Big Media Tries To Rescue ObamaCare

Update: Happy Fiscal New Year! It’s an Oktoberfest shutdown! Big Media will at the stroke of midnight into October 1 defend and protect ‘can’t get the job done’ Obama and Judgement Day ObamaCare.

Today Barack Obama took time off from golf to say “No matter what Congress decides to do today, the Affordable Care Act is moving forward. That funding is already in place. You can’t shut it down.” It reminded us of this:



It’s Judgment Day. Time to go nuclear with the debt ceiling John Connor Boehner.

———————————————————————————————————

Ross Perot never took his own sage advice “united teams win, divided teams lose”. Bill Clinton mostly takes his own advice “better to be strong and wrong than weak and right”. Republicans shooting at themselves should remember those lessons as they head to their “high noon”.



When Republicans get to the O.K. Corral they will find that once again the six shooters aimed against them are held by Big Media. It is Big Media that crowed about the wonderfulness of Barack Obama in 2008 and trumpeted the greatness of ObamaCare in 2009 and since. Now Big Media is ready to defend ObamaCare and their creature creation Barack Obama.

Typically, Politico is on the job with orders to protect Barack Obama and ObamaCare. No longer does Politico write the same article they have written before about how Obama and his henchmen have a massive and brilliant roll-out on October 1 for ObamaCare that will rally the public to ObamaCare and bring in millions of suckers enrollees the moment the ObamaCare exchanges are open for business. Now Politico parrots the new Obama rubbish about a “soft launch” for ObamaCare.

Barack Obama and Big Media are now all about the “soft launch” because ObamaCare is about to crash and that grand takeoff moment is going up in flames. That’s why Politico and Barack Obama are busy warning Big Media allies not to concentrate on the catestrophic takeoff moment:

“Can the media avoid rush judgment on Obamacare?

America’s about to take Obamacare for a test drive with an army of hungry reporters in the back seat.

When Obamacare enrollment begins on Tuesday, reporters in the Twitter age will be tempted to declare the health law a success or a failure in the first few days — a judgment that will certainly be stoked by advocates on both sides of the issue.

And any rush judgments could have a big impact on public opinion of the law. Right now, the majority of Americans in recent polls say they oppose the law, but the Obama administration is hoping that will turn around once people see it in action.

The first days of enrollment are a chance for that to happen — but there’s just as big a chance that the public could become convinced it’s a huge disaster, if technical breakdowns in the new health insurance exchanges dominate the news.

Yeah, ignore that big launch Big Media. ObamaCare swindlers over the years declared that the ObamaCare launch would be the ascension and Christmas all gift wrapped in one heavenly package. Now the warning to Big Media is ‘ignore the crash site, put on pin on your nose to avoid the stink, place earplugs on so you won’t notice what is blowing in the wind.’

Politico brings on the “experts” to warn ObamaCare allies of the danger to ObamaCare if they report on what they see, hear, and smell:

“The rollout of the health care law’s major coverage programs is, among many other things, a stress test for the nation’s diffuse — often schizophrenic — media landscape. It’s the first big social program implemented in the age of instant news, and it’s set against a TV news landscape that’s as politically polarized as the country.

But the health law isn’t a 140-character story, and its nuances won’t fit neatly into a three-minute local news segment or 10-inch column, a challenge some media experts say could play a role in public perception of Obamacare as it’s implemented. And it’s likelier than ever that journalism will reinforce diverging narratives, rather than building a national consensus. [snip]

Obamacare supporters are pleading with reporters to avoid being seduced into treating every technical snafu as a catastrophic failure. [snip]

To aid that message, White House allies are compiling feel-good stories about people, long denied health care because of preexisting conditions or benefit caps, who will now have access to potentially lifesaving insurance coverage. [snip]

Part of the challenge is the technical complexity of the law itself. On Oct. 1, new health insurance exchanges — some run by the states, many run by the feds — will open in every state and Washington, D.C., each with its own intricate technological infrastructure.

And supporters of the law have emphasized that they don’t expect people to break down the doors to enroll when the exchanges go live. Rather, they envision a slow trickle of enrollees at the outset, with a bigger rush closer to Jan. 1, when the new coverage takes effect.

As a result, covering the enrollment day will be incredibly difficult, especially for smaller news organizations that lack a dedicated health care reporter, said Karl Stark, vice president of the Association of Health Care Journalists and an assistant managing editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer.

“There’s going to be a funny period. There’s going to be a lot of stuff flying, it’s going to take a lot of work to scan and figure out what’s what,” Stark said, noting surveys showing how unfamiliar the public is with the law. “Whenever [there’s] a huge gap between reality and public understanding that’s a great opportunity for journalism.” [snip]

“This isn’t a political fight anymore about messaging ‘Obamacare is good,’ ‘Obamacare is bad.’ Now we’re going to see what really happens as the main provisions of the law are implemented,” said Altman. “It isn’t about messaging. It’s about reality.”

The storyline is now about consumers interacting with a complicated new health system, added Trudy Lieberman, a health journalist and press critic at the Columbia Journalism Review. Although the 24/7 news cycle is the new normal, Lieberman sees a need for “old-fashioned” consumer-focused reporting.

“I say that because people signing up, and there will be many of them, will need a lot of help,” she said. “I like to refer to this as a sort of insurance jungle they’re going to be facing … they’re going to need help hacking their way through it.” [snip]

“It’s been pretty frustrating because whereas there has been a continuous sneak peek of pricing for other states, typically states not exclusively cooperating with ACA, we’ve had a complete blackout,” said Bob Garrett, a reporter in the Austin bureau of the Dallas Morning News. “Basically, we’re not going to know anything until almost the eve of Oct. 1 as far as pricing and what insurance companies are offering plans in the Texas marketplace.”

NBC will take up the Politico baton with many programs filled with prime time propaganda for ObamaCare to help it succeed. Bob Garrett’s nonsense about a “complete blackout” of real news from ObamaCare lovin’ states demonstrates how deceptive ObamaCare proponents are. Indeed, the news is so bad for ObamaCare that contrary to Garrett’s claim print outlets have been forced to acknowledge many of the problems with ObamaCare.

Before they can go all out in defense of ObamaCare, Big Media print outlets have had to print about some of the problems. Even the big ObamaCare propaganda outfits have to acknowledge the catastrophe to come. The ObamaCare lovin’ New York Times writes:

“PORTLAND, Ore. — Rocky King, the executive director of Oregon’s new health insurance exchange, has done everything in his power to tamp down expectations for its opening on Tuesday.

He rejected the idea of a flashy downtown news conference that morning. He postponed a series of ads meant to drive customers to its Web site, coveroregon.com. In fact, Mr. King is not even allowing people to sign up for health coverage online without assistance at first; they will have to go through an insurance agent or a community group until at least mid-October.

Tuesday is the long-awaited kickoff of President Obama’s signature health care law, when millions of Americans can start signing up for new insurance options. Yet across the country, officials are issuing warnings that despite fevered efforts, their new insurance exchanges — online markets where people can shop for health plans and see if they qualify for federal subsidies — will not be fully operational for weeks or even months.

Notice how the theme no longer is that ‘ObamaCare begins on October 1 so sign up now suckers’. The Big MEdia/White House line is that this will take “weeks or even months”. Of course that is not true because ObamaCare will not work no matter how much time it is given. As to that Garrett claim, notice Oregon is an ObamaCare lovin’ state. The news from ObamaCare lovin’ states and D.C. is as bad as everywhere else:

“Last week, the District of Columbia’s exchange announced that it would not immediately be able to determine online whether people qualify for Medicaid, which about half the states are expanding under the law, or for a federal subsidy to help cover the cost of private coverage. In Colorado, for the first month, people who want to know if they are eligible for a subsidy will have to call a customer service line.

In Nevada, home to a large Hispanic population, a Spanish-language version of the exchange Web site will not be ready until mid-November. And in Maryland, small businesses will not be able to buy insurance for their employees through the state exchange until January. Federally run exchanges are having similar problems.

Many of the 16 directors of state-run exchanges are describing October as a “soft launch” period, when Americans can start exploring their coverage options — but on Web sites that may be incomplete, vulnerable to glitches and perhaps not ready for an onslaught of customers.

I have no idea what this thing’s going to look like on Oct. 1,” Mr. King said one afternoon last week as dozens of tense-looking programmers, scattered through the exchange offices outside Portland, rushed to finish testing and fix problems. “We could crash and burn and have to close it down.

The outcome could hardly be more important for Mr. Obama. With Republicans threatening to shut down the government unless Democrats agree to delay the law for a year, even small problems with the exchanges could be powerful fodder for the law’s opponents.

In an indication of the difficulty of the job, some of the states with delays, like Oregon and Maryland, have been preparing for many months and have political leaders who strongly support the law.

It makes you wonder about the exchanges that actually have been at this a shorter period of time,” said Jon Kingsdale, a managing director at Wakely Consulting Group, who is advising several state-run exchanges. “Do they even know what their problems are?

The 30 states plus with the federal government as overlord for ObamaCare have already announced that small businesses are offline. Billions of dollars already spent will not resuscitate this dead turkey:

The Web portals for the exchanges have to be able to share information in real time with insurance companies, state agencies and the federal government, which has built a “data hub” through which it can verify the income and citizenship of people applying for subsidies or Medicaid. Each portal has to undergo rigorous testing to ensure, for example, that data will flow properly, that the portal is secure and that it can handle heavy volume. Much of the testing is still going on. [snip]

Peter V. Lee, the executive director of California’s exchange, joked in the conference call with Ms. Ferguson last week that he expected a total of two people to sign up for health plans on Day 1.”

As far as we can tell California is not a Republican state so Bob Garrett needs to reexamine his talking points. The problems are everywhere according to the not Republican Washington Post:

“Reports of problems precede launch of Obamacare

Buying health insurance will be as easy as purchasing a plane ticket or shopping on Amazon, the president has promised.

Maybe, but perhaps not on Tuesday — the day that millions of Americans are supposed to be able to start buying coverage under the sweeping law referred to as Obamacare.

Widespread reports of computer problems and logistical glitches are casting a pall over what many supporters envisioned would be a triumphant day for the embattled program. State and federal health officials have said in recent days that some key functions of the online insurance sites called “marketplaces” will not be ready right away. Some of the consumer guides meant to help people sign up for coverage are not yet certified to do so.

