Obama .... Lying About the Lies

A prominent Washington politician dies and stands before St. Peter. While awaiting judgment he sees a staggering number of wall clocks; each with a name. His own shows the hands at quarter to 11:00.

The politician asks St. Peter what the clocks are about and St. Peter says, “They’re called “Liar’s Clocks” and each person has one. We use them”, he explains, “to help decide whether a person goes to Hell or Heaven.”.

“How much the hands advance is determined by how frequently you lied and how significant the lies were. That’s Mother Teresa’s clock and the hands have never moved. Yours on the other hand is about typical for a politician.”

Curious, the politician says, “I don’t see Obama’s clock, where’s his?”
“Oh, that one,” says St. Peter, “is in another office. Jesus is using it as a ceiling fan!”.

Amid fresh accusations that his recent speech (insert issue, controversy or scandal of your choice here ... Obamacare, Syria's Red Line, Benghazi Coverup, Immigration Reform, Israeli Security, Iranian Negotiations, Pakistan Corruption, George Bush, Solyndra, Appalachian Coal, Political Payoffs, EPA, Fast n' Furious, Mitt Romney, Susan Rice, Keystone Pipeline, Bin Laden Raid, Drone Assassination Program, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, PayGo, Hurricane Sandy Recovery, 2nd Amendment Rights, IRS Targeting, BP Gulf Recovery, Guantanamo, Immigration Reform, Transparency in Government, Socialist Ideology, Bipartisanship, Federal Budget 4 Trillion Deficit Reduction, NSA Eavesdropping, CIA Rendition and Torture, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Constitutional Authority, Economic Recovery, SEIU, Bill Clinton, Foreign Policy, Islam, Foreign Intelligence Court, Sequester, Financial System Taxpayer Recoveries, Planned Parenthood, Earmarks and Lobbying, Government Shutdown, Indonesia, Abortion, ACORN,  etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ) was full of distortions and outright lies, Obama supporters deny that the speech was cynical demagoguery.

Liberals have really gotten creative of late, twisting themselves into rhetorical and intellectual pretzels in their efforts to downplay and dismiss Obama’s monumental penchant for deception and lying.

But Obama himself repeatedly reveals in comments what a load of BS their explanations are. The unvarnished truth is and has been, Obama lies by design and for effect !

"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if, not all of them.” –Barack  Obama,  The Economist, Aug 23rd 2008

Yeah, right...of course, it's their fault anyway !!! ... No really, we understand, you couldn’t have possibly said anything that would have appealed to, or falsely encouraged their expectations.

Van Damme's Split .... No Computer Graphics But Still Sleight of Hand ?

Claude Van Damme does an ad for Volvo that's gone viral showing the actor's strength by doing a leg split between 2 moving trucks.

Volvo says that the shot was done in one take and only the safety lines on the trucks and markings on the roadway used to keep Van Damme from killing himself were removed  by computers for the final version.

Volvo also claims that the trucks were driven in reverse,  or was there some sleight of hand  ? .... with Van Damme, unlike what is shown in the aired version, already in the split position as filming began and then the trucks pulled toward each other - was the film then  run in reverse so that it appears that Van Damme moved INTO the split position - a stunt that had it actually been done that way would have been much harder to accomplish.

EVEN SO, whether it happened as claimed by Volvo or shown in reverse it was still a damn impressive feat of strength for a 53 year old !

Not too shabby either for Volvo's drivers and trucks in that case as well.

Bill Clinton .... Kills Obamacare and the Obama Legacy

In just a few minutes during an interview yesterday Bill Clinton has done politically what the GOP has failed to do in 4 years - stick a knife so deeply, so forcefully, in the Obama Administration that it has not only fatally wounded Obama's legacy legislation Obamacare but no doubt destroyed his entire second term.

If speculation is correct Clinton did it to distance his wife, Hillary, from the Obama debacle to grease her way to a 2016 Presidential bid.

But masterfully, by rebuking Obama with a single uttered sentence, that the honorable thing for Obama to do in keeping his promise is to change the law in order for people to avoid losing their insurance plans, Clinton also gave Democrats permission to put space between themselves and their blind allegiance to Obama - not just on Obamacare but every other destructive Obama initiative as well.

Obama who's been the most polarizing force in Washington politics in decades has, unlike Clinton, few real allies on either side of the aisle in Congress.

