| ||||||||||||
|
By Ben Domenech
The latest poll data
<http://online.wsj.com/
tml?mod=wsj_share_tweet> from the WSJ probably comes as a surprise to more
than one insider. "The Republican Party is gaining a public-opinion edge on
several key issues ahead of the 2014 elections, as Americans question
President Barack Obama's leadership on Syria and worry about the country's
overall direction, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows.
Republicans are now rated higher than Democrats on handling the economy and
foreign policy, and the GOP's lead has strengthened on several other issues,
including dealing with the federal deficit and ensuring a strong national
defense. On topics such as health care, Democrats have seen their
long-standing advantage whittled to lows not seen in years."
<http://online.wsj.com/
tml?mod=wsj_share_tweet> from the WSJ probably comes as a surprise to more
than one insider. "The Republican Party is gaining a public-opinion edge on
several key issues ahead of the 2014 elections, as Americans question
President Barack Obama's leadership on Syria and worry about the country's
overall direction, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows.
Republicans are now rated higher than Democrats on handling the economy and
foreign policy, and the GOP's lead has strengthened on several other issues,
including dealing with the federal deficit and ensuring a strong national
defense. On topics such as health care, Democrats have seen their
long-standing advantage whittled to lows not seen in years."
The real crux of this isn't Republican improvement so much as it is that the
American people believe Obama's approach hasn't worked. "The poll also
reflected unease over the economy. Just 27% of Americans think the economy
will improve over the next year, the lowest since July 2012, while nearly
two-thirds think the country is on the wrong track. The public tilt on
several issues in favor of the GOP, particularly among independents, comes
as Mr. Obama's own job-approval rating has hovered around 45% for three
months, a tenuous place for a president trying to build support for likely
battles with Congress over possible military action in Syria, a proposed
overhaul of immigration law and the budget." The dramatic shifts
<http://online.wsj.com/
tml?mod=wsj_share_tweet> on health care and the deficit have all been under
Obama's tenure.
American people believe Obama's approach hasn't worked. "The poll also
reflected unease over the economy. Just 27% of Americans think the economy
will improve over the next year, the lowest since July 2012, while nearly
two-thirds think the country is on the wrong track. The public tilt on
several issues in favor of the GOP, particularly among independents, comes
as Mr. Obama's own job-approval rating has hovered around 45% for three
months, a tenuous place for a president trying to build support for likely
battles with Congress over possible military action in Syria, a proposed
overhaul of immigration law and the budget." The dramatic shifts
<http://online.wsj.com/
tml?mod=wsj_share_tweet> on health care and the deficit have all been under
Obama's tenure.
Within this context, it's worth noting the persistence of this idea
<http://www.nationaljournal.
ith-whites-alone-20130905> that Republicans are doomed because they are too
focused on white voters to the expense of the growing minority population.
As I've noted before, that assumes a static and unshakeable union between
minorities and the Democratic Party in the post-Obama era not yet in
evidence (the latest Reason-Rupe poll found
<http://reason.com/poll/2013/
that 60% of African-Americans and 58% of Latinos think the individual
mandate should be delayed). But it also assumes that the policies and
messages Republicans, and particularly conservatives, have advanced are
isolated to certain voters, and can't expand beyond those limitations. This
seems illogical to me. The argument goes like this: Republicans need more
support from lower and middle class ethnic voters, yet they largely refuse
to engage in appeals based on identity politics. Therefore, it is impossible
for Republicans to win non-white voters.
<http://www.nationaljournal.
ith-whites-alone-20130905> that Republicans are doomed because they are too
focused on white voters to the expense of the growing minority population.
As I've noted before, that assumes a static and unshakeable union between
minorities and the Democratic Party in the post-Obama era not yet in
evidence (the latest Reason-Rupe poll found
<http://reason.com/poll/2013/
that 60% of African-Americans and 58% of Latinos think the individual
mandate should be delayed). But it also assumes that the policies and
messages Republicans, and particularly conservatives, have advanced are
isolated to certain voters, and can't expand beyond those limitations. This
seems illogical to me. The argument goes like this: Republicans need more
support from lower and middle class ethnic voters, yet they largely refuse
to engage in appeals based on identity politics. Therefore, it is impossible
for Republicans to win non-white voters.
This is absurd. While there are certainly cultural barriers to Republican
appeals, and no one will listen to you if you're not listening to them
first, the argument for building a better plan for lower and middle class
Americans is inherently color-blind. It is class-based, not confined to
white voters. The lower class white family in Ohio is struggling just as
much to make ends meet as the lower class black family. Just because the
language you might use with the Dominican or Korean shop owner in
Philadelphia or in Seattle might be slightly different, the set of policy
priorities is the same.
appeals, and no one will listen to you if you're not listening to them
first, the argument for building a better plan for lower and middle class
Americans is inherently color-blind. It is class-based, not confined to
white voters. The lower class white family in Ohio is struggling just as
much to make ends meet as the lower class black family. Just because the
language you might use with the Dominican or Korean shop owner in
Philadelphia or in Seattle might be slightly different, the set of policy
priorities is the same.
Yet experienced political journalists and analysts seem incapable of
understanding this - perhaps because they are naturally prone to believe
that no conservative policy solution could be any good for anyone less rich
than Mitt Romney or less pious than Mike Huckabee. Who knows why that could
be
<http://www.redstate.com/2013/
ives-fairly/> ? But whatever the explanation, the important thing is that
conservatives don't just sit back and twiddle their thumbs while journalists
ignore Obama's shrinking approval ratings: they need to use this time to
ramp up their agenda for the very voters who are wavering in their support
for Democratic policies. Next week at AEI will bring some remarks
<http://aei.org/events/2013/
appiness-a-new-plan-by-
the pursuit of happiness, and the introduction of a new plan by Senator Mike
Lee. Republicans should pay attention to it, and to other plans like it,
which challenge the policy status quo on the right to better connect with
the problems Americans of all races are facing in today's stagnant economy.
