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.
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.’
“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.”
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.”
“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.
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 questionfor 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.
“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.”
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.
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.
“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.”
“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….
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.
“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.”
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.
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.”
“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?
“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?”
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
“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 “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.
“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.
“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.”
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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.
“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 Timeseditorial 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.
“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.”
“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]
“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.’ …
“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.”
“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.
“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.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
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.
“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.
“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).
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.“
“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.
Update II: Check out our new hashtag #JohnKerryBotox. We wrote an article months ago about #JohnKerryBotox that got a lot of attention today after Kerry appeared on TV (see, Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads; Update: Kerry making the full Ginsburg) and displayed his freakish appearance. A woman (Hillary or Palin for instance) with that much botox would be nonstop breaking news. StrayYellaDog made us giggle with this: “@HillaryIs44 I remember when Barack was the “anti-war” candy date. And Hillary was the warmonger.” We like “candy date” as substitute for candidate Obama.
Second, Obama has thrown a lot of supporters under the bus. John “we must strike now” Kerry has been carpet bombed by Barack. The Syria strike is now a major political hot potato for Republicans and Obama Dimocrats. What Obama Dimocrats – you know the ones deranged by the Hillary vote for authorization of force in Iraq – will do is now a cause for Santa Clause style giggling belly mirth. All those Obama Dimocrats now have to become war-mongers like Obama in order to support the Nobel Peace Prize winner that rode an authorization for use of force in Iraq to career advancement. No doubt Obama Dimocrats will attempt to cloak this as an anti-WMD highfalutin moral crusade. Well played Dick Cheney, well played. And Bill Clinton… kudos. When Bill Clinton called Obama a “fool” a “total fool” a “total wuss” he was right on target.
Republicans too now have to put up or shut up. What will Republicans running for reelection do? What will Obama supporter Lindsay Graham do? Will Lindsay vote for a flaccid “strike” on Syria knowing it is so weak it will do nothing but give Syria survivor bragging rights? Good luck on that primary Lindsay. Good luck on that primary McConnell. The Big Question: Will Republicans vote to help Barack Obama and provide the votes for authorization and thereby cover for Obama Dimocrats that in their heart of hearts don’t want to be seen as “baby killers”. Or will Republicans take the wiser course we suggest below which Sarah Palin so sharply summarizes as: “Let Allah sort it out” a.k.a. let them (Muslim Brotherhood Syria) kill themselves (murderous government thug Assad). As in the Iran-Iraq war American policy should be to have both sides lose.
Third, the headline is “Syria Wins“. Champagne in Damascus tonight. Derisive laughter from strong leader Putin in Moscow as the vodka flows in celebration of victory. Putin will be hosting Obama next week and we would not be surprised if Putin pisses in a cup and forces Obama to drink – either from the cup or the “faucet”. The “rebel” groups and Jordan will be drinking hemlock. In Israel, more proof if any was needed that Obama is a boob and they will have to defend themselves if Israel is to survive. “Never Again!” Get ready to strike at Iran Israel because Obama will get you killed.
Fourth, this “debate” is going to take up a lot of ink and time. September was supposed to be about ObamaCare but now it is going to be a trip down Memory Lane as we relive the Iraq War debate. The young Obama Hopium Guzzlers and the older Obama Hopium Guzzlers now have to decide if they want to defend Obama’s deadly ObamaCare or Obama’s Latest War.
What should Republicans do about Syria and war monger Barack Obama? We’ll do all the work for them and write exactly what they should each and every one say (minus the kookoo birds like Lindsay Graham). Here is the statement every Republican should, in an organized, coordinated, well publicized manner, read from the Capitol steps or on every TV show they can get on:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.”
“The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran Syria, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman a member of Congress, I will move to impeach.”
Use Barack Obama’s exact words and the exact words of Joey Biden. Watch the DailyKooks and the nothing Left debase themselves even more in service of Obama.
If there was any integrity left in them we would suggest the Obama Hopium Guzzlers in congress read the exact same statement on TV but there is no integrity left in the left. As to Republicans, unfortunately Keith Koffler reminds us all, the Congress will remain supine because they are on vacation and nothing is more important to these loafers than vacations.
