The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom
and individual liberty
"There
is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it
steadily." --George
Washington
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Obama a victim of his own rhetoric
President Barack Obama, though he
artfully articulated the need to respond to the use of chemical weapons in
Syria, is haunted by his own actions and words.
With no good options, the president made a persuasive case over the weekend for taking action against the “heinous” crime of chemical warfare, and assured a war-weary nation that any military mission would be “limited in duration and scope.”
An immediate response was ruled out, however, as the administration sent Congress a draft resolution authorizing the use of force in Syria, even though that is likely to entail an ugly debate involving attacks on the administration’s policies and credibility from the political left and the right. But acting now and alone – the U.K. has dropped out of any coalition of the willing, and the United Nations is calling for delay – would have been worse. There is lingering resentment about Obama’s stretching of the interpretation of the executive’s war powers and brushing aside Congress in the campaign to topple Moammar Gadhafi in Libya in 2011. An NBC News poll published Aug. 30 found that almost 80 percent of the public wanted congressional approval for any military action in Syria.
Obama also is a victim of his own rhetoric. He first drew a “red line” last year, vowing that any use of weapons of mass destruction by Bashar al-Assad would be unacceptable. It seems clear, say lawmakers who’ve been briefed, that Assad ordered the most recent attack, and it wasn’t the first. Critics of intervention are now asking, if we strike now, what do we do when Assad does it again
Given that history, the U.K. Parliament’s refusal last week to support military action in Syria may seem wrong, but not irrational.
Former U.S. Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, one of many former top officials who are rarely consulted by this White House (he ran the Pentagon during the Kosovo air attacks in 1999), worries that the president’s plans for Syria are merely tactical, without a clear strategic objective or mission. Has the administration, for instance, seriously considered the likelihood that Russia and Iran will resupply Assad immediately after a strike? Will anything the U.S. does, Cohen wonders, make Assad think, “Hey, we might lose this thing, let’s negotiate a settlement.” Others worry about being dragged into a protracted engagement. “Unless the administration gets real lucky, they’re in a terrible box,” says Aaron David Miller, a longtime U.S. diplomat. The president has to respond, he says, though there is the danger of “an incremental drip by drip intervention.” That would be a disaster. After Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. voters won’t tolerate another war unless critical national interests are at stake.
No credible claim on "critical national interest" has been made. This doesn’t suggest a retreat is in order today. It is a reminder to avoid setting red lines unless the consequences are carefully considered and we understand the politics of the Middle East are worse, and more dangerous, than ever.
With no good options, the president made a persuasive case over the weekend for taking action against the “heinous” crime of chemical warfare, and assured a war-weary nation that any military mission would be “limited in duration and scope.”
An immediate response was ruled out, however, as the administration sent Congress a draft resolution authorizing the use of force in Syria, even though that is likely to entail an ugly debate involving attacks on the administration’s policies and credibility from the political left and the right. But acting now and alone – the U.K. has dropped out of any coalition of the willing, and the United Nations is calling for delay – would have been worse. There is lingering resentment about Obama’s stretching of the interpretation of the executive’s war powers and brushing aside Congress in the campaign to topple Moammar Gadhafi in Libya in 2011. An NBC News poll published Aug. 30 found that almost 80 percent of the public wanted congressional approval for any military action in Syria.
Obama also is a victim of his own rhetoric. He first drew a “red line” last year, vowing that any use of weapons of mass destruction by Bashar al-Assad would be unacceptable. It seems clear, say lawmakers who’ve been briefed, that Assad ordered the most recent attack, and it wasn’t the first. Critics of intervention are now asking, if we strike now, what do we do when Assad does it again
Given that history, the U.K. Parliament’s refusal last week to support military action in Syria may seem wrong, but not irrational.
Former U.S. Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, one of many former top officials who are rarely consulted by this White House (he ran the Pentagon during the Kosovo air attacks in 1999), worries that the president’s plans for Syria are merely tactical, without a clear strategic objective or mission. Has the administration, for instance, seriously considered the likelihood that Russia and Iran will resupply Assad immediately after a strike? Will anything the U.S. does, Cohen wonders, make Assad think, “Hey, we might lose this thing, let’s negotiate a settlement.” Others worry about being dragged into a protracted engagement. “Unless the administration gets real lucky, they’re in a terrible box,” says Aaron David Miller, a longtime U.S. diplomat. The president has to respond, he says, though there is the danger of “an incremental drip by drip intervention.” That would be a disaster. After Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. voters won’t tolerate another war unless critical national interests are at stake.
No credible claim on "critical national interest" has been made. This doesn’t suggest a retreat is in order today. It is a reminder to avoid setting red lines unless the consequences are carefully considered and we understand the politics of the Middle East are worse, and more dangerous, than ever.
