Democrats are critical of the Iran deal but they stand behind the president in this agreement. The next few years will see if their gamble in supporting the president pays off.
Top congressional Democrats have done a great job laying out the terms of the Iran nuclear deal, a Free Beacon SuperCut finds.
These members of Congress explained how Iran will ramp up its campaign of terrorism and Middle East destabilization with funds gained through the nuclear deal. They expressed “concern”—grave concern, even—over key concessions such as the curtailment of inspections on Iran’s military sites, the removal of a ban on arms sales to Iran, and the 15-year sunset clause on restrictions to Iran’s ability to enrich nuclear material.
Still, as other Democrats have unceasingly reminded us, the Iran deal was ultimately an inviolable vote of conscience for each member of Congress.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
WHO TO HOLD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MIDDLE EAST REFUGEE CRISIS
The American Interest. "Fecklessness 101." Did the Obama administration miss a chance to solve the Syrian crisis in 2012?
Apparently the Obama administration turned down a Russian offer to dump Assad… because the Administration was sure he was going to fall on his own. The Guardian reports:
[Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti] Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.
Glenn Reynolds. USA Today. "The Obama-Hillary Mideast Debacles."
Obama initially called for the removal of Syrian President Bashar Assad, only to back down in the face of opposition from Vladimir Putin. Since then, the United States has postured a bit, but done nothing of consequence. The signal to our enemies: It’s safe to ignore us. The signal to our friends: It’s foolish to rely on us.
Now, as the war in Syria has expanded — with the U.S. arming and supporting various groups that have shown a disturbing tendency to take our guns and then switch sides — refugees are flooding Europe. It is, as Ron Radosh correctly states, Barack Obama’s refugee problem.
This would be bad enough if Syria were the Obama administration’s only foreign policy misstep, but instead it is merely representative of a larger problem. President Obamabragged about Yemen as a showpiece of his administration’s anti-terror program’s success; a few months later, Yemen was taken over by terrorists and now an ugly civil war, featuring Saudi troops, rages there. The administration’s responses, as even the Obama-friendly Vox.com notes, have been ”cringe-worthy.”
Apparently the Obama administration turned down a Russian offer to dump Assad… because the Administration was sure he was going to fall on his own. The Guardian reports:
[Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti] Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.
Glenn Reynolds. USA Today. "The Obama-Hillary Mideast Debacles."
Obama initially called for the removal of Syrian President Bashar Assad, only to back down in the face of opposition from Vladimir Putin. Since then, the United States has postured a bit, but done nothing of consequence. The signal to our enemies: It’s safe to ignore us. The signal to our friends: It’s foolish to rely on us.
Now, as the war in Syria has expanded — with the U.S. arming and supporting various groups that have shown a disturbing tendency to take our guns and then switch sides — refugees are flooding Europe. It is, as Ron Radosh correctly states, Barack Obama’s refugee problem.
This would be bad enough if Syria were the Obama administration’s only foreign policy misstep, but instead it is merely representative of a larger problem. President Obamabragged about Yemen as a showpiece of his administration’s anti-terror program’s success; a few months later, Yemen was taken over by terrorists and now an ugly civil war, featuring Saudi troops, rages there. The administration’s responses, as even the Obama-friendly Vox.com notes, have been ”cringe-worthy.”
Sunday, September 13, 2015
THE REFUGEE CRISIS: FAILURE OF EUROPE, ARABS, AND ISLAM
Walter Russell Mead. The Wall Street Journal. "The Roots of the Migration Crisis."
The Syrian refugee disaster is a result of the Middle East’s failure to grapple with modernity and Europe’s failure to defend its ideals.
What we are witnessing today is a crisis of two civilizations: The Middle East and Europe are both facing deep cultural and political problems that they cannot solve. The intersection of their failures and shortcomings has made this crisis much more destructive and dangerous than it needed to be—and carries with it the risk of more instability and more war in a widening spiral.
"We are a nauseating nation," wrote the Saudi journalist 'Ali Sa'd Al-Moussa in Al-Watan on September 5, in reaction to images of Syrians and other refugees fleeing to Europe. The "nation" he was angrily condemning was not only Saudi Arabia, but the greater Arab world. It is a world, he lamented, "that kills people for their opinions or affiliation. Compare [this] to the parallel image: in the central train station in Munich, dozens of German citizens gather to welcome the first train arriving from Budapest carrying hundreds of immigrants...
"Stop talking about the hypocrisy of [Western] morals and values, because reality exposes nothing but our own ugly countenance."
The Syrian refugee disaster is a result of the Middle East’s failure to grapple with modernity and Europe’s failure to defend its ideals.
What we are witnessing today is a crisis of two civilizations: The Middle East and Europe are both facing deep cultural and political problems that they cannot solve. The intersection of their failures and shortcomings has made this crisis much more destructive and dangerous than it needed to be—and carries with it the risk of more instability and more war in a widening spiral.
