Obama seemed to be in a very feisty mood announcing his awesome framework deal with the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and death to America quotes. The framework deal summary is here; following is an internet yahoo's summary of the summary.
First, imagine making a similar deal with Saddam Hussein. Imagine had George W. Bush not invaded in 2003 and the No-Fly Zones were still in place and somehow we made it to 2008 without a blow-up and new president Obama extended his hand to the Butcher.
Imagine a deal that would have allowed the Butcher to maintain some of the enriched uranium under stockpile and retain a nuke program for civilian power, so long as he didn't do anything funny for 10 years, with his reward being a lifting of many sanctions. Now substitute the slightly less crazy Mullahs for Saddam and that appears to be where we are now, Iran retaining its nuke program. Wait, could Obama even have made a nuke deal with the Iranians with Saddam still in power? Probably not. Use your imagination.
This bottom line is what the asshole, er, the pain in the ass, uh sorry, the chickenshit in Jerusalem said when he came to DC. The Mullahs have only to wait for ten years until they reach their goal, with our blessing. A country that has not allowed full scale inspections--like Iraq--will now be regulated over a deal allowing them to keep a nuke program by rough and tumble international inspectors who couldn't find Iraq's WMD buried all over the desert and completely missed Gaddafy's program.
Ten years goes by fast. We are coming up on the 14th anniversary of 9/11 this September.
Anyway, the mainstream media will more than likely be treating the Iranian leaders similar to Gorbachev soon, heralding the historic accord and volunteering them for the Nobel. Congress, bypassed in the process again, will express displeasure and be ignored and shamed. If they dare do something bold they will be threatening world unity.
The Euros will slither back to their bicycles and lattes satisfied they did everything they could without having much of an army to back it up, while the the Russians and Chinese will offer somber hope while secretly high-fiving in the background (you know if they are onboard the deal must be better for them than us).
But the bottom line is this: by coddling the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism and death to America chants and allowing them to keep their nuke program, Obama will not have to grind over authorizing an airstrike at 3am before his term ends, freeing him up for more important things like selfie sticks, April Fools videos, dances on Ellen, and punishing his enemy.
The Israelis? If they bomb they are on their own, against the entire world. Surely that has been made clear.
Watch State Dept spokesbuffy Marie Harf react to a simple question today about the Middle East..
Nothing to see move along!
Of course she immediately knew the implication of a question about Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia meeting together to discuss an alliance without United States involvement--Iran. They seem very sensitive about this.
If you want to know what's actually important right now look at what the Obama-approved media isn't harping on: Iran is closing in on a deal that would almost surely allow them to keep their nuclear program, a deal which if signed would make it harder for Israel to take them out in a bombing raid, and not only due to possible threats such as this, but just based on being called an international pariah and sanctioned by the UN.
At the same time Iran has 1) helped Bashar Assad remain in power (the guy whose days were once said to be "numbered" by the administration), 2) almost certainly helped the Houthi rebels take over Yemen, which just normalized air traffic between San'a and Tehran, 3) continued to fund Hizballah and HAMAS while now providing military assistance via the IRGC to the Iraqi Army in their offensive to retake Tikrit. It's as if we're now BFF with the Iranians. At what point do they get removed from the list of state-sponsors of terrorism?
While doing all of this they've also managed to blow up a mock US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf while burning a figure of the president in effigy (along with their usual 'death to America' chants). More importantly they've managed to scare Netanyahu into flying to Washington to give a speech about the dangers of all of this.
Yet despite all the red flashing lights the American people largely couldn't give two hoots. They are severely war weary, which Obama knows, which is why Netanyahu decided to come and speak, which is why the Obama cabinet was dispatched out of town for the Bibi speech, with an even bigger middle finger message sent by John Kerry, who will be talking to the Iranians the very same day. Netanyahu is almost getting the Tea Party treatment (the real terrorists). Hey LA Times--let's see that Rashid Khalidi video, how about it?
So yeah, this administration rilly, rilly wants a nuke deal with Iran. Seemingly at almost any price. Yes, we all realize these things are too nuanced for dunce conservative bloggers to understand; that when the dust settles Iran will have been bitch-slapped into lowered sanctions while retaining their nuclear program. To most people this will sound like paying sticker price for a car but to our super genius negotiators and the press it will be the biggest peace deal in our time, just in time for Hillary.
Of course, if Iran keeps their program and gets lowered sanctions while Israel's hands are tied, and we allow Tehran to project its image all over the Middle East, including taking over Iraq, Syria and Yemen, well, that unconseqential non-story about Sunnis that Marie Harf tried to dismiss today will become front page news.
TAKE THE DEAL, IT'LL BE GREAT!
Obama talked to Reuters today and telegraphed his willingness to make an Iran nuke deal, practically begging the Iranians to do it.
He assured Americans that after any deal that 'inspectors' will be able to keep them honest, even though inspectors are saying Iran is not being honest right now. And it's not like international inspections weren't a joke in Iraq and Libya.
So let's think about this. How can the administration NOT end up with a deal, after two busted self-imposed deadlines and after throwing a flag on Bibi for interference? Obama is on record of saying he has a firm commitment that he will do everything possible to keep Tehran from going nukular, but everybody including the Iranians knows this does not include a military option. It just doesn't. Even if Obama wanted it the American peeps would balk. He has less than two years left and he's not about to open a can whoop-anything on anyone.
