Category: Barack Obama

So The Kneepad Media Has A Pass On #Syria. Will It Grow Real Curiosity?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Fareed Zakaria is miffed:

. . .it’s hard not to conclude that the administration’s handling of Syria over the last year has been a case study in how not to do foreign policy.

But will the media grow some stones and note that Obama’s foreign policy is roughly as jacked up as his domestic rodeo clownery?
Joe Curl notes at the Washington Times:

Whatever happens, this much is clear: We’re no longer talking about the IRS targeting tea party groups, the Justice Department tapping reporters’ phone lines, the NSA’s surveillance programs, Benghazi. The president has smartly changed the subject to the most important decision a commander in chief makes: war.

Syria looks like a twofer:

  1. #OccupyResoluteDesk can control the news cycle, and
  2. the media can pause its standard hoovering and feign doing its traditional job on a narrow topic,

all the while accidentally-on-purpose diverting from

or half a dozen other scandals like Pigford and the EPA.

If this President was anything other than a continuous river of falsehood, I might begin to feel embarrassed by my cynical attitude and unwillingness to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. But this is the time to double down, not ease up.

via Instapundit and Newsbusters

President Punchline: Are Obama’s Top Advisors Late-Night TV Joke Writers?

Posted on Comments

“Obama: Anatomy of a World Leader,” by Alex Gray (detail)

Could he possibly look more ineffective if he tried? A year ago, after the Syrian civil war had already been going on for about 14 months, Obama declared that the Assad regime would cross a “red line” if it used chemical weapons against the opposition. By the end of April this year, there was already pretty clear evidence that chemical weapons had been used; in June, U.S. officials said chemical weapons had been used, and by early August, the Syrian opposition supplied video that appeared to confirm a chemical weapons attack.

And . . . nothing.

Nothing but a lot of noise and indecisive hand-wringing.

Let me be clear: I’m against U.S. intervention in Syria. As bad as Assad is, there are indications that the opposition is not much better.

If the U.S. had intervened early, maybe there could have been a chance of bringing to power a more-or-less secular, more-or-less pro-American coalition in Syria.

Now? The place is reportedly crawling with 10,000 foreign jihadis, key groups within the opposition have clear ties to al-Qaeda, and there’s little reason to expect that Assad’s ouster will do anything but turn Syria into a dangerously violent radical Islamic terror state. It’s a bad situation, and American intervention would probably only make it worse.

Still, the worst possible thing you can do in either  foreign policy or poker is to be exposed as a bluffer, and right now Obama’s looking like that idiot who raised pre-flop with a pair of 7’s.

Never threaten war if you’re not ready to fight, and once the British Parliament voted against attacking Syria, Obama was stuck with his pair of 7’s. OK, so he reverted to campaign mode: Says he’s going to wait for congressional authorization — which he knows damned well he won’t get — after which he will then blame Republicans as “obstructionists,” even though Democrats don’t want this war, either.

He’s a great bullshit artist, but he has never been anything more.

John Kerry will do all five Sunday shows. Kerry is not even an adequate bullshit artist. This should be amusing.

 

Is Obama Pivoting From Jobs To Syria To ObamaCare Like A Rodeo Clown Ballerina?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

The only way to make this any worse would be to give it full animation and “Dancing Queen”, by ABBA, for a soundtrack.

I guess if Syria isn’t proving enough of a distraction, or the IRS scandal, or the Benghazi scandal, then #OccupyResoluteDesk is just going to have to hit the road and whack the people with his rhetorical bludgeon to keep them from noticing the debt ceiling negotiations (emphasis mine):

The White House is mapping out a strategy to deploy the president, First Lady Michelle Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Jill Biden in what will be their most coordinated effort yet to sell Obamacare, senior administration officials said.
A burst of activity will coincide with the October opening of the insurance marketplaces, but the West Wing views this next phase as something more akin to a political campaign’s push for early votes. Over the six-month enrollment period, the White House will use the Obamas and Bidens strategically, tracking the turnout for the exchanges in key states and sending them into weak markets to boost numbers.

This promises to be rich. I can’t wait to see the Potemkin villages, with their Potemkin marketplaces, on this Potemkin tour.
Then there is a question over whether there is enough hush money for the unions:

A few weeks ago, I discussed the fact that labor unions have been increasing vocal about their objections to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class,” wrote three labor leaders in July. Now, according to a report from InsideHealthPolicy, the Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.
…
Now, according to Rachana Dixit of InsideHealthPolicy, the administration is “working on regulations to address the issue” that people covered under Taft-Hartley plans aren’t eligible for subsidies. But it’s not an “issue” in the sense of being a glitch or a mistake; union leaders are seeking special treatment, and additional taxpayer subsidies, that other participants in employer-sponsored coverage don’t get.