Benjamin Domenech is editor of The Transom <http://thetransom.org/> . Click
here <http://thetransom.org/> to subscribe.
American voters to President Obama - DUH! (See 1 below.)
PJTV.com "
|
Putin could overplay his hand but for the moment, since he understands weakness and knows how to go for the jugular, he remains in the driver's seat of Obama's limousine..
Putin has concluded Obama is a perfect foil, a sitting duck a patsy he can manipulate and he also has concluded Obama surrounded himself with weak Secretaries of State and Defense so he could remain in charge of his Titanic Foreign Diplomacy. See 2, 2a, 2b and 2c below.)
Obama's failures are so evident and blatant that even many Democrats are beginning to despair and that took a lot of doing. Nevertheless, Obama is a master at screwing up because he got his training as a Community Organizer and used Affirmative Action and his silver tongue to propel himself into the presidency as well as McCain's disjointed campaign and angst over GW's Iraq venture.
Rumor has it that when Obama leaves office he will not build a library but will start a college for Community Organizers so he can pass along his knowledge to other incompetents.
The college, it is rumored, will be located in downtown Chicago and built by illegal immigrants on welfare. The faculty will consist of people who have influenced Obama and helped him rise to the presidency. The college's mission is to train the next president to carry on where Obama's eight years leave off and Bill and Hillary have agreed to co-chair the School's Foundation and from time to time be guest lecturers.
If you would like to contribute you can receive a tax deduction or, better yet, be entitled to a medical procedure 'Obamascare' will deny as you age. (See 3 below.)
===
Is this the same country Obama sees when he shaves in the morning or when someone shaves him?
Or does he see a nation of filthy rich capitalists taking advantage of those who get their sustenance from government because educational opportunities, the family structure has been negatively impacted by government, over reaching unions have caused jobs to be shipped overseas and massive regulations have caused management to try and escape the impact of added costs to their budgets while lining their own pockets with golden parachutes and other outrageous perks?
The below speaks to a simpler time, a time when PC'ism was not in control of our every thought and move. It was a halcyon time for most youths who could play without fear, looked up to the neighborhood cop as their friend, said the Pledge of Allegiance and willingly attended houses of worship of their choice.
Yes, we have made enormous progress technologically, medically and socially but this progress has come at a pernicious cost.
Thomas Wolfe wrote " You cannot go home again." The tragedy is so many have no safe and secure home to go back to, a home cooked meal and a meaningful job that offers upward mobility. This is the America our progressives have helped us achieve and, more to the point, this president seems clueless what to do about it, in part, because this has become an accepted norm.
The current generation's aspirations were set high, unpaid college borrowings restrict their freedom of mobility and there are not enough well paying jobs to give them realistic encouragement. America, under Obama, is going economically backwards and deeper in debt., We are a nation in retreat , we have lost confidence. We are neither respected among by allies nor feared by our enemies.
The current generation's aspirations were set high, unpaid college borrowings restrict their freedom of mobility and there are not enough well paying jobs to give them realistic encouragement. America, under Obama, is going economically backwards and deeper in debt., We are a nation in retreat , we have lost confidence. We are neither respected among by allies nor feared by our enemies.
Does the 'change' Obama has imposed upon us square with Rockwell's World? You decide!
===America builds prison cells to incarcerate its growing number of criminals, China seeks to replicate cells?
Click on:http://www.mdtmag.com/videos/
===
It took Obama less than 6 years to turn the Middle East over to Russia.
Meanwhile, Lavrov and Kerry have reached an accord which seemingly allows Assad and Russia to present Obama a fig leaf he can hide behind as he takes a victory lap around the Washington Monument..
Another version of the supposed accord.
In essence an administration that lied to us about Benghazi, the IRA and a host of other matters now wants us to believe they bested Russia's ally, ie. Syria and everything is verifiable.
I am sure the press, media and Hollywood crowd will give a sigh of relief and swallow the Russian chicken bone but I cannot bring myself to believe Kerry is Charles Schultz's equal! (See 4, 4a and 4b below.)
===
Let's end by beginning the New Year with some humor:
"Morris Schwartz is dying and is on his deathbed. He is with his nurse, his wife, his daughter and 2 sons, and knows the end is near. So he says to them:
"Bernie, I want you to take the Beverly Hills houses."
"Sybil, take the apartments over in Los Angeles Plaza."
"Hymie, I want you to take the offices over in City Center."
"Sarah, my dear wife, please take all the residential buildings downtown"
The nurse is just blown away by all this, and as Morris slips away, she says to the wife, "Mrs. Schwartz, your husband must have been such a hard working man to have accumulated all this property.
Sarah replies, "Property shmoperty...the schmuck has a milk route."
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Elite Syrian Unit Scatters Chemical Arms Stockpile
Assad Regime Has Moved Weapons to as Many as 50 Sites
A secretive Syrian military unit at the center of the Assad regime's chemical weapons program has been moving stocks of poison gases and munitions to as many as 50 sites to make them harder for the U.S. to track, according to American and Middle Eastern officials.
The movements of chemical weapons by Syria's elite Unit 450 could complicate any U.S. bombing campaign in Syria over its alleged chemical attacks, officials said. It also raises questions about implementation of a Russian proposal that calls for the regime to surrender control of its stockpile, they said.
U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies still believe they know where most of the Syrian regime's chemical weapons are located, but with less confidence than six months ago, U.S. officials said.
Secretary of State John Kerry met Thursday in Geneva with his Russian counterpart to discuss a road map for ending the weapons program. The challenges are immense, Mr. Kerry said.
The U.S. alleges a chemical-weapons attack by the Syrian government on Aug. 21 killed more than 1,400 people, including at least 400 children. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Thursday again denied any involvement in a chemical attack, but he said his government was prepared to sign an agreement banning the use of chemical weapons. Syrian officials couldn't immediately be reached for comment on the weapons.
