Like Slimey Cockroaches & their crooked President, Liberals Spread Disease

[Warph]

The Obama administration's inexplicable mishandling of Marine Gen. James Mattis
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks (Liberal)
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/18/the_obama_administration_s_inexplicable_mishandling_of_marine_gen_james_mattis



Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum's rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.

Why the hurry? Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way -- not because he went all "mad dog," which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable. Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, "And then what?"

Inquiry along these lines apparently was not welcomed -- at least in the CENTCOM view. The White House view, apparently, is that Mattis was too hawkish, which is not something I believe, having seen him in the field over the years. I'd call him a tough-minded realist, someone who'd rather have tea with you than shoot you, but is happy to end the conversation either way.

Presidents should feel free to boot generals anytime they want, of course -- that's our system, and one I applaud. But ousting Mattis at this time, and in this way, seems wrong for several reasons:

TIMING: If Mattis leaves in March, as now appears likely, that means there will be a new person running CENTCOM just as the confrontation season with Iran begins to heat up again.

CIVIL-MILITARY SIGNALS: The message the Obama Administration is sending, intentionally or not, is that it doesn't like tough, smart, skeptical generals who speak candidly to their civilian superiors. In fact, that is exactly what it (and every administration) should want. Had we had more back in 2003, we might not have made the colossal mistake of invading Iraq.

SERVICE RELATIONS: The Obamites might not recognize it, but they now have dissed the two Marine generals who are culture heroes in today's Corps: Mattis and Anthony Zinni. The Marines have long memories. I know some who are still mad at the Navy for steaming away from the Marines left on Guadalcanal. Mattis made famous in Iraq the phrase, "No better friend, no worse enemy." The Obama White House should keep that in mind.

I'm still a fan of President Obama. I just drove for two days down the East Coast listening to his first book, and enjoyed it enormously. But I am at the point where I don't trust his national security team. They strike me as politicized, defensive and narrow. These are people who will not recognize it when they screw up, and will treat as enemies anyone who tells them they are doing that. And that is how things like Vietnam get repeated. Harsh words, I know. But I am worried.

[Warph]

We're getting out of the Marines because we wanted to be part of an elite force

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/04/we_re_getting_out_of_the_marines_because_we_wanted_to_be_part_of_an_elite_force
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks

By "yet another Marine LT"
Best Defense department of the JO exodus

Why are we getting out? It's about the low standards.

We joined because we wanted to be part of an elite organization dedicated to doing amazing things in defense of our nation. We wanted to make a contribution to something great, to be able to look back at a decisive chapter in American history and say "yeah, I was part of that." We joined the Corps because if we were going in to the fight, we wanted to serve with the best. We wanted the kind of job that would make our friends who took soulless, high-paying corporate jobs feel pangs of jealousy because we went to work every day with a purpose.

It causes a deep, bitter pain to acknowledge that I don't think this is the organization in which I currently serve. The reason we're getting out is because the Marine Corps imposes a high degree of stress, yet accepts Mission Failure so long as all the boxes on the list are checked.

I'm talking about the Field Grade Intelligence Officer in Afghanistan who didn't know who Mullah Omar was. I'm talking about a senior Staff NCO in the intelligence community who could not produce a legible paragraph. I'm talking about a Battalion Commander who took pride in the fact that he had done zero research on Afghanistan, because it allowed him to approach his deployment with "an open mind." I'm talking about contractors, some of whom were literally paid ten-fold the salary of my junior Marines, who were incapable of performing basic tasks and functionally illiterate. The problem is not so much that these individuals pop up every now and then, as every organization has its bad eggs, but rather that we see them passed on through the system, promoted and rewarded. If we are truly the elite organization we claim to be, how do we justify the fact that we allow these individuals to retain positions of immense influence, much less promote through the ranks? How do we justify this endemic tolerance for mediocrity or outright incompetence?

