Friday, September 6, 2013

Secretary Rumsfeld: You Go to War with the Clowns You’ve Got!

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 9-6-2013 | MOTUS
Posted on 9/6/2013 12:57:56 PM by NOBO2012

Oh-oh! As reported by both leftist and righteous on-line sources, Syrian rebels have admitted to using chemical weapons in pursuit of Osama Bin Laden’s directive to kill women and children.
This doesn’t sound good for the regime, the Syrian regime I mean, butt since you brought it up, it doesn’t sound good for our regime either.
TIME-ObamaSyria-Cover1213-774x1024
The Cheese stands alone
Accordingly, war plans are kind of stalled for the moment, as they are being re-tooled (by the hour, as reported by Pentagon sources). Indeed, there’s even a growing lack of enthusiasm among our former varsity cheer leading squad:
Rather than rallying to Obama's side — as they have on so many other occasions — the press are actually, almost unbelievably, pointing out some unpleasant facts:
How little support Obama is getting at home, even from fellow Democrats. How little support he's getting abroad. Bogus administration claims about the nature of the rebels.
That’s as close to mutiny as you get, as far as the new rules for old media go. What next, one wonders - unbiased reporting?
Chris Matthews-Loves Barack Obama
Ha! Don’t hold your breath.
And it looks like John Kerry’s insistence that evidence of the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons has been downgraded from“beyond a reasonable doubt” to “some degree of varying confidence."
To-succeed-in-life-Mark-Twain
Okay, we’ve got the first one nailed.
It might be helpful if Big Guy’s ego would allow him to consult with a former president – one who has experience initiating a war. Preferably someone other than Bubba, butt even experience with a “tail” wagging the dog war might be helpful.
By all accounts, even the highly regarded John F. Kennedy, who was pretty green at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, sought advice from those with more military experience than himself. He clandestinely consulted with Dwight D. Eisenhower to gain insight and perspective on how best to proceed with the deathly serious situation of Russian nuclear warheads headed for Cuba. Eisenhower coached the young President thorough the negotiations and mechanics of the Cuban blockade. At one point Kennedy seemed to waver, asking his mentor, “but what do I do if the Russians call my bluff?”  To which Eisenhower replied, “You’re not bluffing, John.”
Big Guy could benefit from some counsel along those lines.
I'll pull the trigger copy
Don’t call my bluff!
Unfortunately, he doesn’t consult anyone other than Val-Jar and she doesn’t have any more experience than he does. The only one around here who’ll consult anyone from a previous administration is Chuck Hagel, who did seek advice from his counterpart in the Bush administration.
Unfortunately, he managed to get the correct cadence of Rumsfeld's counsel, without processing its import. Hence, he advised the press today, “As you know, you go to war with the clowns you have, not the clowns you might want or wish to have at a later time.” (h/t Great Minds Mock Alike)
GUATEMALA/
An Army of Clowns: Harry, Gibbsy, JJ, Jean Carré, Big Guy, Axe-man and Joey
Posted from: Michelle Obama’s Mirror 

Report: US strike on Syria to be 'significantly larger than expected'!

JPost ^ | 9/6/2013 | Staff

Despite statements from both US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that a US-led strike on Syria would be a "limited and tailored" military attack, ABC News reported on Thursday that the strike planned by Obama's national security team is "significantly larger" than most have anticipated.

According to ABC News, in additional to a salvo of 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from four Navy destroyers stationed in the eastern Mediterranean, the US is also planning an aerial campaign that is expected to last two days.
This campaign potentially includes an aerial bombardment of missiles and long range bombs from US-based B-2 stealth bombers that carry satellite-guided bombs, B-52 bombers, that can carry air-launched cruise missiles and Qatar-based B-1s that carry long-range, air-to-surface missiles, both ABC News and The New York Times reported.
"This military strike will do more damage to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad's forces in 48 hours than the Syrian rebels have done in two years," a national security official told ABC News.
Meanwhile, Obama has directed the Pentagon to expand the list of potential targets in Syria following reports Assad's forces have moved troops and equipment used to employ chemical weapons in anticipation of the US-led strike against them, the Times reported on Thursday.
In order to degrade Assad's ability to use chemical weapons, the list of 50 or so major sites has to be expected, officials told the Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...

