Thomas Friedman, "Same War, Different Country": America's Credibility Is Not on the Line?

Obama's declaration of a "red line" involving Assad's use of chemical weapons did not place America's credibility at issue?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Same War, Different Country" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/opinion/sunday/friedman-same-war-different-country.html), Thomas Friedman pompously declares:

"I still believe our response to Assad’s poison gas attack should be 'arm and shame,' as I wrote on Wednesday. But, please do spare me the lecture that America’s credibility is at stake here. Really? Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting since the 7th century over who is the rightful heir to the Prophet Muhammad’s spiritual and political leadership, and our credibility is on the line? Really? Their civilization has missed every big modern global trend — the religious Reformation, democratization, feminism and entrepreneurial and innovative capitalism — and our credibility is on the line? I don’t think so."

Were it only the case.

As observed today in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Barry’s War Within" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/opinion/sunday/dowd-barrys-war-within.html), Maureen Dowd observes:

"Obama has told Israel, when it has threatened to go it alone on striking Iran, to back off, guaranteeing the U.S. would use force if necessary to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. If Congress ratifies that there’s no appetite among Americans to police the Middle East, does it doom any chance of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran and indicate that the U.S. won’t be there for Israel?"

What Dowd fails to mention is that Saudi Arabia is even more anxious than Israel concerning Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

Yup, Obama sure as heck painted himself into a corner.

Maureen Dowd, "Barry’s War Within": Or Simply Slapped in the Face by Reality?

In seeking Congressional approval in dithering fashion for a missile strike against the Assad regime, is Obama evidencing some sort of internal psychological struggle along the lines of a Fyodor Dostoevsky character? In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Barry’s War Within" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/opinion/sunday/dowd-barrys-war-within.html), Maureen Dowd appears to claim that this is indeed the case. Dowd writes:

"In his head, is Barry at war with the commander in chief?

One side of him is Barry, the smooth consensus builder and community organizer, the former constitutional professor and the drive-by senator who must stand by the argument he made when he ran for president excoriating W.’s and Dick Cheney’s highhandedness: checks and balances must be observed. As he told Charlie Savage, then reporting for The Boston Globe, in 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.'

. . . .

As commander in chief, Obama knows that if he doesn’t punish Bashar al-Assad, America and his presidency will be forever reduced. He thinks a limited strike — not a war, as some are calling it — is the right thing to do."

Or could the rationale for Obama's confused pattern of behavior leading up to the Congressional vote have more to do with the fact that this is a man who knows how to campaign, but not how to lead. Obama never learned as a community organizer that when you ignore little problems, i.e. kick the can down the road, they have a way of turning into bigger problems. The some 1,500 Syrian civilians died on August 21 because Obama and the rest of the world chose to ignore the prior use of sarin by Assad.

But apart from any internal conflict seething in his head, Obama is being forced to confront a more onerous perturbation, which is sending shock waves through his psyche: His entire foreign policy over the past four and a half years has been proven wrong.

Consider Obama's June 4, 2009 address to the Arab world from Cairo:

"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."

"Shared principles of tolerance and dignity of all human beings"? Yeah, right.

Consider also Obama's March 2009 Nowruz message to Iran:

"So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect."

What were the results of this overture? Zilch.

And what did Obama's Russian "reset" bring? Consider again Obama's 2012 touchy-feely open microphone outreach to Russian strongman Vladimir Putin via Dmitry Medvedev, promising more "flexibility" after the election.

Today, Putin is openly contemptuous of Obama, as most recently evidenced by the offer of asylum to Snowden and Russia's opposition to an American strike against the Assad regime.

Or in a nutshell, after four and a half years in office, Obama is finally confronting reality, i.e. there are bad people in this world, who can not be won over with his charisma.

What an emotional shocker for this narcissist!

Frank Bruni, "The Syria Babble We Don’t Need": Don't Ask Madonna?

It's obvious that Frank Bruni never served in the military.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Syria Babble We Don’t Need" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/opinion/sunday/bruni-the-syria-babble-we-dont-need.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Bruni observes with regard to a possible American strike against the Assad regime:

"You know whom it’s an even more defining moment for? The Syrians whose country is unraveling beyond all hope; the Israelis, Lebanese and Jordanians next door; the American servicemen and servicewomen whose futures could be forever altered or even snuffed out by the course that the lawmakers and the president chart.

The stakes are huge. Bomb Syria and there’s no telling how many innocent civilians will be killed; if it will be the first chapter in an epic longer and bloodier than we bargained for; what price America will pay, not just on the battlefield but in terms of reprisals elsewhere; and whether we’ll be pouring accelerant on a country and a region already ablaze.

