"We can do this": Not really live-blogging SOTU 2012

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And so it begins...

I have no intention of really live-blogging President Obama's address night. I'm just going to sit here, drink my Traquair Jacobite Ale from Innerleithen, Scotland (a strong beer flavored with coriander), and comment at random on a variety of things, some of them having to do with the SOTU.

No Americans fighting in Iraq in nine years. And Osama bin Laden is "not a threat to this country." True on the first point, not so much on the second. Osama is still powerful, even (or especially) in death. But I get the point. Obama has ended an unpopular war but is anything but a pacifist. He's a militarist, too, and he got the baddest of the bad guys. Trump that, Mitt! -- or... Newt?!

What theater, though. How fitting that the SOTU is on the same day as the Oscar nominations. (I know, the Tonys are theater. But you get the point.)

"What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We must reclaim them." Ah, Obama the non-partisan. But a good case to make in a speech that, let's face it, is more or less the opening salvo of Campaign 2012 for Obama. You'll have to find the partisanship between the lines, it seems.

The president is making the case for recovery: businesses are hiring, jobs are coming back, new rules are in place to prevent shit from happening. Fantastic. "I will not return to the policies that brought about this crisis in the first place." Something like that. I just wish I had full confidence in his sincerity. He's done too much for Wall Street for me to believe that he means it -- or, rather, that he'll back up what he means with action, and lasting change.

Well, we heard this before the speech... Osama is dead, GM is alive and kicking. He just made the second point. "The American automotive industry is back." (The quotes may be slightly off, by the way. I'm doing the best I can.)

Message to Americans: Your manufacturing base is not coming back. Sorry. It may get better, and there's certainly an opportunity for innovation to improve domestic manufacturing, but the world has changed -- and it's not changing back. Just ask Apple. Billions and billions of dollars in earnings and cash, but where does it make its iconic "American" products? But, sure, go ahead and try to deal with outsourcing and stop companies from avoiding taxes.

Ah, corporate tax cuts. Of course. What else is new?

Oooh, Eric Cantor looks pissed. Is it because Obama didn't show up with a hammer and sickle?

Don't get me wrong. Policy-wise, I'm for most of this. It's fine. And certainly preferable to what the GOP has to offer. But it's all quite delusional nonetheless. Because, of course, if you tell the truth in American politics, you're doomed. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

"Americans will always win." If there are fair trading practices. Like I said: delusional.

Education... something something something... teachers... something something something... Seriously, it's all good. Though Boner -- sorry, Boehner -- looks unimpressed. I guess he doesn't think kids should stay in school.

Okay, there's no point following this. It's all about speaking points, issue after issue. It's about how the speech will be reported in the media: President Obama said a, b, c, d, etc. I just say, though, there's not a lot that's terribly compelling in this speech so far. He's moving from issue to issue, avoiding partisanship, offering some delusional/aspirational goals, along with a few concrete policy proposals, but that's about it. "We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform now." Okay, but how? And do you really think Congress will be sending you any sort of meaningful reform package anytime soon? Of course not. It's just about hitting the right notes. Like... equal pay for women! Well, fine. Who's against that... other than the Republicans? "Expand tax relief to small businesses." Great. And?

Sorry, I don't mean to be so negative. I know he's doing what he has to do. It's all part of the theater of the SOTU. And I know that leadership requires the communication of such aspirational goals. But I'm not sure what the unifying theme of this speech is. What philosophy, if you will, is driving the president? Or if not philosophy, what vision? Maybe it's coming when/if he ties it all up.

Forget the laundry list of policy proposals for a moment. What is this speech about? Honestly, I'm not sure.

Sullivan, who's live-blogging tonight, of course:

And now a Santorum-style focus on manufacturing -- and the same old abuse of the tax code to influence the economy. This is industrial policy, based on populism. It isn't unleashing the free market through tax reform. It's a throwback to paleo-liberalism. Tax breaks and subsidies to keep jobs at home. It's spitting in the wind of the global economy -- and it fails to grasp government's proper role. Workers here will never be cost-competitive with the Chinese. This is fantasy -- and cheap populism.

I have a different view of "government's proper role" than Andrew does -- I think it should have an activist role to try to rectify capitalism's injustices -- but I tend to agree with this. What we're hearing tonight is populist nationalism. Maybe that's the theme, the vision, the "philosophy." 