Unit 450—a branch of the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center that manages the regime's overall chemicals weapons program—has been moving the stocks around for months, officials and lawmakers briefed on the intelligence said.
Movements occurred as recently as last week, the officials said, after Mr. Obamasaid he was preparing to launch strikes.
The unit is in charge of mixing and deploying chemical munitions, and it provides security at chemical sites, according to U.S. and European intelligence agencies. It is composed of officers from Mr. Assad's Alawite sect. One diplomat briefed on the unit said it was Alawite from "janitor to commander."
U.S. military officials have looked into the possibility of gaining influence over members of Unit 450 through inducements or threats. "In a perfect world, you would actually like to co-opt that unit. Who cares who pays them as long as they sit on the chemical weapons," said a senior U.S. military official.
Although the option remains on the table, government experts say the unit is so close knit that they doubt any member could break ranks without being exposed and killed.
The U.S. estimates the regime has 1,000 metric tons of chemical and biological agents. "That is what we know about. There might be more," said one senior U.S. official.
The regime traditionally kept most of its chemical and biological weapons at a few large sites in western Syria, U.S. officials said. But beginning about a year ago, the Syrians started dispersing the arsenal to nearly two dozen major sites.
Unit 450 also started using dozens of smaller sites. The U.S. now believes Mr. Assad's chemical arsenal has been scattered to as many as 50 locations in the west, north and south, as well as new sites in the east, officials said.
The U.S. is using satellites to track vehicles employed by Unit 450 to disperse the chemical-weapons stocks. But the imagery doesn't always show what is being put on the trucks. "We know a lot less than we did six months ago about where the chemical weapons are," one official said.
The movements, activities and base locations of Unit 450 are so sensitive that the U.S. won't share information with even trusted allies in the opposition for fear the unit would be overrun by rebels, said current and former U.S. officials.
The U.S. wants any military strikes in Syria to send a message to the heads of Unit 450 that there is a steep price for following orders to use chemical weapons, U.S. officials said.
At the same time, the U.S. doesn't want any strike to destabilize the unit so much that it loses control of its chemical weapons, giving rebels a chance to seize the arsenal.
"Attacking Unit 450, assuming we have any idea where they actually are, would be a pretty tricky affair because…if you attack them you may reduce the security of their weapons, which is something we certainly don't want," said Jeffrey White, a veteran of the Defense Intelligence Agency and a defense fellow at The Washington Institute.
Within Syria, little is known about Unit 450 or the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center. One of the buildings is in a sprawling complex on the outskirts of Damascus.
Even high-ranking defectors from the Syrian military that form the core of the rebel insurgency—including those who served in units trained to handle chemical attacks—said they hadn't heard of Unit 450.
The Pentagon has prepared multiple target lists for possible strikes, some of which include commanders of Unit 450.
But a senior U.S. official said no decision has been made to target them, reflecting the challenge of sending a message to Unit 450 without destabilizing it.
In some respects, officials said, the hands-on role that Unit 450 plays in safeguarding the regime's chemical weapons secrets makes it too valuable for the U.S. to eliminate, even though the U.S. believes the unit is directly responsible for the alleged chemical weapons abuses.
The Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center answers only to Mr. Assad and the most senior members of his clan, according to U.S. and European officials. Attack orders are forwarded to a commanding officer within Unit 450.
If the Russians clinch a deal for Mr. Assad to give up his chemical weapons, any prospective United Nations-led force to protect inspectors and secure storage sites would likely need to work closely with Unit 450 and the research center, current and former administration officials said.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that President Barack Obama directed him to plan for "a militarily significant strike" that would deter the Assad regime's further use of chemical weapons and degrade the regime's military capability to employ chemical weapons in the future.
But officials said the U.S. doesn't plan to bomb chemical weapons sites directly because of concerns any attack would disperse poison agents and put civilians at risk.
In addition to satellites, the U.S. also relies on Israeli spies for on-the-ground intelligence about the unit, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.
Though small in size, Unit 450 controls a vast infrastructure that makes it easier for the U.S. and Israel to track its movements. Chemical weapons storage depots are guarded by the unit within larger compounds to provide multiple layers of security, U.S. officials said.
Whenever chemical munitions are deployed in the field, Unit 450 has to pre-deploy heavy equipment to chemical mixing areas, which the U.S. and Israel can track.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Vladimir Putin Takes Exception
A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an op-ed piece.
By Peggy Noonan
He twisted the knife and gloated, which was an odd and self-indulgent thing to do when he was winning. Vladimir Putin, in his essay in the New York Times, may even to some degree have overplayed his hand, though that won't matter much immediately. As a public posture, grace and patience would have brought him a lot further, impressing people and allowing them to feel some confidence in the idea that he's seriously trying to offer an actual path out of the Syrian mess. But maybe he doesn't think he has to win anyone over anymore—and maybe that's the real news. In any case, the steely-eyed geopolitical strategist has reminded us that he's also the media-obsessed operator who plays to his base back home by tranquilizing bears, wrestling alligators and riding horses shirtless, like Yul Brynner in "Taras Bulba."
Clearly he is looking at President Obama and seeing weakness, lostness, lack of popularity. His essay is intended to exploit this and make some larger points, often sanctimoniously, about how the U.S. should conduct itself in the world. And so he chided American leadership, implicitly challenged its position as world leader, posited the U.N. Security Council, where Russia has done so much mischief, as the only appropriate decision-making body for international military action, and worried the U.N. will "suffer the fate" of the League of Nations if "influential countries" continue to take action without authorization. He does not doubt chemical weapons were used in Syria but doubts it was the government that used them. It was probably the rebels, he asserts, in an attempt to "provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons."
Still, in general, Mr. Putin made a better case in the piece against a U.S. military strike than the American president has for it. And he did so, in a way, by getting to the left of the president, who he implies is insufficiently respectful to international bodies. Mr. Putin was candid about his primary anxiety—a spillover from Syria that could threaten Russian stability.
