Category Archives: Middle East

Iran, Middle East, Obamacare, Politics

Obama: Nuclear deal blocks Iran’s path to bomb. REALLY?

That “the deal” is a first step to blocking Iran’s path to the bomb, is like the Affordable Care Act is the first step to affordable and better health care to Americans. Who believes Obama any more?

Then there is the throwing of American Pastor Saeed Abedini under the bus. A U.S. citizen imprisoned by Iran because of his faith, by reaching a deal with Iran that  eases sanctions and provides “humanitarian relief” while Abedini stays in an Iranian prison.

And to say that this is the first step is to ignore the years, decades, of sanctions against Iran that have failed miserably to do what they were supposed to do. Now we’re saying OK, never mind. Let’s come up with another shell game to not make us look like complete idiots and you can go on with your nuclear ambitions.

irannukedeal.govThis doesn’t end anything in Iran. Making concessions to Iran’s ending their nuclear enrichment and nuclear bomb ambitions is like playing Russian Roulette with a fully-loaded revolver.

Only difference is the gun isn’t pointed at Obama’s head. It’s pointed at Israel, our troops within range in the region, and our other so-called allies in the Middle East by conventional means. Then through Iran’s terrorist ties to Main Street USA by non-conventional means.

Iran isn’t as big a threat to the United States and the world as President Obama is with his dangerous and naive foreign policy.

Links: Obama: Nuclear deal blocks Iran’s path to bomb  |  Obama Administration Betrays American Pastor

Iran, Middle East, Politics

Obama Secretly Eased Sanctions On Iran

obama_rouhani
You can’t keep your health care plan. But Iran can keep their nuclear weapons plan.

For years, decades, Iran has been under increasing sanctions for the purpose of what? Discouraging them from developing nuclear weapons. The kind of nuclear enrichment they continue to do has nothing to do with producing electrical power or anything in the field of medicine.

So easing sanctions on Iran’s financing, without them first dismantling something of their nuclear capacity does what? It enables Iran to continue to develop their nuclear program.

So not only does our president negatively impact Americans with a sluggish economy and an unaffordable takeover of the health insurance and health care industries. Now he’s going all out and endangering the world, the Middle East, and our ally there, Israel, by easing sanctions on Iran without any concessions from them. Did I say he secretly lifted sanctions?

So basically it’s like this. Iran can keep their nuclear weapons program, but you can’t keep your health insurance policy or your doctor, or both.

The boy is dangerous to everyone, everywhere around the world. And yes, I’m calling Obama a boy because his judgement isn’t any better than a 9 year old. And his lies are monumental.

Link: Obama’s Secret Iran Détente

Middle East, War On Terror

Wanted al-Qaida Leader Captured In Libya

A Delta Force operation in the streets of the Libyan capital resulted in the capture of Abu Anas al-Libi, a Libyan al-Qaida leader. The Libyan government bristled at Abu Anas al-Libithe raid, asking Washington to explain the “kidnapping.” He Libya! I got your explanation right here!

You first Libya. First you explain how this douche bag was living freely in Tripoli while on an FBI wanted list for the last 15 years?

Link: Libya bristles at US raid that captured militant – Yahoo News.

2012 Election, Iran, Middle East, Politics, Russia

Eleven Months Ago, Romney-Obama Third Debate

Not that it will change a thing, but here’s a little mental exercise to see if you can tell who the adult in the room is. Of course, many people knew who the adult was. He just didn’t win.

On Russia:

OBAMA: Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

On Middle East:

OBAMA: So, what — what we need to do with respect to the Middle East is strong, steady leadership, not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map. And unfortunately, that’s the kind of opinions that you’ve offered throughout this campaign, and it is not a recipe for American strength, or keeping America safe over the long haul.

Listen to Romney on Putin, recalling Obama telling Medvedev to tell Putin that he’ll have more flexibility after the election.

Link: FLASHBACK: Haughty Obama Lectured Romney on Russia ‘The 1980s Want Their Foreign Policy Back’

h/t Black & Right

Media, Middle East, Politics, War On Terror

Community/Country Organizing Coming To TV

circusbarker
Meanwhile, you’re not thinking about the economy, amnesty, or Benghazi. That’s NOT an unintended consequence.

