Prescient (Or Not?)

Russia is still contending with the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Russia can meddle in Ukraine at the margins, but threats to fully invade and occupy a country of more than 44 million people aren’t credible.  That big a move would cost too many Russian lives and too many rubles for a chronically weak – and weakening – Russian economy.  In recent months, Belarus provided the latest example of the post-Soviet demand for fundamental change and the need to shoot people to keep protests under control.  In the most recent presidential election in Moldova, a Harvard-educated economist toppled a pro-Kremlin incumbent.  Last year, Turkey’s backing for Azerbaijan dealt a humiliating defeat to Russian ally Armenia in a region that Russia once dominated.  Beijing is increasingly competing for influence with Moscow among the former Soviet Central Asian states.
—     Ian Bremmer
From his opinion piece:  “The Risk Report: What game is Putin playing?“
Appearing in:  Time Magazine;  dtd:  21/28 June 2021
[It seems the “threat” of invasion was a little more “credible” than Mr. Bremmer believed (the editorial was from 2021).  IF the West continues to support Ukraine and IF Putin doesn’t resort to tactical nukes, it appears Mr. Bremmer will ultimately be proven correct that Russia bit off it bit more than it could chew (let alone conquer).    —    KMAB]
.
On This Day In:
2021	Or Faith In A Creator…
	It Seemed The Taste Was Not So Sweet
2020	Nearer My God To Thee, By George
	I’ve Got To Keep Working On It
2019	Laugh With Me
2018	Both Sides, Mr. President?
2017	Republicans Better Wake Up
2016	Truth Telling
2015	To Be Effective In The Modern World
2014	A Little Cover
2013	Binding
2012	Lift
2011	Another Good Movie, Another Excellent Book
	miSFits
	I’m Just Not Sure

Read Full Post »

Long Past Time For A “Thorough-going Reappraisal”

In absolute terms, moreover, the mass and volume (to say nothing of the cost) of all that was required, particularly in fuel and munitions, to maintain an army in field operations at an intensive rate against a similarly equipped opponent, was now very great.  It had taken a quantitative jump since the Second World War.  Warfare in the Middle East in the seventies had shown this very clearly, if on relatively small scale.  It was just no longer possible, at the rate at which stocks could now be exhausted, to sustain intensive operations of war for months on end.  Head – and equipment – counts were no longer the true measure of an army’s capability.  Formation in large numbers could be a liability rather than an advantage unless they could be kept effectively in action.
The Soviet war-fighting philosophy, from whatever origins it may been evolved, was in the circumstances of the 1980s exactly right.  It enjoined the initiation of total and violent offensive action, swiftly followed through to the early attainment of a valuable objective.  The position of military advantage thus secured would then be exploited by political means.  Speed was everything. The corollary was that failure to secure the objective in good time must result in a thorough-going reappraisal, in which to continue to press towards the same end might very well be the least sensible course.
—     General Sir John Hackett (et al)
From the “future-history” novel:  “The Third World War: August 1985“
.
On This Day In:
2021	Facing Life
	70’s Sunshine Sound
2020	#IncompetentTrump And His Pandemic Briefings
	#IncompetentTrump
2019	I Hope So
2018	Painted Into
2017	Prayers, Miracles And Lottery Tickets
	Roman View
2016	Dignity And Grace
2015	Is It Warm Enough For You
2014	What The Right STILL Wants
2013	Embrace Serendipity
2012	Your Order, Please
2011	Well Enough Anyway

Read Full Post »

Refreshing My Look Ahead (Back)

