Dumb And Dumber

egypt map SC Dumb and Dumber

Errors by the party in power can get America into trouble; real catastrophes require consensus.

Rarely have both parties been as unanimous about a development overseas as they have in their shared enthusiasm for the so-called Arab Spring during the first months of 2011. Republicans vied with the Obama Administration in their zeal for the ouster of Egypt’s dictator Hosni Mubarak and in championing the subsequent NATO intervention against Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. Both parties saw themselves as having been vindicated by events. The Obama Administration saw its actions as proof that soft power in pursuit of humanitarian goals offered a new paradigm for foreign-policy success. And the Republican establishment saw a vindication of the Bush freedom agenda.

“Revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush’s freedom agenda,” Charles Krauthammer observed in February 2011. “Now that revolution has spread from Tunisia to Oman,” Krauthammer added, “the [Obama] administration is rushing to keep up with the new dispensation, repeating the fundamental tenet of the Bush Doctrine that Arabs are no exception to the universal thirst for dignity and freedom.” And William Kristol exulted, “Helping the Arab Spring through to fruition might contribute to an American Spring, one of renewed pride in our country and confidence in the cause of liberty.”

They were all wrong. Just two years later, the foreign-policy establishment has fractured in the face of a Syrian civil war that threatens to metastasize into neighboring Iraq and Lebanon and an economic collapse in Egypt that has brought the largest Arab country to the brink of state failure. Some Republican leaders, including Sen. John McCain and Weekly Standard editor Kristol, demand American military intervention to support Syria’s Sunni rebels. But Daniel Pipes, the dean of conservative Middle East analysts, wrote on April 11 that “Western governments should support the malign dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad,” because “Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong their conflict.” If Assad appears to be winning, he added later, we should support the rebels. The respected strategist Edward Luttwak contends that America should “leave bad enough alone” in Syria and turn its attention away from the Middle East—to Asia. The Obama Administration meanwhile is waffling about what might constitute a “red line” for intervention and what form such intervention might take.

The once-happy bipartisan consensus has now shrunk to the common observation that all the available choices are bad. It could get much worse. Western efforts have failed to foster a unified leadership among the Syrian rebels, and jihadi extremists appear to be in control of the Free Syrian Army inside Syria. Syria’s war is “creating the conditions for a renewed conflict, dangerous and complex, to explode in Iraq. If Iraq is not shielded rapidly and properly, it will definitely slip into the Syrian quagmire,” warns Arab League Ambassador Nassif Hitti. Iraq leaders are talking of civil war and eventual partition. Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, meanwhile, warned on May 1, “Syria has real friends in the region, and the world will not let Syria fall into the hands of America, Israel or takfiri [radical islamist] groups,” threatening in effect to turn the civil war into a regional conflict that has the potential to destabilize Turkey. And the gravest risk to the region remains the likelihood that “inherent weaknesses of state and society in Egypt reach a point where the country’s political, social and economic systems no longer function,” as Gamal Abuel Hassan wrote on May 28. Libya is fracturing, and the terrorists responsible for the September 2012 Benghazi attack are operating freely.

Read More at meforum.org . By David P. Goldman .

Dumb And Dumber

egypt map SC Dumb and Dumber

Errors by the party in power can get America into trouble; real catastrophes require consensus.

Rarely have both parties been as unanimous about a development overseas as they have in their shared enthusiasm for the so-called Arab Spring during the first months of 2011. Republicans vied with the Obama Administration in their zeal for the ouster of Egypt’s dictator Hosni Mubarak and in championing the subsequent NATO intervention against Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. Both parties saw themselves as having been vindicated by events. The Obama Administration saw its actions as proof that soft power in pursuit of humanitarian goals offered a new paradigm for foreign-policy success. And the Republican establishment saw a vindication of the Bush freedom agenda.

“Revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush’s freedom agenda,” Charles Krauthammer observed in February 2011. “Now that revolution has spread from Tunisia to Oman,” Krauthammer added, “the [Obama] administration is rushing to keep up with the new dispensation, repeating the fundamental tenet of the Bush Doctrine that Arabs are no exception to the universal thirst for dignity and freedom.” And William Kristol exulted, “Helping the Arab Spring through to fruition might contribute to an American Spring, one of renewed pride in our country and confidence in the cause of liberty.”

They were all wrong. Just two years later, the foreign-policy establishment has fractured in the face of a Syrian civil war that threatens to metastasize into neighboring Iraq and Lebanon and an economic collapse in Egypt that has brought the largest Arab country to the brink of state failure. Some Republican leaders, including Sen. John McCain and Weekly Standard editor Kristol, demand American military intervention to support Syria’s Sunni rebels. But Daniel Pipes, the dean of conservative Middle East analysts, wrote on April 11 that “Western governments should support the malign dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad,” because “Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong their conflict.” If Assad appears to be winning, he added later, we should support the rebels. The respected strategist Edward Luttwak contends that America should “leave bad enough alone” in Syria and turn its attention away from the Middle East—to Asia. The Obama Administration meanwhile is waffling about what might constitute a “red line” for intervention and what form such intervention might take.

