Red Monday
We don’t need this quasi-Canadian, crypto-Communist holiday.
There isn’t much good to say about Labor Day, except maybe that it could be worse — it could be on May 1, which would make it a full-on Communist holiday instead of a merely crypto-Communist one. For that we can thank Grover Cleveland, the last pretty-good Democrat (seriously: gold standard, anti-tariff, vetoed twice as many bills as all of his predecessors combined — Rand Paul is a fan), who pushed for the creation of a labor festival in September as cultural competition to the international workers’ celebration in May, sort of the reverse of the strategy of the early Church fathers’ choosing the dates of heathen festivals for the new Christian holidays.So, from the two out of three working-age Americans who are gainfully employed, a round of applause for President Cleveland.
But crypto-Communist holidays are not so great, either.
Labor Day, like Obamacare and much else that is distasteful about American public life today, is a product of American liberals’ desire to be Canadians. The ’Nucks started celebrating labor on the first Monday in September in the 1880s; this holiday grew out of a parade celebrating a typographical workers’ strike in 1872. Soon, U.S. labor bosses, especially the Marxist Central Labor Union, wanted a holiday of their own. If there is anything we learned from the 20th century, it is that Communists love a parade. President Cleveland, feeling a bit of political pressure after having dispatched Brigadier General Nelson Miles to crush the Pullman strike and chucking Eugene Debs in the hoosegow, calculated that an end-of-summer barbecue for the riffraff might be just the tonic for his ailing administration.
(Small ideological world: The Central Labor Union’s political arm was the United Labor Party, which in 1886 ran as its candidate for mayor of New York the political economist Henry George, whose eccentric plan for a single tax on the value of unimproved land was much admired by the Conservative party’s candidate for mayor of New York in 1965, William F. Buckley Jr.)
The Canadian typographical workers had been demanding a 58-hour work week and the repeal of anti-union laws. Parliament obliged, and of course the unions’ immediate response was to press for a 54-hour work week, and then a still shorter one, and so on, until everybody was French. The French 35-hour work week is the current object of envy among our naïve Europhiles, and it has been an object of curiosity among economists: Contrary to their indolent reputation, French workers are, on paper, among the world’s most productive, outperforming U.S. workers on a GDP-per-work-hour basis. There are many possible explanations for that, the most likely of which is lying. It is probable that French people work more hours than they claim and Americans less, with work spilling over the borders of those official 35-hour French weeks and Internet-fueled leisure time infiltrating American weeks. Research suggests that in reality the French put in more hours than the Germans, though rather less than 19th-century Canadian typographers.
The entire idea of “labor” as a social class standing in counterpoint to “capital” is antiquated, of course, and the main problem of the poor in the United States is not that they are worked too hard but that they do not work at all, a problem grown much worse during the presidency of Barack Obama. Decorum counsels against burning the president in effigy, but that would be a more fitting Labor Day conflagration than the grilling of hot dogs. Labor Day ought to be one of the most important days of the year for Republicans, who should make the lot of the unemployed their top domestic-policy item. Patriotic bunting is no substitute for an agenda.
What conservatives know but seldom say is that labor is no longer a class — it is a racket. Labor Day is an occasion upon which highly paid union men have the day off to do some shopping at retail stores staffed almost exclusively by nonunion workers (if you’re in retail, you’re working on Labor Day), to have cookouts in backyards maintained by nonunion (and often illegal) workers, and to otherwise enjoy the delectable fruits of hypocrisy.
Some years ago I helped start a short-lived daily newspaper in Philadelphia. The business owned no trucks and employed no drivers, but the Teamsters’ local was insistent that it should have a contract with us nonetheless, and, in service of that demand, it energetically picketed our offices and those of such advertisers as we had. But of course it is expensive to get Teamsters to do anything, including man a picket line, so most often the ranks of those marching against our experiment in free enterprise consisted of a Teamster organizer or two and a bunch of day laborers to flesh out the line. But if you have to be the target of a protest, pray it is the Teamsters — a business down the street was targeted by animal-rights nuts, who, unlike the gentlemen of organized labor, do not go home every afternoon at 4:25 p.m.