The Syrian civil war, he both conceded and cleverly noted for a U.S. audience, is in no way "a battle for democracy." He made no moral claims for his ally, Bashar Assad. The war, he said, is a battle between government and opposition, with the latter composed of militants and mercenaries including al Qaeda fighters and "extremists of all stripes." He sees what is happening as a danger to his country. Some of the rebels are from the West, and some from Russia itself. He does not want them returning home with the training they've acquired. "This threatens us all," he said. True enough.
Mr. Putin's challenge to the idea to American exceptionalism was ignorant and tone-deaf. The president had thrown in a reference to it at the end of his speech. Mr. Putin, in his essay, responded: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation." After all, he said, God made us all equal.
My goodness, that argument won't get you very far in America, and it's a little worrying that Mr. Putin either wouldn't know this or wouldn't care. (Here it must be noted: The Times is reporting Mr. Putin's essay was placed by an American public-relations firm. Really? This is the kind of work you get from a big ticket, big-time communications outfit? Can't America even do PR anymore?)
America is not exceptional because it has long attempted to be a force for good in the world, it attempts to be a force for good because it is exceptional. It is a nation formed not by brute, grunting tribes come together over the fire to consolidate their power and expand their land base, but by people who came from many places. They coalesced around not blood lines but ideals, and they defined, delineated and won their political rights in accordance with groundbreaking Western and Enlightenment thought. That was something new in history, and quite exceptional. We fought a war to win our freedom, won it against the early odds, understood we owed much to God, and moved forward as a people attempting to be worthy of what he'd given us.
We had been obliged, and had obligations. If you don't understand this about America you don't understand anything.
I don't know why the idea of American exceptionalism seems to grate so on Mr. Putin. Perhaps he simply misunderstands what is meant by it and takes it to be a reference to American superiority, which it is not. Perhaps it makes him think of who won the Cold War and how. Maybe the whole concept makes him think of what Russia did, almost 100 years ago now, to upend and thwart its own greatness, with a communist revolution that lasted 75 years and whose atheism, a core part of its ideology, attempted to rid his great nation of its faith, and almost succeeded. Maybe it grates on him that in his time some of the stupider Americans have crowed about American exceptionalism a bit too much—and those crowing loudest understood it least.
But I suspect on some level he's just a little envious of the greatness of America's beginnings. The Russian Revolution almost killed Russia—they're still recovering. The American Revolution has been animating us for more than two centuries.
The irony of course is that Mr. Putin used the exceptionalism argument against Mr. Obama, who himself barely believes in the idea and no doubt threw it into his speech the way he often throws things like that in at the end: He thinks Americans like it, that the nationalist ego of the clingers demands it. But he doesn't mean it. Asked about American exceptionalism once, he said sure he believes in it, just as the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. Thank you for that rousing historical endorsement.
After Mr. Putin's comments, New Jersey's Sen. Bob Menendez was asked for his response. "I almost wanted to vomit," he said. This was the best thing Bob Menendez has ever said, and really did sum up U.S. reaction.
***
A mystery of the Syrian crisis, and the Putin essay, is this. Mr. Putin obviously feels considerable disdain for the president, in spite of what he threw in at the end of his essay—that he and Mr. Obama have a personal and professional relationship marked by "growing trust." Sure. But I keep thinking of Mr. Obama's meeting with then-President Dmitry Medvedev in May 2012 and Mr. Obama's famous hot-mic comment that after the election he would have "more flexibility" and hoped Mr. Putin understood that. Why didn't Mr. Obama's promised flexibility earn him any gratitude from Mr. Putin? Why didn't it earn him Mr. Putin's discretion, especially at a difficult moment like this?
One thing is certain. Mr. Putin's essay was not Nikita Krushchev slamming his shoe on the desk at the U.N. and saying, "We will bury you!" Those were bad days. We'll see, in retrospect, what these days are. It's not a cold war between the U.S. and Russia, and it's not a hot one, but there's a new chill in the air, isn't there?
2a)Obama Is Lost in the Mideast Bazaar
Amid the Syrian fiasco, the president finds a Russian eager to steer him safely home.
There is a trick in the great labyrinthine bazaars of the Middle East: petty hucksters luring the vacationing franjis into the market maze and then getting paid to lead them out. As dusk looms, the unnerved outsider is always glad to be steered to familiar surroundings. In the matter of Syria, and America's staggeringly inept diplomacy, Vladimir Putin is the clever trickster who has seized upon an unsuspecting prey. The Russian strongman now proposes a way out for an American leader desperately searching for deliverance.
For the full length of this relentless Syrian rebellion, the Russian autocracy aided and abetted the Syrian dictatorship, a Mafia regime made in the Kremlin's own image. Moscow granted Bashar Assad diplomatic cover at the United Nations, and kept him supplied with the military hardware that enabled him to wage a cruel war against a determined rebellion.
The survival of the Syrian regime was a "red line" for the Russian ruler—a true red line. The dictatorship in Damascus had been forged four decades ago, when Soviet power was on the rise. Syrian armies and factories, the intelligence services and the architecture, were all in the Soviet mold. The sun may have set on the old Soviet empire, but on the shores of the Mediterranean, with a derelict naval base in Tartus waiting to be revived, Syria offered Russia the consolation that it could still play the game of the great powers. In the Syrian mirror, Mr. Putin sees a version of his own battle with Chechen insurgents.
Now it is dusk, and the hapless Barack Obama has lost his old swagger. He had feigned intimacy with "the East," he had thought that he was at ease with that big Islamic world. Instead, he was befuddled by what awaited him, and now he finds himself at the mercy of a Russian skilled in the ruses of the bazaar.