The once-happy bipartisan consensus has now shrunk to the common observation that all the available choices are bad. It could get much worse. Western efforts have failed to foster a unified leadership among the Syrian rebels, and jihadi extremists appear to be in control of the Free Syrian Army inside Syria. Syria’s war is “creating the conditions for a renewed conflict, dangerous and complex, to explode in Iraq. If Iraq is not shielded rapidly and properly, it will definitely slip into the Syrian quagmire,” warns Arab League Ambassador Nassif Hitti. Iraq leaders are talking of civil war and eventual partition. Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, meanwhile, warned on May 1, “Syria has real friends in the region, and the world will not let Syria fall into the hands of America, Israel or takfiri [radical islamist] groups,” threatening in effect to turn the civil war into a regional conflict that has the potential to destabilize Turkey. And the gravest risk to the region remains the likelihood that “inherent weaknesses of state and society in Egypt reach a point where the country’s political, social and economic systems no longer function,” as Gamal Abuel Hassan wrote on May 28. Libya is fracturing, and the terrorists responsible for the September 2012 Benghazi attack are operating freely.

Read More at meforum.org . By David P. Goldman .

Video: Obama Could Be Indicted For War Crimes

On October 2, 2002, Barack Obama burst onto the national scene with his famous anti-war speech at the Federal Plaza in Chicago. Mysteriously—or not so mysteriously per the 2008 Obama presidential campaign—video of the speech was “lost” except for thirteen seconds (shown in the above video). Many believe it was lost because the panning camera would have revealed a who’s who of radical leftists, anti-Semites, and “social justice” (that is socialist) unions  in the audience.

It was only one step then from the 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech to the presidency. Along the way, Obama continued to rally his anti-war shock troops, complete with “Bush is a war criminal” posters and frothing protesters reminiscent of the anti-Vietnam War movement.

Oddly, or not so oddly, these anti-war protesters suddenly disappeared once Obama ascended to the presidency. But lo and behold, when the Occupy Wall Street movement got under way, the same radicals who were part of the anti-war movement were now part of the “pay your fair share” movement.

But “anti-war” President Obama proved himself nothing of the kind. He embraced the use of Orwellian doublespeak and secrecy to conduct endless wars that has made George W. Bush look like a pacifist.

The non-war war in Libya wasn’t a war because Obama never invoked the War Powers Act—or more correctly, he refused to seek approval for the war from Congress. Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta famously told Congress that seeking “international permission” from NATO was sufficient for action against Gaddafi.  Obama’s rationale, on the other hand, for not seeking Congressional approval, was because we didn’t have any boots on the ground. Because we pulverized Gaddafi with a blitzkrieg of air power instead of a standing army, then, technically, war was never declared. According to this line of reasoning, the attack on Pearl Harbor was not actually a declaration of war.

Because of Obama’s non-war war in Libya, we have much of Libya (and North Africa for that matter) controlled by al-Qaeda, which led directly to the attack on the Benghazi consulate on the anniversary of 9/11.

Why didn’t Obama send in help to save Americans when the Benghazi consulate was attacked? We now know at least one stand down order was given. It is a forgone conclusion it was because Benghazi was ground zero for another one of Obama’s non-war wars—in Syria—in which Obama had been secretly shipping weapons to the Syrian “rebels” (and sending in help would have revealed this.)

The difference between Libya and Syria is that in Libya, the fact that the rebels were linked to al-Qaeda was kept under wraps. The Syrian rebels, on the other hand, make no bones about their links to al-Qaeda.

But this is only the surface of Obama’s non-war wars. John Brennan (simply a terrorism advisor to Obama until recently being named CIA director), according to the extensively research book Benghazi: The Definitive Report, has been waging a series of secret wars in North Africa and the Middle East against al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-linked groups for years. Brennan and his minions at JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) have not only been operating outside the purview of Congress, but outside the purview of the Pentagon and CIA. Former CIA head David Petraeus wasn’t even aware of Brennan’s secret wars!

According to Benghazi: The Definitive Report, the attack on the Benghazi consulate had nothing to do with, as we were told, an amateurish anti-Muslim YouTube video leading to a “protest turned violent”—now completely debunked by the release on Monday of the “revised” White House talking points—but was retaliation for John Brennan’s JSOC attacks on the al-Qaeda-linked group Ansar al-Sharia.

