Get PJ Media on your Apple

Belmont Club

Carry a Small Stick and Mumble to Yourself

November 30th, 2013 - 2:23 pm

One of the indefinable characteristics of deterrence is something called “credibility”. The credibility of a state was the confidence that if X then that state would do Y. It made things predictable. Now if the Obama administration says it will disarm Iran or stop North Korea, would it predictably do so?

Iran seems to think the Obama administration will predictably not stop it. Recently Reuters announced that “Iran will pursue construction at the Arak heavy-water reactor, Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif was quoted as saying on Wednesday, despite a deal with world powers to shelve a project they fear could yield plutonium for atomic bombs.”

The Daily Beast noted that the “Kremlin cheated on a nuclear pact it signed with the United States, the U.S. government believes—and Secretary Kerry was briefed on the violations almost a year ago.”  He was angered not so much by the violation, as by the circumstance that it made further deals with the cheating Kremlin harder to achieve.

Inside the meeting, Kerry expressed anger and frustration about the Russian cheating and warned that if the violations became widely known, future efforts to convince the Senate to ratify arms control treaties would be harmed. …

Some experts say the Obama administration’s failure to acknowledge the treaty violations publicly or confront the Russians about them openly indicates the administration can’t be trusted to take on potential violations by other bad actors with whom it has struck deals, such as the Iranian government and Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

“If it’s true that the Obama administration has not been candid about—or worse, actively suppressed—information that Russia has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, then how are congressional lawmakers and the American public supposed to trust that the administration won’t do the same if the Assad regime violates the agreement to remove chemical weapons from Syria or if Iran cheats on the Geneva pact on its nuclear program?” said former congressional staffer Robert Zarate, now policy director of the Foreign Policy Initiative.

But violations, shmiolations. To quote Hillary Clinton, “what difference, at this point, does it make?”  Space Daily notes that “activities observed at North Korea’s Yongbyon site indicate testing ahead of a possible restart to a reactor that could provide it with weapons-grade plutonium, the UN atomic agency said Thursday.” Moreover the AP says that new construction has been detected at a North Korean missile launch site.

A US research institute said on Friday that it has detected a new construction at a North Korean missile launch site which the institute says is being upgraded to handle larger rockets.

Commercial satellite imagery shows work has resumed after a months-long hiatus at Tonghae, on the country’s north-east coast, on what looks like a rocket assembly building and a launch control centre.

The findings were provided to Associated Press ahead of publication by 38 North, the website of the US-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

It’s the latest sign that North Korea is pressing ahead with its nuclear and missile programmes despite declaring its willingness to resume aid-for-disarmament negotiations.

In other words they’re cheating. Welcome to the newer world order. The one in which only the appearance of order matters, where the agreement is done for the photo-op.  The New York Times noted that Obama has shifted from “military might to diplomacy”.

At one level, the flurry of diplomatic activity reflects the definitive end of the post-Sept. 11 world, dominated by two major wars and a battle against Islamic terrorism that drew the United States into Afghanistan and still keeps its Predator drones flying over Pakistan and Yemen.

But it also reflects a broader scaling-back of the use of American muscle, not least in the Middle East, as well as a willingness to deal with foreign governments as they are rather than to push for new leaders that better embody American values. “Regime change,” in Iran or even Syria, is out; cutting deals with former adversaries is in.

For Mr. Obama, the shift to diplomacy fulfills a campaign pledge from 2008 that he would stretch out a hand to America’s enemies and speak to any foreign leader without preconditions. But it will also subject him to considerable political risks, as the protests about the Iran deal from Capitol Hill and allies in the Middle East attest.

“We’re testing diplomacy; we’re not resorting immediately to military conflict,” Mr. Obama said, defending the Iran deal on Monday in San Francisco. “Tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically,” he said earlier that day, “but it’s not the right thing for our security.”

It’s mind over matter. If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter. Despite the Pentagon’s defiance of China’s recently declared ADIZ over the Senkaku islands, the Obama administration will probably want to shift gears to diplomacy.

Michael J. Green, an Asia adviser in the administration of President George W. Bush who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies … said, the United States needs to project military power in the region, build up the defensive capacities of allies like Japan and the Philippines, and align the countries that ring China’s coastal waters to present a united front against Beijing’s aggression.

The trouble, he added, is that “the administration is very worried about appearing to contain China.”

