.jpg)
Scottish Humor:
SEX
Condoms don’t guarantee safe sex anymore ….. A friend of mine was wearing one when he was shot by the woman’s husband.
Condoms don’t guarantee safe sex anymore ….. A friend of mine was wearing one when he was shot by the woman’s husband.
Poor Lance Armstrong -
I think it is just terrible and disgusting how everyone has treated Lance Armstrong, especially after what he achieved, winning 7 Tour de France races, while on drugs.
When I was on drugs, I couldn't even find my fook’in bike.
When I was on drugs, I couldn't even find my fook’in bike.
Drive By: A guy broke into my apartment last week.
He didn’t take my TV, just the remote.
Now he drives by and changes the channels.
EASYJET
Paddy calls EASYJET to book a flight.
The operator asks, "How many people are flying with you?"
Paddy replies "I don't know! It's your bloody plane! "
===
Scratching his left ear with his right hand again? (See 1 below.)
More about Syria, Obama and the Democrat's reaction. (See 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d below.)
I understand the angst anyone feels supporting Obama in his pitch to Congress that they must support him on Syria. After all, this is the same Congress he dismisses as irrelevant on domestic matters when he decides to be the imperious president. This is the same Congress he holds nothing but contempt for when he shoves his exclusive brand of legislation down the nation's throat.
Then why support him now for the red line mess he got himself in and now offloads on the world? Why pull his own chestnut from the fire? Why not just let him stew in the juice of his own inept making? Frankly, I would love to because he deserves nothing less but I am more concerned about the credibility of my nation which he has put on the line than I am about him and his feckless and amateurish leadership.
If we allow that we can be successfully bluffed, that a president's word is meaningless then what will be the next stage as Iran goes nuclear, N Korea decides it has the go ahead to attack whomever they choose, Russia gains credibility for supporting their brand of thuggish Muslim leaders in the Middle East and list is endless?
Think back to Cuba and President Kennedy who was challenged and what would have happened had he blinked instead of Russia?
I do not trust this president to live up to his word without pressure, I do not trust this president to attack Syria in any meaningful way, even given the authority, and I certainly do not believe he will act to prevent Iran from going nuclear unless his head is on the chopping block and maybe not even then.
The most logical and dangerous adversary is Iran and a co-ordinated attack on Iran supported by Israel's IAF would make the perfect head fake and send the clearest message to the world that America means business. Is that likely? Are you kidding? Obama is more likely to attack Arizona.
We have a press and media made pseudo intellect for president with little backbone who is a comfortable captive of the most liberal part of his own Party. But America's credibility is at stake and I believe it is incumbent for this Congress to hold their nose, swallow the hot potato this president threw them and call his bluff and say go do what you need to do and you had better not fail because it is your incompetence that got us into this mess and you own the consequences of your perfidy. (1e below.)
===
Time will tell whether The Fed has screwed up again: Watch the trailer. . . Click here ---> https://vimeo.com/72371984
My friend Avi is an expert on tracking money matters. He offers his thoughts regarding Syria. (See 2 below.)
===
Sexist ATM:
MALE PROCEDURE:
1. Drive up to the cash machine.
2. Put down your car window.
3. Insert card into machine and enter PIN .
4. Enter amount of cash required and withdraw.
5. Retrieve card, cash and receipt.
6. Put window up.
7. Drive off.
*******************************
FEMALE PROCEDURE:
1. Drive up to cash machine.
2. Reverse and back up the required amount to align car window with the machine.
3. Set parking brake, put the window down.
4 Find handbag, remove all contents on to passenger seat to locate card.
5. Tell person on cell phone you will call them back and hang up.
6. Attempt to insert card into machine.
7 Open car door to allow easier access to machine due to its excessive distance from the car.
8. Insert card.
9. Re-insert card the right way.
10. Dig through handbag to find diary with your PIN written on the inside back page.
11. Enter PIN.
12. Press cancel and re-enter correct PIN.
13. Enter amount of cash required.
14. Check makeup in rear view mirror.
15. Retrieve cash and receipt.
16. Empty handbag again to locate wallet and place cash inside.
17. Write debit amount in check register and place receipt in back of check book.
18. Re-check makeup.
19. Drive forward 2 feet.
20. Reverse back to cash machine.
21. Retrieve card.
22. Re-empty hand bag, locate card holder, and place card into the slot provided!
23. Give dirty look to irate male driver waiting behind you.
24. Restart stalled engine and pull off.
25. Re-dial person on cell phone.
26. Drive for 2 to 3 miles.
27. Release parking brake.
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Is There More Than Madness to Obama's Methods?
By Jonah Goldberg
"The genius of you Americans," the Arab-nationalist and one-time president of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, once explained, "is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing."
The operator asks, "How many people are flying with you?"
Paddy replies "I don't know! It's your bloody plane! "
===
Scratching his left ear with his right hand again? (See 1 below.)
More about Syria, Obama and the Democrat's reaction. (See 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d below.)
