Barry In Charge: The Truth About The First 100 Days

From Minority Leader John Boehner

Washington, May 27 - Today, the Administration is releasing yet another report on its trillion-dollar “stimulus” spending bill – one that Democrats claim will produce only half the jobs at twice the cost of the House GOP’s better stimulus solution. It’s been a full 100 days since the bill became law, and the Administration is pulling out all the stops to put a positive spin on the legislation, which has been increasingly panned by media and state and local officials as wasteful and inefficient – basically, anything but the “timely, targeted, and temporary” bill Washington Democrats promised earlier this year. As the Administration marks the 100th day of the “stimulus” spending bill, let’s take a closer look at some of the claims Democrats made about the legislation earlier this year – and how those claims stack 100 days later:

Claim: The President claimed that the stimulus “…will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years.” (Remarks by the President in Elkhart, Indiana, WhiteHouse.gov)

Fact Check: “State officials have complained about the difficulty of obtaining grants for construction projects, while economists question administration claims that the effort already has saved or created 150,000 jobs.” (Adriel Bettelheim, “Tinkerbell Effect, Part 3: Obama’s Job Creation Efforts,” CQ Politics, May 27, 2009) The Associated Press reported that: “The early trend seen in the AP analysis runs counter to expectations raised by Obama, that road and infrastructure money from the historic $787 billion stimulus plan would create jobs in areas most devastated by layoffs.” (Matt Apuzzo and Brett Blackledge, “Stimulus Watch: Jobs, But Not Where Needed Most,” Associated Press, May 11, 2009)

Claim: The President claimed that it would contain, “[n]ot a single pet project. Not a single earmark.” (Remarks by the President at his first press conference, WhiteHouse.gov)

Fact Check: The “stimulus” “contains dozens of narrowly defined programs that send money to specific areas or cater to special interests.” In fact, the “stimulus” contains “$50 million for habitat restoration and other water needs in the San Francisco Bay Area” and “$62 million for military projects in Guam.” (Michael Grabell and Christopher Weaver, “In stimulus bills, earmarks by any other name,” ProPublica, Feb. 5, 2009)

Claim: The President claimed that the stimulus “…contains an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability, so that every American will be able to go online and see where and how we’re spending every dime.” (Remarks by the President at his first press conference, WhiteHouse.gov)

Fact Check: “Although President Obama has vowed that citizens will be able to track ‘every dime’ of the $787 billion stimulus bill, a government website dedicated to the spending won’t have details on contracts and grants until October and may not be complete until next spring — halfway through the program, administration officials said.” (Matt Kelley, “Details thin on stimulus contracts,” USA Today, May 6, 2009)

Claim: The President pledged that “nearly 400,000 men and women will go to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges.” (Remarks by the President, WhiteHouse.gov)

Fact Check: So far “a full 99.7 percent” of money allocated to the Transportation Department remains unspent, according to The Washington Post. Perhaps an aide to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) said it best: “To some extent, I think the administration oversold the transportation aspect of this…It was sold as the heart and soul of the package, and it really just isn’t.” (Matt Apuzzo and Brett Blackledge, “Stimulus Watch: Jobs, But Not Where Needed Most,” Associated Press, May 11, 2009)

Claim: Then-Senator Obama promised that was he would, “not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” (Organizing For America, “Obama’s Stance on Ethics”)

Fact Check: Congress passed the stimulus bill on Friday, February 13; the President signed it in Denver on Tuesday, February 17 – less than the five day review period promised by the President. This troubling trend has continued throughout the year. Just last week, for example, the President waited only one day before signing the Defense Department weapons acquisition bill after Congress passed it and waited two after Congress passed the “Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act” before his signature made that bill law (Stephen Dinan, “Obama ducks promise to delay bill signings,” Washington Times, May 26, 2009); in fact, as of March, “Of the nine bills Mr. Obama has signed so far in his term, he has signed six of them less than five days after Congress sent them to him,” including the trillion-dollar “stimulus” bill. (Stephen Dinan, “Obama to sign lands bill before 5 days of comment,” Washington Times, March 30, 2009) [source]

MSM Diary: The Wince Of Diane

Two thoughts;
1) Watch how over-the-top Diane becomes (facial contortions, leaning forward for emphasis) as she finally asks the inevitable conclusions of the setup she's used to introduce the entire piece. The bats are flying a little low in old Sawyer's belfry these days.
2) Notice how Carville has lurched for the only weapon he can by mentioning the name of Rush Limbaugh with Ann. To us, it's absolutely NO form of damage to Ann to be sneered at by the likes of this slip-and-fall lawyer's attempt to associate the two. But to the Left, the name and following of Rush Limbaugh produces more hate in them than does the collective movement of jihadists across the world.