The crisis in the Middle East has to do with much more than the breakdown of order in Syria and Libya. It runs deeper than the poisonous sectarian and ethnic hatreds behind the series of wars stretching from Pakistan to North Africa. At bottom, we are witnessing the consequences of a civilization’s failure either to overcome or to accommodate the forces of modernity. One hundred years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and 50 years after the French left Algeria, the Middle East has failed to build economies that allow ordinary people to live with dignity, has failed to build modern political institutions and has failed to carve out the place of honor and respect in world affairs that its peoples seek.
Charles Paul Freund. Reason.com "The Arab Press Reacts to the European Refugee Crisis."
"Stop talking about the hypocrisy of [Western] morals and values, because reality exposes nothing but our own ugly countenance."
Saturday, September 12, 2015
OBAMA SUPPORTERS
If this is the best Obama supporters can do, the president has a problem! Surely you would come prepared to say something his administration has accomplished.
Friday, September 11, 2015
ANOTHER 9/11 ATTACK COMING?
Former U.S. intelligence officials are giving the warning. Also an interesting interview with a former intelligence operative.
The United States could be facing another 9/11 attack as factions grow deeper among the Taliban, al-Qaida and the Islamic State group, especially with the recently confirmed death of the Taliban's one-eyed leader Mullah Omar, according to a senior U.S. lawmaker, federal law enforcement and intelligence officials.
The tensions between Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and the Taliban is as dangerous a national security threat to the United States as it was before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, said Brian Fairchild, who spent two decades with the CIA and has testified before Congress on terrorism.
The United States could be facing another 9/11 attack as factions grow deeper among the Taliban, al-Qaida and the Islamic State group, especially with the recently confirmed death of the Taliban's one-eyed leader Mullah Omar, according to a senior U.S. lawmaker, federal law enforcement and intelligence officials.
The tensions between Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and the Taliban is as dangerous a national security threat to the United States as it was before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, said Brian Fairchild, who spent two decades with the CIA and has testified before Congress on terrorism.
INTELLIGENCE BEING MANIPULATED
The Daily Beast is reporting that fifty intelligence analysts are saying the Obama administration is tinkering with their reports. . .a very serious charge. The Obama administration has been trying to paint a rosy picture, but the intelligence may not support this rosy view.
More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned.
The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.
“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.
More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned.
The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.
“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.
Arthur L. Herman in the National Review gives a conservative critique of this report.
Is anyone really surprised by this? Remember all the complaints Democrats made about how the Bush administration manipulated intelligence in order to get us into war with Iraq over non-existent WMD’s? Official investigation after investigation showed they didn’t, but the false claim that “Bush lied and people died’ still haunts the memory of that war–and the sacrifice Americans made fighting and dying in it.
Now we know why Democrats were so insistent somebody had to be cooking the intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s. It’s because that’s what they would have done themselves to fit their policy line. And, the Daily Beast suggests, that’s what they’re doing now, so they can avoid having to make the kind of military commitment we need, in order to eradicate the ISIS plague once and for all.
Update: 9/17/15. John R. Schindler. Observer. "Obama's Messy Iraq Intelligence Scandal."
It’s happening again. A White House fumbling with the violent mess of Iraq finds itself surrounded by mounting accusations that it’s played dirty games with intelligence. A Pentagon facing charges that its analysts have skewed assessments on Iraq to tell top policymakers what they want to hear, rather than what is really happening in that troubled country.
If this sounds terribly familiar, it should. Only a dozen years after the George W. Bush White House was buffeted by allegations that it had “cherry-picked” intelligence to justify its 2003 invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama is facing similar accusations. Intelligence Community analysts alleged that, in the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, they were pressured to exaggerate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Now, analysts claim that they have been pushed to present Obama’s war against the Islamic State as more successful than it really is.
Only the most optimistic Obama backers still portray that year-long air campaign (its proper name is Operation Inherent Resolve) as adequate, and most security experts agree that the Islamic State is winning the war on the ground, thanks in part to an American-led air war that is bombing too little and too cautiously. There is no indication that Western airpower is anywhere near inflicting decisive pain on the Islamic State, while our Iraqi partners, who serve as the ground anvil for the U.S. airborne hammer, increasingly feel left in the lurch by Obama.
Update: 9/17/15. John R. Schindler. Observer. "Obama's Messy Iraq Intelligence Scandal."
It’s happening again. A White House fumbling with the violent mess of Iraq finds itself surrounded by mounting accusations that it’s played dirty games with intelligence. A Pentagon facing charges that its analysts have skewed assessments on Iraq to tell top policymakers what they want to hear, rather than what is really happening in that troubled country.
If this sounds terribly familiar, it should. Only a dozen years after the George W. Bush White House was buffeted by allegations that it had “cherry-picked” intelligence to justify its 2003 invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama is facing similar accusations. Intelligence Community analysts alleged that, in the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, they were pressured to exaggerate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Now, analysts claim that they have been pushed to present Obama’s war against the Islamic State as more successful than it really is.