Labor Day now exists primarily as an occasion for Democrats to demand an increase in the minimum wage and for Republicans to respond clumsily to that challenge, caught by surprise year after year after year. One day — say, the next time the Democrats control both Congress and the presidency — the Republicans really ought to let them have their way on that and go them one better, a minimum wage of $25 an hour or so. Then every day will be like Labor Day — we’ll be grilling our own hamburgers, because that will be the only way to get them.
Beyond politics, the main purpose of Labor Day is to mark the end of summer, providing people who like to argue about such things an opportunity to discuss when white may and may not be worn. But as a terminus of summer, Labor Day is disappointing. The fine fall weather is still a month or more away, and we still have three more weeks of official summer, with this year’s equinox happening on September 22. In the humid parts of the country, this is the very worst part of the season, with the beaches and holidays behind us but the weather still as unpleasant and gritty as a New Jersey parking lot. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,” saith the Lord, but I do not think that this is what He had in mind. Probably not what Grover Cleveland had in mind, either.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357369/red-monday-kevin-d-williamson
Obama Hits Golf Course After Announcing National Emergency
President Obama and Vice-President Biden held a rare press event Saturday in the Rose Garden to address the escalating tensions with Syria. President Obama said he was convinced Syrian President Bashir Assad had ordered a chemical weapon attack on his citizens and that the US, and the world community, must act in response. Obama called on Congress to authorize a military attack against Syria. A new foreign policy crisis now faces the US. After the press event, Obama and Biden went golfing.I'm not an expert in foreign policy, but I can think of a few things a President ought to do after requesting authority for a military strike on a sovereign nation. There are probably some Congressional leaders who ought to be briefed. There are likely one or two world leaders who would appreciate a chat about the US plans. No doubt generals in the military would have a thought or two about how things should proceed.
An hour after announcing a potential new military venture in the Middle East, with unknown consequences, "5 Wood or 2 Iron" is the last thing I want on a President's mind.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/31/Obama-Hits-Golf-Course-After-Announcing-National-Emergency
Glenn Beck Shocking Video – This Is Who We Are Helping In Syria!
Folks, this is what these savages are taught from birth. And they have infiltrated our own government, with the help of our Jellyfish lawmakers and our illegal, Muslim commander-in-chief.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfHSPLW63Gg&feature=player_embedded#t=100
Obama's 'New' Syria Strategy: Blame Congress
President Barack Obama has no foreign policy or military strategy on Syria. So he has reverted to a successful domestic policy strategy: blame Congress. His last-minute decision to seek Congressional approval is a win-win politically: if the vote fails, he has an excuse for inaction on his "red line," and if the vote passes he will merely share the blame for whatever goes wrong in the attack.Obama's hope is that the public will forget that he reversed every single anti-Bush position that propelled him to power over Hillary Clinton and then John McCain in 2008: the opposition to "dumb war," the rejection of unilateral action, the insistence on UN approval, the skepticism of WMD intelligence, and the adamant definition of the limits of presidential war powers. It is hard to remember a more striking example of hypocrisy in American history.
On one point, however, President Obama is correct: the sort of limited military action he proposes will be just as effective in a week or a month's time as it would be today. Which is to say, not at all. Congress will be debating a meaningless resolution that makes no mention of the Iranian puppet-masters behind the Syrian dictator--who have threatened broader war if the U.S. intervenes directly in the Syrian conflict.
Beyond that, the debate will reprise the now-academic question of whether the president actually has the power to take limited military action without congressional approval. It is an academic question because it should have applied, if at all, to Obama's original, and empty, "red line" ultimatum. It is also an academic question because it certainly applies to the greater action necessary for an effective response, i.e. one that would actually defeat the Iranian-Syrian axis.
In any event, the defeat of David Cameron's war proposal in Britain last week makes it likely that Congress will vote down Obama's strike (perhaps even in the Senate, though a split between the two houses would suit Obama perfectly). The UK Parliament might have agreed had Obama sought, and won, congressional approval first. But defeat now begets defeat. Such is the cost of "leading from behind," which is now a euphemism for surrender, just as "tough diplomacy" on Iran fast became a euphemism for appeasement.