U.S. Eats Another Loss On Green Tech Car Loan

Forbes ^ | 9/06/2013 | Joann Muller

Humvee manufacturer AM General paid $3 million at auction to purchase the U.S. Department of Energy‘s loan to Vehicle Production Group, a defunct maker of wheelchair-accessible vans that struggled to meet performance targets and shut down earlier this year.
Together with $5 million seized from the company’s accounts in April, that means the DOE recovered just $8 million of the $50 million it loaned VPG back in March 2011 under a government program designed to promote advanced technology vehicles. VPG’s plan was to sell handicapped vans that run on compressed natural gas.
Taxpayers also took a loss on the collapse of Fisker Automotive, which was awarded $529 million under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program, but received only $193 million before the DOE cut them off for failing to meet performance targets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...

The credibility crisis can’t be solved with Tomahawk missiles

Hot Air ^ | 12:01 pm on September 5, 2013 | Ed Morrissey

The Obama administration has stumbled from one credibility crisis to the next on Syria, and now wants Congress to rescue Barack Obama from himself.  Obama declares that the stated policy of the United States toward Syria is regime change, then dithers on how to effect it.  Obama draws a red line, and then does nothing at all to prepare for the possibility that Bashar al-Assad might call his bluff.
This credibility crisis goes beyond Syria, however, and extends to the whole Arab Spring, for which Obama seemed all too pleased to take credit not terribly long ago.  He demanded Hosni Mubarak’s ouster and quick elections in Egypt, which turned a stable American ally into a barely-contained disaster, and then has vacillated ever since on how to handle the crisis.  Obama then led a NATO intervention in Libya while claiming not to want regime change, but ended up decapitating the Qaddafi regime anyway.  That replaced a brutal dictatorship that was still cooperating with the West on counter-terrorism into a failed state that has allowed for a rapid expansion of radical Islamist terror networks through the whole region.
Now Obama wants to apply the Libya model to Syria, but cannot articulate a single American interest in launching a war.  Syria has not attacked American interests or allies, nor is likely to do so.  The most effective elements of the opposition in Syria are comprised of the very terrorist networks that we are presently fighting ourselves.  Obama even backed away from his own red line, claiming that “the world” set it in its opposition to chemical weapons, but as I note in my column for The Fiscal Times today, there is no global “red line” for military intervention as Obama claims:
The idea that the “world” has set a red line requiring military intervention after the use of chemical weapons is rather strange, and has no historical precedent.  Chemical weapons have had a number of deployments since the 1925 Geneva Protocol (affirmed unanimously by the UN General Assembly in 1966) that first banned their use without any such response.
Iraq used chemical weapons in two 1987 attacks during their eight-year war against Iran without any outside intervention. Libya used chemical weapons against Chad in the same year, again with no outside intervention.  Most infamously, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons as a means of genocide against the Kurds in Halabja in 1988, killing more than 5,000 non-combatants, without any international military response (although it was one of the many justifications used by the US and UN in 1991 for Operation Desert Storm and in 2003’s second invasion of Iraq).  One can certainly argue that all of these incidents called for American or global intervention, but not that the world laid down a red line for armed response to their use.
There are no global “red lines” for military intervention in this case, even with the United Nations, which is balking at military strikes in Syria.  That wouldn’t matter if vital national security issues were at stake in Syria, but they’re not, and the Obama administration isn’t even bothering to pretend there are.  The only substantial argument is the danger to American credibility for not following through on a red-line threat, and that danger is not insubstantial.  However, that’s not really the danger to American credibility, which is why missile strikes won’t solve the problem:
Finally, we come to the argument that Obama’s red line requires us to salvage his credibility, or risk rogue nations like Iran assuming that the US is nothing but a paper tiger. This is really the only argument that makes any sense at all; there is little doubt that damage to our credibility, especially in that region, is dangerous and could cost lives.  However, that argument requires us to conduct acts of war literally for the sake of conducting acts of war, while announcing that we don’t intend to actually change the conditions in Syria as a result.
That’s not an argument that will restore American credibility, especially since our stated policy toward Syria is that of regime change. If we lob bombs into Damascus and claim that we aren’t trying to change the regime, not only will no one take that seriously, Assad’s potential survival would compound the problem that Obama seeks to cure through military action now.
The root of Obama’s credibility problem cannot be solved by cruise missiles. Obama offered a boast a year ago with his red-line statement, and then clearly did nothing in the following year to set the stage for an international response to Assad for crossing it. As this week has proven, Obama didn’t even bother to engage Congress until it became clear that voters overwhelmingly oppose his rush to military action. Isolated on the international stage and under political fire at home, Obama now won’t even claim ownership of his own red line.
The likeliest outcome of sustained American strikes on Assad’s regime is that the field will tilt to the benefit of the radical Islamists on the ground in Syria, just as it has in Libya.  That is the bottom line, and that is why Congress should refuse to authorize a war against Syria.
As for our credibility issues, those will be with us as long as President Obama remains in office.  The 22nd Amendment already provides the resolution to that problem, and voters will have to take responsibility for restoring American credibility and foreign-policy wisdom in November 2016.

