Well, that didn't take very long !
Some analysts have concluded that Obama's constant reversals and incoherent foreign policy positions of the last few weeks would embolden US adversaries, especially since Russia has been seen to be the more decisive player on the world stage at the moment.
The New York Times reports today that indications strongly suggest that North Korea has restarted a nuclear reactor they previously agreed to dismantle, to produce plutonium in order for them to increase their stockpile of nuclear weapons materials.
Anyone care to hazard a guess as to whether or not Iran placed a take out order for the stuff ?
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Obama Devoting Himself to Re-building US Economy .... maybe
In his September 10th speech to the nation about the crisis in Syria, Obama made an interesting remark as an aside: "And I know Americans want all of us in Washington -- especially me -- to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home: putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class."
If Obama understands that and, more importantly, actually believes it, then it's reasonable to assume his actions should match up with his words - or - is it just more political posturing and a load of BS on the part of Obama ?
Based upon Obama's past behavior any reasonable person believing that "tigers don't change their stripes" could be excused for intuitively concluding it's more of the latter than the former.
And now there's actually some data to back up that conclusion.
A non-partisan group, the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) concluded that up until March 31st of this year Obama had spent about 474 hours in economic meetings.
In other words Obama for the past 5 years, confronted with the world's greatest recession, causing millions of Americans to lose their jobs in the world's largest economy and consuming more than a trillion dollars of treasury the US couldn't afford to spend to re-start the economy, has spent all of about the equivalent of four 24 hour days each year devoted to the issues that affect more Americans more than anything else.
So, if he doesn't comprehend either the urgency or the priority, you've got to ask what the Hell has he been doing with his time ?
Wanting to give Obama the benefit of the doubt the group credited him for any meetings in which there was even only a remote liklihood that the nation's economic condition was discussed. In order to arrive at the figure they analyzed the official White House meeting calendar, Politico's presidential calendar and media reports.
The public is frequently informed that Obama's time, given his duties, is a precious commodity, not to be squandered and the reason why access to him is necessarily limited.
The GAI also examined Obama's vacation and golfing calendars. Again wishing to fairly attribute Obama's time they only recorded a round of golf as consuming just 4 hours, though Obama is on record having said that it takes up 6 hours of his day. For each day of vacation they logged only 6 hours assuming that Obama continued to work on pressing issues of national concern even while on vacation.
In the same time period as the logging for economics meetings Obama, they concluded, racked up 976 hours - or - about twice as much time devoted to his recreation than the nation's economy.
Concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home: putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class ???
Yeah .... Only if you believe Obama will do it from a golf course !!!
Obama Gives Another "Pretty" Speech ....
Last evening Obama delivered his explanation of why the US needs to “punish” the Syrian regime of Assad for its use of chemical weapons….well, sort of…
Obama would like everyone to believe that his decisions and actions to date have been part of a broader, coordinated and coherent plan on his part for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Syria.
The truth, seemingly an alien construct in Obama’s nature, however is something altogether different than the fictional story he is trying to weave now – last evening he gave a speech laced with ironies, contradictions and inconsistencies throughout.
In reality Obama has fumbled and bungled along toward a resolution in the Middle East and at the 12th hour had the good fortune, at least superficially, to be given the means of extricating himself from a crisis with “no good options” in Syria that he in large measure helped to foment.
It is simply quite impossible for Obama to say to anyone “Ok, my notions about foreign policy have not worked well, and I’ve seriously screwed up. I have heard you. I gambled but realize now that Congress will not vote to authorize the use of force in Syria. I accept that and want you to know that I am going to set aside my personal political needs and goals and seek a diplomatic resolution for the benefit of all.”
Instead as prelude for his explanation, Obama spoke of the brutality of a regime that caused 100,000 to die in Syria’s civil war during the past 2 years. Yet, how odd in his introduction, he said he has resisted military intervention there “because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force …” though apparently just a short time earlier we “should” and did do that in nearby Libya !
And, apparently there is sufficient distinction in Obama's mind between overt force and force applied through covert operations that no mention or disclosure about the Obama administration's arming and training of anti-Assad forces to topple Assad from power needs to be made.
Failing to note or mention any of the other previous 13 uses of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, Obama says the attack on August 21st that left more than 1400 dead profoundly changed his attitude –"The images from this massacre are sickening..." yet, none of the earlier atrocities committed by the Assad regime in which the 100,000 perished could cause Obama to speak out in the same manner or take military action against it. How disingenuous is it for Obama to serve up, “When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory.” or is it just another sound bite in a long string of political calculations ?
As justification now Obama said, "If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons." which, ironically is precisely what Obama enabled Assad to do in the 2 years leading up to the escalation with Sarin gas in the August 21st attack because Obama failed to act in any of the other instances in which Assad crossed Obama's "Red Line" ultimatum.
Obama also noted, "If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel." , which is exactly what Syria and its allies have promised if Syia IS attacked by the Obama administration.
Obama also said, "And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran..." which again due to Obama's inaction, we witness Iran's ongoing intransigence and race to build both a nuclear weapon and a missile system to deliver it.
"I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. ", asserted Obama.
This assertion is so wrong headed and naive on the part of Obama on so many levels there is not enough space or time to elaborate fully on all of them - but chiefly, Obama has already telegraphed too much information to an enemy about what, when and where and how our military would strike - giving Assad ample time to make adjustments to minimize any strike against him, necessitating the application of even more force.
Originally in the time line of the unfolding crisis Obama was insistent that this was only a "message" through use of a very limited, surgical strike, not regime change.
