Stratfor is often right and often wrong but it provides grist for the mill. (See 1 below.)
===
Ne'eman offers his analysis on Syria as well. (See 2 below.)
===
Obama gives Maureen Scott heart burn.. (see 3 below.)
I see Keystone Cops and Henninger sees Laurel and Hardy. You choose! (See 3a below.)
===
Hillary is everywhere. Time will tell whether that is good for her politically speaking. In any event I have always maintained Hillary is bad for America as I have Obama.
A Hillary presidency simply changes the gender the rest remains the same except for her color. She too is incapable of the truth, she too is followed by a trail of failed efforts and policies and finally she has a very prickly and testy personality connected to a mouth that equals any bathroom facility. Hillary restores no dignity to our sullied White House. (See 4 below.)
===
Before Obama became president Michelle said she was not proud of her country. Now that Obama has been president I have to assume she is very proud of America.
This is now an America that is the laughing stock of the world. This is an America which is being lectured, in a self serving, chutzpah op ed piece in The New York Times, by Putin who comes across as a world leader and not the thug he is. Clever, well crafted and persuasive but full of as many lies as Obama generally commits when he opens his own mouth.
No Michelle, I was not proud of you when you popped off and I certainly am not proud of what your husband has done to my nation. (See 4, 4a and 4b below.)
===
Ne'eman offers his analysis on Syria as well. (See 2 below.)
===
Obama gives Maureen Scott heart burn.. (see 3 below.)
I see Keystone Cops and Henninger sees Laurel and Hardy. You choose! (See 3a below.)
===
Hillary is everywhere. Time will tell whether that is good for her politically speaking. In any event I have always maintained Hillary is bad for America as I have Obama.
A Hillary presidency simply changes the gender the rest remains the same except for her color. She too is incapable of the truth, she too is followed by a trail of failed efforts and policies and finally she has a very prickly and testy personality connected to a mouth that equals any bathroom facility. Hillary restores no dignity to our sullied White House. (See 4 below.)
===
Before Obama became president Michelle said she was not proud of her country. Now that Obama has been president I have to assume she is very proud of America.
This is now an America that is the laughing stock of the world. This is an America which is being lectured, in a self serving, chutzpah op ed piece in The New York Times, by Putin who comes across as a world leader and not the thug he is. Clever, well crafted and persuasive but full of as many lies as Obama generally commits when he opens his own mouth.
No Michelle, I was not proud of you when you popped off and I certainly am not proud of what your husband has done to my nation. (See 4, 4a and 4b below.)
===
Dick
1)Analytic Guidance: The Syria Crisis
Analysis
Editor's note: Periodically, Stratfor publishes guidance produced for its analysis team and shares it with readers. This guidance sets the parameters used in our own ongoing examination and assessment of events surrounding Syria's use of chemical weapons as the crisis evolves into a confrontation between the United States and Russia. Given the importance we ascribe to this fast-evolving standoff, we believe it important that readers have access to this additional insight.
In the wake of President Barack Obama's change of tack from a strike on Syria, the threat of war has not dissolved. It has, however, been pushed off beyond this round of negotiations.
The president's minimalist claims are in place, but they are under serious debate. There is no chance of an attack on chemical weapons stockpiles. Therefore, the attack, if any, will be on command and control and political targets. Obama has options on the table and there will be force in place for any contingency he selects. Nothing is locked in despite public statements and rhetoric in Washington, London, Paris or Moscow.
Remember that all public statements now are meant to obscure real plans and intentions. They are intended to shape the environment. Read them, but do not look at them as anything more than tactics.
The issue has morphed into a U.S.-Russian confrontation. Russia's goal is to be seen as an equal of the United States. It wins if it can be seen as a protagonist of the United States. If it can appear that Washington has refrained from an attack because of Russian maneuvers, Moscow's weight increases dramatically. This is particularly the case along Russia's periphery, where doubts of American power abound and concern over Russian power abides.