So, lacking a deal and no military option he'd have no choice but to re-impose sanctions. Iran would go back to using their proxies to destabilize the region, a region where they now exert even more influence, including over Iraq and their oil. Obama would not take much of an immediate political hit for a failed deal followed by re-imposing sanctions because the mainstream media would cover his backside, but in the real world the Ayatollahs would emerge with their nuclear weapons program, more regional control, and a bigger swarth than ever before.
Netanyahu, assuming he's still in power, would almost surely have to attempt to take out the nukes before Obama's term expires, which could get a little messy. But even if Bibi doesn't win and an Israeli dove lap-dog PM gets elected, there's the specter of that Sunni alliance Marie Harf was trying to downplay today and the resultant nuclear arms race it could produce. Obama desperately needs a deal to make it to January 2017. A deal kicks the can but it conceivably holds off the Israelis, the Sunnis, and the Republicans.
Since Obama has no more elections to win he's of no mind to give pre-Superbowl interviews to anyone who might ask tough questions. It's all about controlling the national narrative now.
To help, CNN broadcast an interview yesterday with the plagiarist, a preview of the attack strategy to be used in defining the narrative. Discussing the threat of Islamic terrorism, Obama basically downplayed the whole thing then blamed Bush... again (shown in bold)...
"The truth of the matter is that they can do harm. But we have the capacity to control how we respond in ways that do not undercut what's the essence of who we are. That means that we don't torture, for example, and thereby undermine our values and credibility around the world," Obama said.
"It means that we don't approach this with a strategy of sending out occupying armies and playing whack-a-mole wherever a terrorist group appears because that drains our economic strength and it puts enormous burdens on our military."
Blaming Bush is the gift that keeps on giving with his base, but Democrats as a whole need to downplay terrorism. Clinton did it in the 90s despite bombings, attacks and bin Laden's multiple declarations of war against America. When challenged on it later by Fox's Chris Wallace he went ballistic, all while trying to make sure ABC News spiked its terrorism docudrama "the Path to 9/11". It's hard to focus the country on taxing the rich and downsizing the Defense Department if Islamist terrorists are posing an existential threat against Western Civilization.
In 2004 John Kerry tried the tactic again, suggesting to the NY Times that terrorism should be treated as kind of nuisance. That's one reason why the Dems don't want Bibi Netanyahu coming to Congress to remind people of the harsh realities. It's also likely one of the main reasons Obama sent nobody to the anti-terrorism march in Paris. In his old new narrative AQ is a nuisance, still on the run, and we need to fight them with smart power, using pinpricks and FBI agents like Clinton, and hey, deploying lots of troops to combat this diminishing threat is hard on the troops not to mention stupid like Bush. That's basically his foreign policy in a nutshell.
But Zakaria wasn't the annual pre-Superbowl interview, it was with the most friendly Obama mirror of all--NBC News. Savannah Guthrie, a nice pleasant female anchor, was chosen to ask the questions. Yet she seemed to put a small chink in the narrative by daring to call it a 'strawman argument'. Watch the reaction around the 1:35 mark...
He looked rather peeved at this interruption, after all, he was getting to the crux of the narrative. Oddly enough he mentioned that leaving (Iraq) caused the problem because the country wasn't ready to fight for itself, without blaming himself for leaving. Suddenly now staying for years is the right thing to do. Later in the interview the CinC actually said he is NOT downplaying terrorism by downplaying terrorism, but in a much more nuanced way than in the Zakaria interview (after the 11 minute mark).
Perhaps he felt like Guthrie might actually challenge him a little more and re-calibrated, although he did get in his "shoot first aim later" Bush-McCain-Romney bash comment in both interviews without challenge.
As to the strawman, not only Zakaria carried this theme on Sunday, but the Washington Post also featured a touching story on how Obama is deeply affected by the casualties of war:
Discussions of war and peace in Washington often revolve around abstract questions of policy and national interest. Rarely mentioned are the human costs of war and how they weigh on a commander in chief. “It’s probably the least appreciated and most difficult part of leadership,” said Michele Flournoy, who served at the top levels of Obama’s Pentagon. “It’s not an abstraction, and, if you have any doubt, it eats at you, because the human costs are very real.”
At the end of Zakaria's interview he had asked Obama to recommend a book. Without hesitation Obama recommended a book called "Redeployment" by
Phil Klay. This was clearly not spontaneous, evident by the way Obama
reacted to the question and the fact CNN put a cover of the book on the
screen while they were talking. Sorry, the control room isn't that
good, so they were helping him make his point.
The book happens to be about a soldier's
perspective on the cost of war. Clearly a good thing for a
Commander-in-Chief to be reading and promoting, right? Right, unless
he's doing it in cahoots with the MSM to fight a war against domestic
political foes critical of his response to increasing terrorism.
So based on Obama's reaction one has to wonder if Guthrie went off the script when she blurted out 'strawman', which forced an abrupt interruption by the president, while later asking tough questions about whether terrorism was as defeated as he claims.
Meanwhile, the 2016 budget came out today. It has no chance of passage, but we'll see if media puppets the talking points of the wise and caring president trying to help the 'middle class' despite the same guy hardly mentioning the middle class before the mid-terms last November.