But if Obama wants talk, Beijing is more interested in tangible things.  It is crowding out its weaker neighbors; presenting them with a fait acompli, altering the “facts on the ground” and is consequently acquiring the longer ranged aircraft with which to do so. The Diplomat writes of their latest acquisitions:

The Su-35, even on internal fuel only, offers significant advantages over the Su-27, which is limited to only quick fly-overs of trouble spots such as the Reed Bank (lile tan) or Scarborough Shoal (huangyan dao). The extra time the Su-35 can spend on station is essential to China’s desire to deter action by the Philippines or other regional actors. Such long-range aircraft would be able to “show the flag” for longer, or quickly intercept Philippine aircraft in the region. In the case of the Su-35, it would likely be able to outfly and outshoot any Philippine or Vietnamese aircraft (or surface vessel for that matter) largely rendering competing territorial claims irrelevant.

This is the sort of fait accompli situation that China has sought to create, for example with the “eviction” of the Philippine presence from the Scarborough Shoal and repeated fly-bys of the disputed area in the East China Sea: an overwhelming Chinese presence around territorial claims, leaving the contender with the options of significantly ratcheting up tensions and likely losing any skirmish or accepting a regular Chinese military presence. With the ability to make extended flights over a larger portion of the South China Sea, the PLANAF is likely to increase air patrols. This could lead to more frequent encounters in more places, creating more opportunities for minor crises and allowing China to create new “facts on the ground,” which may serve as the starting point for negotiations in a peaceful settlement. This capability, combined with China’s already significant ballistic missile forces and other anti-access weapons, provides China with a significant trump card and thus acts as a deterrent to military challenges. This gives China the ability to project military power over a larger portion of Southeast Asia and indeed, most of the ASEAN nations.

But China’s neighbors are definitely nervous. They have so little territory they actually believe in the value of real estate.  One of most underreported stories of 2013 has been the activation of a ballistic missile radar on Leshan mountain in Taiwan.

A $1.4 billion missile defense radar has been activated in Taiwan, Agence France-Presse reported on Sunday.

“The radar is able to provide us with more than six minutes’ warning in preparation for any surprise attacks,” air force Lt. Gen. Wu Wan-chiao said to the news agency. The system, placed high on a mountain in the island state’s north, can monitor incoming threats at a distance of up to 3,100 miles. China is said to have about 1,000 ballistic missiles pointed at Taiwan. It has declared the autonomously governed island to be its territory and has pledged to take military action should Taipei seek full independence.

“The system enabled Taiwan to have comprehensive surveillance controls when North Korea launched a rocket in December and the mainland tested its antimissile system lately,” an unidentified armed forces official told the Liberty Times newspaper, discussing radar practice that began near the end of 2012.

“Through the sharing with the United States of the information it collects from the radar system, Taiwan becomes a critical link in the U.S. strategic defense network in the region,” according to Kevin Cheng, top editor at Taipei-based Asia-Pacific Defense Magazine

In another piece of news that has flown under the radar, Japan has enacted tight new security rules to enable it to control leaks to the press. “The secrecy monthly bill, which sped by means of the lower house of Parliament on Tuesday and is envisioned to move the higher home before long, is deemed an initial phase in Mr. Abe’s efforts to turn Japan into what some here contact a far more ‘normal’ nation, with less restrictions on its potential to shield itself and ready to suppose a better regional function.” Japan is rearming. And it is creating an envelope of secrecy such that if  anyone cheats it will be Japan.

The historic enmities of the region mean that feelings can run high. Geoff Wade of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute Blog has monitored inflammatory articles in the Chinese language press. The upper limit of belligerence is probably represented by an article found on a Chinese news agency site.

A more troubling example of irredentism can be seen in an article which appeared on the website of the Chinese news agency Zhongguo Xinwenshe (Chinese, English translation here) in July this year. Entitled ‘Revealing the Six Wars China Must Fight in the Coming 50 Years’ (曝光中国在未来50年里必打的六场战争), the article is another manifestation of the hyper-nationalist attitude seen within some parts of the PLA. However, that an article of this nature was carried by a PRC national news agency suggests that it was approved at a very high level.