Chicago Politics: 'Pay To Play' Still Very Much A Reality

FBI Tape Shows Burris Foresaw Political Firestorm

Senator Suggested Contribution Before He Was Appointed, Later Decided Against It

Sen. Roland Burris was recorded on an FBI wiretap suggesting that he could write a check to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's campaign before the ousted governor appointed Burris to the Senate.

The details of the conversation emerged after a federal judge said Tuesday he would allow the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee to hear a federal wiretap of the former governor's brother, Rob, having a fund-raising conversation with Burris. Rob Blagojevich was running the campaign fund at the time.

Click here to read the full transcript of the conversation.

During the brief conversation, Burris said he feared he would catch hell with the public and admitted contributions to Blagojevich would look bad, but also that he clearly wanted President Barack Obama's former U.S. Senate seat.

The 10 pages of transcript reveal a Burris who foresaw exactly why so many people would be outraged by the political dance he was doing with Rod Blagojevich. But as CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports, Burris went right ahead and did it anyway.

Sources tell CBS 2 the wiretapped phone conversation occurred on Nov. 18 while Blagojevich was still governor and before he named Burris to Obama's vacated seat.

On the tape, Burris suggests that he could contribute, or have associates contribute, money to the Blagojevich campaign. Burris also expresses clear desire to be appointed to the U.S. Senate.

Burris' lawyer, Timothy Wright told CBS 2 that after that conversation, Burris decided against making any contribution.

"I think what it shows is he did not pay to play. And what he told was the truth. And I think that, if anything, this exonerates him, and hopefully take a step to repairing a reputation that I think was unfairly ruined," Wright said.

In February, this is how Burris described what he told Robert Blagojevich when Rob called to ask Burris to help the governor's campaign fund: "I made it very clear to him that I would not contribute, that it would be inappropriate and a major conflict, because I had expressed an interest in the Senate seat," Burris said.

But the FBI transcript tells another story.

Burris did, indeed, express concern about how it would look to the public, telling Robert Blagojevich, when he called: "It has so many negative connotations that Burris is trying to buy an appointment... from the governor… for the Senate seat."

At another point, Burris told Robert Blagojevich: "God knows, number one, I wanna help Rod. Number two, I also wanna, you know, hope I get that appointment."

Rob Blagojevich: "If you guys can just write checks, that'd be fine."

Burris: "I will personally do something, okay."

Rob Blagojevich: "Okay. Alright, Roland."

Burris: "And it'll be done before the 15th of December."

Rob Blagojevich: "Hey, you're a good friend. I'll pass on your message."

Burris: "Please do and... tell Rod to keep me in mind for that seat, would ya. (chuckles)"

Rob Blagojevich: "I'll let him know."

Burris has been under intense scrutiny because of the circumstances of his appointment and for changing his story multiple times about whether he promised anything in exchange for the Senate seat.

The Senate Ethics Committee has begun a preliminary investigation. The Sangamon County State's Attorney is determining whether perjury charges are warranted.

U.S. District Chief Judge James F. Holderman on Tuesday unsealed a government motion requesting permission to release to the ethics committee wiretap material gathered in the Blagojevich investigation.

Rod Blagojevich is charged with scheming to trade or sell the seat and using the political muscle of his office to squeeze people for campaign money. Robert Blagojevich is under indictment along with his brother and a number of other members of the ousted governor's inner circle.

Robert Blagojevich attorney Michael Ettinger and Wright did not object to the government's motion.

And Burris attorney Wright said, "I think that the senator has told the truth every time." He acknowledged that his client had told the impeachment committee that he didn't volunteer to raise money for Blagojevich in exchange for the seat.