This is not merely appearance. After all that has been said, if the United States buys into some Russian framework, it will not be seen as a triumph of diplomacy; it will be seen as the United States lacking the will to act and being pushed away out of concern for the Russians.
The Russian ploy on weapons controls was followed by the brilliant move of abandoning strike options. Obama's speech the night of Sept. 10 was addressed to the U.S. public and Obama's highly fractured base; some of his support base opposes and some -- a particular audience -- demands action.
He cannot let Syria become the focus of his presidency, and he must be careful that the Russians do not lay a trap for him. He is not sure what that trap might look like, and that's what is unnerving him as it would any president. Consequently, he has bought time, using the current American distaste for military action in the Middle East. But he is aware that this week's dislike of war can turn into next week's contempt on charges of weakness. Obama is an outstanding politician and he knows he is in quicksand.
The Russians have now launched a diplomatic offensive that emphasizes to both the Arabs in the Persian Gulf opposing Bashar al Assad and the Iranians supporting him that a solution is available through them. It requires only that they ask the Americans to abandon plans for action. The message is that Russia will solve the chemical weapons problem, and implicitly, collaborate with them to negotiate a settlement.
Obama's speech on Sept. 10, constrained by domestic opinion, came across as unwilling to confront the Russians or al Assad. The Russians are hoping this has unnerved al Assad's opponents sufficiently to cause them to use the Russians as their interlocutors. If this fails the Russians have lost nothing. They can say they were statesmen. If it succeeds, they can actually nudge the regional balance of power.
The weakness of the Russian position is that it has no real weight. The limit on American military action is purely domestic politics. If the United States chooses to hit Syria, Russia can do nothing about it and will be made to look weak, the tables thus turned on them.
At this point, all signs indicate that the domestic considerations dominate U.S. decision-making. If the Russian initiative begins to work, however, Obama will be forced to consider the consequences and will likely act. The Arabs suspect this and therefore will encourage the Russians, hoping to force the U.S. into action.
The idea that this imbroglio will somehow disappear is certainly one that Obama is considering. But the Russians will not want that to happen. They do not want to let Obama off the hook and their view is that he will not act. Against this backdrop, they can appear to be the nemesis of the United States, its equal in power and its superior in cunning and diplomacy.
This is the game to watch. It is not ending but still very much evolving.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)The Syrian Disaster
By Yisrael Ne'eman
Recently the world is focused on Syria and whether the Assad government used chemical weapons (or was it the Jihadi rebels?) against civilians. The average Syrian finds this discussion to be irrelevant after two and a half years of war and at least 100,000 confirmed dead with unofficial estimates running as high as double that amount. The wounded can be estimated to be twice to three times the death toll, a figure not taken into consideration in international haggling over the Syrian disaster. The vast majority of casualties are civilians. The refugee toll from the war is said to be some 7 million or close to a third of the populace, with two million fleeing to Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. The other five million, barely spoken about are "internal refugees" or displaced persons – as if their status was somehow better than those who crossed the borders.
Syrians interviewed by Arab news media and in particular the Al Jazeera satellite TV see the West and America in particular as hypocritical in their approach to the slaughter. Why are the liberal, democratic, human rights activist USA and its NATO allies so distraught about the use of chemical weapons? After all, don't conventional weapons kill as well? Chemical weapons may have killed even up to two thousand people in the 11-14 reported usages but this pales in comparison with the total death toll which may only be fully known when the mass graves or destroyed neighborhoods are dug up when all is finished.
The Syrian conflict is not a civil war but rather an ethnic one, similar to the Yugoslavian explosion of the 1990s. Syria is completely shattered with no end in sight. US Sec. or State John Kerry may have inadvertently opened the way for an agreement with the Russians on removing Syria's chemical arsenal but such discussions cannot be expected to end the conflict. The Assad regime, backed by Russia, Iran, China and the extremist Shiite Lebanese Hezbollah, has no intention of compromising with the rebels or "terrorists" as they are described. Should Syria concede its chemical weapons the Russians will expect some form of reciprocal gesture from the West.