The loss of true American leadership in defense of freedom, basic human rights, and even our own national interests happened long ago during the Obama presidency, and by design. The smug tone in Obama's voice as he announced his reversal was that of a man confident that whatever the outcome in Congress, his own political interests will remain untouched, his legacy--such as it is--secure.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/01/Obama-Syria-Strategy
Chicago Tribune: 'the most puzzling, and potentially disastrous, week of the Obama presidency'
The Chicago Tribune is not as liberal as some other big city newspapers. It was, after all, one of the leading GOP boosters in the country when owned by Colonel Robert McCormick.But there is little doubt that they have been cheerleading for their hometown favorite son for 5 years. And that's what makes this editorial so stunning:
So what if Congress says ... no?
What if lawmakers join their counterparts in the British House of Commons in nixing any military action against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad? Will the president order a military strike anyway, or wi
ll he back off, as British Prime Minister David Cameron did last week?
Cameron suffered a serious political blow. Can Obama just say, "Never mind"?
He bought himself some time to figure that out, too. Congress does not return to Washington until Sept. 9. Note that Obama did not, at least publicly, ask congressional leaders to return sooner for a resolution of this crisis.
So ended the most puzzling, and potentially disastrous, week of the Obama presidency.
He failed to muster world support for a military response on Syria. He failed to convince the American public of the value in such action. He sent Secretary of State John Kerry out twice to issue broad declarations that the U.S. was prepared to act forcefully, but he gave away military advantage by assuring the world -- and Bashar Assad -- that the U.S. response would be quite limited. Moreover, Assad gained the opportunity to protect his troops and materiel by filtering them into the civilian population.
In the speech Saturday, Obama called the Syrian poison gas attack "an assault on human dignity" that "presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery on the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm. In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted."
Much of the world continues to shrug.
So Obama will wait for Congress, where the odds of support for the president are middling at best. He may wait for a final U.N. inspectors' report on the attacks, though that could take several weeks.Perhaps the scales have started to fall from at least some eyes in the media.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/chicago_tribune_the_most_puzzling_and_potentially_disastrous_week_of_the_obama_presidency.html#ixzz2dkhX7Rbu
Calling it Treason
We stand on the brink of an illegal exercise
of military power in a part of the world we have no need to be in,
except that we have a president who purposefully keeps us there by
suppressing our own development of energy resources and embroiling us in
their internecine warfare. We could have walked away from the Middle
East already and left them to their own savagery, but the president
insists that we remain inextricably tied to their historical need to
kill each other so that we can overpay for oil, both monetarily and with
American lives. Thus, as technology enables us to break free of
dependence upon Middle East oil, our president bends over backwards to
ensure that never happens. What sort of leader purposefully compels his
country and its people to participate in practices and policies that are
detrimental to their safety and survival?
Even worse, when he can be shown to have chosen sides, his allegiance rests with terrorists and psychopaths. His affinity for Islam and its practitioners, as seen in the influence he grants them in the formation and direction of U.S. policy, is well known. Outspoken detractors of the United States and proponents of worldwide Sharia are welcome guests at the White House. They have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. They direct the content of discourse and training about who and what they are. Our blindness toward their hatred and objectives, and perhaps our administration's shared stake in that hatred of the United States, was manifested in the obscene spectacle of a Muslim cleric insulting and damning our dead special forces troops at their own memorial service. That event was a natural consequence of the sort of brainless political correctness that pervades the left. So too was what Nidal Hasan did at Fort Hood. Such "tolerance" is a top-down phenomena.
Who doubts that what Hasan did was terrorism? Of course, for the terrorist, what he does is soldiering for his cause. It is eternal war for the supremacy of Islam, not terrorism as such, and in the eyes of the jihadist, the enemy always has it coming. To the jihadist, it is no more terrorism than if a U.S. Marine fires on the enemy in battle. But why does the administration not see what Hasan did as terrorism? They had to call it something for public consumption, and since the president does not see a premeditated attack on his own unarmed service men and women in the global advancement of Islam as terrorism, it defaulted to "workplace violence". Apparently terrorism is defined not by ideology or method, but by location. Still, to so blatantly lie about something so obvious, without the slightest concern over pushback by those who see the lie for what it is, or who suffer its ill effects, is passive aggression on steroids against America.
When the president picks who he will support and who he will condemn on the international stage, he consistently sides with those who hate the United States and the Judeo-Christian principles upon which it was founded. President Obama has willfully enabled Iran to develop a nuclear weapons program entirely without resistance, other than UN sanctions, which have failed. In Egypt, Mubarak's faults were well documented, but so too were his assets in terms of peace and stability in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the president purposefully aided his overthrow in order to replace him with members of an organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, which collaborated with the Nazis and which has, at its core, goals and objectives that are antithetical to the security and safety of the United States.