"And we think he has been perfectly consistent," Wright said.

Burris spokesman Jim O'Connor said the senator "has said all along he would cooperate in any way possible" and "welcomes this as a chance for more transparency and the opportunity for the full truth to come out."

The Sangamon County state's attorney's office said it has no comment on the status of its review of possible perjury charges against Burris.

Burris testified before the House Committee that impeached Blagojevich in January that he didn't promise anything in exchange for the Senate seat.

Blagojevich appointed Burris just before being kicked out of office.

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed to seat Burris if he gave a full accounting of his Blagojevich contacts to the Illinois House committee that was considering impeachment.

Burris gave the committee an affidavit denying any discussion with Blagojevich's aides before being offered the seat. But when he testified, Burris acknowledged talking to one of Blagojevich's friends and informal advisers about it.

Burris did not admit talking to anyone else and said he could not recall any other contacts.

Then after he was sworn in, Burris released another affidavit, this time acknowledging he had talked to several Blagojevich advisers about his interest in the seat. Soon after, talking to reporters, he said he had been asked to help raise campaign money for the governor and that he tried to find people willing to donate but failed.

Then he stopped answering questions, letting others speak on his behalf.

Durbin says he isn't surprised a federal judge decided to allow the ethics committee to have wiretap conversations between former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother and U.S. Sen. Roland Burris.(source)

Barry In Charge: "When I Endorse A Racist, It's OK" pt II (the white firefighters get burned)

What easily should be fodder for the vetting process that SCOTUS nominees must go through is instead probably going to die a quick death with the press, so as to shame any discussion of the race issue in Ricci v. DeStefano. They will simply say that any discussion of that case is unfair to Sotomayor, because she already addressed that issue, she shares a similar experience as a member of a minority in America, etc.

But ruling as she did sets up a dangerous double-standard: If methods of determining ability to progress in work and society are made according to race, where does it stop?

Sotomayor Faces Scrutiny on Controversial Firefighters Ruling

Editor's Note: Among the more controversial cases that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor participated in is Ricci v. DeStefano, involving affirmative action in the New Haven, Conn., fire department. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against a group of white firefighters who passed a promotion exam that was later discarded because no black applicants had passed. Newsmax ran the following story about the case on April 18.


NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- Inside a burning building, fire doesn't discriminate between Matthew Marcarelli and Gary Tinney. Inside the New Haven Fire Department, however, skin color has put them on opposite sides of a lawsuit that could transform hiring procedures nationwide.

The Supreme Court will consider the reverse discrimination claim of Marcarelli and a group of white firefighters. They all passed a promotion exam, but the city threw out the test because no blacks would have been promoted, saying the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities likely to violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Besides affecting how race can be considered in filling government and perhaps even private jobs, the dispute also addresses broader questions about racial progress: Do minorities and women still need legal protection from discrimination, or do the monumental civil rights laws that created a more equal nation now cause more harm than good?

Also, beneath the specific details of the firefighters' lawsuit lies an uncomfortable truth: On most standardized tests, regardless of the subject, blacks score lower than whites.

Reconciling that reality with efforts to ensure "justice for all" remains a work in progress _ one that will be molded by the Supreme Court.

New Haven's population is 44 percent white, 36 percent black and 24 percent Hispanic (who can be any race). At the time of the 2003 test, 53 percent of the city's firefighters, 63 percent of lieutenants and 86 percent of captains were white. Blacks were 30 percent of the firefighters, 22 percent of lieutenants and 4 percent of captains.

The promotion exams were closely focused on firefighting methods, knowledge and skills. The first part had 200 multiple-choice questions and counted for 60 percent of the final score. Candidates returned another day to take an oral exam in which they described responses to various scenarios, which counted for 40 percent.

Tinney, a black lieutenant who has been a firefighter for 14 years, was seeking a promotion to captain when he took the exam.

He says both the test and his fire department have hidden biases against minorities: The department is historically white, with the first blacks joining in 1957, and jobs, relationships, knowledge and choice assignments are passed on from friend to friend and generation to generation.

