If this is true, then Obama admin collusion with Iran Mullah terror regime to get nuke deal even worse than thought https://t.co/OO4rzsYw4J pic.twitter.com/n7OTdXYH6n
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) January 1, 2018
Showing posts with label Obama Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama Foreign Policy. Show all posts
1/01/2018
As Seen On Twitter
12/31/2017
As Seen On Twitter
Look at the suspiciously flattering words Trump had for Putin: “I’m aware of not only the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people as president but in your current role as prime minister.” (Oops, that was actually Obama. My bad.) https://t.co/XYGPWtgRac
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) December 31, 2017
9/10/2013
"So here is the plan"
"Smart" foreign policy explained
1. Obama draws a "red line" on chemical weapon use in Syria, then...
2. Somebody uses chemical weapons in Syria, so Obama blames Assad, then...
3. Obama states that it is a moral imperative that we (the United States) respond to this breach of international law but...
4. Nobody in the international community will actually join us, so....
5. Obama asks Congress to back him up, but...
6. He does not really need congressional approval, and...
7. He will wait a couple of weeks to allow congress to finish their vacation, but...
8. Congress is opposed, American public opposed, so...
9. John Kerry says attack will be "unbelievably small" and...
10. In response to a question Kerry makes a gaffe by saying that if Syria turns over chemical weapons within a seek, the "unbelievably small" attack can be avoided, then....
11. State Department immediately back tracks from Kerry's gaffe and says the he was only speaking rhetorically, then...
12. Russia and Assad accept Kerry's proposal to turn over weapons to avoid "unbelievably small" attack , so....
13. Kerry tells Russians that it was not a serious proposal, but then...
14. Obama goes on TV and says that he could live with Syria giving up weapons and that he and Putin had talked about this plan the previous week, then...
15. Kerry goes before congress and says that Syria was agreeing to turn over weapons because of threat of "unbelievably small" use of force by United States and congress needs to keep the pressure on by agreeing to "unbelievably small" attack, and then...
16. Putin say "chemical weapons checks in Syria can go ahead if US renounces use of force." unbelievably small or otherwise.
To Be Continued
9/06/2013
A war the Pentagon doesn’t want
Via-WAPO
By Robert H. Scales
Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College.
The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities, Dempsey was largely (and respectfully) silent.
Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.
They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.
They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our “responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.
They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message.
Our people lament our loneliness. Our senior soldiers take pride in their past commitments to fight alongside allies and within coalitions that shared our strategic goals. This war, however, will be ours alone.
They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. “Look,” one told me, “if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn’t think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.” But they also warn that Syria is not Libya or Serbia. Perhaps the United States has become too used to fighting third-rate armies. As the Israelis learned in 1973, the Syrians are tough and mean-spirited killers with nothing to lose.
Our military members understand and take seriously their oath to defend the constitutional authority of their civilian masters. They understand that the United States is the only liberal democracy that has never been ruled by its military. But today’s soldiers know war and resent civilian policymakers who want the military to fight a war that neither they nor their loved ones will experience firsthand.
Civilian control of the armed services doesn’t mean that civilians shouldn’t listen to those who have seen war. Our most respected soldier president, Dwight Eisenhower, possessed the gravitas and courage to say no to war eight times during his presidency. He ended the Korean War and refused to aid the French in Indochina; he said no to his former wartime friends Britain and France when they demanded U.S. participation in the capture of the Suez Canal. And he resisted liberal democrats who wanted to aid the newly formed nation of South Vietnam. We all know what happened after his successor ignored Eisenhower’s advice. My generation got to go to war.
Over the past few days, the opinions of officers confiding in me have changed to some degree. Resignation seems to be creeping into their sense of outrage. One officer told me: “To hell with them. If this guy wants this war, then let him have it. Looks like no one will get hurt anyway.”
Soon the military will salute respectfully and loose the hell of hundreds of cruise missiles in an effort that will, inevitably, kill a few of those we wish to protect. They will do it with all the professionalism and skill we expect from the world’s most proficient military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from this week’s hearings before we go to war again.