Back then the WH needed the black vote, so the press focused on Ferguson and New York and "reverend" Al coming in and out of the White House and pounding his fist, all while his fellow Democrats kept a 10 foot pole between themselves and the White House because they were so afraid of how the middle class might vote. Where is Ferguson now?
Now the WH needs to tamp down the threat of terrorism again, just like 2012 before Benghazi, so we'll see if the press comes along and helps like Candy Crowley did in the second debate. The CNN and the WaPo examples would suggest that yes, nothing will change, but perhaps Savannah Guthrie's small but surprising 'truth to power' moment indicates that a few networks might try salvage a smidgen of credibility going into 2016. Yes, right, we've been fooled before.
The mainstreamers are all highlighting an IPCC assessment heralding more gloom and doom if we don't dump western civilization now. They link to a reportstating things might already be irreversible (most of them using the same smokestack images of the coal-fired Plant Scherer in Georgia except CNN, who used Polar Bears). John Kerry says climate change is like a WMD. Evidently set off by us.
OK, no change here, the same drill applies--these reports are issued, the politicians react, the mainstreamers cover it, then the politics of fear is distributed down through the web by like-minded sites. Here's global warming site "Tck, Tck, Tck" (the global call for climate action) highlighting the scary assessment with a screen shot which they helpfully provide at the end ("infographic to share")...
So this site distributes a graphic of the "People's Climate March", a rally organized in part by.... communists. Who are telling us to kill western civilization by ending fossil fuels now. The same fossil fuels used by a majority of the participants to get to the rally.
The real scare remains the same: leftist organizations and politicians trying to use AGW to achieve an end that has nothing to do with science. If the movement cannot dump the political opportunists they'll never convince a majority of anyone about anything other than their quest is a carefully concealed socialist plot that will conveniently line the pockets of the organizers.
At the same time those pushing back--and there needs to be pushback--should be careful to do so with science and logic, not just rhetoric. There is some evidence humans have impacted the global temperature, insofar as it's possible to measure the global temperature accurately, so blanket statements refuting the issue because it snowed somewhere or because the global temperatures haven't warmed in 15 years are not helpful either and make the right look like a bunch of bumpkins.
This should be a non-partisan issue relevant to all human beings. After all, if we are impacting global temperatures in any serious way there will be impacts. But it appears we may not be capable of any rational discussion on it, largely due to how the left has co-opted the issue and lied about it using their ends justify means tactics, which has triggered an often wild-eyed reply by the right. We all deserve better.
Here's White House intelligence guy Ben Rhodes speaking to the media about the beheading of James Foley..
A terrorist attack against America, absolutely. Here's State Dept spokeslady Jen Psaki today, on the apparent beheading of US journalist Steven Sotloff..
No characterization. In other words, these are "terrorist attacks against America" but we are not at war with "ISIL", despite the spokeslady's proud recital of over 100 bombing raids against this non-enemy. Apparently it's now the policy of the United States to bomb entities using the War Powers Act that we are not at war against. Just because they attack us and threaten our people and we bomb doesn't make them enemies at war with us. Just disagreements. It takes a true believer to stay on such a crooked path, folks.
In the meantime US drones may have taken out the leader of al-Shabaab in Somalia. Awaiting confirmation. There are some places, such as sub-Saharan Africa for instance, where we can wage the fight against radical Islam (and even Joseph Kony, who hasn't declared war or killed Americans) without worry over politics or political correctness.
MORE 9/2/14
If the report on the eleven missing airliners in Libya is correct (it depends on who has them), well, that's troubling enough, but consider there's also significance with the number eleven that goes beyond the date of the 9/11 attacks. Surely the intelligence pro's haven't missed that coincidence.
LEADER SPEAKS 9/3/14
....and says we will DESTROY ISIL... into a manageable problem. That's so Obama.
A bit surprised that the bigger story isn't the audio/video shown on Fox News last night showing Obama bragging that if he were elected president it would be so awesome for the world because peace would break out everywhere. If he really believed that it might explain why he's stumbling around now over all the problems in the world--dealing with a crumbling personal worldview is difficult, but probably 1000X difficult if you're the biggest leader of that world and suddenly realize that everything you used to believe is bullshit.
John Kerry at the Democratic National Convention in 2012..
Again and again, the other side has lied about where this president stands and what this president has done. But Prime Minister Netanyahu set the record straight—he said, our two countries have "exactly the same policy…"—"our security cooperation is unprecedented..." When it comes to Israel, I'll take the word of Israel's prime minister over Mitt Romney any day.
President Obama promised to work with Russia to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and signed an historic treaty that does just that. He promised to lock down nuclear materials around the world, and he has done just that. He refused to accept the false choice between force without diplomacy or diplomacy without force.
When a brutal dictator promised to kill his own people "like rats," President Obama enlisted our allies, built the coalition and shared the burden, so that today—without a single American casualty—Moammar Gadhafi is gone and the people of Libya are free.