And, yes, it's all quite "vapid" (while making the tax code more and more complicated).

More Sullivan:

This speech is beginning to make Bill Clintons' look like clear and visionary. But people loved Clinton's long laundry list of micro-policies. I think this is the worst SOTU Obama has given. But maybe it will work. It sure seems like it has been put through a software program to pander to various industries.

I agree it's the worst, trying to think back to the others (through the haze of this ale). It just seems overly processed, as if lines were approved by focus groups and then glued together.

But who can object to "a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans." Republicans, of course! Once more, I hope he's serious and actually follows through on this. It might help if his presidency weren't sponsored by Goldman Sachs.

Uh-oh, now he's going after millionaires. Class warfare! That's what we'll hear from Romney et al. What we're hearing is that the Republican response will be all about how "divisive" this speech was. As if it's divisive to say that millionaires should pay their fair share of taxes. But that's how Republicans think -- they have no interest in requiring the rich, and especially the super-rich, to sacrifice anything at all, even for the common good.

On foreign policy, especially with respect to the Middle East... again, it's not that I disagree with what he's saying, it's that there's no unifying theme to what he's saying. No argument. No unifying vision. He'll stand up for human dignity... but he'll do everything he can to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons? He may not mean it, but... what... he's still got military action on the table? Military cooperation with Israel -- that got a standing ovation -- hoo-wah! Again, what exactly is Obama's thinking on foreign policy, on America's place and role in the world? Or is it all ad hoc, while sucking up to popularity?

"America is back!" Sure, back from where it was under Bush, but what does that mean? "America is the one indispensable nation..." On behalf of every other country in the world: Screw you, America. Seriously, do we need this sort of jingoism, cloaked as it may be in Obama's liberalism?

Would the world be a significantly worse place without America? Think about it.

And now: the military. De rigueur, of course. (And I'm generally fine with it. Not every U.S. serviceman urinates on corpses. Most of them are honorable men and women. What I object to is Obama's militarism, and, make no mistake, he's a militarist. Maybe not as reckless a militarist as his predecessor, but still one nonetheless. He'd do a lot better if he thought less that the military was the solution and considered other alternatives to the establishment of peace.)

Maybe now we'll get some genuine passion: the mission to get Osama. Oh, please. America is like that Navy Seals unit? That unit is a microcosm of America? "There is no challenge too great, there is no mission too hard..." Uplifting rhetoric, I suppose, but a bit forced, no?

"The state of our union will always be strong." Wait, did he say at any point that it is strong? I mean, I wasn't going to watch because of course we all know the state of the union is awesome. What else was there to say? But I wonder.

Anyway, now I have to stop watching. However mediocre the speech, it's the post-speech punditry that is truly horrendous, and it will be no different tonight.

Here's a final word from Sullivan:

This notion that a country, a democracy, should have the same attitude as troops fighting a war is preposterous and slightly creepy. Yes, we should put aside our differences to get important things done, put aside ideology to focus on solving problems. But we are not a military and the president is not our commander. He is our president. We have every right to argue with one another and to distrust one another at times. The whole idea of getting each others' backs in a boisterous democracy is deeply undemocratic. I do not want to be a citizen trained like a member of the Navy SEALs. Nor should anyone. This isn't Sparta. It's America. And to use the raid on bin Laden as the model of our future cooperation struck me as too easy and trite an analogy.

Yup.

Look, who knows, this speech might have been fine. Gergen just called it "politically shrewd." And that's pretty much as CW as it gets. But it wasn't a powerful speech at all, despite what super-partisan Begala is saying, and while he may have done a lot tonight to reach out to independents, he'll have to do a lot more on the campaign trail to energize those of us who consider ourselves members of his, and his party's base.

Have a good night, everyone.

**********

Okay, just a couple of comments on Mitch Daniels's GOP response:

Not much red meat for the base, but it's got its share of ridiculous partisan points: For example, Obama's "constant disparagement" of business? Really? In what world is this true? How is it anti-business to save Wall Street and the auto industry?

And he praises Steve Jobs as a job creator? What, for creating low-paying jobs in China? Please. I realize this guy is more reasonable than most in his party, but his absolute faith in the private sector (and claim that Obama and Democrats are anti-market and don't trust/believe in the American people) is far more delusional by far than anything Obama said tonight about populist nationalism. In fact, much of what he's saying is just blatantly dishonest.