Just want to prepare you for the circus-like smoke and mirrors we will see Tuesday night as President Obama tries to convince you that you’re all wrong on Syria and should back him for bombing.

We’ll see pictures of men, women, and children dying from nerve gas. We’ll hear him say how the world condemned the use of WMD’s long ago. The president will reiterate the lie that it wasn’t his ‘red line,’ it was the world’s red line. He will use the guilt-trip on you for not feeling compelled to wage war on Syria, in support of his flippant remark about a red line last year.

You won’t hear him say how other countries have committed to use their military to attack Syria. Because no other country has. Not Russia or China, not one Arab country, no European country. France supports using our military, not theirs. No North or South American country. No Asian country. No country in the South Pacific.

The Constitution authorizes the president to use the military as needed when national security (not national interest) is under imminent threat. He will not make the case that our national security is directly or indirectly threatened. Instead, his emphasis will be ‘America’s interest’ which, fails the constitutional test for use of military force.

The president won’t tell you that telegraphing targets weeks ahead of time didn’t cause the Assad regime to move their WMD stockpiles somewhere else. And he won’t tell you that his intelligence sources are the Muslim Brotherhood. He will tell us ‘there will be no boots on the ground.’ He won’t tell you that he won’t send in troops to keep WMD’s from getting into the hands of alQaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood after the bombing stops. And of course, he won’t tell you that the only ones to gain by us bombing Syria is the Muslim Brotherhood and alQaeda.

In the end, President Obama will try to shame you into inserting the United States in Syria’s civil war. You only need to remember two things. There is no constitutional authorization for it. And, our sons and daughters in the military don’t wear the uniform to die for flippant remarks made by their Commander-in-Chief.

Middle East, Politics, Venezuela, War On Terror

“In America’s Interest” Is Not Enough

2 Comments

Listening to “the case” that the president and the ‘bomb Syria’ crowd is making is an answer to the wrong question. The only question to ask when it comes to using military force on another country is this, are we under direct threat of attack or under attack? Is our national security being compromised or about to be compromised? That’s all our constitution calls for when it comes to a standing military as commanded by the president.

Listening to my favorite financial guy Stewart Varney say how it is in America’s interest to strike Syria almost made me physically ill. Citing the death and destruction going on there. Citing that because we have the power to intervene, then we should.

Not picking on Varney, he has a lot of company in this kind of thinking. Where does this thinking come from? It comes from the belief that we should be the policeman of the world. That we should interfere in another country’s civil war by waging war on them. Not only is life not that simple, but more importantly, someone else’s civil war does not constitute an immediate threat to our national security. Nor does it mean we have to step in and get involved. They need to fight their civil war to its conclusion. Just like, without foreign intervention, we fought our own civil war.

Would it be in America’s interest if the fighting would stop? Not necessarily. Especially if alQaeda were to be the ones filling the vacuum created by our military strike.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume it to be true that it would be in America’s interest for us to use military force in Syria. Let’s also assume that Iran and Syria would not attack Israel like they said they would. I can think of other situations where it would be in America’s interest to deal with problems in another country. Wouldn’t it be in America’s interest to put an end to the Mexican drug cartels that are invading our country and killing our citizens? Aided in many ways by the corrupt politicians in Mexico. The same politicians, their president included, that facilitate illegal immigration across our southern border. Let’s bomb them. Let’s send in some drones to wipe out the drug kingpin’s homes. Take out Mexico’s command and control. Because it’s in America’s interest. Then there’s Venezuela, hosting terrorist training camps. Nationalizing the oil industry, confiscating Exxon, an American company. Well, it’s in America’s interest to stop that. Bomb them.

See the difference between “national security” and “America’s interest?” When the U.S. uses its military for what is in America’s interest, instead of for protecting its national security, it’s not hard to see why the terrorists and the axis of evil refer to the U.S. as war mongering imperialists. To their lame brain followers, those kind of actions make a compelling case.

Further, the people who want to go to war for “America’s interest,” label those who only want to go to war for “national security” as “isolationists.” As opposed to what, war mongering imperialists?

Having a president that couldn’t take a stand and be responsible for anything is bad enough where our reputation around the world is concerned. When, merely adhering to our constitution, instead of our national ego, would so more to regain the respect in the world that the bomb Syria crowd says bombing Syria would get. It’s their answer to the wrong question.