Only the most optimistic Obama backers still portray that year-long air campaign (its proper name is Operation Inherent Resolve) as adequate, and most security experts agree that the Islamic State is winning the war on the ground, thanks in part to an American-led air war that is bombing too little and too cautiously. There is no indication that Western airpower is anywhere near inflicting decisive pain on the Islamic State, while our Iraqi partners, who serve as the ground anvil for the U.S. airborne hammer, increasingly feel left in the lurch by Obama.
Tuesday, September 08, 2015
SYRIAN REFUGEE CRISIS: WHO IS TO BLAME?
Roger Cohen. New York Times. "Obama's Syrian Nightmare." (He does not mention Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden's roles.)
Syria will be the biggest blot on the Obama presidency, a debacle of staggering proportions. For more than four years now, the war has festered. A country has been destroyed, four million Syrians are refugees, Islamic State has moved into the vacuum and President Bashar al-Assad still drops barrel bombs whose shrapnel and chlorine rip women and children to shreds.
At multiple stages, if Obama could have mustered the will, the belief in American power, there were options. The Syrian aircraft dropping those barrel bombs could have been taken out. A safe area for refugees might have been created. Arming the rebels early and massively might have changed the course of the war. Counterfactuals, of course, don’t carry much weight. We will never know. We only know the facts of the Syrian nightmare now seeping, in various forms, into the West. Syria, broken, will be the rift that keeps on giving.
In Libya, Obama bombed and abandoned. In Afghanistan, Obama surged and retreated. In Syria, Obama talked and wavered. He has been comfortable with the pinpoint use of force — the killing of Osama bin Laden for example — but uncomfortable with American military power.
Frederick C. Hof. Foreign Policy. "Obama: Open Your Eyes".
Having decided to leave millions of Syrians subject to barrel bombs, starvation sieges, mass terrorism, and collective punishment so as not to offend Iran, the administration (or more precisely, Europe) now reaps the whirlwind of hundreds of thousands of refugees. Yet instead of changing course, it whines about how much worse things would have been had other decisions been taken.
Fred Hyatt, Editorial Page Director, Washington Post. "Obama's Syria Achievement."
This may be the most surprising of President Obama’s foreign-policy legacies: not just that he presided over a humanitarian and cultural disaster of epochal proportions, but that he soothed the American people into feeling no responsibility for the tragedy.
Starvation in Biafra a generation ago sparked a movement. Synagogues and churches a decade ago mobilized to relieve misery in Darfur. When the Taliban in 2001 destroyed ancient statues of Buddha at Bamiyan, the world was appalled at the lost heritage.
When Obama pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq, critics worried there would be instability; none envisioned the emergence of a full-blown terrorist state. When he announced in August 2011 that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside,” critics worried the words might prove empty — but few imagined the extent of the catastrophe: not just the savagery of chemical weapons and “barrel bombs,” but also the Islamic State’s recruitment of thousands of foreign fighters, its spread from Libya to Afghanistan, the danger to the U.S. homeland that has alarmed U.S. intelligence officials, the refugees destabilizing Europe.
While many foreign leaders have spoken out, there is one who has said not a word. That leader, as you most probably can guess, is Barack Obama. And how could he? His policies, after all, have ended in this tragedy. It is, as Michael Gerson writes in a powerful Washington Post column, the result of his failure in Syria.
Obama said a “red line” in Syria could not be crossed; then Bashar Al-Assad crossed it—and nothing happened except for temporarily harsher rhetoric from the president. Now, Assad drops barrel bombs on his own people, filled with supposedly outlawed chemical weapons. Obama, of course, had plenty of measures which he could have ordered that would have stopped or limited Assad’s war on his own people. Instead, he ignored the advice of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and CIA chief Gen. David Petraeus, who favored using screened moderate forces of the Sunni majority willing to fight and supplying them with shoulder-to-air missiles that would have brought down the helicopters Assad uses to carry out the bombings. Instead, he did nothing.
Obama has been a gift to the worst of the world, topped by his surrender to Iran. He and the quislings masquerading as the leaders of Europe see no evil as Iran spreads its tentacles. Sooner, on their own, or later, with America’s blessing, the mullahs will have their doomsday weapon.
Syria will be the biggest blot on the Obama presidency, a debacle of staggering proportions. For more than four years now, the war has festered. A country has been destroyed, four million Syrians are refugees, Islamic State has moved into the vacuum and President Bashar al-Assad still drops barrel bombs whose shrapnel and chlorine rip women and children to shreds.
At multiple stages, if Obama could have mustered the will, the belief in American power, there were options. The Syrian aircraft dropping those barrel bombs could have been taken out. A safe area for refugees might have been created. Arming the rebels early and massively might have changed the course of the war. Counterfactuals, of course, don’t carry much weight. We will never know. We only know the facts of the Syrian nightmare now seeping, in various forms, into the West. Syria, broken, will be the rift that keeps on giving.
