Friday, November 05, 2010

Ships to India: If only it were true 

Allahpundit has debunked yesterday's righty hyperventilator, that the United States Navy was sending 34 ships with Barack Obama to India. Too bad. Unlike many on the right who mocked the story as another example of Obaman excess, I was hoping it were true. Why? Because it would amount to a TR-like display in the most geopolitically significant ocean on the planet, a warning to Pakistan and a brushing-back of the Chinese, who are building a deepwater port adequate to support a blue ocean navy.

When a good history of the George W. Bush years is finally written, his breakthrough with India may turn out to be the most important foreign policy initiative of his administration. The Indian Ocean hosts lanes for the oil from the Persian Gulf and an ever larger share of its trade, and India sits in the middle of it. It is also the geographical center of transnational Islamic terrorism. It is essential that the United States maintain a strong deterrent in the Indian Ocean, and that it preserve and enhance its ability to coerce whatever clown revue happens to be governing Pakistan at the moment. India is the key to both. That Barack Obama recognizes this is to his credit. It is quite possibly the most deft foreign policy move of his administration -- admittedly, a low standard -- and he deserves credit for it.

Let's just hope he doesn't apologize too much while he's there.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 05, 07:50:00 AM:

This story is a perfect example of the closed-circuitry that exists in the conservative media: If it's on the Internet, it's true. (Fyurthr highlighted by the fact that TigerHawk relied on allahpundit to debunk the story!)

No fact checking, no questioning the feasibility of deploying 10% of the United States Navy for a 3 day trip or that $200M/day is more than we spend in one day in Afghanistan.

The fact Rep, Michelle Bachman (soon to be 4th in leadership line in the House) would go on CNN touting the story as fact becuase "it's been in the press" is stunnning, made even more so with her further claim that eliminating Obama's trip to India is one way she recommends we reduce the deficit! There are no words...  

By Anonymous john, at Fri Nov 05, 09:12:00 AM:

Anon... mixed emotions on the whole story. Part of me says ... there's a protocol that exists for the most powerful person on the planet, and I'd expect it to be followed regardless of whether I approve of him/her. If the Kenyan is living high on the people's hog, that's a different story.

As for the media and your beef about Bachman, there are many examples of this door swinging the other way.  

By Anonymous Ignoramus, at Fri Nov 05, 09:22:00 AM:

Anon 7:50 doth protest too much.

I was channel flicking during commercials last night and caught Rachel Maddow also getting righteously indignant about "34 ships and $200mm per day." For Rachel, it beats having to speak to the outcome of Election 2010.  

By Anonymous Blacque Jacques Shellacque, at Fri Nov 05, 11:23:00 AM:

Let's just hope he doesn't apologize too much while he's there.

He'd probably apologize for those Metro PCS commercials on the tube starring Ranjit and Chad...  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 05, 11:43:00 AM:

You know, I had heard people talk about Michelle Bachmann but had never seen her or heard her myself (yeah, I live in a cave) until I saw Chris Matthews asking if she was hypnotized. First, I heard the exchange and then I watched it. Very strange. Hearing it, she sounded very excited about the election outcome and I could excuse her repetition because of that. Matthews? No excuses for being stupidly rude.

But then I watched a replay of the interview. Bachmann kind of gave me the creeps. Sure, I agreed with what she said...I guess I prefer more indication that someone is thinking while they speak. That pasted-on smile wasn't helping.

Before you beat me up on this, I'll just say that was the only time I have seen her or paid any attention to her. I'll follow her a little more before I make up my mind.  

By Blogger Nagarajan Sivakumar, at Fri Nov 05, 12:05:00 PM:

It is true that George W Bush's India push was a very significant foreign policy change for the United States.He moved heaven and earth to prove that he was serious about India.

With all that being said,India-US relations are going downhill.Our military relations are poor if we were to be honest.The Pentagon and the US military's perverse encouragement of Pakistan in spite of its open perfidy has observers in India saying that the US is back to playing its old strategic games in the region.

TigerHawk's link to the Gwadar port story shows how well Pakistan has played the Americans - their all weather alliance with China is strategic and shows that they do not need the US as much as the US needs them.

Tigerhawk, don't worry, Obama will not have any excuse to apologize to India -after all with the exception of communists/Indian leftists, we don't hate you.

Besides our Prime Minister is the President of the India chapter of the Obama fan club... in other words he is no different from Chris Matthews and gets tingles at the very sight of Obama. So no worries, Tiger!  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 05, 12:07:00 PM:

Bachmann must feel it's her duty to go on with Matthew, because there can really be no other explanation. Her "pasted on smile" is certainly understandable, given his past overt hostility to her and her difficulties in dealing with him. In her place, very few of us would have willingly done the interview at all (and, I'm betting that includes you Anon 11:43- it certainly includes me.)