Similarly, Libya had taken no overt aggressive action against the United States, but a band of Islamic terrorists expressed their desire to obtain control over another territory in North Africa, so the president did what he could to help. Had they been Americans in need, he would have given them the comfort of a stirring, rehashed speech, but when a decisive commitment is needed by a gang of armed jihadis that would as soon kill Americans as look at them, he's Johnny-On-The-Spot.
And now there is Syria. Any objective actor, seeing the ratio of success-to-failure of his past decisions, might step back and engage in a bit of introspection. No one person has done more to destabilize the Middle East than "Peace Prize Obama". The death and repression in foreign lands attributable to the decisions of this one man is shocking. Societies are literally transformed for the worse by what he says and does, both at home and abroad. But President Obama either doesn't do introspection, or has no need for it because he is doing exactly what he has set out to do. He is not failing. He is succeeding. He is enabling those with whom he sympathizes, or with whom he shares a common enemy, to achieve spectacular success.
We have no place whatsoever in the Syrian civil war. It is not for the United States to put its military weight behind which gang of Muslim murderers wins control. But there was no role we needed to play in Egypt, either, on the same reasoning. Likewise, we had no reason to go in and destabilize Libya. But faced with the choice of stability and predictability versus creating a vacuum into which our enemies would step to seize yet more power, the president purposefully chose to assist our enemies. It's what he does.
Having abetted Iran, and having successfully ruined Egypt and Libya in aid of our enemies, President Obama is now willing to "go it alone" to achieve.... another power grab by those who would happily kill us once we have enabled them to seize control of another government, its military, and its stockpiles of weapons, both conventional and otherwise. Of course, he has no legal authority to go it alone, but publicly states his willingness to take an action that would be in direct violation of the Constitution and the limits on his powers. What could possibly be so important to this president that he would create for himself grounds for impeachment by misusing our military to support yet another band of Muslim fanatics?
There have been reports that the Benghazi attacks on September 11, 2012 were a direct consequence of an illegal weapons smuggling operation to aid the Syrian rebels. Since the administration is engaged in wholesale coverup to prevent the truth from ever emerging, and no other plausible explanation has been offered, there are reasons to believe that theory may be true, and that the details of this president's support for our enemies would be catastrophic if revealed. Even without the facts, we can see for ourselves that for the first time in our history, we have a president who is actively, purposefully aiding and arming enemies whose ideology, goals and success directly threaten our safety.
Oddly, our president's only successes have come on behalf of our enemies. In every respect, the United States is in decline domestically, internationally, culturally, and economically, as a direct result of this president's policies and actions. It is not that there are no other solutions, but that he refuses to implement those that would arrest the descent and reverse course. As President Obama succeeds in advancing our enemies and destroying us, we cannot help but notice that this has been happening for 5 years and shows no sign of slowing. Nothing so prolonged, requiring so many purposeful choices, is an accident. For President Obama, success has meant making our enemies stronger and better equipped to challenge us, with our ultimate submission as their stated objective. With each of Obama's successes, they obtain control of increasing levels of weaponry they can use to advance militant, radical Islam throughout the world. They make no secret of their plans for non-Muslims. Just ask the Copts and other Christians in Muslim-controlled countries everywhere. In case the churches have been destroyed, you can find them in the jails.
Regardless of party affiliation, what do we call that brand of overt, shameless betrayal of an entire nation, or the complicity of those citizens who vote for it or remain silent in the face of it?
Even worse, when he can be shown to have chosen sides, his allegiance rests with terrorists and psychopaths. His affinity for Islam and its practitioners, as seen in the influence he grants them in the formation and direction of U.S. policy, is well known. Outspoken detractors of the United States and proponents of worldwide Sharia are welcome guests at the White House. They have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. They direct the content of discourse and training about who and what they are. Our blindness toward their hatred and objectives, and perhaps our administration's shared stake in that hatred of the United States, was manifested in the obscene spectacle of a Muslim cleric insulting and damning our dead special forces troops at their own memorial service. That event was a natural consequence of the sort of brainless political correctness that pervades the left. So too was what Nidal Hasan did at Fort Hood. Such "tolerance" is a top-down phenomena.