So on one side of this campaign, we have a president who has made America lead like America again. What is there on the other side? An extreme and expedient candidate, who lacks the judgment and vision so vital in the Oval Office. The most inexperienced foreign policy twosome to run for president and vice president in decades
Emphasis added to point out his perceived successes. But that was then, this is now:
Time Mag headline announcing a "Cold War II" after Russian complicity in the shoot-down of a passenger jet, with no significant consequences;
Iraq down the drain due to instability in Syria, where the administration failed to effectively intervene leaving over 200,000 dead civilians with a renewed precedent of allowing a dictator to remain in power after using WMDs;
part of Ukraine ceded to Putin, who remains one of the main interlocutors over the US-led Iranian nuke agreement talks (which the Iranians just violated without penalty);
and a teetering pause in Afghanistan after a contested election with the Taliban salivating as US troops prepare to bug out (after we traded 4 top terrorists for an Army deserter).
The U.S. Embassy in Libya evacuated its personnel on Saturday because of heavy militia violence raging in the capital, Tripoli, the State Department said.
About 150 personnel, including 80 U.S. Marines were evacuated from the embassy in the early hours of Saturday morning and were driven across the border into Tunisia, U.S. officials confirm to CNN.
It's hard to imagine how things could be going much worse in all these hotspots. Meanwhile, the US's fuzzy foreign policy has surely reduced the confidence and trust of our partners and allies around the world. But this post isn't about reveling in failure to score points, as all these events are bad for America. No, it's about confirming that blind arrogance sputtered by inept politicians trying to parlay past US failures (or media-fueled narratives of failure) into political victories does nothing to actually prevent bad things from happening once they get into power. Photo-ops of politicians pushing reset buttons aren't magic. Words and deeds can and should come back to haunt those who use them just to get ahead or belittle opponents.
The president's current projection of nonchalance (going out fund-raising, drinking beer in pool halls, eating hamburgers and such) is no doubt a planned strategy, perhaps to show the world these terrible blow-ups are still beneath the level of alerting a US president. However, the posturing has done nothing to solve the problems, while raising concern from the American people. For any other leader it might be time to give a prime time address on foreign policy. For this president it's not entirely clear whom he believes to be the main enemy.
KERRY TODAY...
Here's part of a statement from the guy who proclaimed that Obama had freed Libya:
He blamed the "freewheeling militia violence," caused by jihadist groups that have only grown in power since the ouster of former president Muammar Gaddafi, for creating an environment in which the diplomatic activities at the Libya embassy had to be suspended.
"A lot of the violence is around our embassy but not on the embassy, but nevertheless it presents a very real risk to our personnel," Kerry said.
This is only making news on liberal blogs, Twitchy and Breitbart and a few other places for some reason, but the Prez really bristled over a question asked by Ed Henry of Fox during his final presser in the Philippines yesterday. The question? Simple, describe the Obama Doctrine (on foreign policy). Who could forget the last person criticized for not being able to describe a presidential foreign policy doctrine.
Of course the lefties are crowing that he chewed Henry up for breakfast, or made tofu out of him, or turned him into a rice cake--however the analogies go on the port side. You be the judge...
That clip did not include Henry's question to the Filipino president, which was actually tougher. You can see it here by forwarding to 40:50. It was about the killing of journalists in his country, which he answered rather calmly.
On the contrary Obama was, as Twitchy put it, rhetorically 'stomping his foot', bashing Fox, Bush and anyone not in agreement with his doctrine (on the right, because the left agrees with it), whatever that might be. As is usual with Obama replies, there was an answer in there somewhere, it was just hard to pin down aside from the jab at Henry for daring ask the question, which was clear.
The biggest strawman was the notion that those opposed to to his rather timid foreign policy want war. Hmm, at last check nobody forced him to draw a red line in Syria or threaten the various consequences over Ukraine; not John McCain, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or Tweedle Dum. It was he, trying to act tough while telegraphing a reluctance to back it up. This is called smart 21st Century power.
At one point he stated that some of his critics haven't 'learned the lesson of the last decade', which seems odd. What exactly is the lesson? Is he saying Iraq would now be thriving now under Saddam, with Israel far better off still having him tied with Arafat/Fatah at the hip? Surely he doesn't think Bush should have invaded Pakistan, since it's obvious his Afghanistan surge will not defeat the Taliban, while our leaving threatens to return the region back to 2001.
Was bombing Libya after Daffy gave up his nuke program (thanks to seeing Saddam crawling out of a spider hole) an example of smart power? What would Ben Rhodes say? Was the reset button with Russia a smart move, all things considered? Ed Snowden? Trusting the Russians to get our astronauts to the ISS? How about trusting the Iranians? Abbas? Was it Bush's blunder that the Indians are ticked off at America moreso than during the Bush years? Do tell, Mr. President.
In a way his long wandering snippy answer to a pretty basic question IS the answer. The doctrine appears to be confusion, ambiguity, and mish-mosh, with rear view mirror thinking while leading from behind, all while criticizing anyone not smart enough to see the genius. He's not going to be dumb and start a war, unless his bombing likely won't start a war. It's not hard to see how this might confuse certain foreigners, wondering what has happened to the most powerful nation on Earth and the biggest force for good the world has ever known.
In his first remarks since Islamic militants with Al Qaeda ties overran the Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry promised support for Iraq's government, but emphatically rejected any possibility that the U.S. would send troops back into the country, saying of the Baghdad government "this is their fight."
OK, well most Americans don't want to send troops back either, so this isn't likely to be a political problem for the administration unless things get worse. Still, are we engaged in fighting AQ wherever they are, or not?