[Another LONG post…  You’ve been warned!  (LoL)    —    KMAB]
The Third World War:  August 1985  (1978©)   —   book review
This review is for the fictional portrayal (as a “future history”) of a “realistic” invasion of NATO allied European countries by the Warsaw Pact in August of 1985.  The book was “written” primarily (et al) by (Ret.) British General John W. Hackett in consultation with a number of experts gathered to discuss how such an invasion might occur, what might lead up to it and what might be the end-of-war results.  The “advisors” were listed as:  John Barraclough (Air Chief Marshal), Kenneth Hunt (Brigadier), Ian McGeoch (Vice-Admiral), Norman Macrae (a deputy editor at “The Economist“), John Strawson (Major-General), and, Bernard Burrows (British Diplomatic Service).
The book was a best-seller in England back in 1978.  It was published in the U.S. in early 1979 as a hardback and then released as a paperback in 1980.  I initially read the paperback version.  I believe it was shortly after I was released from the Active Reserves, but my memory isn’t that precise anymore.  In any case, this review is of a re-reading of the book after my reading of “2034: A Novel of the Next World War” earlier this year.  (review here:  A Novel War).  The author of that book, (ret) Admiral James Stavridis, cited this book as a primary inspiration for his work.  This prompted my re-interest in the original…
During my (almost) two years in the Reserves I was assigned to a unit which tested and evaluated the readiness of National Guard units from California, Arizona and New Mexico.  The officers would establish “war-game” scenarios for the Guard officers and I (as an NCO) would embed with the line units to evaluate actual field performance.  We were artillery evaluators, so I watched Guard batteries fire cannons / howitzers, but I gained an understanding of scenario development and large scale tactical war-gaming.  This led to a post-service interest in military style board games which carried on for most of the ’80s.  I lost interest when gaming shifted to computers and became “mostly” shoot-em-up’s instead of (IMHO) about strategy.
Basically, the plot of this book is the leaders of the USSR feel their position as a superpower is being threatened by political and economic factors which are worsening (for them).  They feel there has been a significant / progressive decrease in NATO’s readiness over the last decade and this may be their last / best opportunity to remove a potential military threat (NATO) and further subjugate the buffer countries of Eastern Europe who are members of the Warsaw Pact.  The plan is a crushing invasion of Western Europe (West Germany and the low-lands) which leaves the USSR in command up to the border of France.  The invasion fails because in the years between the book’s publishing (1978) and the date of the “future-history” event (August 1985), Europe (specifically Great Britain) comes to its senses and reverses the general military decline of the late ’60s to ’70s.  The NATO forces are able to slow the advance of invasion (without the use of tactical nuclear weapons) and allows reinforcements to arrive from the U.S. just in the nick of time.
In a striking foreboding of the current (2022) invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the invasion portrayed fails because of (in no particular order of importance):
1)  an inability to dominate the air despite superior numerical assets;
2)  a failure of logistics (fuel and ammunition) by the Warsaw Pact, (it is believed the invasion will take less than two weeks AND there will not be enough time for the U.S. to resupply NATO forces);
3)  resistance by the native forces (in this case, the West German army / reserves) is surprisingly effective;  and,
4)  the centralized command and control characteristic of authoritarian political systems, does not promote the flexibility / initiative of junior officers (and NCOs) to seize military opportunities when they arise, so opportunities for significant breakouts are lost.
When the war quickly (the “war” lasts weeks) devolves into a war of attrition, failure is viewed as inevitable and hard-liners in the Politburo decide to consolidate their gains for future armistice negotiations by the use of a limited (against only one city) nuclear strike.  The result, however, is not fear and negotiation, but instead, fury and retaliation via a similar limited nuclear strike by Great Britain and the U.S. against a Russian city;  (and like falling dominoes) the Warsaw Pact allies turn on the USSR to avoid nuclear annihilation;  the Soviet military / security services stage a coup, over-throw the hardliners, and cease further combat;  the non-Russian border states (the “-stans”) declare independence from the USSR;  and, the rest of the world struggles with the effects of a new world order.  The “war” is barely a month old before it is over.  Because the book is written as a “recent” history of past events, it does not attempt to forecast / describe long term results of the war except to relate the world has to deal with unaccounted for Soviet nuclear weapons / warheads and large stocks of conventional weapons scattered around the global (mainly Africa).
Is this a “good” book?  Is it realistic as a predictor of future conflict (lethality, if not participants)?  Is it entertaining or interesting?  Do I recommend this book?  With the exception of the final question, the answer to all of these is (are):  yes to so-so…
The book is not a “good” novel.  There are no specified individual characters driving the action, so you cannot (as a reader) identify and grow with anyone.  In this sense, although fictional, the book is written with more of an academic or journalistic feel.  It is very much an military style “after-action” report.  If you are comfortable with this writing style, you will enjoy the writing / book.  If you are not, you will not.  I did.  Was the book able to realistically describe combat and the results (devastation) of war?  Yes!  Although, saying this, there was an obvious Western bias of vivid description of the destruction of the British city and virtually nothing about the similar (or much worse) destruction of the Russian city.  (Very much:  “Yeah, we took out one of theirs as payback…”)  Is the book entertaining or interesting?  This is the toughest question because every reader’s tastes varies so much… I was not “entertained”;  but, I did find the book interesting.  I particularly “enjoyed” the parts the authors get terribly wrong, because as a reader I (we) have 40+ years of hind-sight.  There is no China – Japan alliance;  the Shah is no longer in charge of Iran (or, rather, wasn’t in 1985);  South Africa did not fall to external forces;  and, East Germany did not resist consolidation with West Germany after the fall of the USSR.
Final recommendation:  strong recommendation.  I think most veterans (particularly my age group) will find this book relatable.  I think most civilian “military” readers / historians – and quite a few regular historians – will, too.  For political science readers, the “states” interests, goals, and stances will seem Machiavellian / Kissinger-ian (is that a real word?).  Yet, they ring true – even 40 years later.  It is entirely obvious why this book could seem as an inspiration for a future – updated version (a la “2034“), and I believe (I read) this book served as a similar inspiration for several of Tom Clancy’s works which followed.  At any rate, I do remember “enjoying” the initial read from “way-back-when”, and don’t feel the re-read was less so.  My reaction to “2034” was reinforced:  this version is much better than the more recent book.  If you have read “2034“, I recommend you read “WW3:1985” for the comparison value, if nothing else.
Final disclaimer:  I purchased this book at normal / sale price (for an old / used book) and no compensation has been provided to me by anyone for my opinions in this review.
.
On This Day In:
2021	I’m An Optimist
	Talent Is A Ticket To Ride
2020	Works For Me
	Rivers Versus Waterfalls
2019	Better To Do
	News: Drunken Party Girl Saves Seoul
2018	Keep Moving
2017	Fighting Good
2016	Size Matters
2015	Maybe The Best Thing
2014	Ready To Be Fried?
2013	A Real Lover
2012	Winning Wars
2011	A Different Lesson