Even though 80% of Americans, in an NBC(!) poll want congressional approval before attacking Syria that is not going to happen. The Republicans, even with 80% of the public on their side, are refusing to act with unity and strength. This is the party that says it will take Barack Obama on and defund ObamaCare? If they won’t fight with these poll numbers….
Republicans could even quote Barack Obama on the question of going solo and attacking unilaterally:
It is Barack Obama that has lost legitimacy. The “man” that attacked George W. Bush for acting like a cowboy and not acquiring universal consent before attacking Iraq – even though George W. Bush did go to congress and the United Nations – now intends to attack Syria unilaterally.
“Golly, that sounds a lot like … what George W. Bush said in 2002-3, too. And when Bush said it, he put together a coalition comprised of dozens of nations for the invasion of Iraq, including large numbers of British troops and no small amount from other European nations, even with Russia, China, and France balking. Barack Obama can’t even get the British to come along on long-range air strikes, and the only other partner we seem to have now is France. And unlike Barack Obama and Kerry, Bush did go to the UN to at least force a vote on ending Saddam Hussein’s depredations, which included using chemical weapons to massacre his own people.”
We’re still laughing about the Bush-like Obama hunt for WMD. But in-between our guffaws we ponder the ugliness of chemical warfare.
* * * * * *
Chemical warfare is not a nice way to die. But then again, what is? The French, ever gallant, invented the Guillotine as a more merciful way to die from state sponsored death. The Guillotine is a long way from disembowelment and that rather painful get-pulled-apart-by-horses execution method. Chemical warfare, used extensively in the most horrific war ever, is generally considered outmoded for two reasons.
The first problem with chemical weapons is the potential for the wind to change and other mishaps. The second problem is that if one side uses this grisly form of violence, it is fairly easy for the other side to reciprocate. Not only is the death particularly horrid, the medical costs are high. A pleasant war can get very gruesome very quickly.
After the unpleasantness of World War I it was generally observed by all sides during the subsequent conflagration to forgo chemical weaponry. But in order to forgo chemical warfare it has to be accepted by all sides that use by one means use by all.
The United States was supposed to get rid of all its chemical warfare weapons by 2012 but, as with ObamaCare, the deadlines have been missed. Why did the United States agree to this disarmament? Apparently we regard any chemical attack as a nuclear attack and will retaliate accordingly.
Less white glove than the good ol’ USA some countries use chemical weapons with regularity. Sometimes, when we have a president that is not 100% boob, we take advantage of the situation. Shocked?
Yes, sometimes we applaud the use of chemical weapons. Sometimes, when we have an American president who cares more about the country than his “brand” or a smart president who has a worldview and sees the bigger picture, a president who puts his duty to country above duty to polish his celebrity credentials, we wind up applauding chemical warfare.
“The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980. It followed a long history of border disputes, and was motivated by fears that the Iranian Revolution in 1979 would inspire insurgency among Iraq’s long-suppressed Shia majority as well as Iraq’s desire to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. [snip]
The conflict has been compared to World War I in terms of the tactics used, including large-scale trench warfare with barbed wire stretched across trenches, manned machine-gun posts, bayonet charges, human wave attacks across a no-man’s land, and extensive use of chemical weapons such as mustard gas by the Iraqi government against Iranian troops, civilians, and Iraqi Kurds. At the time of the conflict, the U.N. Security Council issued statements that “chemical weapons had been used in the war,” and U.S. intelligence officials both knew of Iraqi chemical weapons use and provided Iraq with satellite imagery to guide strikes against Iranian troop concentrations. U.N. statements never clarified that only Iraq was using chemical weapons, and according to retrospective authors “the international community remained silent as Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iranian[s] as well as Iraqi Kurds.”
Iran and Iraq had grievances against each other. Both tried to overthrow the other’s government. Both Iran and Iraq were horrid hellholes intent on causing damage to the entire region. There were no good guys in the conflict. American policy was to have both side lose.