Grant the Russians the consistency of their position on Syria. From the outset of the civil war two years ago, Moscow insisted that it would not stand idly by and accept a repetition of what had happened in Libya. The deranged Moammar Gadhafi was a man the Russians knew and favored. By their lights, they had let him down when they let slip through the cracks of the U.N. machinery a proposal that called for the protection of Libyan civilians. The proposal gave NATO the warrant that led to the destruction of the Libyan dictatorship.
No such ambiguity this time around. Russia was determined to see its client regime in Damascus to victory. If Soviet decay and American resolve had all but banished Moscow's influence from Middle Eastern lands, Vladimir Putin was eager for a Russian return—all the more so if the restoration came on the cheap.
The Arab rebellions of 2011 had unnerved the Russians. The autocratic model itself was on the defensive, and those Arab regimes of plunder and tyranny were both physically close to Russia and bore a striking resemblance to the lawless Kremlin model of rule. It took no special genius on the part of Mr. Putin to see the irresolution of his American counterpart.
There, on display, was the spectacle of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, where American primacy had been secured with much blood and treasure. And there was Iran, unchecked and on a determined drive that had granted it enormous sway all the way from its border with Iraq to the Mediterranean.
"The tide of war is receding" was the American leader's mantra. The Russian ruler fully understood that the Middle East was a Hobbesian region sensitive to shifts of power, always appraising the stamina of outsiders who venture into its midst.
Syria itself revealed the abdication of American power. For two long years, when so many good options were still possible, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was, in effect, a player on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's team. Time and again, American diplomacy hid behind the Russian veto at the U.N. Security Council. The Obama administration deferred to the Security Council, knowing that the White House's public wishes would be rebuffed. This was the pretext for ignoring the Syrian massacres, the terrible war in the Fertile Crescent.
At times, Secretary Clinton's brief echoed Russian pronouncements: These were not ordinary Syrians battling for freedom, we were told, they were zealots, affiliated with al Qaeda, and surely we did not want to find ourselves on the same side in Syria with Ayman al-Zawahiri. (Hillary Clinton's remarkable luck holds: The Syrian horrors don't stick to her—apparently "global icons" are not held accountable for political debacles.)
Mr. Putin has an eye for the fecklessness of the democracies. He knew that the Obama administration, seized with panic, would take the bait he offered: custody of Syria's chemical weapons in return for giving the Damascus regime a new lease on life.
We are war-weary, Mr. Obama intones repeatedly. He was elected to end wars, not to start them, the president reminds us. But none of our leaders—certainly not the ones who mattered, who answered the call of history—was elected to start wars.
We anoint our leaders to rid us of our weariness when resolve is called for, to draw for us the connection between our security and menaces at a seeming far remove. The leaders of the past two decades who sent American forces to Bosnia, to Kosovo, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, were not thirsting for foreign wars. These leaders located America, and its interests, in the world. Pity the Syrians, they rose up in the time of Barack Obama.
2b)Putin Rules
The Russian strongman takes the measure of President Obama.
Russian President Vladimir Putin may be crude, but he knows how to exploit weakness. And he's sure acting like he has spotted an easy mark in President Obama.
That's the way to read Wednesday's report in the Moscow business daily Kommersant that the Russian President plans to offer Tehran a sophisticated mobile anti-aircraft missile system, along with a second nuclear reactor, at a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that begins Friday. To rub it in, Mr. Putin also took to the op-ed pages of the New York Times to tout Russia as a champion of "international law" and "peaceful dialogue," denounce U.S. military interventions and scold Mr. Obama for speaking of American exceptionalism.
"When we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal," concluded the former KGB agent who has anointed himself Russia's president-for-life while crushing his opposition, invading his neighbors and enriching his cronies.
Humiliating, isn't it? You wouldn't know it by listening to the Obama Administration and its media allies spin Syria as the smartest U.S. diplomacy since Henry Kissinger opened China. In his speech Tuesday night, Mr. Obama credited the "constructive talks that I had with President Putin" at last week's G-20 confab in St. Petersburg for the prospective deal that would have Russia take custody of Syria's chemical weapons.
Judging by his behavior, Mr. Putin will read that as another "Kick Me" sign on Mr. Obama's back. Giving asylum to Edward Snowden? Kick. Protecting Bashar Assad, then offering to disarm him? Kick. Arming Iran with proscribed missiles? Kick. And that's merely in the last month.
The offer to supply Iran with missiles and reactors is particularly rich, given that Russian cooperation on Iran was supposed to be the main selling point of Mr. Obama's first-term Russia reset—worth its price, we were told, in abandoned missile-defense projects, betrayed Central European allies and a reduced U.S. nuclear arsenal.
In 2010, the U.S. and Israel succeeded in getting Moscow not to sell Tehran the missile system, known as the S-300VM, on grounds that the sale violated a U.N. arms embargo on the Islamic Republic. The embargo remains in force, but apparently not Mr. Putin's scruples about abiding by it. So much, by the way, for Mr. Putin's fidelity to international law.
As we went to press, John Kerry was in Geneva trying to negotiate a deal with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, who will no doubt demand further U.S. concessions for Moscow's help in solving the very problems the Kremlin helped create.
It's a negotiating strategy Mr. Putin laid down in a candid 2006 interview: "Just think back to childhood when you go into the street with a sweet in your hand and another kid says, 'Give it to me.' And you clutch your little sweaty fist tight around it and say, 'What do I get then?'" We'll find out soon enough what the Administration will give up next to get Mr. Putin to open his sweaty fist.
2c)Purposefully dragging America down
David M. Weinberg - Israel Hayom
Just about everybody in the world is puzzled and upset by the contradictions and apparent fumbles in U.S. President Barack Obama's foreign policy. I think that most commentators have failed to correctly identify what Obama is up to. He's out to drag America down, purposefully so.
Invariably, almost all experts, analysts and pundits have ascribed Obama's zigzags regarding Libya, Egypt, Syria and Iran, along with his failed reset in relations with Russia, either to indecision or inexperience; to incompetence or infirmity.
