Send A Stealth That Says Boo and Obama Should Now Challenge Iran With The Same Awesome Threat

Just back from a committee meeting of The Georgia Museum of Art on whose board I sit.
===
Obviously I have a whole host of friends who send me all kind of stuff and I select some that I find funny.

The reason I introduce some humor in my memos is because the rest is soooo serious.
===


Mujibar was trying to get a job in India .

The Personnel Manager said,
'Mujibar, you have passed all the tests, except one.
Unless you pass it, you cannot qualify for this job.'

Mujibar said, 'I am ready.'
The manager said,
'Make a sentence using the words 
Yellow, Pink, and Green .'

Mujibar said,
'The telephone goes green, green,
And I pink it up, and say, 
Yellow, this is Mujibar.'

Mujibar now works at a call center.

No doubt you have spoken to him.
I know I have.  
In fact I just did when I call Comcast to get our phones back on line.
===
Out of the mouths of babes!

A little girl was in church with her mother when she started feeling ill.

"Mommy," she said, "can we leave now?"

"No," her mother replied.

"Well, I think I have to throw up!"

"Then go out the front door and around to the back of the church and throw up behind a bush."

After about 60 seconds the little girl returned to her seat.

"Did you throw up?" Mom asked.

"Yes."

"How could you have gone all the way to the back of the church and returned so quickly?"

"I didn't have to go out of the church, Mommy. They have a box next to the front door that says, 'For the Sick.'"

===

Water in the carburetor

WIFE: "There is trouble with the car. It has water in the carburetor."
HUSBAND: "Water in the carburetor? That's ridiculous "
WIFE: "I tell you the car has water in the carburetor."
HUSBAND: "You don't even know what a carburetor is. I'll check it out. Where's the car?
WIFE: "In the pool"

===

HE MUST PAY

Husband and wife had a tiff. Wife called up her mom and said, "He fought with me again, I am coming to live with you."
Mom said, "No darling, he must pay for his mistake. I am coming to live with you.

===

I have been told that Obama has discussed the implications of a failure to attack Syria vis a vis Iran with his closest aids.  Whether Obama does anything about Iran is problematical but at least it appears he is aware of the severity of failing to do so.(See 1 below.)

A rabbi speaks out explaining why we should not attack Syria.  (See 1a below.)

Amb. Oren's response to questions regarding the impact on Israel of an American attack on Syria. (See 1b below.)

Norman Podhoretz comes to the conclusion I have reached as well.  Obama, as I have often written, is on a path of accomplishing his goal - diminishing the nation he basically despises  (See 1 c below.)

All of the above was posted before I left and is being mailed this evening.

Much has happened in the two days I have been away but some things remain the same.

Things that remains the same is why Hollywood has been silent lately , how liberals recoil when left to project power and why, if Obama and his Sec. of State were hired by Procter and Gamble to launch a new product, they would have been fired.

Let's take them one at a time.

I submit liberals are heartsick that their Nobel Prize Winning President has turned into a pseudo  warrior. Their silence is because, in my opinion, the liberality forces them to remain silent because if they criticize him they fear their criticism will be construed as racial.

Liberals do not know how to project power.  Their DNA lacks this vital gene.

Let's look at how our presidenthas handled himself.

1) Back in August, 2012, when he was campaigning, Obama needed to show bravado so he painted the desert red and threatened Assad that he must not gas his citizens.

2)  More recently he sent  toldhis Secretary to walk the plank and he dutifully mde an impassioned speech why it was essential we teach Assad a lesson.

3) Within  24 hours Obama sawed off the plank he made Sec. Kerry walk and decided he needed to bring Congress into the picture so he could off load blame if things did not go well though he was careful to state he did not need the authority.

4)  He then  played a round of golf before leaving for his G 20 meeting where he told the world they had actually drawn the red line along with Congress and he was a bystander.

5)  Upon his return things were not looking good in terms of Congressional approval so he had Sec. Kerry made sure he announced our alleged attack would not be of a shock and awe variety but in fact would be rather modest so as not to raise the specter that we were at war.