I understand the angst anyone feels supporting Obama in his pitch to Congress that they must support him on Syria. After all, this is the same Congress he dismisses as irrelevant on domestic matters when he decides to be the imperious president. This is the same Congress he holds nothing but contempt for when he shoves his exclusive brand of legislation down the nation's throat.
Then why support him now for the red line mess he got himself in and now offloads on the world? Why pull his own chestnut from the fire? Why not just let him stew in the juice of his own inept making? Frankly, I would love to because he deserves nothing less but I am more concerned about the credibility of my nation which he has put on the line than I am about him and his feckless and amateurish leadership.
If we allow that we can be successfully bluffed, that a president's word is meaningless then what will be the next stage as Iran goes nuclear, N Korea decides it has the go ahead to attack whomever they choose, Russia gains credibility for supporting their brand of thuggish Muslim leaders in the Middle East and list is endless?
Think back to Cuba and President Kennedy who was challenged and what would have happened had he blinked instead of Russia?
I do not trust this president to live up to his word without pressure, I do not trust this president to attack Syria in any meaningful way, even given the authority, and I certainly do not believe he will act to prevent Iran from going nuclear unless his head is on the chopping block and maybe not even then.
The most logical and dangerous adversary is Iran and a co-ordinated attack on Iran supported by Israel's IAF would make the perfect head fake and send the clearest message to the world that America means business. Is that likely? Are you kidding? Obama is more likely to attack Arizona.
We have a press and media made pseudo intellect for president with little backbone who is a comfortable captive of the most liberal part of his own Party. But America's credibility is at stake and I believe it is incumbent for this Congress to hold their nose, swallow the hot potato this president threw them and call his bluff and say go do what you need to do and you had better not fail because it is your incompetence that got us into this mess and you own the consequences of your perfidy. (1e below.)
===
Time will tell whether The Fed has screwed up again: Watch the trailer. . . Click here ---> https://vimeo.com/72371984
My friend Avi is an expert on tracking money matters. He offers his thoughts regarding Syria. (See 2 below.)
===
Sexist ATM:
The new sign in the Bank Lobby reads:
"Please note that this Bank has installed a new Drive-through ATM machines enabling customers to withdraw cash without leaving their vehicles.
Customers using this new facility are requested to use the procedures outlined below when accessing their accounts.
After months of careful research, "MALE & FEMALE" procedures have been developed. Please follow the appropriate steps for your gender."
"Please note that this Bank has installed a new Drive-through ATM machines enabling customers to withdraw cash without leaving their vehicles.
Customers using this new facility are requested to use the procedures outlined below when accessing their accounts.
After months of careful research, "MALE & FEMALE" procedures have been developed. Please follow the appropriate steps for your gender."
MALE PROCEDURE:
1. Drive up to the cash machine.
2. Put down your car window.
3. Insert card into machine and enter PIN .
4. Enter amount of cash required and withdraw.
5. Retrieve card, cash and receipt.
6. Put window up.
7. Drive off.
*******************************
FEMALE PROCEDURE:
1. Drive up to cash machine.
2. Reverse and back up the required amount to align car window with the machine.
3. Set parking brake, put the window down.
4 Find handbag, remove all contents on to passenger seat to locate card.
5. Tell person on cell phone you will call them back and hang up.
6. Attempt to insert card into machine.
7 Open car door to allow easier access to machine due to its excessive distance from the car.
8. Insert card.
9. Re-insert card the right way.
10. Dig through handbag to find diary with your PIN written on the inside back page.
11. Enter PIN.
12. Press cancel and re-enter correct PIN.
13. Enter amount of cash required.
14. Check makeup in rear view mirror.
15. Retrieve cash and receipt.
16. Empty handbag again to locate wallet and place cash inside.
17. Write debit amount in check register and place receipt in back of check book.
18. Re-check makeup.
19. Drive forward 2 feet.
20. Reverse back to cash machine.
21. Retrieve card.
22. Re-empty hand bag, locate card holder, and place card into the slot provided!
23. Give dirty look to irate male driver waiting behind you.
24. Restart stalled engine and pull off.
25. Re-dial person on cell phone.
26. Drive for 2 to 3 miles.
27. Release parking brake.
---
My wife told me a commentator said the following about Syria: "A mother takes her child to school for the first time and tells the teacher her child is very sensitive so if he misbehaves she should punish the kid next to him."
===
David Stockman remains frightened about the economy. (See 3 below.)
===
YOU CAN EITHER AGREE WITH ME OR BE WRONG - YOUR CHOICE!
===Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Is There More Than Madness to Obama's Methods?
By Jonah Goldberg
"The genius of you Americans," the Arab-nationalist and one-time president of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, once explained, "is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing."
I've long taken patriotic pride in such statements of befuddlement from foreigners. America is a gloriously complicated thing. We often confuse our national creeds for universal principles. We are a Jacksonian people (that's Andrew Jackson, in case you were wondering) in love with Jeffersonian ideals and legalistically committed to Madisonian mechanisms. Like a guard dog that would rather not leave the porch, we are quick to anger but not necessarily quick to fight and we are just as eager to forgive.