The six ‘inevitable’ wars suggested in the article’s title are presented in the chronological order in which they will take place:

  1.  The war to unify Taiwan (2020–2025)
  2. The war to recover the various islands of the South China Sea (2025–2030)
  3. The war to recover southern Tibet (2035–2040)
  4. The war to recover Diaoyutai and the Ryukyus (2040–2045)
  5. The war to unify Outer Mongolia (2045–2050)
  6. The war to recover the territory seized by Russia (2055–2060)

Where does this leave the US? The problem for the administration is that force reductions have caused the US military to adaptively change its approach to a more offensively oriented posture. US military planners have come up with a decapitation strategy to counter growing Chinese force projection. Admiral Greenert and General Welsh explain how they are going for the head and nerve shot.

Air-Sea Battle defeats threats to access by, first, disrupting an adversary’s command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems; second, destroying adversary weapons launchers (including aircraft, ships, and missile sites); and finally, defeating the weapons an adversary launches.

This approach exploits the fact that, to attack our forces, an adversary must complete a sequence of actions, commonly referred to as a “kill chain.” For example, surveillance systems locate U.S. forces, communications networks relay targeting information to weapons launchers, weapons are launched, and then they must hone in on U.S. forces. Each of these steps is vulnerable to interdiction or disruption, and because each step must work, our forces can focus on the weakest links in the chain, not each and every one. For example, strikes against installations deep inland are not necessarily required in Air-Sea Battle because adversary C4ISR may be vulnerable to disruption, weapons can be deceived or interdicted, and adversary ships and aircraft can be destroyed.

U.S. forces need not employ “symmetrical” approaches to counter each threat — shooting missiles down with missiles, sinking submarines with other submarines, etc. Instead, as described in the JOAC and Air-Sea Battle, we will operate across domains. For example, we will defeat missiles with electronic warfare, disrupt surveillance systems with electromagnetic or cyberattacks, and defeat air threats with submarines. This is “networked, integrated attack” and it will require a force that is designed for — and that regularly practices — these kinds of operations.

Open source references describe how the USAF has ‘gamed to death’ breaking up the comm links, satellite assets and C3 capabilities of China.  Left to themselves the US military might actually whup China, even in its weakened state. The problem says RAND is that the US military’s offensive deadliness could itself be viewed as destabilizing.

Air-Sea Battle proponents are right to highlight the growing vulnerability of forward-deployed U.S. forces and right to enhance inter-service collaboration. But civilian and military leaders alike need to understand that Air-Sea Battle suggests the United States would strike China before China strikes U.S. forces. That could precipitate a spiraling, costly, and destabilizing arms race and make a crisis more likely to lead to hostilities. The United States needs options to facilitate crisis management, deter aggression, and protect U.S. forces that do not require early attacks on Chinese territory.

RAND recommends a military buildup in order to give the US a bigger design margin to handle crisis situations. “Here we suggest two: Shift toward a more survivable force posture in East Asia and improve the means to prevent China — or any state — from projecting force in an act of international aggression.”

Of course the pacifists would never believe that building up the military actually increases the prospect of peace.

One of the problems with the Obama administration’s increasing reliance on diplomacy is that it leaves unanswered the problem of what to do when the adversary ‘cheats’. But more fundamentally, unilateral disarmament may in fact raise the chance of war. It tempts an adversary to take risks. Less obviously, it puts a shrinking US military in a “use it or lose it” position.

Obama has promised a “world without nuclear weapons”. What he will get is another matter entirely.


Did you know that you can purchase some of these books and pamphlets by Richard Fernandez and share them with you friends? They will receive a link in their email and it will automatically give them access to a Kindle reader on their smartphone, computer or even as a web-readable document.

The War of the Words for $3.99, Understanding the crisis of the early 21st century in terms of information corruption in the financial, security and political spheres
Rebranding Christianity for $3.99, or why the truth shall make you free
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99, reflections on terrorism and the nuclear age
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99, why government should get small
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99. Fiction. A flight into peril, flashbacks to underground action.
Storm Over the South China Sea $0.99, how China is restarting history in the Pacific
Tip Jar or Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Yes. As in the case of Immigration reform, which Obama is treating as Congressionally passed law, he's implementing it via Executive Order. He's refusing his Constitutionally mandated duty to enforce the laws of Congress. That's impeachable, outright.