In Libya, Obama bombed and abandoned. In Afghanistan, Obama surged and retreated. In Syria, Obama talked and wavered. He has been comfortable with the pinpoint use of force — the killing of Osama bin Laden for example — but uncomfortable with American military power.
Frederick C. Hof. Foreign Policy. "Obama: Open Your Eyes".
Having decided to leave millions of Syrians subject to barrel bombs, starvation sieges, mass terrorism, and collective punishment so as not to offend Iran, the administration (or more precisely, Europe) now reaps the whirlwind of hundreds of thousands of refugees. Yet instead of changing course, it whines about how much worse things would have been had other decisions been taken.
Fred Hyatt, Editorial Page Director, Washington Post. "Obama's Syria Achievement."
This may be the most surprising of President Obama’s foreign-policy legacies: not just that he presided over a humanitarian and cultural disaster of epochal proportions, but that he soothed the American people into feeling no responsibility for the tragedy.
Starvation in Biafra a generation ago sparked a movement. Synagogues and churches a decade ago mobilized to relieve misery in Darfur. When the Taliban in 2001 destroyed ancient statues of Buddha at Bamiyan, the world was appalled at the lost heritage.
When Obama pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq, critics worried there would be instability; none envisioned the emergence of a full-blown terrorist state. When he announced in August 2011 that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside,” critics worried the words might prove empty — but few imagined the extent of the catastrophe: not just the savagery of chemical weapons and “barrel bombs,” but also the Islamic State’s recruitment of thousands of foreign fighters, its spread from Libya to Afghanistan, the danger to the U.S. homeland that has alarmed U.S. intelligence officials, the refugees destabilizing Europe.
Ron Radosh, "Obama's Refugee Crisis."
Obama said a “red line” in Syria could not be crossed; then Bashar Al-Assad crossed it—and nothing happened except for temporarily harsher rhetoric from the president. Now, Assad drops barrel bombs on his own people, filled with supposedly outlawed chemical weapons. Obama, of course, had plenty of measures which he could have ordered that would have stopped or limited Assad’s war on his own people. Instead, he ignored the advice of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and CIA chief Gen. David Petraeus, who favored using screened moderate forces of the Sunni majority willing to fight and supplying them with shoulder-to-air missiles that would have brought down the helicopters Assad uses to carry out the bombings. Instead, he did nothing.
Muslims chant "fuck you" in Hungary.
Conservative European angry at refugees who are not refugees. "European leaders are committing cultural and demographic suicide."
Michael Goodwin, New York Post. "The Bigger Picture Behind the European Refugee Crisis."
This metastasizing catastrophe is not the result of famine or drought or disease. It is man-made and should have been prevented.
But that would have required leaders with the moral conviction of Roosevelt and Churchill. Instead, America and Great Britain are led by frat boys.
Barack Obama and David Cameron indulged themselves in the delusion that human nature had magically changed and the world would take care of itself while they gutted the arsenals of democracy.
History will record their fecklessness, and that of France, Germany and the other once-great powers. That is, unless history itself is erased by the madmen of Islamic State.
Not content to slaughter those they deem infidels and apostates, the would-be Hitlers are cleansing Syria and Iraq of its ancient temples and artifacts. They aim to control the past as well as the future.
Michael Goodwin, New York Post. "The Bigger Picture Behind the European Refugee Crisis."
This metastasizing catastrophe is not the result of famine or drought or disease. It is man-made and should have been prevented.
But that would have required leaders with the moral conviction of Roosevelt and Churchill. Instead, America and Great Britain are led by frat boys.
Barack Obama and David Cameron indulged themselves in the delusion that human nature had magically changed and the world would take care of itself while they gutted the arsenals of democracy.
History will record their fecklessness, and that of France, Germany and the other once-great powers. That is, unless history itself is erased by the madmen of Islamic State.
Not content to slaughter those they deem infidels and apostates, the would-be Hitlers are cleansing Syria and Iraq of its ancient temples and artifacts. They aim to control the past as well as the future.
David P. Goldman. Asia Times. "The Price of Europe's Fecklessness."
The Europeans, to be sure, are a pack of cynical hypocrites. If they had cared about Syrians, they might have sent a couple of brigades of soldiers to fight ISIS. But not a single European will risk his neck to prevent humanitarian catastrophe. The last time European soldiers got close to real trouble, in Srebrenica in 1995, Dutch peacekeepers stood aside while Bosnian Serbs massacred 8,000 Muslims.
The horror has now piled up on Europe’s doorstep, thanks evidently to the skill of Turkish gangs who have turned the Turkey-to-Balkans smuggling route into a superhighway. Europe said and did nothing while the global refugee count exploded from 40 million in 2010 to 60 million in 2014, according to the UN High Commission on Refugees, but was shocked, shocked to find such people on its doorstep.
Washington Post. "Hungarian Bishop Says Pope is Wrong about Refugees."
Lee Smith. The Weekly Standard. "Obama Avoided Syrian Action to Help Iran Negotiations."