Read Full Post »

Prayers For Mariupol

There is no medicine like hope, no incentive so great, and no tonic so powerful as expectation of something tomorrow.
—    Orison Swett Marden
.
On This Day In:
2021	Assumptions Are Fatal In Science
	Starting To Look Back
2020	Down On Earth
2019	Are You Moving?
2018	We Can Only Pray
2017	Heavier At That End
2016	The Difference Is Craftsmanship
2015	However Vast The Darkness
2014	The Omnipresent Teacher
2013	Don’t Waste
2012	Earning Thanks
2011	Fuzzy Vision
2010	Movies and Book

Read Full Post »

Particularly Peaceful Neighbors

Make happy those who are near, and those who are far will come.
—     Chinese Proverb
[Hopefully, this is what China advised Putin before he invaded Ukraine.  If they did, he should have listened to their advice.  (And, no, I don’t really think they said this to him.)    —    KMAB]
.
On This Day In:
2021	Thoughts
	It’s A Rich Man’s World
2020	Pax Et Justitia
2019	And Unlawful Orders From A President
2018	Instinct For Presence
2017	Hard Enough
2016	Jumps
2015	One View Of Failure
2014	We Speak For Earth
2013	Inward Urgency
2012	Delayed Reviews
	Fulfilling My Duty
2011	Interference

Read Full Post »

Putin’s Objective In Ukraine?

Management by objective works – if you know the objectives.  Ninety percent of the time you don’t.
—     Peter Drucker
.
On This Day In:
2022	Putin’s Objective In Ukraine?
2021	It’s 12 O’clock Somewhere
	The Way It Is
2020	And #IncompetentDonald Weakens It
2019	Morning Mirror
2018	Wondering About #45
2017	A Prayer For London
2016	Don’t Default
2015	Her Pilgrim Soul
2014	Three Observations
2013	Robbed Again
2012	Good Hearts
2011	Interesting Reading
	What Are You Lookin’ At?