Obama is implementing the START III (or IV, or whatever they call it) with Putin in similar fashion, in advance of the required 2/3's Senate approval, which of course, he'll never get. Since Harry Reid can't change that rule by simple majority (i.e. the treaty requirement is written into the US Constitution), Obama is simply ignoring the obligation to present the Treaty to the Senate, by unilaterally disarming the USA. Hence, Impeachment article #2. Of course, there are many possible Articles of Impeachment to be raised, if only there were an opposition party in charge of the House of Representatives to bring the changes, and men honoring their oaths in the Senate to confirm Impeachment.

Since we have neither, the Constitution has become, in effect, Obama's toilet paper.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
We are at the "end game" with Obama and his Democrat progressives, as with Chess. They will either end us, or we'll end them. However, patriotic American's cannot coexist with progressive Democrats, particularly when they hold the keys to the country's security.

We are at grave risk. We have a spineless idiot running the country, backed by a Cabinet and 100 Tzar appointees as his closest advisers, and all the world's "bad guys" know it. Kerry as State? What would one expect, from a man who has consistently shown the worlds worst sense of judgment, a man repudiated by nearly every Naval Officer and enlisted man he every served with. Kerry EARNED his reputation as a flake, and Obama put him in changed of major security treaties.

For all those "moderates" who have said that "... it doesn't matter who runs the country, the policies that result are about the same". They about to find out how wrong they have been.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Maybe we are entering a period of irrational behavior brought about ironically, by decades of good times. This has enabled the growth of ambitious elites who have never experienced any real limits to their aquisitiveness.

Many years ago, Barbara Tuchman wrote a book called The Proud Tower, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345405013/wwwfallbackbe-20, that described another invincible civilization: Europe. Europe was the creator and master of an internationalized world. It had unprecendented riches; its writ ran over Asia, Africa. Yet it had a flaw. Hubris.

The Asian Century can come to an end in one false move. China, Japan, Korea and the United States are on the threshold of unprecedented prosperity. What it needs now is wisdom and strength. Calmness and credibility. What it might get is the opposite. Foolishness and weakness and an administration willing to burn Rembrandts to toast marshmallows.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (65)
All Comments   (65)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
--just wanted to throw up a couple URLs. Thanks to Mr X, i took a look and found some very heartening activity --start at search on: general vallely

--and think about some way to throw him some encouragement. And Lord bless his soul, pls.

And this, which i do not know what to make of. The list of Minot incidents stops in 2010, but then has one update since. Gap of three something years, so not definitive on the 'oddities' (to use the site's word). But the 2007-10 diary is a little bit mind-blowing.

http://www.legitgov.org/minot_afb_nukes_oddities.html

All that going on, and i for one saw nothing about it in the news.

Be sure and catch the pro-con set of statements down at bottom.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Perhaps Obama will get that third term as POTUS just as the Chinese nuke Washington D. C. question is, do we give China a medal and build a statue posthumously for Kerry and Obama standing amongst the debris and wreckage of the Nations Capitol?
Or just put their pictures on a new two dollar bill?
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Xennady will probably be right --if he gets a chance to be.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch (re drbatman's question):

November 20, 2013, this article was picked up by the Air Force Times:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20131120/NEWS05/311200022/

Here's one quote from the article, best seen in context --see link)

''In its Cold War heyday, an ICBM force twice as big as today’s was designed to deter the nuclear Armageddon that at times seemed all-too-possible amid a standoff with the former Soviet Union and a relentless race to build more bombs.

Today the nuclear threat is no longer prominent among America’s security challenges. The arsenal has shrunk — in size and stature. The Air Force struggles to demonstrate the relevance of its aging ICBMs in a world worried more about terrorism and cyberwar and accustomed to 21st century weapons such as drones.

This new reality is not lost on the young men and women who in most cases were “volunteered” for ICBM jobs.

Andrew Neal, 28, who completed a four-year tour in September with F.E. Warren’s 90th Missile Wing in Wyoming, where he served as a Minuteman 3 launch officer, said he saw marked swings in morale.

“Morale was low at times — very low,” Neal said in an interview, though he added that his comrades worked hard.

Neal says his generation has a different view of nuclear weapons.

“We all acknowledge their importance, but at the same time we really don’t think the mission is that critical,” Neal said, adding that his peers see the threat of full-scale nuclear war as “simply non-existent.” So “we practice for all-out nuclear war, but we know that isn’t going to happen.”

===(close quote)

Note this sentence: ''Today the nuclear threat is no longer prominent among America’s security challenges.''