If you really want to know what an institution values, don't look at its mottos or mission statements. Look at how it spends its resources, especially its human capital. Economists call this "Revealed Preference."  When I was in the midst of a time-critical project aimed at mapping insurgent networks in Helmand, I was told to put the project on hiatus so I could organize a visit from General Allen. The implicit message was that a smooth itinerary and content General were more important than catching an insurgent cell before they left for Pakistan. How else was I supposed to interpret this? In my opinion, it's not so much that the Marine Corps doesn't value ideas, but that -- when the chips are down and careers are at stake -- it values appearance and conformity more than winning. The implicit message -- what the Marine Corps reveals by its actions -- is that it's okay to fail to provide any added value, so long as the PowerPoint slides are free of typos, no serialized gear is lost, and everyone attends the Sexual Harassment Prevention training

The biggest issue is that few are willing to acknowledge Mission Failure because doing so is considered "unprofessional," especially for a lieutenant. As an Army Special Forces veteran I worked with was fond of saying, "you get what you incentivize." As it currently stands, there is an overwhelming incentive for officers at all levels to simply keep their units looking sharp, turn in rosy, optimistic assessments, keep off the XO's radar and, above all else, keep from rocking the boat. No matter what becomes of your battlespace, eventually the deployment will end and you can go home. Why risk casualties, a tongue lashing or missed PT time when the reward might not come for years down the road? Why point out that the emperor has no clothes when everyone one involved is going to get their Navy Comms and Bronze Stars if we just let him keep on walking down the road.

We should be better than this. I have found several of the comments and reviews of your latest book baffling. We can quibble about the merits of Marshall's management techniques or the specific metrics by which we should measure officer performance. But can't we unanimously agree that sub-par commanders should be weeded out, especially in an organization that calls itself "the finest fighting force on the face of the earth?" The practice of actively relieving (and eventually separating) leaders for under-performance is no panacea, but shouldn't it at least be a starting point?

I don't want to be misunderstood. The most extraordinary and talented people I've ever met are still serving in the Corps. I live in a wonderful area, I'm well-paid and generally like the people I work with. Given the chance, I would happily deploy again. But looking down the road at what the billet of a Field Grade officer entails, I have to wonder whether the sacrifices will be worth it. Maybe they will. I've seen some Field Grade officers who love their jobs and feel like they're serving a purpose. But I'm not sure I'm willing to take the gamble.

I was told at The Basic School that the most important role as a leader is to say, when everyone is tired and ready to declare victory and just go home, "guys, this isn't good enough, we have to do better." I simply don't see enough leaders willing to say, regarding the things that really matter, "guys, the last eleven years weren't good enough, the nation needs us to do better."


Comment by OldMarine:

Just read a bunch of the comments and find many to be seriously off point.  How any thinking serviceman (or woman) can argue against merit-based promotion and retention, which seems to be at the heart of the LT's disaffection, baffles me.  Apart from that, sure, dog and pony shows are SOP during peacetime, but have no place in wartime.  I would emphasize one fundamental point for consideration, however: leadership starts at the top... the VERY top... and until we fix that, we're going to have a hatful of disaffested JO's and SNCO's in the service.  What, exactly, do I mean by that?  Let's start with getting our wars right.  Read: "Vietnam" (where I served), and "Iraq."  Hard to get inspired performance from a majority of field-grades and above when they know they're fighting a mispremised engagement that will undoubtedly end with a whimper, rather than a bang, and micromanaged and misjudged from above while they're about it.  Fortunately, that is not true of all senior officers.  But what of those who will fight until the fight is done, and speak truth to power?  When they are undermined for doing so, what sort of signal does that send to the rank-and-file?  See today's FP article about the canning of Marine four-star General James Mattis.  Disgusting.  