Who doubts that what Hasan did was terrorism? Of course, for the terrorist, what he does is soldiering for his cause. It is eternal war for the supremacy of Islam, not terrorism as such, and in the eyes of the jihadist, the enemy always has it coming. To the jihadist, it is no more terrorism than if a U.S. Marine fires on the enemy in battle. But why does the administration not see what Hasan did as terrorism? They had to call it something for public consumption, and since the president does not see a premeditated attack on his own unarmed service men and women in the global advancement of Islam as terrorism, it defaulted to "workplace violence". Apparently terrorism is defined not by ideology or method, but by location. Still, to so blatantly lie about something so obvious, without the slightest concern over pushback by those who see the lie for what it is, or who suffer its ill effects, is passive aggression on steroids against America.
When the president picks who he will support and who he will condemn on the international stage, he consistently sides with those who hate the United States and the Judeo-Christian principles upon which it was founded. President Obama has willfully enabled Iran to develop a nuclear weapons program entirely without resistance, other than UN sanctions, which have failed. In Egypt, Mubarak's faults were well documented, but so too were his assets in terms of peace and stability in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the president purposefully aided his overthrow in order to replace him with members of an organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, which collaborated with the Nazis and which has, at its core, goals and objectives that are antithetical to the security and safety of the United States.
Similarly, Libya had taken no overt aggressive action against the United States, but a band of Islamic terrorists expressed their desire to obtain control over another territory in North Africa, so the president did what he could to help. Had they been Americans in need, he would have given them the comfort of a stirring, rehashed speech, but when a decisive commitment is needed by a gang of armed jihadis that would as soon kill Americans as look at them, he's Johnny-On-The-Spot.
And now there is Syria. Any objective actor, seeing the ratio of success-to-failure of his past decisions, might step back and engage in a bit of introspection. No one person has done more to destabilize the Middle East than "Peace Prize Obama". The death and repression in foreign lands attributable to the decisions of this one man is shocking. Societies are literally transformed for the worse by what he says and does, both at home and abroad. But President Obama either doesn't do introspection, or has no need for it because he is doing exactly what he has set out to do. He is not failing. He is succeeding. He is enabling those with whom he sympathizes, or with whom he shares a common enemy, to achieve spectacular success.
We have no place whatsoever in the Syrian civil war. It is not for the United States to put its military weight behind which gang of Muslim murderers wins control. But there was no role we needed to play in Egypt, either, on the same reasoning. Likewise, we had no reason to go in and destabilize Libya. But faced with the choice of stability and predictability versus creating a vacuum into which our enemies would step to seize yet more power, the president purposefully chose to assist our enemies. It's what he does.
Having abetted Iran, and having successfully ruined Egypt and Libya in aid of our enemies, President Obama is now willing to "go it alone" to achieve.... another power grab by those who would happily kill us once we have enabled them to seize control of another government, its military, and its stockpiles of weapons, both conventional and otherwise. Of course, he has no legal authority to go it alone, but publicly states his willingness to take an action that would be in direct violation of the Constitution and the limits on his powers. What could possibly be so important to this president that he would create for himself grounds for impeachment by misusing our military to support yet another band of Muslim fanatics?
There have been reports that the Benghazi attacks on September 11, 2012 were a direct consequence of an illegal weapons smuggling operation to aid the Syrian rebels. Since the administration is engaged in wholesale coverup to prevent the truth from ever emerging, and no other plausible explanation has been offered, there are reasons to believe that theory may be true, and that the details of this president's support for our enemies would be catastrophic if revealed. Even without the facts, we can see for ourselves that for the first time in our history, we have a president who is actively, purposefully aiding and arming enemies whose ideology, goals and success directly threaten our safety.
Oddly, our president's only successes have come on behalf of our enemies. In every respect, the United States is in decline domestically, internationally, culturally, and economically, as a direct result of this president's policies and actions. It is not that there are no other solutions, but that he refuses to implement those that would arrest the descent and reverse course. As President Obama succeeds in advancing our enemies and destroying us, we cannot help but notice that this has been happening for 5 years and shows no sign of slowing. Nothing so prolonged, requiring so many purposeful choices, is an accident. For President Obama, success has meant making our enemies stronger and better equipped to challenge us, with our ultimate submission as their stated objective. With each of Obama's successes, they obtain control of increasing levels of weaponry they can use to advance militant, radical Islam throughout the world. They make no secret of their plans for non-Muslims. Just ask the Copts and other Christians in Muslim-controlled countries everywhere. In case the churches have been destroyed, you can find them in the jails.