That may appear monstrous at first glance. But as with Syria now there were no “good” people to cheer in the conflict. American policy was based on what was in America’s interests.
When Americans elect a president it is so that the president makes the hard decisions. It’s not to make a person a celebrity who cares more about himself than the nation. In the Iran-Iraq War self-interest drove the policy. The president is hired to make the decisions that benefit the country and its interests. Whether it is to drop a nuclear bomb on cities, order carpet bombing, air strikes or whatever, policy should be guided by the nation’s interests not the celebrity status or “comfort zone” of the president.
What was in America’s interests? Both Iran and Iraq were a menace to the region and to American interests and therefore American policy was to get both sides to lose. The United States propped up each regime as it was about to falter. The United States sold weapons to both sides. It was a brutal piece of realpolitik that can be debated but during the 1980s the American president unquestionably was on the side of American interests.
What we have now is a president in crisis because he is not qualified to be president.
“While Obama has long spoken out against Bashar al-Assad and the use of chemical weapons, it was the president’s apparent off-the-cuff comments one year ago that may now be most responsible for putting the U.S. in a bind.
Obama’s warning in August 2012 that use of a “whole bunch” of chemical weapons would cross a “red line,” triggering “enormous consequences,” went much further than aides had planned, several told the New York Times earlier this year. Some reportedly wished Obama could have taken those words back.
Now, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, who has made ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan his signature foreign policy achievement, is at risk of entangling the U.S. in a fresh Middle East conflict.
Perhaps equally troubling to Obama is the prospect of acting without a robust international coalition. He twice campaigned on a vow to restore an American policy of multilateralism and hailed the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya as a new model for coordinated military action. [snip]
Now, the loss of British backing of a strike against Syria is a significant blow to Obama’s vision, setting up two undesirable options: not keeping his word on “enormous consequences” for crossing that “red line,” or going it relatively alone.“
What a boob! It’s the ad-libbed war. And this is the guy that was sold as a brilliant communicator.
[N.B. For the purposes of our discussion we are generous and arguendo assume that Barack Obama is acting in what he perceives to be the best interests of the United States and is not, as the pattern of his actions logically suggest (witness Obama's unyielding support for Muslim Bro/thug Morsi contrasted to his knee jerk attack on reliable U.S. clients such as Mubarak and ally Israel. And why oh why is Barack Obama helping the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria take power and helping the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt regain power?), more Muslim Brotherhood than P.O.T.U.S.]
Barack Obama is also weak. The “man” has daddy issues. Sperm donor dad dumped Obama and only tolerated the ten year old’s presence for all of 10 minutes. Mommy meanwhile was a flower spreading her petals anxious to be pollinated repeatedly by third world men. Mommy Obama dumped big eared fat boy Obama on the grandma and grandpa (Obama later denounced his grandma as a “racist” because granny once expressed fear that black men at the bus stop she took to work threatened her) so she could pursue uninterrupted her botanical imitations.
These daddy issues led Barack to become an insecure back-slapping flim-flam man dedicated solely to his advancement. Filled with the complementary narcissism and self-loathing which so often accompany each other, Barack Obama advanced but always with that deep knowledge that he is a piece of sh*t unloved by the sperm donor (we do not refer to Larry Sinclair her but rather to the black economist thrown out of Harvard for donating too much sperm to too many women) and rejected by the flower that put the Pacific Ocean between herself and her spawn.
The talented Mr. Obama has been a very successful flim-flam man. Obama has fooled a lot of the people a lot of the time. But a flim-flam artist has to know his own limitations. It’s one thing to impersonate a surgeon at cocktail parties and an entirely different bloody job if forced into the operation theater. That’s where Barack Obama now finds himself – in crisis.
It’s not the United States that is in crisis. America will survive this buffoon and thrive once Obama and his hoodlums are sent packing. It is Barack Obama that is in crisis.
World leaders have known for a long time that Barack Obama is a hapless boob. Back in early 2009 while Obama vacationed in Europe we wrote:
“The BOob is a pushover – that is the message from Barack Obama’s European vacation. The news from Asia is not much better as North Korea sizes up Obama and sees a dwarf.