By Robert H. Scales
Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College.
The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities, Dempsey was largely (and respectfully) silent.
Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.
They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.
They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our “responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.
They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message.
Our people lament our loneliness. Our senior soldiers take pride in their past commitments to fight alongside allies and within coalitions that shared our strategic goals. This war, however, will be ours alone.
They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. “Look,” one told me, “if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn’t think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.” But they also warn that Syria is not Libya or Serbia. Perhaps the United States has become too used to fighting third-rate armies. As the Israelis learned in 1973, the Syrians are tough and mean-spirited killers with nothing to lose.
Our military members understand and take seriously their oath to defend the constitutional authority of their civilian masters. They understand that the United States is the only liberal democracy that has never been ruled by its military. But today’s soldiers know war and resent civilian policymakers who want the military to fight a war that neither they nor their loved ones will experience firsthand.
Civilian control of the armed services doesn’t mean that civilians shouldn’t listen to those who have seen war. Our most respected soldier president, Dwight Eisenhower, possessed the gravitas and courage to say no to war eight times during his presidency. He ended the Korean War and refused to aid the French in Indochina; he said no to his former wartime friends Britain and France when they demanded U.S. participation in the capture of the Suez Canal. And he resisted liberal democrats who wanted to aid the newly formed nation of South Vietnam. We all know what happened after his successor ignored Eisenhower’s advice. My generation got to go to war.
Over the past few days, the opinions of officers confiding in me have changed to some degree. Resignation seems to be creeping into their sense of outrage. One officer told me: “To hell with them. If this guy wants this war, then let him have it. Looks like no one will get hurt anyway.”
Soon the military will salute respectfully and loose the hell of hundreds of cruise missiles in an effort that will, inevitably, kill a few of those we wish to protect. They will do it with all the professionalism and skill we expect from the world’s most proficient military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from this week’s hearings before we go to war again.
9/02/2013
A vote of no confidence is in order
Via-WAPO
By Ed Rogers
What with our president having received the Nobel Peace Prize and leading us in a pivot to Asia, I guess the White House wants to pretend that the humiliating debacle America is suffering — in front of the world — isn’t happening. What’s wrong with asking Congress for authorization to go to war? The Obama apologencia will tell us it is what the president meant to do all along. They will tell us things are going according to plan. What’s the rush? But no, for the first time ever, an American president is saying, “The buck does NOT stop here.”
The president is a spent force, both domestically and internationally. Congress should help by voting to cut our losses; it should resist opening the door to the uncertain consequences of a military campaign conducted, without conviction or clear purpose, by this commander in chief. If Republicans can limit the president’s authority to wander and blunder on the world stage, there is a moral obligation to do so.
Of course Syria should be viciously punished for using chemical weapons, but who trusts this president to do so in such a way that also sends a clear message to Iran? No one does. Why would they? Better to leave Iran with a modicum of doubt than let them witness any more of the tepid uncertainty, lack of conviction or absence of moral clarity from President Obama.
The only thing worse than no response from America is a floundering response, so Congress should stop it while they can. We don’t need to go through the half-hearted lobbying effort in Congress, which will just underscore the incompetence and incapabilities of this administration. Republicans should vote to end this disaster now. A vote of no confidence is in order.
The problem is that we have serious problems that require an able president both at home and abroad. It is too soon for our president to be a marginalized lame duck. Doing nothing is one thing, but doing harm by not properly wielding the power a president holds is another.
The only possible remedy — and one that is probably impossible for this president’s ideology or ego to allow — would be for him to demand that Congress return early from their summer break, deliver a prime-time speech before a joint session, win the vote and then unleash a blistering punishment. This is probably the only way to salvage some of the president’s credibility and give Iran pause.
Unless the members of the national security team who surround Obama are so addicted to the personal grandeur and perks of office, surely someone will resign rather than be a part of the humiliation and harm this president is doing.
