We debate this week the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the regime of Bashir 'Pencilneck' Assad, and the proper response of the world to such use. The US government yesterday declassified a report that suggests very strongly that Assad and his henchmen have used these weapons on the Syrian people, and more than once. Our intelligence experts now have 'high confidence' that this has happened.
This indeed has crossed a red line. That red line was declared, and rightly so, because the use of chemical and biological weapons is qualitatively different than that of the usual carnage of civil war and national war. One is just as dead from Sarin as from a bullet, but the use of nerve gas demonstrates a profound depravity and indifference to the final cost on humanity.
The use of chemical weapons against civilians is abhorrent. It was correctly cited as one of the several reasons why we went after Saddam Hussein. His removal was in part a consequence of his willingness to murder his own people wholesale with chemical weapons.
I do not want my grandchildren living in a world where the use of these weapons by genocidal thugs against innocent people is common-place. That means there must be real consequences when they are used.
The leaders of Great Britain and France, Mr. Cameron and Mr. Hollande, understand this; that is why they have voiced the desire to deal militarily with Bashir Assad. Unfortunately, neither has been able to communicate these stark facts and the need to respond with more than a sternly worded note to their people. The predictable result is that the British and French people aren't willing to go forward in an operation that will spill blood and cost treasure.
Likewise, Secretary of State John Kerry understands this; that is why he stood at a podium yesterday like a district attorney reading an indictment. Mr. Kerry wants to do "something". His instincts are right; his strategy and planning are lacking.
Yes, there must be real consequences for gassing one's people. But in doing so there must be a strategy that is deep, tested and supported by the large majority of our country. It must be applied by leaders who have been consistent and who understand that strategy, and who employ advisors who nurture and refine that plan. It must be supported by our people and not used by one political party as a piñata.
George W. Bush was (mostly) straight-up in why he thought we had to go after Saddam in 2003, and look at the opposition he had. Is it any surprise that Barack Obama, having been demonstrated to the satisfaction of many to be feckless and dissembling on national security issues such as Benghazi, Iran, the NSA and Afghanistan, now has no credibility at home when he says (correctly) that Syria must be punished for crossing a red line in the use of chemical weapons? That if we don't punish Syria then other genocidal thugs will conclude that it is similarly safe for them to trample that red line?
Senator and candidate Obama loudly proclaimed that President Bush could not take our country to war without the consent of Congress. He now schemes to take us to war -- again -- without the consent of Congress. Senator and candidate Obama told us that if only we had a different foreign policy, the Arabic world would reach out to us. It has instead shunned us. Senator and candidate Obama told us that our problems in the world were caused in large part by the foreign policy we had had for the past fifty years. President Obama certainly changed that foreign policy, so that now our friends mistrust us and our antagonists are emboldened.
When our country (and 40 others) attacked Iraq in 2003, progressive Democrats complained vociferously that we had no overall strategy, no plan for the peace, and no exit plan. You'd think that in 2013 the Obama administration would be smart enough to learn from that, and present to us a coherent strategy and some sort of exit plan, as best as can be envisaged today. President Obama has not done that -- either he doesn't trust the American people to understand these issues, or he doesn't believe that he needs approval of the American people, or -- worst of all -- he doesn't have a strategy and a plan.
None of this inspires confidence. Confidence is exactly what we need right now; confidence that our leaders are honorable to an American code, confidence that smart people are being allowed to do their jobs and have the vision to understand the fundamental gravity of these issues, and confidence that people will be held accountable for the actions they take, right or wrong.
President Obama doesn't inspire confidence; therefore we have none.
No one should take joy in this. Our friends and enemies alike will see the lack of resolution and backbone here in the U.S., in Britain and in France and so on, and act accordingly. War is coming.
But do not think that President Obama will act "on behalf of the global community". President Obama either will not act at all because he can't convince us to have confidence in him, or else he will act despite that and his acts will be seen as being done for himself.