[jarhead]

Those two articles make me sad , Warph. Lots of old Marines were expecting things to "go South" after the CiC  picked our current Commandant to fill that role. An Air Winger who never saw combat in his whole career. That is a first in my beloved Corps.
After Nam ,back in the 70's , the Corps was at about the same place it is becoming today. A bunch of cry babies and people with their covers perched atop Afro's . It was bad enough I was about to hide my USMC cover in the closet until we finally got a  Commandant that said enough was enough and returned to the basics where first and foremost "every Marine is a basic rifleman"
Unless that POS CiC replaces the Corps with his "civilian Force", he so much wants---then WE WILL BE BACK !!

[jarhead]

Warph,
Here is another example of where we are going wrong. You got some Colonel that compliments a chick on having a nice arse and he's gone but we can have two guys in one bunk doing the horizontal mambo but that's OK because we lifted that ol DADT policy, remember ? All these liberals would stroke out if they were around back when Gen. Chesty Puller said ,"Make me Commandant and I will put a whore and a beer machine in every barracks for my Marines" Aw, the days on the Old Corps!! Good night Chesty Puller, where ever you are.

Sexual misconduct a major reason behind military commander firings
Published January 20, 2013

)

WASHINGTON – Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, fired from his command in Afghanistan last May and now facing a court-martial on charges of sodomy, adultery and pornography and more, is just one in a long line of commanders whose careers were ended because of possible sexual misconduct.

Sex has proved to be the downfall of presidents, members of U.S. Congress and other notables. It's also among the chief reasons that senior military officers are fired.

At least 30 percent of military commanders fired over the past eight years lost their jobs because of sexually related offenses, including harassment, adultery, and improper relationships, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/20/sexual-misconduct-major-reason-behind-military-commander-firings/?test=latestnews#ixzz2IcK23Jnz

[Warph]

Those two articles make me sad , Warph. Lots of old Marines were expecting things to "go South" after the CiC  picked our current Commandant to fill that role. An Air Winger who never saw combat in his whole career. That is a first in my beloved Corps.
After Nam ,back in the 70's , the Corps was at about the same place it is becoming today. A bunch of cry babies and people with their covers perched atop Afro's . It was bad enough I was about to hide my USMC cover in the closet until we finally got a  Commandant that said enough was enough and returned to the basics where first and foremost "every Marine is a basic rifleman"
Unless that POS CiC replaces the Corps with his "civilian Force", he so much wants---then WE WILL BE BACK !!

Don't blame you, Jar... you can thank Gates and Obuma for picking "Tamer" Amos.  We retards at the 19th Hole had quite a discussion on why they moved Gen. Mattis out early... two retards are retired Marines... I don't know them but after a few beers, they were ready to take on the Pentagon.  Can't print the their comments here... well, maybe one.  It went something like this: 
You (bleep) heads in the Pentagon: Marine General Mattis is an outstanding general and a great American.  And yes, he is the closest general we have right now (now shouting begins) TO GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON.  HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN, GEN MATTIS #1 JOB IS TO KILL PEOPLE AND BREAK THINGS?  SO THAT, WE IN THE US MILITARY CAN BE VICTORIOUS ON THE BATTLEFIELD AND ADVANCE.  YOU A**HOLES AT DOD AND IN THE PENTAGON HAVE OBAMA'S (BLEEP) SO FAR UP YOUR A**'S YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY!!!!  YOU (BLEEPING) TRAITORS, ARE, MORE CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR RETIREMENT THAN THE SOLDIER OR MARINE IN THE RIFLE SQUAD THAT HAVE TO DO YOURS AND OBAMA'S BIDDING!  YOU REMEMBER LEADERSHIP AT OCS OR THE ACADEMY?  OR WERE YOU (BLEEPING) ASLEEP???  GEN MATTIS IS AN AWESOME LEADER AND A WARRIOR!  THAT IS WHAT MARINES ARE ABOUT, THE WARRIOR BUSINESS!  GET OBAMA'S (BLEEP) OUT OF YOUR A**'S AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND FIGHT FOR GEN MATTIS!  GIVE ME ANOTHER BEER!