Iran, Middle East, Politics, War On Terror

No To Syria ‘Save Face’ / Ego War

1 Comment

You know what’s coming when the two French Republicans (as Mark Levin affectionately calls them), Sens. John McCain and Lindsay Graham, are summoned to The White House for a little back-scratching session. Ostensibly for President Obama to make his case for a military attack on Syria.Graham_McCain2

And what they came up with is no reason to use our military in Syria’s civil war.

A vote against strikes to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for alleged use of chemical weapons, officials argue, could undermine Obama’s standing in the Middle East as his administration seeks to deter Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians and stabilize a region already in turmoil.

“A rejection of this resolution would be catastrophic, not just for him but for the institution of the presidency and the credibility of the United States,” Senator John McCain said after meeting with Obama at the White House on Monday.

I’m not seeing any direct threat to the security of the United States, the only reason to use the military in a foreign country. That is, if you take your oath of office seriously. Besides, it’s already too late to save our standing and credibility around the world. The proper response is to suck it up and deal with it. Learn your lesson the hard way. It’s what happens when an amateur and ideologue is also Commander-in-Cheif. Aside from there being no national security threat, by their own admission now, our military men and women don’t wear the uniform to die for flippant remarks made by their Commander-in-Chief.

The United States military is not to be used as a U.N. replacement, world policeman, or custodian for countries involved in a civil war. Like I’ve said many times before, it’s their civil war. And the only way it will end is if one side wins and the other side loses. Only then will we know what kind of State we’re dealing with.

McCain and Graham must have allowed themselves to either be hypnotized by Obama, or they are among those Republicans that reflexively cave under fear of the demagoguery to come if they buck the President. I’ll go with the latter. Demagoguery that is coming to the party no matter what they say.

It’s yet another example of caving for the sake of the party of being liked, and for appearing bi-partisan with the most partisan president in history. The Constitution be damned. A foolish behavior that never advances the interests of Republicans and, a lesson never learned.

Link: Analysis: Obama lobbies personally for Syria vote

[polldaddy poll=7366481]

Media, Middle East, Politics

Isolationist? How Quickly Rep. King Forgets

So far, from what President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have said about the goings on in Syria, of all the atrocities happening there, whether committed by the Assad regime or by either of his opposition, none of what they have said amounts to a direct threat to our national security. Syria is embroiled in a civil war. It is full of bad players. But it is their civil war, not ours.

Not having made the case that our national security is under imminent threat, there is no justification to get involved militarily in Syria. It’s their civil war. Let them fight it out until someone wins. Not until then will we know what kind of State we’re dealing with. No one interfered in our civil war, and it’s way too late to get involved in theirs. Paramount in our constitution is the fact that it empowers the President to use military force to protect our country and our citizens from attack or imminent attack. The actions in Syria meets neither of those tests. Kudos to my representative, Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), for recognizing that.

Which brings me to comment on what Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said about his Republican colleagues that understand that, calling them isolationists.

“I’m hoping by the time next week comes around and, hopefully, the president can make his case that he will be he able to get a majority of the House of Representatives,” King said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Right now, it would be difficult.” King cited the “increasing isolationist wing” in the Republican Party as a roadblock for passage, saying “it is damaging to the party and to the nation.”

Rep. King is setting himself up to be disappointed. “Hopefully” the president can make his case, he says. He either makes it, or he doesn’t. The Constitution is your guide Mr. King. It’s not about the party, like everything that guides the President. It’s about the country and the Constitution.

Our military is not to be used for

  • ego building
  • covering for flippant comments by the President
  • enforcing international law
  • punishing bad heads of state when they kill their own citizens
  • being the world’s police
  • being a custodian for a country involved in a civil war.

Our military is for protecting our people, and our country. By your standard, the Constitution is isolationist. And that’s not by accident. Resign if you can’t see fit to fulfill your oath to defend it. But at the very least, don’t disparage anyone that takes their oath, and the Constitution, seriously.

I like Rep. King, but he’s beginning to show signs of (JMS), John McCain Syndrome.

Link: Members of Congress Doubt Syria Resolution Will Pass.