World leaders sized up Obama and decided he is a celebrity wannabee. So world leaders gave Obama the soul craving celebrity he wants for himself and then smartly picked the pockets of Uncle Sam while Obama grinned.
This is all in keeping with the Obama history of self-agrandizement and doing nothing, zero, for anyone else. During the European Vacation Obama backslapped as if he was back at Harvard University bamboozling conservatives and liberals in order to advance himself. During the European Vacation Obama grinned and laughed and cameras popped but Americans were about as comforted as Obama’s freezing Chicago constituents. During the European Vacation Obama insulted America in order to make himself more popular.
World leaders took a page from Madame Mao, the “White-boned Demon” and flattered and built up Obama on a pedestal so high Obama became irrelevant.
Social power and popularity can be potent weapons if you are Louis XIV of France, the “Sun King”. But Obama’s yearning for celebrity, social power, and popularity are to fill a void in his fatherless self not to help America nor Americans.
Big Media won’t say Obama was made a fool of and mocked by real world leaders. Big Media prefers to focus on the sleeveless scowler and praise her clumsy protocol pratfalls.
World leaders saw Obama, shuttered their eyelids, smiled, and whispered “Sucker”. “
World leaders kept quiet about their contempt for Barack Obama because it profited them. Now the contempt is open and near universal. The United Kingdom, America’s staunchest ally yesterday slapped Obama so hard the sonic boom crossed the Atlantic to shake the botox on John Kerry’s face.
American national interests are not served by putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Syria and restoring the Muslim Brotherhood to power or even as a legitimate political force in Egypt. American interests are best served by removing the Muslim Brotherhood and like minded organizations from power. American interests are best served by an Egypt that stomps out Muslim extremists and stripping Iran of power and any audacious dream of nuclear weapons.
A summer of a rodeo clown dominating headlines brings forth new laughs. King Clown Obama, the chucklehead of all chuckleheads, has us in full chuckle.
Oprah’s penis dress provoked laughs from us but not as much as the thought of Barack Obama in a Bush-like search for weapons of mass destruction – in Syria. We have no doubt that the Syrian Government is bathing rebel forces with weaponized chemicals and gasses but the irony of Obama as Bush and the neo-con hunt for WMDs can’t help but make us giggle. Are we back to 2008?
Not all the Hopium Guzzlers are applauding however. At the New Republic, stronghold of Obama delusionists, there is some realization that Obama is, at best, a boob:
“As president, starting with his Prague speech in 2009, he has often said one of his top goals was preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
But there seems no way Obama can justify, either to himself or anyone else, a commitment to banning nuclear weapons but a laissez-faire approach to chemical weapons, which are now being used in warfare for the first time in a quarter-century. The drive to ban chemical weapons was fuelled by the horrors of World War I, the anti-nuclear movement by the horrors of World War II. Opposing WMD means banning both. A failure to respond to the use in Syria now wouldn’t be just a failure to make progress; it would be a major retrogression. [snip]
As for his “pivot” towards Asia, all of Obama’s speeches meant to reassure our Asian allies of our continuing and revived interest the region would end up having little impact if our policies in Syrian make it appear as the United States is so wavering that America’s idealism and its power are both on the wane.
Worst of all is the way in which Obama’s recent policies of fervent restraint undermine his administration’s past assertions about America’s role in the world. Over the past few years, as Obama’s fringe critics have accused him of wanting or seeking decline, the president and his aides have come up with bland but plausible formulations to defend their policies. We’re not trying to bring about America’s decline in the world, they argue; rather, we’re trying to do what’s necessary to preserve American role in the world for another 50 years or so.
But it is hard to square that belief with Obama’s policy of fervent restraint in Syria and Egypt. Indeed, the only power Obama seems to be asserting these days is an ironic one: it is an assertive belief in the presidential prerogative to be passive. The existing federal law says if there is a military coup d’etat against a democratic government, then American foreign aid will be cut off. All the arguments against cutting off aid—we will lose influence with the Egyptian generals, etc., etc.—are more-or-less debatable arguments, but ones that Obama should make to Congress to try to get the law changed. To ignore the law is to increase presidential power (just as the right to declare war years ago slipped quietly from Congress to the president.)