Remember, this president and his current Secretary of State mercilessly blasted Bush and McCain for fighting the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place, ie, our fight was against bin Laden and his AQ affiliates, not Iraq. Now AQ is in both Iraq and Syria and they are off limits? The policy is beginning to look a bit feeble and confused.
Going back in time, here's what the CinC said when it was easy to speculate about actionable intelligence..
That was the long version. Here's the short debate version with McCain..
In both clips Obama says something similar: "if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top level lieutenants, in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take him out." The emphasis was added to show that he wasn't necessarily talking about a belligerent government in league with AQ but also one that was incapable of helping for whatever reason. That might fit Iraq and Syria at some point, if not already.
Obama can argue that he limited his comments only to Pakistan then later followed through on UBL, presumably without Pakistan's assistance. Obviously he's correct, but at the same time surely he wouldn't argue that such a doctrine was limited to only one man on one spot on Earth at one time, seeing as how he mentioned AQ secondaries and high-value targets as Ayman Zawahiri continues to remain on the lam.
Indeed, the doctrine seems to still be in place. We just snatched 'core AQ' member Anas al-Liby off the streets of Tripoli and spirited him off to a secret interrogation facility on a ship, with unknown help from the Libyan government. So there appears to be a healthy dose of hypocrisy regards Obama's war on AQ. When it was convenient to say the US would storm into a country without said country's assistance that was the policy, but when it comes to more inconvenient places, well, they are on their own now.
Politically speaking this might work on a war-weary public unless something bad comes out of the region. But maybe not even then. For instance, CNN reported shortly after the Benghazi attack that AQ in Iraq members took part, which would suggest grounds for a reprisal attack with or without Maliki's help. But the administration has managed to eliminate that fact morsel from the public consciousness with the help of a media too afraid to report on Benghazi for fear it might harm Sir Edmund Hillary Clinton.
That said, pointing out the political hypocrisy and opportunism is fine for a snarky blogger, but it leaves us where, exactly? Does anyone think we can re-enter Iraq at this point with troops, even if the CinC once said he would leave behind a force to deal with AQ? These terrorists are now spread out in factions across two countries.
Maybe the best solution is actually what Kerry is advising--have these nations battle the threat themselves. That would be a culmination of the Bush doctrine and one the United States should be fully supporting in the background. Then if things eventually go to worms or a massive attacks is hatched from the region we may have no choice but to go back. Perhaps the actual president will weigh in on this in the days ahead.
Once again the religion nobody wants to mention is being used to justify an attack--this one in an upscale Nairobi mall. Just civilians out for a nice day of shopping, mown down by grenades and AKs.
AQ-affiliated al-Sheebab took credit for the attack, which is still in progress as of this writing. They have hostages. Meanwhile our State Department has weighed in and is decrying the attack by 'violent extremists'. Even the Secretary of State will not call the spade a spade, despite the loss of a indigenous Nairobi US embassy employee in the attack:
Secretary of State John Kerry called the attack "a heartbreaking reminder that there exists unspeakable evil in our world which can destroy life in a senseless instant."
"Attacks like this can't change who we are, a people committed to peace and justice for all, but rather must reaffirm our determination to counter extremism and promote tolerance everywhere," Kerr[sic] said in a statement. "As we prepare to bring the world's leaders together at the United Nations next week, we are reminded again in tragedy of our common humanity."
So if someone has just returned from a spaceflight and didn't know the details they might think Joseph Kony had attacked the mall. After all, he's in Africa, is also called a violent extremist, and our military is supposed to be chasing him. Or wait, not anymore (sorry, it didn't make the headlines and had to dig). Since he didn't identify anyone or any philosophy maybe Kerry means that some of the 'violent extremists' who attacked our embassy in Benghazi are involved. After all, none of them have been brought to justice yet. Or maybe he means someone like the Navy Yard shooter or Adam Lanza.
Despite the fuzziness from Foggy Bottom the Israelis certainly know the score and have sent teams down to assist the Kenyans (the mall was Israeli-owned). One can't help but recall the infamous raid on Entebbe when discussing Africa and hostages. Wonder if any of the Nairobi hostages are Israeli? Whoever they are let's hope they share the same fate.
Meanwhile in Pakistan, a Christian church gets attacked on a Sunday morning, killing scores:
A suicide attack on a historic Christian church in northwestern Pakistan killed at least 75 people on Sunday in one of the deadliest attacks on the Christian minority in Pakistan in years.
The obvious culprits are Sunni terrorists. And to think, the Pakistanis just released Mullah Baradar as an act of good faith towards these barbarian cannibalistic head-choppers.
Which illustrates the bottom line with all of these 'violent extremists'; they must be eradicated, along with their twisted interpretation of Islam. Kerry is correct in that our goal is perpetuate a policy of tolerance and aggressively counter extremism, and we can't kill them all, but pretending they don't exist and hoping they go away isn't much of a policy either. The UN General Assembly next week in New York should be used to issue a call for Islamic leaders worldwide to condemn this bullshite. That's what they would do with Israel.
The United States and Russia have reached an agreement that calls for Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons to be removed or destroyed by the middle of 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Saturday.
Under a “framework” agreement, international inspectors must be on the ground in Syria by November, Mr. Kerry said, speaking at a news conference with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey V. Lavrov.