 

2 posted on 9/6/2013 1:54:26 PM by colorado t

The Most Embarrassing President of My Lifetime!

Canada Free Press ^ | September 6, 2013 | Doug Patton



Barack Obama is, without question, the most embarrassing president of my lifetime — and that is saying something, since my life so far has encompassed 12 presidencies, some of which have brought a lot of embarrassment to the nation. Even Richard Nixon, with his Watergate scandal, Jimmy Carter, with his malaise, and Bill Clinton, with his lewd behavior in the Oval Office, could not top this president for pure, unadulterated disgrace.
Of course, in Obama’s case, it is not a matter of personal scandal like it was for Clinton. By telling the world a year ago that he was drawing a red line in the hot desert sands of Syria — that red line being the use of chemical weapons — he created the debacle that currently threatens to engulf the Middle East. He blustered at the time that if the regime of Bashar al-Assad crossed that red line, there will be a price to pay. No one yet knows what that price will be, but from the current discussion, it appears that it will involve the destruction of at least three camels, four sheep, a half-dozen goats and an abandoned aspirin factory. That oughta show ‘em!
[Snip]
Obama is a symbol of much of today’s generation, which accepts no responsibility for anything. Therefore, when something goes wrong among his cockamamie plans, it must be someone else’s fault. Usually, of course, it would be George Bush’s fault, but even Obama couldn’t bring himself to tell that one again, not in this case. No, this time it’s the whole world’s fault. And Congress. And America. It’s American credibility that will suffer, he told the world, not his. Unbelievable.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...

TOPICS: Culture/SocietyMiscellaneousNews/Current EventsPhilosophy
KEYWORDS: leadershipobamasyria

Personally, I don't know how anybody could possibly call our fearless leader an embarrassment. 

Black Lawmakers Won't Be Rubber Stamp for Obama on Syria Intervention!