Overall, Obama has seemed recently as if he is morphing before our eyes from someone who believes, rightly, that the United States can’t always influence world events as much we would like, to someone who believes we shouldn’t exert influence, and shouldn’t even try. Even he must see now that his policy of fervent restraint has reached the end of its usefulness.“
The “fringe critics” like us correctly and with precision analyzed weak Obama and his failures domestically and internationally. Now all is falling apart and Obama’s center cannot hold. The failures are attributable either to a deliberate undermining of America or sheer boobery. If it is boobery, it is showing. The hypocrisies and bumbling can no longer be kept from public view.
On Syria, which frankly does not matter as much as Egypt, it has been all out boobery all the time for Syrian Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s crime pal Barack. Whatever Barack does in Syria will be a mess because a boob can only beget boobery. There is time to consult with wiser leaders but King Clown Obama is at his rodeo too busy blustering and making a fool of himself to listen to the American people or wiser leaders. Will Obama go to Congress before attacking Syria? Don’t expect the Hopium Guzzlers to demand that from the “unitary executive” they so thrashed in 2008. Are we in 2008?
Remember in 2008 how the Obama Hopium Guzzlers trashed Hillary Clinton as a belligerent war monger? Now the monger is on the other war – Obama’s war. It would be so much fun if Hillary or somebody would denounce Obama as a war monger and say it is time for a change.
And speaking of Hillary, she is back. For those that hate Hillary and for those that love Hillary the news is great, just great. Everyone should at least enjoy the coming fight we have been writing about for so long. The coming bloodbath at the DNC is something we will love to witness and certainly Republicans should get the popcorn and watch the great return:
“But when Harold M. Ickes walked into the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on Thursday afternoon and rejoined the panel, at least one longtime Democratic strategist raised her eyebrows.
“He predated the Clinton era, but when I saw Harold reappointed to the D.N.C., he surely, in my judgment, symbolizes the return of the Clintons,” said Donna Brazile, a fellow member of the rules committee.”
That reservoir of fear and loathing, that bottomless pit of filth called Donna Brazile, sees the writing on the wall and thinks we have forgotten her treacheries and lies as she tries to ingratiate herself to Hillary & Co. We haven’t forgotten Donna. We remember.
“Mr. Ickes said he was put back on the committee by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the national committee and herself an ardent advocate for Mrs. Clinton in 2008, but he also acknowledged that he “actively sought” the seat.
“It is in my view the most important committee at the D.N.C. because of its role in shaping the nomination process,” he said, adding a bit mischievously, “The goal is to design rules to nominate the strongest candidate for the general election.”
That, he added, would be up to the voters but there is no question who he believes that candidate is.
Mr. Ickes, 73, is a fixture in the Clinton’s world. He ran Bill Clinton’s New York campaign in the 1992 Democratic primary and served as a deputy chief of staff in Mr. Clinton’s White House. He was a top adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, and Mrs. Clinton’s chief liaison at the D.N.C. during her primary battle against Barack Obama. From his perch on the rules committee he memorably railed against a compromise on disputed delegates in the waning days of the Democratic primary.
At a notably less sedate national committee meeting in late May 2008, Mr. Ickes argued in vain against what he called the “hijacking” of Mrs. Clinton’s delegate share from two disputed state primaries. “I am stunned that we have the gall and the chutzpah to substitute our judgment for 600,000 voters,” Mr. Ickes said at the time.
A few weeks later, Mrs. Clinton conceded the race to Mr. Obama. The following year, with Mr. Obama as party leader, Mr. Ickes left his rules committee post. According to party records, he had served on the rules panel since at least 1992.
“I was not reappointed after the 2008 election for some pretty obvious reasons,” Mr. Ickes said.
Now, five years later — with Mr. Obama a lame duck and speculation soaring about whether Mrs. Clinton will seek the White House again — her procedural maven is back in his old position at the national party.”