Read Full Post »

Somebody Should Have Warned Putin About Ukraine

He who licks knives will soon cut his tongue.
—     Ukrainian proverb
We don’t even know how strong we are until we are forced to bring that hidden strength forward.
—     Isabel Allende
.
On This Day In:
2022	Somebody Should Have Warned Putin About Ukraine
2021	No Plan And Less Sand
	It Might Sound Strange
2020	Why #45 Is In The Dark
	180 Day Health / Weight Update (Mar 2020)
2019	Tonight I Am All Blacks
	In All Its Messy Complexity
2018	Danger = Opportunity
2017	True And Great
	Sand At The Beach
2016	There Is A Difference Between Dangerous And Frightening
2015	Always A Goal
2014	Standing Strong
2013	Shaken And Stirred
	The Bird With The Broken Wing
2012	Friends In High Places
2011	Objective Independence

Read Full Post »

Courage In Ukraine

Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear.
—     Ambrose Redmoon
.
On This Day In:
2022	Courage In Ukraine
2021	Enjoying The Getting There
	And I Carry It With Me
2020	Might As Well Jump
2019	Just Sitting Here…
2018	My Experience As Well
2017	He’s Making A List
2016	Mere Specks
2015	Day To Day Success
2014	We Have Ignition!
2013	The Dreamer
2012	I Err Gladly
2011	Ill Executed
	And You?

Read Full Post »

Prayers For Ukraine

Great works are performed not by strength, but by perseverance.
—    Samuel Johnson
.
On This Day In:
2022	Prayers For Ukraine
2021	Be Your Own Hero
	Another Frog King
2020	Still Trying To…
2019	Press Freedom
2018	Or Loyalty To An Unqualified And Incompetent President
2017	A Bad Sale
2016	Be Happy!
2015	Are You Feeling Cold?
2014	Never Asked
2013	In Praise Of Change
2012	John Carter Of Mars
	Circular
2011	How Much And When

Read Full Post »

Putin’s War On Ukraine: Choosing Lies

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
—     Abraham Lincoln
.
On This Day In:
2022	Putin’s War On Ukraine: Choosing Lies
2021	How Many Times
	I’m Breaking My Silence
2020	When Looking Around
2019	Except Dying
2018	History Will Judge Him Favorably
2017	Are You Confused?
2016	The Golden Mean
2015	To Infinity And Beyond
2014	Taken Back
2013	Windows Or Doors
2012	All Rise
2011	Vote Weight

Read Full Post »

Against Considerable Odds

Colonels and generals are expected to fight moving, active battles, always seeking an advantage from the use of terrain, surprise and mobility.
Generals are expected to concentrate defending forces in front of the main thrusts of the enemy so that the fighting troops do not have to meet a greater ratio of strength against them than three or four to one.
…
The captains and their troops have learned that modern weapons in the defense can and should inflict losses on an attacker, in comparison to their own, of well over three to one.  They have learned, in short, that a successful defense against considerable odds is possible.
—    General Sir John Hackett (Ret.)
From his book:  “The Third World War:  A Future History“
The book was “written” by General Hackett and “others” and purported to be a “future history” of a war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.  The “war” ends following a limited tactical nuclear exchange which leads to a revolution in Russia.
[With the delays in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, much has been said about the failure to overwhelm the militarily over-matched defenders.
Ukraine vs Russia (In Theater) Armed Forces 200,000 850,000 200,000 Fighter Aircraft 69 772 193 Attack Aircraft 29 739 185 Helicopters 112 1,543 386 Attack Helicopters 34 544 136 Tanks 2,596 12,420 3,105 Personnel Carriers 12,303 30,122 7,531 Self-Propelled Artillery 1,067 6,574 1,644 Towed Artillery 2,040 7,571 1,893 Mobile Rocket Launchers 490 3,391 848
What isn’t clear to me is how many of Russia’s forces are actually “in theater” and committed to the invasion.  The numbers I’ve seen indicate approximately “200,000” Russians were gathered for the invasion.  This is (again approximately) 25% of Russia’s forces.  If we assume a similar ratio across the board for other assets, the numbers are far less indicative of an assured success for the invasion.
In military theory, it is almost a given that the attacker needs a six-to-one superiority in order to have a reasonable “guarantee” of success against a prepared defense.  (This is why you concentrate forces at breakout / breakthrough points.)  Three-to-one superiority is considered the bare minimum to have a reasonable “expectation” of success.
Based on the above numbers, the “only” Russian advantage is in attack aircraft (29 vs 185).  This is an even greater advantage than just the numbers indicate as attack aircraft serve as force multipliers for both your tanks and your ground forces.
IMHO this invasion will succeed or fail based on three factors:  logistics, will and geography.  If the Russian forces can maintain their supply of fuel and ammunition, they will have the advantage in a war of attrition.  If Ukraine can maintain their will to fight in the face of both heavy civilian losses and questionable munitions resupply from other countries, they will make the war / occupation unsustainable for Russia.  Finally, we should recall Russia invaded and then dominated Afghanistan for almost twenty years before finally being driven out.  Afghanistan is roughly the size of Texas.  Texas is only about 10-15% larger than Ukraine.  There is a vast amount of land to hide in and fight from IF you have the will to do so.  So far, the Ukraine people have shown the will…
Of course, all of this assumes Russia does not choose a tactical nuclear option…    —    kmab]
.
On This Day In:
2022	Against Considerable Odds
2021	Only 10
	Just A Hopeless Case
2020	What We Know About Ourselves
2019	But It Feels Dirtier Lately
2018	I Remember Some More Than Others
2017	Creating Reality
2016	Come, Read To Me Some Poem
2015	Exceeding Service
2014	Still Learning
	Hospitality
2013	Execution Not Intensity
2012	Charles Carroll Of Carrollton (The Only Catholic Founder)
2011	Life Works
	Pay Like Hell
	Prosperity Finds Its Way Up