Some people who had planned events in conjunction with the opening of the marketplaces have called them off.

“We just kind of laughed and said, ‘Well, I guess we’ll have to reschedule,’ ” said Jason T. Andrews, an insurance broker in California. He had planned on Tuesday to get on the state’s online marketplace and enroll a couple of people who were excited about the health-care law and wanted to be among the first to sign up for coverage.

But he hasn’t been certified by the state to do the work. He hasn’t been able to see the exact rates his clients would have to pay on the marketplace. And he’s not confident that California’s site will be up and running, and fully functioning, come Tuesday.”

It’s not just red states, it’s not just blue states, it is the United States – threatened by ObamaCare:

“However, widespread problems on Tuesday, if they occur, will further fuel Republican attacks on the law’s viability. The program is at the center of a standoff between the White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill that could lead to a government shutdown on the very day the marketplaces are to open and an eventual default on the nation’s debt. [snip]

Some problems could be worse than mere glitches:

In the District, people who use the online marketplace will not immediately learn if they are eligible for Medicaid or for subsidies.

In Oregon, people will not initially be able to enroll in an insurance plan on the Web site.

In Vermont, the marketplace will not be ready to accept online premium payments until November.

In California, it could take a month for an insurer to receive the application of someone who applies for coverage on the exchange on Oct. 1.

“Nobody is going to say we’re not starting on October 1,” said Joel Ario, a health-care consultant who formerly oversaw exchanges at the Department of Health and Human Services. “But in some situations, you may see a redefinition of what ‘start’ means.” [snip]

But as the launch nears, more delays are occurring. On Thursday, the administration announced a delay in the online shopping system for small businesses and confirmed that the Spanish-language site for signing up for coverage will be delayed until mid-October. Earlier in the week, officials said Medicaid applications will not be electronically transferred from the federally run exchange to states until November.

Jon Kingsdale, former head of the Massachusetts health exchange who is now a consultant to many states about their exchanges, described a particularly worrisome problem. In testing, he said, some exchanges have been unable to immediately send to insurers information about what amounts consumers would owe for health plans. The impact should be minimal if addressed in October.

If that isn’t working on an automated basis by the end of October, we’re really in deep doo-doo,” Kingsdale said.”

We’re already in “deep doo-doo”. It’s called Barack Obama. The threat is that by the end of October we’ll be drowning in deep doo-doo. Meanwhile Obama continues to lie:

“Now, this is real simple,” he said during his speech at Prince George’s Community College. “It’s a Web site where you can compare and purchase affordable health insurance plans side by side the same way you shop for a plane ticket on Kayak, same way you shop for a TV on Amazon.” [snip]

The certification site “ is constantly crashing. It’s been a complete pain,” said Wes Bissett, senior counsel for state government affairs at the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America.”

Kayak and Amazon should sue Barack Obama for lying about them.

Big Media will defend and protect Barack Obama and ObamaCare. Now that the ObamaCare problems box has been checked off, Big Media will proceed to all out defense of Barack Obama and ObamaCare. Seymour Hersh, astounded at the protection of Barack Obama over the NSA scandal, will be astonished by the protection afforded Barack Obama on ObamaCare and the fiscal O.K. Corral high noon to come.

Barack Obama will be playing with his crayons drawing red lines as the world laughs. But Big Media will unite and defend Obama and ObamaCare. It won’t just be treacherous liars and hypocrites in Hollywood, women’s magazines pulling hard for ObamaCare. Big Media understands that united teams win. That’s something Republicans should think about as they walk towards the O.K. Corral.

Share

The Hillary Clinton 2016 Muddled Message Mess

Update: Why would anyone who wants to win in 2016 support ObamaCare? It was a mess, it is a mess, it will remain a mess. It’s a scam in which the American taxpayer is forced by the American government to pay insurance companies money for nothing. The latest Uh oh: D.C. ObamaCare exchange announces website won’t be able to calculate subsidies until November. Then the “calculations” will be made “off line”. If the D.C. ObamaCare website is in so much trouble a few days before launch imagine the mess the entire ObamaCare scam is in nationwide. Let the corruption collapse unto itself.

ObamaCare opponents in the Capitol should do everything in their power to force ObamaCare on congress. As we wrote a while back “ Repeal It, Don’t ‘Repair’ It; Nix It – Don’t ‘Fix’ It.

——————————————————————————————————–

Hillary Clinton 2016 is a muddled message mess. The elemental question a campaign must answer before it begins to even be a dream is at this point answered by Hillary Clinton 2016 with a dust storm of incoherence. Joe Biden has answered the basic question for his campaign. Most Republicans have answered the essential question for their prospective campaigns. Ted Cruz has certainly answered the fundamental question candidates must answer before their campaigns organize and mobilize. Hillary Clinton 2016 however is a wagon train immersed in fog headed into quicksand bogs because it has not answered the question a campaign must answer as the chief policy motivation and raison d’etre of the candidate.

The central question for any campaign is whether the electorate must “stay the course!” or whether it is “time for a change!”. It’s one or the other. There is no other question. A merge, a double message won’t sell. A “let’s stay the course but change” concoction has as much appeal and logic as vegetarian pork chops. Hillary Clinton 2016 thus far mumbles non sequiturs hoping no one will notice the screeching echoes of the 2008 muddled message mess (which we tried to correct) when the campaign careened from message to message while the Obama campaign stuck to it’s simple and clear lie.

Is the Hillary Clinton 2016 rationale the same as Joe Biden’s reason to run? Ol’ Joe will go to the electorate and say things are going so well and so on track “we must stay the course!” Recently Bumbling Joe drew a contrast between himself and Hillary at a 2016 Iowa event and rewrote 2008 history. Said bumbling Joe about 2008 and by implication 2016, at the Tom Harkin Iowa Steak Fry, “But if you go back and look at those 13 debates, the only two people who never disagreed on a single solitary subject in those debates were Barack Obama and Joe Biden.” Joe must have been drinking again ’cause we remember things a bit differently. But well enough, it is clear Joe is gonna go with Barack for 2016.

Republicans and the Republican 2016 candidate? Republicans will reason with the electorate and say things are off track and it is “time for a change!”.

Hillary Clinton 2016? Is it “time for a change”? Or is it “stay the course”. Thus far, it is mush. In recent interview articles with Hillary we read of policy “disputes” with Barack Obama at the same time as support for Barack Obama. This is too cute by more than a half.

We understand the challenges Hillary Clinton 2016 faces and we have written about the need for the “gull ’em then cull ’em” strategy. First sedate the Obama hordes now in possession of what was once the Democratic Party, then the kill, the cull. But the “gull” has turned into more of a “lull” as Hillary Clinton 2016 meanders about without a winning message for 2016. Many will argue that there is still plenty of time to develop a message. But message damage is being done daily and like the drivers licenses for illegal aliens issue in 2008 the damage will be severe in a a general election.

The challenges are not nearly as plentiful as the opportunities. Americans believe the country is on the wrong track according to the latest Bloomberg poll. Obama’s approval numbers are under water and 2014 will likely so blast lame duck Barack Obama he will be dead duck Barack Obama. A brand new CBS/NYT poll: Obama tanking on foreign policy demonstrates Barack Obama’s stink of failure has spread internationally. Domestically, Barack Obama is a big stink too. The Obama stink will get worse as failure takes hold and will not turn to perfume by 2016.

Hillary Clinton should position herself as the candidate of “CHANGE!”. Repeat the positions taken in 2008 and note how wise that course would have been. Declare it is “time for a change” to effective leadership and unite the white working class with her campaign for change. Let Joe Biden be the “stay the course” candidate aboard the Titanic. Hillary Clinton 2016 could easily be the lot less scary candidate of “time for a change” which is the default on every Republican 2016 bumper sticker. But cutesie-wutsie won’t get the gold. Yet that muddled message mess is the course Hillary Clinton 2016 is on.

* * * * * *

Barack Obama’s health scam, ObamaCare, is nothing like what Hillary Clinton proposed as a universal health plan. Indeed, as was published this September 22, ObamaCare was a campaign ploy line designed to mask the fact that Barack Obama had no idea what he was talking about and had no health care plan. Yet now slimy immigration hustler Lindsay Graham, with a great deal of justification due to the Hillary Clinton 2016 Muddled Message Mess, calls ObamaCare “ClintonCare”:

“Hillary Clinton decided today to own Obamacare, so in 2016 when this thing falls apart and the economy is in shambles, because of Obamcare, I am going to hereafter call it ‘Clintoncare’,” Graham said Tuesday on Fox News’s “On the Record.”

“The one story that people are not talking about is that Bill and Hillary Clinton, particularly Hillary Clinton, fully embraced Obamacare today. They’re selling this bill as hard as they can sell it. I will never call it Obamacare anymore. I’m going to call it Clintoncare,” Graham (R-S.C.) said.”

Obama’s Praetorian Guard Politico even declares the “Obamacare elixir” to be “the Clintons”. So even as Barack Obama confesses he raised taxes to bring about ObamaCare; as the ObamaCare impact on health insurance individual market premiums dramatically increase; as ObamaCare potentially will destroy Medicare not just take the half trillion dollars it already has stripped from Medicare; as Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four; even as Politico notes that ObamaCare has suffered “One blow after another” this is the time Hillary Clinton 2016 has disastrously chosen to embrace the ObamaCare that so trashed Hillary’s thoughtful health plan of 2008. The Clinton caveats about ObamaCare will be ignored in 2016 as they are today and no amount of parsing and revisiting words will change the disaster being created in these very early days in the 2016 cycle.

It’s not just ObamaCare where the Hillary Clinton 2016 message is a muddled mess. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State advocated for aid to the Syrian rebels before the Syrian rebels became an Al Qaeda operation. Both former Obama Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Hillary friend and former Obama Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have attacked Obama on Syria. Obama made a mess in Syria with red lines and a yellow streak but from Bill Clinton – who called Obama a “wuss” and a “fool” on Syria – we now hear things turned out O.K. even though they clearly are worse than ever and Assad is permanently in the catbird seat watching Vladimir Putin drive middle east policy.

On Egypt Hillary Clinton fought Barack Obama who did everything to undermine Hillary and get rid of American friend (and scumbag) Hosni Mubarak. But instead of critiques from Hillary Clinton 2016 we hear mumbles. On Libya Hillary was right to call for the destruction of the Qaddafi government because even the current mess in Libya is better than what was. But there is Benghazi and Hillary Clinton has a story to tell but instead of telling it there is a duplicitous silence to protect Barack Obama.