Don’t bomb Syria and there’s no guessing the lesson that the tyrants of the world will glean from our decision not to punish Bashar al-Assad for slaughtering his people on whatever scale he wishes and in whatever manner he sees fit. Will they conclude that a diminished America is retreating from the role it once played? Will they interpret that, dangerously, as a green light? And what will our inaction say about us? About our morality, and about our mettle?"

A couple of quick corrections: No one is even dreaming of American "boots on the ground" in Syria, and any 48-hour attack can be carried out with Cruise missiles fired from a great distance from Syria's borders, thus significantly reducing the likelihood of casualties among US servicemen and servicewomen.

Reprisals? Assad is too focused on survival and will simply attempt to "laugh off" any such "limited" strike. On the other hand, Hezbollah and Iraqi Shiites, under orders from Iran, could seek to harm American commercial interests and diplomatic facilities (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57601752/report-iran-message-orders-iraqi-militias-to-retaliate-if-u.s-strikes-syria/). A possible attempt at taking US hostages? Beware!

"No telling how many innocent civilians will be killed"? If American Cruise missiles are only fired at Syrian airbases, civilian casualties can be avoided. However, the Assad regime might well wish to embarrass the United States with civilian casualties and could use civilians as "human shields," as was done in the past by Hamas in Gaza.

The implications for Israel, Lebanon and Jordan (Bruni fails to mention Turkey)? In Lebanon, the Shiites are already at one other's throats. Jordan and Turkey are being overwhelmed with refugees from Syria. Meanwhile, Israel has placed Assad on notice in no uncertain terms that if he fires a single Scud across the border, his army and air force will be instantly annihilated.

Bruni's proceeds to observe how America's media is feasting on the opinions of uninformed celebrities:

"Last week, in many places, I read what Sarah Palin was saying about Syria, because of course her geopolitical chops are so thoroughly established. A few months back, I read about Donald Trump’s thoughts on possible military intervention, because any debate over strategy in the Middle East naturally calls for his counsel.

They’re both irrelevant, but they’re eyeball bait: ready, reliable clicks. I wonder how long I’ll have to wait before a post on some Web site clues me into Beyoncé’s Syria position. Late Friday, Politico informed the world of Madonna’s. (She’s anti-intervention.)"

Madonna, Palin and Trump? What could they possibly know? But then what was Obama thinking - or not thinking - when he issued his impromptu "red line" warning and painted himself into a corner?

Bruni's conclusion regarding the decision being faced by the US Congress:

"And if we want the men and women making it to be guided by principle, not politics, it surely doesn’t help for journalists to lavish attention on electoral calculations and thereby send our own signal: that we don’t expect, and voters shouldn’t count on, anything nobler. On a question of war and peace, we need nobler. We need the highest ground we can find."

"The highest ground we can find"? Nearly 1,500 Syrian civilians, more than 400 of them children, were murdered by the Assad regime on August 21 using sarin gas. This happened because Obama and the rest of the world chose to ignore the prior use of chemical weapons by Assad.

Yes, the US response should be grounded upon ethics, but can ethics be expected from the likes of Obama, Hillary, Kerry and a host of other politicians, both Democrats and Republicans? My bet, Frank, is that Obama will be relieved if Congress votes him down, and he can call off the entire "thing."

Finally, concerning Madonna, she has visited Israel far more often than Obama (Obama only agreed, under pressure, to visit once as president), and although we have different opinions and ways of making those opinions known, she, unlike other artists, has not been afraid to perform in Tel Aviv.

By the way, Frank, when were you last in the Middle East?

New York Times Editorial, "Can Mr. Obama Avoid Mission Creep?": Can Mr. Obama Make Up His Mind?

Following the G-20 Summit in Saint Petersburg, President Obama finds himself between a rock and a hard place: He has been unable to garner support for a "limited" strike against the Assad regime from either the American public or the international community. Never before has Obama appeared so disoriented, isolated and unpopular. Unpopular? Can Obama endure this disdain and the resultant damage to his fragile, narcissistic psyche?

In an editorial entitled "Can Mr. Obama Avoid Mission Creep?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/opinion/can-mr-obama-avoid-mission-creep.html?_r=0), The New York Times declares:

"President Obama is scheduled to address the nation Tuesday on his plans for using military force in Syria. He will have a hard time persuading a skeptical Congress and an equally skeptical American public.

. . . .