Obama decided to steer clear of the Syrian conflict not just to avoid doing anything, but just as importantly, to avoid damaging Iranian interests in Syria. As Obama wrote Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei, “the U.S.’s military operations inside Syria aren’t targeted at Mr. Assad or his security forces.” Obama didn’t do anything to bring down Assad because he was afraid it might anger the Syrian president’s patrons in Iran, and getting a nuclear deal with Iran was Obama’s foreign policy priority.
There is plenty that Obama might have done to support Syrian rebels— an opposition he derided as “former doctors, farmers, pharmacists”—without ever risking putting American forces on the ground in Syria. By 2013, all his national security cabinet officials—Leon Panetta, David Petraeus, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Thomas Donilon, et al.—argued for supporting Syrian rebel units.
Obama however kept his eyes on the prize: the Iran deal. Same when it came to enforcing the red line he drew against Assad’s use of chemical weapons. No one in their right mind believes that firing missiles on Assad regime facilities was likely to compel the White House to land forces in Syria. Obama’s concern rather was that if the United States signaled that it was no longer protecting Assad it might turn the balance of power against the Syrian regime. But that of course would anger the Iranians, and all Obama wanted was an accommodation with the regime—and now he has one in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
The Europeans, to be sure, are a pack of cynical hypocrites. If they had cared about Syrians, they might have sent a couple of brigades of soldiers to fight ISIS. But not a single European will risk his neck to prevent humanitarian catastrophe. The last time European soldiers got close to real trouble, in Srebrenica in 1995, Dutch peacekeepers stood aside while Bosnian Serbs massacred 8,000 Muslims.
The horror has now piled up on Europe’s doorstep, thanks evidently to the skill of Turkish gangs who have turned the Turkey-to-Balkans smuggling route into a superhighway. Europe said and did nothing while the global refugee count exploded from 40 million in 2010 to 60 million in 2014, according to the UN High Commission on Refugees, but was shocked, shocked to find such people on its doorstep.
Washington Post. "Hungarian Bishop Says Pope is Wrong about Refugees."
Lee Smith. The Weekly Standard. "Obama Avoided Syrian Action to Help Iran Negotiations."
Obama decided to steer clear of the Syrian conflict not just to avoid doing anything, but just as importantly, to avoid damaging Iranian interests in Syria. As Obama wrote Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei, “the U.S.’s military operations inside Syria aren’t targeted at Mr. Assad or his security forces.” Obama didn’t do anything to bring down Assad because he was afraid it might anger the Syrian president’s patrons in Iran, and getting a nuclear deal with Iran was Obama’s foreign policy priority.
There is plenty that Obama might have done to support Syrian rebels— an opposition he derided as “former doctors, farmers, pharmacists”—without ever risking putting American forces on the ground in Syria. By 2013, all his national security cabinet officials—Leon Panetta, David Petraeus, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Thomas Donilon, et al.—argued for supporting Syrian rebel units.
Obama however kept his eyes on the prize: the Iran deal. Same when it came to enforcing the red line he drew against Assad’s use of chemical weapons. No one in their right mind believes that firing missiles on Assad regime facilities was likely to compel the White House to land forces in Syria. Obama’s concern rather was that if the United States signaled that it was no longer protecting Assad it might turn the balance of power against the Syrian regime. But that of course would anger the Iranians, and all Obama wanted was an accommodation with the regime—and now he has one in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
SITUATION OF AMERICA IN THE WORLD
Bill O'Reilly summarizes all of the problems facing American today because of the incompetence in Washington. He could probably add a few more.
Some O'Reilly comments:
Some O'Reilly comments:
- Even though President Obama promised to confront ISIS and downgrade it -- that has not happened.So while ISIS is burning human beings alive, Congresswoman Pelosi is concerned about the social media aspect of the struggle.
- Harry Reid is blaming congress (Republican-controlled) for not doing more to support Obama against ISIS-->O'Reilly thinks this is crazy because many congressman are wanting a reluctant Obama to do more.
- Recently Secretary of State John Kerry met with Putin promising him sanctions would be lifted if he promised to stop seizing more territory. That must have delighted Vlad Putin who I have nicknamed Vlad the invader as he saw once again the U.S.A. desperately trying to appease him.
- China -- that country is now expanding in the specific, seizing territory that does not belong to it and developing its military in a dramatic way. China seeks to dominate Southeast Asia and understands it can now expand without any consequence from the West.
- Next up: a phony nuke deal with Iran that will empower that villainous country. God help the next president of the United States.
Monday, November 10, 2014
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
The charges of those opposing Obamacare have finally been proven. The architect, Jonathan Gruber, admits that language was used to mislead about the costs and impact of the law.Watch the video.
Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And, basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really very very critical to get the thing to pass. And, you know, it’s the second best argument. I wish Mark was right we could make this transparent but I would rather have this law than not.”
Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And, basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really very very critical to get the thing to pass. And, you know, it’s the second best argument. I wish Mark was right we could make this transparent but I would rather have this law than not.”