It is too early to take today’s headlines and extrapolate out to the next election; and national security issues don’t drive votes. I’ve resisted making 2014 election predictions, except to acknowledge that the natural midterm political cycle in 2014 favors Republicans. Fourteen months is a lifetime in politics blah blah blah, but the tectonic plates are beginning to shift and the first sign of a wave election could be forming. If the big issues of peace and prosperity are going to matter, what do the Democrats have to say for themselves?
What aspect of the economy instills confidence — never mind enthusiasm — for the future? Where in the world is America stronger as a result of the Obama presidency? Nothing is getting better for the Democrats.
What with our president having received the Nobel Peace Prize and leading us in a pivot to Asia, I guess the White House wants to pretend that the humiliating debacle America is suffering — in front of the world — isn’t happening. What’s wrong with asking Congress for authorization to go to war? The Obama apologencia will tell us it is what the president meant to do all along. They will tell us things are going according to plan. What’s the rush? But no, for the first time ever, an American president is saying, “The buck does NOT stop here.”
The president is a spent force, both domestically and internationally. Congress should help by voting to cut our losses; it should resist opening the door to the uncertain consequences of a military campaign conducted, without conviction or clear purpose, by this commander in chief. If Republicans can limit the president’s authority to wander and blunder on the world stage, there is a moral obligation to do so.
Of course Syria should be viciously punished for using chemical weapons, but who trusts this president to do so in such a way that also sends a clear message to Iran? No one does. Why would they? Better to leave Iran with a modicum of doubt than let them witness any more of the tepid uncertainty, lack of conviction or absence of moral clarity from President Obama.
The only thing worse than no response from America is a floundering response, so Congress should stop it while they can. We don’t need to go through the half-hearted lobbying effort in Congress, which will just underscore the incompetence and incapabilities of this administration. Republicans should vote to end this disaster now. A vote of no confidence is in order.
The problem is that we have serious problems that require an able president both at home and abroad. It is too soon for our president to be a marginalized lame duck. Doing nothing is one thing, but doing harm by not properly wielding the power a president holds is another.
The only possible remedy — and one that is probably impossible for this president’s ideology or ego to allow — would be for him to demand that Congress return early from their summer break, deliver a prime-time speech before a joint session, win the vote and then unleash a blistering punishment. This is probably the only way to salvage some of the president’s credibility and give Iran pause.
Unless the members of the national security team who surround Obama are so addicted to the personal grandeur and perks of office, surely someone will resign rather than be a part of the humiliation and harm this president is doing.
It is too early to take today’s headlines and extrapolate out to the next election; and national security issues don’t drive votes. I’ve resisted making 2014 election predictions, except to acknowledge that the natural midterm political cycle in 2014 favors Republicans. Fourteen months is a lifetime in politics blah blah blah, but the tectonic plates are beginning to shift and the first sign of a wave election could be forming. If the big issues of peace and prosperity are going to matter, what do the Democrats have to say for themselves?
What aspect of the economy instills confidence — never mind enthusiasm — for the future? Where in the world is America stronger as a result of the Obama presidency? Nothing is getting better for the Democrats.
8/29/2013
A War With Syria to Save Face
Via-RCP
By Robert Robb
Apparently the United States is going to go to war, at least sort of, with Syria.
That’s not because Syria has attacked the United States, because it hasn’t.
It’s not because the United States believes that it has strategic interests at stake in Syria’s civil war that warrant military intervention. If that were the case, we would have already taken action.
And it’s not really out of humanitarian concern with what’s going on in Syria’s civil war, although that will be the rhetorical cloak with which we don our military action. If we were truly acting out of humanitarian concern, we would have intervened tens of thousands of civilian deaths ago.
Instead, we are going to war with Syria because the President of the United States said that the use of chemical weapons was a “red line” that would change his “calculus” regarding involvement and Syrian strongman Bashar Assad has apparently made such egregious use of them that it can no longer be ignored.
In other words, we are going to war with Syria to save face.
Supposedly, the United States now has to take action because if we don’t, our subsequent threats won’t be taken seriously by other powers.