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Nov 05, 12:12:00 PM:

hadn't thought of it that way, but I was unaware of the history. Not surprised by it; just unaware.  

By Blogger Moneyrunner, at Fri Nov 05, 12:13:00 PM:

With all due respect, Allahpundit did not refute the story. To refute it would imply that we know what the real cost is. Here's my comment after reading the comment on Hot Air:

UPDATE: Allahpundit at Hot Air labels the $200 milliondollar price tag of the trip an urban legend and says "Don’t trust Indian media."

Instead, who does she trust? Snopes!

Do you know who or what Snopes is? Snopes is about as reliable as Wikipedia. It’s a husband and wife team running a website out of California. To suggest that they have any better information about the cost of this junket than the writers if the Indian Press Trust is risible.

The cost “debunked?” Then come up with something more believable than denials from the same administration that told us that the cost of ObamaCare was zero.

Don’t do the math and say that an entourage of 3000 people that includes the entire White House staff is equivalent of booking accommodations and meals in for a large tourist group visiting India. Is an aircraft carrier task force going to be assigned to this jaunt? [The DOJ spokesman says no] Are the number of planes and cars going there accurate or not? What’s the cost of the security arrangements other than the Air force, Navy and Army that surround this trip? Have the Obamas been known for caring anything about taking extravagant trips on the taxpayer's dime?

By Blogger Progressively Defensive, at Fri Nov 05, 12:16:00 PM:

The more I think about it, the more I think W was a top 5er. Interesting that he's the first MBA to be President. It seems such a natural form of training. Perhaps the most brilliant thing he did was select Cheney as VP. And Condolezza Rice ... USA at it's best.

Rumsfeld's great, too ... a Princetonian.  

By Blogger Ric Locke, at Fri Nov 05, 12:28:00 PM:

Traveling with seven elephants.


By Blogger prairie wind, at Fri Nov 05, 01:40:00 PM:

Maybe Obama started the $200 million/day rumor. That way, no matter how large the actual amount, it won't be as large as was rumored.  

By Anonymous Just Because I'm Paranoid, at Fri Nov 05, 02:42:00 PM:

"Maybe Obama started the $200 million/day rumor."

Wouldn't surprise me. Axelrod has fed negative stories before ... to get MSM off a substantive trail.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Sat Nov 06, 10:26:00 AM:

An American president who had any ballast in his underwear would have sent all 34 American warships to Yemen as a thank-you for the recent exploits of Al Queda in Yemen.

Obama probably just wants ass coverage, being the steely-eyed American hero that he is.

As far as "dubunking" internet news, one question.

What is the ultimate "reliable source"????  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Nov 06, 11:56:00 AM:

Thanks for referencing the historic Treaty GW Bush provided with India.

I was surprised no one mentioned it on FOX the other night. How could they forget it?

Obama is again following Bush Jr. policy, and one wonders if the LEFTISTS will cry foul.

For one thing, if he was for open trade, he would sign the various FREE TRADE Agreements with Columbia, South Korea, etc.

But Obama and the Democrats are lost, stuck in peddling poor policy for their Union devotion. Unfortunately for us all, Reid's survival will make many think this is their best route, and we will all suffer for it in the long run.

The Unions are approaching BELL Telephone like Monopolies of interest, and perhaps a little anti-TRUST legal investigations should begin.

One last thing, can anyone suggest to the GOP, on the number of things they need to address coming into the HOUSE Majority, to investigate and reform Fannie - FREDDIE?  

By Blogger Nagarajan Sivakumar, at Sun Nov 07, 03:22:00 AM:

Here is how BAD the relations between the two countries are on the crucial issue of AfPak - Gen Petraeus, Adml Mike Mullen and Richard Holbrooke have accused India of "thought crime".

The Indian military was looking at the strategy of punitive strikes on Pakistan in the event of a terrorist strike like the one on the Indian Parliament in December 2001 - this doctrine is called the Cold Start doctrine - of course it exists only in theory as evidence by India's effete response to the Mumbai terrorist attacks two years back.

Petraeus, Mullen and Co have WARNED Obama (or is it India ?) that the the Indian military should not be even thinking along such lines. In other words, they wanted Obama to veto India's military options against Pakistan - the Pakis of course will offer any excuse for their perfidy and failure to hunt down AQ/Taliban terrorists and Petraeus and Co have gone along with it.

Sorry to say this but the Pentagon is an impediment to better US-India ties. I have a lot of respect for Gen.Petraeus as an army man but from my vantage point he is very pro-Pakistani and has gone out of his way to interfere with Indian military's options against Pakistan inspite of fully knowing that Pakistan is the
epicenter of Islamic jihad and its military is so openly jihadist.  

By Anonymous Jay, at Sun Nov 07, 04:54:00 AM:

So Mr Obama, what do you think of Jihad?

Check out his answer here.


Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?