Regardless of party affiliation, what do we call that brand of overt, shameless betrayal of an entire nation, or the complicity of those citizens who vote for it or remain silent in the face of it?
Is Barack Obama the Worst and Most Incompetent President Ever?
A case can now be firmly made that Barack Obama is the most incompetent and dangerous chief executive our country has ever had. While historians of the future will undoubtedly rate him very high — because he is the first African-American president and they support Obama Care, which they will say is a major accomplishment for his administration — they will overlook his glaring faults. Moreover, they will understand that if they rate him anything other than the highest level, they will be accused of being racists.
Yet in the past few days this has become so apparent that I do not believe anyone, including those who partake in the game of presidential ratings, can ignore the truth. Obama has shown the world that no one can or should take him seriously. After saying since over a year ago that “Assad must go” and then saying that the use of chemical weapons is a red line that Assad cannot cross, he has undercut John Kerry’s speech on Friday by withholding any action until Congress reconvenes in a week.
In effect, President Obama has learned the wrong lessons from Prime Minister Cameron’s shocking defeat in Parliament. Cameron was publicly humiliated; Labor betrayed him by first assuring him of their support and then, at the last minute, deciding that the unpopularity of a strike on Syria would give them political clout. Hence at the last minute they changed their position and gave the orders for their backbenchers to vote against any UK involvement.
Secretary Kerry said in his impassioned speech on Friday that Assad was a “thug” and a monster, and that his action could not go unpunished. The president then not only embarrassed Kerry by postponing action before even conferring with him, but put on hold all in his administration who were getting ready to gather support for a strike, which, as the president said, did not require any vote by Congress. Yet he has now asked for a vote, one in which he has no assurance that he can win. He has opponents on both the Republican and Democratic side of the aisle, and they might very well have enough votes to go against his stated desire that a strike against Syria be taken.
The result, should he lose, will not only be further humiliation, but a damaging setback for the reputation and word of the United States. Our enemies throughout the world will be waiting in anticipation for such a failure. Already, the reports are arriving from the orchestrated celebrations in Syria, which has declared that the regime has already won. By delaying any action for what could be two weeks or more, Obama has given Assad even more time to assure that if a strike comes, it will not harm any of his troops, their weapons, or their strategic military capability.
President Obama, if he had read the Cameron defeat correctly, would have decided to act without consulting Congress, as John Yoo and others have argued is constitutional. Indeed, President Clinton ordered bombing strikes in Kosovo as Congress was deliberating and without waiting for the results of a vote. Eventually he got an endorsement, but he acted first. President Obama now says he is going to Congress even though he knows he does not have to. Do we really believe that if the vote in Congress goes against him, he will then act on his own? I doubt it. What he will do is precisely what Cameron did in Britain — throw in the towel and decide the U.S. really does not have to do anything.
Some would argue that President Obama favors a negative vote. That will give him the option to bow out by saying he is listening to the American people. We know that he has announced what in effect is the kind of strike that will be only symbolic; one that will not harm Assad in any meaningful manner. That is why ardent hawks like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are contemplating voting no; they think Obama’s planned strike will not accomplish anything. He could, of course — short of regime change, which he will not support — take out Assad’s air force and strategic capability, allowing the regime’s opposition to have a chance. Moreover, such a move would at least stop Assad from killing thousands of more civilians, which the dictator has shown he is capable of doing without using poison gas.
But one thing President Barack Obama is not is a leader. He has the title of commander-in-chief, but he continues to lead from behind and to command nothing. John Kerry, who I argued earlier should have resigned after being so humiliated, has buckled down for his president and had the task of going on all the Sunday talk shows to rationalize and support Obama’s decision to wait for Congress to return and go into session. Obama did not even decide to call Congress back into session on Labor Day or Tuesday, preferring to wait till the scheduled date of resumption.