Yet Obama is none of these frail things. He is quite decisive when he wants to be, and very able in advancing his agenda when he really wants to hit the goal. Obama is neither naïve nor inept. He is, by all accounts, a very focused man.
So none of the descriptions above truly explain the way Obama has handled Russia or the Middle East. They do not explain why he has so wantonly let America's international reputation and awesome global power waste away. They do not account for his indifference in the face of America's decline.
It is clear to me that the nonchalance of Obama as America decays is ideological. Obama intends it. He seeks the weakening of the United States on the global stage. He has set this out as one of the key goals of his presidency — and he is doing a very good, skillful job at achieving his goal!
From day one, Obama made it clear that he thought America's global performance to be arrogant and high-handed; to be overbearing and imperious; to be militaristic and immoral. Dozens of times, he made it clear that he views America not as the leader of the world or the free world, but at best as a partner in the community of nations.
Obama has never been comfortable with American leadership in world affairs, and he has been unquestionably out to completely transform that. His path is to denude the United States of its overwhelming global power, to strip the United States of its superior position, to doggedly drag America down.
Obama very clearly believes that the crippling of America will bring healing to the world; that the diminishment of America's ability to throw its weight around will make room for other, just-as-moral powers to emerge (such as, perhaps, powerful Islamic actors); that the denouement of America will elevate world politics to a better sphere; that he will be leaving the world a better place by cutting America down to size.
Taking advantage of a war-weary American body politic, Obama has proceeded very nicely in wrenching the United States off its traditional, honorable moorings. In five short years, with three to go, he has succeeded in squandering centuries of American might, prestige and credibility. Don't assume that this bothers him, or is the result of any failing. It is exactly where Obama is leading America, brilliantly so from his perspective — on principle, on target, and on plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Socialized Medicine Anyone?
By Scott Varland
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Socialized Medicine Anyone?
By Scott Varland
When it comes to health care, I want a system that provides high quality care at a reasonable price with significant patient choice. (The pre-Obamacare American one was far from the ideal.) Then there are Left-wingers like Bill Maher who abandon reason and worship at the altar of single-payer health care, as exemplified by the English National Health Service (NHS).
I have shocking news for Mr. Maher.
In July, the talented researcher Sir Brian Jarman, of Imperial College London, reported that 14 English hospitals were responsible for 13,000 unnecessary deaths between 2005 and the present. He went on to accuse the government of creating a "denial machine" that ignored his data for a decade. "The government was in the position of providing the health service and monitoring it: a conflict of interest. Ministers have an electoral interest in getting out good news."
This last week the other shoe dropped. Sir Brian announced that he had completed a study of hospitals in seven developed countries. His findings: American are the best, and English the worst. There are various reasons for the poor performance: the government in general, and the NHS in particular, ignore the complaints of whistle blowers and patients; the elderly are given short shrift; there are long waits for some crucial appointments; and cancer treatment is inadequate. In a nutshell, death rates in English hospitals are 45% higher than in American.
We have been warned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Dangerous Times: Putin the Peacemaker vs. Obama the Warmonger
By James Lewis
4)Dangerous Times: Putin the Peacemaker vs. Obama the Warmonger
By James Lewis
President Obama has now sabotaged four decades of stability in the Middle East. First he pulled down the biggest pillar of peace, the Mubarak regime in Egypt; then he bombed Libya into the Dark Ages; and now he has paraded "My Army" and "My Navy" against the Assad regime in Syria, which is just as evil as the rebels.
The one thing Obama has never faced honestly is what everybody knows to be the real threat -- namely mullahs with nukes.
In the strangest twist of history, it is Obama the radical leftist who is now acting as the destabilizing warmonger in the Middle East, while Vladimir Putin may be emerging as a stabilizing peacemaker.
Nobody can figure out whether Obama is the most hapless bumbler in history, or whether there is some sinister purpose behind it all.
It could be both.
But just as big a surprise is Putin's emerging role as a peacemaker.
Last week, we saw the first step in that process, when Putin and Assad agreed to allow supervised surrender of Syria's chemical weapons. We can assume that Putin also assured Assad of his continuing support against American-supported al-Qaeda rebels, which makes the rebellion unwinnable.
Meanwhile, Egypt's new military ruler, General Al Sisi, is reaching out to Putin to help stabilize his position against the Muslim Brotherhood, the war fanatics whom Obama has been aiding.
The Saudis, seeing Iranian mullahs with nukes emerging 50 miles from their shores, are also looking to make a deal with Putin. They have a lot of oil and money, and they cannot trust their American ally anymore.
If America bugs out, Russia is the obvious nuclear protector for the Saudis. In international affairs, survival comes first.
Last year, Vladimir Putin paid a friendly visit to Israel, meeting with the Israeli cabinet in Jerusalem.
In the Syrian confrontation, Putin sent five warships to the Eastern Med, just as we did. Those naval ships are not up to U.S. standards, but nobody wants to see a clash of the titans. It's a no-win situation.
Finally, Russia may be the only nation that can scare the bejesus out of the mullahs. The reason for that is very simple: Putin does not make idle threats. Every single day for more than thirty years the mullahs have been chanting, "Death to Israel! Death to America!"
But they never chant "Death to Russia!" because under Tsar Vladimir Putin, they are afraid to do so. Putin can a very nasty enemy, with far more power than the mullahs have.
Putin can therefore wield more real power in the Middle East than Obama.
Look at his chips: he can threaten Iran, which nobody else dares to do with real credibility. He can offer protection to Saudi Arabia, scared to death of Iran, only 50 miles away from Mecca and Medina. He can supply Assad with all the weapons he needs to stay in power, just as long as the United States is willing to support the al-Qaeda rebels against Assad. And he has no particular beef with Israel. Putin is therefore a source of stability, not random overthrow of stable regimes.