That's the worst part of this.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/31/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
'Tis a time for Prayer + lots of Ammunition.
Espec iff our Leaders are going to continue busting the Budget-Debt levels + commit the US to
an anti-sosvereign Globalist agenda widout asking the Amer People or US Voters to vote on same.
#2
I don't know if the Brits don't want to participate because it is a bad idea or because BHO has repeatedly snubbed them. (sending back that bust of Churchill doesn't seem so clever now, eh?).
My 2 pesos on how this plays out: Yet Another Scandal starts up and dominates the news cycle. Syria is conveniently forgotten.
#3
My problem, Doc, is that I don't trust our Intelligence - neither their competence nor their honesty.
Look at the case like a criminal detective - who has motive, for starters? Assad might have had motive earlier, when he was desperate, but now? Why use them now, when all it can do is damage your global political position, without gain? And once the decision has been made to use them, why use in a such a limited fashion? Comparable numbers have been killed routinely by 'acceptable' artillery barrages. It doesn't make sense.
Conversely, it makes perfect sense for the rebels to use a limited chemical attack on their own people: the losses are not appreciably different than normal, they are desperate, they are dedicated, and it stands to gain for them essential international support. But do they have the opportunity - do they have such weapons to use? I certainly can't say they can't have them - they aren't that hard to make (crude ones, anyway), there were plenty floating around the mideast the past couple of decades for a few to have been diverted/lost/whatever, and there are those who might supply them, for fee or in sympathy. The rebels would not likely have enough to use as actual weapons against Assad, but as political weapons...
No, I am not convinced.
1) That people were killed by chemicals - though I am starting to.
2) That the chemicals were from weapons.
3) That the weapons were intentionally detonated.
4) That they were detonated by Assad's forces.
5) That our attacking of Assad would make things better, rather than worse.
6) That our various government agencies and people have reliable and accurate information and analysis to answer the questions.
#5
Excellent piece Doctor. My thoughts on the situation unfolding or folder, who knows for sure.
Firstly, there is little to be joyful about in that part of the world and seldom has been. They've been beset with mystery, legend, paranoia, poisoned wells, thievery, child abuse, and murderous death for several millennia. Yes, there is indeed a high level of confidence that a chemical agent release happended. Just how and why it happened appears to still be open to debate. Let the experts at USAMRRID and Porton Down sort it out.
This isn't about chemical weapons, it's about the careless rhetoric of a crass amateur. While they can produce a horrible ghastly death, chemical weapons are vastly overrated as a tool on the modern battlefield.
Substantially more troubling to me are the staggering number of suicides within the ranks of our uniformed service members.
I hope and pray we're not drug into WWIII by a feckless, identity confused, Islamic apologist, motivated by a sense of social justice, fairness, and a longing to follow the death-cult faith of his drunken, runaway father.
#7
Of course it's not a time for joy. We have a psycho (a mixture of the worse attributes of a third world dictator, and an academic sh*thead) about to discover the joys of using the World's biggest military on a whim.
#9
1) That people were killed by chemicals - though I am starting to.
2) That the chemicals were from weapons.
3) That the weapons were intentionally detonated.
4) That they were detonated by Assad's forces.
People were killed, but 90% survived. That means the "Chemical Weapons" were used badly, or were made badly. This makes it look more like the rebels than a government.
5) That our attacking of Assad would make things better, rather than worse.
We can be sure if Assad loses there will be Sunni genocide/ethnic "cleansing". 6) That our various government agencies and people have reliable and accurate information and analysis to answer the questions.
What's been released is totally unconvincing. An intercepted call asking "what's going on?" is taken as evidence. You can tell theirs straw grasping and there's bullshit going on.
#10
Chemical agents or bullets. To kill is to kill. What is the special connotation other than 'different'? Dead is dead.
That if we don't punish Syria then other genocidal thugs will conclude that it is similarly safe for them to trample that red line?
Most of history has been filled with genocidal thugs. Remember we're living in a very unique historical bubble tagged Pax Americana.
Gas? Why not just starve your people to death by the hundreds of thousands - North Korea. Why not just chop them up by the hundred thousand - Uganda. What did the world do?
The only thing that gets done in this world towards peace and containment has largely been done on the American dime and blood. Unfortunately, the 'Someone has got to do something' arm waivers have been generally the exact same people who've been systematically destroying the resource and economic base that made Pax Americana possible for generations. There's very little now to reinvigorate a large military establishment to 'police' the world. Our expensive resources are becoming precious in that once expended are unlikely to be replaced. You don't penny packet it away on every crisis that's now going to pop up as Pax Americana recedes.
One of the unlearned lessons of history is how Justinian exhausted the resources of the Byzantines trying to rebuild the old Roman Empire leaving it unable to then cope with the rise of the Muslim conquest out of Arabia. How did that work out for the world?
1. Barack Obama, during an interview with Charlie Savage on December 20, 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
2. Joe Biden, during a television interview in 2007: "The president has no constitutional authority ... to take this nation to war ... unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him."
3. U.S. Representative Ted Poe: "Mr. President, you must call Congress back from recess immediately to take a vote on a military strike on Syria. Assad may have crossed a red line but that does not give you the authority to redline the Constitution."
4. U.S. Representative Kurt Schrader: "I see no convincing evidence that this is an imminent threat to the United States of America."
5. U.S. Representative Barbara Lee: "While we understand that as commander-in-chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack."
6. The New York Times: "American officials said Wednesday there was no 'smoking gun' that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation."
7. U.S. Senator Rand Paul: "The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States."
8. U.S. Senator Tim Kaine: "I definitely believe there needs to be a vote."
9. Donald Rumsfeld: "There really hasnt been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation."
10. Robert Fisk: "If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured for the very first time in history that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qaida."
11. Former congressman Dennis Kucinich: "So what, were about to become al-Qaedas air force now?"
12. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem: "We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves."
13. A Syrian Army officer: "We have more than 8,000 suicide martyrs within the Syrian army, ready to carry out martyrdom operations at any moment to stop the Americans and the British. I myself am ready to blow myself up against US aircraft carriers to stop them attacking Syria and its people."
14. Khalaf Muftah, a senior Ba'ath Party official: "We have strategic weapons and were capable of responding."
15. An anonymous senior Hezbollah source: "A large-scale Western strike on Syria will plunge Lebanon virtually and immediately into the inferno of a war with Israel."
16. Ali Larjiani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament: "...the country which has been destroyed by the terrorists during the past two years will not sustain so much damage as the warmongers will receive in this war."
17. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "Starting this fire will be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and unspecified outcomes and consequences"
18. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards: (an attack on Syria) "means the immediate destruction of Israel."
19. Israeli President Shimon Peres: "Israel is not and has not been involved in the civil war in Syria, but if they try to hurt us, we will respond with full force."
20. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond and we will respond in strength."
21. The Jerusalem Post: "The lines between Hezbollah and the Syrian regime are so blurred that Israel will hold Damascus responsible if Hezbollah bombards Israel in the coming days, Israeli officials indicated on Wednesday."
22. Ron Paul: "The danger of escalation with Russia is very high"
23. Pat Buchanan: "The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war."
24. Retired U.S. General James Mattis: "We have no moral obligation to do the impossible and harm our childrens future because we think we just have to do something."
25. Syrian refugee Um Ahmad: "Isn't it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?"
#15
As someone pointed out, chemical weapons today are almost useless against a prepared military force. They have protective gear, remote sensors, and antidotes. Chemical weapons are very effective against an unprepared civilian population. This makes chemical weapons terror weapons.
