http://insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/todays-anti-war-protest.html
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/operation_cockamamie_the_damascus_follies.html > **** > > ** ** > > **** > > **** > > |**** > > |**** > > |**** > > **** > > |**** > > **** > > |**** > > **** > > September 8, 2013 **** > Operation Cockamamie: The Damascus Follies**** > > *By* *Clarice Feldman* <http://www.americanthinker.com/clarice_feldman/>** > ** > > **** > > Looking over the week's crazy developments, I can see only one coherent > strand in Obama's foreign policy. He wants to make sure that John Kerry > and Hillary Clinton will never be elected president. After sacrificing > Hillary's career > on<http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/operation_cockamamie_the_damascus_follies.html>the > blood-streaked walls of Benghazi he had Kerry appear before the > Congress and take positions utterly at odds with those he's taken all his > life, supplied him with information disputed by other members of the > administration, and had him make indefensible statements without any > evidentiary support at all.**** > > By way of example, Kerry asserted that the chemical weapons case against > Syria was "undeniable." At the same time, the administration offered > up a contradictory > assessment<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57581393/syria-has-likely-used-chemical-weapons-on-a-small-scale-chuck-hagel-says/>that > "U.S. intelligence has concluded 'with some > degree<http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/operation_cockamamie_the_damascus_follies.html>of > varying confidence' that the Syrian government has twice used chemical > weapons. He told Congress that the military strikes planned against Syria > would not be "war," although he conceded that there might be "boots on > the ground" called for. He raised eyebrows when he said Arab countries had > offered to bankroll an invasion of Syria. How do you ask an American > soldier to be the first to die to advance the interests of the Saudis?**** > > When pressed, he backtracked and said, "There will not be boots on the > ground" in connection with the Syrian civil war. He asserted that 34 > countries supported this endeavor. Representative Salmon asked for the > names of those countries, and Kerry was forced to respond, "Uh, I don't > have the list with me." We still have not seen the list. We do know > that the British Parliament, in a very rare move, refused, and France's > response seems to be "Like, call me maybe."**** > > Some have linked the nondisclosure about the slaughter in Libya in > September to the administration's incoherence on Syria, indicating that the > terrorists in Benghazi are tied to the very Islamist > rebels<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/sources-al-qaeda-linked-group-behind-benghazi-attack-trains-jihadists-for/>Obama > asks us to support in the Syrian civil war. That connection may well > be true, but there is no reason to suggest that it is the only reason for > this performance, a contradictory, incoherent clown > show<http://www.michellesmirror.com/2013/09/you-go-to-war-with-clowns-youve-got.html#.Uiop6mLxKRF> > .**** > > The other reason, of course, is that the entire notion was ill-considered > and executed by not very smart people -- including a president who is in > over his head and looking for cover to share the responsibility for his > off the teleprompter remark that chemical weapons used by Assad would be a > "red line" we would not let him cross without consequence. Add to that the > late decision to go to Congress, the incoherent presentation, and the poor > preparation of those advancing the incomprehensible plan for an attack, > and it seems pathetic, really.**** > > As Charles Krauthammer > observed<http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/090513-669980-obama-not-serious-about-syria.htm> > :**** > > We have a problem. The president proposes attacking Syria, and his top > military > officer<http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/operation_cockamamie_the_damascus_follies.html>can't > tell you the objective. Does the commander in chief know his own > objective? Why, yes. "A shot across the bow," explained Barack Obama.**** > > Now, a shot across the bow is a warning. Its purpose is to say: Cease and > desist, or the next shot will sink you. But Obama has already told the > world - and Bashar Assad in particular - that there will be no next shot. > He has insisted time and again that the operation will be finite and highly > limited. Take the shot, kill some fish, go home.**** > > What then is the purpose? Dempsey hasn't a clue, but Secretary of State > John Kerry says it will uphold and proclaim a norm and thus deter future > use of chemical weapons.**** > > With a few Tomahawk missiles? Hitting sites that, thanks to the > administration having leaked the target list, have already been scrubbed of > important military assets?