It’s already too late for that. The reluctance of the Obama administration to take action even after the president’s red line was crossed is transparent and obvious to all. Unless the military action is large enough to result in Assad’s ouster, which doesn’t appear to be in the offing, the rest of the world will continue to significantly discount the Obama administration’s bluster.
The Middle East is on fire. The Syrian civil war is lapping over into Lebanon and Jordan. Egypt is wretched politically and economically.
The places where the United States has previously intervened militarily are hardly oases of stability. Afghanistan appears likely to revert to rule by local warlords. Renewed sectarian violence is breaking out in Iraq. Libya is a place where a U.S. ambassador was killed by jihadists and has become an arms depot for jihadists throughout the region.
The argument is made that the Arab Spring went bad and the Middle East is on fire because the Obama administration retreated from involvement in the multitude of conflicts going on there. Think through the implications of that claim.
According to this line of thinking, the United States should have sufficient troops stationed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to ensure relative peace and security in each country.
We should have picked which Syrian rebels to back and given them the firepower to knock off Assad. Although whether we should have supported the factions backed by Saudi Arabia or those supported by Turkey and Qatar, which are different, isn’t clear.
And the United States should have somehow bullied the Muslim Brotherhood to govern more inclusively in Egypt or the military not to engage in a coup.
A more grounded understanding of U.S. interests in the Middle East begins with accepting that we have no true allies in the region except for Israel.
Is the House of Saud our ally? Saudi Arabia promotes a radical strand of Islam, Wahhabism, throughout the world. Wahhabism often spawns jihadist movements. Jihadi terrorism gets important financial support from Saudi sources.
Saudi Arabia is one of the most despotic regimes in the world, including religious intolerance and persecution.
The principal difference between the House of Saud and the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t really religious and certainty isn’t relative commitment to democratic capitalism. It’s that the Brotherhood doesn’t believe in hereditary monarchies. And that’s a fight the United States should get in the middle of?
We have no true allies. There is not even a semi-clear path to peace and stability in the region. And even if there were, there’s not much the United States could do to steer regional powers toward it.
It’s hard to see how a war to save face is a meaningful step in any right direction.
Apparently the United States is going to go to war, at least sort of, with Syria.
That’s not because Syria has attacked the United States, because it hasn’t.
It’s not because the United States believes that it has strategic interests at stake in Syria’s civil war that warrant military intervention. If that were the case, we would have already taken action.
And it’s not really out of humanitarian concern with what’s going on in Syria’s civil war, although that will be the rhetorical cloak with which we don our military action. If we were truly acting out of humanitarian concern, we would have intervened tens of thousands of civilian deaths ago.
Instead, we are going to war with Syria because the President of the United States said that the use of chemical weapons was a “red line” that would change his “calculus” regarding involvement and Syrian strongman Bashar Assad has apparently made such egregious use of them that it can no longer be ignored.
In other words, we are going to war with Syria to save face.
Supposedly, the United States now has to take action because if we don’t, our subsequent threats won’t be taken seriously by other powers.
It’s already too late for that. The reluctance of the Obama administration to take action even after the president’s red line was crossed is transparent and obvious to all. Unless the military action is large enough to result in Assad’s ouster, which doesn’t appear to be in the offing, the rest of the world will continue to significantly discount the Obama administration’s bluster.
The Middle East is on fire. The Syrian civil war is lapping over into Lebanon and Jordan. Egypt is wretched politically and economically.
The places where the United States has previously intervened militarily are hardly oases of stability. Afghanistan appears likely to revert to rule by local warlords. Renewed sectarian violence is breaking out in Iraq. Libya is a place where a U.S. ambassador was killed by jihadists and has become an arms depot for jihadists throughout the region.
The argument is made that the Arab Spring went bad and the Middle East is on fire because the Obama administration retreated from involvement in the multitude of conflicts going on there. Think through the implications of that claim.
According to this line of thinking, the United States should have sufficient troops stationed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to ensure relative peace and security in each country.
We should have picked which Syrian rebels to back and given them the firepower to knock off Assad. Although whether we should have supported the factions backed by Saudi Arabia or those supported by Turkey and Qatar, which are different, isn’t clear.