The rebels are not characterized by liberal democratic values even if their spokesmen play the card. Assad's characterization of the rebel forces as "Jihadi" and "terrorist" is overstated but true in the large part. Reports from regions where the opposition is in control of territory speak of the imposition of strict Sharia (Islamic) Law. Parts of the Aleppo region are the best example of the Jihadi legal initiative as reported in the France 24 satellite station news. The Saudis and the Gulf States support these extremists while the US and the West may lean in the same direction but find little in common with the Islamists – obviously they find even less common ground with the pro-Iranian Assad regime. The American interest is to support the Arab Gulf States and secure oil resources. Russia and China are doing the same as far as Iran is concerned and do not want a repeat of the US-European Libyan intervention. Even without the opposing alliances and oil interests Moscow and Beijing do not want further Western initiatives in the Middle East. Russia of course has its own Mediterranean warm water port in Tartus on the Syrian Alawite coast, its last point of anchorage and holdover from the Cold War era. Any Russian concessions over their naval needs are out of the question. Moscow may allow for the removal of chemical weapons but will not endanger their interests as they continue to ship the much more effective conventional arms into the Syrian arena.
Overall one is seeing less of a civil war and more of an ethnic zero sum game. Assad's minorities' regime is in general supported by his own Alawite community, the Druze, Christians and even some Kurds. There is further backing from the secular Sunni elite, many of whom are supporters of his secular Arab nationalist Baath regime and detest the Muslim Brotherhood or any other Islamist political entity. The Sunni clash can be seen as a civil war but is overshadowed by the Islamist - minorities mutual hatred of each other. The Islamist – minorities clash rests on the minorities' fears of any implementation of Sharia Law which will leave them in a second class dhimmi status (Christians) or worse for those considered heretics, the Druze and Alawites. Over the years these same minorities forced secularism on religious Muslims for whom religion was paramount and secular Arab nationalism secondary.
There is little hope after two and a half years of war with no common denominators in sight between the Islamists and the Muslim Arab secularists aligned with the minority groups. In the West there are those who sound the noble horn of democracy. Let's recall that neither the Ba'ath secularists supported by Iran, nor the Sunni Islamists are pro-democracy. Democracy not only means rule by the majority but stands for freedom of religion and defense of minority perspectives and individual human rights. There is no powerful pro-democratic military force involved in the conflict nor is democracy in the interest of any of the factions.
When civil wars end the healing process begins between two sides of the same national and/or religious group. In ethnic wars this is not the case. Ethnic wars in general end in one of three ways:
- Extermination
- Expulsion
- Foreign intervention forcing enclavization and/or mini-states
Yugoslavia is the best example where there were massacres and expulsions until NATO, with grudging support from a very weakened former Soviet Union turned Russia, finally intervened and forced an ethnic parceling of the country into small state entities.
More dire yet is the Syrian case, since the ethnic regions are quite small, the Christians do not have a territory of their own, a religious-secular war is constantly in progress and the West really has no great interest in getting involved even should public opinion support intervention. "Boots on the ground" is fully rejected by Europeans and Americans. One can only expect more refugees and future massacres (with conventional weapons).
Pres. Obama's threat of US intervention if chemical weapons are used has left him dangling in the middle position between morality and "the right thing to do" when keeping in mind American interests and public opinion. On the historical level he is between George Bush Sr. in Iraq 1991 and Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policies prior to WWII. Barak Obama is struggling to uphold American diplomatic credibility and the effectiveness of force projection (either threatened or applied) in deterring today's and future adversaries. At the moment neither is going well although a diplomatic solution to the Syrian chemical stockpile may be in the offering. We will see.
There are two lessons here. First Western values are not for export by force. The days of George W. Bush in 2003 will not be returning and no one will attempt to democratize Syria like he tried in Iraq. Most Americans feel best leaving the Middle East to deal with itself.