So from the vantage point of foreign brutes, bullies and buffoons, it's understandable that America's methods could be confused for stupidity. This is why I love the old expression, "America can choke on a gnat, but swallow a tiger whole."
So I am trying very hard to hold onto this perspective as I watch the president of the United States behave in a way you don't have to be a pan-Arab autocrat to think is incredibly stupid.
Where to begin? Perhaps with Obama's initial refusal to support the moderate rebels seeking to overthrow Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, a puppet of Iran and bagman for Hezbollah. Or we might start with Obama's refusal to support the Green Movement in Iran, which sought to overthrow the Iranian regime, which would have been a triumph for both our principles and national interests.
These were odd choices, particularly given his decision to help depose Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, an indisputably evil man, but also a dictator who posed no threat, abided by our demands to relinquish WMDs and whose domestic death toll was a tiny fraction of Bashar Assad's.
"We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy ... where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government" was Obama's justification for an attack on Libya -- without congressional approval. But when Assad killed tenfold as many men, women and children, Obama refused to act for nearly two years. And when he finally decided it was imperative to attack Assad -- after the dictator crossed a chemical weapons "red line" drawn by Obama himself -- he suddenly discovered the need for congressional authorization.
Sort of.
Obama doesn't believe he needs authorization from Congress to strike Syria, he just wants it. He's like a kid desperate for a prom date, but too vain to admit it. In Libya Obama had the UN and NATO on each arm, so he didn't bother with asking the dog on Capitol Hill for a date. But now, faced with the prospect of going it alone, he's in effect telling Congress, "Hey, it's not like I need your company, but you'd be crazy not to go to war with me."
Woops. As even Nancy Pelosi's own grandkid now knows, we mustn't call it a war. "The president is not asking you to go to war," Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress. He's merely asking them to authorize a sustained cruise missile attack on military installations to "degrade" the regime's "capabilities."
But, according to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, no one has asked the military to do anything that might change the "momentum" of the Syrian civil war. This is like saying you're going to attack a runaway car barreling toward a crowd of kids, but do nothing to actually, you know, slow it down. What good does it do to trash the radio and rip out the cup holders on an out-of-control car?
Meanwhile, according to numerous accounts, Assad is moving military assets into civilian areas and civilians into military areas, even as the Obama administration insists it makes no difference militarily to wait for Congress to debate. That's not just stupid, it's an outright lie that will be fact-checked with blood.
I understand the attraction the buddy system has for a man who, as a state legislator, perfected the art of voting "present" on hard questions. But it's hard to see this as anything other than rank political cowardice.
The buck stopped with Truman. For Obama, the buck is kryptonite.
In Stockholm on Wednesday, the president said that the credibility of the world, America, Congress and the international community is on the line. Everybody is on the hook for his red line, except for the one person who actually drew it.
I'd love to see the genius in that argument, but it looks like clear-cut stupidity to me.
1a) Inaction on Syria Threatens U.S. Security
If America's 'red lines' are viewed as meaningless, larger and more costly conflicts are certain.
By JOE LIEBERMAN AND JON KYL
When Congress returns to Washington next week, it will begin an intensive and historic debate over authorizing military force against the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria—a debate whose outcome is very much uncertain.
We share the concerns of many in Congress about the Obama administration's handling of the crisis in Syria over the past two years and its approach to the Middle East more generally. We also understand the doubts of those who fear that the limited airstrikes the White House appears inclined to pursue, in order to punish Assad for using chemical weapons, have not yet been tied to a broader strategy, even though President Obama has said that Assad must go. And we are sympathetic to those frustrated that President Obama has done so little to make the case to a war-weary American people about why intervention in Syria is in our national interest, and that this is happening under the cloud of sequestration-mandated defense cuts.
This is no longer just about the conflict in Syria or even the Middle East. It is about American credibility. Are we a country that our friends can trust and our enemies fear? Or are we perceived as a divided and dysfunctional superpower in retreat, whose words and warnings are no longer meaningful?But none of this should blind us from a larger truth: Regardless of how we got here, failure to authorize military force against Assad now will have far-reaching and profoundly harmful consequences for American national security.
Even if the U.S. had no stake in Syria's civil war, that would not change one crucial fact about Assad's brazen use of chemical weapons to murder more than 1,400 Syrian men, women and children: Having confronted a vicious dictator with a clear red line, it would be devastating for the U.S. to reverse course and back down in the face of the most blatant violation of that red line.
This isn't a question of American integrity as some abstract principle of foreign policy. It is about what quite literally keeps the peace in a half-dozen flashpoints around the globe and makes our enemies think twice before attacking us or our friends.
In this respect, no one should have any illusions. Opposition to limited intervention in Syria now is an invitation for much bigger and more devastating wars that will break out if America is seen as withdrawing from the world. Inevitably, these larger and more costly conflicts will pull the U.S. into them.
Most immediately, failure to authorize a strike will be a green light for Assad's most important ally and our most dangerous enemy in the Middle East—Iran—to speed toward nuclear weapons. It will also confirm the worst fears of our ally, Israel, and moderate Arab states like Jordan that the U.S. cannot be relied upon to stand by its commitments. This will dramatically raise the risks of a regional war that could upend the global economy.