And the United States should have somehow bullied the Muslim Brotherhood to govern more inclusively in Egypt or the military not to engage in a coup.
A more grounded understanding of U.S. interests in the Middle East begins with accepting that we have no true allies in the region except for Israel.
Is the House of Saud our ally? Saudi Arabia promotes a radical strand of Islam, Wahhabism, throughout the world. Wahhabism often spawns jihadist movements. Jihadi terrorism gets important financial support from Saudi sources.
Saudi Arabia is one of the most despotic regimes in the world, including religious intolerance and persecution.
The principal difference between the House of Saud and the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t really religious and certainty isn’t relative commitment to democratic capitalism. It’s that the Brotherhood doesn’t believe in hereditary monarchies. And that’s a fight the United States should get in the middle of?
We have no true allies. There is not even a semi-clear path to peace and stability in the region. And even if there were, there’s not much the United States could do to steer regional powers toward it.
It’s hard to see how a war to save face is a meaningful step in any right direction.
1/29/2013
Egyptians Erupt Against Obama’s Favorite Islamist Regime
Via-Front Page Magazine
By Joseph Klein
During last Sunday’s “Sixty Minutes” joint interview with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama boasted that “You know, when it comes to Egypt, I think, had it not been for the leadership we showed, you might have seen a different outcome there.”
It’s hard to disagree with the president. His administration contributed to the turmoil now gripping Egypt and leading to what some observers on the ground there have characterized as “a complete state of collapse,” to quote Al Jazeera.
Under Obama’s self-described “leadership,” his administration promulgated the false image of the Muslim Brotherhood as “moderate Islamists” (an oxymoron if there ever was one). Just last September, for example, an administration official, defending the White House’s plan to forgive $1 billion in Egyptian debt, said of the Muslim Brotherhood’s supposed commitment to economic reform: “They sound like Republicans half the time.” And let’s not forget Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s memorable description of the Muslim Brotherhood in February 2011 as “largely secular.”
As a consequence of his delusions about the good intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama tilted U.S. policy in their favor to lead the post-Mubarak regime at the expense of the more pro-democracy secularists who sparked the revolution in Tahrir Square in the first place two years ago.
Read entire article
By Joseph Klein
During last Sunday’s “Sixty Minutes” joint interview with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama boasted that “You know, when it comes to Egypt, I think, had it not been for the leadership we showed, you might have seen a different outcome there.”
It’s hard to disagree with the president. His administration contributed to the turmoil now gripping Egypt and leading to what some observers on the ground there have characterized as “a complete state of collapse,” to quote Al Jazeera.
Under Obama’s self-described “leadership,” his administration promulgated the false image of the Muslim Brotherhood as “moderate Islamists” (an oxymoron if there ever was one). Just last September, for example, an administration official, defending the White House’s plan to forgive $1 billion in Egyptian debt, said of the Muslim Brotherhood’s supposed commitment to economic reform: “They sound like Republicans half the time.” And let’s not forget Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s memorable description of the Muslim Brotherhood in February 2011 as “largely secular.”
As a consequence of his delusions about the good intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama tilted U.S. policy in their favor to lead the post-Mubarak regime at the expense of the more pro-democracy secularists who sparked the revolution in Tahrir Square in the first place two years ago.
Read entire article
11/26/2012
And this is a surprise?...
White House silent as Egypt’s president grabs power, moves toward Shariah Islamic law
Read article here
White House officials remained silent during the extended Thanksgiving weekend, as Egypt’s pro-democracy groups called on President Barack Obama to condemn Thursday’s power grab by their country’s Islamist president, Mohammed Morsi.
Morsi decreed Nov. 22 that his pronouncements and edicts were beyond the reach of judicial review. The announcement was met by resistance from the nation’s top judges, who said they would fight Morsi’s unusual self-elevation to near-dictator status.
“I am waiting to see, I hope soon, a very strong statement of condemnation by the U.S., by Europe and by everybody who really cares about human dignity,” declared Mohamed ElBaradei, who is one of Egypt’s more visible non-Islamist politicians.