That is not to say that there is no strategy to what is being said. What strategy there is leads to a dead end in 2016. Hillary Clinton 2016 needs clarity of purpose and message. That means either a strategic shut up until the matter is fully developed or a fully developed strategy now. Word games and ill considered support for policies that are going to blow up are not smart.

Instead what is being delivered are balanced statements which Big Media and Obama sycophants outside Big Media blare as all out endorsements. Usually the “all out endorsements” are less than advertised and loaded with double messages. We are not alone when we notice that there are caveats and exit strategies to what Bill and Hillary Clinton are saying:

Clinton has taken a press hiatus since she left the State Department in January—“I’ve been successful at avoiding you ­people for many months now!” she says, laughing. She is tentative and careful, tiptoeing into every question, keenly aware that the lines she speaks will be read between. In our interview, she emphasizes her “personal friendship” with Obama, with whom she had developed a kind of bond of pragmatism and respect—one based on shared goals, both political and strategic. “I feel comfortable raising issues with him,” she says. “I had a very positive set of interactions, even when I disagreed, which obviously occurred, because obviously I have my own opinions, my own views.”

Is that a tiptoe away from Obama’s foreign policy, especially after jumping in with both feet to support attacks on Syria only to see Obama retreat just days later? Hmmmm.”

Many have taken notice of that Hillary Clinton remark:

“In her first major interview since leaving the State Department, Hillary Clinton highlighted the experience she gained working in the administration and positioned herself as an independent thinker as she mulls a 2016 bid.

“I’ve had a unique, close, and personal front-row seat,” she told New York Magazine, in a story posted on Sunday. “And I think these last four years have certainly deepened and broadened my understanding of the challenges and opportunities that we face in the world today.” [snip]

The story explores how Clinton has sought to carve out her own image, creating space both from her husband — who wasn’t much of a presence at the State Department, the story says — and now, from the current president.

“I feel comfortable raising issues with him,” she said of Obama, her former Democratic primary opponent. “I had a very positive set of interactions, even when I disagreed, which obviously occurred, because obviously I have my own opinions, my own views.”

The piece signals that the State Department atmosphere under her leadership stood in stark contrast to the reportedly toxic nature of her 2008 presidential campaign, though the story also questions whether the current version of Clintonworld can avoid that drama.”

The nuances do not escape us. We understand. The idea is to run the “gull and cull” to the left strategy during the primaries and then run to the middle for the general election. But that is the same incoherence in mirror image of what Hillary Clinton 2008 did. In 2008 the entire strategy was to be positioned for victory in the general election without any awareness of the shenanigans cooked up by Journolisters and Kennedy-Reid-Pelousy who behind the scenes had ginned the system for Barack Obama.

In the age of YouTube and the internet it is very difficult to run a campaign with a red line separating the nomination fight and the general election battle. Now a campaign and a candidate must have coherence – not a “pivot” delusion which distinguishes primaries from general election battlegrounds. Just look at Mitt Romney 2012 if you don’t understand this new reality.

The central question a campaign must answer before it is even a gleam in the eye of the candidate or the candidate’s supporters is do we want to go to the electorate with the message that we must “stay the course” or is it “time for a change”. Hillary Clinton 2016 thinks it can escape that formulation. It cannot.

Unlike with Barack Obama in 2008 Hillary Clinton 2016 will not be cocooned and protected by Big Media. The Barack Obama Stalinists like the DailyKooks are not about to let Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton pry the party from their fingers with parsed language. Already the left has prepared all the 2008 foolishness in Big Media of Hillary, don’t run for president. The left is ready with the “she’s too old”, it’s a dynasty, new generation time, is she healthy?, personal enrichment, scandals, Monica – arguments made in 2008 and which would easily be forgiven if the dynasty candidate was a Kennedy, Michelle Obama or another favorite. As to age we recall five years ago when once pretty boy Matt Damon declare senior citizen John McCain should not be elected because he would not survive four years in office.

Big Media will not, neither will the DailyKooks left, tolerate a Hillary Clinton which deviates one inch from Obama dogma. But by 2016 the American electorate will want to flush Obama and the Obama Hopium Guzzlers away. It will be time for a change.

For Hillary Clinton 2016 the time to think about the end game is now. We assume of course that there will be a Hillary Clinton 2016 and this is not a Colin Powell run for President. Powell’s “run” years ago which he was so coy about ultimately turned out to be a profitable marketing ploy which garnered higher fees for speeches and a markedly more lucrative book deal. If what we are seeing is a marketing strategy then it is not a muddled message mess at all but a brilliant “Fu*k You” pocket picking for a party that more than deserves to have its pockets picked, the dollars plucked, and nothing less than a brutal….

Share

Kaaarraccck – The Broken Back Of Barack

Update II: We still don’t know why Barack Obama appeared last night on our TV picturebox. Peggy Noonan who used to take so much delight in attacking this website because she was so enamored of Barack Obama has come over to our side. Writes Peg “He should have canceled the speech. It was halfhearted, pro forma and strange.” About the stagecraft La Nooner squawks “They have him stand at a podium and talk into an empty room under Bela Lugosi lighting.” It’s not the lighting that is the problem. Obama is lifeless and drained of blood.

Foreign Policy magazine is wondering if “the world just legitimized the Assad regime its spent years discrediting.” In a word, yes. There are more Reviews in for Obama speech: “Incoherent,” “disingenuous,” “nothing new”. More time was wasted last night as Rand Paul rebutted Obama’s pointless speech about… well we still don’t know what the purpose of the speech was and we are not alone in mocking it:

“Take your pick: The NYT, the LA Times, WaPo, Reuters, Politico, Foreign Policy, and the Daily Beast, where Eli Lake notes that we’re now trusting a guy who supplies Assad with weapons (and who has himself been slow to get rid of his own gas) to be the top cop in taking his weapons away.”

Syriasly, there are some people who advocate attacking Syria with Obama at the helm? Obama? The boob that just got sodomized by Strong Putin and had his eyes gouged by ophthalmologist Assad? Are you daft? It’s not just Kerry that should be fired.

—————————————————————————————————–

Update: This sums it up: Open thread: Desperate man tries to convince world he has faintest idea of what he’s doing.

A boob can only beget boobery. Thus it has ever been. Thus it will always be.

——————————————————————————————————–

Why is rodeo clown Barack Obama giving a speech tonight? There’s no reason for it. There’s no vote. There’s no strike. There’s no support. There’s no trust. There’s no change. There’s no hope. There’s only Putin… Vladimir Putin.


Strong Putin

Perhaps the speech tonight is to rally Obama supporters and Syria attack proponents. But that is very hard to do. Picture Syria attack supporters who believed this was the world’s “Munich moment”. Now they realize they have been on the side of a monumental world historical BOOB. Barack Obama as the Neville Chamberlain of the new age of hope and change:

“Peace In Our Time: Obama Caves to Putin, Assad, Iran

On Monday, the Obama administration, overcome by its own frantic confusion over a situation of its own making in Syria, fainted into the arms of Russian President Vladimir Putin – and, in the process, appeased the Syrian regime after Bashar al-Assad gassed some 1,429 people in Damascus last month.

In a London news conference on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry suggested that Assad could avoid war by “turn[ing] over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay and allow a full and total accounting.” The Russian regime immediately responded to Kerry’s off-the-cuff remark – his second gaffe of the day, after he suggested an “unbelievably small” action against Syria as a deterrent — by suggesting that Syria turn over his chemical weapons to international control. [snip]

Thus, the Russians and Syrians have bartered a way out of Assad’s current predicament. Assad remains in power. His regime remains intact. He called the American bluff and won, and will be emboldened, as will his handlers in Tehran. The al-Qaeda opposition remains intact, too, perhaps slightly emboldened by Obama’s bluster. Putin seizes global leadership on foreign policy. Meanwhile, Obama claims victory, and his media lackeys genuflect before his brilliance.

This is a far cry from just last week, when the Obama administration declared Assad the new Hitler, suggested that the UN was irrelevant to action in Syria, and demanded immediate response to human rights violations in Damascus. “Bashar Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein [who] have used these weapons in time of war,” Kerry explained just nine days ago. Even today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) invoked the Holocaust as a rationale for military action in Syria.

Six days ago, Kerry stated that if Congress did not authorize use of force in Syria, the United States would face a “Munich moment,” referencing British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s infamous appeasement of Adolf Hitler after Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938. Chamberlain declared “peace in our time.” Hitler, emboldened, launched World War II.”

Picture Barack Obama supporters. They will fall for anything their boob god asks for. They stand not on principle but on mud. They are assistant clowns at the rodeo. They are cheerleaders for a boob. These Hopium Guzzlers pumping pom-poms are especially to be mocked. “Help create a war that puts the ‘liberal’ in neo-liberal. . . thousands of organic, grass-fed bombs, hybrid Prius tanks, rockets controlled by iPads, and drones that play the Luminiers. . . The most social-media focused war ever.”



* * * * * *

Why is Barack Obama bothering with a publicity stunt speech tonight? No one seems to know. The one person that should be speaking to Americans and the world is Vladimir Putin. Strong Vladimir Putin just abused Barack’s back and left it broken and bleeding:

“Putin Didn’t Save Obama, He Beat Him [snip]

“The only reason why we are seeing this proposal,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney, “is because of the U.S. threat of military action.”

Right, Putin is laughing to himself. Whatever. If Obama wants to sell it like a Christmas miracle on Pennsylvania Avenue that’s fine with Putin, because Putin won. [snip]

What’s unclear is whether Obama understands that his foreign policy legacy will be to have ruined the American position in the Middle East, our patrimony of the last seven decades. If the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran signaled weakness, the Russian deal screams surrender. The real surprise is that it’s not Iran kicking the United States out of the region under Obama’s watch, but Putin.

The Syrian government has accepted the proposal because they understand it is an empty formalism. [snip]

Who knows what the Russians told Assad? For God’s sake, just say it’s your chemical weapons arsenal you’re turning over for safekeeping. Send them canisters of perfume, or cat urine. The Americans just want a deal, the president thinks he’s saving face. If the Americans are smart, they’ll let the whole thing drop and call it a win, but knowing them they’ll come back later and complain that you’re not keeping your end of the bargain. No problem. We’ll stall them. And then every time Obama whines it will remind your adversaries and U.S. allies around the world that the Americans are empty suits, a bunch of legalistic bureaucrats who are incapable of standing with their friends.