Ah, there it is: Obama the divider. Please. What a bunch of fucking bullshit. Credit Daniels for saying the rich shouldn't have tax advantages, but otherwise this is just your typical old-school Republican nonsense. Just less crazy, and less crazily put, than what we normally hear from Republicans, Mitt and Newt included.

And now... good night.

Courage of conviction: President Obama's exemplary military leadership

Guest post by Rob Miller 

Rob Miller is a US Marine Corps combat veteran who served in Iraq in 2003 and 2004. A Charleston native and a graduate of the University of South Carolina, Rob and his family currently reside in Beaufort, South Carolina.

Having served over thirteen years in the United States Marine Corps, from enlisted infantry Marine to Company Commander, serving twice in Iraq to include the Battle of Fallujah in November 2004, I know leadership is the one quality every military service member and veteran wants to see from our Commander-in-Chief.

As Marine Corps Lieutenant General John A. Lejeune said, "Leadership is the sum of those qualities of intellect, human understanding, and moral character that enables a person to inspire and control a group of people successfully." Leadership requires skill, finesse, and unwavering conviction.

Our Commander-in-Chief, President Obama, has very strong convictions. President Obama never faltered on the war in Iraq. He was against the war in 2002, pledged to end the war as a presidential candidate, and kept that promise by ending the war with honor and bringing our troops home last month. Through his leadership, the United States helped liberate Libya and put an end to the Qaddafi regime. President Obama has upheld his promise to our veterans by passing the Post-9/11 GI Bill, increasing funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs and working tirelessly to put returning veterans to work in the private sector.

President Obama believes in justice, strength, and action. Under his leadership, the United States has decimated the leaders of al Qaeda and critically hampered their global terror network. Still not convinced? Let's take a quick look at some of the numbers: 

Drone strikes under President Bush: 44

Drone strikes under President Obama: 240+

Everyone knows about the special operations raid to kill Osama bin Laden or the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. But few realize the sweeping success of our military's more targeted operations and its drone campaign, which have led to the capture or death of scores of top al Qaeda operatives from Pakistan and Iraq to Yemen, Indonesia, and Somalia.

Defense spending, which in 2010 equaled nearly five percent of our entire GDP, has surpassed the peak of Cold War spending and is at its highest level since World War II. In contrast, this new wave of precise, targeted attacks embodies the direction in which President Obama and our military leaders wish to take our overarching defense strategy. 

The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs recently unveiled a new course for our military, a transition away from the two-war doctrine or Desert Storm X2 concept. This change has been a long time coming. In Joint Force Quarterly in Spring 2000, the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon stressed the need to transition away from a "two-Desert Storm paradigm" to a more mobile expeditionary force structure that encompassed one war and multiple other threats.

Ignoring the wisdom of our national security experts and military leaders, Governor Romney has been quick to say he would continue to grow our military, even suggesting that he would not be against war with Iran. Romney's reckless, short-sighted rhetoric illustrates that he is willing to sacrifice the well-being of our military, our economy, and our country to win cheap votes.

In stark contrast, our Commander-in-Chief has diligently upheld his office and executed his duties with conviction and action. As President Obama prepares our forces to meet the needs of the future, his courage of conviction, decisiveness of action, and steadfast leadership will undoubtedly ensure America's continued success.

Is it wrong for U.S. troops to urinate on the dead bodies of Taliban fighters?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, of course.

But I thought the troops could do no wrong. Ever. Isn't that what we hear constantly from the armchair militarists on the right (not just in the U.S. but here in Canada as well)?

**********

In all seriousness, this is, needless to say, horrible:

A video showing four United States Marines urinating on three dead Taliban fighters provoked anger and condemnation on Thursday in Afghanistan and around the world, raising fears in Washington that the images could incite anti-American sentiment at a particularly delicate moment in the decade-old Afghan war. 

(I'm not going to post the video here. You can find it by clicking on the links below.)

Look, I do generally respect the men and women in the armed forces, even if I usually don't agree with the missions they're on, nor with the warmongering political leadership that directs them, and even if I don't their generally right-leaning political views and outlook. And I certainly wouldn't hold the deplorable actions of a small handful of them against the rest of them. There are rotten apples everywhere.

