Dana Milbank, "The White House’s Syria Secrets": It's Not As Secret As You Think

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The White House’s Syria secrets" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-on-syria-whos-got-a-secret/2013/09/04/9cc5b360-15a8-11e3-a2ec-b47e45e6f8ef_story.html?hpid=z2), Dana Milbank asks that the American public be presented with "hard evidence" of Assad's responsibility for the August 21 sarin gas attack on the outskirts of Damascus that killed nearly 1,500 civilians. Milbank writes:

"Officials say the evidence is incontrovertible that Assad used sarin gas against his people. Lawmakers emerging from secret, classified briefings seem to agree. But while members of Congress are coming around to an attack on Syria, the American public remains skeptical. Why? Maybe it’s because the government won’t let them in on the secret."

Well, Dana, allow me to explain. When chemical weapons are transported and prepared for a rocket strike in Syria, there is a lot of chatter that gets intercepted.

Should the American public be told more? You decide.

Enough said.

Gail Collins, "Off to the Mayoral Races": Animal Protection? What About Human Protection?

No matter what else is happening in the world, Gail Collins loves a good animal story. You will recall how she made the matter of "dog on the car roof" central to her commentary during the 2012 US presidential campaign. Well, today Gail is back with another highly relevant animal story, which should put her in line for a Pulitzer.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Off to the Mayoral Races" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/opinion/collins-off-to-the-mayoral-races.html?_r=0), Gail writes of the New York mayoral election:

"And don’t discount the Central Park carriage horses. Animal rights advocates have long yearned to abolish the industry, and Quinn is the only major Democrat who disagrees. The horses are very well-protected by regulation — they have to have five weeks of out-of-town vacation a year. French workers do not have as good a holiday package as the Central Park carriage horses. However, they do have to walk through traffic, which makes many people uncomfortable.

The horses became a huge issue early in the campaign, when there was an entire mayoral forum devoted to the subject of animal protection."

I care deeply about animal rights and contribute every year to animal protection organizations.

But apparently unbeknownst to Gail, there is also this other current issue involving human rights, i.e. the murder on August 21 of nearly 1,500 civilians by the Assad regime using sarin gas. An opinion from Gail on the matter or on Obama's flaccid "red line"? Too controversial. She would rather tell us about Dante de Blasio's "spectacular Afro."

What, Gail doesn't deserve a Pulitzer for this masterpiece? Heck, if Obama merited the Nobel Peace Prize, Gail should be at the front of the Pulitzer list by several lengths.

Thomas Friedman, "Arm and Shame": And Let's Also Provide the Kurds with Their Own State

Will wonders never cease? For the first time in I don't know how long, I find myself agreeing with Thomas Friedman, but with a few important caveats. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Arm and Shame" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opinion/friedman-arm-and-shame.html), Friedman states:

"Count me with the activists on the question of whether the United States should respond to the Syrian regime’s murder of some 1,400 civilians, more than 400 of them children, with poison gas.

. . . .

Thus, the most likely option for Syria is some kind of de facto partition, with the pro-Assad, predominantly Alawite Syrians controlling one region and the Sunni and Kurdish Syrians controlling the rest.

. . . .

That’s why I think the best response to the use of poison gas by President Bashar al-Assad is not a cruise missile attack on Assad’s forces, but an increase in the training and arming of the Free Syrian Army — including the antitank and antiaircraft weapons its long sought.

. . . .

By contrast, just limited bombing of Syria from the air makes us look weak at best, even if we hit targets."

Agreed, but ultimately the Middle East's 30 million Kurds, who have been oppressed by Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq and who have time and again demonstrated their friendship to the United States, deserve their own state.

Friedman's conclusion:

"'Arm and shame' is how we best help the decent forces in Syria, deter further use of poison gas, isolate Assad and put real pressure on him or others around him to cut a deal. Is it perfect? No, but perfect is not on the menu in Syria."

"Help the decent forces in Syria"? Sorry, but there is no decency in the Syrian civil war, not among Assad's forces and not among the rebels.

Maureen Dowd, "Shadow of a Doubt": Shadow of a President

Where does Maureen Dowd stand regarding Obama's proposed "shot across the bow" against Syria's Assad regime? Her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Shadow of a Doubt" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opinion/dowd-shadow-of-a-doubt.html?_r=0) does not provide an answer; however, it does provide many references to America's mistaken and tragic involvement in Iraq. Dowd writes in this regard:

"In many ways, Syria is an eerie replay of Iraq, but with many of the players scrambled and on opposite sides.

. . . .

Once more, we see the magnitude of the tragedy of Iraq because the decision on Syria is so colored by the fact that an American president and vice president took us to war in the Middle East on false pretenses and juiced up intelligence, dragging the country into an emotionally and financially exhausting decade of war and an identity crisis about our role in the world.

