, considered more advanced than the bomb America used on Hiroshima.

I revealed on May 31 that the Revolutionary Guards are now in possession of two nuclear capable warheads, with eight more to be delivered within the next ten months. The Guards expect to have at least two fully armed nuclear warheads before the end of the current Iranian calendar year, March 2012.

America and its European allies have continuously tried to change the behavior of the regime with incentives and negotiations. The Iranian leaders refused every time to accept any offer, buying time in order to get to the point of no return. The jihadists in Iran will have their nuclear bomb, and we have only ourselves to blame.

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity for safety reasons. A Time to Betray, his book about his double life as a CIA agent in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, was published by Simon & Schuster on April 6.

2011 The State of the Union Heritage Reply

Reaction Roundup: Heritage Responds To The State Of The Union

Posted By Conn Carroll On January 25, 2011 @ 9:28 pm 

More Change and Progress
What does the committed progressive do when the direction of history turns against them? That’s what seems to have happened between 2008 and 2010–between an election thought to be the next great leap forward in the movement of liberalism and another which seems to signal a popular rejection of just that claim. The Left had long maintained that big government is inevitable, permanent, and ever-expanding – the final form of “democratic” governance. But now the progressive transformation seems to have bogged down. Indeed, the Left’s beloved modern state seems at issue. The American people just haven’t bought in to the whole new New Deal. Now what?
Consolidate. For progressives, politics has always been seen as an ebb and flow between periods of “progress” and “change” and brief interregnums to defend and consolidate the status quo as we wait for the bursting forth of the next great era of reformism. “It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past,” he said at one point, referring to the fight over open homosexuality in the military. “It is time to move forward as one nation.” Look at what he said about “the new health care law”: he is eager to improve it, but “what I’m not willing to do is go back.” “So instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let’s fix what needs fixing and move forward.” Lock in progressive achievements and let’s move on.
Next, redefine what change means. Rather than transformative change (as in the old notion of ‘we are the change we have been waiting for’) it now turns out that “the world has changed,” driven by technology and competition. The new challenge is not to bring about change but to respond to change and “meet the demands of a new age.” What we can’t do is stand pat–a cut against conservatives using the phrase early progressives coined against their critics who wanted to “stand pat” rather than join the liberal surge. Today we must change to keep up with change.
President Obama said several times that we must “win the future.” Fine. Does anyone want to lose the future? But–and here he betrays his progressive principles and reconfirms that liberalism is the philosophy of government–it turns out that the key is more government “investment” in innovation, education and infrastructure. And more progressive government: “We cannot win the future with a government of the past.” We know what that means.
So: consolidate, meet the demands for change and win the future. There’s still hope: “We are poised for progress.”
- Matt Spalding
Still No Choice in Education
We agree with the president: No Child Left Behind is broken. Unfortunately, the similarities end there. although both sides of the aisle agree that No Child Left Behind is broken, the Obama administration does not believe the federal role in education is fundamentally flawed. They’re still holding onto the hope that after 40 years of failed federal interventions, this time, Washington will get it right.
In his address tonight, President Obama lauded his Race to the Top Program and continued to promote national standards. He also talked extensively about “investing” more in education, a clear indication that he plans to continue Washington’s education spending spree.
But conservatives have a better plan for improving education: The Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (A-PLUS) plan. A-PLUS would allow states to opt out of onerous federal programs such as those found within NCLB, and would allow state and local leaders to have more control over education dollars and decision-making.
The president’s speech also lacked any serious discussion of school choice, despite the fact that the highly effective D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is on life support in his back yard. By contrast, Speaker John Boehner had parents and children from the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program as guests in the Speaker’s Box during the SOTU tonight – a sure sign that he plans to make school choice in the District a priority.