So far, the White House has not weighed in, although Morsi’s power grab is a repudiation of th “Arab Spring” democracy movement that Obama has supported for two years.
Read article here
11/20/2012
A World Full of Troubles
Via-American Spectator
By Quin Hillyer
The bad guys make gains around the globe.
We're in a heap of trouble.
I write this while sitting in Colorado, on break from a superb seminar on defense and foreign policy sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the El Pomar Foundation. The seminar is remarkably free of political finger-pointing and direct criticism -- or even mention -- of the Obama administration. Most of the material is descriptive and neutrally analytical, rather than politically prescriptive and hypercritical. But the picture being painted of a growingly dangerous world makes any sentient person question the administration's performance in getting us into such a fix.
Our defense forces are being precipitously and unwisely hollowed out. Our capabilities in intelligence and diplomacy are inadequate. Our policies in several regions of the world are conducive not to American strength and peace, but to weakness and instability.
Read article here
By Quin Hillyer
The bad guys make gains around the globe.
We're in a heap of trouble.
I write this while sitting in Colorado, on break from a superb seminar on defense and foreign policy sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the El Pomar Foundation. The seminar is remarkably free of political finger-pointing and direct criticism -- or even mention -- of the Obama administration. Most of the material is descriptive and neutrally analytical, rather than politically prescriptive and hypercritical. But the picture being painted of a growingly dangerous world makes any sentient person question the administration's performance in getting us into such a fix.
Our defense forces are being precipitously and unwisely hollowed out. Our capabilities in intelligence and diplomacy are inadequate. Our policies in several regions of the world are conducive not to American strength and peace, but to weakness and instability.
Read article here
11/16/2012
10/30/2012
'Cooling Out' the Voters
Via-American Spectator
By Thomas Sowell
On Benghazi, Obama's confindence men think Americans are an easy mark.
Confidence men know that their victim -- "the mark" as he has been called -- is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.
So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called "cooling out the mark."
By Thomas Sowell
On Benghazi, Obama's confindence men think Americans are an easy mark.
Confidence men know that their victim -- "the mark" as he has been called -- is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.
So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called "cooling out the mark."
10/25/2012
Where were the Marines?
Buck stops with Obama in Benghazi security breach
Via-Washington Times
Senator Rand Paul
Monday’s foreign policy debate between President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney was designed to help voters better understand each man’s vision for America’s role abroad. While I have publicly taken issue with both candidates on aspects of their foreign policies, there is no question that Mr. Romney remains the right choice for Americans on Nov. 6.
However, it is also clear neither candidate adequately addressed the gross intelligence failure in Libya that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens. Too many important questions remain unanswered concerning Mr. Obama’s entire mishandling of the recent siege of Benghazi.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the questions Americans want answered.
The first and most pressing question for Mr. Obama remains: Where the hell were the Marines?
White House Stoked Violence with Benghazi Blame Game
Via-Townhall
Katie Pavlich
It is no surprise by now that the White House is engaged in a full-blown cover-up of the 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. First, the Obama administration blamed a YouTube video insulting Islam for the violence, saying a mob protesting the film got out of control, leading to the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and Information Management Officer Sean Smith. We now know through multiple reports and emails that the White House and as many as 400 national security officials knew within two hours of the attack that it was carried out by terrorists linked to al Qaeda.
But let’s take a look at the deadly and violent consequences that came as a result of the Obama administration blaming the video after the initial planned attacks.
Katie Pavlich
It is no surprise by now that the White House is engaged in a full-blown cover-up of the 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. First, the Obama administration blamed a YouTube video insulting Islam for the violence, saying a mob protesting the film got out of control, leading to the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and Information Management Officer Sean Smith. We now know through multiple reports and emails that the White House and as many as 400 national security officials knew within two hours of the attack that it was carried out by terrorists linked to al Qaeda.
But let’s take a look at the deadly and violent consequences that came as a result of the Obama administration blaming the video after the initial planned attacks.