Nearly
93,000 people have been confirmed killed since Syria's civil war began more
than two years ago,
the U.N. said Thursday, a sharp rise in the death toll as the fighting turns
increasingly sectarian and the carnage gripping the country appears
unstoppable. So Mr. President, why now and not
then? Dead is dead, the means to them
and their loved ones does not matter.
~~~~~~
MSU Prof. To Class:
‘Republicans Are Dead White People Who Raped This Country’
Michigan
State University (MSU) officials will investigate anti-Republican comments
award-winning professor William Penn was secretly recorded making to his literature
class on Thursday, a school spokesman told Campus Reform Tuesday evening. “At
MSU it is important the classroom environment is conducive to a free exchange
of ideas and is respectful of the opinions of others,” Kent Cassella,an MSU
spokesman wrote. “MSU is thankful we’ve been made aware of the situation,” he
said, referring the secret video recording which was viewed by hundreds of
individuals on Tuesday. “We will be looking into it,” he added. Listen
Here....
~~~~~~
Obama's Foreign
Policy FUBAR by
Mark Alexander
After
five years of Barack Hussein Obama's colossal cluster of foreign policy FUBAR,
the Middle East is steadily progressing toward a critical mass meltdown, and
our "foreign policy" has become the laughingstock of the entire world
-- particularly in Tehran, Moscow, Beijing and Pyongyang.
Taking
a cue from Bill Clinton's impotent missile attacks against Osama bin Laden's
al-Qa'ida training camps, Obama wants to launch a hundred million
dollars worth of cruise missiles at what may or may not be strategic targets in
Syria, ostensibly to eradicate Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapon stores
as punishment for using those weapons on Syrian civilians. Assuming Assad
himself actually ordered the chemical attacks rather than Islamist insurgents
using those weapons to bait a U.S. military strike, we should have no illusion
that the consequences of attacking Syria are, at best, unpredictable, and may
far exceed the limited damages inflicted on Assad's capabilities.
On
the eve of another 9/11 anniversary in remembrance of the tragic consequences
of Clinton's "foreign policy," the "Arab Spring" Obama was
touting a couple years ago is looking more like an "Arab Fall," and
making good on his "red
line" rhetoric could accelerate the regional meltdown. A
year ago, amid all his other Middle East bluster, and just weeks ahead of the
9/11 Benghazi attack, Obama
issued this declaration in regard to Syrian chemical weapons: "A red line
for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being
utilized. That would change my calculus." Apparently, the
"whole bunch" threshold has been crossed several times since, but
the latest evidence of chemical weapon use has Obama, once again, eating his
arrogance.
Running
for political cover, he now insists, "I didn't set a red line. The world
set a red line." So, why isn't the rest of the world behind Obama? Because
the rest of the world does not trust Obama, nor should they. Even our closest
allies in the UK are not backing him. Additionally he insists, "My
credibility is not on the line. ... America and Congress' credibility is on the
line because we give lip service to" responding to the use of chemical
weapons. This from the undisputed champion of "lip service."
So,
Obama is not asking Congress for a War Powers resolution, but simply a
resolution backing his plan to attack Syria. But he has repeatedly said he has
the authority to act without Congress, so why exactly is he asking for
congressional approval? Make no mistake, if Obama is willing to
blame-shift his red line comments, I can assure you he's willing to blame-shift
the unintended consequences of any action he authorizes in Syria. Given
that the Democrat-controlled Senate is likely to affirm a resolution supporting
Obama's request to hit strategic targets in Syria in order to punish Assad, at
least John McCain amended the resolution to limit its timeframe and restrict
any "boots on the ground." But this day-late and dollar-short
retaliatory attack won't force Assad to make nice with rebel forces and quietly
leave Syria. But Republicans in the House should NOT take Obama's bait, despite the
fact that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
(D-CA) have both endorsed a "narrow and limited" attack on Syria. Why?
Because
despite contrary assertions from Obama's equally incompetent lapdog, John Kerry,
the Syrian rebels are clearly infiltrated with Islamic Jihadists. Because
there is no clearly articulated critical U.S. national security interest
threatened by the August 21 chemical attack. Because we have no allied
support. Because the UN's Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine should not
take precedence over U.S. doctrine regarding military intervention.
As
analysts note, "Military force should be used only if there is a clear,
achievable, realistic purpose. Missile strikes are unlikely to deter the Assad
regime and prevent further abuses. Rather, the U.S. risks escalating its
involvement in the crisis. Missile attacks ... would only be seen as a sign
that the U.S. is lacking a clear, decisive course of action. The Middle East
would see this as another effort from the Obama Administration to look for an
'easy button' and lead from behind rather than exercise real, constructive
leadership."