Military planners know that tactical, punitive responses are counterproductive when not tied to strategic goals - and Obama has none.
Also noteworthy is that the US is unwilling to deliver enough of a punitive response to actually deter Assad.
Now Obama has expanded the mission to "degrade" Assad's capabilities apparently in response to this obvious deficiency in his original plan. "The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.", he responded; though that is precisely what he originally planned to do and argued for.
Obama wants it all ways, or at least in the manner most convenient for him at any moment in time or circumstance.
Someone needs to get through to Obama that the US military is not a message delivery service, either ! Or, as Charles Krauthammer said, if Obama wants to send a message he should send a text message; it's a lot cheaper and more effective than a 1 1/2 million dollar cruise missile!
A wider and deeper military response further raises suspicions about the Obama promises regarding "no boots on the ground" in Syria - which again military planners don't see as a credible promise at all.
Equally dubious are Obama's conclusions that all repercussions from a US military strike are manageable, "Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of America."
One "overwhelming" concern for many Americans, which Obama has chosen to ignore, or at least not address, is that escalation, whether Assad and his allies "want it" or not, that involves Israel will suck the US into a broader war fulfilling its commitment to Israel, as the entire Middle East erupts.
In an effort to allay fears that Al Qaeda will fill any authority vacuum left once Assad is removed from power Obama said, parsing the truth, "It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But Al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people -- and the Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism."
Those anti-Assad forces we've chosen to support in Syria are Al Qaeda operating under the name Al Nusra ! And just like the so-called freedom fighters we chose to support in Libya, who were Al Qaeda also, Al Nusra, when Assad is gone, can be expected to commit the same human rights atrocities they did in Libya after Qaddafi was toppled. Some observers point out that the Libyan "freedom fighters" committed more acts of terror than the Qaddafi regime ever did.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-supported-jabhat-al-nusra-caught-with-sarin-gas-inside-turkey/5337035
And Obama's statement begs the question why must any effort to achieve a political solution wait until the day after a military strike ?
It's clear that the earlier threats of military reprisal were not credible to anyone and didn't stop Assad from using chemical weapons in the first place - Obama, himself, said so, "Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.".
And yet, nearly in the same breath Obama tells us that we should believe that Assad will be receptive to a political solution immediately after the strike because just the threat of military reprisal has brought the Assad regime to its senses.
While it is likely that Putin has been more convinced that the US WOULD strike this time because Obama "painted himself into a corner" it is even more likely the Assad regime "coming to its senses" has more to do with Putin's ambitions and Russian influence than Assad fearing any of Obama's inept posturing or even his cruise missiles.
"However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use."
So in addition to wanting us to believe that the latest diplomatic developments by way of the Russians are the result of Obama's efforts and planning and authorship, he wants us to also believe all that Obama has to say about it, no matter how contradictory his statements are.
And this is what we can expect next according to Obama, "I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control. We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East -- who agree on the need for action. "
This is the same Obama whose public position was that UN support was critical in relation to matters of international security, but with the realization both Russia and China would prevent Obama from having UN support, he decided to push ahead without it and said he had made the decision to strike Syria. No matter that to do so would violate the UN charter and the illegal action would cause the US to bear the stigma as an aggressor.
World opinion turned against Obama while waiting for the UN inspector's report. Previously, Obama tried to make his case in the press to disregard the UN investigation but was rebuffed by Russia, China and the British Parliament refusing to honor Cameron's pledge of military support from the UK for a reprisal strike.
Obama tried to make Congress a party to his decision after the fact, not because he believes the BS he's slung in his speech about "... our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together. " as he's already in his first term demonstrated his willingness to circumvent the authority of Congress on several occasions.
Though now, he's finally come to understand his gamble in a bid for Congressional support will fail dramatically with all of its attendant implications to his remaining credibility; his real intent in soliciting Congress was ever only political - to make his opponents take shared responsibility for any decision to strike Syria or, to leave the Assad regime unpunished and thereby lay the groundwork to shift the responsibility for any repercussions, either way, from himself to others.
As evidence, we need look no further than Obama's recent comments in Sweden while en route to the St. Petersburg G20 leader's summit, when he declared that he, Obama, did not set the "Red Line" but that the US Congress and the World had done it.
Lastly, it is sad testimony because of Obama's incompetence in leadership that the US must await the next Russian dalliance in order to actualize any US foreign policy in Syria and prospectively going forward in the entire Middle East.
Throughout the entire mess Obama has been outmaneuvered by Putin and just as Assad claimed earlier on, Obama "lost" the battle over Syria before it had even begun.
The danger for America doesn't exist so much, thousands of miles away in a Middle Eastern desert, as much as it does comfortably ensconced at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Obama would like everyone to believe that his decisions and actions to date have been part of a broader, coordinated and coherent plan on his part for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Syria.
The truth, seemingly an alien construct in Obama’s nature, however is something altogether different than the fictional story he is trying to weave now – last evening he gave a speech laced with ironies, contradictions and inconsistencies throughout.
In reality Obama has fumbled and bungled along toward a resolution in the Middle East and at the 12th hour had the good fortune, at least superficially, to be given the means of extricating himself from a crisis with “no good options” in Syria that he in large measure helped to foment.
It is simply quite impossible for Obama to say to anyone “Ok, my notions about foreign policy have not worked well, and I’ve seriously screwed up. I have heard you. I gambled but realize now that Congress will not vote to authorize the use of force in Syria. I accept that and want you to know that I am going to set aside my personal political needs and goals and seek a diplomatic resolution for the benefit of all.”
