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 .

Do We Have Another Woodward?

Bob Woodward SC Do We Have Another Woodward?

The House of Cards is beginning to crumble. All of a sudden, Uncle Joe is back in the closet. Valerie Jarrett is nowhere to be seen. To the task at hand:

CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson bucked the trend and was the only mainstream media reporter who dared to investigate Benghazi-gate, and now it is being reported that she may lose her job over it. And the fact that the president of CBS News is the brother of a top Obama Administration official is allegedly not helping matters.

The Daily Caller is reporting: “The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively.” I wonder how a reporter covers a story “too aggressively.” I think if they had asked Bob Woodward if he was being too aggressive with Watergate, I think they would have gotten a different answer.

Attkisson, who is in talks to leave the network before her contract expires, has been attempting to figure out who changed the Benghazi talking points for more than five months. “We still don’t know who changed talking points but have had at least 4 diff explanations so far,” Attkisson tweeted on November 27, 2012.

But last Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported; and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack. That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012. There is speculation that the Obama administration is keeping the survivors away so that they can’t do damage. The White House advisors never expected Benghazi to develop legs. Recent developments, especially the emails that were released the other day, show that there are concrete links from the State Department to the White House concerning the wording in the revisions.

ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters degree in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012. That is three days after the airing of the event. “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation,” Rhodes wrote to his colleagues in the Obama administration. “We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Mr. Rhodes, also a 35-year old New York City native and former Giuliani staffer who has worked for Obama since the president’s tenure in the U.S. Senate, has established himself as a hawkish force on the Obama foreign policy team, advocating for military intervention in Libya during the president’s first term and reportedly advocating for intervention in Syria as well. But despite his hawkish views, Rhodes identifies himself first and foremost as a strategist and mouthpiece for the president’s agenda. According to Rhodes: “My main job, which has always been my job, is to be the person who represents the president’s view on these issues,”

David Rhodes has been the president of CBS News since February 2011.

So the plot thickens. Day by day, the Obama administration is sinking into the mud and mire that it created after the attack on Benghazi. One question we need answered is: Who decided on sending Susan Rice out to mislead the public the way she did? That was such a glaring breach of protocol that even an eighth grader would have questioned the choice. As far as the display that Hillary put on, I for one care very much why our Ambassador was tortured and murdered (and why three brave men who came to his defense were deserted by our government and sentenced to an ignominious death.)

It doesn’t matter whether you are Democratic, Republican, or Independent. If you care about America and the future of freedom, you have to demand that there is a complete revelation of the truth. There is something on display in the Truman Library that every American should take note of. Harry Truman was a man of his word who did not look for someone or something to blame for his shortcomings. The sign on his desk was simple and straightforward. It read: “The Buck Stops Here.” That simple statement should be applied to President Obama and the Nanny Media that did everything it could to get him elected and prevent anything or anyone from exposing his incompetence or dishonesty. Now I am sure they will circle the wagons around Hillary and her preparation for a presidential run in 2016.

Who Will Guard Us From Our Guardians?

Obama Big Brother SC Who Will Guard Us from Our Guardians?

The government scandals of the day are packed with irony:   from the seizure of reporters’ phone record to the bungling in Benghazi; from the president’s slight of Thomas Jefferson to the IRS targeting opponents of big government.  If Woody Allen, Carol Brunette, Mark Twain, and anyone else who made the observation that comedy is tragedy plus time  are correct, perhaps this will be the fodder of funny men in the future, much as Monty Python tried to milk a few laughs from the Black Plague from the safe distance of 600 years.

But the Plague wasn’t funny then to the hundreds of millions who lived through it and died from it.  And there is not much laughing room now in watching our government grow more lawless by the day.

Nothing can really top the irony of President Obama’s belittling just days ago of people who say we need to be aware that governments can become tyrannical.  Presumably, Obama’s disdain extends to people like Thomas Jefferson who have warned about the need for vigilance against government abuse.

Such people “gum up the works,” said Obama.

What works, specifically, are those?  The answer came within only days with the discovery that the IRS was politicizing enforcement of tax provisions.   To make the irony complete, that story was immediately followed by news that the Justice department was snooping on reporters’ phone records without benefit of court orders or warrants.

The news that the Justice Department has been snooping through reporters’ phone records at least got the attention of the news media.  It would be nice if the media were as concerned with the rest of the government’s neglect of the Constitution.  It would be nice to see the lapdog press turn into the watchdog press.

Speaking of ironies, there are probably many in the media who don’t at all mind the IRS targeting opponents of big government – Tea Partiers and those interested in the Constitution – just as there are probably many conservatives who really don’t mind big government harassing big media.

Just when you think all of that is enough, we get the news that the Justice Department, itself suspected of gross indifference to the formalities of warrants, is now charged with investigating the IRS, which is indifferent to just about everything.

Meanwhile, those shocked – shocked, I tell you – to discover that the IRS has politicized tax enforcement are either wet behind the ears, or just dangerously naïve.  We know that presidents from FDR to Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all used the IRS to target their opponents.

But use of the IRS as a weapon has not been limited to the executive branch.  In a Wall Street Journal column (“A Brief History of IRS Political Targeting,” 5/14/2013), James Bovard recounts episodes of congressional abuse, for example of  “an IRS official who had explained at an IRS meeting in San Francisco that audit requests from members of Congress or their staff had been shredded and also suggested how future requests from Capitol Hill could be camouflaged.”

Of the same practice used again, Bovard reports, “Audit requests from congressmen were marked ‘expedite’ or ‘hot politically’ and IRS officials were obliged to respond within 15 days. Permitting congressmen to secretly and effortlessly sic G-men on whomever they pleased epitomized official Washington’s contempt for average Americans and fair play. But because the abuse was bipartisan, there was little enthusiasm on Capitol Hill for an investigation.”

Sadly, it is true that the only time there is enthusiasm on Capitol Hill is when an investigation can produce partisan victories and electoral advantage.  That would explain Capitol Hill’s interest in the Benghazi fiasco:  If Hillary can be neutralized, and if Democrats can be faulted for mishandling Benghazi, Republicans are on the case.  But their interest stops dead in its track at the question of what we were up to in Libya to begin with.  After all, both Republican and Democrat fingerprints are all over the intervention in Libya.  And if the government was using Benghazi as a staging area to run guns to rebels in Syria – fighters uncomfortably similar to Al Qaeda -  then nobody wants to know.

The death of Ambassador Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi is a tragedy; but if the so-called diplomatic mission there was a CIA base, we deserve to know.  We do know that whatever it was in Benghazi, it wasn’t an embassy.  Or a consulate.

If the ambassador was really a CIA agent, that is a violation of our laws.  We deserve to know.  There is no law that commits the United States to protect illegal gunrunning.  And there is no diplomatic immunity for weapons dealers.

Where would the Benghazi trail lead if Congress cared about more than their own political fortunes?  Here’s a hint:  what we do know is that of the people evacuated by air from Benghazi the night of the attack, seven were diplomatic and State Department workers.  Twenty-three were CIA officers.

So from illegal operations overseas (does anybody remember a Constitutional declaration of war that authorized the U.S. to topple the government in Libya?) to snoops in the Justice department; from the targeting of political opponents by the IRS to a Congress concerned solely with the next election; from one badly stained department of government charged with investigating another to the president’s derision of Jeffersonian vigilance; from all this we are left to ask: who will guard us from our guardians?

Maybe it will all prove to be hysterically funny with the passage of enough time.

But for now, Ron Paul deserves apologies from those who, like Obama, believed that his calls for us to be vigilant about intrusive government were over the top.

 

Charles Goyette  is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Dollar Meltdown. His new book is Red and Blue and Broke All Over: Restoring America’s Free Economy.

This article is taken from Charles Goyette’s  Freedom & Prosperity Letter, a monthly political and financial newsletter, helping Americans protect themselves and their families.  GO HERE.

 

Photo credit: waif69 (Creative Commons)

John Boehner: Call A Special Investigation!

John Boehner 3 SC John Boehner: call a special investigation!

BENGHAZI: Why have Hillary and Barack lied and covered up so vigorously for so long?  Obviously, there is something terribly damaging being concealed.  The truth, in their estimation, would be more damaging that the appearance of impropriety.  Better to be seen incompetent than be judged criminal.

One theory claims it was a staged kidnapping to set up Obama the hero when he saved the day, all to guarantee re-election.

Another theory: arms were being shipped to Syria via Libya and Turkey, managed by our ambassador; and something went sideways and the terrorists we were arming turned on us.

Still another theory holds that Chris Stevens was involved with something illegal or unethical against his will. He was about to blow the whistle, and the Administration set him up for elimination.

Perhaps it was only sheer incompetence and an attempt to deflect bad news in deference to re-election.  However, if that were the case, why all this post-election cover-up and deception?

No.

There is something very, very rotten in the Obama WH. And Boehner and the Boys had better roll up their sleeves and get to the bottom of it, or they will forever suffer shame and dishonor.