Democrats who were just days ago panicking at the prospect of voter anger in 2014 are now grateful to Clinton for the political cover he has provided them when Obama wouldn't.

But then Clinton is a politician who knows how to govern; while Obama, the ideologue, remains clueless.

Or as one wag has observed, "A politician cares more about what you think; an ideologue cares only about what HE thinks.".

Obamacare ... Rats Jumping Ship

And ... as the tip of the Obamacare iceberg plows in exorbitantly ahead the true scope of the magnitude of the resulting economic destruction has yet to be revealed. 

Watch resentment and anger build and gather momemtum as Americans discover that they can't find timely medical care, nor adequate numbers of doctors to treat them; that their benefits and reimbursements are fouled up; that prescription services function poorly; that the integrity of their personal information is severely compromised; that no one will effectively mediate their claims or health care experiences and needs; that the national health care administrators and bureaucrats remain distant and uncaring; that privileged political classes receive preferential care and treatment ahead of everyone else; and that ultimately business, inflation, jobs, and voter incomes and savings are compromised.

Panicking Senate Democrats who are vulnerable in the 2014 election cycle because of their support for Obamacare met with the White House recently to discuss what kind of political cover the Obama Administration will provide for them.

And so which was the greater disservice to America ? The callous disregard by Democrats on the impact on the population; a blindly partisan vote on such a significant piece of legislation as healthcare reform -or- a President who knowingly lied to secure his election at the expense of so many people.

These so-called public servants haven't spoken out against the legislation previously. But at the same time they ignored their constituent's concerns; instead they deferred to Obama's now proven lies and spin to placate fears. These politicians are only now breaking ranks from the Obama Administration because they fear their own jobs are in jeopardy because of public anger with the revelations of Obamacare - not because, as yet, they give a damn about the hard working Americans who have been unfairly punished by Obamacare and, it's clear they didn't care because Democrats in voting for Obamacare with its penalty provisions and regulations, screwed all of us.

As self-serving politicians who had been amply warned in poll after poll how Americans at large had rejected the scope of Obamacare, those politicians in the Senate along with their brethren in the House of Representatives who rammed this toxic legislation up our butts are now deserving of being hoisted upon their own "collective" petards ! 

Let the political careers of all the Democrats writhe, whither and blow away in a scouring wind - the toxic DemocRATS earned it !

Obamacare .... Who's to Blame ?

The train wreck known as Obamacare has yet to manifest itself completely but has so far revealed itself to be the most far reaching disaster in the Nation's legislative history.

So who is to blame for this economic catastrophe imposed upon America ?

Despite all of the press coverage given up to date on the finger pointing, it's not who you naturally might be inclined to believe. No, it's not the dupe who occupies the White House, though Obama's certainly deserving of shouldering most of the blame for the mismanagement of all the tax dollars squandered to date on its implementation and the deceit to "sell" it and himself to Americans.

When she was Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi was the motive force who brought Obamacare into existence in November of 2009. Properly, as Obama was merely a glomming political opportunist who had the fortune to be President at the time of its passage, the Affordable Health Care Act should be called "Pelosicare".

It was Nancy Pelosi who rebuked Obama with "go big, or go home!" when his political will and support faltered after widespread criticism and rejection of the scope of the health care legislation by the majority of Americans and she referred to Obama's retreat to a watered down incremental  version as "Kiddie Care".

It was Nancy Pelosi who engineered secret meetings to craft the bill and ram through a partisan vote for its subsequent passage by reconciling the Senate version in 2010.

It was Nancy Pelosi who defiantly defended the bill against critics by loudly proclaiming that there was nothing "un-American" about the process or its passage even though the proposed legislation had not been read by those voting for it.

It was Nancy Pelosi who arrogantly but prophetically said "we have to pass the bill, so that you can find out what is in it!" What remained unsaid by her at the time was that SHE knew what was in it and that was all that mattered.

And it's only fitting now that Congress consider legislation to throw Pelosi's ass in jail for a long time for the damage she has done to the nation.

Ahh yes, of course there will be those among her supporters who say, "but wait, you can't do that because the Constitution prevents the passage of laws to punish any single individual."

And that is precisely what makes it a so deliriously just punishment as Nancy Pelosi has so often herself by word and deed demonstrated that she cares very little about the US Constitution, its principles or her oath to defend it.