Secondly if you are Israeli or deeply involved with the Jewish State one should consider that should there be a crisis, the "waiting period" prior to the 1967 Six Day War is the best indicator of future Western policy. In other words, Israel and its supporters are on their own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Maureen Scott is an ardent American patriot who was born in Pittsburgh, PA, and retired to Richmond, VA, in 2000. Free from the nine-to-five grind of writing for employers and clients, she began writing political commentary to please herself and express her convictions.
The Architect of Destruction
By Maureen Scott
Barack Obama appears to be a tormented man filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps, because, as a child, he grew up harboring an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. that was instilled in him by his family and mentors it seems to have never left him.
It is not the color of his skin that is a problem in America .
Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country.
Think: Have we ever heard Obama speak lovingly of the U.S. or its people, with deep appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our customs, our sufferings and our blessings? Has he ever revealed that, like most patriotic Americans, he gets "goose bumps" when a band plays "The Star Spangled Banner," or sheds a tear when he hears a beautiful rendition of " America the Beautiful?" Does his heart burst with pride when millions of American flags wave on a National holiday - or someone plays "taps" on a trumpet? Has he ever shared the admiration of the military, as we as lovers of those who keep us free, feel when soldiers march by? It is doubtful because Obama did not grow up sharing our experiences or our values. He did not sit at the knee of a Grandfather or Uncle who showed us his medals and told us about the bravery of his fellow troops as they tramped through foreign lands to keep us free. He didn't have grandparents who told stories of suffering and then coming to America, penniless, and the opportunities they had for building a business and life for their children.
Away from this country as a young child, Obama didn't delight in being part of America and its greatness. He wasn't singing our patriotic songs in kindergarten, or standing on the roadside for a holiday parade and eating a hot dog, or lighting sparklers around a campfire on July 4th as fireworks exploded over head, or placing flags on the grave sites of fallen and beloved American heroes.
Rather he was separated from all of these experiences and doesn't really understand us and what it means to be an American. He is void of the basic emotions that most feel regarding this country and insensitive to the instinctive pride we have in our national heritage. His opinions were formed by those who either envied us or wanted him to devalue the United States and the traditions and patriotism that unites us.
He has never given a speech that is filled with calm, reassuring, complimentary, heartfelt statements about all the people in the U.S. Or one that inspires us to be better and grateful and proud that in a short time our country became a leader, and a protector of many. Quite the contrary, his speeches always degenerate into mocking, ridiculing tirades as he faults our achievements as well as any critics or opposition for the sake of a laugh, or to bolster his ego. He uses his Office to threaten and create fear while demeaning and degrading any American who opposes his policies and actions. A secure leader, who has noble self-esteem and not false confidence, refrains from showing such dread of critics and displaying a cocky, haughty attitude.
Mostly, his time seems to be spent causing dissension, unrest, and anxiety among the people of America, rather than uniting us (even though he was presented to us as the "Great Uniter"). He creates chaos for the sake of keeping people separated, envious, aggrieved and ready to argue. Under his leadership Americans have been kept on edge, rather than in a state of comfort and security. He incites people to be aggressive toward, and disrespectful of, those of differing opinions. And through such behavior, Obama has lowered the standards for self-control and mature restraint to the level of street-fighting gangs, when he should be raising the bar for people to strive toward becoming more considerate, tolerant, self-disciplined, self-sustaining, and self-assured.
Not a day goes by that he is not attempting to defy our laws, remove our rights, over-ride established procedures, install controversial appointees, enact divisive mandates, and assert a dictatorial form of power.
Never has there been a leader of this great land who used such tactics to harm and hurt the people and this country.
Never have we had a President who spoke with a caustic, evil tongue against the citizenry rather than present himself as a soothing, calming and trustworthy force.
Never, in this country, have we experienced how much stress one man can cause a nation of people - on a daily basis! Obama has promoted the degeneration of peace, civility, and quality of cooperation between us. He thrives on tearing us down, rather than building us up. He is the Architect of the decline of America, and the epitome of a Demagogue.