Instead as prelude for his explanation, Obama spoke of the brutality of a regime that caused 100,000 to die in Syria’s civil war during the past 2 years. Yet, how odd in his introduction, he said he has resisted military intervention there “because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force …” though apparently just a short time earlier we “should” and did do that in nearby Libya !
And, apparently there is sufficient distinction in Obama's mind between overt force and force applied through covert operations that no mention or disclosure about the Obama administration's arming and training of anti-Assad forces to topple Assad from power needs to be made.
Failing to note or mention any of the other previous 13 uses of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, Obama says the attack on August 21st that left more than 1400 dead profoundly changed his attitude –"The images from this massacre are sickening..." yet, none of the earlier atrocities committed by the Assad regime in which the 100,000 perished could cause Obama to speak out in the same manner or take military action against it. How disingenuous is it for Obama to serve up, “When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory.” or is it just another sound bite in a long string of political calculations ?
As justification now Obama said, "If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons." which, ironically is precisely what Obama enabled Assad to do in the 2 years leading up to the escalation with Sarin gas in the August 21st attack because Obama failed to act in any of the other instances in which Assad crossed Obama's "Red Line" ultimatum.
Obama also noted, "If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel." , which is exactly what Syria and its allies have promised if Syia IS attacked by the Obama administration.
Obama also said, "And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran..." which again due to Obama's inaction, we witness Iran's ongoing intransigence and race to build both a nuclear weapon and a missile system to deliver it.
"I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. ", asserted Obama.
This assertion is so wrong headed and naive on the part of Obama on so many levels there is not enough space or time to elaborate fully on all of them - but chiefly, Obama has already telegraphed too much information to an enemy about what, when and where and how our military would strike - giving Assad ample time to make adjustments to minimize any strike against him, necessitating the application of even more force.
Originally in the time line of the unfolding crisis Obama was insistent that this was only a "message" through use of a very limited, surgical strike, not regime change.
Military planners know that tactical, punitive responses are counterproductive when not tied to strategic goals - and Obama has none.
Also noteworthy is that the US is unwilling to deliver enough of a punitive response to actually deter Assad.
Now Obama has expanded the mission to "degrade" Assad's capabilities apparently in response to this obvious deficiency in his original plan. "The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.", he responded; though that is precisely what he originally planned to do and argued for.
Obama wants it all ways, or at least in the manner most convenient for him at any moment in time or circumstance.
Someone needs to get through to Obama that the US military is not a message delivery service, either ! Or, as Charles Krauthammer said, if Obama wants to send a message he should send a text message; it's a lot cheaper and more effective than a 1 1/2 million dollar cruise missile!
A wider and deeper military response further raises suspicions about the Obama promises regarding "no boots on the ground" in Syria - which again military planners don't see as a credible promise at all.
Equally dubious are Obama's conclusions that all repercussions from a US military strike are manageable, "Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of America."
One "overwhelming" concern for many Americans, which Obama has chosen to ignore, or at least not address, is that escalation, whether Assad and his allies "want it" or not, that involves Israel will suck the US into a broader war fulfilling its commitment to Israel, as the entire Middle East erupts.
In an effort to allay fears that Al Qaeda will fill any authority vacuum left once Assad is removed from power Obama said, parsing the truth, "It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But Al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people -- and the Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism."
Those anti-Assad forces we've chosen to support in Syria are Al Qaeda operating under the name Al Nusra ! And just like the so-called freedom fighters we chose to support in Libya, who were Al Qaeda also, Al Nusra, when Assad is gone, can be expected to commit the same human rights atrocities they did in Libya after Qaddafi was toppled. Some observers point out that the Libyan "freedom fighters" committed more acts of terror than the Qaddafi regime ever did.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-supported-jabhat-al-nusra-caught-with-sarin-gas-inside-turkey/5337035
And Obama's statement begs the question why must any effort to achieve a political solution wait until the day after a military strike ?
It's clear that the earlier threats of military reprisal were not credible to anyone and didn't stop Assad from using chemical weapons in the first place - Obama, himself, said so, "Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.".
And yet, nearly in the same breath Obama tells us that we should believe that Assad will be receptive to a political solution immediately after the strike because just the threat of military reprisal has brought the Assad regime to its senses.
While it is likely that Putin has been more convinced that the US WOULD strike this time because Obama "painted himself into a corner" it is even more likely the Assad regime "coming to its senses" has more to do with Putin's ambitions and Russian influence than Assad fearing any of Obama's inept posturing or even his cruise missiles.
"However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use."
So in addition to wanting us to believe that the latest diplomatic developments by way of the Russians are the result of Obama's efforts and planning and authorship, he wants us to also believe all that Obama has to say about it, no matter how contradictory his statements are.
And this is what we can expect next according to Obama, "I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control. We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East -- who agree on the need for action. "
This is the same Obama whose public position was that UN support was critical in relation to matters of international security, but with the realization both Russia and China would prevent Obama from having UN support, he decided to push ahead without it and said he had made the decision to strike Syria. No matter that to do so would violate the UN charter and the illegal action would cause the US to bear the stigma as an aggressor.
World opinion turned against Obama while waiting for the UN inspector's report. Previously, Obama tried to make his case in the press to disregard the UN investigation but was rebuffed by Russia, China and the British Parliament refusing to honor Cameron's pledge of military support from the UK for a reprisal strike.
Obama tried to make Congress a party to his decision after the fact, not because he believes the BS he's slung in his speech about "... our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together. " as he's already in his first term demonstrated his willingness to circumvent the authority of Congress on several occasions.