I think I covered most of it ...Warph

[Warph]

Shock Claim From 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee James Garrow: Obama Only Wants Military Leaders Who He Believes 'Will Fire On U.S. Citizens'
http://www.examiner.com/article/shock-claim-obama-only-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens



Humanitarian James Garrow is the founder of The Pink Pagoda Girls. He has personally made it his mission to help save little girls in China from certain death. He has rescued over 45,000 little lives and has committed to rescuing a million more over the next ten years. He was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 and continues to inspire the world with his dedication to giving. He is also the author of The Pink Pagoda.


Excerpted from The Examiner: On Monday, renowned author and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow made a shocking claim about what we can expect to see in Obama's second term.

Garrow made the following Facebook post:
I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new "litmus test" in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. "The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not." Those who will not are being removed.

So, who is the source?

Garrow replied: "The man who told me this is one of America's foremost military heroes."

Understand, this is not coming from Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura, or from anyone else the left often dismisses with great ease.

Garrow is a well-respected activist and has spent much of his life rescuing infant girls from China, babies who would be killed under that country's one-child policy. He was also nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his work.

His bio on Amazon.com reads:
Dr. James Garrow is the author of The Pink Pagoda: One Man's Quest to End Gendercide in China. He has spent over $25 million over the past sixteen years rescuing an estimated 40,000 baby Chinese girls from near-certain death under China's one-child-per-couple policy by facilitating international adoptions. He is the founder and executive director of the Bethune Institute's Pink Pagoda schools, private English-immersion schools for Chinese children. Today he runs 168 schools with nearly 6,300 employees.

This comes on the heels of Sunday's report in the Washington Free Beacon (WFB) that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by Obama and will leave his post in March.


(....)


Related – Military Purge: 'Too Hawkish' Marine Legend Mattis Is Axed From CENTCOM
http://freebeacon.com/report-obama-ousting-centcom-chief-mattis/


FreeBeacon- "Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum's rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned," reports veteran national security correspondent Thomas E. Ricks.

It now appears likely that Gen. Mattis, a Marine Corps legend, will leave his post as head of America's most important combatant command in March, several months earlier than planned. Ricks continues:

Why the hurry? Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way — not because he went all "mad dog," which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable. Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, "And then what?

Inquiry along these lines apparently was not welcomed — at least in the CENTCOM view. The White House view, apparently, is that Mattis was too hawkish, which is not something I believe, having seen him in the field over the years. I'd call him a tough-minded realist, someone who'd rather have tea with you than shoot you, but is happy to end the conversation either way.

The reported departure will have consequences for U.S.-Iranian relations, civil-military relations, Marine Corps morale, and inter-service politics, Ricks writes. "I am at the point where I don't trust his national security team," he adds. "They strike me as politicized, defensive and narrow. These are people who will not recognize it when they screw up, and will treat as enemies anyone who tells them they are doing that. And that is how things like Vietnam get repeated. Harsh words, I know. But I am worried."

(...)

Related – Report: Obama Firing Officers Because He 'Fears A Coup'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2961793/posts



Excerpted from Free Republic: According to (shadowy anonymous blogger) Sorcha Faal the Russian military's GRU foreign intelligence unit presented a report to Kremlin leadership late last month that said Obama removed one of the United States Navy's most powerful admirals from his command (in the wake of Benghazi 9/11) specifically because he fears a military coup is being planned against him.

On 9/11/2012, that officer -Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, commander of Carrier Strike Group Three in the Middle East- apparently felt obligated to come to the aid of besieged US defenses at the Benghazi consulate, violating an utterly bewildering White House command he probably had a hard time believing was even being made. Gaouette was said to be attempting to help AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham, also purged by Obama for violating of an obstinate White House insistence to 'stand down'.

Ham considered himself bound-by-duty to take action, but the story goes that his second-in-command -a likely Obammunist- promptly stepped-right-up and informed him he'd just been 'relieved of his command', effective immediately- General Ham was then physically apprehended/arrested.