Maureen Scott
3a)
3a)
The Laurel and Hardy Presidency
After the Syrian slapstick, it's time to sober up U.S. foreign policy.
By Daniel Henninger
By Beth Reinhard
After writing in the London Telegraph that Monday was "the worst day for U.S. and wider Western diplomacy since records began," former British ambassador Charles Crawford asked simply: "How has this happened?"
On the answer, opinions might differ. Or maybe not. A consensus assessment of the past week's events could easily form around Oliver Hardy's famous lament to the compulsive bumbler Stan Laurel: "Here's another nice mess you've gotten us into!"
In the interplay between Barack Obama and John Kerry, it's not obvious which one is Laurel and which one is Hardy. But diplomatic slapstick is not funny. No one wants to live in a Laurel and Hardy presidency. In a Laurel and Hardy presidency, red lines vanish, shots across the bow are word balloons, and a display of U.S. power with the whole world watching is going to be "unbelievably small."
The past week was a perfect storm of American malfunction. Colliding at the center of a serious foreign-policy crisis was Barack Obama's manifest skills deficit, conservative animosity toward Mr. Obama, Republican distrust of his leadership, and the reflexive opportunism of politicians from Washington to Moscow.
It is Barack Obama's impulse to make himself and whatever is in his head the center of attention. By now, we are used to it. But this week he turned himself, the presidency and the United States into a spectacle. We were alternately shocked and agog at these events. Now the sobering-up has to begin.
The world has effectively lost its nominal leader, the U.S. president. Is this going to be the new normal? If so—and it will be so if serious people don't step up—we are looking at a weakened U.S president who has a very, very long three years left on his term.
The belief by some that we can ride this out till a Reagan-like rescue comes in the 2016 election is wrong. Jimmy Carter's Iranian hostage crisis began on Nov. 4, 1979. One quick year later, the American people turned to Ronald Reagan. There will be no such chance next year or the year after that—not till November 2016.
The libertarian lurch on foreign policy among some Republicans is a dead end. Libertarians understand markets. But left alone, the global market in aggression won't clear. Like a malign, untreated tumor, it will grow. You can't program it to kill only non-Americans. The world's worst impulses run by their own logic. What's going to stop them now?
A congressional vote against that Syria resolution was never going to include a sequester for the Middle East. Iran's 16,600 uranium-enrichment centrifuges are spinning. Iran's overflights of Iraq to resupply Damascus with heavy arms and Quds forces will continue until Assad wins. Turkey and Saudi Arabia, U.S. allies, will start condominium talks with Iran, a U.S. enemy. Israel will do what it must, if it can.
On Wednesday the Russian press reported that the Putin government has sold state-of-the-art S-300 anti-aircraft missiles and batteries to Iran, a system with the capability to create a no-fly zone along the Syrian-Lebanon border. It should be running like clockwork by 2016. Europe will consider a reset with the new status quo.
There also isn't going to be a continuing resolution that defines limits for China the next 40 months. Articles now appear routinely describing how the U.S. "pivot" toward Asia is no longer believed by Asians. What if, after watching this week's Syrian spectacle, China next year lands a colony of fishermen on the Diaoyu Islands, known as the Senkakus to their Japanese claimants?
China on Tuesday warned India about setting up new military posts along their disputed 4,000-kilometer border. Is North Korea's Kim Jong Un on hold till 2016? There isn't going to be a House vote to repeal al Qaeda, which can still threaten U.S. personnel or assets around the world.
The White House, Congress and Beltway pundits are exhaling after the president of Russia took America off the hook of that frightful intervention vote by offering, in the middle of a war, to transfer Syria's chemical weapons inventory to the U.N.—a fairy tale if ever there was one. Ask any chemical-weapons disposal specialist.
Syria looks lost. The question now is whether anyone who participated in the fiasco, from left to right, will adjust to avoid a repeat when the next crisis comes.