It’s hard not to be impressed with Putin. A man who up until yesterday seemed merely crass, has revealed himself to be capable of great subtlety. For years his method was so transparent, so obvious, his vulgarities intended to appall and shock the White House. He accused one secretary of state of plotting against him, and another he calls a liar. He gave Edward Snowden refuge. He dispatches his thugs to beat up LGBT teenagers. After a while, the administration learned not to be surprised by anything Putin does. He’s a bully, smitten with his own macho self-image. That’s all true, but now we see that Putin was testing Obama and looking for openings.”

That above bit is from supporters of a Syrian attack. Why anyone would sign up for an attack led by a rodeo clown is a mystery to the sensible. But they signed up to support Barack and they look like the fools they are. Obama cannot be trusted and they trusted him. Results? Comedy.

Why is Barack Obama giving a speech tonight? There’s a report that the speech will only last 15 minutes. It’s 15 minutes too long. When the speech was announced it was supposed to help get votes for the authorization of an attack on Syria. But the vote has been postponed or cancelled so what is the purpose of this waste of time?

Even if there was a vote Obama is set to lose anyway. Obama’s back is broken much like a rented mule with arthritis. It’s not just Vladimir Putin that rode this big broken ass. Wow: Senior Senate aide says Obama was short of 50 votes for Syria strike:

“How bad has it gotten for The One? Quote: “In their private moments, Mr. Obama’s allies said even the argument that his presidency would for all intents and purposes be over did not sway some unsympathetic Democrats, frustrated over how few victories there have been to hang on to in Mr. Obama’s fifth year in office.”

The House was always going to be a heavy lift, and cracking 60 in the Senate wouldn’t have been easy given the depth of public opposition, but a bare majority in a chamber controlled by O’s own party?”

This is what a back being broken sounds like:

“A senior Senate aide tells me that support for the authorization of strikes had not yet reached 50 Senators, even privately, meaning its passage is in doubt, even in the Senate. “This allows for a pause in the decision-making process,” the aide says.”

Failure leads to failure and the massive failure of Obama’s failed attack strategy will lead to more failures on ObamaCare, immigration reform, the debt ceiling and the other fever dreams of Obama’s Hopium Guzzlers.

There is no vote scheduled so why is Obama giving a speech tonight? There’s no policy so why is Obama giving a speech tonight? There’s no public support for Obama’s war so why draw more attention to this spectacular failure and triumph of boobery with a speech tonight? There’s no real deal here and strong Vladimir Putin will continue to play Lucy to Obama’s Charlie Brown with new demands and additional slaps on Obama’s big fat ass.

Why is Barack Obama giving a speech tonight?

Share

Shock Report: Turn Your TV Off Day!!!! – Warn Climate Change Hot Gas Experts

Update: General George Armstrong Custer died with his boots on. With our hazmat outfits on we timorously turned on the TV to witness a scalping worthy of the Little Big Horn. We saw the latest in booberific boobery and a massive Retreat: Obama interested in Russian diplomatic track as Reid puts Senate vote on hold. Yup, Barack Obama was on TV again bringing laughter to one and all.

Putin wins, Assad wins, the rebels lose, the Saudis lose, but the biggest loser is the incompetent and badly botoxed John Kerry topped only by King of Boobs Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton knew the latest Russian diplomatic ploy was a trap that could only be considered if compliance was IMMEDIATE, with NO DELAY. Now no one knows what new depths of boobery Obama will plumb.

Harry Reid does not have the votes in the Senate so he has postponed the vote that was supposed to follow immediately after Obama’s bombast conflating Syria with September 11. The House will stomp on Obama too in their vote. So why exactly is Barack Obama going on the TV picturebox tomorrow night to exhort a war vote when there is no immediate war vote scheduled and the war vote will lose anyway? Maybe Obama wants to run from the Syria war loss to losses on immigration reform, the debt ceiling, ObamaCare, the budget?

—————————————————————————————————-

Massive gaseous explosions are expected throughout the day today warn climate change hot gas experts. Around and after 6:30 p.m. tonight the hot gas explosions will be particularly potent and pungent.

Tomorrow night starting at around 8:00 pm. ET, warn these hot gas climate change experts, another even greater aftershock expulsion of methane aroma hot gases are expected to erupt. The smelly eruptions of hot gas will continue into Wednesday, September 11. The hot gas climate change experts warn the solution is to unplug your TV sets and immobilize any mobile device that is capable of television transmission.

Climate change hot gas seriously expert experts explain that their algorithms and calculations are so complex they are near impossible to explain – but they demand the public pay attention to these warnings. What is undeniable and sure to happen is that those with TV sets (radios too for reasons too scientific and whizzy to explain to non-scientist dolts) turned on will experience great pain and symptoms of total distress.

Climate change hot gas experts warn that those defiant viewers with TV sets turned on today around 6:30 p.m. ET, and tomorrow night at what is categorized by advertising agencies and public opinion experts as “prime time” will experience various painful consequences. Ears will experience distress equivalent to having a sharp pencil plunged into the ear canal. A burn equivalent to tossed acid will scorch the eyes.

Climate change hot gas experts further admonish that exposing eyes and ears on both days to TV transmissions so affected by the complicated hot gas entwined eruptions will exponentially increase the damage suffered. No one will be spared the coming disaster. Do not bungle by thinking yourself immune to the coming catastrophe caution these brilliant climate change hot gas experts.

Climate change is not to be joked about. Climate change experts are even of a mind that the culprit for the current Middle East disasters are due to global warming.

Our dear readers need not be alarmed. We here at Big Pink headquarters are fully protected in our pink hazmat chemical warfare suits and hats (adorned with lovely flowers). We are fully prepared with pink colored visual assistance eye wear recycled from our days of eclipse watching. As to our ears, the hearing protection devices purchased pre-concert at a Selena Gomez “musical” extravaganza, are already in place and no doubt will keep our hearing secure for years to come. With these extraordinary preparations in place – we will watch the programs on TV to make sure nothing important or interesting is missed by you our dear readers.

To repeat: climate change hot gas experts warn you to turn your TV sets off for the next 24 hours starting this evening and into late tomorrow night. Failure to do so will lead to sensory failure, potential madness, and even death. You have been warned.

Share

Will #Syria Save Us – From #ObamaCare?

Update: Barack Obama is the author of his own demise. He has no one to blame but himself for his treacherous boobery. To the extent cutting off his arms, legs and the shriveled appendage between his legs harms America, which is the rallying cry of the attack Syria crowd, the answer is not to give him more authority and more power to harm and get us all killed. The answer is to get rid of him.

To give Obama authority was a catastrophic decision made by Hopium Guzzlers in 2008 and 2012. To give Obama more authority will be a damnable act by Congress. You don’t give liquor and matches to a drunk clown in a car. Now we hear more bad news in that China sending warship to Syrian coast:

How bad of an international debacle does that turn out to be when we have ships in place, the Russians and Chinese show up, and we turn tail and leave? It wouldn’t be the reality of what happened, but that’s how it could easily be spun on the international stage.

We’ve been writing for a long time that Obama will get us all killed. The answer is to cut off his hands, not give him more authority to do damage to the United States – and get rid of him NOW.

——————————————————————————————————-

Syria has the capacity, the motivation and the opportunity to destroy ObamaCare. The timetable of events favors a Syria attack on ObamaCare too.

Consider, on the eve of September 11, the anniversary of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks (and the Benghazi terrorist attack) Barack Obama will try to bamboozle and bore the nation into another middle-east fiasco. The U.S. Senate will hold its critical cloture vote exactly on September 11. If the Senate decides to give bumbling, incoherent, Obama authority to attack Syria (remember when we all criticized George W. Bush for what we said was a none too subtle attempt to link an attack on Iraq with the World Trade Center terrorist attacks?) that “victory” will be in some part attributable to a conflation of Syria chemistry and burning lower Manhattan.

If the Senate and the House provide liquor to the drunken clown in a car the House will then vote the following week. Will Obama ignore the House on Syria attack? It’s possible Obama will do the maximum boob move and attack Syria with the House of Representatives and the American people against him as the Senate narrowly gives him liquor in the car. In either case this means an attack on Syria around the time that the ObamaCare websites are supposed to begin to function.

Do not forget that those ObamaCare websites have not yet been certified as “secure”. Indeed the certification of “secure” has been delayed until the day before these ObamaCare websites are set to begin operation. Yup, the very day before these websites, which will grab treasures for hackers such as potential blackmail information on the health of the sucker registrant, Social Security numbers, salary information, job information, home information, will be the day set aside to certify these websites as “secure” to receive this vital information. It’s a hackers paradise.

Enter the Syrian Electronic Army. Mandy Nagy of Legal Insurrection has been tracking the Syrian Electronic Army:

Syrian Electronic Army says it may retaliate if US strikes Syria

The Syrian Electronic Army, which has been grabbing headlines in recent days after its attack that disrupted the NY Times and Twitter, says it may retaliate using “methods of causing harm” for the US economy if the US strikes Syria. [snip]

But many are skeptical of the Syrian Electronic Army’s abilities.

To date, the group hasn’t really employed much in the way of sophisticated hacking. Their efforts have largely been that of phishing and social engineering. They’ve also been creative enough to find other sources of dependent weaknesses to exploit, rather than going after the big targets directly. And the SEA’s goal has been more about grabbing attention and getting its pro-Assad message out than it has been about causing any real damage. [snip]

The majority of experts seem to agree that any retaliation from the SEA would likely be more of a nuisance than a sophisticated attack that could do significant damage to a target.

But as I’ve written previously, it doesn’t necessarily take a sophisticated hacking to cause damage. Sometimes disinformation can be nearly as damaging when disseminated in a strategic fashion (though the US has been lucky in avoiding this for the most part thus far, minus a close call). Whether or not the SEA has that level of vision is a different story and is unknown, but it would certainly behoove media outlets and other institutions to include such precautions in their standard security planning nonetheless.”

If the S.E.A. wants a target as soft as Barack Obama’s manboobs the ObamaCare exchanges are it:

“The Department of Health and Human Services won’t certify that the so-called Obamacare “data hub” used to collect and verify personal health and financial information of health insurance applicants is secure until the system kicks in on October 1–unless further delays push it back further.

The department’s assistant inspector general told a convention of auditors Tuesday morning that the office handling Obamacare, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, is still testing to make sure the system is secure from hackers and other digital attacks.

Kay Daly said that CMS has promised the HHS inspector general that the system security certification will come on time, the day before Obamacare kicks in. But in a sign of doubt, she added, “We are looking forward to seeing how this all works out.”

In her address to the American Institute of CPAs, she said that CMS is “looking at the vulnerability assessments of the hub” used by state, federal and insurance company officials to judge applicants. The information being collected includes salary, Social Security numbers, personal health information and even pregnancy status.

Daly said that the system doesn’t store data, but lawmakers on Capitol Hill have worried that it is too vulnerable to a hacker attack.”

The FBI is concerned enough about the Syrian Electronic Army to issue an advisory. The S.E.A. has already hacked the New York Times website which has been operating for years and has been “secure” for years. The “secure” Times website went down repeatedly over several days thanks to the Syrian Electronic Army.

The “media is going down” chortled the Syrian Electronic Army. According to Legal Insurrection the S.E.A. has already attacked Twitter, Huffington Post, “Thomson Reuters, NPR, The Guardian, CBS, BBC, Reuters and Al-Arabiya, as well as the Financial Times, ITV News, The Onion and E!Online”. All these websites have been operating for years, and presumably “secure” for decades since the dawn of the internet. It’s not just Big Media under attack by S.E.A. Syrian Electronic Army Defaces US Marines Recruitment Website
.

Is it likely that the Syrian Electronic Army will scuttle Barack Obama’s clowning achievement? Ordinarily we would bet against that happening but the ironies erupting from Obama’s bungling on Syria are so many and so stark only a card counter would bet against it. Here we have Obama and his “antiwar” minions arguing that Syria has weapons of mass destruction, an authorization vote on September 11 in the senate, “stand by the president” arguments, etc. – in short all the arguments Barack Obama made against George W. Bush are now being made by Barack Obama.

Some are concerned that if the congress votes down the Syrian authorization we will be without a president for three years – that is cause for rejoicing, not lamentation. In late August we made the argument that It’s Barack Obama In Crisis, Not America. A week later Nile Gardiner of the Telegraph echoed many of our points:

“Obama’s ‘red line’ remarks on Syria were a train wreck. The president’s credibility is on the line, not America’s

President Obama has done himself no favours today with his disingenuous statements on Syria in Stockholm alongside Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. As The Weekly Standard first reported, Barack Obama claimed “he didn’t set a red line” on Syria’s use of chemical weapons, arguing that “the world set a red line” when it passed the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. He also declared that his credibility isn’t on the line, but Congress’s credibility, America’s credibility and the international community’s credibility is at stake if military action isn’t taken on Syria. [snip]

As Obama’s words made clear, he is himself 100 percent responsible for the ‘red line’ that has been laid down on Syria, a red line that he drew without much thought behind what it would entail. He made these remarks at the height of his presidential election campaign, after a year and a half of doing absolutely nothing about the crisis in Syria, no doubt in an effort to look tough and to demonstrate that he wasn’t ‘leading from behind.’

It is not America’s credibility that is on the line at the moment, or that of the United States Congress. It is the credibility of Barack Obama himself, who unwisely drew a line in the sand, and is now pushing for a military intervention in the Middle East without a clear strategy, while aggressively cutting defence spending and failing to demonstrate that a Syrian war is in the US national interest.”

America must cut off Obama like a gangrened arm. We have no doubt whatsoever that if Barack Obama loses the Syria attack authorization vote he will be broken. His presidency will be broken beyond repair. To us that is cause for applause.

The conundrum Barack Obama faces, one of his own making after repeated mistakes, bumbling and stumbling involves having drawn a red line Barack Obama must must must attack Syria or be an international rodeo clown worthy only of flung pies and seltzer sprays. But, but, but, Barack Obama has corralled himself by going to congress (in order to shift the blame for his catastrophes) to beg for an authorization vote.

Here is the conundrum Barack Obama has trapped himself with: He must attack Syria or attach a red clown nose to his face... but… he cannot be seen as a Peace Prize winning war monger baby killer… but… now he has to win the authorization vote he is likely to lose… but… to win he endangers his Obama Dimocrats in congress in the 2014 elections… but… to win on Syria he loses on fiscal votes, immigration reform, ObamaCare votes, debt ceiling votes, because he has to use the few cents of political capital he has in this the first year of his reelection…. In short: Barack Obama must attack Syria but Barack Obama must not attack Syria.

What is the worst scenario for Barack Obama? The worst outcome, one that is not so unlikely, is that the Congress rejects authorization but Obama realizes he must attack anyway to preserve some semblance of authority. At that point impeachment rears its head and we predict gale forces winds of laughter here at Big Pink.

Niles Gardiner also sees Barack Obama hitting the iceberg:

“Barack Obama is heading for a humiliating defeat over Syria: this will be a massive blow to his presidency

Politico has an eye-opening piece today revealing the extent to which the White House is staring defeat in the face over Syria. [snip]

That would represent a dramatic failure for Obama, and once again prove that his sway over Congress is extraordinarily limited. The loss would have serious reverberations throughout the next three months, when Obama faces off against Congress in a series of high-stakes fiscal battles.

If Obama doesn’t get Congressional backing for military action, he could still go ahead with strikes against Syria, but it would be a huge political gamble. It would probably be a bridge too far for a president with sinking approval ratings, and his party facing crucial midterm elections in 2014. A defeat in Congress would be a massive blow to the Obama presidency, as well as to the president’s personal credibility, and could well amount to the biggest humiliation of his career so far.”

At the DailyBeast, Obama crotch sucker Michael Tomasky is weeping and denouncing his fellow “liberals” for not bowing down to the tin plate idol:

“I’m sure liberal members of Congress who’ve announced they’re voting no—Raúl Grijalva, Alan Grayson, Charlie Rangel, Barbara Lee, and about 17 others—have spent a heck of a lot of time thinking about what could go wrong if we do strike. I bet they haven’t given a moment’s thought to what could go wrong if we don’t.”

We’ve thought and written about those issues and have better answers than Tomasky. Tomasky’s real agenda is to float Obama’s boat not watch it sink. We say sink the sucker. It is better to be leaderless than have a leader take you down the wrong path.

Obama crotch licker Ronald Brownstein, like Tomasky is also trying to save Barack by blaming America and the military:

“America’s Sharp Turn Inward

The widespread ambivalence over Syria is the culmination of a mood that has almost completely reversed what had been a rising tide toward interventionism. The public no longer believes in the military’s capacity to yield lasting results. [snip]

For nearly a decade, from Bill Clinton’s first-term moves into Haiti and Bosnia through George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, the current of American foreign policy moved steadily toward greater tolerance of military intervention abroad. The division, ambivalence, and hesitation in both parties about intervening in Syria culminate a subsequent decade that has almost completely reversed this tide.

The unease about military action in Syria has many roots. But its core is a diminished faith that U.S.-led military actions can produce benefits that exceed their costs, especially in the Middle East.”

Brownstein wants to shift Barack Obama’s failures and bumbling stumbling boobery onto the lap of the American public and the military. But the American public has great confidence in the American military. The American public places the greatest trust in the American military in poll after poll. What Americans do not trust is the boob in the White House. Brownstein loves himself the boob so Brownstein will make excuses for Barack the boob and blame everyone else for Obama’s ceaseless rodeo booberies.

Why should anyone lament the destruction of the Barack Obama presidency? After last Saturday’s announcement of “share the blame” congressional vote Barack Obama went golfing with dumb as a golf ball Joe Biden. Today, Barack Obama is back on the golf course with his male staff members playing with balls and sticks. While some lament the end of the Obama presidency Barack Obama is celebrating with a golf game. Instead of working on work that needs to be done Barack is working on swinging balls. Work? What work?:

“Obama ‘Imploding’ in the House

I was just talking to a Capitol Hill source who thinks there are maybe two dozen Republican votes for the authorization, no more — and there probably won’t be more. [snip]

2) The chickens are coming home to roost in terms of the non-existent White House relationship with Capitol Hill. He shared a few stories of the chief White House lobbyist either not knowing key players he should know or not being recognized himself by key players (tellingly, my source doesn’t know his name);

3) Even as the vote is swinging the wrong way, there seems to be no urgency on the part of the White House, which should be in a near panic. [snip]

It’s hard to find a precedent for a president imploding on something this big,” he says.

Keith Koffler at WhiteHouseDossier has supported an attack on Syria. But Koffler sees the feathers flying:

“Obama’s Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

You know, I’ve been casually telling people that I thought Obama was in the end going to win the vote on Syria. [snip]

If this were Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, I’d think yeah, it will pass in the end. But not this guy. I can’t say that Obama’s motion to attack Syria will fail, but I can’t say it will pass either. Because Obama has acted very unpresidential for the past four and a half years. [snip]

You really get the feeling with this president that he’d rather be left alone in the Oval Office or on the golf course with his little friends than hang out with the riffraff from Capitol Hill. Obama lacks strong relationships there, even with his allies.

I covered both Bush and Clinton, and I’d constantly see a line of lawmakers’ cars parked on the West Wing driveway while their owners hashed something out with the president in the Oval Office. With Obama, the driveway is always nice, tidy and empty. [snip]

We used to require a couple of years of experience of presidential candidates before we leased them the White House. Obama was elected having proven nothing about himself to the public other than an ability to get elected and write autobiographies. And now we see he is entirely bereft of the skills needed to function effectively as president.

Koffler notes that Obama’s one real, albeit hated, achievement is ObamaCare. Now we discover Obama using secure White House bunker for meetings on ObamaCare for some reason. Maybe the reason is the Syrian Electronic Army or maybe they just like those comfy chairs. It’s possible the Syrian Electronic Army will erase even that ObamaCare achievement by making registration so impossible or so dangerously leaky that the websites ObamaCare built will have no one to come. Much like those daisy print Vietnam era anti-war posters “What if they gave an war ObamaCare and no one came?”

On ObamaCare, the debt ceiling, immigration reform, on his entire presidency Barack Obama is in the death throes. This is cause for rejoicing, not lamentation.