The party has to be purged of Barack Obama and his hoodlums. Ickes, the man with one kidney lost in the civil rights era struggles , is on the job and hopefully a lot wiser about the Chicago filth. Ickes has not forgotten why he was not reappointed and that should end all the Big Media nonsense about the Obama versus Clinton wars being buried.
Harold Ickes is not the only one that better be aware of the dangers ahead for Hillary Clinton 2016. A lot of fools affiliated with Hillary Clinton 2016 do not realize Obama will do anything and everything to stop Hillary from getting the nomination. Barack Obama organized his OAF organization to make sure he keeps control of the Dimocratic Party. Barack Obama will do what he has to do to stop Hillary and Harold from taking power and control away from him.
“His Republican foes branded it the “2016 Kickoff Tour” and vice-president Joe Biden made it clear to the people of “my native town, Scranton” that he hopes to build a White House campaign on tales of his humble upbringing in Pennsylvania coal country.
After recently seeming to bolster former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s credentials to be his successor, President Barack Obama went out of his way to give a boost to his No 2. [snip]
“This was a signal that [Obama’s] not playing sides,” said Ed Mitchell, a long-time Democratic consultant in Pennsylvania.
“He wanted to be there together with Biden so that people didn’t think that because he’d had lunch with Secretary Clinton and said nice things about her on 60 Minutes that he was favouring her.”
Obama said at Friday’s rally to promote an initiative to make college more affordable that the “reason that I love Scranton is because if it weren’t for Scranton, I wouldn’t have Joe Biden”.
Noting that it was exactly five years since the “special day” that he selected Biden as his running mate, Obama piled on the praise. “It was the best decision that I ever made, politically, because I love this guy . . . and he’s got some Scranton in him,” he said.
Biden grinned broadly, perhaps imagining the campaign commercial that could be crafted from the event.”
“In his book This Town, a dirt-dishing account of the insider world of politics that has become a summer must-read in the American capital, Mark Leibovich describes Biden as “the lovable rodeo clown of the administration”, someone Obama talked about “with a patronising over-fondness — as if the VP were the beloved family dog that kept peeing on the carpet”.
Biden’s two previous runs for the White House were spectacular failures. In 2008, his folksy, long-winded style failed to resonate and he dropped out after securing just 0.9% of the vote in Iowa.
In 1987 he was forced to withdraw when it was revealed that he had plagiarised a speech by Neil Kinnock, then Labour party leader. [snip]
“A Biden presidential campaign will be like watching Benny Hill reruns,” he said. “Our Joey will be predictable — he’ll be as stale as a day-old sausage roll and cheeky in his own goofy way.”
Biden is not the end product but he is a stalking horse for the dark horse yet to arrive. Biden doesn’t stand a chance against Hillary. Obama is using dumb ol’ Joe to buy some time until the real anti-Hillary can be found or revealed.
We’ve never thought much about Biden but, a “rodeo clown of the administration”? The “dog that kept peeing on the carpet”? Isn’t that Barack? Isn’t that why things stink? It’s time we all work hard to get this clown and all his works out of the White House and back to Chicago.
“It’s a bit rich for [Chuck] Todd and [Andrea] Mitchell to cry foul now about their journalistic purity being contaminated by commercial and ideological considerations,” says independent TV news analyst Andrew Tyndall. “As if the MSNBC lineup where Todd and Mitchell ply their trade every day is not shared with activist ideologues such as Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz.”
To that end, sources at NBC News say that it was not simply Republican ire that set the news division on edge. Rather, it was the specter of retaliation from the former first lady and secretary of state, who very well could be a leading 2016 presidential candidate. The Clintons’ penchant for grudges is legendary. And Hillary in 2008 threatened to boycott an MSNBC-sponsored debate over former anchor David Shuster’s comment that Chelsea Clinton had been “pimped out” for her mother’s campaign. Any scripted Clinton project almost certainly would include content objectionable to Bill and Hillary. “The Clintons are the ones to worry about,” says an NBC source. “Who needs those headaches?”
We need a fair election in 2016 not one manipulated by Big Media. Big Media manipulation that “benefits” Hillary Clinton is as offensive as the Big Media manipulation that protected and fluffed pillows for Barack Obama.