The president himself needs somehow to look beyond his own instinct on foreign policy. It's just not enough. The administration badly needs a formal strategic vision. Notwithstanding her piece of Benghazi, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who gave a surprisingly tough speech Monday on the failure of the U.N. process and America's role now, may be the insider to start shaping a post-Syria strategy. Somebody has to do it. Conservative critics can carp for three years, which will dig the hole deeper, or contribute to a way forward.
Allowing this week to become the status quo is unthinkable. A 40-month run of Laurel and Hardy's America will endanger everyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Hillary Clinton Just Won't Go Away
The expected 2016 Democratic frontrunner is popping up everywhere, giving her challengers (and haters) way too much material to work with.
By Beth Reinhard
Every time Clinton speaks, her opposition raises money.
One of Hillary Clinton's biggest challenges as she weighs another presidential bid: time.
If she runs in 2016, there will be 45 long months, nearly four years, between Election Day and her departure as secretary of State with a favorability rating in the mid-60s. Not since Ronald Reagan has a successful presidential candidate been out of public office for years before winning the White House, and that was long before the Internet opened the door to instantaneous attacks and counter-attacks. In Clinton's seven months as a private citizen, the no-holds-barred scrutiny has shown no sign of letting up, covering everything from her oversight of the attacks in Benghazi to her tin-eared post on Twitter last week about swimmer Diana Nyad amid a Syria-crazed news cycle.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, another closely surveilled potential contender in 2016, mocked the feeding frenzy Tuesday night when he presented Clinton with the "Liberty Medal" award from the National Constitution Center. "Secretary Clinton is out of office. So am I. I'm not sure what people expect will happen here tonight."
Mutually assured (electoral) destruction?
Perhaps another time. On Tuesday, in front of a bipartisan audience along Independence Mall, Clinton reiterated her support for military action against the Syrian government, despite opposition from six out of 10 Americans. No one knows better than Clinton, haunted in the 2008 Democratic primary by her 2002 vote for the war in Iraq, how the past can become prologue. Possible Republican challengers in 2016, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, oppose military strikes. Presumably, a Democratic challenge coming from her left – Are you listening Martin O'Malley? Of course you are! -- would be opposed to military action as well.
"We really don't know how this is going to play out, and it is a huge risk politically, but she does what she thinks is right in the moment and the politics will follow," said Democratic consultant Maria Cardona, who worked on Clinton's last campaign. "She probably took that last poll as secretary of State and framed it, knowing that she will never see those numbers again. Once you start living in the political cycle, your numbers come back to earth."
Clinton can control her public profile to some extent, though both supporters and detractors acknowledge that there would be constant nitpicking even if she tried to keep quiet. On record in support of arming rebels fighting the Syrian government while at the State Department, it would have been hard for her to keep mum during the current crisis.
She has more leeway, however, when it comes to other public appearances, and on Tuesday, she found herself in an awkward spot: giving a speech just an hour before President Obama addressed Syria's use of chemical weapons on national television. That her remarks had once been billed as a policy speech on a controversial topic – the balance between national security and civil liberties – ensured that the politics would overpower her remarks.
Sure enough, a conservative super PAC, America Rising, pre-empted her speech with an e-mail blast attacking her record on security and privacy issues that was picked up by a television network's web site. No matter that she ended up giving a non-partisan speech that promoted "active citizenship" and put military intervention in the context of American history.
"As a political opponent who is highly critical of her, if she wasn't saying anything, I'd be trying to smoke her out," said Tim Miller, an America Rising spokesman who has worked on Republican presidential campaigns and for the national party. "Her vulnerability is that she doing all of sorts of things that a candidate would do without the political machinery to protect her day in and day out."
Clinton could have been talking about her own inability to stay out of the public eye when she said Tuesday: "They knew that in a democracy, citizens cannot sit on the sidelines, that we have to get into the arena,' as Teddy Roosevelt called it, and participate in the debates that shape our country's future. Sometimes it can get pretty noisy, but that is the American way."