The ripple effects of what we do in Syria will also extend far beyond the Middle East. In Asia, for instance, U.S. acquiescence in the face of Assad's aggression would send the unambiguous message to long-standing allies like Japan and South Korea that Washington can no longer be counted on to stand with them against threats from North Korea and China.
Conversely, authorizing force against Assad doesn't have to mean giving the Obama administration a blank check. On the contrary, we hope Congress will seize the opportunity to press the White House to develop a smarter, stronger and more accountable Syria strategy—one that ensures any military action we take in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons is tailored to advance our broader interests in the region. Those interests include preventing al Qaeda from getting a new foothold in Syria, laying the groundwork for ending the conflict there, stopping Iran from getting nuclear-weapons capability, and avoiding putting U.S. boots on the ground in the process.Congressional rejection of an authorization for military force would also delight Vladimir Putin, who has sought to bolster his flagging legitimacy by thwarting and constraining American power—nowhere more so than in Syria. U.S. inaction there would undoubtedly embolden Mr. Putin as he flexes his muscles against Russia's neighbors.
We know how polarized the political climate in Washington is, but both parties should set aside domestic politics in the days ahead and put our country's interests first. Despite the complexities of the conflict in Syria, the mistakes of the past, and the difficulties and drawbacks associated with anything we do in the Middle East, the most dangerous course of action at this juncture would be inaction.
That judgment should provide the foundation we need for a bipartisan strategy that protects America's credibility and, in turn, advances our security and prosperity.
Messrs. Lieberman and Kyl, both former U.S. senators, are co-chairmen of the American Enterprise Institute's American Internationalism Project.
1b)
Obama's Syria Problem: Democrats
An open rebuke by his own party could spill over into domestic policy.
By Kim Strassel
House and Senate hearings this week give Members of Congress an opportunity to question the Obama Administration on Syria and its strategy—and question they should. Here are just five reasons Congress should press the Administration for answers.
1. A “narrow and limited” operation seems at odds with the Obama Administration’s objectives.
The President stated over the weekend that a U.S. military operation in Syria would be “narrow and limited” and would not involve troops on the ground. Yet the Administration’s draft resolution states that the purpose of the military action is to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of weapons of mass destruction or to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” This is a very broad objective.
The Administration has been careful to say that strikes would “degrade” Syria’s chemical weapons capacity. But limited military strikes are very unlikely to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons stocks or delivery capacity. This is doubly true since the Syrian government has now had more than a week to move and protect those weapons. Even assuming that the U.S. can definitively track the weapons, it is complicated to ensure that they are not transferred to another hostile party. Congress needs to challenge the Administration to establish objectives achievable by limited strikes or explain how the strikes will achieve the purposes stated in the resolution.
2. The Syrian rebels have been linked to Islamist extremists.
In addition to the military strikes, the Administration reportedly intends to do “more for the Syrian rebels,” including providing arms. But there is evidence that the Syrian rebels are fighting beside Islamist extremists, some of whom have ties to al-Qaeda. Congress needs to demand a credible plan on how the Administration will prevent U.S. assistance to the Syrian rebels from supporting Islamist extremists.
3. Enforcement of Obama’s “red line” has been inconsistent.
The Administration assesses “with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus suburbs.” Yet these earlier attacks did not elicit a military response from the U.S. This belies the Administration’s arguments that chemical weapons attacks necessitate a U.S. military response. Arbitrary enforcement of a “red line” is not a convincing argument.
4. The Administration has not clearly articulated a U.S. national security interest threatened by the August 21 attack.
The President stated that the August 21 chemical weapons attack “presents a serious danger to our national security.” Yet he failed to articulate a direct threat to the U.S. or its allies. Obama said we need to send a signal to dissuade Syria and other nations from stockpiling or using weapons of mass destruction. But retaliation to one chemical weapons attack—and not others—does not send a clear signal. American vacillation in the face of Iran’s nuclear ambitions sends a far more direct signal than a belated, “narrow and limited” military action in Syria.
5. The U.S. has not been able to gain broad support from allies.
The New York Times reported that offers of “military assets” have come from France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. But only France has committed to be an active participant in a military operation. Congress should seek an explanation from the Administration as to why, if the August 21 attack poses a regional threat, our Arab partners are not more committed.
The Obama Administration’s Syria policy has been disturbingly ad hoc and reactive. The Administration has not clearly explained why it must act at this time when earlier incidents did not require action, how its proposed actions will achieve its stated objectives, and what its plans are if the military strikes do not succeed in achieving those objectives. Answers to these and other questions are vital if Congress is to take its responsibilities seriously.
1d)
One political party is proving especially troublesome for President Obama in his quest for congressional authorization to strike Syria. Its members are trashing his strategy and priorities. One congressman calls the situation "embarrassing"; another vows to "vote and work against the president's request"; still another has launched "dontattacksyria.com." The party's outside partisan groups are mobilizing against an affirmative vote.