Not only in charge of dozens of secret wars, Brennan then as now is in charge of the vast drone program that has reached a frightening level. Obama authorized more drone strikes in the first ten months of his presidency than George W. Bush carried out in his entire eight-year presidency.

Obama authorizes, for the most part, what are called “signature” strikes, which means in a nut shell that you are never sure who you are killing. This of course translates into hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties, including women and children.

Jeremy Scahill’s just-published blockbuster book, Dirty Wars, gives a laundry list of the “anti-war” Obama’s real record as a warmonger.

Just six months into his presidency, on June 23, 2009, Obama authorized the use of a drone to fire multiple hellfire missiles to take out a single “high value target” (HVT) on a funeral procession!  According to Dirty Wars:

Scores of civilians— estimates ranged between eighteen and forty-five— were killed. “After the prayers ended people were asking each other to leave the area as drones were hovering,” said a man who lost his leg in the attack. “First two drones fired two missiles, it created a havoc, there was smoke and dust everywhere. Injured people were crying and asking for help… they fired the third missile after a minute, and I fell on the ground.”

And this is just one instance of what many are calling war crimes. It is estimated that for every “high value target” killed by a drone, fifty civilians are killed, predominantly women and children.

All of this has been conveniently covered up by Obama’s compliant media, but it appears the wheels are now coming off the “anti-war” Obama bus.

Buried in the mainstream media amid the Boston Marathon terror attack the day before, on April 16, an organization called the Constitution Project  released the mammoth 600 page study entitled “The Report of The Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment.”

The report comes to some shocking conclusions. It in effect makes the case that Barack Hussein Obama, under international law, is guilty of war crimes and should be indicted.

In the coming days, we will be looking at this mammoth document along with Jeremy Scahill’s equally mammoth study, discussing Obama’s Dirty Wars in order to determine if in fact Barack Hussein Obama is a war criminal who should be indicted for war crimes.

Obama’s War Is Coming

General Obama Forward Stand Down SC Obamas War is Coming

Obama’s war is coming. President Putin warned him. Prime Minister Netanyahu told him it was likely to happen. Now it may be here. Over the weekend, the Israeli Air Force launched missiles and jets at Damascus, Syria, the second bombing attack in the last forty eight hours.

First, on Friday, the Israeli Air Force bombed a military convoy inside Syria, which they said was transporting weapons to the Hezbollah group of fighters in Lebanon. This was caused, according to the Israelis, in response to the deal that Hezbollah has struck with the Syrian regime. By the account of the Israelis, Hezbollah is providing fighters to assist the regime against the rebels in Syria’s civil war. In return, Syria provides Hezbollah with rockets to use against Israel. The second strike on Saturday was against a military research site inside Syria on the outskirts of Damascus. This second strike has reportedly killed as many as 400 Syrians and injured an unknown number of others.

I am by no means a supporter of the Socialist Government in Syria. What I am warning of are the implications that are below the surface of this conflict. Syria’s primary ally in the region is Iran. Iran, as everyone knows, is no friend of Israel. The Russians have strategic interests in Syria as they have several sea ports there for resupplying their warships and support ships. The Russians have also had a long-standing relationship with Syria. While they do not support the regime’s actions often, they have always been able to depend upon the regime’s support for their needs in the region.

In order to understand how delicate the situation really is, one only needs to look at the last six weeks of activity in the region. Turkey and Syria recently had a stand-off concerning possible deployment of the Patriot Missile systems in the region. Israel and Turkey also recently (supposedly in conjunction with Obama’s trip to the region) patched up their differences over the deaths of Turkish citizens on the Mavi Marmara aid ship. When Turkey called for the deployment of the missile system to establish a no-fly zone over Syria, Russia responded with unscheduled military exercises in the Black Sea off the coast of Syria and with long range flights from Russia into Syria with its nuclear capable bombers. At the same time, China conducted unscheduled exercises in the China Seas. This was just after the conclusions of the BRICS meeting in South Africa, where they discussed the formation of an alternative to the IMF and committed to forming a new international monetary system of exchange that would not include the IMF. China is also currently in a deal with Iran for the country’s oil export for use in China.

It would not be the first time Israel was used as a surrogate operator for the furthering of the US policies in the region. In 1956, when Egypt annexed the Suez Canal, the UK and France conspired with Israel under the direction of (or at least the acquiescence of) the US. They got Israel to attack Egypt; and then once the war had started, they intervened under the premise of taking control of the canal to keep it safe for international trade.