6) President Obama then agreed with those of his party that he should come to their aid and let the nation in on  what he was up to.  By then his rating for how he was handling Syria were slipping rather rapidly.

7)  Then Sec. Kerry said something about how Assad could avoid the attack and the White House suggested Sec. Kerry had misspoke but Putin was listening and jumped on the idea.

8) Putin then came up with a proposal which allows Obama to make his speech tonight,  probably take credit for bringing Assad to the table because of Obama's vacillating 'toughness.' and he can postpone any vote in Congress which would probably have failed and made him look even more impotent.

As I said, if Procter and Gamble  had hired Obama and Kerry to market a new product they would have been fired.

Meanwhile, Assad continues to attack the rebels, Putin has shoved Obama off the stage as Putin's shadow now dominates the Middle East and Obama looks like the community organizer buffoon he has been all along.

The White House  spin will be that Obama's'credible' threat to use force is  a medal that should be hung on Obama's chest.

If anyone believes Putin will protect America from Syria's WMD, I have a bridge for sale. Putin simply gave Obama a face saving trap. If Obama 's actions are, in fact, so effective Obama should immediately threaten Iran with the same threat!

My own view of what Obama should have done is he should send a stealth plane over Syria on Halloween and it should write a message in the sky that says: BOO!

===

Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) WH Chief of Staff: U.S. Has No Military Allies for Syria Strike
By Amy Woods and Greg Richter

The United States has no military allies in its plan to launch missile attacks against Syria as punishment for the country's use of chemical weapons, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said Sunday.

McDonough conceded the fact on CNN's "State of the Union" after persistent questioning from host Candy Crowley, who asked him whether President Barack Obama has secured international military support for the strike — as opposed to moral support.

"Not at this point," he said. "But it is specific support for holding him [Syrian President Bashar Assad] to account, and it is a recognition that it happened. We feel very good about the support we have, and we’ll continue to build more."

McDonough said Obama, Congress and the rest of the world no longer doubt the fact Assad carried out such horrific crimes against his people.

"Nobody now debates the intelligence, which makes clear … that in August, the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its own people," he said. "The entire world believes that. Congress has the opportunity this week to answer a simple question: Should there be consequences for him for having used that material."

Obama, who will address the country Sept. 10 on the topic, has called for a targeted, limited, consequential-action campaign to deter Assad and degrade his capabilities for another chemical-weapons attack, McDonough said.
"This is not Iraq or Afghanistan," he said. "This is not Libya. This is not an extended air campaign."
On NBC's "Meet the Press," McDonough said stopping the Syrian government from moving chemical weapons out of hiding and onto the front lines is the goal of Obama's intended missile strikes.
If chemical weapons are moved to the front lines, it means a greater risk of them being proliferated, McDonough said.

"I hope that every member of Congress, before he or she decides how they'll cast their vote, will look at those pictures," McDonough said, referring to the video of an Aug. 21 attack showing adults and children suffering from the effects of sarin gas. The video also shows the bodies of dead children lined up across a room.

Although public sentiment and that of Congress is largely against U.S. military action, McDonough said that no one who has seen the intelligence on the attack doubts it. 

"That means that everybody believes that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people … killing nearly 1,500 on Aug. 21," McDonough said. "So the question for Congress this week is what are the consequences for his having done so?"

Congress' answer will be listened to not only in Syria, McDonough said, but also in Iran and the terrorist group Hezbollah. Iran, which is working on a nuclear weapons program, must be told that it does not have greater freedom to act, he said.

"They do not have greater operating space to pursue a nuclear weapon which would destabilize that entire region, threaten our friends and allies and ultimately threaten us."

1a)By Rabbi Aryeh Spero

Presently there is no vital U.S. security reason for us to get involved in a war with Syria. Before sending our boys and depleting our treasury once again, there should be a vital U.S. necessity and a result that redounds to our benefit.

When we fought communism, we could be assured that its democratic, pro-western replacement would make the world safer and benefit us. Not so here. The Assads will be replaced by anti-American Islamists whose victory will embolden them to try to harm us even further.