...and this phrase: ''In its Cold War heyday ..."

These two are the thesis thoughts we are given to believe, at every chance, by all arms of the MSM, right? The article is by AP's national security reporter Robert Burns (dollars to donuts a Stuartman, LOL!), read about him, a dash about AP, and see the AF rebuttal, here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=ap+reporter+robert+burns&form=IE8SRC&src=IE-SearchBox

===

Now see this, just a glance at each page will do (Robert Burns didn't glance at this stuff before he wrote the article?):

http://tiny.cc/vbtf7w

http://tiny.cc/wetf7w

http://tiny.cc/n8sf7w

===

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/whats-at-stake-when-the-department-of-justice-seizes-ap-phone-records-20130515

(from The Rolling Stone, note)

===

...and all this is Russia, a separate military problem than China the threat, right?

===

http://tiny.cc/bxtf7w

Oops! Oh well, we can crash course arm-up if we have to, like we always do, right? I mean, the only thing different about today vs 1942 is that the enemy can watch us and reach us, and if he knows we're building arms to use against him, has little to lose by ordering us to stop. Incentives, think about them.

===

And under Obamonism, we WOULD probably stop. Then where will we be? Or, indeed, if that has already happened, where are we already?

Right here. The early stages.

http://tiny.cc/7euf7w




41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
WHEN we fight, we need to be a lot more effective.

The game is rigged. It has been rigged by the left to prevent our military from achieving swift or decisive victories. One such method of rigging is the often counterproductive ROE our military fights under. Another method of rigging is the propaganda of leftist media.

It's a politically driven pincer movement.

First -- the ROE set all kinds of limitations on who, what, where, when & how our military may use deadly force. This necessarily means that prosecution of battles will almost always take more time and be more costly in terms of both $ and American lives, than, say, the William Tecumseh Sherman "Marching Through Georgia" approach to defeating the enemy. Or even the common sense approach. (See jihadi with RPG run into a building you know for a fact is otherwise unoccupied. Level building.)

Then -- when the DUH happens ("unexpectedly"!) in the form of grindingly long deployments, mounting American casualties & no end in sight to the conflict, the leftist media & pols scream "QUAAAAGGGGMIRE!!!" and "ENDLESS WARRRRRR!!!" and beat that drum loudly and ceaselessly through however many election cycles it takes for them to get handed the palace keys.

Here's the dirty little secret: It is not the right but the left that wants endless war. The left LOVES endless war. Because it demoralizes and wears down our military, whom they hate. Because it gives them electoral victories, and they are all about power. Because it humiliates America on the world stage, and they want America debased. Because it sticks it directly to the domestic enemy (conservatives) in the most painful form possible -- deaths of US troops, many of them family members of the slopeheads the left so despises.

Endless war. Cui bono? The left.

I'm not saying that the US should throw the Geneva Conventions out the window. What I'm saying is that Americans need to understand (1) the agenda in play by the left and (2) that the "quagmire" and "endless war" scenarios of recent conflicts are a direct result of POLITICAL policy and not military prosecution, and that ROE are one of the biggest hammers in the pols' toolkit (budgeting being another).

Wretchard is constantly reminding us that all choices come with cost. War being an endeavor with the most severe stakes, the choices made can produce appalling costs. Does the average American understand what, for instance, a prohibition such as "don't fire unless and until you're fired upon" can cost in real combat situations? Or what the cost is when US troops in the field in Afghanistan have to call CENTCOM in Tampa to get permission to do X or Y, even when the situation is critical and time is short? How many Americans know enough about WWII history to know about all the blue-on-blue casualties? Or that something like 70,000 French civilians died in Allied bombings?

Some realism and perspective and historical knowledge on the part of the American public would be helpful when we are debating military policy and the politics of war. It is a bloody endeavor by its nature. Always has been, always will be. There is a point at which mercy and temperance become counterproductive. (Remember what happened to Vin Diesel's character in "Saving Private Ryan"?) "Humane war" makes a lousy oxymoron and an even lousier goal. "The least inhumane war" is probably the best we can hope for in any conflict. Too often, what seems like the humane choice in the short term results in increased butchery in the long term.