"I just call it 'the network,'" Tinney says.

The white firefighters' attorney, Karen Torre, said they would not be interviewed for this story. In a conversation on Fox News' "Hannity" program, Marcarelli said it was "gut wrenching" to learn that he was No. 1 on the test but would not get promoted.

"It's something that shakes what you believe in. Because you believe if you work hard, you're rewarded for that, and that's not necessarily the case," Marcarelli said.

Torre said whites have no special advantage in promotions because of laws requiring use of a race-blind, score-based system. She added that many blacks have relatives on the force, including high-ranking officers.

One hundred and eighteen people took the tests; 56 passed. Nineteen of the top scorers were eligible for promotion to 15 open lieutenant and captain positions. Based on the test results, the city said that no minorities would have been eligible for lieutenant, and two Hispanics would have been eligible for captain. (The lawsuit was filed by 20 white plaintiffs, including one man who is both white and Hispanic.)

The exams were designed by a professional testing firm that followed federal guidelines for mitigating disparate racial outcomes, the plaintiffs say.

But after the results came back, the city says it found evidence that the tests were potentially flawed. Sources of bias included that the written section measured memorization rather than actual skills needed for the jobs; giving too much weight to the written section; and lack of testing for leadership in emergency conditions, according to a brief filed by officers of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

"I'm sure there are numerous reasons why (blacks didn't do as well), and not because we're not as intelligent," Tinney says. "There's a lot of underlying issues to that ... these folks are saying, 'We studied the hardest, we passed the test, we should be promoted.' But they're not talking about all the other things."

Torre argues that discarding a test because no minorities would have been promoted violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination because of race.

Call it a legal riddle only the Supreme Court could solve: The white firefighters say Title VII prohibits discrimination against them for being white; New Haven says Title VII prohibits it from using a test that has a disparate impact against blacks.

"All were afforded the same notice, the same study period, the same exam syllabi, etc.," said Torre, who would only answer questions by e-mail. "The rest was up to the individual."

There are long-standing divisions over the concept of hardworking, qualified whites being "victimized" by laws or practices designed to help minorities overcome America's history of racism. What's different today is that the landscape has shifted in many ways, big and small.

The biggest is the election of President Barack Obama, and the support he received from millions of white voters.

"It is not white racism that plays the deciding role in the success of minorities any more," says Edward Blum, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who believes that race should not be considered in employment decisions.

"That was the case in the '60s and '70s and maybe even part of the '80s," he says. "But it is no longer the case in the 21st century that because you are black you are being held back from achieving what your parents and your ambitions will allow you to achieve. I think that has been crystallized with the election of President Obama."(source)

Sotomayor Biography/Recent Rulings:

Try this from the Federal Judicial Center for a quick summary.
Here’s a little more from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
Cases where she has written opinions appear here: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/144e90b4-7041-40e2-8a88-668c948dac04/1-10/list/

Barry In Charge: Showing Us How He Gets Iran To "Unclench Its Fist"

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has sent six warships to international waters, including the Gulf of Aden, to show its ability to confront any foreign threats, its naval commander said on Monday.
Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, quoted by the ISNA news agency, made the announcement five days after Iran said it test-fired a surface-to-surface missile with a range of 2,000 km (1,200 miles), putting Israel and U.S. bases in the area within reach.

Iran said on May 14 it had sent two warships to the Gulf of Aden to protect oil tankers from the world's fifth-largest crude exporter against attacks by pirates but ISNA did not make clear whether they were among the six Sayyari talked about.

Iranian waters stretch along the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman. Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 40 percent of the world's traded oil is shipped, if it were attacked over its nuclear programme.

"Iran has dispatched six ... warships to international waters and the Gulf of Aden region in an historically unprecedented move by the Iranian Navy," Sayyari told a gathering of armed forces officials, IRNA reported.

Sayyari said that preserving Iran's territorial integrity in its southern waters called for the "perseverance and firmness" of the navy.

The move to dispatch the warships "is indicative of the country's high military capability in confronting any foreign threat on the country's shores," Sayyari said.

The ISNA report did not mention the threat of pirate attacks, which, fuelled by large ransoms, have continued almost unabated despite the presence of an armada of foreign warships patrolling the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden.