**** > > This is risible. If anything, a pinprick from which Assad emerges > unscathed would simply enhance his stature and vindicate his conduct. > Deterrence depends entirely on perception and the perception in the Middle > East is universal: Obama wants no part of Syria.**** > > Assad has to go, says Obama, and then lifts not a finger for two years. > Obama lays down a red line, and then ignores it. Shamed finally by a > massive poison gas attack, he sends Kerry to make an impassioned case for > righteous and urgent retaliation - and the very next day, Obama undermines > everything by declaring an indefinite timeout to seek congressional > approval.**** > > Dennis Miller equates this approach with sending Assad a "save the date." > In fact, the *New York Times* reports that the president "directed the > Pentagon to develop an expanded > list<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/pentagon-is-ordered-to-expand-potential-targets-in-syria-with-a-focus-on-forces.html?_r=1&;>of > potential targets in Syria" because as Congress debates the issue, Assad > has been moving his troops and weapons. **** > > Obama himself was as muddled as his secretary of state. According to him, > the world, not he, is responsible for the "red line" threat. He first > denied that he made the remark despite irrefutable evidence to the > contrary, and then he blamed Congress for his statement because it had > passed the Syria Accountability Act, which was, in fact, utterly > inapplicable<http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/09/05/obama-melts-down#ixzz2eAObPsa9>to > the "red line." > **** > > First of all, I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line. The world > set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's > population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a > treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. > Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red > line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria > Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on > the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press > conference, that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be > altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of > humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I > didn't pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That's point > number one.**** > > His second point was as ridiculous as an earlier one where he warned the > world not to "call his bluff":**** > > Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international > community's credibility is on the line. And America and Congress' > credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that > these international norms are important.**** > > The extent to which the press keeps covering up these preposterous > Obamisms seems boundless. James Taranto of the *Wall Street Journal* > described > the > airbrushing<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577304579057101275326852.html> > :**** > > The fierce watchdogs of the press, confronted with this brazen falsehood, > show themselves once again to be Obama's pet hamsters. Instead of giving a > "pants on fire" rating, PolitiFact.com's Jon Greenberg claims Obama was > "reframing comments rather than denying them." Greenberg can't even say the > statement is half true, so he withholds a rating altogether. Peter Baker of > the New York Times has his own euphemisms, writing that Obama was "citing > longstanding international norms" and "trying to break out of his > isolation." The funniest dodges come from Shawna Thomas of NBC News, who on > Twitter calls Obama's whopper "a definite change in tone" and an attempt > "to unilaterally widen the circle of responsibility."**** > > That last one is priceless. Next time someone accuses you of trying to > weasel out of a commitment, say you're just trying to widen the circle of > responsibility.**** > > The Washington Free Beacon, meanwhile, reports that Secretary of State > Kerry didn't get the memo: In congressional testimony yesterday "referenced > . . . the date when 'the president drew the red line publicly.'" That's > right, John Kerry is more forthright than the average journalist.**** > > To me, why Obama ever made the threat is a mystery. It appears that both > sides have used chemical weapons in Syria. It seems to me that we had > reason to attack Syria for arming the jihadis who attacked our troops in > Iraq, and we didn't. Instead, then-Speaker of the House Pelosi and > then-Senator Kerry ran to Syria to publicly embrace Assad in the obvious > effort to undercut then-President Bush and our men and women fighting in > Iraq.**** > > Cecil Turner at the Just One Minute blog was also puzzled:**** > > I wonder, if I were an Iranian, what I would think about a sudden > international impetus to enforce a chemical weapons ban . . . years after > the same players abetted and covered > for<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Use_of_chemical_weapons_by_Iraq>far > worse attacks against Iran? Maybe: quick, get enough of a nuclear > capability to get some respect and act as a deterrent? Somehow I doubt > that's the message we're looking for.