Middle East, Politics

Commander-in-Weak, Rose Garden Performance

What a difference a day makes. Yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) gave a bold speech about a military strike in Syria to punish the Assad regime for ostensibly carrying out the chemical weapon attack outside Damascus last week, to hopefully deter them from using them again, and to hold them accountable.  The world was abuzz about an impending attack within hours or days.

SYRIA-CRISIS-OBAMA-Walter

Today, the Valerie Jarrett wing of the White House set the stage for President Obama to perform in the Rose Garden to say how he has made up his mind to teach the Syrian regime a lesson, and now is willing to wait until Congress gets back from vacation, Sept 9, 2013, to make his case to them. This, after saying he could act without their consent. In the same 24 hour time period, the crises went from “will take” to “should take” military action. Yet, there is no urgency to call a special session of Congress to handle the “crisis.”

Keeping in mind that he still did not make a compelling case that our security interest are in jeopardy that would need military action inside Syria. Instead, he is hanging on to the notion that the United States has to be the policeman of the world and custodian of a country deeply involved in a civil war. That’s not in our Constitution.

Result? Israel and every other ally of the United States knows that we, and they, are dealing with an amateur as a head of state. One that can’t be trusted. First by the show, and that’s what the Rose Garden performance was. A show. Standing at the podium and looking over, and speaking to, trees and Secret Service Agents in a raised voice. You know, like he does in college campus auditoriums and union halls. With his trusty side-kick, VP Joe Biden, at his side.

And for all that he said, it could have been done from the Oval Office, in a calm and normal voice, to announce that he recognizes he should consult with congress and that’s why he is calling them back from their summer vacation to deal with this important matter. In fact, he wouldn’t have needed any cameras. Just a press release announcing his decision to get congress in gear. At least that way he would not have come off as a Commander-in-Weak.

Makes one wonder whether Sec. Kerry is part of the same administration? Would like to know how much “in the loop” he’s feeling today.

Egypt, Middle East, Politics, Religion, War On Terror

Obama’s “Intelligence” On Syria Is The Muslim Brotherhood

When Sec. of State John (Lurch) Kerry made the case for an attack on Syria, the sources guiding his judgement were that of the Arab League, the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), and Turkey. All Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers or affiliates.

In Sec. of State John Kerry’s statement . . .

The world is speaking out. And many friends stand ready to respond. The Arab League pledged, quote, “to hold the Syrian regime fully responsible for this crime.” The Organization for Islamic Cooperation condemned the regime and said we needed, quote, “to hold the Syrian government legally and morally accountable for this heinous crime. Turkey said there is no doubt that the regime is responsible.

Right, those friends.

So it should come as no surprise why the President has lost his coalition, and why the President is still talking about a military action in Syria.

When asked if the Arab League is advocating military action in Syria, Arab League Secretary General Nabil el-Arabi told the BBC that they aren’t advocating it openly, but . . .

“Maybe it is in our minds that someone would do that but we would like the Security Council to take charge,” Mr el-Arabi said.

What they considered might happen “would be something of a limited scope”, he told the BBC’s Bethany Bell, in Cairo.

Using the rest of the same talking points as President Obama and Sec. of State Kerry, el-Arabi also said the strike would “hopefully” prevent future use of chemical weapons, and punish those who used them.

http://youtu.be/9RVEngLwSNQ

So who do you suppose that “someone” would be? The United States of course. The President is the only one on the planet talking about military action against Syria. He helped the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, sacrificed our Ambassador and three other Americans in Lybia to alQaeda, and still doing the bidding, or wanting to, of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

That chemical weapons were used is no longer a question. But watch el-Arabi squirm when asked what evidence the Arab League has that the Assad regime was the party that used them. Secretary of State Kerry says unequivocally that it was the Syrian government that used the WMD outside Damascus. OK, but look at the way President Obama said it, wordsmith that he is, when interviewed by PBS . . .

“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out,” Obama said during an interview with PBS’ NewsHour. “And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences.”

So what’s the “And if that’s so” all about? Nevermind that even if Syria did do it, it wasn’t upon the U.S.. It was on their own people. And sorry as that is, it does not raise to the level of harming our national interest in any way, shape, or form. Again, we’re not the world’s policeman and civil-war-country custodian.

For The White House to still, after all that’s happened in Egypt, be listening and catering to the Muslim Brotherhood says volumes on how naive and dangerous President Obama is to our national security interests.