Though now, he's finally come to understand his gamble in a bid for Congressional support will fail dramatically with all of its attendant implications to his remaining credibility; his real intent in soliciting Congress was ever only political - to make his opponents take shared responsibility for any decision to strike Syria or, to leave the Assad regime unpunished and thereby lay the groundwork to shift the responsibility for any repercussions, either way, from himself to others.
As evidence, we need look no further than Obama's recent comments in Sweden while en route to the St. Petersburg G20 leader's summit, when he declared that he, Obama, did not set the "Red Line" but that the US Congress and the World had done it.
Lastly, it is sad testimony because of Obama's incompetence in leadership that the US must await the next Russian dalliance in order to actualize any US foreign policy in Syria and prospectively going forward in the entire Middle East.
Throughout the entire mess Obama has been outmaneuvered by Putin and just as Assad claimed earlier on, Obama "lost" the battle over Syria before it had even begun.
The danger for America doesn't exist so much, thousands of miles away in a Middle Eastern desert, as much as it does comfortably ensconced at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
What a Fine Mess Obama has Made Out of Syria ....
(originally posted 9.9.13)
3 days before the Sarin gas attack that killed more than 1400 people including 400 children in Damascus, the Obama administration knew about the impending disaster but did nothing to stop it nor warn those who were targeted.
http://nypost.com/2013/09/01/us-knew-of-gas-plot-but-didnt-alert-rebels/
This suggests several things:
THAT the Obama administration didn't believe that the scale of the attack was any different than earlier ones and just like those previously, chose to deal with it in the same manner; utilizing already proven useless diplomatic gestures, and essentially disregarding the threat to spare themselves further embarrassment because of the earlier ultimatum rhetoric of both Obama and then Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton.
THAT the moral outrage expressed by Obama and his officials is insincere and public "posturing" for political purposes.
THAT the US didn't have "actionable" intelligence; that what intelligence it had was of dubious value, untimely and, or unreliable - if that is the case - it casts serious doubt on the ability of the Obama administration to determine whether or not Iran's nuclear "red line" has been or when it might be breached.
THAT the Obama administration is haphazard and inconsistent in its commitments in the region.
There have been charges by some that the Obama policy of disengagement from the region at least with respect to Syria with some 100,000 already dead in the civil war is indicative of an un-spoken US desire to allow the combatants to kill as many of each other without having to commit either US blood or treasury and speaks to the obvious reluctance on the part of Obama to provide meaningful support to the so called "moderate" anti-Assad forces - a rationale acceptable to the Obama administration as a consequence of failed Obama foreign policy which has so far produced "no good options" in Syria from a US perspective.
Because the US failed to at least alert the Assad opposition forces of its intelligence the credibility of those charges is bolstered.
Israel has and rightfully questioned whether or not it can depend upon the US to honor its commitment to Israel as an ally.
THAT Obama isn't and hasn't been serious about finding a political solution despite his public posturing because he has other agendas not publicly disclosed.
On Monday Sec. of State Kerry went off script with a colossal blunder and said that Syria should just give up its chemical weapons but they of course he surmised wouldn't do that. Putin on the other hand decided to run with it.
Russia has just announced that a workable solution would be for Syria to place all of its chemical weapons under control of an international authority and THAT would meet the Obama demands to end the threat of Assad using those weapons again and at the same time remove Obama's argument for a military strike - it would not however aid the Obama administration in its secret operations to topple the Assad regime - which the Obama administration has stated publicly that it is not trying to do - and replace Assad with a "moderate" faction more favorable to Obama's demands and interests than Putin's
.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE9880HY20130909
It's entirely likely that Russia will make several demands of their own on the Obama administration in exchange for Obama to escape from the mess he created in Syria such as ... oh, say just for starters....the US will agree NOT to attack Syria for any reason, that Assad remains in power, the US stop its covert actions to arm and train Anti-Assad forces., and the Israeli's submit to the same supervision of their nuclear weapons.
Assad will get a pass from having used gas weapons against Syrians and Putin will thwart the Obama agendas in the Middle East and Israel will become naked.
3 days before the Sarin gas attack that killed more than 1400 people including 400 children in Damascus, the Obama administration knew about the impending disaster but did nothing to stop it nor warn those who were targeted.
http://nypost.com/2013/09/01/us-knew-of-gas-plot-but-didnt-alert-rebels/
This suggests several things:
THAT the Obama administration didn't believe that the scale of the attack was any different than earlier ones and just like those previously, chose to deal with it in the same manner; utilizing already proven useless diplomatic gestures, and essentially disregarding the threat to spare themselves further embarrassment because of the earlier ultimatum rhetoric of both Obama and then Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton.
THAT the moral outrage expressed by Obama and his officials is insincere and public "posturing" for political purposes.
THAT the US didn't have "actionable" intelligence; that what intelligence it had was of dubious value, untimely and, or unreliable - if that is the case - it casts serious doubt on the ability of the Obama administration to determine whether or not Iran's nuclear "red line" has been or when it might be breached.
THAT the Obama administration is haphazard and inconsistent in its commitments in the region.
There have been charges by some that the Obama policy of disengagement from the region at least with respect to Syria with some 100,000 already dead in the civil war is indicative of an un-spoken US desire to allow the combatants to kill as many of each other without having to commit either US blood or treasury and speaks to the obvious reluctance on the part of Obama to provide meaningful support to the so called "moderate" anti-Assad forces - a rationale acceptable to the Obama administration as a consequence of failed Obama foreign policy which has so far produced "no good options" in Syria from a US perspective.
Because the US failed to at least alert the Assad opposition forces of its intelligence the credibility of those charges is bolstered.
Israel has and rightfully questioned whether or not it can depend upon the US to honor its commitment to Israel as an ally.