It is a very strange moment for Mr. Obama, who has worked hard to extricate the country from two debilitating wars. As the president contemplates striking Syria, the public deserves to understand more fully what 'limited' military action actually means."

Sorry, but Obama has not "worked hard to extricate the country from two debilitating wars." In fact, he was personally responsible for escalating America's disastrous ground involvement in Afghanistan.

"The public deserves to understand more fully what 'limited' military action actually means"? Does this also apply to Bashar al-Assad? When you are about to engage in an armed confrontation, even of limited duration, do you always leak the game plan to the opponent?

But beyond any such "leakage," does Obama intend to proceed with his attack without Congressional approval, which he impulsively decided to seek, surprising both friends and enemies? Deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken told National Public Radio that Obama has no such intention (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/06/us-syria-crisis-usa-obama-idUSBRE9850N420130906).

Moreover, is Obama strong enough as a "leader" to proceed with the attack without international and domestic support? Probably not, and perhaps all along, he has been seeking an escape hatch from his impromptu, sans teleprompter,"red line," which he is now seeking to disavow. Glenn Kessler of the The Washington Post would have us believe that if it's not read from a teleprompter, the president is not responsible for anything he says.(see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/the-fact-checker-president-obama-and.html).

And if the US does not fire a single Cruise missile against a single Syrian air base? What will friends (e.g., Israel) and foes (e.g., Iran) read into this irresolution? Obama already has the answer: Congress is to blame.

However, the implications of a failure to act against Assad are far-flung. You will recall that Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg  (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/):

"I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

So, are Israel and Iran to understand that Obama doesn't mean what he says and that he does bluff?

Will Israel now act on its own, as it wanted to do one year ago, but stood down at the time owing to Obama's veto (see: http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-pressure-nixed-israeli-strike-on-iran-in-2012/)?

Regardless of what he decides regarding a "limited" strike against the Assad regime, Obama's credibility has been irretrievably tarnished.

Or what happens when America elects an anti-Leader, who is then faced with a crisis demanding leadership . . .

The Fact Checker, "President Obama and the ‘Red Line’ on Syria’s Chemical Weapons": If It's Not Read From a Teleprompter, Don't Believe It

Glenn Kessler, "The Fact Checker" of The Washington Post, has just hit rock bottom.

In a blog entry entitled "President Obama and the ‘red line’ on Syria’s chemical weapons" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/06/president-obama-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/?hpid=z1&wp_login_redirect=0), Kessler purportedly examines Obama's recent declaration:

"I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line."

Kessler acknowledges that Obama previously declared in August 2012:

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

Refusing to assign Obama's blatant contradiction even a single "Pinnochio," Kessler explains:

"Obama’s formulation is very loose and informal, focused mainly on the question of movement of chemical weapons: 'a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.'"

"Focused mainly on the question of movement of chemical weapons"? How does Kessler ignore what follows in Obama's "informal" declaration (my emphasis in red)?:

" . . . a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized."

Chemical weapons were "utilized" by Assad. Sarin gas killed nearly 1,500 civilians on August 21.

Kessler continues:

"To sum up, the president made an ill-considered rhetorical statement a year ago, without consulting his aides. But the White House staff decided they could not take it back and even considered it a useful example of firm presidential leadership when they needed to inform Congress of evidence of chemical weapons use by Syria.

But the president apparently was never comfortable with his own words. So when new talking points were crafted to make this line seem less like an 'Obama red line' and more like a world-backed red line, the president bungled the language again. He made it appear as if he was denying he had called it a red line, when that was obviously not the case.

If he had used Kerry’s language, it would not have been as much of an issue: “The line I drew is the same one that the world has had for nearly 100 years.” Or something like that.

Of course, he didn’t say that. So is a bungled talking point worthy of Pinocchios? We don’t try to play gotcha here at The Fact Checker, so we are inclined to leave this question to our readers."

Or in other words, if it's not read from a teleprompter, don't believe anything the president says. Kessler would make a marvelous White House Press Secretary.

This in turn must be causing Israel great anxiety. You will recall that Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg  (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/):

"I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

So, given that this statement to Goldberg was also not read from a teleprompter, are Israel and Iran to understand that Obama doesn't mean what he says?

As was stated by Obama's best talk show friend, David Letterman, on Wednesday regarding the president's disavowal of his "red line" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/05/letterman_on_obamas_red_line_for_syria_the_guy_has_learned_how_to_bullshit.html):

"So, it's taken him five years, but finally the guy has learned how to bullshit."

How reassuring.