. . . .

But the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Tuesday dramatically showed how our misjudgment on Iraq infects our judgment on Syria."

Sorry, Maureen, but Syria is not "an eerie replay of Iraq." Sadly, the United States did absolutely nothing when Saddam Hussein gassed to death some 5,000 of his country's Kurds in Halabja in 1988.

A telegraphed "shot across the bow" lasting 48 hours and aimed at Syrian army bases that were evacuated prior to the strike is in any way the equivalent of America's massive involvement in Iraq? No way.

Dowd further observes:

"Many around the president are making the case that if he doesn’t stand firm on his line in the sand, having gotten so far out on a limb, he’ll look weak and America will lose face and embolden its foes."

Will look weak? The president already does look weak both to friends and foes. Russian President Putin has become openly contemptuous of Obama (recall Putin's recent grant of asylum to Snowden). Syrians  are mocking President Obama as a "coward" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/relief-damascus-syrians-mock-obama-coward-201855652.html). Israelis, even on the left, are openly wondering whether Obama's vacillation regarding his  impromptu, sans teleprompter, "red line" declaration vis-a-vis Syria, means that Israel should not place any creedence whatsoever in Obama's warning to Iran not to develop a nuclear weapon (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/) and will ultimately need to "go it alone."

America is not losing face. Rather, Obama has already lost face, and an impotent "strike across the bow" is not going to repair his standing.

Dowd concludes:

"It’s up to President Obama to show Americans that he knows what he’s doing, unlike his predecessor."

Well, I've got news for you, Maureen: This administration doesn't know what it's doing, as evidenced by John Kerry and his wife dining in Damascus with his "dear friend" Assad, and as evidenced by the inane declarations of Kerry's predecessor, Hillary Clinton, describing Assad as a "reformer."

Obama's smiling overtures over the past 5 years, aimed at Russia's Putin, Iran's Khamenei and Syria's Assad have only provoked disdain among America's enemies and distrust among its friends.

Mind you, I am not advocating American "boots on the ground" in Syria. God forbid! But you can't change the nature of the "bad guys," and you can't go around telegraphing your punches. The product of elite private schooling, Obama apparently never had to contend with bullies on the playground.

In an August 27 blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/maureen-dowd-less-bully-more-pulpit.html), I observed how a touchy-feely Obama, who is guided by the proverb "Speak softly and carry a tiny twig," passed assurances, in an open microphone gaffe, to Russian strongman Vladimir Putin that he would be more "flexible" after the 2012 election.

Today, Putin continues to provide Assad with advanced weaponry and opposes any effort to bring the Syrian tyrant under control.

Have Obama and friends learned anything over the past five years? I don't think so.

"Show Americans that he knows what he’s doing"? Unfortunately, the president has already demonstrated that he is clueless.

New York Times Editorial, "Debating the Case for Force": Who Writes this Rot?

In an editorial entitled "Debating the Case for Force" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/opinion/debating-the-case-for-force.html?_r=0), The New York Times sets out a series of "peculiar" (I am being kind) claims:

• "There has to be a vigorous and honest public debate on the use of military force, which could have huge consequences even if it is limited in scope and duration." Response: We are already seeing the consequences. A long-anticipated "shot across the bow" lasting 48 hours has Syrians mocking President Obama as a "coward" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/relief-damascus-syrians-mock-obama-coward-201855652.html).

• "If he is to win Congressional support, Mr. Obama and his top aides will have to explain in greater detail why they are so confident that the kind of military strikes that administration officials have described would deter President Bashar al-Assad of Syria from gassing his people again (American officials say more than 1,400 were killed on Aug. 21) rather than provoke him to unleash even greater atrocities." Response: Who ever said that Obama & Co. are "confident" regarding Assad's reaction? Let's be honest, if Obama didn't feel compelled to undertake this action owing to his impromptu, sans teleprompter, "red line" declaration, he would never be proposing such action. It's all about saving face.

• "They will also have to explain how they can keep the United States from becoming mired in the Syrian civil war — something Mr. Obama, for sound reasons, has long resisted — and how military action will advance the cause of a political settlement: the only rational solution to the war." Response: The New York Times seriously seeks a "rational solution" from a monster of Assad's ilk?

• "There is little doubt that President Obama wants to take military action." Response: My guess is that Obama is secretly hoping that House Republicans will torpedo this initiative to allow the Procrastinator-in-Chief off the hook.