No one at this stage knows if there is a replay of that method of staging an event to ensure the intervention of international forces to assert control over the region. What is evident though is that the world has changed greatly since the US and its allies through NATO and the UN could operate unrestrained to further their empires. The US and their allies have been warned by the increasingly strong BRICS against further interference in the Syrian Civil war. The stage is set for the conflict to begin at any moment. The future is in the hands of the leaders of the West. Will Obama’s plan to bring about the fall of the USA become a reality?

The US has a nearly crippling national debt; should an international conflict of global proportions come to pass, where would the US government acquire the funds it needs to operate the government on a day to day basis, let alone finance a global conflict? Would confidence in the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency be sustained? If the US Dollar should lose its position, the consequences could be catastrophic for the western world.

 

 

Obama Just Doesn’t Get It

President Obama face WH photo SC Obama Just Doesnt Get It

The latest waste of taxpayer money, following close on the heels of the over-hyped sequester, has been Obama’s so-called Charm Tour. It just hasn’t gotten through his thick skull and massive, disorder-driven ego that the American people are not buying his lies like they used to. They’re starting to connect the man to his mindless Marxism and their economic and social pain to his policies. They are finally realizing that the Fraud-in-the-White House is just that.

B. Hussein, however, insulated from the nastiness of reality as he is by the Ministry of Propaganda, tried to take the tour overseas. The result, as with all his incredibly inept and incompetent attempts at diplomacy, statesmanship, and foreign policy, has been another embarrassing failure. This one, though, has been worse than most.

In spite of his pandering to Muslims (especially those with radical, fundamentalist views), it’s coming out very publicly that they hate him even more than they did George Bush. He’s been trying to play both sides against the middle, straddling the fence; and it apparently has PO’d a whole lot of Muslims all over the globe. The demonstrations by “Palestinians” against him were far worse than the Israeli ones, and the Israelis left no doubt of their dislike for him and his duplicity. The “peaceful Palestinians” who B. Hussein, Hillary Clinton, and the Democrat Party of Latter Day Marxism constantly kiss up to showed their respect for Obozo and his pandering by violating the phony ceasefire and showering Israel with rockets while the Messiah was only a few miles away.

Iran, too, has stepped up its saber-rattling; and it appears that it’s just a matter of time – and not much of that – before a major confrontation occurs. Four years of dithering by Obama and the State of Disarray Department under Hillary – and now the criminal/traitor John Kerry – have fueled the delusions of Iran’s leaders that they are all-powerful, unstoppable, and the rightful rulers of the coming global Caliphate. Obama’s brilliant, ever-so-well-crafted answer to the threat of the start of World War III is “Oh, well, if someone wants to actually take action to stop them, wink, wink, nod, nod, we won’t interfere.” Amazing what an education at Columbia and Harvard will do for you.

Meanwhile, in the Far Out Far East, North Korea, led by the second runner-up in a Pillsbury Dough Boy look-alike contest, has called off the ceasefire that ended the Korean War sixty years ago. Kim Jong Un, a second generation wacko, feels threatened by our Nobel Peace Prize “winning” Commander-in-Chief and has mobilized his army and is threatening to launch nukes at us. This motivated our Department of Surrender to make plans to move missile defenses that were originally intended to protect NATO allies Poland and Czechoslovakia from attacks from Iran to Alaska, to add to our protection against attacks from Asia. Asia, for those educated in government schools, is also where China is. Will the Chinese feel threatened, too?

The Smartest Man in the Room just can’t figure out why the Russians don’t like him, since he unilaterally committed to reducing our nuclear arsenal, reneged on our promise to provide the missile defenses mentioned earlier (after the Russians objected), and he assured Putin that he would sell us out even more after he was re-elected. Russia and China have been mending fences, doing the “reset” to their relationship that Obozo and Hillary botched so completely. He just can’t get his skinny arms around the idea that they are turning their backs on a fellow Marxist. He thinks that if he just bends over a little further, surely they will all see him for the Greatest World Leader that he is certain he is.

A few points to consider: 1) Muslims hate, and are obligated by the writings of Mohamed to kill, apostate Muslims such as B. Hussein. He can praise Islam to the skies and kiss their butts ‘til his lips are bruised; but until he returns to the practice of it, he is the Enemy. 2) To the genuine Marxists in Russia and China, American Marxists are cheap imitations, Stalin’s “useful idiots.” As for the Russians, it’s well known that Russians are exceptionally racist, particularly regarding blacks. Ask any African who studied in Russia. Obama is black and will never be seen by Russians, especially lower-class Slavic policemen like Putin, as anything but inferior. 3) In the 1906s, American Marxists were terrified that black people would realize that their interests are the same as working whites. That is beginning to happen more and more, and an exodus from the Democrat Plantation is gaining momentum.

Obama’s answer? Pretend none of it is happening and spend more of the taxpayers’ money on lavish vacations, parties, and world humiliation tours. Let them eat cake…