Read Full Post »

So THAT’s Why…

God created war so that Americans would learn geography.
—    Mark Twain
[Just over a week ago, I was discussing the Ukraine (at that time the Russian threat of invasion) with someone who said, he didn’t want the U.S. to get involved in the problems of some “tiny, insignificant country in Europe that I can’t even point to on a map”.  I replied Ukraine is bigger than California (almost twice the size) and just smaller than Texas (roughly 90%), and you probably can’t find it because it was part of the U.S.S.R. when you were studying world geography.  I added the Ukraine President is the guy who stood up to #45 when he (#45) tried to extort them into a announcing a bogus investigation of Joe Biden in exchange for military funding for Ukraine’s defense.  The funding had already been authorized by Congress and #45 was withholding the funds to try to “buy” the U.S. election with a made-up scandal.  Maybe Twain was only part right.    —    kmab]
.
On This Day In:
2022	So THAT’s Why…
2021	I Welcome The Questions
	6:00 AM
2020	Increasing Importance
	And Now Joe
2019	But Yours
2018	And Smile More Often
2017	He’s Keeping The Light On For Us
2016	The Results Of Trying Too Hard
2015	Make Me Look
2014	Fresh Drink
2013	Good Business
2012	Unsure Spirit
2011	A Lost Valuable

Read Full Post »

Support For Ukraine Independence

It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog.
—     Mark Twain
.
On This Day In:
2022	Support For Ukraine Independence
2021	Right Up Until Armed Insurrectionists Attack Congress
	No Time
2020	Sometimes Human Nature Stays The Same
2019	Sometimes Too Subtle
2018	A Lot Like Teaching
2017	Wake Up
2016	I Like Dreaming
2015	Importance
2014	Unearned Humility
2013	Science Is Trial And Error
2012	Franklin’s Creed
2011	First Steps
2010	Home Ill…

Read Full Post »