**** > > Of all the reasons for a cosmetic strike, this is surely one of the worst. > **** > > The will and the competence of the administration are now major > international question marks. U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power's naïveté is > startling. Apparently she believed that the Iranians and Russians would > join with us, the former because they once were victims of gas > attacks<http://twitchy.com/2013/09/06/smart-power-obamas-team-thought-us-might-win-irans-support-against-syria/>. > Obviously no one in the administration considered this public announcement > of stupidity remarkable enough to distance the administration from it.**** > > As the week ends, it appears that Obama is going to lose the House and > possibly the Senate. He earlier refused to say whether, having sought > congressional approval, he'd continue on his feckless path without it. Now > the "international test" Kerry used to put such stock in seems to be > grading the gang with an F; both the pope and Madonna have come out against > a Syrian strike, and the list of 34 countries Kerry touted seems to be > permanently lost.**** > > For those who supported this foolhardiness to "send a message to Iran," > Tom Maguire has a message of his > own<http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2013/09/if-we-want-to-send-a-message-to-iran.html> > .**** > > The immediate issue is that it is not enough that the US imposes a cost on > Syria for using chemical weapons. The cost must be high enough to actually > deter future use, but not so high that we bring down the government and > allow Al Qaeda affiliated rebel groups to carry the day. Obama may be an > avid golfer but I don't think he knows what club to pick for this shot.*** > * > > But more importantly, what message has Obama's irresolution already sent > the Iranians? Their takeaway will be that Obama can talk all he wants but > until the US Congress gets involved no action is imminent.**** > > With that lesson already learned, if Obama and his backers want to send a > message to Iran they need to start by sending a resolution to Congress > authorizing action against Iran. Establish Presidential authority now, > rather than after a lot of empty bluster about red lines drawn by someone > else.**** > > This will make it clear to Iran's leaders that the US Congress really has > drawn a red line and the President is authorized to enforce it. And this > early authorization would be entirely consistent with Obama's current > approach of inviting Congress in before the fact rather than ignoring them > (as in Libya) or dealing with them after the fact, as required by the War > Powers Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution>.**** > > By week's end, Obama was hinting that he might > abandon<http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/06/obama-hints-his-may-abandon-syria-strike/>the > notion of a strike on Syria. Pity that AIPAC and RJC, among others, > allowed themselves to be played the fools in this unserious charade.**** > > There is a hint that for fear of making the president look weak on the > international stage, the House may not take a vote if it appears that the > effort is failing. This, in my opinion, is stupid. There should be a > vote, and I agree with Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit that the Republicans > should refuse to vote at all until after all the Democrats have voted. Let > those putting party above sanity take the fall in their districts for > supporting this cockamamie operation and chief.**** > > **** > > |**** > > **** > > |**** > > **** > > |**** > > **** > > |**** > > **** > > Sponsored From Around the Web**** > > **** > **** > > **** > **** > > **** > > **** > > > <http://engine.adzerk.net/r?e=eyJhdiI6MjQ0NjksImF0IjoxNjMsImNtIjozMzk5MywiY2giOjk1ODcsImNyIjo4MzQwNiwiZGkiOiJkZjg0NjNjMjc5ZmY0ZTdmYjMzZWNjMjczZDFlY2I5YSIsImRtIjoxLCJmYyI6MTE2MDYyLCJmbCI6NTY2ODksImt3IjoiYW1lcmljYW50aGlua2VyIiwibnciOjYzNjEsInJmIjoiaHR0cDovL3dlYi5tYWlsLmNvbWNhc3QubmV0L3ppbWJyYS9tYWlsP2FwcD1tYWlsIiwicnYiOjAsInByIjoyNzAyMSwic3QiOjMzMjQ4LCJ1ciI6Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cubmV3c21heC5jb20ifQ&s=T4_lbFt_a8wKO3cW-9v_HmtyBQ8> > **** > > Newsmax Headlines**** > > McCain: Obama Faces Impeachment for Boots on > Ground<http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/mccain-obama-syria-impeach/2013/09/06/id/524327?promo_code=F269-1&utm_source=americanthinker&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1> > **** > > Ex-Ambassador: Obama Failed to Make Case for > Syria<http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/edelman-us-syria-conflict/2013/09/06/id/524294?promo_code=F269-1&utm_source=americanthinker&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1> > **** > > **** > > **** > > > > Read more: > http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/operation_cockamamie_the_damascus_follies.html#ixzz2eJa6ZBQE > **** > > > __._,_. > > > > > > > __,_._,___ > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