THAT Obama isn't and hasn't been serious about finding a political solution despite his public posturing because he has other agendas not publicly disclosed.
THAT the Obama administration and Obama continues to lie to Americans about what really is or is not taking place in the region in the name of the American people.
On Monday Sec. of State Kerry went off script with a colossal blunder and said that Syria should just give up its chemical weapons but they of course he surmised wouldn't do that. Putin on the other hand decided to run with it.
Russia has just announced that a workable solution would be for Syria to place all of its chemical weapons under control of an international authority and THAT would meet the Obama demands to end the threat of Assad using those weapons again and at the same time remove Obama's argument for a military strike - it would not however aid the Obama administration in its secret operations to topple the Assad regime - which the Obama administration has stated publicly that it is not trying to do - and replace Assad with a "moderate" faction more favorable to Obama's demands and interests than Putin's
.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE9880HY20130909
It's entirely likely that Russia will make several demands of their own on the Obama administration in exchange for Obama to escape from the mess he created in Syria such as ... oh, say just for starters....the US will agree NOT to attack Syria for any reason, that Assad remains in power, the US stop its covert actions to arm and train Anti-Assad forces., and the Israeli's submit to the same supervision of their nuclear weapons.
Assad will get a pass from having used gas weapons against Syrians and Putin will thwart the Obama agendas in the Middle East and Israel will become naked.
Monday, September 9, 2013
US Knew in Advance About Sarin Gas Attack .... But Obama Did Nothing
3 days before the Sarin gas attack that killed more than 1400 people including 400 children in Damascus, the Obama administration knew about the impending disaster but did nothing to stop it nor warn those who were targeted.
http://nypost.com/2013/09/01/us-knew-of-gas-plot-but-didnt-alert-rebels/
This suggests several things:
THAT the Obama administration didn't believe that the scale of the attack was any different than earlier ones and just like those previously, chose to deal with it in the same manner; utilizing already proven useless diplomatic gestures, and essentially disregarding the threat to spare themselves further embarrassment because of the earlier ultimatum rhetoric of both Obama and then Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton.
THAT the moral outrage expressed by Obama and his officials is insincere and public "posturing" for political purposes.
THAT the US didn't have "actionable" intelligence; that what intelligence it had was of dubious value, untimely and, or unreliable - if that is the case - it casts serious doubt on the ability of the Obama administration to determine whether or not Iran's nuclear "red line" has been or when it might be breached.
THAT the Obama administration is haphazard and inconsistent in its commitments in the region.
There have been charges by some that the Obama policy of disengagement from the region at least with respect to Syria with some 100,000 already dead in the civil war is indicative of an un-spoken US desire to allow the combatants to kill as many of each other without having to commit either US blood or treasury and speaks to the obvious reluctance on the part of Obama to provide meaningful support to the so called "moderate" anti-Assad forces - a rationale acceptable to the Obama administration as a consequence of failed Obama foreign policy which has so far produced "no good options" in Syria from a US perspective.
Because the US failed to at least alert the Assad opposition forces of its intelligence the credibility of those charges is bolstered.
Israel has and rightfully questioned whether or not it can depend upon the US to honor its commitment to Israel as an ally.
THAT Obama isn't and hasn't been serious about finding a political solution despite his public posturing because he has other agendas not publicly disclosed.
On Monday Sec. of State Kerry went off script with a colossal blunder and said that Syria should just give up its chemical weapons but they of course he surmised wouldn't do that. Putin on the other hand decided to run with it.
Russia has just announced that a workable solution would be for Syria to place all of its chemical weapons under control of an international authority and THAT would meet the Obama demands to end the threat of Assad using those weapons again and at the same time remove Obama's argument for a military strike - it would not however aid the Obama administration in its secret operations to topple the Assad regime - which the Obama administration has stated publicly that it is not trying to do - and replace Assad with a "moderate" faction more favorable to Obama's demands and interests than Putin's.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE9880HY20130909
It's entirely likely that Russia will make several demands of their own on the Obama administration in exchange for Obama to escape from the mess he created in Syria such as ... oh, say just for starters....the US will agree NOT to attack Syria for any reason, that Assad remains in power, the US stop its covert actions to arm and train Anti-Assad forces and the Israeli's will submit to the same supervision of their nuclear weapons.
Assad will get a pass from having used gas weapons against Syrians and Putin will thwart the Obama agendas in the Middle East and Israel will become naked.
http://nypost.com/2013/09/01/us-knew-of-gas-plot-but-didnt-alert-rebels/
This suggests several things:
THAT the Obama administration didn't believe that the scale of the attack was any different than earlier ones and just like those previously, chose to deal with it in the same manner; utilizing already proven useless diplomatic gestures, and essentially disregarding the threat to spare themselves further embarrassment because of the earlier ultimatum rhetoric of both Obama and then Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton.
THAT the moral outrage expressed by Obama and his officials is insincere and public "posturing" for political purposes.
THAT the US didn't have "actionable" intelligence; that what intelligence it had was of dubious value, untimely and, or unreliable - if that is the case - it casts serious doubt on the ability of the Obama administration to determine whether or not Iran's nuclear "red line" has been or when it might be breached.
THAT the Obama administration is haphazard and inconsistent in its commitments in the region.
There have been charges by some that the Obama policy of disengagement from the region at least with respect to Syria with some 100,000 already dead in the civil war is indicative of an un-spoken US desire to allow the combatants to kill as many of each other without having to commit either US blood or treasury and speaks to the obvious reluctance on the part of Obama to provide meaningful support to the so called "moderate" anti-Assad forces - a rationale acceptable to the Obama administration as a consequence of failed Obama foreign policy which has so far produced "no good options" in Syria from a US perspective.