Yes, this is the Democratic Party.
The press is obsessed with the Republican reaction to Mr. Obama's resolution. But the party facing the biggest split over the vote—and whose actions will have the greatest ramifications for the presidency—is Mr. Obama's.
Things are not looking good for the president, and that's no surprise. Mr. Obama's liberal governance—cramming the economic stimulus, the health-care law, a cascade of regulations down voters' throats—led to the 2010 revolt. That midterm obliterated Blue Dogs and hawkish Democrats who would have been most supportive of the president's Syria mission. The remains of Mr. Obama's House caucus tilts significantly more to the left. It has been indulged by the president's lead-from-behind foreign policy and is unprepared to step up to Mr. Obama's call.
Yes, the president has corralled House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid into backing him, though they are hardly thrilled. Ms. Pelosi has stated her support on the narrow grounds of Syria's "humanitarian disaster"; Mr. Reid is practically silent. Vermont Sen. Pat Leahy greeted Mr. Obama's resolution with an instant promise to further limit his own president's actions. Other members of the Senate Democratic leadership—Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Patty Murray—are largely AWOL.
Over in the House, Democrats are far and away the most actively hostile. Many have already openly declared opposition to the president's resolution. To add insult to injury, their stated reasons for opposing Syria action deliberately mirror President Obama's own (prior) views on foreign policy.
Some Democrats question the legitimacy of Secretary of State John Kerry's WMD evidence. Others insist (as Mr. Obama has in the past) that the U.S. obtain international blessing. Yet others are adopting the Republican argument that Mr. Obama has not provided a strategy coherent enough to merit their support. Privately, Democrats gripe that Ms. Pelosi, after years of making her party's opposition to the Iraq war a defining contrast with Republicans, is now blurring that line."We are not the world's judge and jury," declared Florida's Alan Grayson, who launched the antiwar website. New York's Brian Higgins—ripping off one of Mr. Obama's favorite excuses for leaving Afghanistan—noted that "Now is the time to nation build in America," rather than engage overseas.
Further fueling discontent were Mr. Obama's Wednesday comments that Congress's "credibility" is at stake. Democrats were already frustrated that Mr. Obama had demanded they share his red line. It is one thing for a president to ask his party to support him in a tough moment, but it is quite another for that president to tell voters it is congressional Democrats—not him—who now own his foreign-policy mess. The steam was practically rising from Capitol Hill.
The antiwar left is also mobilizing. Code Pink popped up this week to harass Mr. Kerry (oh, the irony). MoveOn.org, VoteVets.org and the Win Without War coalition have all announced opposition to the president's desire to take military action in Syria. While their campaigns will likely prove minor compared with what they launched against George W. Bush, they will exert pressure nonetheless. Add the current public opinion opposing a strike, and many Democrats have plenty of excuses to break with their president.
The Senate is supposed to be an easier win for Mr. Obama, but this week's narrow 10-7 vote for authorization in the Foreign Relations Committee suggests that Mr. Reid may be overstating Democratic support. Two of the committee's more liberal members—New Mexico's Tom Udall and Connecticut's Chris Murphy—voted no. Massachusetts's ever-courageous Ed Markey voted "present." If this reflects wider sentiment among Senate liberals, Mr. Reid has a problem.
In the House, Ms. Pelosi has now sent two letters urging Democratic support. But the tide is moving the other way. Given how few Republicans are likely to come to Mr. Obama's aid, Ms. Pelosi is going to need to deliver the vast majority of her caucus to get the chamber past 217. As his party fractures, Mr. Obama is in Russia at the G-20 summit.
Republicans will share blame if the vote fails, though GOP opposition to the president is an ancient story. Unprecedented would be the Democratic Party's open rebuke of President Obama. Such defiance, as GOP pushback to President Bush's Iraq surge proved, can sap a president and spill into domestic policy.
The Syrian vote may be a pivotal moment in the Obama presidency. It isn't clear that Mr. Obama realizes it.
1c) From The Heritage Foundation
What are the 5 Reasons Congress Should Press Obama on Syria?
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) both endorsed military action in Syria yesterday, but it’s unclear whether President Obama has sufficient support in Congress for a resolution authorizing such action.
House and Senate hearings this week give Members of Congress an opportunity to question the Obama Administration on Syria and its strategy—and question they should. Here are just five reasons Congress should press the Administration for answers.
1. A “narrow and limited” operation seems at odds with the Obama Administration’s objectives.
The President stated over the weekend that a U.S. military operation in Syria would be “narrow and limited” and would not involve troops on the ground. Yet the Administration’s draft resolution states that the purpose of the military action is to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of weapons of mass destruction or to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” This is a very broad objective.
The Administration has been careful to say that strikes would “degrade” Syria’s chemical weapons capacity. But limited military strikes are very unlikely to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons stocks or delivery capacity. This is doubly true since the Syrian government has now had more than a week to move and protect those weapons. Even assuming that the U.S. can definitively track the weapons, it is complicated to ensure that they are not transferred to another hostile party. Congress needs to challenge the Administration to establish objectives achievable by limited strikes or explain how the strikes will achieve the purposes stated in the resolution.