Afterall, Congress can no doubt find the authorization to jail Pelosi under the same "Nancy Pelosi Living Document Clause" of the Constitution that she so often serves up as the basis for her own progressive rationales, interpretations, and actions.

Jay "Clear As Mud" Carney ..... Obamacare Enrollment Numbers

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, when asked about how successful the push to signup for Obamacare had been, said:

"Let me see – I – let me see what facts and figures I have. … I'm glad you asked that question, because I want to be clear about it. When it comes to enrollment data – you know, I want to clear this up – we will release data on regular monthly intervals. What I can confirm right now is that people are signing up through federal exchanges, but we're not going to be – you know, we're – this is a(n) aggregation process, and we're not going to release data on an hourly or daily or weekly basis. … This is – these are – these are – this is large volume. There's no question that there's large volume. And we're – and these are rough estimates about the volume. One of the reasons why we've been able to – or why we've provided the information about the volume is because – that it is the principal reason why we've had slowdowns and other issues that we've had to try to resolve to make the consumer experience better.”

To the contrary, informed speculation is that the numbers presently are embarrassingly small and the Obama administration is trying to buy time hoping to: 1) cleanup the malfunctioning software which they believe is hurting the enrollment process 2) give time for more applicants to actually pay for the insurance which is the point at which they can be counted as "enrollments", and 3) have the number of enrollments reach a sufficient mass as to not further discourage other uncommitted individuals from participating because of the influence of the disclosure of low numbers.

As to the apparent lack of hard data, knowledgeable software experts say the Federal government "knows" precisely how many enrollments there are at any point in time.

A better "consumer experience" ? 

Against the backdrop of thoroughly reported delays and unavailability for access to online enrollment, in January 2013 the Dept. of Health and Human services predicted that after a brief application process of only 9.53 minutes per applicant, 2 million individuals would sign up this year and 3 million next; coincidentally, their estimates provide for the same number of enrollments, respectively, for 2015 and 2016 as well.

Unfortunately from the data that is available, what also seems to be another unanticipated event by the Federal government is that less than 1% of the online applications are usable for the purposes of obtaining any health insurance coverage whatsoever. Anyone surprised so far ?

Additionally, Obamacare's effectiveness is predicated upon achieving at least 3 million signups of HEALTHY individuals purchasing inflated premiums for insurance benefits and features that will not be used by them in order to provide Obamacare health benefits for all of the UNHEALTHY and SICK individuals who WILL make insurance claims. 

“This only works, for example, if young people show up… We gotta have them in the pools because otherwise all these projected low costs can not be held if older people with preexisting conditions are disproportionately represented in any given state. You gotta have everybody lined up.” -Bill Clinton 9/13

Can you say .... ?   PONZI scheme !

Nancy Pelosi, The Cupboard is bare …. A liar, a shirker, or delusional ?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says that while deficit reduction is a worthy goal, there are very few spending cuts, if any, left to negotiate with Republicans in exchange for raising the Federal debt ceiling. 

Which, Senate Democrats want to increase by another trillion dollars in spending !

"The cupboard is bare," the California Democrat said in an interview aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "There's no more cuts to make."

"We all want to reduce the deficit," she added referring to the Republican position.
 
"Put everything on the table, review it, but you cannot have any more cuts just for the sake of cuts. Right now you’re taking trophies."

Should we believe Pelosi is telling the truth ?

After all, as minority leader of the House of Representatives, the body which authorizes all Federal government spending, she’s certainly in a position to know the truth.

And the Congress perennially investigates waste, corruption and theft of taxpayer revenues in Federal spending.

Did something happen this year we all missed – that the Federal Government suddenly became efficient and no longer squanders tax dollars – and only Pelosi knows about it ?

I think most people would agree that strains belief and common sense and the government reporting that becomes public.

So Pelosi’s either lying as part of her political posturing on this issue or if she “doesn’t know the truth” then she’s either not doing her job in Congress or she doesn’t really care to know the truth because she believes the Federal government isn’t wasteful enough to begin with. None of which serve America well.

So which is it Pelosi are you a liar, a shirker or delusional ?

And how does your answer square with these 2013 government reports :

From the Office of the Inspector General, which reports on government waste at least twice a year –

The Conservation Research Program pays millions annually to farmers who don't farm parts of their land. But the USDA miscalculated the soil rental rate, wasting $114.5 million that could have been put to better use. 