Alrighty then. For some reason Putin punted last Monday under the incredible pressure placed on him by the Obama administration and victory is at hand. Obama the master tactician--pressuring war made peace! The new doctrine.
This despite the fact that last Monday the threat of an attack was perhaps at its lowest probability. Putin/Assad were facing the specter of a miniscule bombing run designed to take out a few bridges and rocket launchers at a time when even that plan had little if any support in either Congress or the international community. Obama was like a marionette dangling in the corner he'd back himself into with no way out aside from becoming a hated war criminal or calling everything off and losing his entire legacy. His scribes were rewriting his Tuesday war speech every hour.
Then Putin saved his bacon. So what the fork happened?
The agreement will of course be spun by our fair and balanced media as the greatest comeback since the days of Clinton, which will elevate the president just when he needs it--facing a fight against the real enemies and terrorists and neanderthals of the GOP and Tea Party over debt and government funding. Biden will probably call this outcome the gutsiest move since Obama's Bin Laden raid back in 2004.
Of course the true test for our country and the world will be 1) can Assad truly be disarmed, and 2) will Assad be punished for already using WMDs? It's going to be a herculean task to disarm a tyrant during a civil war, probably impossible without a legitimate cease-fire and somebody's boots on the ground, both of which are problematic. But this doesn't have to start happening until November according to the 'framework' agreement so Obama can have a free shot at the Republicans before things get tricky again towards Thanksgiving and Christmas (unless somebody shoots off WMDs again in the interim).
That gives the regime a few months to continue dispersing their arsenal and killing the rebels, which include head-chopping cannibals associated with AQ, or even perhaps moving some out of the country to friendly neighbors. But the story can now disappear off the front pages for awhile.
As to a true outcome, IF, and it's a big if, the chemicals can be located, counted, moved and destroyed then part of the victory will become real, but only part. The UN cannot leave a precedent where a dictator can gas his own people and then when pressured give up the weapons under agreement, only to escape completely without consequences. So Assad will either have to be hauled off to the ICC at some point or sent to Allah to hobnob with Saddam.
If that last step doesn't occur this will be a failure, whether the media or historians admit it or not.
But surely the present situation is better than the bombing that was being considered, making it a preferred outcome despite the president literally stumbling into it. For some reason we can thank president (and Times editorialist) Vladimir Putey Putin for enabling that stumble....for reasons still unknown.
MORE 9/14/13
This article, purportedly of several ISIS fighters (AQ-related) in Syria, explains in very vivid detail why the west/United States is losing the Global War on Terror. These young men are committed soldiers for a cause, whereas the population of the United States (and the west at large) is not committed to the fight at all, mainly because our leadership is afraid to make us committed lest it appear to be a war on Islam.
We are going to lose if we don't see the stakes involved.
A NEW DAY 9/14/13
...and the strategy and rhetoric seems to change with every sunrise. Here's Jay Carney on Wednesday, explaining how the threat of force alone had forced Putin to the negotiating table...
There is no question that the credible threat of U.S. military force brought us this diplomatic opening.
Just three days later here is the Decider Guy in his weekly address:
This week, when I addressed the nation on Syria, I said that – in part because of the credible threat of U.S. military force – there is the possibility of a diplomatic solution.
So the Commander Guy will likely want his use of force resolution passed by the GOP, er, House, regardless of any international doves flying around the Middle East at the moment.
OK fine, it's not a bad idea. Some of us have been saying they need to take the international route for weeks now. Of course the administration is acting as if they've had this in the hip pocket since September 1st or sooner. Thing is, if President Peace Prize had this worked out with Putey Poot weeks ago why did he go to Congress at all? What would be the need to go to Congress when they could just push it in the UN and get the resolution? Obama says he doesn't feel he even needs to get their approval.
Which leaves the question of whether the move to Congress was entirely political. Think of the possible perks for sabre-rattling then trying to pull the Tea Party and RINOs into a vote on war designed to weaken both before 1) the debt showdown, 2) coming Obamacare rollout, and 3) immigration reform. Throw in old mentions of Bush and Iraq and it's tempting to believe in their conspiracy.
Not only that, but such wild theatrical hysterics would take the focus off the myriad of scandals and the 9/11 anniversary (just ask someone from the administration a question about Benghazi and marvel as their mouth clenches up and the subdued vitriol pours out). The ultimate distraction.
Of course, to believe this administration tale takes some faith. For instance, Kerry would have to be in on it, requiring a willing suspension of disbelief. And we would also have to wonder what kind of parting gifts Putin might get for his role in such a screenplay. Obama did promise to be more flexible.
Oh yeah, the post title: what we need to see tonight. Well, the president says he needs the support of the GOP in this mess to get authorization for bombing. At the same time his administration has in the past called conservatives 'enemies' and 'terrorists'. He's called a previous war to hold a chemical weapons user accountable 'dumb'. He's demonized the conservatives on the Supreme Court and harped on big business while jamming his unilateral finger in the Constitution's eye in a host of ways.
So maybe he can start tonight with an apology for being such a divisive ahole thus far. Maybe then some progress can be made. And make no mistake, not everybody wants that moon faced Putin to punk the USA or win on the international stage, regardless of who's in the Oval Office. But Obama could at least make it little easier to root for him. He could start the healing tonight.