And in fact, the distracting shouts of protesters could be heard throughout her speech.
For different reasons, some Democratic operatives would also prefer her to be less visible. Every time the super PAC encouraging her campaign rolls out an endorsement, every time she gives a speech, she is offering fresh ammunition to her critics.
"Our supporters pay attention when Hillary makes a speech and every time she does they double down on their support for us and why we need to do all we can to stop Hillary," said Garrett Marquis, a spokesman for the Stop Hillary PAC, which he said has raised about $250,000 and collected thousands of signatures. "There's no doubt that when she puts herself in the spotlight, it's an opportunity for us to communicate our message."
On the flip side, the Clinton-loving dignitaries invited to the ceremony at the National Constitution Center didn't restrain themselves either. "Some of us can't wait to celebrate the first woman president of the United States," gushed University of Pennsylvania President Amy Guttman. Another pre-endorsement came from Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter: "I fully expect she will break another barrier in four years."
There are advantages to a long run-up to a potential campaign. Clinton can raise the visibility of her family's philanthropic foundation. She can make money, reportedly as much as $200,000 per speaking engagement. People are also making money off her name, such as the consultants already receiving tens of thousands of dollars from the Ready for Hillary super PAC.
The group has signed up more than 850,000 supporters, a grassroots army that's ready to march as soon as she gives the signal. Spokesman Seth Bringman dismissed the idea that the PAC bestows a dangerous aura of inevitability.
"You'd have to speak to the attackers about why they are spending all day, every day, 3.5 years out from an election attacking someone who hasn't even said if she's running," Bringman said. "Ready for Hillary is focused on building a positive grassroots movement encouraging her to run."
Just as Clinton knows the dangers of supporting an unpopular war, she knows the perils that come with being the frontrunner. And this time, should she run, she would have to sustain the momentum for much longer.
"Being elevated to frontrunner status is a heavy burden she has to carry," said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, who has advised several presidential candidates. "That means opponents will throw the kitchen sink at every opportunity. That also means the charges will get pretty stale. We could even look back at this long period before her campaign and find that it was the best thing that ever happened to her."
Clinton is not the only potential candidate grappling with a long prequel. Just as there's more time for her to trip and for her poll numbers to fall, the same pitfalls face possible contenders like Rubio. Time magazine dubbed him "The Savior of the Republican Party" back in February, months before his leadership on immigration reform dented his standing with conservatives.
Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate, sees an upside for Clinton as a longstanding pre-candidate. When the Republican attacks go too far – as they did when one web site gave visitors the chance to "slap Hillary," they backfire. America Rising's research of Clinton's polling found that her numbers rise when voters feel sorry for her, as they did after a tense U.S. Senate debate in 2000 and when she teared up one day before the New Hampshire primary in 2008.
"The Republicans seem shrill and small and not ready for prime time," Dean said. "There's a good chance the party will nominate someone from their right wing in 2016, and she's the perfect counterpoint." By giving speeches from time to time, as she did earlier this week on wildlife trafficking and last month on voting rights, "she's continuing to remind the American people that she's an adult in the political arena," Dean added.
Trippi said the greater danger for Clinton is that the potentially first woman president doesn't get sandbagged as the establishment candidate, as she did in 2008 when Obama stole her history-making thunder. Tuesday night, she reminded people that neither she nor Obama would have been allowed to sign the Declaration of Independence, and she hailed the women's rights convention at Seneca Falls in 1848. Emily's List, the group that promotes female candidates who back abortion rights, has started a "Madam President" campaign that sets the right tone, Trippi said.
"What happened last time is that instead of running as a woman making history and leading on reform and change, she ran on her experience as a senator and First Lady, and she played into the status quo in a change election," he said. "I think she's probably learned that lesson."
If Trippi is right, perhaps Clinton's hiatus from public office will turn out to be her saving grace. But until then, there will be hard knocks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
No comments:
Post a Comment