Because the US failed to at least alert the Assad opposition forces of its intelligence the credibility of those charges is bolstered.
Israel has and rightfully questioned whether or not it can depend upon the US to honor its commitment to Israel as an ally.
THAT Obama isn't and hasn't been serious about finding a political solution despite his public posturing because he has other agendas not publicly disclosed.
THAT the Obama administration and Obama continues to lie to Americans about what really is or is not taking place in the region in the name of the American people.
On Monday Sec. of State Kerry went off script with a colossal blunder and said that Syria should just give up its chemical weapons but they of course he surmised wouldn't do that. Putin on the other hand decided to run with it.
Russia has just announced that a workable solution would be for Syria to place all of its chemical weapons under control of an international authority and THAT would meet the Obama demands to end the threat of Assad using those weapons again and at the same time remove Obama's argument for a military strike - it would not however aid the Obama administration in its secret operations to topple the Assad regime - which the Obama administration has stated publicly that it is not trying to do - and replace Assad with a "moderate" faction more favorable to Obama's demands and interests than Putin's.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE9880HY20130909
It's entirely likely that Russia will make several demands of their own on the Obama administration in exchange for Obama to escape from the mess he created in Syria such as ... oh, say just for starters....the US will agree NOT to attack Syria for any reason, that Assad remains in power, the US stop its covert actions to arm and train Anti-Assad forces and the Israeli's will submit to the same supervision of their nuclear weapons.
Assad will get a pass from having used gas weapons against Syrians and Putin will thwart the Obama agendas in the Middle East and Israel will become naked.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Will we go to war over Syria .... just sorta accidentally ?
In the 1960's there were a number of serious incidents at sea when the naval forces of the Soviet Union and the US just sort of got in each other's way. World leaders, for good reason, were fearful of accidental escalation of armed hostilities.
Those concerns led in the 70's to the signing of the Incidents At Sea Agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States. The agreement, was in essence, a series of traffic rules for naval forces of different nations when they operate in proximity to each other.
This week sea lanes in the eastern Mediterranean have become clogged with traffic from elements of the naval forces of the United States, Russia, France and Great Britain responding to the crisis in Syria.
While US ships will have to remain on station longer than expected, Obama doesn’t appear to be fazed .... “the chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I’m prepared to give that order.”
But not everyone shares Obama’s confidence.
Defense analyst Anthony Cordesman wrote Obama “has suddenly transformed a rushed call for immediate action into a waiting game where it is not clear what he or the U.S. is waiting for, and where much of the action may come to border on tragicomedy.”
On Tuesday other top Obama administration officials including Secretary of State Kerry after more than 4 hours of testimony on Capitol Hill, could not provide clear and convincing explanations of what Obama's plans and goals were with respect to Syria.
Apparently, even the Department of Defense, who are expected to execute "the plan" haven't been clued in either. When asked by Senator Corker if the resolution for war powers asked for by the Obama Administration would support the strategy of replacing the Syrian government with the "moderate" opposition forces and deter the use of chemical weapons, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, said "I can't answer that, what we're seeking.".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-senate-foreign-services-committee-hearing-on-syria/2013/09/03/35ae1048-14ca-11e3-b182-1b3bb2eb474c_story_4.html
Also on Tuesday, Reuters reports that Israel and the US fired a missile from the Mediterranean, picked up on Russian early warning radar, traveling eastward in the direction of Syria as part of an unannounced test of Israeli defenses. The US denied it had participated but Israel confirmed the test was done with US involvement. Russian diplomats were agitated that the US and Israel conducted the surprise "test" with heightened tensions in the region because of an anticipated "imminent" attack by the US upon Syria. Israel said the test was just routine but supposed that the "timing" might have been less than prudent.
On Wednesday Russia placed on high alert the Central Command Post of the General Staff, the Aerospace Defense command and the country’s intelligence agencies.
Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov described the region as a “powder keg” and warned hostilities “may spread, not only to neighboring states, but to other regions of the world.”
In a separate statement today Russian President Vladimir Putin said that in the same Senate testimony as Dempsey's, Secretary of State, John Kerry, had lied and "knew he lied" when asked about Al Qaeda operating in Syria even among the so-called "moderate" opposition, supported by the US, against Assad.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-syria-crisis-russia-congress-idUSBRE9830N620130904
Amid all this, the eastern Mediterranean sea lanes are filling up with large, dangerous vessels. It's fast becoming a very crowded place as far as maneuvering warships are concerned.
The US has already on station there 5 missile cruisers, presumably at least 1 attack submarine, a Marine troop carrier, and at least 2 other aircraft carrier groups further out in the Mediterranean for backup support. The Russians previously sent 5 ships last week and now according to reports in the Hindu Times today has another 6 warships en route which includes a guided missile cruiser. The French Navy has 1 submarine, 2 destroyers already there and an aircraft carrier ready for dispatch. The British, 2 frigates and a Helicopter carrier.
Navies are watching each other, watching the news, and watching each other watch each other....
And anxiety is building that some "incident at sea" will accidentally escalate into a shooting war beyond Syria's borders.
Gee! Imagine that .....
Those concerns led in the 70's to the signing of the Incidents At Sea Agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States. The agreement, was in essence, a series of traffic rules for naval forces of different nations when they operate in proximity to each other.
This week sea lanes in the eastern Mediterranean have become clogged with traffic from elements of the naval forces of the United States, Russia, France and Great Britain responding to the crisis in Syria.