In January, pirates released an Iranian-chartered cargo ship carrying 36,000 tonnes of wheat to Iran from Germany that was seized in November. In March, a regional maritime official said Somali villagers had detained another Iranian vessel.

Nearly 20,000 ships pass through the Gulf of Aden each year, heading to and from the Suez Canal. Seven percent of world oil consumption passed through the Gulf of Aden in 2007, according to Lloyd's Marine Intelligence Unit.

On May 20, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran had tested a missile that defence analysts say could hit Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, a move likely to fuel concern about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

The United States and its allies suspect the Islamic Republic is seeking to build nuclear bombs, a charge Tehran denies, but President Barack Obama has offered a new beginning of diplomatic engagement with Iran if it "unclenches its fist". (source)

Barry In Charge: Is This What 'Resetting Our Foreign Relations' Gets Us?

North Korean soldiers look south on the north side as they stand guard in front of the border line (bottom) upon Belgium's Prince Philippe's visit at the truce village of Panmunjom in the demilitarised zone separating the two Koreas in Paju, north of Seoul, May 10, 2009.

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea defied international condemnation of its latest nuclear test by firing three short-range missiles off its coast on Tuesday and major powers considered tougher action against the isolated communist state.

With tension in the region high, South Korea said it would join a U.S.-led initiative to intercept ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction, something Pyongyang has warned it would consider a declaration of war.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted a government source in Seoul as saying the North had test-fired one surface-to-air and one surface-to-ship missile off its east coast. The missiles had a range of about 130 km (80 miles).

Yonhap later reported that Pyongyang had fired a third short-range rocket on Tuesday.

North Korea also fired three short-range missiles on Monday and South Korean media quoted government sources as saying further missile tests were possible.

Monday's nuclear test, the North's second after one in 2006, drew sharp international condemnation and U.S. President Barack Obama said Pyongyang's nuclear arms program threatened international security.

The nuclear test raised concern about North Korea spreading its weapons to other countries and groups. The United States has accused it of trying try to sell nuclear know-how to Syria and others.

"Another risk is that the North Koreans might peddle some plutonium, or peddle some technology to terrorist groups, that would also be very, very serious," Hans Blix, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the BBC.

Obama assured South Korean President Lee Myung-bak of Washington's unequivocal commitment to defense on the divided peninsula, where some two million troops face off.

UN RESOLUTION "WITH TEETH"

North Korea's actions took a toll on Seoul's jittery financial markets, fearing the impact of its growing belligerence in a region which accounts for a sixth of the global economy.

South Korean stocks and the won currency wobbled for a second day, with the main KOSPI share index ending the day more than 2 percent lower. The won fell almost one percent against the dollar, although many traders said the market was becoming less concerned by North Korea.

In New York, ambassadors from the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Japan and South Korea met to work on resolution meant to add pressure to Pyongyang to rein in its nuclear program.

After the meeting, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told reporters that negotiations on a resolution "will indeed take some time."

She told CNN that Washington wanted "a strong resolution with teeth... Those teeth could take various different forms. They are economic levers, they are other levers that we might pursue."

U.S. State department spokesman Ian Kelly said North Korea would "pay a price" if it did not reverse its course but said the door was still open for it to resume long-running six-party talks meant to draw the reclusive state out of its isolation.
A U.S. Treasury Department official said on condition of anonymity that Washington was "reviewing our options" for further financial sanctions against Pyongyang.

There is little more Washington can do to deter the North, which has been punished for years by international sanctions and is so poor that it relies on aid to feed its 23 million people.

U.N. diplomats said it was clear that China, a veto-wielding permanent council member, opposed new penalties but might accept demands for tougher enforcement, and possibly an expansion, of existing sanctions. So far only the French delegation has publicly called for new U.N. sanctions.

PYONGYANG BLAMES U.S.

Pyongyang said the United States was the aggressor, its usual justification for making nuclear arms. "Our army and people are fully ready for battle ... against any reckless U.S. attempt for a preemptive attack," said its KCNA news agency.