2. The Syrian rebels have been linked to Islamist extremists.
In addition to the military strikes, the Administration reportedly intends to do “more for the Syrian rebels,” including providing arms. But there is evidence that the Syrian rebels are fighting beside Islamist extremists, some of whom have ties to al-Qaeda. Congress needs to demand a credible plan on how the Administration will prevent U.S. assistance to the Syrian rebels from supporting Islamist extremists.
3. Enforcement of Obama’s “red line” has been inconsistent.
The Administration assesses “with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus suburbs.” Yet these earlier attacks did not elicit a military response from the U.S. This belies the Administration’s arguments that chemical weapons attacks necessitate a U.S. military response. Arbitrary enforcement of a “red line” is not a convincing argument.
4. The Administration has not clearly articulated a U.S. national security interest threatened by the August 21 attack.
The President stated that the August 21 chemical weapons attack “presents a serious danger to our national security.” Yet he failed to articulate a direct threat to the U.S. or its allies. Obama said we need to send a signal to dissuade Syria and other nations from stockpiling or using weapons of mass destruction. But retaliation to one chemical weapons attack—and not others—does not send a clear signal. American vacillation in the face of Iran’s nuclear ambitions sends a far more direct signal than a belated, “narrow and limited” military action in Syria.
5. The U.S. has not been able to gain broad support from allies.
The New York Times reported that offers of “military assets” have come from France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. But only France has committed to be an active participant in a military operation. Congress should seek an explanation from the Administration as to why, if the August 21 attack poses a regional threat, our Arab partners are not more committed.
The Obama Administration’s Syria policy has been disturbingly ad hoc and reactive. The Administration has not clearly explained why it must act at this time when earlier incidents did not require action, how its proposed actions will achieve its stated objectives, and what its plans are if the military strikes do not succeed in achieving those objectives. Answers to these and other questions are vital if Congress is to take its responsibilities seriously.
1d)
Unless he’s serious, vote no
By Charles Krauthammer
Sen. Bob Corker: “What is it you’re seeking?”
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.”
— Senate hearing on the use of force in Syria, Sept. 3
We have a problem. The president proposes attacking Syria, and his top military officer cannot tell you the objective. Does the commander in chief know his own objective? Why, yes. “A shot across the bow,” explained Barack Obama.
Now, a shot across the bow is a warning. Its purpose is to say: Cease and desist, or the next shot will sink you. But Obama has already told the world — and Bashar al-Assad in particular — that there will be no next shot. He has insisted time and again that the operation will be finite and highly limited. Take the shot, kill some fish, go home.
What then is the purpose? Dempsey hasn’t a clue, but Secretary of State John Kerry says it will uphold and proclaim a norm and thus deter future use of chemical weapons. With a few Tomahawk missiles? Hitting sites that, thanks to the administration having leaked the target list, have already been scrubbed of important military assets?
This is risible. If anything, a pinprick from which Assad emerges unscathed would simply enhance his stature and vindicate his conduct.
Deterrence depends entirely on perception, and the perception in the Middle East is universal: Obama wants no part of Syria.
Assad has to go, says Obama, and then lifts not a finger for two years. Obama lays down a “red line,” and then ignores it. Shamed finally by a massive poison gas attack, he sends Kerry to make an impassioned case for righteous and urgent retaliation — and the very next day, Obama undermines everything by declaring an indefinite timeout to seek congressional approval.
This stunning zigzag, following months of hesitation, ambivalence, contradiction and studied delay, left our regional allies shocked and our enemies gleeful. I had strongly advocatedgoing to Congress. But it was inconceivable that, instead of recalling Congress to emergency session, Obama would simply place everything in suspension while Congress finished its Labor Day barbecues and he flew off to Stockholm and St. Petersburg. So much for the fierce urgency of enforcing an international taboo and speaking for the dead children of Damascus.
Here’s how deterrence works in the Middle East. Syria, long committed to the destruction of Israel, has not engaged Israel militarily in 30 years. Why? Because it recognizes Israel as a serious adversary with serious policies.
This year alone, Israel has four times conducted airstrikes in Syria. No Syrian response. How did Israel get away with it? Israel had announced that it would not tolerate Assad acquiring or transferring to Hezbollah advanced weaponry. No grandiloquent speeches by the Israeli foreign minister. No leaked target lists.
Indeed, the Israelis didn’t acknowledge the strikes even after they had carried them out. Unlike the American president, they have no interest in basking in perceived toughness. They care only about effect. They care about just one audience — the party to be deterred, namely Assad and his allies.
Assad knows who did it. He didn’t have to see the Israeli prime minister preening about it on world television.
And yet here is Obama, having yet done nothing but hesitate, threaten, retract and wander about the stage, claiming Wednesday in Sweden to be the conscience of the world, upholding not his own red line but the world’s. And, incidentally, Congress’s — a transparent attempt at offloading responsibility.
What should Congress do?