While US ships will have to remain on station longer than expected, Obama doesn’t appear to be fazed .... “the chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I’m prepared to give that order.”
But not everyone shares Obama’s confidence.
Defense analyst Anthony Cordesman wrote Obama “has suddenly transformed a rushed call for immediate action into a waiting game where it is not clear what he or the U.S. is waiting for, and where much of the action may come to border on tragicomedy.”
Apparently, even the Department of Defense, who are expected to execute "the plan" haven't been clued in either. When asked by Senator Corker if the resolution for war powers asked for by the Obama Administration would support the strategy of replacing the Syrian government with the "moderate" opposition forces and deter the use of chemical weapons, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, said "I can't answer that, what we're seeking.".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-senate-foreign-services-committee-hearing-on-syria/2013/09/03/35ae1048-14ca-11e3-b182-1b3bb2eb474c_story_4.html
Also on Tuesday, Reuters reports that Israel and the US fired a missile from the Mediterranean, picked up on Russian early warning radar, traveling eastward in the direction of Syria as part of an unannounced test of Israeli defenses. The US denied it had participated but Israel confirmed the test was done with US involvement. Russian diplomats were agitated that the US and Israel conducted the surprise "test" with heightened tensions in the region because of an anticipated "imminent" attack by the US upon Syria. Israel said the test was just routine but supposed that the "timing" might have been less than prudent.
On Wednesday Russia placed on high alert the Central Command Post of the General Staff, the Aerospace Defense command and the country’s intelligence agencies.
Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov described the region as a “powder keg” and warned hostilities “may spread, not only to neighboring states, but to other regions of the world.”
The Russian Foreign Ministry warned “If a (US or Allied) warhead, by
design or by chance, were to hit the Miniature Neutron Source Reactor
(MNSR) near Damascus, the consequences could be catastrophic," adding the
region would face the risk of “contamination by highly enriched uranium
and it would be virtually impossible to account for nuclear material at
the facility, its control and safety,” the Russian statement said.
In a separate statement today Russian President Vladimir Putin said that in the same Senate testimony as Dempsey's, Secretary of State, John Kerry, had lied and "knew he lied" when asked about Al Qaeda operating in Syria even among the so-called "moderate" opposition, supported by the US, against Assad.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-syria-crisis-russia-congress-idUSBRE9830N620130904
Amid all this, the eastern Mediterranean sea lanes are filling up with large, dangerous vessels. It's fast becoming a very crowded place as far as maneuvering warships are concerned.
The US has already on station there 5 missile cruisers, presumably at least 1 attack submarine, a Marine troop carrier, and at least 2 other aircraft carrier groups further out in the Mediterranean for backup support. The Russians previously sent 5 ships last week and now according to reports in the Hindu Times today has another 6 warships en route which includes a guided missile cruiser. The French Navy has 1 submarine, 2 destroyers already there and an aircraft carrier ready for dispatch. The British, 2 frigates and a Helicopter carrier.
Navies are watching each other, watching the news, and watching each other watch each other....
And anxiety is building that some "incident at sea" will accidentally escalate into a shooting war beyond Syria's borders.
Gee! Imagine that .....
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Putin isn't known for his warm fuzzy nature .... Obama the Amateur
Russian President, Vladimir Putin isn't known for his warm, fuzzy nature nor conciliatory manner; yet he was all of that when speaking today as reported by USA Today about the prospect of working things out with Barack Obama over the crisis in Syria and what he hopes will be time for the 2 to discuss other "serious issues" when Obama arrives in St. Petersburg for the G-20 summit.
Putin, an experienced negotiator, senses an opportunity to disadvantage an adversary and all the while promote his own interests and public image as well.
Putin said his differences with President Obama aren't personal, or permanent -
"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."
"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."
He also said Russia "doesn't exclude" supporting strikes if it can be proved that Bashar Assad's government used chemical weapons against its people.
"Putin said he felt sorry that President Obama canceled a one-on-one meeting in Moscow that was supposed to have happened before the summit. He expressed hope the two would have serious discussions about Syria and other issues in St. Petersburg."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/09/04/obama-putin-russia-g-20/276136
This benevolence isn't characteristic behavior from Putin.
In other words, if it is genuine, then Putin wants something from Obama that means more to Putin than does Russia's client state, Syria and it's relationship with Assad. And he will have it.
What that is exactly remains to be revealed.
But in terms of their previous meetings and negotiations Putin has shown himself to be the "master of an empty stage". And Obama; not even rank amateur.
But for the moment imagine what Putin's support for a military strike against Syria would mean to Obama at home and around the world after the roundhouse rejection of Obama's ill advised Syrian military adventure by Great Britain, 60 % of the American public, Obama's own party and the US Congress. Putin understands how to push the Obama buttons and promote himself at the same time.
And at what cost to US interests - how far would Obama go to soothe his bruised ego and mitigate his own embarrassment ?
How very sad then the state of affairs that Obama leaves as a legacy from his incompetence in leadership, that America's president would need the support of a rival foreign power to actualize US foreign policy.
Putin, an experienced negotiator, senses an opportunity to disadvantage an adversary and all the while promote his own interests and public image as well.
Putin said his differences with President Obama aren't personal, or permanent -
"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."
"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."
He also said Russia "doesn't exclude" supporting strikes if it can be proved that Bashar Assad's government used chemical weapons against its people.
"Putin said he felt sorry that President Obama canceled a one-on-one meeting in Moscow that was supposed to have happened before the summit. He expressed hope the two would have serious discussions about Syria and other issues in St. Petersburg."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/09/04/obama-putin-russia-g-20/276136
This benevolence isn't characteristic behavior from Putin.