We’re the ones that in April declared Barack Obama a lame duck after he lost the vote on gun control. We’re the ones that announced immigration reform was dead on the day of the Boston Bomber terrorist attack. We certainly are not going to lament the lame duck now a dead duck.

No phony tears here. No worries about supporting a drunk clown driving us into that proverbial ditch he used to speak about so often. Syria might not only save us from ObamaCare but from other Obama boobfests to come.

What we do wonder about is Barack Obama’s bag man fixer, Syrian Antoin “Tony” Rezko, sitting in a prison as his crooked pal Barack is laid low by his fellow Syrians. What must Rezko be thinking as he rots in jail for protecting his pal?

Share

The Thick Red Line: Strong Putin Versus Weak Obama

Update: If Obama can’t get his own congressional Obama Dimocrats to vote for his national security “moral obscenity” “Munich moment” #1 priority his presidency will be irrevocably broken no matter how much Republican “leaders” try to rescue him. The vote in the Senate is unsure. The vote in the House looks tough and this is according to Nancy Pelosi: I don’t know if Obama can get a majority of House Democrats to support a Syria attack.

——————————————————————————————————

Republican “leaders” continue to work without respite to bail out, cover and otherwise rescue weak Barack Obama. Even though “Obama’s ego, image, power and legacy motivated this change. The GOP is acting like it didn’t. Obama and his team made this political. The GOP is acting like it’s not.

The left along with its Big Media affiliate are divided on what to do about Syria and the public is firmly against Obama’s War but the Stupid Party refuses to fight and won’t even deploy the secret weapon. Hillary Clinton, as we wrote long ago and many times thereafter, is the Republican Secret Weapon. But they are so terrified of Hillary Clinton 2016 they can only think with their fear filled animal brains. Of all people, John Fund demonstrates what we mean and how it is done:

“It’s become accepted fact that Obama’s decision-making style resembles that of an academic convening an unruly seminar whose participants he largely disdains. What he is not is a decisive leader with the ability to bring disparate players together behind a common purpose.

This shouldn’t be a surprise. We had inklings of it a long time ago. Back when Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton accused him of “taking a pass” on tough issues when he was in the Illinois state senate, a theme later picked up by Republicans. Its basis is the 129 times he voted “present.” On 36 of those occasions, he was the only one to vote present of the 60 senators. One of those occasions was in 1999, when he twice chose not to vote on a bill protecting sexual-assault victims from having the explicit details of their cases made public without “good cause.” Bonnie Grabenhofer, the president of the Illinois National Organization of Women at the time, said she endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2007 in part because “when we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass.”

Today President Obama’s chaotic indecisiveness is a big part of his challenge in getting both houses of Congress to approve military action in Syria. [snip]

Since then, further evidence has piled up that Obama is a dithering, indecisive leader willing to deflect making a decision because of what many see as political calculation.

The “take a pass” Obama is not the problem. The “take a pass” strategy Obama has utilized has been very effective for self-advancement and therein lies the problem. Barack Obama is extremely diligent and intelligent, in a criminal sort of way, when it comes to self advancement. But, as we have so often written, Barack Obama is not qualified to be president because he has no worldview that is congruent with reality. Add to that Obama’s twisted personality which is genetically tied to his messianic self-delusions that he is leader of the world not just America. That explains why America is under attack from within by the executive branch.

By comparison Russia is lucky to have a strong Russian leader. Vladimir Putin is not interested in being president of the world. Vladimir Putin is interested in the elevation of Russia on the world stage and in promoting the interests of Russia.

Vladimir Putin has faults such as his anti-gay views and an obsession with displaying his man-boobs and his masculine domination of animals. But even in these faults Vladimir Putin believes he helps Russia. In Putin’s mind anti-gay policies might reduce the Russian birth rate problem. As to the ostentatious displays of “masculinity” Putin is symbolizing the power of Russia.

Americans should envy and desire a president, like Vladimir Putin, who pushes the interests of his country above all.

Consider the Putin position on Syria. Putin has taken a strong position on Syria and his position is based on Russian self-interest. Putin’s position on Syria also appears likely to be the successful one.

What is Putin up to in Syria? For one thing Putin elevates a relatively weak and economically poor Russia into contention for world leadership against a much richer much more economically powerful United States unfortunately undermined with a weak leader. Putin also gets to project military power and gives his navy and military a way to exercise their atrophied muscles. Putin is a fount of strength and tough message projection while Obama is the simpering fey weakling whose wife has more muscles than he has.

Putin in Syria is acting in the best interests of Russia economically too:

“The linkage between oil prices and Russia’s revenues cannot be ignored in calibrating what has, and may happen yet in the Middle East.

Hydrocarbons account for two-thirds of Russian export revenues and nearly half of its state budget. And until very recently just two regions, Russia and the Middle East, dominated world trade in oil and gas. Russia has regularly boasted of being an “energy superpower”. Indeed the whole Putin system is built on channeling hydrocarbon profits to regime supporters, as well as financing domestic military expansion. There were quite a few raised eyebrows at this year’s Paris Air Show when Russia showed off its new, expensive, Su-35 high-tech fighter aircraft.

Meanwhile, under President Obama — and we hasten to note largely independent of and arguably despite U.S. federal policies — entrepreneurs have created an oil and gas revolution in the American shale fields that undermines Russia’s export profits, and perhaps the very survival of Putin’s governance.

Russian oil production is at a 25-year high. If this had occurred in the tight world oil market everyone had expected, revenues would have soared in recent years. While the threat of Middle East war causes markets to price ahead of a supply disruption, historically that’s been a short-term effect. In the longer term the energy landscape has been permanently reset over the past half-dozen years with the entry of American oil and gas technology, inelegantly dubbed shale fracking.

The United States today is the world’s fastest growing oil and gas producer and is already eroding Russian revenues and influence. With production gushing out of the heartland, America has pushed Russia aside to become number one in global gas production. The prospect of future U.S. LNG exports is now exerting downward pressure on prices of Russian gas exports to Europe. Russia is increasingly being forced to abandon the, once sacred, gas-oil price link to maintain market share. [snip]

Thus far Russia’s reaction to the shale gale has been to dismiss it as a “bubble.” But they know better.

In spite of Barack Obama’s destructive economic policies and downright treacherous foreign policy the United States has a bright future in the energy sphere. The United States is not in trouble. Barack Obama is the one going down. A leader of any organization, business, or country should have as her priority promotion of the organization, business, or country she leads. Barack Obama puts American interests at the bottom of his list of considerations – if American interests make his priority list at all.

Mitt Romney was right to see Russia as a threat because Russian interests and American interests do not coincide but rather clash:

“In the most actively cited example of the Republican nominee’s foresight, Romneyites point to the candidate’s hardline rhetoric last year against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his administration. During the campaign, Romney frequently criticized Obama for foolishly attempting to make common cause with the Kremlin, and repeatedly referred to Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe.”

Many observers found this fixation strange, and Democrats tried to turn it into a punchline. A New York Times editorial in March of last year said Romney’s assertions regarding Russia represented either “a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics.” And in an October debate, Obama sarcastically mocked his opponent’s Russia rhetoric. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” the president quipped at the time.”



Russia is winning because their team captain is Vladimir Putin who prioritizes Russian interests. Vladimir Putin’s compass is Russian interests. Russia has strong Putin. America has weak Barack Obama.

Putin’s compass is Russian interests. Obama’s compass is his mirror.

Why does Obama want to help the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria? The Syrian “rebels” are possibly worse than the creep Assad:

“The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.

This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.

As the United States debates whether to support the Obama administration’s proposal that Syrian forces should be attacked for using chemical weapons against civilians, this video, shot in April, joins a growing body of evidence of an increasingly criminal environment populated by gangs of highwaymen, kidnappers and killers. [snip]

Other elements of the opposition have assumed an extremist cast, and openly allied with Al Qaeda.

Across much of Syria, where rebels with Western support live and fight, areas outside of government influence have evolved into a complex guerrilla and criminal landscape.

That has raised the prospect that American military action could inadvertently strengthen Islamic extremists and criminals.”

As Ted Cruz said, why does the United States want to become the Al Qaeda air force? Barack Obama is not woman or man enough to stand up to Vladimir Putin:

“Vladimir Putin has the home field advantage. As the host of the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, he can control the images and the logistics of the meeting of the world’s most important industrialized and emerging economies inside the Constantine Palace, also known as the “Russian Versailles.” He can hardly wait to show it off, complete with its glistening hardwood floors, to Barack Obama. The G-20, Putin has said, will provide “a good platform” to discuss the problems in Syria. [snip]

In St. Petersburg, Obama is expected to seek international support for his policy course.

Putin, on the other hand, believes that he can further isolate Obama by forcing an “international referendum” on the American line of possible intervention in Syria, Russian expert and National Security Council staffer Andrew Weiss told the US website Politico. “This whole trip has become a total headache,” he said.

Even without the tensions over Syria, US-Russian relations were already in a shambles. Obama cancelled a planned bilateral meeting with Putin after Russia granted asylum to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Instead, the US president plans to meet with gay activists in St. Petersburg — a deliberate affront to Putin now that Russia’s anti-homosexual laws and the mistreatment of gays and lesbians in the country have become a major subject of international debate.

The “restart” Obama had wanted in US-Russia relations has instead become an ongoing series of mistakes and misunderstandings.”

Russian gay rights activists are getting the short end of the stick. Flaccid Obama is in publicity stunt mode and once Obama is gone they will pay the price for helping Obama. Syrian gays won’t even get a meeting with limp Obama but they will be wiped out once Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood pals get power. While Obama and Russian gay right’s activists stroke each other to no purpose Vladimir Putin is playing cat and rat with Obama:

“Putin himself has described the claim that Assad deployed poison gas as “absurd.” In an interview with the Associated Press and the Russian TV station First Channel, he said he could not rule out a military strike against the Assad regime. But he said this could only be done with the approval of the UN Security Council, where Russia has made clear it will block any such resolution. Putin is clearly playing a game of cat and mouse. [snip]

Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the United Nations, will also make an appearance in St. Petersburg — mainly to lobby for the inclusion of the UN Security Council in the handling of the conflict. This approach was already tangible in Stockholm. “Let us place our hopes with the United Nations,” Reinfeldt said at the press conference.”

In 2008 Barack Obama attacked George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton as warmongers not interested in international order. Now it is Vladimir Putin on the phony high ground and Barack Obama the deranged warmonger too weak to enforce his will and increasingly shrill and desperate.