One Person (Republican) Can Make A Majority

5 February 2020
ROMNEY SPEECH (AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY) REGARDING HIS VOTE TO CONFIRM THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP:
The Constitution is at the foundation of our Republic’s success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it.  The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of Congress for these many days.  We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it.  We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other’s good faith.
The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious.  As a Senator-juror, I swore an oath, before God, to exercise “impartial justice.”  I am a profoundly religious person.  I take an oath before God as enormously consequential.  I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the President, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced.  I was not wrong.
The House Managers presented evidence supporting their case;  the White House counsel disputed that case.  In addition, the President’s team presented three defenses:  first, that there can be no impeachment without a statutory crime;  second, that the Bidens’ conduct justified the President’s actions;  and third that the judgement of the President’s actions should be left to the voters.  Let me first address each of those defenses.
The historic meaning of the words “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the writings of the Founders and my own reasoned judgement convince me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they are not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office.  To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a president might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove a president defies reason.
The President’s counsel noted that Vice President Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove the Ukrainian Prosecutor General.  If he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under investigation, the Vice President should have recused himself.  While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong.
With regards to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his father’s name is unsavory but also not a crime.  Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the President’s counsel that a crime had been committed, the President’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit.  There is no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the President would never have done what he did.
The defense argues that the Senate should leave the impeachment decision to the voters.  While that logic is appealing to our democratic instincts, it is inconsistent with the Constitution’s requirement that the Senate, not the voters, try the president.  Hamilton explained that the Founders’ decision to invest senators with this obligation rather than leave it to voters was intended to minimize — to the extent possible — the partisan sentiments of the public.
This verdict is ours to render.  The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfilled our duty.  The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a “high crime and misdemeanor.”
Yes, he did.
The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
The President withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so.
The President delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders.
The President’s purpose was personal and political.
Accordingly, the President is guilty of an appalling abuse of the public trust.
What he did was not “perfect” —  No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security interests, and our fundamental values.  Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.
In the last several weeks, I have received numerous calls and texts.  Many demand that, in their words, “I stand with the team.”  I can assure you that that thought has been very much on my mind.  I support a great deal of what the President has done.  I have voted with him 80% of the time.  But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and biases aside.  Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.
I am aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters, I will be vehemently denounced.  I am sure to hear abuse from the President and his supporters.  Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?
I sought to hear testimony from John Bolton not only because I believed he could add context to the charges, but also because I hoped that what he said might raise reasonable doubt and thus remove from me the awful obligation to vote for impeachment.
Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country.  I believe that our Constitution was inspired by Providence.  I am convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our national character.  As it is with each senator, my vote is an act of conviction.  We have come to different conclusions, fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience.
I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the President from office.  The results of this Senate Court will in fact be appealed to a higher court:  the judgement of the American people.  Voters will make the final decision, just as the President’s lawyers have implored.  My vote will likely be in the minority in the Senate.  But irrespective of these things, with my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me.  I will only be one name among many, no more or less, to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial.  They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the President did was wrong, grievously wrong.
We’re all footnotes at best in the annals of history.  But in the most powerful nation on earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that is distinction enough for any citizen.
Senator Mitt Romney
(R) Utah
[I was torn between titling this post as “Profile In Courage” and / or “A Candle In The Wind“.  In the end, I chose to emphasize the individuality of the speech / act rather than the courage of the decision or the political precariousness of the position.  I believe history will judge Mitt Romney as more than just a “footnote” and somewhere there is a dad (George W. Romney) looking down on his son with pride.    —  kmab]
.
On This Day In:
2022	Do People Know What You Stand For?
2021	The Republican Party Can Survive Trumpism (If It Wants To)
	Don’t You Ever Ask Them Why
2020	Art Work
	One Person (Republican) Can Make A Majority
2019	Hopefully, Closer To Noon
	Can You See The Bottom?
2018	Stock Market Sets Another Record Under #DumbDonald
	#LyingDonald: About That Special Prosecutor Testimony
2017	We Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet
2016	But You Have To Learn It Feels Good
2015	Never Stop
2014	Caution
2013	Treat Her Like A Lady
2012	Build New Worlds
2011	I Grok Elegance
	Standing Relish

Read Full Post »

Will John Bolton Testify?

Our problem is not to find better values but to be faithful to those we profess.
—    John W. Gardner
[John Bolton is a Republican conservative.  I can honestly say I have no recollection of EVER agreeing with any of his opinions or policies.  Having said this, I have always believed that while I detest his policies, Bolton loves our country and would never participate in allowing Russian interference in our government.  We are rapidly approaching the point where his values and his love of country will be severely tested.  I remain convinced (and predict) that even if Bolton honestly testifies against President Trump viz-a-viz the Ukraine and political crimes (bribery, extortion, abuse of power), it will not change a single vote for impeachment conviction in the Senate.  Still, history will be Bolton’s judge.  I fear Bolton, like the Republicans in the House and Senate, will lack the courage to stand up for America, the Constitution, and the rule of law.  I would LOVE it if Bolton turns out to have been the whistle-blower all along.  Now, THAT would make a great book / movie!!  Nah.  No one would ever believe it…    —   kmab]
.
On This Day In:
2021	Happy Thanksgiving (2021)!
	When You Get Where You’re Going
2020	Still In School
	The First Deuce
	Escape From Planet Junkyard
2019	Will John Bolton Testify?
2018	Just Maybe
2017	Police In My Review Mirror
2016	Full And Rich
2015	Go Deeper
2014	Intentional Mapping
2013	The Sweet Path
2012	Living Free And Abolition
	Morning Wood
2011	I Resemble That Remark

Read Full Post »