Bill and Hillary Clinton by now must know that Big Media will turn against them at some point. It’s already happening. The moment the DailyKooks and the left decide on their Stalinist candidate, Hillary Clinton will once again be under attack by the left and for the left. Big Media and the DailyKooks are allies. Big Media threatens our democracy. Big Media is the enemy.
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, must realize we are not each other’s enemies- at worst we are ideological opponents deserving of a fair and clean electoral system in which to settle our disputes and the direction of the nation. Big Media is the enemy. Obama Dimocrats are allied with Big Media. Big Media is the enemy. Big Media is the enemy.
Some, some, not all and certainly not here, Hillary Clinton 2016 supporters are acting as stupid as Republicans. Granted, acting as stupid as Republican “leaders” is pretty darn difficult to do because Republicans are harnessed with some of the dumbest motherfuc#ing “leaders” ever.
Mitt Romney was stating what is written in the Republican platform but somehow Republican #1 denounces Romney’s statement and his own party’s position on immigration reform. Priebus now denies saying “racist” even though earlier in the day the RNC press shop confirmed the use of the word “racist” by Priebus. What rank and file Republicans are left with is their own chairman calling their own party’s position on immigration reform “horrific”. How stupid are these motherf#ckers? JUST HOW STUPID ARE THESE MOTHERFU#KERS? Makes you wanna holler!
As to Hillary Clinton 2016 supporters, some are competing in the stupid Olympics. The Republicans get the gold on stupid but some Hillary Clinton 2016 supporters are going for the bronze or silver. Here’s our message to Republicans, Independents, Hillary Clinton 2016 supporters:
THE ENEMY IS BIG MEDIA.
Republicans, conservatives, Hillary supporters, real liberals, FDR/Bill Clinton Democrats know this. Only the DailyKooks profit by Big Media control of our political process.
THE ENEMY IS BIG MEDIA. Any Hillary Clinton 2016 supporter who thinks Hillary Clinton is going to get a fair shake from NBC or CNN is mentally deranged. CNN got rid of Hillary supporters in 2008 (Carville and Begala) but kept on Obama shills like Donna Brazile. MSNBC/NBC of course require no explanation or examples about their Hillary hatred. On MSNBC Chelsea Clinton was a ho for her pimping parents and a beating of Hillary in a back room was the suggestion from their top host. Some fools will believe this has changed and that Big Media will now glorify Hillary. But once an Elizabeth Warren, a Martin O’Malley, perhaps a Cory Booker or even a Michelle Obama decides to run in 2016 Big Media will revert to Hillary hate form.
There is however an even more important reason, other than the hatred Hillary Clinton has received from NBC/MSNBC and CNN (not to absolve ABC or CBS), to oppose the planned Big Media biographies of Hillary. We need to cage Big Media not help it. We must throttle those corruptions we call “Big Media” not assist them as they pervert the national discussion. A Big Media crusade on behalf of Hillary Clinton 2016 will be just as repulsive as was the Big Media crusade against Hillary Clinton in 2008.
What Big Media giveth Big Media polluteth. Big Media does not contribute to the national discourse in a positive way. The concern of Big Media is Big Media and Big Media power. Today we read at ex-Politico smear artist Ben Smith’s new pollutant website that his old Politico home is a culprit. Ben Smith published the hit piece because he is upset that his BUZZFEED home is not getting invites so he attacks those that get the invites:
“Despite transforming itself from “the place for politics” to a shamelessly left-leaning political media outlet while in the midst of an almost constant struggle with CNN for second place in the cable news ratings war, MSNBC has managed to stay relevant in the world of political news by using one weird trick: blanketing the airwaves with politicians and journalists from D.C. and New York who practically live on Twitter.
With Jeff Zucker’s CNN drifting away from politics and toward celebrity stories and true crime — and Fox News sticking closely to its stable of “Republican strategists” and in-house conservative pundits — MSNBC has its pick of the entire political press corps. And it has made itself central to the online political conversation by sending its black town cars to collect younger, web-savvy politicos who spend all day chattering about the ins and outs of the game online.