During World War II, we knew that if we could rid Germany of the Nazis and Japan of the sun-god regime, we would find in its place a people friendly to the U.S. For these societies had many institutions in common with enlightened, civilized thought. Not so in many of the Islamic countries, where their outlook views Christianity as something to be conquered, not befriended and appreciated.

As to the morality: Had we saved the Jews in WWII, which Roosevelt had no interest in doing, the rescued Jews would not have, then, set up concentration camps against the conquered Germans. But here, as we see in all these Islamic situations, those we help will eventually be barbaric and brutal to those previously in power. The same barbarism will exist, just with a different set of targets.

Besides, there is something  immoral in continually using American boys to die for others, as if American life is readily dispensable--- especially for those who hate our way of life. In the category of morality, protecting one's own must take precedence over the universal and theoretical. First take care of your family. Americans can't be used as canon-fodder for never-ending Islamic, self-made problems.

As to morality: Where have Obama and Cameron been throughout the years of willful and comprehensive raping, killing, and genocide against Christians throughout Africa at the hands of Islam. No, this is very selective morality, simply a phony display of easy "courage" by leaders who have no courage when it comes to the real things, such as the wholesale degradation of Christians by Muslims and the nuclear threat from Iran.

Since 1990, this country has been obsessed in sending its young men and women into combat to help Muslims or using our treasury toward that end: Bush Sr. in Kuwait; Clinton in Bosnia; Bush Jr. in Iraq and Afghanistan; and now Obama. Unlike the Marshall plan and WWII where Europeans appreciated what we did, the Muslim population uses our help as a pretext and justification for terrorizing us--calling us intruders into their "holy soil".

I don't understand this obsession in the West to always rescue Islamic societies from their own internecine warfare and violent activities. There are certainly many Islamic countries -- Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai, Kuwait, the Emirates-- that could shoulder the financial and military responsibility of helping their own. Why does the "infidel" have to sacrifice his sons and daughters and incur everlasting debt. Perhaps that is what it means to be a dhimmi.

You know, ever since Vietnam the political Left has loudly railed against America going to war for her own U.S. interests. They label us imperialist and they loath the military. The only time they countenance our military is when it is used not in behalf of our interests but for "moral crusades" of their choosing. When the Left is for military action, in the name of "morality", I know, then, there is not a vital U.S. interest. It's only about feel-goodism, with no personal downside for them.

Forty years ago, Richard Nixon was able to move the Islamic world from the Soviet orbit into ours. Obama has reversed that, and through his policies has made Russia, once again, their host and manager. He is either an incompetent in a job way beyond his ability or a master-mind for American downfall and disgrace.

1b) Israel agrees “that the use of chemical weapons is a ‘heinous act’ for which the Assad regime must be held accountable and for which there must be ‘international consequences,’ ” Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, said in the written statement. “Israel further agrees with the president that the use of chemical weapons promotes the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and encourages ‘governments who would choose to build nuclear arms.’ ”

In an interview, Oren dismissed some senators’ concerns that a U.S. strike against the Assad regime would provoke Syrian, Hezbollah or Iranian retaliation against Israel. “To those who would suggest than an American act against Syria would endanger Israel, we say that Israel can defend itself and will respond forcefully to any act of aggression on the part of Syria and its allies,” the ambassador said.

1c)

Obama's Successful Foreign Failure

The president may look incompetent on Syria. But his behavior fits his strategy to weaken America abroad.

By  NORMAN PODHORETZ

It is entirely understandable that Barack Obama's way of dealing with Syria in recent weeks should have elicited responses ranging from puzzlement to disgust. Even members of his own party are despairingly echoing in private the public denunciations of him as "incompetent," "bungling," "feckless," "amateurish" and "in over his head" coming from his political opponents on the right.