POST ANALYSIS 9/10/13
He had a chance to mend some fences but it was just too tempting to toss in a Bush bash by claiming we didn't go through congressional channels in taking down Saddam.
But I’m also the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possessed the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of Congress, and I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.
This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.
That's just complete bullshit. He also airbrushed Iraq out of the brief history of chemical weapons users. Why? Is everything politics and finger pointing?
Overall the speech provided nothing new except that he wants the Congress to hold off on a vote while they consider John Kerry's rhetorical mistake. Looks like Peggy Noonan was right.
On Syria we have a dictator with WMDs, who has likely used them, who is killing his own people. The president is going around DC like a chicken without its head looking to sign up any support he can so he doesn't have to lead from the front. Why go to the trouble? Why not have the liberals tell him to do what they told Bush to do in Iraq after the fact--let the international community solve it!?
Here's a scenario: first outstretch a hand to offer talks without preconditions. In a few weeks when the UN determines that Assad indeed used chemical weapons based on their ground inspection report, push for a UN resolution condemning him, along with international sanctions. Have the resolution talk about 'serious consequences' for any further use while demanding he disarm immediately for his crossing the international norm.
Then when he ignores the call to disarm push for another round of talks followed by an international team of UN weapons inspectors to go in and find the WMDs. Give Hans Blix another chance!
After the UN weapons inspection team has looked in every cave, mosque and children's museum for the weapons and not found them (with perhaps a rogue American team-member tossed off the team for trying to sell influence); and after their final report claiming no WMDs exist so the sanctions should be dropped for the sake of the children (brought about in part through Russian and Chinese influence)--then and only then would Obama consider some limited and narrow shock and awe strikes without boots on the ground that won't change the regime. That is, after Kerry's global test for military intervention is passed first of course!
Yes, Obama might be out of office by the time all of that was accomplished and thousands more might be dead with perhaps AQ members in possession of WMD weapons, but anything less would be, well, dumb.
The WaPo reports that John Kerry, the good soldier, is 'pivoting with Obama'...
Two days after he stood in the ornate Treaty Room at the State Department to deliver a forceful address on the justification for an imminent U.S. military strike against Syria, Secretary of State John F. Kerry returned to the same venue Sunday to defend a different approach.
Yes, hanging by ropes, twisting in the breeze. Kerry does look a little plastic these days.
If you've been wondering why the president hasn't come out and either extensively talked to the press or given a big Oval Office speech, right up to the moment he was going to make the gutsy call, then this explains it. Get Kerry to do the talking and the calling and the TV ranting so if the trial balloon pops in the choppy waters and plan B is called for, the damage is lessened to the big guy. Since August 21 the president has basically said he will do something narrow and punitive and quick but there won't be boots on the ground because we don't want to get stuck in Iraq like Bush, which is in no way comparable to Syria until it is.
So once again an administration official is sent out to five Sunday shows to hold the fort on a narrative, which was that delays are good and healthy and constitutional and this new plan is awesome and just the right thing to do when WMDs threaten the world and urgency is called for.
With Kerry tearing up the teleprompter with war wompums over several days it's likely that Obama's Brain was monitoring the polls and pundits, and told Jack Lew to take the Decider Guy out for a Friday evening walk. That led to his speech on Saturday, which was about 9 minutes too long, which gave nobody in the world warm fuzzies except Assad and his thugs, the Mullahs and Putey Poot. And there's Mr. Reporting for Duty, standing there holding the bag. He soon got the new orders.
Gawd, what to make of this mess? Sure, Obama took a safety. Even Fareed Zakaria can't defend this. And do read Tom Maguire's dispatches from the front piece relating a Times story on how the Syrians actually feel about everything.
While it's tempting to venture a guess on what happens next, other than another round of golf Monday or maybe a fundraiser, this entire thing is really too strange for fiction. It sure seems that the Strategist-in-Chief found a way to back himself out of the corner by trying to hang part of his Commander Guy decision on the Tea Party, but the whole thing is so shameless as to not even guarantee his own Obama-approved mainstream media will play along with it. Just look at some of the NY Times articles of late.
The bigger question is will the Republicans get penalized for not banging the war drums to take out a guy who really bears no comparison to the former Butcher to his east whose least most sinister plot was to kill an ex president.
Or is this just the biggest head fake in history?
But if it's a head fake the Congress would have to be in on it lest they end up under the Jeremiah Wright/Bill Ayers memorial tour bus. Saying he wants a vote then attacking anyway would be, well, unbelievable but still believable in a Imperial Presidency kind of way. So really not seeing a political windfall in getting the Congress on record because if it was such a windfall it would have been done in the first place a week or more ago. Yet he appears stuck with the idea now, yea or nay.
Feels more like a stall for time, hoping further events preclude further actions. Consider that we're still waiting for a resolution on the IRS and Benghazi scandals, the Rosen and AP snooping plots, the Yemen leak investigations, and for a determination on whether Egypt was a coup or not. Maybe this gets added to the list. Maybe something else comes along to grab away attention. That is, unless Assad ups the ante and attacks again.
By the way, those who've looked at the rather open-ended draft resolution may notice that it says "biological weapons" in the mix. Was that for show or have we not been talking about the most important threats here?
