LIBYA, BUDGET AND TEA PARTY, TRUMP

Perhaps I misspoke, at least in part, in the previous posting. There I said that we can expect "ambiguities" and "nuanced refinements" on our political goals in Libya and our role in military intervention there. On the former, political goals, the wording of the posting still seems valid. The longer Gaddafi remains in power in at least part of Libya, the less clarity we can expect on "what do we do now?" We can continue to squeeze him militarily and economically, but giving any final substance to our "Gaddafi must go" policy will remain elusive and thus our pronouncements will be ambiguous. But on the other point, our military involvement, we have been given clarity by Defense Secretary Gates in his testimony before a Senate committee.

Assuming that what Gates says is definitive, it gives assurance to those who want to end our role as policeman to the world. Gates said three things which, if they are the policy of President Obama, are reassuring. First, the U.S. will have no "boots on the ground" in Libya, meaning no U.S. ground forces will be committed there. ("Boots on the ground" became a popular phrase in the 2003 invasion of Iraq when many critics of the invasion, while not opposing the invasion itself, said there weren't enough "boots on the ground" to do the job properly.) Second, the U.S. will not be arming and training the Libyan rebels. Other countries can do that job Gates said. That would certainly seem a wise decision given our experience in arming the mujahideen to oust the Russians from Afghanistan when many of those we armed morphed into the Taliban who then hosted al Qaeda after taking power. Third, we will no longer participate in NATO air strikes in Libya. That's a major policy choice that immediately drew criticism from military hawks Senators McCain and Graham. And point three apparently has some "maybe's" attached to it since the U.S. has already gone along with a NATO request for an air strike because of bad weather.

Will the Gates' policy pronouncements have staying power? We can only hope so but he has long ago declared his intention to leave office this year and we don't know if an equally firm person will follow.

0-0-0-0

The budget. The beat goes on but it may be sending a different message to the tea party (TP) spending hawks and their fellow travelers. GOP House Speaker Boehner, while remaining elusive on whether a compromise spending plan is near, seems to finally be telling the TP that it is going to have to live with an outcome that falls significantly short of their demand for a $61 billion cut in spending for the current fiscal year which ends September 30.

The talked about number if $33 billion and without some of the social policy items the TP wants included. But no deal has been done yet between the House GOP, Senate Democrats, and President Obama. What is most important, assuming some kind of deal is made before the April 8 deadline for congressional action or shutting down the government, is that Boehner is drawing his own line in the sand for the TP. And, of course, TP activists counter with their usual threats of "give us what we want or face TP opposition in next year's GOP primaries." If that line isn't drawn now, Boehner will have to face down the TP on the even bigger isses ahead -- raising the national debt ceiling later this spring and the size and shape of the GOP budget countering Obama's budget plan for next year.

The bottom line for the GOP in the House is whether the TP tail continues to wag the establishment dog, or the wagging stops here.

0-0-0-0

Crazy like a fox. When real estate mogul Donald Trump, an egotist always looking for the next mirror or TV camera, took firm sides with the right wing birthers who question Obama's natural born U.S. citizenship, the immediate reaction was that Trump is either a nut, just out on another publicity stunt, or simply pandering to the far right wing in case he does become a presidential candidate. But when you think about it, it really was a smart move for catching right wing attention to support any interest he may have in running for President. For any would-be Republican presidential candidate, pandering to the far right is a necessary rite of passage.

Trump could have spoken out against abortion, immigration reform, or gay rights, but the reaction would have been a big ho hum. But to say you're now a committed birther does get attention and it did. And perhaps the new attention to Trump as a birther also got him his new gig on Fox news.

So who is right? Trump for his seeming absurdity in becoming a birther or us for thinking he's a whacko?