Analysts say Pyongyang's military grandstanding was partly aimed at tightening leader Kim Jong-il's grip on power so he can better engineer his succession. Many speculate he wants his third son to take over.

For China, an immediate concern is a possible breakdown of order inside the ostracized state, which could send a flood of North Korean refugees across its border.

China is believed to want to bring North Korea back to the six-party talks, also involving South Korea, Japan, the United States and Russia, to make it give up a nuclear weapons program in return for aid and an end to its years as a pariah state.

Analysts say North Korea, which now spurns those talks, wants to use its nuclear muscle as leverage in dealing with Washington.

A North Korean diplomat told the 65-nation U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva that denunciations of its nuclear test could prevent it from supporting the group's moves to curb production of nuclear bomb-making material, jeopardizing the start of global talks on the issue.

A number of analysts said 67-year-old leader Kim, who is widely thought to have suffered a stroke last year, hopes his defiant weapons tests will help him secure support from the hard-line military for his chosen successor.

Kim was named successor by his father and the country's founding president Kim Il-sung, but has carefully avoided putting any of his three sons in the limelight. (source)

Barry In Charge: How's Hillary Doing?

From National Terror Alert:

North Korea threatened military action in response to South Korea joining an anti-proliferation program and said it’s no longer bound by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.

South Korea’s actions are tantamount to a “declaration of war,” the North’s official said in a statement today. North Korea said it can’t guarantee the safety of ships passing through its western waters near the maritime border with the South.

“We will regard any intervention, searches or other minor hostile acts against our peaceful ships as an intolerable violation of our sovereign rights and will counter with an immediate and forceful military strike,” the KCNA statement said. (source)

Barry In Charge: How Are Our Allies Reacting To The New "Help" From The US?

The upcoming home front drill, Turning Point 3, is based a scenario in which “a combined missile and rocket attack on Israel from all sides combined with terror attacks from within,” and is “not a fictional scenario,”, Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilan’i told members of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday.

Matan Vilan’i describes upcoming home front drill simulating war on three fronts

Vilna’i briefed the committee on the state-wide drill, scheduled to begin on May 31. The threat of missiles hitting mainland Israel “is not unrealistic,” Vilna’i continued. “If a war breaks out, that is probably what would happen.”

According to Vilna’i, “In conducting this national home front drill we aren’t looking to scare anyone, but rather prepare ourselves for a threat which has its writing on the wall.”

The drill will include all emergency response teams, all government ministries as well as the entire civilian population. According to the military, people will be asked to choose secured rooms or bomb shelters, and ensure that they know what to do in the event of war.

During the exercise, 252 local councils and municipalities will open ‘crisis rooms’ and will respond to various simulated emergency scenarios. (source)

Barry In Charge: Now, Just How Much Longer Will You Keep Us In Iraq?

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade despite an agreement between the United States and Iraq that would bring all American troops home by 2012, the top U.S. Army officer said Tuesday.

Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said the world remains dangerous and unpredictable, and the Pentagon must plan for extended U.S. combat and stability operations in two wars. "Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction," Casey said. "They fundamentally will change how the Army works."

He spoke at an invitation-only briefing to a dozen journalists and policy analysts from Washington-based think-tanks. He said his planning envisions combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade as part of a sustained U.S. commitment to fighting extremism and terrorism in the Middle East.

Casey's calculations about force levels are related to his attempt to ease the brutal deployment calendar that he said would "bring the Army to its knees."

Casey would not specify how many combat units would be split between Iraq and Afghanistan. He said U.S. ground commander Gen. Ray Odierno is leading a study to determine how far U.S. forces could be cut back in Iraq and still be effective.

President Barack Obama plans to bring U.S. combat forces home from Iraq in 2010, and the United States and Iraq have agreed that all American forces would leave by 2012. Although several senior U.S. officials have suggested Iraq could request an extension, the legal agreement the two countries signed last year would have to be amended for any significant U.S. presence to remain.

As recently as February, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated the U.S. commitment to the agreement worked out with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"Under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011," Gates said during an address at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. "We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned."

The United States currently has about 139,000 troops in Iraq and 52,000 in Afghanistan.

Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war as quickly as possible and refocusing U.S. resources on what he called the more important fight in Afghanistan.