Strong Vladimir Putin is on the moral high ground by asking for international order and United Nations authority while at the same time punching Obama in his botoxed proxy Kerry:

“Putin called Obama Secretary of State John Kerry a liar over Kerry’s testimony this week before Congress.

The question may be al-Qaeda’s influence on the Syrian rebels, an issue Kerry has downplayed.

Speaking to his human rights council Wednesday, Putin said, “This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them (the Americans), and we assume they are decent people, but he is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.”

Putin has criticized Obama administration claims that Bashar Assad’s government attacked the rebels with chemical weapons. [snip]

As for the new flap over Kerry’s testimony, the Associated Press reported:

“It was unclear exactly what Putin was referencing, but Kerry was asked Tuesday while testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee if the Syrian opposition had become more infiltrated by al-Qaeda.

“Kerry responded that that was ‘basically incorrect’ and that the opposition has ‘increasingly become more defined by its moderation.’ …

Strong Vladimir Putin has weak Barack Obama under this thumb and in Russia being pummeled with the latest Russian ploy:

“BERLIN — Russia says it has compiled a 100-page report detailing what it says is evidence that Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, were behind a deadly sarin gas attack in an Aleppo suburb earlier this year.

In a statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website late Wednesday. Russia said the report had been delivered to the United Nations in July and includes detailed scientific analysis of samples that Russian technicians collected at the site of the alleged attack, Khan al Asal.

Russia said its investigation of the March 19 incident was conducted under strict protocols established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that governs adherence to treaties prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. It said samples that Russian technicians had collected had been sent to OPCW-certified laboratories in Russia.”

Barack Obama is weak and cannot stand up to strong Vladimir Putin. It’s so bad that Matt Drudge declared “Putin is the leader of the free world.” That’s partly because Putin is at least a leader and sounds downright reasonable especially when compared to the weak shrill Obama:

“President Obama hasn’t been elected by the American people in order to be pleasant to Russia. And your humble servant hasn’t been elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone either,” he said of their relationship.

“We work, we argue about some issues. We are human. Sometimes one of us gets vexed. But I would like to repeat once again that global mutual interests form a good basis for finding a joint solution to our problems,” Putin said.

Strong Putin has as his compass Russian interests. Weak Obama has as a compass his mirror.

Strong Putin by his actions beats up on puny Barack. What does weakling Obama do? How does sniveling Obama reply? Weak Obama mewls personal insults (Putin a “bored kid at the back of the classroom“) that do nothing but make strong Putin more determined to beat up on weak Obama even more.

Weak Obama will stage publicity stunts with Russian gays then dump them when it matters. Strong Putin is wrong on gay rights but strong Putin keeps his eye on his compass and the prize:

“Less than three months after Vladimir Putin was cast as a pariah over Syria at the last big meeting of world leaders, the Russian president has glimpsed a chance to turn the tables on Barack Obama. [snip]

Buoyed by growing pressure on the U.S., French and British leaders over Syria, the former KGB spy has also now hit back in comments referring ironically to Obama as a Nobel Peace laureate and portraying U.S. global policy as a failure.

“We need to remember what’s happened in the last decade, the number of times the United States has initiated armed conflicts in various parts of the world. Has it solved a single problem?” Putin asked reporters on Saturday in the city of Vladivostok.

“Afghanistan, as I said, Iraq … After all, there is no peace there, no democracy, which our partners allegedly sought,” he said during a tour of Russia’s far east.

Denying as “utter nonsense” the idea that Assad’s forces would use chemical weapons when they were winning the civil war, Putin looked steely and confident.

After months of pressure to abandon Assad, he is sending a message to the West that he is ready to do battle over Syria in St Petersburg and sees an opportunity to portray the United States as the bad boy on the block.

“Of course the G20 is not a formal legal authority. It’s not a substitute for the U.N. Security Council, it can’t take decisions on the use of force. But it’s a good platform to discuss the problem. Why not take advantage of this?” he said.

“Is it in the United States’ interests once again to destroy the international security system, the fundamentals of international law? Will it strengthen the United States’ international standing? Hardly,” he said.”

It’s hard to believe that former KGB thug Putin, the guy who poses in homoerotic beefcake photos, who arrests Pussy Riot, who is so anti-gay, has the moral high ground while also being the tough guy. Have you ever heard of Obama described as “steely and confident”? Neither have we.

Obama will never be considered “steely and confident” because he is weak, fey, and narcissistic. Obama is weak and appears weak and is publicly being called weak:

“BEIRUT, Lebanon — President Obama’s decision to seek Congressional approval for a military strike in response to reports of a chemical weapons attack in Syria drew a range of reactions from Syrians on Sunday, with rebel leaders expressing disappointment and goverment leaders questioning Mr. Obama’s leadership.

Syria’s government on Sunday mocked Mr. Obama’s decision, saying it was a sign of weakness. A state-run newspaper, Al Thawra, called it “the start of the historic American retreat,” and said Mr. Obama had hesitated because of a “sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies,” along with fears that an intervention could become “an open war.” [snip]

A member of Syria’s opposition National Coalition, Samir Nachar, called Mr. Obama a “weak president who cannot make the right decision when it comes to such an urgent crisis.”

Obama is weak and supporters of Israel (such as AIPAC) should do everything to oppose weak Obama if they want Israel to survive:

“The Israel newspaper Haaretz carried an analysis on Sunday by Amos Harel, a military analyst, saying that Mr. Obama’s postponement of a military strike against Syria suggested that he would be less likely to confront Iran on its nuclear program going forward, and that in the Arab world, he would now be “seen as weak, hesitant and vacillating.”

“The Obama administration’s conduct gives us insight into the strategic challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear program,” the analysis said. “From an Israeli point of view, the conclusion is far from encouraging. The theory that the U.S. will come to Israel’s aid at the last minute, and attack Iran to lift the nuclear threat, seems less and less likely.

“It’s no wonder that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly persuaded that no one will come to his aid if Iran suddenly announces that it is beginning to enrich uranium to 90 percent,” it said.”

Supporters of Israel must assist as much as possible is breaking Barack Obama. Defeat on Syria will finish off Barack Obama as even Obama supporters know. This is why there is such as schism on the left. To protect Obama they have to destroy themselves. To save themselves they must destroy Obama. It’s Sophie’s Choice in Chicago.

Obama Hopium Guzzlers and the hypocrite left are in this debacle because Barack Obama put his interests above theirs. Obama wanted to share the blame for this disaster and so he has dragged Republican collaborationists and leftist hypocrites to the abyss:

President Pulls Lawmakers Into Box He Made

Barack Obama was tripping on His Own Red Line as the New York Times mocked

“A red line for us,” he said, “is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”

A year later, a president famously inclined to disentangle himself from the Middle East now finds himself trapped by that seemingly simple declaration. To do nothing in the face of images of children killed by poison gas would cripple his credibility in the last three years of his presidency. As Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday, in making the case for a military strike, “it matters if nothing is done,” not least because of the signal it sends to the Iranians, the North Koreans and others who are measuring Mr. Obama’s willingness to enforce other red lines on far worse weapons. For those countries, it remains an open question — even after the drone strikes against terrorists and cyberattacks on nuclear facilities — if a president elected to get America out of wars is willing to take the huge risks of enforcing his lines in the sand.

Yet the sharply limited goals Mr. Obama has described in explaining his rationale for taking military action now — “a shot across the bow” to halt future chemical attacks, he told PBS — pose risks of their own. If President Bashar al-Assad emerges from a few days of Tomahawk missile barrages relatively unscathed, he will be able to claim that he faced down not only his domestic opponents but the United States, which he has charged is the secret hand behind the uprising.

In the words of one recently departed senior adviser to Mr. Obama, “the worst outcome would be making Assad look stronger.”

After drawing the red line, Barack Obama is showing his yellow streak. Weak Obama drew the red line. Assad kicked the red line up Obama’s arse. Now weak Obama denies the undeniable:

“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”

At an August 2012 White House press conference, Obama warned that “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.”

Yellow streak on the red line from weak Barack Obama.

Whatever one thinks of Vladimir Putin (homophobic beefcake?) he is strong because he is defending his nation’s interests. Barack Obama only cares about himself and that is why few paying attention trust or believe him. Like an old ugly man buying a Porsche to make himself sexy Barack Obama wants to assert himself as not weak via phallic missiles. But The credibility crisis can’t be solved with Tomahawk missiles.

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Share

The “What Will The World Say About Us If We Don’t Attack?” #Syria Argument

Update II: American army boots in Syria??? #JohnKerryBotox was for it before he was against it. We kid you not. The past remains present as today we heard it straight from the horses’ mouth, a.k.a. John Kerry, just thinking out loud: I can’t rule out boots on the ground if Syria implodes.

Would you buy a used car from this man or from Barack Obama? Hard to believe we ever campaigned so hard for Kerry in 2004.

——————————————————————————————————

Update: Why do Republicans keep John Boner as Speaker? Today we hear from bonehead Boehner: I support Obama’s call for action in Syria. Cantor too wants to give the treacherous boob more authority to screw things up even more than he already has. As foolish as these Republicans are it is hypocrite Nancy Pelousy that takes the prize for most incoherent support for Barack thus far with her chatter about “the children”. Here’s your spokeswomen attack supporters:



Supporters of giving Barack Obama authority to initiate a flaccid thin-prick attack on Syria have a lot of explaining to do, as we outline in our main article below. Those that want to give the drunken rodeo clown more liquor and guns because “Assad must be punished for using chemical weapons” have to provide an “exit strategy” (and an overall rational and strategy) but they refuse to do so because they don’t know what Obama will do other than bumble and stumble. These supporters of attack authority for the Peace Prize Putz Prez know that Obama continues to state that the attacks will be very limited, short, and not designed for regime change.

Supporters of authority for Peace Prize Putz Prez, like Boner and Pelousy, who applaud Obama’s “limited” attack dream to “punish” Assad should answer the points we raise below (like why Assad will be strengthened by “surviving” an American attack) and some of those raised by Obama adorer Al Hunt:

“Critics of intervention are now asking, if we strike now, what do we do when Assad does it again?