Paul Krugman, "Years of Tragic Waste": Obama Takes It on the Chin from Krugman

When it rains, it pours, and it's now monsoon season for Obama.

Sullied by the NSA, IRS and Benghazi scandals, soiled by his flimsy chemical weapons "red line," Obama is today taking it on the chin from long-time friend and ally Paul Krugman, who has scathing words for the president's economic policy. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Years of Tragic Waste" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/opinion/krugman-years-of-tragic-waste.html), Paul Krugman describes the "immensity" of this debacle:

"Some of that immensity can be measured in dollars and cents. Reasonable measures of the 'output gap' over the past five years — the difference between the value of goods and services America could and should have produced and what it actually produced — run well over $2 trillion. That’s trillions of dollars of pure waste, which we will never get back.

Behind that financial waste lies an even more tragic waste of human potential. Before the financial crisis, 63 percent of adult Americans were employed; that number quickly plunged to less than 59 percent, and there it remains."

And there it will remain, unless unemployment again grows worse, which is certainly possible. As recently reported by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/26/us-economy-durables-idUSBRE97P0FL20130826):

"Orders for long-lasting U.S. manufactured goods recorded their biggest drop in nearly a year in July and a gauge of planned business spending on capital goods also tumbled, casting a shadow over the economy early in the third quarter."

Krugman's conclusion:

"Right now, Washington seems divided between Republicans who denounce any kind of government action — who insist that all the policies and programs that mitigated the crisis actually made it worse — and Obama loyalists who insist that they did a great job because the world didn’t totally melt down.

Obviously, the Obama people are less wrong than the Republicans. But, by any objective standard, U.S. economic policy since Lehman has been an astonishing, horrifying failure."

"Astonishing, horrifying failure"? Hey, what happened to "hope, change and forward"?

Yes, Paul is no longer pleased with the president.

No, history is not going to be kind to the first invertebrate to occupy the Oval Office.

Patrick Regan, "Syria Strike Would Put Peace Further Out of Reach": Comparing Bashar al-Assad With George W. Bush

There can be no mistaking CNN's agenda.

On Monday, CNN published an absurd online opinion piece entitled "A U.S. strike would be self-wounding" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/kapil-komireddi-us-strike-would-be-self.html) by someone named Kapil Komireddi, who claimed that there was an "absence of conclusive evidence linking the Assad regime" to the August 21 sarin attack that killed almost 1,500 Syrian civilians on the outskirts of Damascus. Yes, this is the same claim being being made by Vladimir Putin.

Today, CNN is back with an equally ridiculous opinion piece entitled "Syria strike would put peace further out of reach" (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/05/opinion/regan-intervening-in-civil-wars/index.html?hpt=hp_c1) by Patrick Regan, "a professor of peace studies and political science at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies." The premise of Regan's essay is that a "significant amount of research, including my own, demonstrates that military interventions from outside states lengthen and make bloodier civil wars," and that the Obama should instead seek a negotiated settlement.

Regan begins:

"President Barack Obama faces a terrible choice in the coming days. It is whether to kill a number of Syrians who had nothing to do with a poison-gas massacre to show President Bashar al-Assad, who presumably did have something to do with it, that using chemicals weapons violates an international norm."

Well, unbeknownst to Regan, Obama also has the option of rendering Assad's military airfields unserviceable without killing anyone. Obama could also announce a non-lethal no-fly zone, intended to protect innocent civilians from further slaughter. Alternatively, Obama could strike the facilities responsible for Assad's chemical weapons manufacture, although this wound entail casualties among those who "presumably did have something to do with it," i.e. the August 21 massacre.

Regan continues:

"Few would doubt the importance of international agreements to regulate war, particularly those that safeguard the rights of citizens, such as bans on chemical weapons and torture. If al-Assad is responsible for the use of chemical weapons, he had full knowledge of the norms he was violating."

"If al-Assad is responsible for the use of chemical weapons"? "If"? Can this Notre Dame professor possibly be serious?

Regan next states:

"By way of comparison, President George W. Bush chose a policy that allowed torture in interrogations with full knowledge that it was outlawed by agreements to which the United States was a signatory. He made a strategic choice in the face of a threat to national security. Both are abhorrent actions on the part of national leaders, both taken for fundamentally the same reasons."

Just a moment, professor. Are you actually suggesting that non-lethal waterboarding, "abhorrent" as it may be, undertaken to locate Osama bin Laden and to prevent another 9/11 attack, can be compared with a sarin gas attack that killed almost 1,500 innocent civilians? Did I miss something here?

Excuse me as I reach for my airsickness bag.