Assad aside: let no one think the U.S. would be so crass as to undertake unilateral action:

The United States can always look to Bulungi for support.

via Rare
and Rare
and Breitbart

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Ready to Make Feeble Unilateral Gesture Against Syria

Posted on Comments

The British Parliament voted against war, but now that the oceans stopped rising and the planet has begun to heal and Obama has “restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth” — what, you didn’t notice? — President Gutsy Call has decided that go-it-alone foreign policy and military intervention without congressional authorization are the humane and democratic thing to do:

The goal of the cruise missile strikes the United States is planning to carry out in Syria is to restore the smudged “red line” that President Obama drew a year ago against the use of poison gas. . . .
But the military strategy that the Obama administration is considering is not linked to its larger diplomatic strategy of persuading President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to yield power and support negotiations that would end the bloody civil war. . . .
Mr. Obama appeared to acknowledge as much on Wednesday when he characterized the potential military operation as “a shot across the bow” that would be intended to caution Mr. Assad from further chemical weapons attacks. “That doesn’t solve all the problems inside of Syria,” Mr. Obama told the PBS program “NewsHour,” “and, you know, it doesn’t obviously end the death of innocent civilians inside of Syria.”

A mere gesture — a politically motivated gesture rejected by our allies, a gesture that won’t actually achieve any tangible policy goal, except to remind our nation’s enemies that when Obama talks tough, they can disregard anything he says and suffer no consequence more severe than a token symbolic response and an angry speech or two.

 

Will Syria Be #OccupyResoluteDesk’s Resignation Letter?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Stacy hates this sort of noise, but I’ll throw it out there, because I think it’s plausible.

  1. BHO is a narcissist.
  2. BHO has an awful lot of issues/scandals set to go lively after Labor Day:
    • Benghazi
    • IRS
    • Debt ceiling increase
    • Immigration
    • Continuing resolution in general–
    • ObamaCare in particular
  3. BHO is to the Presidency what Wally is to the Dilbert comic strip, hold the laughs.
  4. Leaders such as Coburn and Boehner have already laid down markers saying “Don’t do it” concerning Syria.
  5. This is of such concern that no less than David “the Greasy One” Axelrod himself got on the air to denounce Coburn.

Prediction: citing high-minded concerns about “the children”, #OccupyResoluteDesk gives the orders to bomb Syria.
This triggers a Constitutional crisis so severe that the anti-War movement, dormant since Bush’s last wave goodbye, is roused. It unites with the Tea Partiers and everyone else sick to death of our Rodeo Clown foreign policy, and the House votes to impeach.
Before Harry “the Cadaver” Reid can be roused from his quasi-comatose stupor, #OccupyResoluteDesk grabs the camer for one last, personal-pronoun-drenched, racial dog-whistle soundtracked, interminable, strawman-army-decimating soliloquy that says, in summary, that neither the American people nor this Constitutionally-obsessed Congress are worthy of the power of his glow.
And that’s how he maintains his streak of never dealing with the responsibilities of his office in any intelligible way.

NYT Cranks The Judas Priest

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Could be the most unintentionally funny headline of the year: “Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal”

There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to do just that on Monday, when he said of the use of chemical weapons, “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.” His use of the word “norm,” instead of “law,” is telling.
Syria is a party to neither the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 nor the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, and even if it were, the treaties rely on the United Nations Security Council to enforce them — a major flaw. Syria is a party to the Geneva Protocol, a 1925 treaty that bans the use of toxic gases in wars. But this treaty was designed after World War I with international war in mind, not internal conflicts.

‘Rodeo clown’ is the new cowboy, no? After around 6 years of anti-Bush Adventurism arguments (and the bulk of a year spent in Afghanistan helping carry out one of Obama’s rare promises kept) the skepticism has kind of settled in. Also, one cannot possibly fathom what strategic interest the U.S. even has in the Levant. Maybe standing by our ally, Israel. It is a cheery thing to see the occasional greeting on YouTube from Bibi Netanyahu. But is the refreshment of hearing from an actual leader of the non-rodeo-clown variety of sufficient value to justify throwing blood and treasure at Damascus?

Of course ethics, not only laws, should guide policy decisions. Since the Rwandan genocide and the Balkan mass killings of the 1990s, a movement has emerged in support of adding humanitarian intervention as a third category of lawful war, under the concept of the “responsibility to protect.” It is widely accepted by the United Nations and most governments. It is not, however, in the charter, and it lacks the force of law.

Morality, or ethics? I’d argue, against the dictionary, that the two are not synonymous. There really isn’t any moral case in favor of disregarding law. Law is a human product, and therefore may be incomplete, or out of sync with the times. There could be ethical reasons for disregarding a law. I wish the author, Hurd, had provided a link to this famous movement, though. Maybe the “humanitarian intervention” community could help us track down the elusive anti-war movement that flourishes during Republican administrations, whenever those corporatists are out to drive up profits. Perhaps the anti-war movement is cryogenically suspended in Jane Fonda’s basement.
I’ve got to emphasize this closing bit:

Since Russia and China won’t help, Mr. Obama and allied leaders should declare that international law has evolved and that they don’t need Security Council approval to intervene in Syria.
This would be popular in many quarters, and I believe it’s the right thing to do. But if the American government accepts that the rule of law is the foundation of civilized society, it must be clear that this represents a new legal path.

Anybody who thinks that Russia isn’t fomenting unrest to drive up oil prices is clueless. President Rodeo Clown should know that peace, prosperity, and a Keystone XL pipeline are the best ways to stick it to the Russian bear. At least in DC, no one uses the phrase “it’s the right thing to do” without a disdainful eye roll. In DC it means: sure, we’re jacked up to high heaven, but isn’t everything else, too?

via Insty

Assad aside:
Rush’s brother David considered afflicting the Syrians with ObamaCare,

Your Semi-Official Obama vs. Syria Armageddon Predictions Thread

Posted on Comments

“Obama: Anatomy of a World Leader,” by Alex Gray (detail)

We’re supposed to start bombing the crap out of Damascus sometime soon, because President Obama has managed to make this imperative to U.S. credibility, and you know Dear Leader has gotten himself into a bad spot when Alan Colmes goes on Fox News and denounces the president in such strong terms that if any Republican had said it, they’d be the subject of a special alert from Media Matters.

 

Does anybody remember “The War of Monica’s Thong“?

In 1999, a few weeks after the Senate voted to acquit President Clinton for “high crimes and misdemeanors” — of which he was clearly guilty — Clinton suddenly decided that he’d had it up to here with Slobodan Milosevich. So NATO started bombing the crap out of the Serbs.

This was arguably the worst use of U.S. military force since the Spanish-American War, with “genocide” replacing “Remember the Maine” as the battle cry. Of course, the civil war in the former Yugoslavia had been raging for years, Milosevich’s brutality wasn’t exactly a recent development and we were, objectively, fighting in defense of a Muslim insurgency, with the Kosovo Liberation Army as al-Qaeda’s Balkan front. Because the Serbs had traditionally been Russia’s allies, the bombing campaign against Belgrade also had the effect of alienating Russia, which had been a potential ally in the post-Soviet era.

Our involvement was directly contrary to our own national interest, but because Clinton was eager to regain the prestige he had lost in the year-long Lewinsky ordeal, this “humanitarian” intervention was suddenly deemed necessary by the Commander-in-Chief.

Bad wars fought by bad presidents for bad reasons are not exactly a novelty in American history, and the long-term consequences of these spasms of politically motivated militarism are never good. While Clinton was bombing Serbs on behalf of Kosovar Muslims, their terrorist allies were already planning what became 9/11, but good luck getting Alan Colmes to admit that Clinton’s “Wag the Dog” distractions and other errors made America vulnerable to al-Qaeda.

However, Alan Colmes has had the wisdom to condemn the upcoming Syrian intervention in advance, and we should be grateful for that, rather than complaining about past errors.

The Assad regime is a murderous totalitarian nightmare, supported openly by Iran and supported tacitly by Russia and China. However, the Assad regime’s insurgent enemies are Islamic extremists with connections to al-Qaeda, and if these Syrian insurgents aren’t committing genocide, it’s only because they’re too busy trying to overthrow the current genocidal regime. Does any honest person doubt that Assad’s enemies would be as bad as (or worse than) Assad if they were to succeed in overthrowing him? Which is not to say anything in favor of a dictator using nerve gas against civilians, but at least now we know what happened to Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, eh?

Still, enlisting the United States as al-Qaeda’s de facto air force is bad policy, and it will predictably have bad consequences.

The specific consequences may be impossible to predict, but we know for sure the consequences will be bad.

My hunch is that Iran will respond to U.S. attacks on Syria by launching its own attacks against Israel. Probably rocket attacks from Gaza, but maybe also a wave of suicide bombings. Israel will feel the need to retaliate, so I’ll go out on a limb here and bet that the IDF decides it’s finally time to destroy the Iranian nuclear threat.

Remember, our president is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, which means World War III is always a distinct possibility.

Place your bets, gentlemen. My money’s on “Biblical Apocalypse.”