America's decline as a serious international power goes directly to our failure to find a serious answer to mullahs with nukes. That lack of seriousness started with Jimmy Carter, and it got much worse with Obama. The Bushes kept respect for America alive in the Middle East, which respects only hard power. But Obama, Carter, and Clinton sabotaged us and even surrendered to militant Islamists.
Russia is now the strong horse, and we are the weak horse.
Our weakness is not in our military, which is still the best in the world.
Our weakness is in our lack of political will under Democratic presidents. We are unreliable in a harsh world that can't afford to risk flabby American presidents every four years.
Putin knows all about pushover liberals. He rose in the Soviet KGB to become the head of the East German arm of Soviet intelligence. The Soviets studied Western politics and penetrated West Germany at the highest levels of government. Our Democrats are useful idiots in Lenin's meaning of that term, and they are not mysterious to Putin. They can be rolled. To hardnosed KGB thugs they are ridiculously easy to manipulate.
That makes Vladimir Putin potentially the most powerful player in the Middle East. If the Saudis come to an arrangement with him, he can protect them against Iran. One possibility is for the Saudis to coordinate oil prices with Russia, to their mutual benefit.
Putin is a Russian nationalist, like the tsars. Russian rulers have long been nationalistic tyrants. The tsars were also the heads of the Russian Orthodox Church, in exactly the way Queen Elizabeth is still the titular head of the Church of England. The Tsars were religious tyrants.
If you google "Putin + Patriarch of Moscow," you'll get 360,000 hits, including fabulous news photos of Vladimir Putin kissing the ring of the patriarch, surrounded by those golden baubles they inherited from the Byzantine Empire. Look at those pictures, and you see Putin the tsar.
In Russian legend, even Ivan the Terrible ended up confessing his sins to the Orthodox Church. Putin is playing a role going back five centuries and more.
Russia needs a unifying ideology, and if it's not Communism, it has to be its ancient form of orthodox Christianity. The Soviets tried to extirpate the Orthodox Church for seventy years and failed.
To understand Putin the Peacemaker, consider two more facts.
1. Historically, all the Orthodox Christian churches were shaped by more than a thousand years of warfare against Muslim aggressors. Putin does not have to learn about Muslim aggression -- unlike Obama, who can't seem to get what everybody else understands. When Muslim terrorists attacked a full theater in Moscow and an elementary school in Beslan, Putin took a terrible revenge in Chechnya. The liberal media never covered that war, but you can look it up. Muslims fear Putin. He takes no prisoners.
2. Like the English royals, the Russian tsars styled themselves as the protectors of Christians in their own country and abroad. When Putin therefore expresses official Russian concern about vicious Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East, this is not just a shrewd political move. It is also a signal that everybody understands. The Orthodox Churches have ancient ties to Jerusalem, Damascus, and Istanbul, to name just three famous capital cities.
Putin is therefore adopting a traditional Russian approach to the world. He is a realist who plays big-power politics.
Putin cannot tolerate a Muslim fascist regime with a nuclear martyrdom complex. Putin knows about suicide bombers. Chechen suiciders were involved in two great terrorist disasters at the beginning of his rule, the Beslan elementary school massacre and the Moscow theater massacre. Putin can't doubt the danger of Muslim suiciders, unlike American leftists who keep trying to pretend that reality isn't what it is.
Vladimir Putin therefore knows in his very bones what Obama doesn't know: that suiciders with nukes are not acceptable.
Obama's pro-Muslim policies have to be driving the Kremlin batty these days. What is with this American president? The Russians can understand American leaders acting in our national interest. They can't figure out why this president seems to be empowering our sworn fanatical enemies: radical Sunnis in Arabia and radical Shi'ites in Iran.
Twelve years after 9/11/01, how dumb can these Americans be?
Iran is the only Muslim nation that has come unharmed out of the last five years of Obama. That fabulous Arab Spring never spread to Iran, which needs a spring cleaning much more than Syria, Libya, and Egypt. None of those Arab nations threatened the peace of the world. Iran does so every single day.
History is full of amazing twists and turns. The fall of the Soviet Union came as a surprise. The takeover of America by the radical left was a surprise. The miraculous coincidence of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II came as a surprise. The Islamist-radical left alliance is still a big surprise, even after five years of Obama.
Nobody expected the rise of Putin's Russia in its old historical role.
In politics, surprise is the rule.
4a)
In Kerry-Lavrov Syrian chemical accord scant punishment. Assad is free to pursue war
The framework accord for destroying Syria’s chemical stockpiles, which US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced at a news conference in Geneva Saturday, Sept 14, covers important ground - but leaves even more important issues un-addressed. Its implementation depends on the full cooperation of Bashar Assad and his army for securing the process. He is therefore assured of staying in power and free to wage war unhindered.
This assurance was incorporated in Kerry’s words that the agreement can end the chemical threat to the
Syrian people, its neighbors and the region only “if fully implemented.”
The US Secretary listed the six points of that accord:
1. It included a shared assessment of the amounts and types of Syrian regime’s chemical weapons stockpiles.
Earlier reports spoke of a 40-percent disparity between the US and Russian assessments.
2. The Syrian regime has one week until Sept. 21 to submit a comprehensive listing, including names, types and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions and local and foreign storage, production and research and development facilities.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-OPCW, which usually allows 30 days, has agreed to extraordinary procedures to assure the inspection and destruction of all CW stocks.
3. Inspectors must be on the ground by November and the destruction of CW completed by mid-2014.
--- On this point, the Russian foreign minister was less specific: Implementation of the agreed framework for the removal and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons must be supported by an “OPCW investigation and a Security Council resolution,” he said, indicating a process of several months.
This timeline could stretch out even longer because of the technical difficulties of destroying not just stocks but also manufacturing plant and the facilities for mixing and loading the chemical and biological agents on weapons of delivery.
4. Syria must provide immediate and unfettered access to its CW sites.
5. All CW including stocks inside and outside Syria must be surrendered and destroyed on-site, or if necessary outside the country.