• "[Obama] should have long ago put in place, with our allies and partners, a plan for international action — starting with tough sanctions — if Mr. Assad used chemical weapons. It is alarming that Mr. Obama did not." Response: "Alarming"? Tell us something we don't know. And this is a man who boasts that his foreign policy accomplishments have been greater than any other president with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln?

• "Meanwhile, the United Nations Security Council, which has the responsibility to uphold treaties outlawing chemical weapons use, has failed to act in any way following the August attack, largely because of the opposition of Russia, Mr. Assad’s chief ally and arms supplier, and China. It is appalling that Russia and China have not been the focus of international outrage and pressure."  Response: "Appalling"? Nearly 1,500 Syrians civilians died from sarin gas on August 21, and the editorial board of The New York Times is put off by Putin's subsequent indifference to this horror? What did the editorial board expect? So much for Obama and Hillary's "reset" of relations with Russia.

• "The Arab League, representing some of the world’s most anti-Assad governments, on Sunday toughened its previous position when it called on the United Nations and the international community to take “necessary measures” against Syria’s government. But, feckless as ever, the League did not specify what measures it supported and, on Monday, the League’s secretary general said there should be no military action without a green light from the United Nations." Response: Do you remember Obama's "famous" June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo, during which he declared, "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." "A new beginning"? "Justice and progress"? "Tolerance and the dignity of all human beings"? Yeah, right.

Sadly, Obama was never prepared to be president. I would recommend that he play a few more rounds of golf with Biden (see: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/president-obama-announces-next-steps-on-syria-heads-to-golf-course/) and let his brain trust - Kerry and Hagel - sort out this mess . . . not.

Kapil Komireddi, "A U.S. Strike Would Be Self-Wounding": Whom Is CNN Seeking to Delude?

In an opinion piece entitled "A U.S. strike would be self-wounding" (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/02/opinion/komireddi-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_c1), which is currently receiving top online billing from CNN, Kapil Komireddi (Who is this joker person?) informs us:

"So what will the United States do the next time chemical weapons are used in Syria? More than 1,000 deaths are prompting the United States -- despite the absence of conclusive evidence linking the Assad regime to the crime -- to intervene."

Absence of conclusive evidence? Yeah, right.

On the other hand, Russian President Putin is also claiming that it would have been "utter nonsense" for Assad to use chemical weapons (see: http://news.yahoo.com/putin-says-utter-nonsense-assad-chemical-weapons-104514783.html), and we all know that there is no one more credible than good old Vladimir . . .

What are we being told by the US government? As stated in "Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21) issued by the White House (my emphasis in red):

"A large body of independent sources indicates that a chemical weapons attack took place in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. In addition to U.S. intelligence information, there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly credible nongovernmental organizations.

A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children, though this assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information.

We assess with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition. Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation. We will continue to seek additional information to close gaps in our understanding of what took place."

Komireddi would have us believe that there is serious reason for doubt whether the Assad regime was responsible for this attack on the rebel-controlled outskirts of Damascus? Perhaps he would also have us believe in Santa Claus.

The real question which we should be asking ourselves: Why is CNN busy spreading this horse manure?

Paul Krugman, "Love for Labor Lost": Using Labor Day to Attack Eric Cantor

I've done more than a few things over the course of my adult life. I have worked for others, including time spent as a menial worker, e.g., farm laborer, and have also held government and white collar positions. I have been a soldier. In addition, I have created two businesses: one succeeded, one failed. What was best and what was worst? I don't know, but I certainly don't regret any of it.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Love for Labor Lost" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/opinion/krugman-love-for-labor-lost.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman takes the opportunity presented by Labor Day in the US to smear Congressman Eric Cantor. Krugman writes:

"Consider, for example, how Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, marked Labor Day last year: with a Twitter post declaring 'Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.' Yep, he saw Labor Day as an occasion to honor business owners.

. . . .

So, this time around will we be hearing anything from Mr. Cantor and his colleagues suggesting that they actually do respect people who work for a living? Maybe. But the one thing we’ll know for sure is that they don’t mean it."

Hold your horses, Paul. Someone who created his or her own hardware store, restaurant, travel agency, home renovation service, or auto repair shop has not "built a business and earned their own success"? "Business owners" don't work for a living? The overwhelming majority of people who open their own businesses are not Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, and they sweat bullets every day and lose sleep every night in an effort to keep their businesses above water.

Having created two small businesses, I know this to be a fact.

And the fear of failure is palpable. Suddenly, you're also responsible for the livelihoods of others. It's not the same as receiving a weekly paycheck from a well-endowed university, or from a newspaper, which might ultimately be forced to file for Chapter 11, unless a certain administration, whose views its editorial staff regularly parrots, comes to its rescue.

Indeed, Eric Cantor paid homage to those who opened their own businesses. This is a reason for Krugman to spew venom?