The
U.S. should be working with coalition partners in the region to bring the Assad
regime down, not unilaterally attack Syria, unifying Islamic Jihad resolve in
the region. Six years ago, New York Times editors asked then-candidate Obama,
"How would you elicit cooperation from Iran and Syria that the Bush
administration has failed to obtain?" Obama responded: "I've already
said, I would meet directly with Iranian leaders. I would meet directly with
Syrian leaders. We would engage in a level of aggressive personal diplomacy in
which a whole host of issues are on the table. ... Iran and Syria would start
changing their behavior if they started seeing that they had some incentives to
do so, but right now the only incentive that exists is our president suggesting
that if you do what we tell you, we may not blow you up. My belief about the
regional powers in the Middle East is that they don't respond well to that kind
of bluster. They haven't in the past, there's no reason to think they will in the
future."
Now,
five years into Obama's failed foreign policy in the region and around the
world, he insists that because Syria has not done what we told them to do, we
should "blow them up."
The
time to take any meaningful action against Assad's regime has come and gone. In
the aftermath of Benghazi, with Egypt on the verge of civil war and Syria fully
engaged in civil war, and with clear indications that Islamic
Jihadists are key players in conflicts throughout the region, it is
abundantly clear that Obama's foreign policy in the region has failed
miserably. Under this Nobel Peace Prize-winning "community organizer,"
Islamist coalitions are thriving, expanding their influence rapidly and
oppressing millions. And, once again, they are threatening our vital national
interests in the region and posing an increasing threat to our homeland.
Teddy
Roosevelt based his foreign policy on this maxim: "Speak softly, and carry
a big stick." Obama's foreign policy is based on this maxim: "Speak endlessly
and carry a toothpick." The only legitimate reason to attack Syria
now is to destroy Assad's weapon capabilities, so if Syria completely unravels,
those weapons do not fall into the hands of Islamists. However, this rationale
assumes that we can effectively find and target those weapons after a couple
weeks of threatening to "fire a shot over the bow," and moreover,
that quantities of these weapons are not already in the hands of al-Qa'ida and
other Jihadi groups. Any member of Congress who bites on Obama's
request for congressional approval is a fool. Obama is approaching Congress for
one reason -- to spread the blame in the event an attack escalates into much
more significant conflict in the region.
~~~~~~
There is no more privacy - N.S.A. Foils Much Internet
Encryption By NICOLE PERLROTH, JEFF LARSON and SCOTT SHANE
The
National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war on encryption,
using supercomputers, technical trickery, court orders and behind-the-scenes
persuasion to undermine the major tools protecting the privacy of everyday
communications in the Internet age, according to newly disclosed documents. The agency has circumvented or cracked much
of the encryption, or digital scrambling, that guards global commerce and
banking systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical
records, and automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches, Internet chats
and phone calls of Americans and others around the world, the documents show. Many
users assume — or have been assured by Internet companies — that their data is
safe from prying eyes, including those of the government, and the N.S.A. wants
to keep it that way. The agency treats its recent successes in
deciphering protected information as among its most closely guarded secrets,
restricted to those cleared for a highly classified program code-named Bullrun,
according to the documents, provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A.
contractor.
~~~~~~
Kerry: Bombing
Syria Would Not be an "Act of War"...Per Se
by Philip Hodges
Kerry
says that he and the President are not asking Congress for permission to go to
war. They’re just wanting to execute a “limited action.” A surgical strike.
With cruise missiles. But that is not war in the “classic sense” of the word. I guess it depends on what the
definition of “is” is. Kerry promises that not “one American troop” will be
sent to war. Well, unless chemical weapons end up in the “wrong hands,” in
which case the Obama administration wouldn’t remove the option of sending in
American troops to destabilize stabilize the region. At the Foreign Senate
Relations Committee, Senator Rand Paul was able to question Secretary of State
Kerry about the prospects and Constitutionality of launching a war with Syria. But
Kerry said that what they’re wanting to do isn’t war, per se: “We don’t want to
go to war. We don’t believe we are going to go war in the classic sense of
taking American troops and America to war. The president is asking for the
authority to do a limited action that will degrade the capacity of a tyrant who
has been using chemical weapons to kill his own people. It’s a limited action.
It’s limited… Senator, when people are asked do you want to go to war
in Syria? Of course not. Everybody, 100% of Americans will say no, we
say no. We don’t want to go to war in Syria either. It is not what we are here
to ask. The President it is not asking you to go to war. He is not
asking you to declare war. He is not asking you to send one American troop to
war… He is simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade the
capacity of a man who has been willing to kill his own people by breaking a
nearly 100-year-old prohibition, and will we stand up and be counted to say we
won’t do that… Ya know, I just don’t consider that going to war in the classic sense
of coming to congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops
and sending people abroad and putting young Americans in harm’s way. That is
not what the president is asking for here.”
Can
you spell B*****t?
No comments:
Post a Comment