To his dovish base, Obama insists on how limited and militarily marginal the strike will be. To undecided hawks such as Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who are prepared to support a policy that would really alter the course of the civil war, he vaguely promises the opposite — to degrade Assad’s military while upgrading that of the resistance.
Problem is, Obama promised U.S. weaponry three months ago and not a rifle has arrived. This time around, what seems in the making is a mere pinprick, designed to be, one U.S. official told the Los Angeles Times, “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”
That’s why Dempsey is so glum. That’s why U.S. allies are so stunned. There’s no strategy, no purpose here other than helping Obama escape self-inflicted humiliation.
This is deeply unserious. Unless Obama can show the country that his don’t-mock-me airstrike is, in fact, part of a serious strategic plan, Congress should vote no.
John McCain changed the administration’s authorization resolution to include, mirabile dictu, a U.S. strategy in Syria: to alter the military equation (against Assad). Unfortunately, Obama is not known for being bound by what Congress passes (see, for example: health care, employer mandate).
When Obama tells the nation what he told McCain and Lindsey Graham in private — that he plans to degrade Assad’s forces, upgrade the resistance and alter the balance of forces — Congress might well consider authorizing the use of force. But until then, it’s no.
1e) A War The Pentagon Doesn't Want
By Robert Scales
Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College.
The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities, Dempseywas largely (and respectfully) silent.
Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.
They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.
They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our “responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.
They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message.
Our people lament our loneliness. Our senior soldiers take pride in their past commitments to fight alongside allies and within coalitions that shared our strategic goals. This war, however, will be ours alone.
They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. “Look,” one told me, “if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn’t think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.” But they also warn that Syria is not Libya or Serbia. Perhaps the United States has become too used to fighting third-rate armies. As the Israelis learned in 1973, the Syrians are tough and mean-spirited killers with nothing to lose.
Our military members understand and take seriously their oath to defend the constitutional authority of their civilian masters. They understand that the United States is the only liberal democracy that has never been ruled by its military. But today’s soldiers know war and resent civilian policymakers who want the military to fight a war that neither they nor their loved ones will experience firsthand.
Civilian control of the armed services doesn’t mean that civilians shouldn’t listen to those who have seen war. Our most respected soldier president, Dwight Eisenhower, possessed the gravitas and courage to say no to war eight times during his presidency. He ended the Korean War and refused to aid the French in Indochina; he said no to his former wartime friends Britain and France when they demanded U.S. participation in the capture of the Suez Canal. And he resisted liberal democrats who wanted to aid the newly formed nation of South Vietnam. We all know what happened after his successor ignored Eisenhower’s advice. My generation got to go to war.
Over the past few days, the opinions of officers confiding in me have changed to some degree. Resignation seems to be creeping into their sense of outrage. One officer told me: “To hell with them. If this guy wants this war, then let him have it. Looks like no one will get hurt anyway.”
Soon the military will salute respectfully and loose the hell of hundreds of cruise missiles in an effort that will, inevitably, kill a few of those we wish to protect. They will do it with all the professionalism and skill we expect from the world’s most proficient military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from this week’s hearings before we go to war again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)In Syria, Go After Banks Before Bombs
Lawmakers should consider stronger economic sanctions before military intervention.
By Avi Jorisch
As the White House considers taking military action against Syria for its use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians, the president has turned to Congress to authorize airstrikes. Lawmakers weighing their decision on the most consequential policy vote since the 2002 authorization for war in Iraq should encourage the President to also consider using an additional tool to force the Syrian regime to change course: stepping up economic warfare against Syrian banks and institutions that do business with them.
While sanctions are not a silver bullet, properly targeted, they might yet succeed in pressuring the regime to change its ways. Cutting off banks inside Syria and in other parts of the world that are helping the Assad regime gas its people and circumvent the already existing international sanctions regime, which includes an asset freeze, travels bans and oil restrictions, should be a top priority for legislators on both sides of the Atlantic. This type of effort can have measurable policy impact for a simple reason: the Assad government needs money. Without hard currency and access to the international market, the regime will find it far more difficult to fund its part in the civil war and its ability to purchase Russian-made weapons will be limited.
Syria has twenty-four financial institutions, many of them with correspondent banking relationships in Europe, Asia and the Gulf. The symbiotic relationship between the Syrian government and its banking sector enables the regime to maintain access to foreign currencies and markets by exploiting its banks.
As an example, according to recent news reports, three Russian banks — VTB Bank, Vnesheconombank (VEB) and Gazprombank (GPB) — have transacted business through the Commercial Bank of Syria in order to buy arms for the Syrian regime. The Commercial Bank, along with the Syria International Islamic Bank, are blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury Department for proliferating weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the three Russian banks all have correspondent relationships with U.S. and European banks, and like most international financial institutions, they need this type of access to operate globally. This gives Washington and the Europeans the power to force these banks, and others like them, to choose between doing business with the Assad regime or the West.
U.S. lawmakers have an important role to play in deciding how the administration will engage in economic warfare. Congress should start by pressing the U.S. Treasury to expand its sanctions program beyond the two Syrian banks already blacklisted and designate any Syrian bank providing comfort and support to the regime's powerbrokers.