- Lindsey Burke
Obamacare is Still Unconstitutional
Tonight, the President, defending his health care plan, stated “If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you.” Unfortunately, he did not express any concern regarding the constitutionality of the bill. As Heritage has described here ^[3], the health care mandate is both unprecedented, and unconstitutional. A federal court in Virginia has already agreed, declaring the mandate unconstitutional, and a majority of states are challenging the mandate in court in Florida.
The mandate’s constitutional defect is a major problem for Obama’s offer to just modify the existing, ill-conceived bill, because as President Obama’s own Justice Department has argued in court, the mandate is so essential given the other requirements in the law that its elimination would “inexorably drive [the health insurance] market into extinction.” Tinkering around the edges will not fix the problems with this bill. A due respect for the Constitution and public opinion requires that the unprecedented overreaching of the mandate be corrected–and this will require complete repeal.
- Robert Alt
Social Security
The good news was that the speech included a reference to fixing Social Security. Unfortunately, President Obama’s laudable goal of finding a “bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations” was either empty rhetoric or showed a serious misunderstanding of what causes that program’s underfunding. His next sentence exempted everything that might improve future generations’ retirement security except raising taxes.
Not only does that make a bipartisan solution almost impossible, but the tax increases that he has discussed in the past don’t fix the problem. For instance, Social Security’s nonpartisan actuaries say that making every dollar or earnings subject to the payroll tax only delays the start of permanent deficits by 8 years from 2016 until 2024. Future retirees can still expect a more than 20 percent cut in their benefits. And those who would pay those higher taxes will see the huge increase in their marginal tax rates drain away dollars that could otherwise have been used to start small businesses.
The President’s approach ignores the recommendations of his own bipartisan commission. It also fails to recognize that Americans are living longer than ever, and that over 80 percent of those who reach retirement age are healthy enough to work a little longer if it means that they can avoid the 20 percent benefit cuts that will come otherwise. If he really wants a bipartisan solution to Social Security’s problems, this speech didn’t show it.
- David John
Repeal
Throughout the health care debate, the Heritage Foundation offered numerous ideas ^[4] for how to improve the health care system, including for those who are most in need.
Americans want health care reform, but not the kind enacted under the new health care law. They do not want to turn more power over their health care dollars or personal health care decisions to Washington bureaucrats. And, Congress cannot fix a health care law that is founded on a fundamentally flawed foundation. ^[5]
Real health care reform ^[6] is based on consumer-focused, market-based reforms that empower individuals by fixing the tax treatment of health insurance, transforming health care entitlement programs, and letting the states develop reforms that best meet the unique needs of their citizens through portability, choice and competition.
If the President is serious about American’s fiscal future, he would begin by repealing a health care law that adds a trillion dollars in new health care spending, stifles economic growth through a half a trillion in new taxes, burdens future generations with unknown costs, and undermines individual freedom through government mandates and regulations.
- Nina Owcharenko
Subsidies Don’t Create Jobs
In his state of the union address, President Obama dragged out a 50 year-old, cold-war poster child to paper over his proposal for a tried-and-failed energy/jobs policy. The rhetoric for his policy alludes to the Sputnik space race. Unfortunately, the reality promises a sputtering economy. Government bureaucrats and federal mandates are not the motivating force for innovation and job creation.
Last year’s poster children for clean-energy jobs, Solyndra and Evergreen Solar, are this year’s object lessons in the futility of trying to subsidize our way to good, permanent job creation.
Mere months after receiving a $535 million government loan (and after a well-publicized presidential photo op), Solyndra withdrew its initial public offering because it got a sub-par review from an independent auditor. And a year after getting their half-billion dollars, Solyndra closed a factory and got rid of nearly 200 jobs.
After much hyped state subsidies of up to $76 million and after millions of dollars of federal subsidies Evergreen Solar is now shutting its factory in Massachusetts, laying off 700 workers, and moving production to China.
If a company needs a subsidy to hire a worker, that worker will be out on the street when the subsidy expires. Private enterprise provides energy, creates jobs, and develops innovative technology. It does so because private enterprise only succeeds when the energy, jobs, and technology provide value that exceeds the cost. That’s how we get good, durable jobs.
- David Kreutzer
The State of the Family
This evening’s State of the Union address was notably devoid of discussion of one of the issues that could be fairly characterized as “decades in the making,” the phrase President Obama used to introduce a litany of problems facing the country. Evidence continues to accumulate ^[7] that the persistence of problems like poverty and welfare dependency is strongly associated with the rise in the number of children born out of wedlock.
To a striking degree, the challenges of the federal budget are linked to and aggravated by the fracturing in family budgets brought on by the failure of families to form ^[8] and government policies that neglect the best adhesive to repair that fracturing – the bonds of marriage. The state of American families went unmentioned tonight but it is vital that this conversation, and its implications ^[9] for the State of the Union, happen with a new urgency at the national level.
- Chuck Donovan
Preserving Peace
The President said tonight that the nation must always remember that the Americans who have borne the greatest burden in this struggle to be free are the men and women in uniform. President Obama was right to say that the country is united in support of those who serve and their families. As a result, he also rightly said that we must provide them the equipment that they need, care and benefits they’ve earned, and more.
The challenge in meeting this task of providing our all-volunteer force all the tools they need to succeed now and for the next 20 years is that the U.S. is slipping in this area, as well. The traditional margins of U.S. technological military superiority are declining across the board. These long-held “margins” are ingredients in U.S. military supremacy that have ensured that our forces are never in a fair fight. Indeed, during a recent trip to China, the Secretary of Defense said ^[10] that the Chinese “clearly have potential to put some of our capabilities at risk.”
Let us truly recall the lessons of history in reversing the trend ^[11] of trying to seek a peace dividend when none exists. A decade of conflict and two decades of underinvestment have left the U.S. military too small and inadequately equipped to do everything being asked of these men and women. In July 2010, a bipartisan commission warned of a coming “train wreck” if Congress does not act quickly to rebuild and modernize the U.S. military. There is no quick or easy fix. Meeting the military’s full modernization requirements ^[12]
American Founders understood ^[13] that “the surest means of avoiding war is to be prepared for it in peace.” As Thomas Paine warned, it would not be enough to “expect to reap the blessings of freedom.” Americans would have to “undergo the fatigues of supporting it.” Supporting freedom and defending the nation still requires public spending on the nation’s defense forces in both times of war and peace. As President George Washington asserted in his First Annual Message, delivered in 1790, the “most effectual means of preserving peace” is “to be prepared for war.” Congress and the President should recommit tonight to rebuilding America’s military and giving the best to those who serve.
- Mackenzie Eaglen
Tax Agenda Falls Short
President Obama acknowledged the two biggest tax issues holding back the economy and hampering our competitiveness: our inefficient individual income tax code and our high corporate tax rate. His desired remedies, however, fall short of what is needed.
The individual income tax code needs fundamental reform. It has become cluttered with too many credits, deductions, and exemptions that slow economic growth. The president did not lay out his vision for tax reform. For tax reform to become a reality leadership at the presidential level is vital. President Obama’s lack of thorough attention to the issue does not bold well for success in the near future.
The president revisited his old hobby horse: eliminating tax cuts for the top 2 percent of income earners. This was an odd inclusion in the speech since just a few weeks ago he signed a 2 year extension of those very tax cuts. And if tax reform does become a reality, the 2001/2003 tax cuts would be a non-issue.
On the corporate tax front the president was better but far from perfect. He rightly called for the rate to come down but only if Congress closes “loopholes” to offset the cost. Many of the provisions that are commonly referred to as loopholes are in fact justifiable deductions that help lessen the blow of the corporate tax systems’ other shortcomings like the taxation of income earned in foreign countries and the lack of ability for companies to immediately deduct the cost of capital investment. Getting rid of them will temper any benefit derived from a lower rate. The few loopholes that do exist would fall well short of making up the revenue from a rate cut. Spending should be cut to make sure the rate reduction does not add to the deficit.
The best tax recommendation the president made was the elimination of 1099 reporting requirements that are part of the healthcare law. These requirements will cripple small businesses should they ever go into effect.
The worst tax idea was the elimination of so-called subsidies for oil companies. These tax breaks allow oil companies to expense a portion of the huge upfront costs they incur for developing new oil sources. The specific provisions would not be necessary if the tax code rightly allowed all businesses to expense their capital investments. Taking them away from oil companies will increase the cost of oil for all Americans and be a step in the wrong direction for the tax code.
-Curtis Dubay
Denial on Deficits
On one vital point the nation has almost without exception reached a consensus when it comes to entitlement spending — current policy is unaffordable and unsustainable. President Obama acknowledged this clearly when he announced the creation of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and again when he received the Commission’s final report. The preamble to the report concluded ^[14]:

After all the talk about debt and deficits, it is long past time for America’s leaders to put up or shut up. The era of debt denial is over, and there can be no turning back.

To the existing consensus regarding the need to act, the need for “America’s leaders to put up or shut up,” as the Commission put it, can now be added a second point of broad agreement – the President’s policies as outlined in his State of the Union Address regarding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the programs that have the nation on course to a “crushing debt burden”, continue the era of debt denial unabated, unabashedly, even proudly.
The President in short has turned his back on his own Commission, on his vows of leadership, and on future generations. On these issues it will now be up to the Congress to take up the mantle of leadership the President has found too heavy to bear.
-JD Foster
American Leadership
In the opening section of his address, the President referred to the need to “sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but a light to the world.” Those are certainly words that conservatives can endorse and respect, just as they will agree with his statement that America is “the first nation that was founded for the sake of an idea.” As Matthew Spalding has stated, the American creed ^[15] “is set forth most clearly in the Declaration of Independence, … a timeless statement of inherent rights, the proper purposes of government, and the limits on political authority.”
Unfortunately, this was not the creed that the President proclaimed in his speech. Instead of recognizing that the Founders wanted to limit the role of the federal government, the President continued on in the vein that has marked American politics for too many years: arguing that the needs of tomorrow demand more spending — the President now calls them “investments” — on programs that have already failed.
Laudably, the President called on Congress to pass the free trade area with South Korea; regrettably, he accompanied it with a reiteration of his promise to “only sign deals that keep faith with American workers, and promote American jobs,” a pledge that, in the case of the agreement with South Korea, meant months of delay and special favors to organized labor in the U.S. automotive sector ^[16].
Laudably, the President twice noted the need for American leadership in the world. He even went so far as to claim that “American leadership has been renewed and America’s standing has been restored.”
The source of this restoration, though, remained mysterious. In Iraq, the President noted, the war is ending — thanks to the surge strategy that the President opposed. America continues to disrupt Islamist plots — made by an enemy the President was unwilling even to name, in a war that, as the still-open Guantanamo prison testifies, has required him to rethink his presumptions.
In Afghanistan, the President reiterated the U.S. determination to win — and coupled it with a promise that “we will begin to bring our troops home” in July 2011. The New START treaty and the “reset” with Russia made predictable appearances — but nothing was heard about the fact that Russia is an autocracy that attacks, threatens, and subverts its neighbors, while at the same time it murders and imprisons opponents at home.
In the realm of foreign affairs, the only surprises came at the end of the President’s remarks, when he expressed solidarity with Southern Sudan, and explicitly said that “the United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.” Where is that support in Russia? In Iran? In China?
As Marion Smith wrote in his essay ^[17] on American leadership, “George Washington recommended a foreign policy of independence and strength, a policy that would allow America to ‘choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.’ ” What was missing from
the President’s address was any sense that both U.S. interests and our sense of justice ought not to be engaged only in the Tunisias of the world. The President’s emphasis on the value of American’s alliances was welcome. Too bad it was not balanced by a recognition that the U.S. also faces hostile regimes.
In an echo of President George W. Bush’s call in 2002 for “a balance of power that favors freedom” — a phrase much mocked at the time — President Obama called for “a world that favors peace and prosperity.”
Until the President accepts that prosperity flows from freedom, and that we will not advance the cause of peace by speaking only in abstractions about oppression in “some countries” and ignoring the flaws in the world’s multilateral institutions, all of us are not likely to move closer to that goal.
- Ted Bromund
President’s Budget Proposals Don’t Match the Rhetoric
President Obama asserted that “a critical step in winning the future is to make sure we aren’t buried under a mountain of debt.” Yet he failed to offer any proposals that would significantly rein in escalating spending and deficits.
The President’s proposed freeze of non-security discretionary spending would essentially lock in the 25 percent expansion these programs have received since 2007. Yet paring back deficits requires actually reducing runaway spending, starting with the House Republican plan to cut this spending back to 2008 or even 2006 ^[18] levels.
Furthermore, only 12 percent of the federal budget would be affected by the President’s freeze proposal. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs are truly driving long-term deficits ^[19] upward. Yet the President ignored nearly all entitlement reforms proposed by his own commission ^[20], and even stated opposition to any change in future Social Security benefits. Additionally, the President again defended his budget-busting trillion-dollar health care program.
Finally, President Obama sought to rehabilitate the reputation of runaway spending by renaming it “investment.” While investment indeed drives economic growth, politicians have proven to be poor investors. Federal K-12 education spending has grown 219 percent ^[21] faster than inflation over the past decade, yet student test scores have stagnated. Thirty years of federal energy spending has failed to significantly improve the alternative energy market. And massive increases in federal transportation spending have been diverted ^[22] into earmarks, bike paths, and museums, or allocated to budget-busting transit ^[23] programs that governors do not want. If President Obama truly wants to encourage investment, he should focus on reducing the budget deficit – which is crowding out private investment – and should reduce barriers to productive private sector investments.
-Brian Riedl
1 Million Electric Cars Should Reach the Market When They’re Ready
In his address President Obama emphasized that ^[24] “With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.”
How much more research and incentives do electric cards need? ^[25] We taxpayers have handed out billions for advanced battery vehicle manufacturing. We taxpayers foot the bill (from $2,500–$7,500, depending on the battery capacity) for every electric vehicle purchase. And we taxpayers help pay for the tens of millions of dollars the Department of Energy spends to study increased battery storage. Even so, the demand for electric vehicles is low because electric cars are prohibitively costly even with the lavish handouts.
One survey ^[26] found that the number of consumers interested in buying a hybrid vehicle dropped from 61 percent to 30 percent when they learned they would pay an additional $5,000 compared to a comparable vehicle with a traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) Only 17 percent of those surveyed showed interest in buying a battery electric vehicle (BEV), and that number decreased to 5 percent when told a BEV would cost an additional $15,000 compared to the closest ICE-powered vehicle. Even after counting the gasoline savings you would reap from buying an electric vehicle, electric cars are still a bad investment ^[25]. A good sign for the viability of electric vehicles is when they won’t need the handouts from taxpayers.
President Obama also said in his address, “None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be, or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn’t know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution.”
The same is true with our vehicle fleet in the U.S. No one will know what it will look like 30 years from now, or even 4 years from now. So why is the government trying to dictate that market when it knows it can’t?
-Nick Loris
Free Enterprise vs Big Government
President Obama, in his speech tonight, rightfully identified the issue of competitiveness as a key for reviving the economy, and innovation as a vital ingredient in achieving that competitiveness. America can, as he said, out innovate the rest of the world. But his prescription for sparking that innovation and making America again a world leader is badly off-target. His model is Sputnik, and he prescribes economic NASAs as the solution. Washington would set the rules, define the parameters of the challenge. This is not the way the today’s economy works.