Even if one is against intervention in Syria’s civil war, as many are, a rebuke to acting against the use of chemical warfare — when the president has said it is impermissible — could be the greatest harm to the United States in decades. It will embolden our enemies, and give Iran the green light to work harder and faster to obtain a working nuclear arsenal, since they will reach the conclusion that the word of an American president means little. The mullahs will say: If the United States cannot even act against a violation of the rules of international law and the use of chemical weapons, what do have to fear when the president says we cannot obtain a nuclear bomb?
The gamble Obama has taken by going to Congress is one that could easily fail. If he listens to a negative vote and packs it in, he will effectively have sabotaged a U.S. response to Assad that he previously said was necessary. As Sen. Joe Lieberman indicated on Fox News Sunday, America’s credibility and word, not to speak of its influence, will have been damaged possibly beyond repair. That is why he announced he would ask Graham and McCain to vote yes despite any reservations they may have about Obama’s seriousness.
In his announcement of a postponement of any attack, President Obama has acted in a way that I believe marks him as perhaps the worst American president, and certainly one of the most incompetent. Those who argued during the campaign before his first term that he had achieved virtually nothing in the Senate, and was both inexperienced and not ready to assume the job of chief executive, have been vindicated. Barack Obama should never have been elected to his current job. We are now living through the results of his victory at the polls. I hope that our representatives vote “yes,” and the consequences of a “no” vote will not have to be contemplated.
http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/09/01/is-barack-obama-americas-worst-and-most-incomptent-president/?singlepage=true
Obama Indicts Obama
By Victor Davis Hanson
One of the problems that Barack Obama has in mounting an attack against the Assad regime is that the gambit violates every argument Barack Obama used against the Bush administration to establish his own anti-war candidacy.
The hypocrisy is so stunning that it infuriates his critics and stuns his supporters.
Deriding the Iraq war was Obama’s signature selling point. He used it to great effect against both Hillary Clinton (who voted for the war) in the Democratic primaries and John McCain in the general election. For the last five years, disparagement of “Iraq” and “Bush” has seemed to intrude into almost every sentence the president utters.
And now? His sudden pro-war stance makes a number of hypocritical assumptions. First, the U.S. president can attack a sovereign nation without authorization from Congress (unlike the Iraq war when George W. Bush obtained authorization from both houses of Congress). Even if Obama gets a no vote, he said that he reserves the right to strike.
Second, Obama assumes that the U.S. must go it alone and attack unilaterally (unlike the coalition of the willing of some 40 nations that joined us in Iraq).
Third, it is unnecessary even to approach the UN (unlike Iraq when the Bush administration desperately sought UN support).
Fourth, the U.S. president must make a judgment call on the likelihood of WMD use, which is grounds ipso facto to go to war (unlike Iraq when the vast majority of the 23 congressionally authorized writs had nothing to do with WMD [e.g., genocide of the Marsh Arabs and Kurds, bounties to suicide bombers, harboring of international terrorists, violations of UN agreements, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, etc.]).
So review for a moment the Old Obama case against the New Obama.
On the perils of going it alone without allies
“Where the stakes are the highest, in the war on terror, we cannot possibly succeed without extraordinary international cooperation. Effective international police actions require the highest degree of intelligence sharing, planning and collaborative enforcement.” (2004)
So far no European or Arab nation has offered military support for our planned effort against Syria.
On the need to obtain UN approval before attacking another country
“You know, if the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it, do we have the coalition to make it work, and, you know, those are considerations that we have to take into account.” (2013)
After misleading the UN in obtaining no-fly-zones for Libya (and then bombing troops on the ground), Obama is not even approaching the UN for a resolution to bomb this time around.
On the idea that armed intervention is ever a good option
“I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.” (2008)
The mindset in Iraq was to stop a genocidal dictator like Saddam Hussein who had gassed his own people — apparently the present mission is to stop the genocidal dictator Bashar Assad, who has gassed his own people.
On the folly of starting a wrong war to ensure a president’s sinking credibility
“It’s time to reject the counsel that says the American people would rather have someone who is strong and wrong than someone who is weak and right.” (2008)
“That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.” (2002)
Most believe that we are going to war mostly to restore Obama’s credibility after he issued an ill-advised red line to Syria that he thought would never be crossed — a war, in other words, predicated on “politics.”
On the dangers of not defining a mission or a methodology
“I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.” (2002)
“When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.” (2004)
So far we have not articulated the purpose of attacking Syria, the methods of intervention, or the desired outcome of the war — at a time of deep administration cuts to defense, soon to be made worse by sequestration.