In other words, if it is genuine, then Putin wants something from Obama that means more to Putin than does Russia's client state, Syria and it's relationship with Assad. And he will have it.
What that is exactly remains to be revealed.
But in terms of their previous meetings and negotiations Putin has shown himself to be the "master of an empty stage". And Obama; not even rank amateur.
But for the moment imagine what Putin's support for a military strike against Syria would mean to Obama at home and around the world after the roundhouse rejection of Obama's ill advised Syrian military adventure by Great Britain, 60 % of the American public, Obama's own party and the US Congress. Putin understands how to push the Obama buttons and promote himself at the same time.
And at what cost to US interests - how far would Obama go to soothe his bruised ego and mitigate his own embarrassment ?
How very sad then the state of affairs that Obama leaves as a legacy from his incompetence in leadership, that America's president would need the support of a rival foreign power to actualize US foreign policy.
OR .... was the entire Syrian crisis a provocation courtesy of Putin to promote Russian influence throughout the Middle East by supplanting or at least seriously compromising US influence there ?
There is speculation among informed observers that the chemical weapons stockpiles under Assad's control were originally the "missing" Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) from Hussein's Iraq. And even, that their origins, if not technical assistance in their manufacture, came from Russia.
The 2 most influential foreign powers "at work" in Syria are both Iran and Russia.
Not widely reported is the dismay and condemnation expressed by the Iranian government over Assad's use of chemical weapons. Former Iranian president Rafsanjani condemned the attack and openly named the Assad government as the perpetrator. Current Iranian president Rouhani called on “the international community to use all its might to prevent the use of these weapons anywhere in the world, especially in Syria”
Putin on the other hand has not condemned Syria but has however offered a defense saying it's unproven that Assad used the weapons. Calling US claims to the contrary, "Utter nonsense!", though he has later claimed that he's not defending Assad but just the international norms of prohibition of the use of chemical weapons.
A little known fact about Sarin nerve gas, one of the suspected agents used by Syria, is that it is 26 times more deadly than cyanide and requires some special preparation and handling. It can not be deployed quickly without days of advance preparation. And that implies an orderly process of authorization moving down through the chain of command.
Indeed, days before the Sarin gas laden rockets were launched Israeli intelligence intercepted the communications of those orders and relayed them to the US - that is the secret intelligence the US wants to remain as classified.
The notion that lower echelons of military officers could or would issue such orders suggests that Assad isn't in command. The United States however clearly believes he is or wouldn't be insisting he remain in power in order to effect negotiations through him to end the Syrian civil war.
But could Assad act on his own without the tacit approval of the Russians and Iranians ?
The Iranians have as much acknowledged that they were blindsided by the latest Syrian deployment of chemical agents.
So what could Putin accomplish with a provocation of Obama's red line ultimatum - what is the prize in exchange for the deaths of thousands of Syrians ?
Putin's own "calculus" is that first, Obama has bumbled and fumbled his way along in trying to stay out of Syria with an incoherent and inconsistent foreign policy objective in the region, the second is, that Obama hasn't been serious about preventing Iran from developing a nuclear bomb and his third, that Obama's red lines for both Iran and Syria were nothing but shams to excuse America's inaction.
To Putin, then the next most logical course of action: the red line is targeted through provocation to show that America's threats to stop the Syrians or the Iranians were never serious.
By showing Obama is both unable and
unwilling to keep his promises, the leadership void of influence in
the Middle East is widened precipitously as a prelude to being filled by Putin. Ironically, "by helping to clear
Iran’s path to a bomb, Putin positions himself as Iran’s most powerful
ally—while paradoxically gaining greater leverage with Saudi Arabia and
the other Gulf States, who would much rather negotiate with Russia than
with Iran, their sworn enemy."
Putin saw something valuable abandoned on the world stage in the process of Obama bugging out of the Middle East, and he has moved to take
it....powerful influence in the oil-rich Middle East .... at America's expense.
Obama Blames the World for Syria and Red Line …. (Surprised ?)
While en route to a G-20 conference in Russia, Obama stopped briefly in Sweden and according to the NY Times, spoke today in Stockholm about the crisis in Syria with Assad's use of gas weapons to attack his own citizens -
“I didn’t set a red line,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference. “The world set a red line.”
He added, “My credibility’s not on the line. The
international community’s credibility’s on the line. And America and Congress’s
credibility’s on the line.”
Oops .... Your Narcissistic Personality Disorder Is Showing
(Again) Barack !
Time to call out the resident White House spin doctors to "clarify" your remarks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/europe/obama-arrives-in-sweden-before-g-20-summit.html?_r=0
http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/09/obama-the-world-set-a-red-line.html
http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/09/obama-the-world-set-a-red-line.html
Narcissists - according to Sam Vaknin, Phd, author on the
subject of Narcissistic Personality Disorder -“....project
guilt, blame,
and responsibility onto others, pass the buck, and hold themselves immune to the consequences of their
actions.”
and from author, David Thomas, ''Narcissism: Behind the Mask'' some features of narcissistic behavior can include:
- Focuses on self
- Difficulty in building positive relationships
- Difficulty with empathy
- Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults
- Believes self to be guiltless
- Exhibits haughty body language
- Flatters people who admire and affirm them
- Detests
those people who do not admire them
- Uses other people without considering the cost of doing so
- Brags subtly but persistently and exaggerates their achievements
- Claims to be an "expert" at many things
1) Character
2) Experience
3) Ability
4) Looks "cool" in a business suit and tie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