That will not mean a major influx of U.S. fighting forces on the model of the Iraq "surge," however. Obama has agreed to send about 21,000 combat forces and trainers to Afghanistan this year. Combined with additional forces approved before former President George W. Bush left office, the United States is expected to have about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by the end of this year. That's about double the total at the end of 2008, but Obama's top military and civilian advisers have indicated the number is unlikely to grow much beyond that.

Casey said several times that he wasn't the person making policy, but the military was preparing to have a fighting force deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come. Casey said his planning envisions 10 combat brigades plus command and support forces committed to the two wars.

When asked whether the Army had any measurement for knowing how big it should be, Casey responded, "How about the reality scenario?"

This scenario, he said, must take into account that "we're going to have 10 Army and Marine units deployed for a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Casey stressed that the United States must be ready to take on sustained fights in the Middle East while meeting other commitments.

Casey reiterated statements made by civilian and military leaders that the situation in Afghanistan would get worse before it gets better. "There's going to be a big fight in the South," he said.

Casey added that training of local police and military in Afghanistan was at least a couple years behind the pace in Iraq, and it would be months before the U.S. deployed enough trainers. There's a steeper curve before training could be effective in Afghanistan, requiring three to five years before Afghanis could reach the "tipping point" of control.

He also said the U.S. had to be careful about what assets get deployed to Afghanistan. "Anything you put in there would be in there for a decade," he said.

As Army chief of staff, Casey is primarily responsible for assembling the manpower and determining assignments. He insisted the Army's 1.1-million size was sufficient even to handle the extended Mideast conflicts.

"We ought to build a pretty effective Army with 1.1 million strength," Casey said. He also noted that the Army's budget had grown to $220 billion from $68 billion before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

He said the Army is two-thirds of the way through a complete overhaul from the Cold War-era force built around tanks and artillery to today's terrorist-driven realities. The Army has become more versatile and quicker by switching from division-led units to brigade-level command.

Casey said the Army has moved from 15-month battlefield deployments to 12 months. His goal is to move rotations by 2011 to one year in the battlefield and two years out for regular Army troops, and one year in the battlefield and three years out for reserves. He called the current one-year-in-one-year-out cycle "unsustainable." (source)

Barry In Charge: "When I Endorse A Racist, It's OK"

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” ~Sonia Sotomayor

As you can see, when Barry says that he is looking for a Supreme Court nominee who isn't just "ivory tower", but also has "common touch", Sonia Sotomayor is exactly who he has in mind.

Can you imagine if a white man had made that kind of a comment [above]? There would be hissy fits and psychological meltdowns ALL over America by the self-appointed guardians of our civil rights. First of all, though, just what kind of meaning is there to that statement? One assumes that she is speaking of a hypothetical court case involving some Hispanic. So, in other words, if a Hispanic is caught red-handed of murdering someone, Ms Sotomayor would have more wisdom regarding their innocence or guilt than a white justice? How about a black jurist--would they be able to be wise?

Of course, I'm not the only one who questions Ms Sotomayor's "common sense". You can read a leftist magazine bring up the same question here.

If you remember Barry's setup of this pick,you can tell that this Harvard lawyer was already anticipating the criticisms of Sotomayor when he made them. Instead of answering the obvious question of gender and race bias in Ms Sotomayor ("What I want is not just ivory tower learning. I want somebody who has the intellectual firepower but also a little bit of a common touch and a practical sense of how the world works,"), Barry setup the issue differently: has the person had real-life circumstances in their life that gave them "common touch"?

In a nation of majority whites, why is it not seen as common for a white jurist to be picked? If Sotomayor is better at deciding cases with Latinos involved, wouldn't she be simultaneously less than best to decide on cases involving white people?

With that switch of the debate, he will have the press hard on the question of Sotomayor's ability to cry about her court cases, versus what the role of Supreme Court Justices hold by design of the Constitution. That is, whether the role of the jurist is to make law or interpret the law for constitutionality, according to the original intent of the Constitution itself.

How many of you know whether or not our US Constitution allows for judges to make policy or not? Check out the glib way that the judicial elite treat that very basic dictate in our sacred Constitution: