Washington Post Editorial, "U.S. is complicit as it blames Turkey for the catastrophe in Kobane": Remember Kobani!

As the Islamic State brings up reinforcements and the fate of the Kurdish city of Kobani hangs in the balance, where are President Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry?

Two days ago, Obama attended a Democratic fundraiser in Hollywood. As reported in a TMZ article entitled "Gwyneth Paltrow Celebrity Event Sullies Presidency":

"The idiocy of Hollywood was in full bloom Thursday night when Gwyneth Paltrow turned an already-embarrassing Hollywood fundraiser into 'The Dating Game.'

Paltrow -- who hosted the event at her Brentwood home -- gushed as she introduced President Obama, 'You're so handsome that I can't speak properly.'

She then showed utter ignorance about, and contempt for, the Constitution and separation of powers -- the basic tenets of our government -- by saying, 'It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.'"

And Kerry? He is jetting off tonight to an equally embarrassing fundraiser for Gaza in Cairo.

Is anyone paying attention to the antics of Obama and Kerry? Apparently, The Washington Post is awakening from its slumber. In a blistering editorial entitled "U.S. is complicit as it blames Turkey for the catastrophe in Kobane," WaPo hammers the Obama administration for effectively aiding Syria's monstrous Assad regime while worsening "conditions for his victims in towns held by moderate rebels who, in theory, enjoy U.S. backing." Lambasting Obama's "strategy" (Does he have one?) as "incoherent as well as morally questionable," the editorial says of an emerging catastrophe in Kobani:

"But the White House seems as uninterested as ever in truly helping the moderates. Easier just to blame the Turks."

Remember the Alamo? Perhaps on November 4, American voters will remember Kobani.

Charles Krauthammer, "Bombing for show? Or for effect?": And What About the War on Ebola?

In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Bombing for show? Or for effect?," Charles Krauthammer explains that American attacks on Islamic State forces in Syria are ineffectual:

"So what have we done to relieve Kobane? About 20 airstrikes in a little more than 10 days, says Centcom.

That’s barely two a day. On the day after the Islamic State entered Kobane, we launched five airstrikes. Result? We hit three vehicles, one artillery piece and one military “unit.” And damaged a tank. This, against perhaps 9,000 heavily armed Islamic State fighters. If this were not so tragic, it would be farcical."

Farcical? Indeed, but perhaps enough to convince the American electorate prior to the midterm elections that Obama is not a milksop.

Krauthammer's conclusion:

"The indecisiveness and ambivalence so devastatingly described by both of Obama’s previous secretaries of defense, Leon Panetta and Bob Gates, are already beginning to characterize the Syria campaign.

The Iraqis can see it. The Kurds can feel it. The jihadists are counting on it."

Krauthammer is correct, and Kobani cannot hold out much longer. One month ago, US Secretary of State John Kerry told ABC News Today:

"No. Look, we’re engaged in a counterterrorism operation of a significant order, and counterterrorism operations can take a long time, they go on. I think 'war' is the wrong reference term with respect to that, but obviously it involves kinetic military action."

A few days later, Kerry corrected himself and stated that the US is indeed at war with the Islamic State. However, it now turns out that the US is not even engaged in a "counterterrorism operation of a significant order." This is a phony military engagement, if ever there was one.

Krauthammer, however, fails to note that there is another war that Obama has faced with "indecisiveness and ambivalence": the war on Ebola.

The Ebola virus, which is spreading at a frightening rate, could ultimately prove far more deadly than the Islamic State, yet the Obama administration has responded to this threat with extreme laxity.

Obama would have Americans believe that the midterm elections are all about his policies:

"I’m not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. These policies are on the ballot, every single one of them."

Well, let's see what Americans have to say about that.

Kerry Doesn't Care If Kobani Falls

As reported in a New York Times article entitled "ISIS Advances in Syrian Border Town of Kobani Despite Airstrikes" by Karam Shoumali and Anne Barnard:

"Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday that preventing the town’s fall to Islamic State militants was not a strategic objective for the United States.

'As horrific as it is to watch in real time what is happening in Kobani,' Mr. Kerry said at a news conference with the British foreign secretary in Washington, 'you have to step back and understand the strategic objective.' He added that the focus had been on the militants’ 'command and control centers, the infrastructure.'"

Attack the command and control centers of the Islamic State? Sorry, John, but they're a figment of your imagination.

On the other hand, it is well worth the effort to assist the Kurds (who have always been friendly to the US), prevent a massacre of civilians, and stem the panic being spread by marauding ISIS forces.

Thomas Friedman, "Running on Empty": Who Is Responsible for the "Laxness" in Washington?

You want to know how an intruder with a knife managed to hop the fence protecting the White House and make it all the way into the East Room, and how a security contractor with a concealed pistol, who had three convictions for assault and battery, managed to ride on an elevator with Obama? Thomas Friedman has the answer. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Running on Empty," subtitled "The Secret Service and the Political Class," Friedman explains that he feels a "laxness" in Washington today:

"I can’t put my finger on it exactly, but you feel today in Washington a certain laxness, that anything goes and that too few people working for the federal government take pride in their work because everything is just cobbled together by Congress and the White House at the 11th hour anyway.

. . . .

When the people governing us become this cynical, polarized and dysfunctional, it surely seeps down into the bureaucracy. As above, so below."

A "laxness"? Tom makes certain not to mention Obama's "latte salute" or how the president ran off to a Martha's Vineyard golf course within 20 minutes of delivering a speech decrying the beheading of James Foley by ISIL.

And how does this "laxness" relate to America's response to ISIL, which is so much in the news today? Would-be Middle East expert Friedman tells us:

"We’re at war in the Middle East, with American military lives on the line, but Congress could not stir itself to return from a pre-election recess to either debate the wisdom of this war or give the president proper legal authorization, let alone take some responsibility."

No mention by Friedman of the imminent fall of the Syrian city of Kobani, which is being defended by lightly armed Kurds against an Islamic State onslaught. In an exclusive interview with ABC News’s Martha Raddatz, US General Martin Dempsey declared in response to a question concerning ISIL's siege of the Syrian city of Kobani:

"In fact, I just got off the phone with my Turkish counterpart about it. . . . Well, they are obviously tracking it just like we are. They've got forces on their side of the border that will prevent ISIL from making any incursions into Turkey, but of course ISIl is smart enought not to do that. I am fearful that Kobani will fall. We have been striking when we can. ISIL is a learning enemy, and they know how to maneuver and how to use populations and concealment. So, when we get a target we'll take it."

"Striking when we can"? Rubbish! Kobani has been under attack for several weeks already, and there has been absolutely no coordination of American airstrikes with the city's Kurdish defenders. Why? Because the Turks, who are fearful of the Kurds (some 18 percent of Turkey's population, many of whom want independence), won't allow it.

When Raddatz asked about the possibility of 5,000 Kurds being slaughtered if Kobani falls, Dempsey replied:

"I heard that estimate. We think that most of the residents have actually fled, so whether there are still 5,000 people there or not is a matter of conjecture at this point. But I have no doubt that ISIL will conduct the same kind of horrific atrocities if they have the opportunity to do so."

Friedman wants to talk about "laxness"? How is it possible that the US military, the most powerful army in the world, cannot prevent Kobani from falling? What an embarrassment!  A "matter of conjecture" whether 5,000 Kurds will be murdered? That's obscene.

In fact, the US is not really waging war against ISIL. It's a mere "holding action" on the part of Obama, the Procrastinator-in-Chief, as America's midterm elections approach. As stated in a Washington Post editorial entitled "U.S. air campaign against Islamic State isn’t achieving its aims":

"For now, the U.S. operation in Iraq and Syria is defined mainly by its limitations. The restrictions Mr. Obama has imposed on his commanders are not compatible with the objectives he has asked them to achieve."

Yesterday, on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports," former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated that he also feels something:

"There is a feeling and I have a feeling that the leadership and the president have given up on the big issues facing this country whether it's immigration or a budget deal or infrastructure funding or trade or energy. There is a sense that you can't deal with that. This country needs that. They can't give up."

Bottom line: If the president has "given up," is it any wonder that federal workers feel the same way?

US General Dempsey "Fearful" That Kobani Will Fall: The Most Powerful Army in the World Cannot Save the City?

In an exclusive interview with ABC News’s Martha Raddatz, US General Martin Dempsey declared in response to a question concerning ISIL's siege of the Syrian city of Kobani:

"In fact, I just got off the phone with my Turkish counterpart about it. . . . Well, they are obviously tracking it just like we are. They've got forces on their side of the border that will prevent ISIL from making any incursions into Turkey, but of course ISIl is smart enought not to do that. I am fearful that Kobani will fall. We have been striking when we can. ISIL is a learning enemy, and they know how to maneuver and how to use populations and concealment. So, when we get a target we'll take it."

"Striking when we can"? Rubbish! Kobani has been under attack for several weeks already, and there has been absolutely no coordination of American airstrikes with the lightly armed Kurdish ground defenders. Why? Because the Turks, who are fearful of the Kurds (some 18 percent of Turkey's population, many of whom want independence), won't allow it.

When Raddatz asked about the possibility of 5,000 Kurds being slaughtered if Kobani falls, Dempsey replied:

"I heard that estimate. We think that most of the residents have actually fled, so whether there are still 5,000 people there or not is a matter of conjecture at this point. But I have no doubt that ISIL will conduct the same kind of horrific atrocities if they have the opportunity to do so."

The US military, the most powerful military in the world, cannot prevent Kobani from falling? What an embarrassment!

A "matter of conjecture" whether 5,000 Kurds will be murdered? That certainly puts my mind at rest.

Kobani Will Soon Fall to ISIS: Where Is Obama's Coalition?

The Syrian city of Kobani, also known as Ayn al-Arab, will soon fall to the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. Kobani, which is located on Syria's northern border with Turkey, is being defended by Kurdish militiamen. The Kurds are outgunned by ISIS, which is using tanks to storm the city and whose forces have night vision equipment. As reported in a CNN article entitled "ISIS enters Kobani, city's defenders see 'last chance to leave,' sources say" by Ralph Ellis:

"ISIS moved closer to seizing Kobani on Sunday as militants entered the southeastern edge of the Syrian city and street-to-street fighting began, a fighter and a media activist inside the city told CNN.

The city's defenders were looking for ways to escape the Kurdish stronghold strategically located near the Turkish border, the fighter said.

. . . .

ISIS is making inroads despite airstrikes by U.S. and allied forces, including Sunday's strikes on the eastern outskirts of the city."

U.S. airstrikes on the outskirts of Kobani? If airstrikes on ISIS forces were coordinated with Kobani's Kurdish defenders, ISIS would be routed, but this is not happening, and the reason is simple.

Turkey, which has yet to join the U.S. coalition, is concerned by the establishment of a future homeland for the Middle East's 30 million Kurds living in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. According to the CIA Factbook, some 18 percent of Turkey's population consists of Kurds, and Turkey does not want assistance to be given to Kurdish forces battling ISIS. As reported in a Newsweek article entitled "Has Turkey Joined the Anti-ISIS Coalition to Counter the Kurds?" by Benny Avni:

"While President Barack Obama announced his intention to 'degrade and ultimately destroy' ISIS, the Turkish authorities continued to allow Islamists from the rest of the world to freely cross the Turkish border to join forces with ISIS in Syria and Iraq. And the Turkish authorities seemed happy to turn a blind eye as oil from areas captured by ISIS was smuggled through Turkey to be sold for hard cash to fund their reign of terror.

. . . .

When ISIS recently bombarded the Kurdish city of Kobani, just across the Turkish border in Syria, the Turkish army appeared in no hurry to intervene. Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Turkey would do 'whatever we can' to help Kobani, but Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz quickly quashed Kurdish hopes that the army would cross the Syrian border anytime soon, telling reporters after the vote in parliament that it would be wrong to expect 'imminent' military action by Turkish forces."

Yesterday, US Vice President Biden was forced to apologize to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan after declaring last week at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University:

"President Erdogan told me, he's an old friend, said, 'You were right. We let too many people [foreigners joining ISIS] through.'"

Claiming that he never said any such thing, Erdogan demanded an immediate apology from Biden, or otherwise he will be "history for me."

Poor Joe! When will he ever learn to stop telling the truth?