Monday, October 27, 2014
BUMBLING IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
Headline from Politico; "Team of Bumblers? Are Susan Rice and Chuck Hagel equal to today’s new national-security challenges."
This is pretty tough criticism coming from the more liberal Politico. The response to the ISIS threat was clearly muddled.
Unfortunately, the White House failed to consult with the Pentagon—which would be doing most of the rolling back—on the timing or details of the announcement.
According to multiple sources, behind the scenes a few things went badly awry in the launch of Obama’s new policy. First, the Pentagon was surprised by the president’s timing, according to a senior defense official. “We didn’t know it was going to be in the speech,” he said, referring to Obama’s Sept. 10 address to the nation. Second, the White House neglected to give Pentagon lawyers a chance to revise and approve the proposed legislative language before it went to the Hill, which is considered standard practice. Staffers working for Rep. Buck McKeon, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said they were appalled by what they saw: language so sloppy that it failed to mention adequate protections against so-called “green-on-blue” attacks by trainees on American troops, and effectively left the Defense Department liable for funding the mission against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)—even though the president was telling members of Congress he didn’t need money for this new mission, since the Saudis were putting it up. “What came over would have not have been a mission the DoD could have executed,” says a senior Republican committee staffer.
This is pretty tough criticism coming from the more liberal Politico. The response to the ISIS threat was clearly muddled.
Unfortunately, the White House failed to consult with the Pentagon—which would be doing most of the rolling back—on the timing or details of the announcement.
According to multiple sources, behind the scenes a few things went badly awry in the launch of Obama’s new policy. First, the Pentagon was surprised by the president’s timing, according to a senior defense official. “We didn’t know it was going to be in the speech,” he said, referring to Obama’s Sept. 10 address to the nation. Second, the White House neglected to give Pentagon lawyers a chance to revise and approve the proposed legislative language before it went to the Hill, which is considered standard practice. Staffers working for Rep. Buck McKeon, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said they were appalled by what they saw: language so sloppy that it failed to mention adequate protections against so-called “green-on-blue” attacks by trainees on American troops, and effectively left the Defense Department liable for funding the mission against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)—even though the president was telling members of Congress he didn’t need money for this new mission, since the Saudis were putting it up. “What came over would have not have been a mission the DoD could have executed,” says a senior Republican committee staffer.
And as the article continues, the story gets even worse. The Obama administration is all about politics and not solving problems.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
YEMEN
The situation in Yemen is often not covered by the media. Now it looks like the Obama administration has "lost Yemen" to radical Islamists.
Nobody saw it coming. On Sept. 20, Yemen’s Huthi movement executed a political coup so stealthy that the world hardly noticed, and so momentous that local commentators are dividing modern Yemeni history into before and after the Huthi assent to power. The Huthis, a Shiite-led rebel group with a power base in Yemen’s far north, have been waiting for this moment since the early 2000s, when their civil rights campaign was forced to take up arms in self-defense.
Nobody saw it coming. On Sept. 20, Yemen’s Huthi movement executed a political coup so stealthy that the world hardly noticed, and so momentous that local commentators are dividing modern Yemeni history into before and after the Huthi assent to power. The Huthis, a Shiite-led rebel group with a power base in Yemen’s far north, have been waiting for this moment since the early 2000s, when their civil rights campaign was forced to take up arms in self-defense.
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION GOES AFTER LEAKERS
From BoingBoing: "Obama Administration Has Secured 526 Months of Jail Time for Leakers."
Up until Obama's "most transparent administration", and throughout the entire history of the USA, national security leakers had received a total of 24 months of jail time. There are many more cases pending.
Up until Obama's "most transparent administration", and throughout the entire history of the USA, national security leakers had received a total of 24 months of jail time. There are many more cases pending.
From the Daily Signal: "19 Times the Government Withheld Documents It Didn't Want You to See."
This is not a particularly transparent administration.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
LIES OF OBAMA
Mark A. Thiessen at the Washington Post chronicles all of Obama's lies. He calls it a "culture of deceit."
In 1996, the late, great New York Times columnist William Safire published a column, “Blizzard of lies,” in which he laid out a series of falsehoods by Hillary Rodham Clinton and declared “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.”
Today, Americans of all political stripes are coming to a similar, sad realization about our president. A recent Fox News poll asked Americans “How often does Barack Obama lie to the country on important matters?” Thirty-seven percent said “most of the time,” 24 percent said “some of the time,” and 20 percent said “only now and then.” Just 15% said “never.”
Think about that: 81 percent of Americans believe that Obama lies to them at least “now and then” on “important matters.”
And then there is the Department of Justice. Who will replace Holder?
Numerous publications close to the White House have reported that Labor Secretary Tom Perez has emerged as the leading candidate to replace Attorney General Eric Holder. That Perez has a documented and repeating history of dishonesty, racialism, and radicalism shows that this administration feels unrestrained by conventional political wisdom. That the White House is dropping his name before an election should demonstrate to every Republican that Obama is fundamentally transforming politics in corrosive ways that the GOP seems ill-equipped to contain.