6. Non-compliance would entail the approval of Article 7 of the UN charter which provides for legally binding military or non-military sanctions.
Lavrov’s version
--- On this point, too, Lavrov elaborated on Moscow’s position: Violations must be first investigated and confirmed by the OPCW before coming before the UN Security Council for a new resolution mandating “concrete measures.” These may not entail military action, said the Russian foreign minister, “which would be catastrophic.”
Although this word was not mentioned, the accord leaves Moscow free to use its veto once again to bar punitive action against Syria.
In answer to a reporter’s question, Kerry later insisted that the Syrian regime would be held fully accountable for non-compliance with its commitments and the US president retained the power and right to pursue military measures ““commensurate with the [Syrian ruler’s] level of accountability” without UN approval if diplomacy failed to achieve its end.
At the same time, the US secretary allowed that the US and Russians were agreed that Syria would be disarmed of its chemical weapons by diplomatic, not military, means.
Lavrov departed from Kerry’s presentation of their accord on more points:
a) All chemical weapons must be destroyed – not just those in the hands of the Assad regime, but also the Syrian rebels. This laid the groundwork for the Syrian ruler to delay compliance by pointing a finger at Israel.
b) Military action against Syria was ruled out a priori.
c) The Russian-US accord on Syria’s chemical weapons must lead to an international conference to discuss the declaration of the Middle East as a region free of weapons of mass destruction, which is Moscow’s ultimate aim.
This supported Assad’s stipulation which has made his implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention contingent on Israel ratifying the CWC which it signed in 1993, as a step on the road to demanding its nuclear disarmament.
Secretary Kerry made no comments on this point.
d) The US will contribute the funding and other resources for destroying Syria’s chemical weapons, and ask other world powers to participate.
More omissions
While the US secretary repeatedly praised President Vladimir Putin for initiating Syria’s handover of chemical weapons, Lavrov omitted to reciprocate with commendations of President Barack Obama.
Intelligence and military sources see five conspicuous omissions in the way of the “full implementation” of the US-Russian Geneva Agreement:
--- The timeline is left open. In none of his speeches and interviews did President Obama set deadlines for the eradication of Syria’s poison chemicals, and the dates set by Kerry Saturday in Geneva are unrealistic.
--- Russia and the Syrian ruler were left with the impression that Obama has opted against bringing Assad to account for using chemical weapons in order to keep his war afloat from a position of strength. Indeed the US president appears not to be averse to letting him stay in power.
Neither Kerry nor Lavrov answered the reporter who asked simply: “Why didn’t you first of all try and stop the war?"
--- Notwithstanding the impression Kerry tried to convey at the news conference, Obama has clearly discarded the military option as a means of keeping Assad under pressure to comply with his commitment to dismantle his chemical weapons. Even if Washington decided to invoke Article 7 to punish Syria for non-compliance with the accord, the Russian veto still hangs over this step.
--- Rescued from an imminent American military threat, the Syria ruler is free to surrender only a small part of his chemical resources and, with the support of his Russian and Iranian allies, hold back sufficient poison gas to save himself if he risks losing the war.
He can continue to ignore the evidence found by US intelligence agencies that the Syrian army was guilty of using chemical weapons against civilians in Homs, Aleppo and Idlib – even before the poison gas massacre of Aug. 21 east of Damascus.
When on April 24, Brig. Gen. Itay Brun, head of Israeli Military Intelligence research stated publicly: "We have recently detected the Syrian army’s repeated use of lethal chemical weapons, apparently sarin,” the White House in Washington was up in arms and made Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon promise that such slips of the tongue would not recur.
Sunday, Sept. 15, Secretary Kerry is expected in Israel for a one-day trip.
Sunday, Sept. 15, Secretary Kerry is expected in Israel for a one-day trip.
He faces two uphill tasks: He must convince Israel that there is no danger of Syrian chemical weapons being passed to the Lebanese Hizballah and so diverted from international control; and that the US-Russian deal on Syria is not a template for letting Tehran off the hook on its nuclear program. That is the foremost of Israel’s concerns.
4a)
Syria chemical weapons agreement reached between United States, Russia
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Saturday they have reached an agreement on a framework for Syria to destroy all of its chemical weapons, and raised the specter of a potential U.N. Security Council resolution that could authorize sanctions — even military action — if President Bashar Assad's government fails to comply.
The diplomats announced on the third day of intense negotiations in Geneva that some elements of the deal include a timetable and how Syria must comply. Notably, Kerry said they had agreed on grounds under which they might request a Security Council "Chapter 7" resolution — authorizing both military and non-military sanctions.
CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan reported on "CBS This Morning: Saturday" from Geneva that Kerry said the Assad regime has a week to provide all details on its chemical weapons arsenal.
The U.S. and Russia are two of the five permanent Security Council members with a veto. The others are Britain, China, and France.
Kerry said any violations will result in "measures" from the Security Council, while Lavrov said the violations must be sent to the Security Council from the board of the Chemical Weapons Convention before sanctions — short of the use of force — would be considered.
At a news conference at the Intercontinental Hotel in Geneva, Kerry said the inspectors must be on the ground by November and destruction or removal of the chemical weapons must be completed by mid-2014.
"We have committed to a standard that says, verify and verify," he said.
Lavrov called the agreements a "decision based on consensus and compromise and professionalism."
"Any violations of procedures ... would be looked at by the Security Council and if they are approved, the Security Council would take the required measures, concrete measures," Lavrov said. "Nothing is said about the use of force or about any automatic sanctions. All violations should be approved by the Security Council."
Kerry said the pair and their teams of experts had reached "a shared assessment" of Syria's weapons stockpile and that Syria must destroy all of its weapons.
The negotiations between the United States and Russia on securing Syria's chemical weapons also are considered key to a resumption of peace talks to end the 2 1/2-year Syrian civil war.
No comments:
Post a Comment