Supporters must provide an answer to that question. There’s more from Obama adorer Al:

“Former U.S. Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, one of many former top officials who are rarely consulted by this White House (he ran the Pentagon during the Kosovo air attacks in 1999), worries that the president’s plans for Syria are merely tactical, without a clear strategic objective or mission. Has the administration, for instance, seriously considered the likelihood that Russia and Iran will resupply Assad immediately after a strike? Will anything the U.S. does, Cohen wonders, make Assad think, “Hey, we might lose this thing, let’s negotiate a settlement.”

Others worry about being dragged into a protracted engagement.

“Unless the administration gets real lucky, they’re in a terrible box,” says Aaron David Miller, a longtime U.S. diplomat. The president has to respond, he says, though there is the danger of “an incremental drip by drip intervention.”

That would be a disaster. After Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. voters won’t tolerate another war unless critical national interests are at stake.”

That “drip by drip intervention” sounds an awful lot like Vietnam war style “escalation”. We punish Syria – Syria gets bragging rights – Syria gets resupplied by Russia/Iran – Syria gets out the Sarin gas again – we punish/escalate a little bit more then a little bit more, then a little bit more – meanwhile Iran rejoices as it completes its nuclear weapon. All the while Obama forbids Israel from attacking Iran or Syria on the grounds that he is “punishing” the evildoers and not to worrrrry about an Iran Nuke. Or does Obama wrist slap “punish” once and then ignore whatever else Assad does?

Supporters of enabling the Boob and his boobery have a lot of ‘splaining to do.

——————————————————————————————————

Some people we respect want the congress to vote “yes” and give Barack Obama authority to “attack” Syria. We find most of the arguments in favor of an attack risible and delusional. The only argument that carries some weight is the “what will the world say about us if we don’t attack Syria for the use of chemical weapons?” But the question should be “what will the world say about us if we do attack Syria?”

If the Congress votes to give Barack Obama authorization to attack Syria for use of chemical weapons the answer to the latter question is “What is wrong with Americans? Do they never learn? Do the Americans still not understand that the problem is Iran, not the sideshow client Syria? Does the American Congress still not realize that Barack Obama is a clueless, treacherous man-child not to be provided with matches? Why are Americans about to follow callow Obama into a trap he talked himself into in order to cover up the fact that Obama does not know what he is doing? Are Americans suffering from collective Attention-Deficit-Disorder?

The American Congress should not approve of Barack Obama’s bumbling mumbles of a “red line” stupidly stated during an election year – with a vote to authorize an attack on Syria. If the American Congress wants to vote on something constructive then the American Congress should vote for a resolution to (1) condemn Syria as a vicious puppet of Iran; (2) authorize specific and limited financial and military assistance to whatever groups other than Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda type organizations fighting against the Syrian regime; (3) authorize assistance to an attack on Iran nuclear weapons development facilities; (4) condemn the Muslim Brotherhood specifically and like minded terrorist organization in whatever country they operate within; and (5) declare that the American government will pursue terrorist organizations and government that threaten the United States without respite.

* * * * *

The smart professor at Legal Insurrection has some smart things to say before coming out the wrong side of the rabbit hole:

“I agree with just about every criticism of Obama’s handling of the Middle East and Syria in particular — in fact, I’ve made the arguments myself for years.

I agree with just about every criticism of Obama’s “red line” and dawdling and backing himself and our nation into a policy corner where we have no good options and have squandered credibility.

I agree with just about every criticism that Obama is seeking Congressional authorization, or denial, for cynical political purposes.

I agree with just about every criticism of Obama’s vague plan to fire across Syria’s bow.

I agree with just about every criticism that we don’t know where things end if Assad falls.”

So why then give matches to this goofy treacherous clod? The answer at every turn from those that want to give the man-child nuclear matches is that ‘if America does not do it who else will uphold the international order?’ We agree that the United States is and must be the leader of the world. But we believe the United is and must be the SMART leader of the world. The United States must keep its eyes on the prize and not get distracted. Syria is a sideshow. Syria is a distraction. Iran is the problem. Terrorist Muslim organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood are the problem. A smart United States must keep its eyes and firepower focused on the puppet-master (Iran) not the puppet (Syria).

Obama Dimocrat Charlie Rangel thinks Obama has thus far been an embarrassment on Syria:

“Democrats, too, are expressing frustration at Obama’s failure to act decisively after his ‘red line’ speech.

Charles Rangel, who represents the Harlem section of New York City, said Monday said ‘of course it’s embarrassing’ that the president didn’t act immediately after chemical weapons use was discovered.

Rangel opposes a Syrian military strike but said Obama’s delay on Saturday was also a major embarrassment to Kerry – who had demanded strong action a day earlier.

It’s ‘unheard of,’ Rangel said on MSNBC, that a president would allow the world to see him issuing an empty threat.

‘So of course it’s embarrassing, I wish it didn’t happen, ‘ he said. ‘

I guess Secretary Kerry is even more embarrassed than me after making his emotional speech that this was urgent.

Why would anyone argue that a drunk clown be given more liquor and guns? Obama has been, at best, an embarrassment – so why empower an embarrassment? To make the America as “shining city on a hill” and America as “world leader and must attack” argument? This is a strong disconnect in logic. The world is not going to be impressed if the American Congress empowers embarrassment Obama. Does this argument make any sense?:

“Republicans should support some version of the authorization of force resolution. They should do so even if they think that the President’s policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks; they should do so even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and they should so even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment. The simple fact is that the nation and our allies will be at further risk if the world sees a presidency that is weakened and that has no credibility to act. Partisans may be tempted to see such a result as condign punishment for the President’s misjudgments; they may feel that he deserves to pay the price for his hypocrisy and cheap and demagogic attacks on his predecessor. But at the end of the day, Republicans need to rise above such temptations; the stakes are too high.. The weaker the president’s credibility on the world scene, the more the need to swallow and do what will not weaken it further. President Obama is the only president we have. That remains the overriding fact.”

So because Obama is going over the cliff the American Congress should vote for the country to go over the cliff with him? We should give more liquor and guns to the drunk clown?

The author of that particularly bizarre argument goes on to admonish Republicans not to weaken the presidency nor become isolationist. To us the obvious response is that what weakens the institution of the Presidency is blind support for a weak treacherous President that weakens the nation with foolish face-saving adventurism. As to isolationism, we are not advising a Fortress America mentality should take hold. What we argue for is focus on the the real dangers not the distractions. But the same arguments continue to be made for additional liquor and guns to the drunk clown, “…if you allow the red line to fade, the mullahs in Tehran are going to be the ones who take the greatest note of that red line fading….” This is crazy talk.

The mullahs in Tehran will be very happy indeed to watch as the United States distracts itself with Syria. The race for nuclear weapons in Tehran is helped, not hindered, by an attack on Syria. A congressional resolution that rejects a Syria distraction attack and refocuses on puppet-master Iran is what will terrify Iran most and show the world that Obama is a clod but that the United States is not a nation of lemmings prepared to go over the cliff for Obama the drunken treacherous clown.

What should have been done, or maybe should have been done, is not the issue, and some wise people recognize this unpleasant reality:

“Sometimes the best thing we can do is stay out of the way. It may be that a year or two ago, we could have played a constructive role by supporting relatively sane elements among the rebels, but those days are gone. We can’t support the rebels now without aiding Islamic extremists. In my view, if we are not prepared to bring about Assad’s demise–and we probably shouldn’t be–the best thing we can do is stand aside.”

None of this should mean that the United States should be a pitiful helpless giant guided by a drunken clown. The American Congress, as we suggested above, should keep Assad off balance by authorizing aid to non-Muslim Brotherhood type organizations.

Obama worship machine William Saletan repeats all the same risible arguments and ends with a dare:

“The better reason to hit Syria is colder and simpler: If Bashar al-Assad doesn’t pay for gassing his people, he and others are more likely to use weapons of mass destruction again. To discourage that, we have to make him suffer. [snip]

If you don’t want a military strike in Syria, fine. Make your case for sanctions or some other alternative. Whatever you propose doesn’t have to save Assad’s people. But it had better hurt him.”

Want to hurt Assad? Attack the puppet-masters, not the puppet. Want to hurt Assad? Don’t do a thin-prick attack that allows Assad to glorify himself as a “survivor” who defied the United States and has become larger than life. Want to hurt Assad? Keep focused on puppet-master Iran and make them fear for what their puppet is doing.

A vote to empower the drunken treacherous clown is folly that weakens America. A vote against authorization empowers America not the drunken clown. Vote for America, not the drunken treacherous clown:

“Of the bad and worse alternatives, the worse is attacking without specifying our aims, means, and desired results. Yet to do so would convince Obama to drop the idea.

If the objective is to weaken Assad without empowering al-Qaeda-like Islamists, then non-intervention serves that goal far better.

If the objective is to destroy WMD depots, and send a global lesson that they are taboo, where are they and how are we to take them out? And what of the irony that Assad is probably no worse a custodian of WMD than is the opposition that we would de facto aiding?

If the point is to save face after the empty rhetorical redlines, then at this late date a few hours of cruise missiles will be interpreted by those who count — Russia, Iran, China, North Korea — as a half-serious and pathetic attempt to restore credibility.

There are many good reasons for being smart and doing what is in the interests of the United States, not to save Obama’s nonexistent “credibility”:

“The president is a spent force, both domestically and internationally. Congress should help by voting to cut our losses; it should resist opening the door to the uncertain consequences of a military campaign conducted, without conviction or clear purpose, by this commander in chief. If Republicans can limit the president’s authority to wander and blunder on the world stage, there is a moral obligation to do so.

Of course Syria should be viciously punished for using chemical weapons, but who trusts this president to do so in such a way that also sends a clear message to Iran? No one does. Why would they? Better to leave Iran with a modicum of doubt than let them witness any more of the tepid uncertainty, lack of conviction or absence of moral clarity from President Obama.

The only thing worse than no response from America is a floundering response, so Congress should stop it while they can. We don’t need to go through the half-hearted lobbying effort in Congress, which will just underscore the incompetence and incapabilities of this administration. Republicans should vote to end this disaster now. A vote of no confidence is in order.

The problem is that we have serious problems that require an able president both at home and abroad. It is too soon for our president to be a marginalized lame duck. Doing nothing is one thing, but doing harm by not properly wielding the power a president holds is another.”

The dumb thing is to go on a gun shooting adventure with a drunken clown. The smart thing is to let the drunken clown to go over the cliff alone. Barack Obama is the one in crisis, not America.

Share