In 1996, the late, great New York Times columnist William Safire published a column, “Blizzard of lies,” in which he laid out a series of falsehoods by Hillary Rodham Clinton and declared “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.”
Today, Americans of all political stripes are coming to a similar, sad realization about our president. A recent Fox News poll asked Americans “How often does Barack Obama lie to the country on important matters?” Thirty-seven percent said “most of the time,” 24 percent said “some of the time,” and 20 percent said “only now and then.” Just 15% said “never.”
Think about that: 81 percent of Americans believe that Obama lies to them at least “now and then” on “important matters.”
And then there is the Department of Justice. Who will replace Holder?
Numerous publications close to the White House have reported that Labor Secretary Tom Perez has emerged as the leading candidate to replace Attorney General Eric Holder. That Perez has a documented and repeating history of dishonesty, racialism, and radicalism shows that this administration feels unrestrained by conventional political wisdom. That the White House is dropping his name before an election should demonstrate to every Republican that Obama is fundamentally transforming politics in corrosive ways that the GOP seems ill-equipped to contain.
Perez seems to have told more lies than Pinochio.
Monday, October 13, 2014
WAR AGAINST ISIS
According to the left-wing Independent Obama's ISIS bombing policy is not working.
The US-led air attacks launched against Islamic State (also known as Isis) on 8 August in Iraq and 23 September in Syria have not worked. President Obama's plan to "degrade and destroy" Islamic State has not even begun to achieve success. In both Syria and Iraq, Isis is expanding its control rather than contracting.
The US-led air attacks launched against Islamic State (also known as Isis) on 8 August in Iraq and 23 September in Syria have not worked. President Obama's plan to "degrade and destroy" Islamic State has not even begun to achieve success. In both Syria and Iraq, Isis is expanding its control rather than contracting.
SPANISH FLU & EBOLA
An interesting comparison of how the government responded to the great flu epidemic after World War I and how it is responding to Ebola.
But playing "national security" progressive politics with public health can bring outright disaster. When the United States entered World War I, Woodrow Wilson played the national-security card early and often. The war effort became an excuse for everything from jailing political opponents to spying on everyday Americans. But, when the president used a global war as an excuse to preempt sound public-health policy, he reaped a global catastrophe.
But playing "national security" progressive politics with public health can bring outright disaster. When the United States entered World War I, Woodrow Wilson played the national-security card early and often. The war effort became an excuse for everything from jailing political opponents to spying on everyday Americans. But, when the president used a global war as an excuse to preempt sound public-health policy, he reaped a global catastrophe.
Friday, October 03, 2014
INSIDERS TURNING ON OBAMA?
A discussion of Leon Panetta's new book and his disagreements with the administration he served in. He believes some troops should have been kept in Iraq.
And John Fund summarizes some of the criticism which now involves right-hand woman, Valerie Jarrett.
On Capitol Hill, members of both parties are more and more mystified at Obama’s apparent disengagement from parts of his job. Months before he dropped the ball on ISIS, he failed to keep himself properly apprised of the problems with Obamacare’s website. Jarrett appears to exercise such extraordinary influence that in some quarters on Capitol Hill she is known as “Rasputin,” a reference to the mystical monk who held sway over Russia’s Czar Nicholas as he increasingly lost touch with reality during World War I.
And John Fund summarizes some of the criticism which now involves right-hand woman, Valerie Jarrett.
On Capitol Hill, members of both parties are more and more mystified at Obama’s apparent disengagement from parts of his job. Months before he dropped the ball on ISIS, he failed to keep himself properly apprised of the problems with Obamacare’s website. Jarrett appears to exercise such extraordinary influence that in some quarters on Capitol Hill she is known as “Rasputin,” a reference to the mystical monk who held sway over Russia’s Czar Nicholas as he increasingly lost touch with reality during World War I.
EBOLA ROUND-UP 10/3/14
Listening to events over the past week, especially with regard to the incident in Dallas leaves one wondering. The news keeps changing regarding the potential threat.
President Obama said not to worry. . .it wouldn't happen here, but it has happened. And the CDC was saying how difficult it was to spread and even Chris Matthews the liberal talk host at MSNBC went after his inconsistencies. So where are we?
"Obama Nixed Bush-Era Quarantine Proposal": In 2010, the Obama administration withdrew updated quarantine regulations drafted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and proposed by the Bush administration. The new rules would have required air passengers to submit more information to airlines and strengthened the government’s authority to detain travelers suspected of carrying disease.
Liberals like to say that President Bush and Republicans generally are “science deniers.” But in this instance, Bush followed the path recommended by the Centers for Disease Control — no science deniers, they. It was Obama who elevated ideology over science thereby (to borrow the CDC’s words) denying Americans “critical” protection against “dangerous diseases spread by travelers.
President Obama said not to worry. . .it wouldn't happen here, but it has happened. And the CDC was saying how difficult it was to spread and even Chris Matthews the liberal talk host at MSNBC went after his inconsistencies. So where are we?