Subsequently -and despite Navy claims that he was NOT 'replaced' due to Benghazi- Admiral Gaouette was otherwise inexplicably removed as Carrier Strike Group commander on October 27th...


Faal:
US news reports on Obama's unprecedented firing of a powerful US Navy Commander during wartime state that Admiral Gaouette's removal was for 'allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment' that arose during the strike group's deployment to the Middle East.

This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette's firing by President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to 'assist and provide intelligence for' American military forces ordered into action by US Army General Carter Ham, who was then the commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), against terrorist forces attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

General Ham had been in command of the initial 2011 US-NATO military intervention in Libya who, like Admiral Gaouette, was fired by Obama.

And as we can, in part, read from US military insider accounts of this growing internal conflict between the White House and US Military leaders:

'The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of AFRICOM received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down.

His response was 'screw it', he was going to help anyhow.

Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command...'

Of course, the MSM press just parroted the dubious Administration line that Gaouette was removed from his post
(in mid-deployment, which is Moon-rock rare) because of an 'ongoing investigation' into 'inappropriate leadership judgement'- say what?

In addition, Gen. Joseph Dunford -the Marine Corps' 2nd in command- is also suddenly 'stepping down'... maybe he too had a problem with just standing there while some Medieval savages rape and kill our ambassador and burn a US consulate to the ground.


(...)


Related – 'I've Never Seen Anything Like It': N.C. Police Lieutenant Warns Of Martial Law In Early 2013, Says Training Has Begun



Video from cybertribenetwork.com

[/font][/size]

(....)


Related – Video – Obama: 'I Don't Believe People Should Be Able To Own Guns'[/b]
Video's:

Ted Nugent:

Laura Ingraham interviewed gun rights advocate John Lott. He recounted a conversation with then-Senator Obama who told Lott: "I don't believe people should be able to own guns."[/font][/size]http://patdollard.com/2013/01/obama-i-dont-believe-people-should-be-able-to-own-guns-3/

[Warph]

North Korea Threatens to Nuke America, John Kerry Calls for More Talks

"If you're not smart like me, you'll get stuck in North Korea."

Negotiations. Is there anything that they can't solve?

North Korea: "We are not disguising the fact that the various satellites and long-range rockets that we will fire and the high-level nuclear test we will carry out are targeted at the United States," North Korea's National Defense Commission said in a statement released by the official news service.

"Settling accounts with the U.S. needs to be done with force, not with words," it said.


So naturally, Kerry will go on pitching words, as he always has for a long time now. Because when a crazy nuclear dictator says that settling accounts will be done with force, not words, it's time to bring more words to a nuke fight.

Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged the U.S. to pursue diplomatic dialogue with North Korea

Kerry also spoke of "strategic patience," indicating that the Obama administration's policy toward North Korea should not become "strategic indifference."

That was in 2010. Next year it was time for even more "strategic patience" and talks.

Kerry: "The risks of maintaining the status quo are grave. North Korea would likely build more nuclear weapons
and missiles. It may well export nuclear technology or even fissile material. And the next violation of the
armistice could escalate into wider hostilities that threaten U.S. allies and interests."

Yes, and there's only one solution. The same useless policy that allowed North Korea to build and export its nuclear arsenal.

Kerry: "Let me be clear: We must get beyond the political talking point that engaging North Korea is somehow "rewarding bad behavior." It is not. We will set the time and place and we will negotiate in good faith. Talks will be based on our national security interests and those of our allies."

Absolutely not. It's just promising to give North Korea things if they stop threatening us so much.

Kerry: "Our country has long and wisely separated humanitarian concerns from politics. Consistent with that tradition, we should consider additional food aid to the North."

Sure, why should North Korea have to divert money from building nukes to agriculture.

And last year the news was even better for Kerry's long romance with North Korea:

A prominent U.S. senator met Friday with North Korea's nuclear envoy who promised to live up to commitments made in an agreement last week with the United States.