GOOD OLE DAYS 9/2/13
Harken back to presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004, wrinkles and all, who made the following statement:
"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
Emphasis to point out that only France and the Arab League have signed on to Kerry's Syria attack (sponsored in part by Obama). Oh well, there's always Bush to blame at some point.
Watch Jay Carney turn into a pretzel trying to rationalize why Obama's condemnations of Bush for threatening to bomb Iran in 2007 to stop a WMD program is somehow different than with Syria:
Henry got him to say the use of chemical weapons represents an 'actual or imminent threat'. While many would disagree with the idea that Syria's use of chemicals is an 'imminent' threat to anyone outside its borders, most might agree it's an 'actual' threat insofar as setting a precedent in the Third World and particularly the Middle East. After all, Bashar Assad's father allegedly used cyanide gas against a Muslim Brotherhood uprising in Hama in the early 80s. Then of course Saddam gassed the Kurds and Iranians later in the 80s. Neither were dealt with by force at the time, which only made things worse down the line.
At the same time allowing a fascist fanatical religious state in Persia to have the worst kind of WMDs would also represent an 'actual', not imminent threat as well. Obama himself has said as much, stating that America will not 'countenance' Iran getting nukes because it would be a 'game-changer', the exact label he put on Assad's use of chemicals. Since getting nukes is different than wanting them, a US strike to stop Iran from getting them wouldn't be much different than striking Syria for changing the game by using chemicals. But somehow Jay Carney thinks there is a difference and will no doubt keep saying that using is different, ergo, Obama was not wrong. He never is.
But perhaps it's telling that the smartest president ever is leaving the explanation of this mess to various spokesgoofs, Lerch and the Vice President, who himself threatened to push impeachment of Bush if he dared to attack Iran without congressional approval. He is sequestered, studying his range of options with the national security folks, planning something very bold that doesn't involve boots on the ground. Obama fan Peter Bergen says that choice is 'from hell', quoting a book by the current Ambassador to the UN, who remained on vacation during the recent emergency WMD meeting; a book critical of the current National Security Advisor. So the pretzel is rather twisted. But hey, Obama wanted the football. He's now the quarterback and there's nobody above his pay grade. Sure hope he's got some of those special powers.
MORE 8/28/13
How about this. We bomb some regime WMD and military sites. Then in the process we 'lose' a couple of bombs on the territory held by al-Nusra/AQ in Iraq, sort of like we lost one on the Chinese embassy in Sarajevo. That way it doesn't look like we are siding with Zaawhiri.
Here's the New York Times headline of December 19, 2012 regarding punishment for bureaucrats fingered in the Bengahzi attack:
4 Are Out at State Dept. After Scathing Report on Benghazi Attack
"4 are out". Most would assume "out" to mean fired. But the Times worded it craftily in the body of their report:
Four State Department officials were removed from their posts on Wednesday after an independent panel criticized the “grossly inadequate” security at a diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that was attacked on Sept. 11, leading to the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
So "out" meant "removed from their posts", which technically does not mean fired. A few weeks later the New York Post clarified this in a story that was condemned by some on the left:
The four officials supposedly out of jobs because of their blunders in the run-up to the deadly Benghazi terror attack remain on the State Department payroll — and will all be back to work soon, The Post has learned.
The highest-ranking official caught up in the scandal, Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell, has not “resigned” from government service, as officials said last week. He is just switching desks. And the other three are simply on administrative leave and are expected back.
When asked about it during her testimony in January Hillary was fairly forceful in suggesting the four should actually be fired:
“First, all four individuals have been removed from their jobs,” Clinton began. “Secondly, they have been placed on administrative leave. Thirdly, Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen highlighted the reason why this has been so complicated. Under federal statute and regulations, unsatisfactory leadership is not grounds for finding a breach of duty.”
“Fourth, I have submitted legislation to this committee and to the Senate committee to fix this problem so future ARBs (Accountability Review Board) will not face this situation. Because I agree with you, there ought to be more leeway given to the ARBs.”
Secretary of State John Kerry has determined that the four State Department officials placed on administrative leave by Hillary Clinton after the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi do not deserve any formal disciplinary action and has asked them to come back to work at the State Department starting Tuesday.
Kerry said he made the determination based on findings of the ARB, which was precisely what Hillary had used to 'fire' them.
The funny thing is, Kerry is right. No lower level staffers deserved to lose their jobs over Benghazi, or even be sent home with pay. If there was going to be any ass-kicking it should have been a top leadership level. By blaming these four people the administration was trying to get people to think it was some kind of bureaucratic failure they were taking care of, instead of a planned terrorist attack on 9/11.
Now, nearly one year from that attack (and the misinformation dumped on the public explaining it)--and after closing 22 embassies based on an AQ threat just recently--there's no reason to pretend that what happened was a reaction to a video or even bureaucratic incompetence. The stonewalling has shifted solely to what the CIA was doing there, which is a question that could take decades to answer.
Although these non-firings really didn't factor into the 2012 presidential election, other than the president continually pointing to 'the ARB review' so he could avoid talking about it, something eventually had to be done when the final report came out. So they 'fired' the bureaucrats. Oddly enough, Kerry's reinstatement of these people could be taken as a slap at Hillary. If he did it unilaterally it might even send a signal of his interest in challenging Hillary16! for the nod, which could cause her some headaches. But the chances are he's just hoping few will notice.