On the other hand, if Assad had called in an extensive artillery strike, and killed and wounded exactly as many people, Obama would not have complained.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
08/31/2013 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
#16
The problem is Doc, that you assume Obama is doing this for the "right" reasons. I have a great amount of difficulty believing that. Because you posit this as an act due to qualitative differences, then there mut be qualitative differences in the reasoning. We must clearly be doing the right things, in the right places, the right way for the right reasons. Obama and his administration are singularly untrustworthy of anything other than acting to forward their own political aims, regardless of the good or evil of the act. Same goes for John Kerry, who had shown himself to be a patrician bumbling fool, hardly worthy of trust when it comes to his judgement of any moral matter as weighty as this.
As a former part of our intelligence community, I now deeply distrust the products it produces, because in some places, the integrity of the system, its use, and the people in it, has become quite questionable - many times valuing the politically expedient or desired outcome instead of doing what intel needs to do: present the truth plainly and clearly along with the probable alternatives when things are not completely clear. The national intelligence machinery is misdirected, political and fundamentally broken by ignoring the oath to the Constitution, careerism, fiefdom building in the civilian side, and far too many "Courtney Massengale" types on the military side.
All in all, there is a strong case to be made for distrusting the president, the state department, and the intelligence community, as well as some generals.
Those are significant enough issues to raise serious concerns to allow anyone to oppose strikes in the Syria situation as not meeting the qualitative criteria for a qualitative issue.
If a more "dirty" response were to be considered, then perhaps that might fit the situation - revoke the Carter era executive order and simply decapitate the Syrian regime, as well as the resistance leaders who are associated with Al Qaeda and MB. By bullet or cruise missile. For those are the true authors of the chemical strikes: the baathist regime - and the rebels who would do the same had they they chance to fill the vacuum left by toppling the regime. The reason its a dirty situation is that we left it to rot far too long without taking decisive action early, where smaller efforts (supporting the good factions, etc) produce greater changes to the trajectory of events. We now face the consequences of inaction and inertia.
The biggest shame of it is that the American people have not been informed of this due to the whitewashing and hiding of the truth by our dominant leftist media, who seem willing to continue to lie and distort to protect the Obama administration no matter the cost to the Constitution, Republic or its people.
As for your grandchildren (and mine), its unfortunate, but I doubt they will see such a world. What we can can do is see to it that they do not see such actions here at home, and restore what liberty we can. Entangling ourselves for questionable reasons due to questionable intelligence, under questionable leadership using questionable morals is not the thing to do.
As I see it, we have an arrogant and incompetent president. I trust him slightly more than Assad.
Our long-range strategic planning capability and foreign policy development out of the executive branch is non-existent. The people around BHO don't seem particularly capable either. As Krauthammer said: "It is amateur hour."
A couple of websites summarizing chemical and biological weapons capabilities:
#20
As a former part of our intelligence community, I now deeply distrust the products it produces, because in some places, the integrity of the system, its use, and the people in it, has become quite questionable - many times valuing the politically expedient or desired outcome instead of doing what intel needs to do: present the truth plainly and clearly along with the probable alternatives when things are not completely clear. Old Spook
[Ynet] Israeli apology to Turkey over Marmara affair viewed by Erdogan as act of weakness
Less than six months have passed since Israel officially apologized to Turkey, but the gesture can already be defined as a huge mistake. The Israeli government knelt before Ankara and asked forgiveness for a sin it did not commit, and in exchange it received mainly spits in the face.
Prime Minister Erdogan continues to pester us, to despise us publicly and make false accusations against us. He did not release even one conciliatory glance towards us since we admitted - while bowing, as though we were defendants in a public trial -- that we were to blame for the Marmara affair.
"I do not believe Erdogan will continue to attack Israel as he did before," National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror told Channel 2 on the night of the apology, but Erdogan did continue. As soon as he received the apology Erdogan kicked off a public humiliation festival, and last week he accused us of being behind the coup in Egypt, an accusation which embarrassed even our traditional enemies.
Contrary to its prior commitments, Ankara has yet to return its ambassador to Israel, but it benefits from the thousands of Israeli tourists who returned to Antalya. At this juncture, Turkey can be considered Israel's most bitter enemy in the region after Iran.
What does this prove? That in contrast to the familiar mantra, sometimes it is more important to be right than to be wise. The Israeli instinct to sacrifice values and assets for the sake of good relations with the neighbors is leading it from one failure to another. Netanyahu and Amidror relinquished our honor for the sake of peace, but in the end we were left with neither honor nor peace.
Erdogan interpreted their apology as an act of weakness and concluded from it that he can continue his assault on us. Now one can only hope that we too will reach some conclusions of our own. The apology to Turkey cannot be withdrawn, but we can still take a tougher stance with regards to the European boycott of the settlements. For example, the government can take a deep breath and declare that it is banning the "Horizon 2000" program as long as Europe continues to ban Israeli projects in Judea and Samaria. Europe will think twice before declaring another boycott. It may even cause Erdogan to rethink his attitude towards Israel.
#1
Gee...I wonder if any pressure was put on the Israelis from D.C.?/sarc.
Our one-in-a-billion PrezBozo does absolutely understand the non-Westernized M.E. mindset. Twenty (well, OK, thirty) years ago, this kind of collusion with the enemy would have been unthinkable....
#1
See also DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > FSA TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHEMICAL ATTACKS CLAIMING SAUDI COMPLICITY | [Voice of Russia] SYRIAN REBELS ... ... ADMITTING THE WEAPONS WERE PROVIDED BY SAUDIS.
* RAW STORY > SYRIAN REBELS ADMIT GAS ATTACK RESULT OF MISHANDLING CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
* STARS-N-STRIPES > OPINION: US CREDIBILITY AT STAKE AS SYRIA FALLS APART.
* TOPIX, WORLD NEWS > OBAMA LEGACY, US CREDIBILITY AT RISK WITH SYRIA STRIKE.
versus
* WASHINGTON POST > OBAMA NO LONGER COMMANDS RESPECT.
* CHINESE MILITARY FORUM > RETIRED US GENERAL WARNS OBAMA BACKING WRONG GROUP [MusBros in Syria + other Radical Islamists] IN SYRIA, as opposed to the FSA.
MGEN. Paul Vallely, whom also indics or argues in Artic that ...
> Obama is NOT really a "brave person" whom has done or conducted "brave acts".
> Syrian Generals view Obama-led US as "weak" + "impotent".
* DAILY STAR LEBANON > SYRIA ARMY [SAA]DEFECTORS
SAYS STRIKES COULD KILL ASSAD FOES, i.e. anti-Assad fellow soldiers detained or imprisoned in or near ChemWar facilities for suspect loyalties.
#4
I was thinking perhaps a red wire/green wire thing, but this theory is a deliberate attack. I've had to change my BS filters a couple times already, hell the count is anything from 300 to 1500 depending on what time of the day it is. Reporters are saying Sarin, but they also go around saying an M113 is a tank.
They did have the drumbeat on again last night with the late news but it was very neutral.
Anyone else remember a video a few months back where the rebels were showcasing gassing a lab rat?
So were bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And Im the idiot? - Sarah Palin
* President Obama wants America involved in Syrias civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But hes not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Havent we learned? WAGs dont work in war.
* We didnt intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but well now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House were not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require too much of a commitment.
* President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasnt enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be?
* The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obamas advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that hes reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isnt about protecting civilians, and its not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?
* We have no clear mission in Syria. Theres no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And wheres the legal consent of the peoples representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.
* Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. Its nonsense to argue that, Well, Bush did it. Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for his wars, ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of Americas vital interests being at stake.
* Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his red line promise regarding chemical weapons.
* As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who cant recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting Allah Akbar at each other, then let Allah sort it out.
- Sarah Palin
We don't usually re-publish Ms. Palin's Facebook comments but this one is trenchant, and goes along with my own thoughts as expressed in another post today. Doubtless there are Rantburg readers who disagree. But someone's going to have to explain to me what the American strategy is for Syria and the Middle East so that I can understand why lobbing a few missiles at them is a good idea.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/31/2013 00:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"So we're bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I'm the idiot?" - Sarah Palin
Sarah for Snark of the Day!
As a guy, I'm all for randomly blowing stuff up. But if we are going to do it under the guise of 'international relations', having an actual goal would be nice. Or to put it in game theoretic terms, After our move and Player 2's move, what comes next?
[BLOGS.TELEGRAPH.CO.UK] George W. Bush was widely mocked by the Left during the Iraq War, with liberals jeering at the "coalition of the willing," which included in its ranks some minnows such as Moldova and Kazkhstan. Michael Moore, in his rather silly documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, went to great lengths to lampoon the Iraq War alliance. But the coalition also contained, as I pointed out in Congressional testimony back in 2007, Great Britannia, Australia, Spain, Italia, Poland, and 16 members of the NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It's headquartered in Belgium. That sez it all.... alliance, as well as Japan and South Korea. In Europe, La Belle France and Germany were the only large-scale countries that sat the war out, with 12 of the 25 members of the European Union ...the successor to the Holy Roman Empire, only without the Hapsburgs and the nifty uniforms and the dancing... represented. The coalition, swelled to roughly 40 countries, and was one of the largest military coalitions ever assembled.
As it stands, President B.O.'s proposed military coalition on Syria has a grand total of two members -- the US and La Belle France. And the French, as we know from Iraq, simply can't be relied on, and have very limited military capability. It is a truly embarrassing state of affairs when Gay Paree, at best a fair weather friend, is your only partner. John F. I was in Vietnam, you know Kerry Former Senator-for-Life from Massachussetts, self-defined war hero, speaker of French, owner of a lucky hat, conqueror of Cambodia, and current Secretary of State... tried to put a brave face on it at his presser today, by referring to La Belle France "as our oldest ally," but the fact remains that his administration is looking painfully isolated.
There can be no doubt that David Cameron ... has stated that he is certainly a big Thatcher fan, but I don't know whether that makes me a Thatcherite, which means he's not. Since he is not deeply ideological he lacks core principles and is easily led. He has been described as certainly not a Pitt, Elder or Younger, but he does wear a nice suit so maybe he's Beau Brummel ... 's defeat in the House of Commons was a huge blow to President B.O., and has dominated the US news networks this morning. The absence of Britannia in any American-led military action significantly weakens Obama's position on the world stage, and dramatically undercuts the B.O. regime. The vote reflected not only a lack of confidence in the Commons in the prime minister's Syria strategy, it also demonstrated a striking lack of confidence in Barack Obama They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them... and US leadership.
In marked contrast to Obama, President Bush invested a great deal of time and effort in cultivating ties with key US allies, especially Britannia. The Special Relationship actually mattered to George W. Bush. For Barack Obama it has been a mere blip on his teleprompter. Bush also went out of his way to build ties with other allies in Europe, including with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, and an array of countries in Eastern and Central Europe. Obama simply hasn't bothered making friends in Europe, and has treated some nations with sheer disdain and disrespect, including Poland and the Czech Republic. He has found common currency with La Belle France's Socialist President Francois Hollande ...the Socialist president of La Belle France, an economic bad joke for la Belle France but seemingly a foreign policy realist... , an ideological soul-mate, but finds himself in a very lonely position elsewhere across the Atlantic.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/31/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
Not at all 'embarrassing' for the Champ. Like a street punk holding a pistol, he rather enjoys the limelight, the sense of power.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Ynet] Israeli apology to Turkey over Marmara affair viewed by Erdogan as act of weakness
David Cameron