Democrat Sen. John Kerry said that the North Korean also made a "profound statement" about wanting a different relationship and not wanting to fight with the United States.

Kerry: "They said that they will live by the agreement that they made last week, that we can count on that." Kerry, who chairs the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, told reporters.

"In return, the U.S. will provide its first food aid to the impoverished communist nation in three years."


Ladies and Germs, your next Secretary of State.

God help us.   ....Warph

[Warph]

"Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke"

"So is the way
of an adulterous woman.
(Or nation)
She eats, wipes her mouth,
and says
I have done
no wickedness" (prov)

[Warph]

'Race Card Sheila' Is Back: Loony Texas Congresswoman Jackson Lee, "I Stand Here As a Freed Slave"... (Thanks to Republicans)

Earlier this week, Texas loony-toon Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee yanked out the race/slavery card again while speaking on the House floor about — wait for it — budget cuts. Everything is about race, racialism, and racism with this leftwing kook. Even budget cuts and curtailing spending get Sheila's blood boiling about racism and slavery.

Never once during her "I'm a freed slave" speech did she thank Civil War Republicans in Congress who, with Lincoln at the helm, fought against her own party, the racist slavery-embracing Democrats.

Because of Republicans' efforts predominantly (not all Democrats wanted to retain slavery, just most of them), the path of American history was changed, but historical accuracy and facts mean little to Jackson Lee. After all, this is the same liberal chucklehead who confused the 1969 moon landing with last summer's Curiosity Mars landing.

The Emancipation Proclamation was ordered and enacted by Pres. Lincoln in 1863, 150 years ago during the Civil War. When was Jackson Lee ever a slave? A great-great-great-great-great-grandmother doesn't count. That overused race card this idiot race baiter waves at the slightest provocation must be held together by Super-Duper Duck Tape.

Jackson Lee is reportedly worth $12 million and graduated from Yale University and University of Virginia Law — not many "freed slaves" have attended Yale or are millionaires. In fact, not many Americans who've not ever been enslaved have the wealth, higher education, and privilege as Rep. Jackson Lee. I'd say we've come a long way, baby — point out to me any other countries that have not only abolished slavery, but have a comparable track record of minority millionaires and upper-middle class citizens that America has. There probably are one or two, but likely not many more.

If indeed the congresswoman is older than a century and is indeed a "freed slave," the majority of Republicans made that happen.


"Freed slave" Shelia Jackson is a member of the same political party ...DEMOCRAT... that enslaved her ancestors.... Sheila, You're Welcome.

[Warph]

Obama Considers Intervening In California's Prop 8 Gay Marriage Case...




Well, he is the First Gay President.


From Fox:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/21/obama-weighs-stepping-in-on-gay-marriage-case/

Washington (AP) – The Obama administration is considering urging the Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on gay marriage — a move that could have a far-reaching impact on same-sex couples across the country.

The administration has one week to file a friend-of-the-court brief with the justices on the California ban, known as Proposition 8. While an administration brief alone is unlikely to sway the high court, the government's opinion does carry weight with the justices.

Proposition 8 opponents believe the president signaled his intention to file a brief when he declared in last month's inaugural address that gays and lesbians must be "treated like anyone else under the law." An administration official said Obama was not foreshadowing any legal action, though the administration was considering filing a brief.

The Proposition 8 ballot initiative was approved by California voters in 2008 and overturned a state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. Twenty-nine other states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, while nine states and Washington, D.C., recognize same-sex marriage.

An administration brief alone is unlikely to sway the Justices but the federal government's opinion does carry weight with the court.

A final decision on whether to file a brief has not been made, a senior administration official said. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli is consulting with the White House on the matter, said the official, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to address the private deliberations publicly.

While the Justice Department would formally make the filing, the president himself is almost certain to make the ultimate decision on whether to file.

"I have to make sure that I'm not interjecting myself too much into this process, particularly when we're not a party to the case," Obama said Wednesday in interview with San Francisco's KGO-TV.