10/24/2012
10/22/2012
10/20/2012
The Three Benghazi Timelines We Need Answers About
Via-WSJ
Every White House sooner or later succumbs to the temptation to cover up an embarrassment.
By JAMES ROSEN
'I do not think," Nixon campaign aide Jeb Magruder told the Senate Watergate committee in the spring of 1973, "there was ever any discussion that there would not be a coverup." Mr. Magruder's lament aptly described the bureaucratic impulse to hide inconvenient facts that seizes every modern White House at some point. His testimony was brought to mind by the growing number of high-profile Republicans accusing the Obama White House of engaging in a coverup in the Benghazi case.
Much remains unknown about the terrorist attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on Sept. 11. To fill in those gaps, three separate probes—by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department's Accountability Review Board, and various congressional committees—are now under way. But in our warp-speed information age, enough evidence has already accrued to the record to lead even dispassionate observers to ponder whether the term "coverup" applies.
William Safire, the late New York Times columnist—and one of the few senior Nixon aides to escape Watergate unsullied—once defined coverup broadly to include "any plan to avoid detection of wrongdoing . . . an act to conceal a mistake."
Every White House sooner or later succumbs to the temptation to cover up an embarrassment.
By JAMES ROSEN
'I do not think," Nixon campaign aide Jeb Magruder told the Senate Watergate committee in the spring of 1973, "there was ever any discussion that there would not be a coverup." Mr. Magruder's lament aptly described the bureaucratic impulse to hide inconvenient facts that seizes every modern White House at some point. His testimony was brought to mind by the growing number of high-profile Republicans accusing the Obama White House of engaging in a coverup in the Benghazi case.
Much remains unknown about the terrorist attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on Sept. 11. To fill in those gaps, three separate probes—by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department's Accountability Review Board, and various congressional committees—are now under way. But in our warp-speed information age, enough evidence has already accrued to the record to lead even dispassionate observers to ponder whether the term "coverup" applies.
William Safire, the late New York Times columnist—and one of the few senior Nixon aides to escape Watergate unsullied—once defined coverup broadly to include "any plan to avoid detection of wrongdoing . . . an act to conceal a mistake."
10/16/2012
No, Hillary. Benghazi Will Not Go Away
Via-PJ Media
by Roger L Simon
Off in Lima, Peru — at least it wasn’t Antarctica or the Aleutian Islands — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has fallen on the proverbial sword long distance, declaring the buck the stops with her on the Benghazi security debacle.
That’s all well and good, but where does the buck stop on all the lying and covering up that followed? Yes, I used the unvarnished “l-word” because that’s what it was. How else to characterize UN Ambassador Susan Rice running around telling everyone in earshot that the Benghazi events were caused by an idiotic and unwatched YouTube trailer when Occam’s Razor — not to mention rocket-propelled grenades, an ambassador dragged through the streets, and a safe house mysteriously under fire — pointed to a terror attack commemorating September 11?
And then the president, acting like an errant husband unwilling to confess his adultery (who do you believe – me or your lying eyes?), repeated the same swill on The View nearly a week later. Unconscionable.
Why did this happen? Why this bizarre need to obfuscate or push away such an obvious truth?
by Roger L Simon
Off in Lima, Peru — at least it wasn’t Antarctica or the Aleutian Islands — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has fallen on the proverbial sword long distance, declaring the buck the stops with her on the Benghazi security debacle.
That’s all well and good, but where does the buck stop on all the lying and covering up that followed? Yes, I used the unvarnished “l-word” because that’s what it was. How else to characterize UN Ambassador Susan Rice running around telling everyone in earshot that the Benghazi events were caused by an idiotic and unwatched YouTube trailer when Occam’s Razor — not to mention rocket-propelled grenades, an ambassador dragged through the streets, and a safe house mysteriously under fire — pointed to a terror attack commemorating September 11?
And then the president, acting like an errant husband unwilling to confess his adultery (who do you believe – me or your lying eyes?), repeated the same swill on The View nearly a week later. Unconscionable.
Why did this happen? Why this bizarre need to obfuscate or push away such an obvious truth?
10/10/2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)