Less sentimentalism & gullibility. More hard-headed realism. Less self-doubt & self-flagellation. More national & political will to win. Recognize the voices on left for what they are (hostiles & traitors) and ignore them accordingly. Above all: Never, never, never ask Americans in uniform to sacrifice their blood and then hang them out to dry. If you put them in harm's way then HAVE THEIR BACK for God's sake. Jesus H. Either do it or don't. And if you do, then commit to doing it all the way and doing it to WIN DECISIVELY. So that the next generation of young Americans doesn't have to be back fighting in these hellholes 10 or 20 years later.

That's the path to "more effective." No shortcuts available.

41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
So just why would the renowned nation of China, the next world spanning superpower, home of the next global reserve currency, and all-around home of the future need five freakin' years to conquer Outer Mongolia decades hence? Or Taiwan real soon now, for that matter?

That math just doesn't add up, if you ask me. Of course no one did, but I think it a futile endeavor to plan out the schedule of your future wars of conquest. Especially since it encourages your potential enemies to arm up, ally with each other, and make nuclear weapons.

If this article was approved by the Chinese government it was a bad idea, I think. Perhaps they are counting their chickens before they hatch, to use a cliche.

Here's another: Events are in the saddle and ride mankind. The future is not set, and no one- not Skynet, not Barry Obama, not Hillary Clinton, nor even the government of China knows what will happen next. I'm a fan of a book entitled "The Fourth Turning", written by a couple of academics who attempted to describe how English and more recently American society has gone through crisis and change through the generations. Etc, etc, and I'm not going to ramble on any further about it.

But in my view the current circumstances of the United States and its government fit right into the thesis of the book. We're stuck with an incompetent regime, seemingly bent on imposing tyranny, with rather clueless opposition. It's happened before.

Again, I'm not going to ramble on about it. My point is- again- that no one knows the future, and assuming that the US is doomed because of the merchants-with-no-country (to borrow from a Thomas Jefferson quote) of the Institutional Republican Party or the Marxists fools of the democrats are going to retain power in the United States forever is as bad a bet as to believe that the USSR would last forever or that China can telegraph its future wars, successfully.

Quite a run on sentence there, and I'll close with that.

41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
And so many of you thought Snowden wasn't a Kremlin asset. You idiots.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
It comes down to two questions:

1) If the REAL goal of the regime were to enable the actions all of our foreign enemies and to attack the interests of the United States and its allies; what would it have done differently than it has done and is doing?

2) If the REAL goal of the Institutional Republican Party was to protect the regime in accomplishing #1; what would have done differently than it has done and is doing?

Optional extra credit essay question that may turn into a practical demonstration:

3) Relate #'s 1 & 2 to the phrase "preserve, protect, and defend".

Subotai Bahadur
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
O/T - FREE KURT MIX!

Monday Kurt Mix will get his day in court.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2013/09/24/prosecutors-gone-wild-in-case-of-fmr-bp-engineer-kurt-mix/

The charges against him come down to his deletion of a text message indicating that the flow during the top kill operation BP tried to stop the flow of oil from the Macondo 252 well was greater than 15,000 barrels per day.

So a lesson in Boolean algebra is in order for a math challenged Obama administration.

15,001 > 15,000.

there is nothing in that message to confirm that the NOAA "fate of the oil" estimate were accurate.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100804_oil.html

Despite over three years of searching, the USCG has never found the one million barrels of "missing oil". This is a typical political ploy used by "progressives" indoctrinated in "the Big Lie". Start on the extreme and negotiate down. But Mr.Mix has no legal liability for the spill, so he is unencumbered by the kind of threats that have restrained his former employer, BP. And he has full access to the government's internal documentation. so he has written proof that the administration has LIED to the American People regarding the size and extent of the spill.

CHU LIED!
DOLPHINS DIED!
CHILDREN CRIED!

Revenge is a dish best served cold.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
OT- you if anyone can best answer the original and unasked question:

If it was producing that much oil, why was it being capped off?

Thanks, been dying for a chance to ask you.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
This what happens when you lead from behind. Obama and Hillary want a one world order (UN), where diplomacy and honesty is everything. However when you have a nation that says "death to America" on a daily basis, there is no doubt they mean it. You don't play nice with nations like this. Now we have Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, and Syria flexing their muscles because Obama has shown that we are weak and will not show strength and mean it.
A final note, does anybody know how that chemical weapons destruction is going in Syria?
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
“Tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically,” he said earlier that day...

Says it all.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All