An estimated $208 million worth of single-family direct housing loans went to borrowers who had no history of stable and dependable income, poor credit, or were unexpected to be able to make their payments.

Up to $118 million could have been saved through better oversight of the Department of Labor's troubled Jobs Corps.

Because of an error in calculating performance standards, the Employment and Training Administration failed to track down $148 million in overpaid government checks.

More than $138 million of federal grant spending by the Philadelphia School District was either not allowed or unjustified.

The Department of Education sent $42.4 million to Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College, despite the fact that the school is ineligible to receive any federal funding.

The Small Business Administration underwrites loans but has been ineffective in identifying when lenders are clearly negligent. Improved reviews could save $43 million over two years.

The National Disaster Loan Resolution Center failed to transfer delinquent disaster loans to the Treasury Department in a timely manner, and incurred $171.1 million in questionable costs as a result.

The Department of Veterans Affairs does not effectively identify instances in which it doesn't have to pay for care. A report in 2011 found that, as a result, the VA could overspend by an estimated $760 million over five years.

The VA will award an estimated $2.5 billion worth of contracts intended for veteran-owned small businesses to ineligible businesses from 2011 to 2015.

Due to lax cost-controls, the Army wasted $335.9 million on a contract to maintain Stryker vehicles.

More than $437 million worth of costs at Los Alamos National Laboratory were deemed questionable over a two-year period.

The FAA could have saved $157 million by simply restructuring contracts on its multi-billion dollar program to upgrade Air Traffic Control hardware.

One-fifth of the Department of Transportation's Recovery Act contracts were awarded with only one or two bids. The average price difference between contracts with one or two bids and those with three bids is at least $179 million.

More than $75 million that could be put to better use if the Pentagon invested in reducing the risk of unauthorized access.

An audit of the JLENS missile defense airship found that $2.47 billion in funding for the program could have been put to better use.

The Department of Health and Human Services could save $2.7 billion annually by reexamining how much Medicaid and Medicare should pay for wholesale prescription drugs. 

The government could save $1.2 billion by investing more resources in finding Medicare overpayments. A second $1.2 billion could be saved if Congress passed legislation to allow adjustments in Medicare laboratory fees.

The DHHS Inspector General also recommended an additional $2.9 billion could be saved on Medicare and Medicaid through other cost-saving measures.

The US builds a $750 million luxury embassy in Baghdad.

One of EPA’s employees has been convicted of stealing approximately 1 million taxpayer dollars claiming to be working for the CIA while he was vacationing instead.

The Federal government, in preparation for a shutdown, has declared to the OMB that 800,000  or 38 % of all 2.1 million Federal employees are NOT essential to running the government.

The total identified by mid 2013 (not including non-essential payrolls and benefits) ?  Give or take a hundred million,  just about $16 Billion dollars in actual or potential waste !

And most of these spending costs have not been corrected yet because of “structural deficiencies” in the programs – government speak for “since we already get a boatload of money in from taxpayer revenue we’re just too busy, especially if we have to spend political capital to do it, to worry about plugging up any leaks”.

A bare cupboard ? Yeah, right !

Pelosi, Obama and Harry Reid have all postured and promoted more tax increases to enable further government spending as the principal solution to our deficit woes– each in turn saying that wealthy Americans, as they define them, can afford to pay just a “little” more.

And I ask in return for what – increased value, increased services – from the Federal government ?

Being part of the middle class, if I had any excess money to begin with I’d be spending it on MY family to help provide for their future because I sure as shit don’t see giving it away to the likes of Pelosi, Obama, and Harry Reid or their colleagues, both Republican and Democrat for any more of the same wasteful and corrupt horseshit they’ve perpetrated so far.

How long must we endure the deceit of politicians, especially these three – how long must we tolerate their abuse of privilege – and, how long must we fund their enrichment at our expense as taxpayers ?

If the faucet isn’t going to be turned off, shouldn’t at least the washer be changed and soon ?

North Korea Restarts Reactor .... Obama Foreign Policy Train Wreck

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 ?

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.”

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 .....

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.

 

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”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBRE97N06P20130824 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-syria-crisis-iran-rafsanjani-idUSBRE98007R20130901 

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/russia-syria.html 

http://rt.com/news/putin-syria-interview-ap-387/

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. 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk 

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.