It should also pass legislation similar to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act, which, if enforced, would compel all international banks doing business with the United States to choose between the American financial market and illicit Syrian banks. Banks that chose sanctioned Syrian institutions would face serious punishment. Among other things, the Justice Department could close down any branches they maintain on American soil or force a sale of all their U.S. assets. But it is not enough to put these laws on the books: Obama administration enforcement remains the key to success.
Responsible financial institutions have a role to play as well. In the United States, banks would be wise to implement programs not only to help them determine who they are doing business with, but to ensure their correspondents around the globe are not providing financial services to any entity on the Treasury blacklist, including those banks in Syria. There are approximately 250 financial institutions in places like Iran, Sudan, Venezuela and China that are blacklisted for illicit activity, which includes proliferating weapons of mass destruction and sponsoring terrorism and narco-trafficking. While American financial institutions are not doing business directly with designated banks, they are effectively exposing themselves to massive risk by doing business with banks that are.
Additionally, Assad and his cronies have reportedly amassed as much as $25 billion, stashed in banks and other investments around the globe. Freezing those assets would go a long way to ensuring that individuals and institutions associated with the Assad regime felt the financial pain.
Blacklisting financial institutions and seizing the Assad regime's personal wealth would require close collaboration with European and Asian allies. Achieving this level of cooperation has clear benefits, including not having to go before the United Nations Security Council, where Russia has already said it would veto any Syria resolution.
Considering airstrikes alone hampers America's ability to engage in a thoughtful strategy for what have become complicated challenges. Crafting a holistic approach to dealing with Syria's civil war and the deployment of weapons of mass destruction should also include activating a strong economic warfare component. There are those who will accuse the United States of imposing its diplomatic will through economic warfare to dictate its foreign policy. And they would be right, but there is no shame in using financial means to pursue those who use weapons of mass destruction. Doing so would, without endangering American blood or treasure, send a resounding message to the world — perhaps more effective than any bombing campaign — that the United States will not stand for Assad's use of chemical weapons. Syria is vulnerable to economic warfare, which would hurt the regime where it is weakest: its pocketbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)David Stockman: 'Fiscal Crisis Coming Down Road'
The U.S. economy remains weak, and the government is headed for a fiscal meltdown, says former White House budget director David Stockman.
The economy grew 2.5 percent in the second quarter.
But, "when I look at trends, I don't see any kind of [economic] recovery that's sustainable. Industrial production is barely where it was in the fall of 2007, full-time jobs are still down 8 percent and median family income is down 8 percent," he told CNBC and Yahoo's Talking Numbers.
"So we have very little progress."
Slow economic growth in China, Japan and Europe provides another headwind for our own economy, Stockman explained.
And then there's the government's debt burden — more than $16 trillion. "We have an enormous fiscal crisis coming down the road," Stockman stated.
"This thing isn't in remission. It's only temporarily abated. So I don't see the case that there's blue sky ahead."
A few weeks from now, when Washington is finished fighting over Syria, "we'll be right up to the midnight hour on the debt ceiling," Stockman said. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has warned that the $16.7 trillion limit will be reached in mid-October.
"We're going to be in another crisis and paralysis. Maybe we'll even breach the [debt] ceiling," Stockman said.
"The market seems to play the world one day at a time and I think there's going to be a moment of shock and reckoning," he added.
Given the uncertainty over the debt limit issue at this point, it's difficult to advise investors on what they should do about it, Guy LeBas, chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott, told The Wall Street Journal.
"That also makes it very difficult for the market to price in any potential risk," he said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)David Stockman: 'Fiscal Crisis Coming Down Road'
By Dan Weil
The U.S. economy remains weak, and the government is headed for a fiscal meltdown, says former White House budget director David Stockman.
The economy grew 2.5 percent in the second quarter.
But, "when I look at trends, I don't see any kind of [economic] recovery that's sustainable. Industrial production is barely where it was in the fall of 2007, full-time jobs are still down 8 percent and median family income is down 8 percent," he told CNBC and Yahoo's Talking Numbers.
"So we have very little progress."
Slow economic growth in China, Japan and Europe provides another headwind for our own economy, Stockman explained.
And then there's the government's debt burden — more than $16 trillion. "We have an enormous fiscal crisis coming down the road," Stockman stated.
"This thing isn't in remission. It's only temporarily abated. So I don't see the case that there's blue sky ahead."
A few weeks from now, when Washington is finished fighting over Syria, "we'll be right up to the midnight hour on the debt ceiling," Stockman said. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has warned that the $16.7 trillion limit will be reached in mid-October.
"We're going to be in another crisis and paralysis. Maybe we'll even breach the [debt] ceiling," Stockman said.
"The market seems to play the world one day at a time and I think there's going to be a moment of shock and reckoning," he added.
Given the uncertainty over the debt limit issue at this point, it's difficult to advise investors on what they should do about it, Guy LeBas, chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott, told The Wall Street Journal.
"That also makes it very difficult for the market to price in any potential risk," he said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment