START: Stating The Obvious


Vice Admiral Jerry Miller, USN (Ret) has some very specific thoughts about the recently-ratified START treaty, and it’s readily apparent the Admiral doesn’t think Mr Obama is much of a negotiator.

President Barack Obama was outmaneuvered by the Russians and should have abandoned the New START negotiations instead of seeking a political victory, says former nuclear plans monitor Vice Admiral Jerry Miller, USN (Ret).
“The Obama administration is continuing a dated policy in which we cannot even unilaterally reduce our own inventory of weapons and delivery systems without being on parity with the Russians,” Miller told the U.S. Naval Institute in Annapolis, Md. “We could give up plenty of deployed delivery systems and not adversely affect our national security one bit, but New START prohibits such action – so we are now stuck with some outmoded and useless elements in our nuke force.”
After meeting resistance from several Republicans, the U.S. Senate ratified the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia by a vote of 71-26 on Wednesday.
“The Soviets/Russians were done in by Reagan and our missile defense program because they cannot afford to build such a system,” said Miller. “They instead try to counter our program with rhetoric at the bargaining table. And they won by outmaneuvering Obama. START plays right into their hands.”
Something was immediately amiss when I heard that the Russians were “threatening” that the START treaty could not be modified by the United States in any way.
In my estimation, the Russians are in absolutely no position to dictate terms — except where capitulation is the only considered result on the US side.
Read this, and notice one sentence in particular on which the Russians have focused — like a laser beam — for years:
Former President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) is often credited with bankrupting the U.S.S.R. because the Soviets were unable to keep pace with the technology being developed by the United States.
“We have always been superior in quality of our nuclear force, so we did not have to negotiate with a party we do not trust,” said Miller. “If Obama wanted to save some money and improve national defense, he should have gotten out of the nuke negations and acted unilaterally. START is simply a political victory for Obama.”
Miller, who helped prepare the National Strategic Target List and Single Integrated Operational Plan for waging nuclear war and later participated in arms control meetings with the Soviet government, expressed concern that START could leave the United States vulnerable to other emerging threats.
“The treaty prohibits the conversion of an existing ballistic missile system into a missile defense system,” said Miller. “We might want to do that with a Trident or an ICBM sometime in the future, particularly if the Chinese alleged threat materializes.”
Encapsulated, it’s this: the Russians are scared shitless that we should develop a missile defense shield. Something capable of DEFEATING their INCOMING missiles. Hello??
So they’ve done and are doing their best to politically ensure we cannot enable — not develop, but enable — same.
We have it. We can’t politically use it.
And Mr Obama just gave that up so he can “feel good.”
Welcome to 2011, you Leftist bastards.
BZ

US Intelligence Community: Incompetence Reigns Supreme

In a recent interview (Monday afternoon, 12-20) with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, she threw a softball question to the national DNI (Director of National Intelligence), Gen James Clapper, regarding recent arrests, in London, of twelve terror suspects.

He had no idea what she was talking about.

TRANSCRIPT:

(mid-interview:)

SAWYER: But we wondered. How did they stay in control with so much information coming in every day?

For instance, the afternoon of our interview, the day’s news had been filled with the terror arrests– twelve people in London just that morning.

But when we asked the Director of Intelligence:

SAWYER to CLAPPER: London — how serious is it, any implication that it was coming here? Any of the things that they have seen were coming here?

[PAUSE, Clapper looks puzzled, stumped]

SAWYER: Dr. Clapper?

Chief Counterterrorism Advisor JOHN BRENNAN: You read the arrests of the 12 individuals by the British this morning.

CLAPPER: Oh.

BRENNAN: This is something that the British informed us about early this morning that it was taking place.

[SAWYER: Later in the interview, I came back to the director — did he really not know?]

SAWYER: I was a little surprised you didn’t know about London, Director Clapper.

CLAPPER: Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t.

See the video here:

From ABCNews.com:

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was caught off guard Monday by a question on the widely-covered arrest of 12 men in an alleged terror plot in London. Today, Clapper’s spokeswoman admits that it was because he had not been briefed on the arrests.

Clapper’s office had declined to say whether he knew about the specific disrupted plot but issued a statement calling Sawyer’s question “ambiguous.” Today, his office appears to have changed their position.

Because, after all, the “indians” know that current administrative policy is predicated only but upon idealistic philosophy, ignorance and inexperience.

I have connections with the “indians” on a local, state and federal level because I am still in law enforcement and I have a federal background.

It is the “chiefs” who cannot seem to get their collective acts together. And that, to anyone in a LE bureaucracy, is no surprise — particularly federally.

As Big Sis, Janet Napolitano said: they’re “on it” 24/7, 364 days a year — to prevent “man-caused disasters.” Not terrorism. God forbid – [Sorry for the use of God].

From Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Unfortunately, Napolitano does not insist that her department works the entire year. There is apparently one day off. But, on the other hand, they will likely — being Leftists — clearly identify that one sole day. Yes?

— Yes, our intelligence apparatus, in DC, is apparently that broken.

BZ

FCC’s Internet Power Grab: Passed

From WSJ.com:

The five-member Federal Communications Commission board approved the new rules on a 3-2 vote, with the agency’s two Republican members rejecting the measure.

“For the first time, we’ll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Tuesday morning. He said the rules offered “a strong and sensible framework—one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment.”

Republicans at the FCC and on Capitol Hill blasted the FCC’s new rules, saying that they could stifle new investments in broadband networks and are unnecessary since there have been few complaints about Internet providers blocking or slowing web traffic.

The FCC’s action “is not motivated by a tangible competitive harm or market failure,” said Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican, who said she couldn’t support the rule because the agency was intervening to regulate the Internet “because it wants to, not because it needs to.”

The governmental camel’s nose is in the tent.

Next comes the entire camel.

Senator Jim Demint (R-SC) pointed out that a federal court earlier ruled that the FCC has no authority to regulate the Internet, and a bipartisan group of senators and representatives warned current FCC Chairman Julius Genechowski not to attempt to impose a regulatory regime on the Internet earlier this year.

In a statement issued following the FCC ruling, Demint wrote:

The Obama Administration has ignored evidence that this federal takeover will hang a millstone of regulatory and legal uncertainty around the neck of a vibrant sector of our economy.

“Proceeding on its own liberal whims rather than facts, this FCC has chosen to grant itself broad authority to limit how businesses can bring the internet to consumers in faster and more innovative ways.

“Americans loudly demanded a more limited federal government this November, but the Obama Administration has dedicated itself to expanding centralized government planning. Today, unelected bureaucrats rammed through an internet takeover, even after Congress and courts warned them not to.

“To keep the internet economy thriving, this decision must be reversed. Regulatory reform will be a top priority for Republicans in the next Congress, and I intend to prevent the FCC or any government agency from unilaterally burdening our recovering economy with baseless regulation.

“In order to provide the stability businesses need to grow, I will work with my fellow senators to see passage of my FCC Act, which would ensure that the FCC can only use its rulemaking powers where there is clear evidence of a harmful market failure, as well as the REINS Act, which would add the accountability of a Congressional vote before any government agency’s proposed major regulations may be finalized.”

Your thoughts about this?

BZ