On not intervening in the civil wars and internal affairs of Arab nations
“The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else’s civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.” (2007).
Syria is currently in “somebody else’s” civil war in which the Assad dictatorship, Hezbollah militias, and Iranian volunteers are battling al-Qaeda affiliates, the Free Syrian Army, and various unknown coalitions of Assad opponents.
On the need for obtaining congressional authorization
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” In response to a question “In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? … The notion that as a consequence of that [2002 Congressional] authorization, the president can continue down a failed path without any constraints from Congress whatsoever is wrong and is not warranted by our Constitution.” (2007)
The president did not ask Congress for authorization for the Libya attack. He just flip-flopped and plans to ask permission from Congress to bomb Syria, but indicated that he might bomb anyway should they say no. Neither Libya nor Syria posed an “imminent threat.”
Dr. Barack and Mr. Hyde
So why is there such a disconnect between what Obama once declared and what he subsequently professed? There are four explanations, none of them mutually exclusive:
A. Candidate Obama had no experience in foreign policy and has always winged it, now and then recklessly sounding off when he thought he could score cheap points against George Bush. As president, he still has no idea of how foreign policy is conducted, and thus continues to make things up as he goes along, often boxing himself into a corner with serial contradictions. Trying to discern any consistency or pattern in such an undisciplined mind is a futile exercise: what Obama says or does at any given moment usually is antithetical to what he said or did on a prior occasion. He is simply lost and out of his league.
B. Candidate Obama has always been an adroit demagogue. He knew how to score political points against George Bush, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain, without any intention of abiding by his own sweeping declarations. The consistency in Obama’s foreign policy is his own carefully calibrated self-interest. Bombing or not bombing, shutting down or keeping open Guantanamo Bay, going or not going to the UN or the U.S. Congress — these choices are all predicated not on principle, but only on what a canny and unprincipled Obama feels best suits his own political interests and self-image at any given moment. In a self-created jam, he flipped and now goes to Congress in hopes of pinning responsibility on them, whether we go or not, whether successful or unsuccessful if we do. He is a quite clever demagogue.
C. Obama is a well-meaning and sincere naïf, but a naïf nonetheless. He really believed the world prior to 2009 worked on the premises of the Harvard Law School lounge, Chicago organizing, and Rev. Wright’s Church — or least should have worked on such assumptions. Then when Obama took office, saw intelligence reports, and assumed the responsibilities of our highest office, he was shocked at the dangerous nature of the world! There was no more opportunity for demagoguery or buck-passing, and he had to become serious. In short, it is easy to criticize without power, hard with it to make tough decisions and bad/worse choices. He is slowly learning.
D. Obama is the first president who genuinely feels U.S. exceptionalism and power were not ethically earned and should be in an ethical sense ended. As a candidate, he consistently undermined current U.S. foreign policy at a time of two critical wars; as president, he has systematically forfeited U.S. authority and prestige. There is no inconsistency: whatever makes the traditional idea of the U.S as a superpower weaker, Obama promotes; whatever enhances our profile, he opposes. He is often quite angry at what could be called traditional America — seen often as a downright mean country here and abroad.
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/obama-indicts-obama/?singlepage=true
CIA finds 1 in 5 flagged job applicants hail from Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda
An estimated one-fifth of a subset of all applicants for Central Intelligence Agency positions had significant ties to the terror groups Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda, a newly released document from the Edward Snowden collection revealed Monday.The document — released by Mr. Snowden as part of his National Security Agency intelligence dump — said the terrorist groups worked hard to infiltrate America’s top security agencies. CIA officials uncovered thousands of applicants, roughly one in five of a subset, with “significant terrorist and/or hostile intelligence connections,” the document states, as Ynet News reported.The specifics of those ties were not revealed, but the groups most often cited as attempting to infiltrate the U.S. intelligence network were al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah.
The NSA, in response, launched investigations into 4,000 instances of suspected abnormal staff activity, Ynet News said. Those investigations included the tracking of employee keystrokes on agency computers and the recording of document downloads.
“Over the last several years, a small subset of CIA’s total job applicants were flagged due to various problems or issues,” one unnamed agency official said, as Ynet News reported. “During this period, one in five of that small subset was found to have significant connections to hostile intelligence services and-or terrorist groups.”
No comments:
Post a Comment