American entrepreneurs do not need grants from Washington in order to compete, they don’t need incentives from bureaucrats in order to compete. The Steve Jobs’ of the future are not applying for federal grants, or federal “challenges.” What they need is for Washington to get out of their way — to tax them less, regulate them less, and leave them alone. Yet, there was nothing in his remarks that provided hope that these burdens would be lifted anytime soon, save for a short reference to regulatory reform, and even that was hedged with defense of regulation. Until the need to free enterprise — rather than guide it — is addressed — the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans will remain leashed, and all the NASAs in the world will not improve our competitiveness
-James Gattuso
Energy “Investment”
In his State of the Union speech, President Obama pointed to the government investments that led to such commercial successes as the Internet, computer chips, and GPS (interestingly, he left out Tang). The implication is that more tax payer support would bring the same sort of innovation to the energy sector. This supposition is misleading.
The government programs that led to the Internet, computer chips, and GPS were not programs to develop technologies to meet a commercial demand. They were each the result of defense-related programs that were created to meet national security requirements. People like former Secretary of Energy and Defense, Dr. James Schlesinger argued tirelessly for investment in GPS not because it would help him to find the nearest burrito bar but because he (and not many others at the time) understood the national security value of such a system. It was not until after the first Gulf War (when Americans witnessed the accuracy with which GPS could guide a vehicle to its destination) that entrepreneurs gained access to GPS signals. It was they that that commercialized that technology, not the federal government. In essence, the federal government invested to develop capabilities that did not exist and were needed for specific government activities. Entrepreneurs gained access to that basic work and commercialized it.
This is an entirely different model from what the President is suggesting the United States take to develop new energy technologies. Not only does he want the federal government to choose which energy sources Americans can access, but he believes that the government is best prepared to oversee the entire business development process. He does not want to support research and development, but he wants to drive commercialization, and to define the market.
That is not the right approach for the United States. We are a country abundant with natural resources and as the President correctly pointed out, “Our free enterprise system is what drives innovations.” Mr. President, you had me at “innovation.” Too bad you lost me after that.
-Jack Spencer
Obama’a Sputnik Moment
“This is our generation’s Sputnik moment,” declared President Obama in the State of the Union address. If he believes that, he probably should have studied his history and how President Eisenhower responded to Russia’s satellite launch—because Ike would not have endorsed anything like Obama’s prescription. In the wake of sputnik hysteria the Gaither commission argued ^[27] for an astronomical increase in spending to “catch-up” with the Soviets. Eisenhower knew that writing checks that the nation can’t cash is no way to make America more innovative. Ike declared you do not win a competition by “by bankrupting yourself…”
President Eisenhower’s reluctance to throw government and money at every problem was rooted in his distrust of Big Government. “Eisenhower was deeply concerned about the growth of the federal government and the systematic loss of state and local autonomy,” writes ^[28] Martin Medhurst, an expert on Ike’s rhetoric. “He was concerned about a government that spent more than it took in. …”
Eisenhower also understood that getting spending under control was about getting Washington’s priorities right. Ike did not want to needlessly throw money at anything, even defense(“[G]ood management dictates that we resist overspending as resolutely as we oppose under-spending, Ike declared), but he clearly understood that soundly funding defense had to be his first priority. Obama’s call of simply calling for not-cutting security spending is not enough – defense modernization is already underfunded and defense spending too inefficient ^[29] – Obama needs to buck up defense ^[30] even as he needs to do much, much more to reign in other government spending.
We did not hear that kind of commitment during the State of the Union address. Nor did we hear a president who is willing to get tough with all of America’s competitors in the same way Ike would. Instead, the Obama Doctrine ^[31] is still alive and well.
The State of the Union address was a pale shadow of what the nation should expect ^[32] from presidents who are responsible for providing for the common defense.
-James Carafano