The most notable example of their model is the almost constant presence of two of D.C.’s most influential political media outlets on the network — The Washington Post and Politico.“
Big Media only cares about Big Media. Ben Smith is upset that he is not invited on all these silly shows that only those that appear on them watch so Ben Smith throws a hissy fit denouncing his old pigsty Politico. Big Media only cares about Big Media.
Hillary Clinton 2016 supporters, independents, Republicans, and anyone interested in an intelligent fact filled discussion of the countries many woes (thanks Barack!) should keep Big Media in a cage. THE ENEMY IS BIG MEDIA.
Hillary Clinton 2016 supporters and Republicans should cage Big Media in a rusty cholera prison. What should Hillary Clinton 2016 supporters and Republicans do specifically? That’s simple: Take the debates in-house. Take Big Media out of the equation entirely.
By 2016 the internet should be even more ubiquitous that it already is. The Republican Party should sponsor all their debates and produce all their debates. Big Media outlets that want to can broadcast the debates. We can all be sure Fox News, the highest rated cable news channel, will cover all the debates. Republicans under no circumstances should ever put themselves in the position of a Big Media “moderator” siding with the opposition ever again (recall Candy Crowley).
For Hillary Clinton the equation at first blush appears more complicated because so many presume Big Media will be on her side in 2016. But we don’t believe that for a second. We recall how the “moderators” (such as the now dead swine Tim Russert) marshaled themselves to rescue Barack Obama during the debates in the 2008 election cycle.
“The next debate in Nevada on January 15 will be hosted by MSNBC. If Chris Matthews or Tim Russert are moderating these debates Hillary should refuse to attend. Let Matthews and Russert and Obama and Edwards attack her all they want but Hillary should make it clear she will no longer put up with their misogyny. At the very least, before the debate the campaign should preempt the “Iron My Shirt” brigade by demonstrating how soft they have been on Obama and how relentlessly unfair they have been towards Hillary Clinton. The campaign can research all the disgusting things MSNBC has aired and make it clear in specific terms how disgusting MSNBC has been.”
Hillary Clinton should ally herself with Republicans and attack Big Media NOW before Big Media resumes its attack on her!. The best way to attack Big Media is to hit the wallet. Big Media wants to make money on debates which feature Republicans and Hillary Clinton. Hit Big Media in the wallet Hillary and agitate to take the nomination debates in-house.
In 2008 Hillary Clinton’s campaign did not listen to our advice regarding Big Media. When Big Media attacked, Hillary’s campaign was woefully unprepared. You better listen to us now Hillary!
“Show of hands among our conservative readership: Who thinks that ABC and CBS, which are still good to go, are appreciably less biased against the right than the now-banned NBC and CNN are? Wasn’t it George Stephanopoulos, an ABC anchor and former Clinton apparatchik, who kicked off the “war on women” garbage last year by asking Romney that out-of-left-field question about contraception? Let’s say, purely to appease the RNC, CNN decides it’ll throw together a documentary about the GOP nominee too once he’s chosen. Will that suddenly make CNN copacetic again? Here’s a compromise: Let CNN run its dumb Hillary hagiography on the condition that Jake Tapper gets to moderate the GOP debate. That’ll get you a fair result more than running into ABC’s and CBS’s arms will.
The RNC’s goal here isn’t to strike a blow against media bias. That’s window-dressing for grassroots conservatives, just as the whispers about letting Rush Limbaugh host a debate were. The point is to cut down the number of debates, which will reduce the opportunities for strong establishment candidates to make embarrassing gaffes and reduce the opportunities for strong tea-party candidates to leap in the polls with winning debate performances. And even on those terms, the “ban” is feeble. As Dave Weigel notes, the text of the resolution doesn’t specify a penalty for candidates who defy the RNC and choose to participate in an NBC/CNN debate. It simply says that the RNC won’t be a co-sponsor. The RNC could impose a penalty later but docking delegates from any candidate who chose to take his chances with NBC or CNN moderators would only end up alienating some of his supporters, which risks Republicans staying home for the general election. It’s an empty threat.”
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."