For how else to characterize a president who declares war against what he calls a great evil demanding immediate extirpation and in the next breath announces that he will postpone taking action for at least 10 days—and then goes off to play golf before embarking on a trip to another part of the world? As if this were not enough, he also assures the perpetrator of that great evil that the military action he will eventually take will last a very short time and will do hardly any damage. Unless, that is, he fails to get the unnecessary permission he has sought from Congress, in which case (according to an indiscreet member of his own staff) he might not take any military action after all

 Summing up the net effect of all this, as astute a foreign observer as Conrad Black can flatly say that, "Not since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, and before that the fall of France in 1940, has there been so swift an erosion of the world influence of a Great Power as we are witnessing with the United States."

Yet if this is indeed the pass to which Mr. Obama has led us—and I think it is—let me suggest that it signifies not how incompetent and amateurish the president is, but how skillful. His foreign policy, far from a dismal failure, is a brilliant success as measured by what he intended all along to accomplish. The accomplishment would not have been possible if the intention had been too obvious. The skill lies in how effectively he has used rhetorical tricks to disguise it.

The key to understanding what Mr. Obama has pulled off is the astonishing statement he made in the week before being elected president: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." To those of us who took this declaration seriously, it meant that Mr. Obama really was the left-wing radical he seemed to be, given his associations with the likes of the anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright and the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, not to mention the intellectual influence over him of Saul Alinsky, the original "community organizer."

So far as domestic affairs were concerned, it soon became clear—even to some of those who had persuaded themselves that Mr. Obama was a moderate and a pragmatist—that the fundamental transformation he had in mind was to turn this country into as close a replica of the social-democratic countries of Europe as the constraints of our political system allowed.

Since he had enough support for the policies that this objective entailed, those constraints were fairly loose, and so he only needed a minimum of rhetorical deception in pursuing it. All it took was to deny he was doing what he was doing by frequently singing the praises of the free-enterprise system he was assiduously working to undermine, by avoiding the word "socialism," by invoking "fairness" as an overriding ideal and by playing on resentment of the "rich."

But foreign policy was another matter. As a left-wing radical, Mr. Obama believed that the United States had almost always been a retrograde and destructive force in world affairs. Accordingly, the fundamental transformation he wished to achieve here was to reduce the country's power and influence. And just as he had to fend off the still-toxic socialist label at home, so he had to take care not to be stuck with the equally toxic "isolationist" label abroad.

This he did by camouflaging his retreats from the responsibilities bred by foreign entanglements as a new form of "engagement." At the same time, he relied on the war-weariness of the American people and the rise of isolationist sentiment (which, to be sure, dared not speak its name) on the left and right to get away with drastic cuts in the defense budget, with exiting entirely from Iraq and Afghanistan, and with "leading from behind" or using drones instead of troops whenever he was politically forced into military action.

The consequent erosion of American power was going very nicely when the unfortunately named Arab Spring presented the president with several juicy opportunities to speed up the process. First in Egypt, his incoherent moves resulted in a complete loss of American influence, and now, thanks to his handling of the Syrian crisis, he is bringing about a greater diminution of American power than he probably envisaged even in his wildest radical dreams.

For this fulfillment of his dearest political wishes, Mr. Obama is evidently willing to pay the price of a sullied reputation. In that sense, he is by his own lights sacrificing himself for what he imagines is the good of the nation of which he is the president, and also to the benefit of the world, of which he loves proclaiming himself a citizen.

The problem for Mr. Obama is that at least since the end of World War II, Americans have taken pride in being No. 1. Unless the American people have been as fundamentally transformed as their country is quickly becoming, America's decline will not sit well. With more than three years in office to go, will Mr. Obama be willing and able to endure the continuing erosion of his popularity that will almost certainly come with the erosion of the country's power and influence?

No doubt he will either deny that anything has gone wrong, or failing that, he will resort to his favorite tactic of blaming others—Congress or the Republicans or Rush Limbaugh. But what is also almost certain is that he will refuse to change course and do the things that will be necessary to restore U.S. power and influence.

And so we can only pray that the hole he will go on digging will not be too deep for his successor to pull us out, as Ronald Reagan managed to do when he followed a president into the White House whom Mr. Obama so uncannily resembles.

Mr. Podhoretz was the editor of Commentary from 1960-95. His most recent book is "Why Are Jews Liberals?" (Doubleday, 2009).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------