The Hill ^ | 9/6 | Mike Lillis, Erik Wasson

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) will be no rubber stamp for President Obama's proposal to strike Syria.
Black Democrats were among the most consistently vocal opponents of the Iraq War a decade ago, and they're now among the most reluctant to endorse a U.S. attack on Bashar Assad's forces in response to the Syrian strongman's alleged use of chemical weapons on civilians.
A handful of CBC members are already on record saying they'd oppose a use-of-force resolution on the House floor, while a growing number, although publicly uncommitted, are voicing strong reservations.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said Thursday that she is "not prepared to suggest that there is no basis" for strikes, but she wants assurances that the attacks won't put U.S. troops in harm's way.
"I am going to continue to explore with the appropriate officials as to whether or not we are sure that there will be no boots on the ground of U.S. troops," she said following a confidential briefing with administration officials in the Capitol. "And that I can't answer for you right now."
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) also expressed sharp doubts Thursday.
"The more information I learn, the more I am convinced that we have got to try to figure out what happens after this," he told MSNBC. "Because I do believe, from everything that I've read, that President Assad will retaliate."
The issue presents a dilemma for CBC leaders, who want to support Obama, the nation's first black president who retains all-star status within the group, but whose constituents are weary of overseas military operations after 10 long years in Iraq.
“The fact remains that a significant number of our constituents are in opposition to the use of force, and that is something that we have to weigh heavily in making our decision," Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who's also undecided, said Thursday. "In the overwhelming majority of cases, individuals have made clear that they are very concerned about the possibility of going to war."
Highlighting the CBC's difficult position, Chairwoman Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) this week asked CBC members "to limit public comment on the issue," spokeswoman Ayofemi Kirby said Thursday.
"The Chair believes Congress and the American public need more information and she awaits more briefings between now and early next week before commenting further," Kirby said in an email.
Fudge is among the many CBC members who have yet to take a position on Obama's plan.
Hoping to allay some of the Democrats' concerns, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been working all week to convince her troops that targeted strikes against Syria, as Obama has proposed, are necessary both to prevent another chemical attack and to send a global message that such attacks will have grave consequences.
"It is in our national interest to respond to the Syrian government’s unspeakable use of chemical weapons," she wrote to her caucus on Tuesday.
Two days later, Pelosi penned another letter highlighting the limitations attached to the Senate's authorization resolution, which passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a split vote Wednesday.
“Specifically, the resolution prevents boots on the ground, ties the authorization more closely to the use of chemical and other weapons of mass destruction, and has a limited timetable,” Pelosi wrote.
Still, the campaign has done little to inspire any wave of commitments from liberal Democrats wary of entering yet another Middle Eastern conflict, particularly among CBC members.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has continued to make the rounds on the cable news shows condemning military strikes as the first step toward a long and unpredictable war. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), another "no" vote, is drafting an alternative proposal for a nonmilitary response to Syria's long-running civil war. And even Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the third-ranking House Democrat, has so far withheld his endorsement of U.S. military intervention.
"Issues of war & peace require thoughtful consideration," Clyburn tweeted Tuesday. "I reserve judgment on Syria until a resolution and more details are forthcoming." Clyburn has not commented publicly on the issue since then.
Obama's Syria plan is not without CBC support, however. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.), for instance, has indicated she's ready to back the president. And Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is leaning toward some form of intervention as a humanitarian response to the tragedy playing out in Syria.
"There is no 'military solution' to the crisis in Syria," Ellison said this week, "but we must consider whether limited military action will reduce Assad’s capacity to kill more innocents."
Those members of the CBC with lingering questions about Obama's plan in Syria will soon have the chance to seek answers, as Susan Rice, Obama's national security adviser, is scheduled to meet with the group behind closed doors on Monday. Perhaps the best news for Obama is that many appear willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt.
"This is the president of the United States," Jeffries said. "I trust him; I support him; I will give him every opportunity to make the strongest possible case."

Obama on Verge of Historic Rebuke Over Syria

Newsmax ^ | Thursday, 05 Sep 2013 04:51 PM | David A. Patten 

President Barack Obama appears to be dangerously close to what would be an historic rebuke at the hands of Congress, if the current whip-count projections on the authorization to attack Syria continue to hold.
Pundits on both sides of the aisle say losing the high-stakes bid for congressional authorization would make Obama an instant lame-duck, and might well endanger his entire second-term agenda.
The resolution authorizing an attack on Syrian strongman Bashar Assad, as punishment for his use of chemical weapons against his own people, is still expected to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate.
But the real question mark all along has been whether the administration could muster enough support to get the attack resolution through the House. And there, the situation for the administration appears to be growing dimmer by the hour.
Various news organizations are contacting members of Congress to see where they stand on the attack authorization. While each outlet has different numbers, the ominous sign for the administration is that all of them show the "no" votes outpacing the "yes" votes by a more than a 3-1 margin.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...