But I think it's fair to ask: How much of this sort of thing is going on? If not urinating on corpses, how about violence against innocent targets? I understand that anything can happen in a war zone, and that it's unfair to expect those in combat to behave completely as if they were at home, but there are lines that just mustn't be crossed. And both the military and its civilian leadership would do well to do everything they can to prevent this sort of thing from happening. (Not just from being made public, from ever happening.)

Thankfully, the Pentagon is reacting strongly to the incident, with Secretary Panetta "condemn[ing] it in the strongest possible terms" and ordering an investigation. Gen. James Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, has also ordered an investigation.

And it's not just a horrible incident in and of itself. As Yochi Dreazen writes at The Atlantic:

The Afghan video is of particular concern because it has the possibility ofbecoming one of the dominant images of the war. U.S. night raids of Afghanhomes, and inadvertent killings of Afghan civilians, are the primary sources ofanti-American feelings within the country, but they've never been captured onfilm. The laughter and smirking of the Marines as they urinate on the corpsesis also likely to further offend Afghans already disenchanted with the U.S.-ledwar effort in their country.

For all this, though, including the obvious damage to America's credibility and moral standing, as well as to the military generally, it's hardly surprising that some conservatives are actually cheering this on, defending the Marines. Talk about deplorable.

The U.S. Navy embraces the end of DADT

By Richard K. Barry

Here's a great story for the holidays, reported by the Associated Press:

A Navy tradition caught up with the repeal of the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule on Wednesday when two women sailors became the first to share the coveted "first kiss" on the dock after one of them returned from 80 days at sea.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta of Placerville, Calif., descended from the USS Oak Hill amphibious landing ship and shared a quick kiss with her partner, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell of Los Angeles. The crowd screamed and waved flags around them.

Both women, ages 22 and 23 respectively, are fire controlmen in the Navy. They met at training school and have been dating for two years.

Navy officials said it was the first time on record that a same-sex couple was chosen to kiss first upon a ship's return. Sailors and their loved ones bought $1 raffle tickets for the opportunity. Gaeta said she bought $50 of tickets. The Navy said the money would be used to host a Christmas party for the children of sailors.

For the record, the picture was posted on an official Navy website, so they are obviously good with it. And, apparently, this happened a year to the day after Obama signed the bill that repealed DADT.

I'd like to think I'll live long enough that this sort of thing won't stand out as extraordinary, but, until then, I'll enjoy watching progress wherever I find it.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Police use Predator drones for surveillance in North Dakota

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So you really don't think the U.S. is becoming more and more of a police state?

Armed with a search warrant, Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went looking for six missing cows on the Brossart family farm in the early evening of June 23. Three men brandishing rifles chased him off, he said.

Janke knew the gunmen could be anywhere on the 3,000-acre spread in eastern North Dakota. Fearful of an armed standoff, he called in reinforcements from the state Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances and deputy sheriffs from three other counties.

He also called in a Predator B drone.

As the unmanned aircraft circled 2 miles overhead the next morning, sophisticated sensors under the nose helped pinpoint the three suspects and showed they were unarmed. Police rushed in and made the first known arrests of U.S. citizens with help from a Predator, the spy drone that has helped revolutionize modern warfare.

But that was just the start. Local police say they have used two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base to fly at least two dozen surveillance flights since June. The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have used Predators for other domestic investigations, officials said.

No big deal, you say? Police should use whatever means necessary to apprehend criminals? Please. Are you not paying attention as your privacy -- and indeed your freedom -- is being taken away from you without you even knowing it?

As John Cole writes: "[T]o those of you poo-pooing this and saying "how is this any different than a helicopter," in five to ten years when unmanned drones are flying all over your neighborhood surveilling and storing info at random, you can think back to mocking us privacy hysterics. I'm sure very similar arguments were made in years past about police needing armored vehicles and .50 cals and every locale needing a SWAT team armed to the teeth."

It's one thing, and then another thing, and then another thing, and each time you say, "oh, so what?" Well, it all adds up to something, doesn't it? It's bad enough that your phone is allowing you to be tracked, that you can't make any sort of transaction without being identified on the grid. Do you really want to live with drones flying overhead?

As Libby Spencer writes: "A police state doesn't happen overnight. Big changes happen in just such tiny incremental infringements. If we wait to express our concern until, like the Geneva Conventions, Posse Comitatus is rendered quaint, it will be too late."

Actually, it's probably too late already. And not just in North Dakota.

(photo)