"Obama Nixed Bush-Era Quarantine Proposal": In 2010, the Obama administration withdrew updated quarantine regulations drafted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and proposed by the Bush administration. The new rules would have required air passengers to submit more information to airlines and strengthened the government’s authority to detain travelers suspected of carrying disease.
"Obama Rips Bush for Being Unprepared for Avian Flu Outbreak": But something must have been done right, according to the article. . .you don't hear about the Avian flu anymore.
Investors.com. "Obama's Pathetic Response to Ebola Isn't Reassuring." "The chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low," President Obama said recently. But he was wrong. We wonder: Was he repeating a considered medical opinion, or just offering his own?
The Hill. "Health Officials Clam Up about the Effort to Contain Ebola in Texas." It sounds like the CDC and others don't know what they are doing.
George Will: "Americans Want to Trust Government But Can't."
Vice President Joe Biden: "The disease spreads with blinding speed"--but there are no travel restrictions. The Veep should maybe read the Daily Mail. With open borders and travel who knows who or what is coming in.
Cleaning up Dallas apartments without proper suits! Government gone brain-dead.
Chris Matthews goes after Obama ("it isn't likely") and Ezekiel Emmanuel.
NBC News: "Ibuprofen Is All It Takes to Pass Airport Screening."
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
OBAMA & INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
Obama said in an interview that the intelligence community had missed ISIS.
From The Hill: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said the intelligence community had warned President Obama about the threat from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria for "over a year."
From Breitbart:
From The Hill: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said the intelligence community had warned President Obama about the threat from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria for "over a year."
From Breitbart:
A new Government Accountability Institute (GAI)report reveals that President Barack Obama has attended only 42.1% of his daily intelligence briefings (known officially as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB) in the 2,079 days of his presidency through September 29, 2014.
The GAI report also included a breakdown of Obama’s PDB attendance record between terms; he attended 42.4% of his PDBs in his first term and 41.3% in his second.
The GAI report also included a breakdown of Obama’s PDB attendance record between terms; he attended 42.4% of his PDBs in his first term and 41.3% in his second.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
ISRAELI AND US BOMBING
I was wondering when this issue would surface. What is the difference between Israel bombing Hamas in Gaza and the US bombing ISIS in Syria and Iraq?
The air attack by American and Arab forces against ISIS and other terrorist targets parallels Israel's air attacks against Hamas terrorist targets in Gaza. According to retired General Wesley Clark, the United States air attacks are designed to degrade and destroy the infrastructure of the terrorist groups, including the electricity grid, the sources of their finance and other mixed military-civilian targets.
It has been easy for the international community to apply these rules rigidly and unrealistically when the only country to which it applies them is the nation-state of the Jewish people. But now it will have to apply them across the board, and that will require defining them in a sensible and realistic way that does not give undue advantage to terrorists who refuse to comply with the rule of law.
The air attack by American and Arab forces against ISIS and other terrorist targets parallels Israel's air attacks against Hamas terrorist targets in Gaza. According to retired General Wesley Clark, the United States air attacks are designed to degrade and destroy the infrastructure of the terrorist groups, including the electricity grid, the sources of their finance and other mixed military-civilian targets.
Israel was criticized by Washington and others for its missile attack on Hamas even when Hamas was sending missiles into Israel. But now America seems to be acting like Israel. Do we have a double standard? And what will happen when the US and its Arab allies hit ISIS targets where women and children are?
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
BUSH, OBAMA, AND ISIS
The American Interest: "The Parallels Between Bush and Obama."
As President Obama begins to bomb Syria (with no UN authorization and with a coalition of the willing), he is still bombing Iraq, Yemen, and Pakistan; he has U.S. forces spread out across Africa; some are heading back into Iraq; and Guantanamo is still open. It’s hard not to wonder whether in a quiet moment President Obama sometimes thinks he was too smug and too callow back when he poured contempt on President Bush. (After all, even the New York Times isslowly coming to grips with the similarities between how certain events have unfolded. Surely President Obama has noticed them in passing as well.)
As President Obama begins to bomb Syria (with no UN authorization and with a coalition of the willing), he is still bombing Iraq, Yemen, and Pakistan; he has U.S. forces spread out across Africa; some are heading back into Iraq; and Guantanamo is still open. It’s hard not to wonder whether in a quiet moment President Obama sometimes thinks he was too smug and too callow back when he poured contempt on President Bush. (After all, even the New York Times isslowly coming to grips with the similarities between how certain events have unfolded. Surely President Obama has noticed them in passing as well.)
Reason: "6 Ways Obama Contradicts Himself in Waging War on ISIS."
Shep Smith on Foxnews to a State Department spokesperson: "You guys have basically adopted Dick Cheney’s theory of preventive war now, huh?"
Shep Smith on Foxnews to a State Department spokesperson: "You guys have basically adopted Dick Cheney’s theory of preventive war now, huh?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)