Putin Saves Obama's Political Bacon Over Syria

I don't know if President Obama has one or not but if he doesn't, I nominate Vladimir Putin for Obama's BFF after Vlad saved his political bacon this week over Syria. To say that Obama mismanaged the situation with Syria is a mistake because it suggests he tried to manage the situation with Syria. He did not. What happened was a series of missteps that has become the trademark of the Obama Administration - this inept team of amateurs. Fortunately for them and everyone else, it is often better to be lucky than to be good. Here is what I mean.

What started the sequence of events that had the Administration careening toward what appeared to be yet another blunder was President Obama's statement back in 2012 that if Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons that would be crossing a "red line." The off-handed and off-teleprompter remark placed the United States in the position of having to either take action against Syria or losing credibility when on August 21st of this year, someone (allegedly the Assad regime) fired rockets armed with chemical warheads into eleven neighborhoods in the Damascus suburbs killing 1500 civilians - 400 of which were children. Over the next several days, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry tried to make the case for attacking Syria to let Assad know there are consequences to violating international law regarding the use of gas. Initially, Mr. Obama claimed he didn’t need the approval of Congress in order to strike Syria but as his efforts to build the support of the international community failed, he pivoted and said he would ask for Congressional approval. As the Administration tried to convince lawmakers and the American public that attacking Syria was in our national interest, the president began to receive criticism for “drawing the red line.” True to form, Mr. Obama denied drawing the red line and tried to blame everyone else - the world and Congress - despite the video of him clearly using the words “red line.” It was soon very apparent that this effort was also doomed to failure.

While answering the question, ‘Is there anything that Syria can do to avoid being attacked?’ during a CNN interview, Sec. Kerry made his own off-handed remark. Kerry flippantly replied, ‘Well of course they could give up all their chemical weapons within the week but that’s not going to happen.’ Kerry made this remark never dreaming anyone would take it seriously. However, when Russia and Syria indicated that they might be willing to discuss this proposal, he soon began backtracking and even the liberal press recognized this to be a major screw-up. With an address to the nation scheduled to take place within two days, things were looking pretty bleak for Team Barry. Suddenly it must have occurred to Obama and Company, that they had just been thrown a “life line.” What had initially been universally seen as a blunder was now being hailed by Kerry, Obama, and liberals everywhere as a great secret plan that had been weeks in the making. You know what they say, ‘Success has many parents; failure is an orphan.’ In his Tuesday night address, the president said he would delay asking for Congressional approval to strike Syria and that he would allow time to see if diplomacy might still lead to a peaceful solution. The president did however say that a military strike was not off the table if the weapons turnover proposal failed. President Obama was ‘off the hook.’

Since his speech, Mr. Obama and his administration have been patting themselves on the back for getting Russia to take the lead on Syria. Barack Obama has slipped comfortably back into his preferred leading from behind mode. In his new role as world leader, Mr. Putin wrote an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times that chastised President Obama for his handling of the crisis in Syria and warned him not to take military action. Not fully recovered from having so narrowly dodged a bullet, Obama and the gang that can’t shoot straight hasn’t had time to realized that they should be humiliated.

There is a saying, “There are three kinds of people in the world: Those that make things happen; those that watch things happen and those who say, ‘What just happened?’ I’ll leave it to you to decide for yourself which one is Obama; which one is Putin and which one is Kerry.

Pelosi and the Advice of Five Year Olds

Is it any wonder our country and so many of our children are such a mess? Consider the following. Apparently Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s five year old grandson took valuable time away from his daily perusal of the San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times, and the Washington Post (liberal rags all) to see his grandmother off on her return trip to DC and chat about geo-politics. According to the Congresswoman, the following conversation took place: REP. NANCY PELOSI: …My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, 'Well, what do you think?' He said, 'I think no war.' I said, 'Well, I generally agree with that but you know, they have killed hundreds of children, they've killed hundreds of children there. ' And he said, five years old, 'Were these children in the United States?' And I said, 'No, but they're children wherever they are.' (www.realclearpolitics.com, 3 Sep 13). Pelosi then went on to ramble something about our interests which was completely incoherent. Ironically, it seems to me that the five year old gets it whereas grandma doesn’t. More importantly though is, “What kind of adult engages in a conversation like this with a child?” The answer is a liberal Democrat of course! Whatever happened to talking to little boys about their pets, dinosaurs, turtles; Batman, Spiderman and Superman, cars and trucks, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, etc.? Lord willing, a five year old boy in America can currently expect to live to be 79. So that means he has 71 years of being an adult. Can’t liberals allow a kid even 5 years to be, well, a kid, before they begin the, ‘It Takes a Village’, socialist, global consciousness, multiculturalism, ‘make a difference’, blah, blah, blah, clap trap indoctrination? After all, you have them as a captive audience from K-12 in our public school system. Isn’t that enough? Maybe next time, Ms. Pelosi might try saying something to her little grandson like, “Sweetie you don’t need to worry about that. We grownups in Washington are going to take care of that. Listen to your Mommy and Daddy and be a good boy while I’m gone. Love you!” Perhaps with regard to the “We grownups in Washington..” she might be a little reluctant to say that for fear of lying.

Syria: Heads the Bad Guys Win; Tails America Loses

30 months and 100,000 deaths into the civil war, there are no good choices for the US regarding Syria. Instead of supporting the original, pro-American, moderate opposition in the beginning, the United States stayed on the sidelines while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisted 'Bashar al-Assad is a reformer.' This from the woman President Obama called, "... one of the finest secretary of states we've had."[sic] (I guess proper English wasn't stressed at Punahou, Occidental College, Columbia University or Harvard Law School!) But I digress. While the Obama Administration hung on to the notion that Assad was a reformer, Assad went about destroying the moderate opposition which was soon replaced by a collection of radical, al Qaeda affiliated, extremists. To make matters worse, President Obama, in order to appear tough during his re-election campaign, painted the US into a corner with his "red line" regarding the use of chemical weapons. Now we are faced with having to choose between the brutal dictator, Assad, and the America-hating Islamists but choose we must. Further complicating our decision is the fact that it isn't completely clear exactly who used the gas against the mostly civilian victims. Most likely it was Assad but there is also the possibility that it was the extremists. Assad clearly had the greater capability to use chemical weapons but he also had the least to gain. He is winning his fight against the opposition without using chemical weapons and using them would only draw the ire of America. On the other hand, the rebels are far less capable of deploying chemical weapons but the Islamists have demonstrated a willingness to kill civilians if it leads to their ultimate goals. If Assad gets the blame and the US attacks his military capability, it just might turn the tide of the war in favor of the extremists. All this has the makings of a "good Democrat" war - one in which the US has very little national interest, has little to gain, has little support from our allies and is opposed by the United Nations. Unlike the case for war against Iraq (ADMITTEDLY IT PROVED TO BE A BAD DECISION) which had the support of a coalition of over 40 countries, 17 UN resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein and his regime, the support of the UN, authorization from the Congress to use force, and the belief by nearly every world intelligence service that Iraq possessed WMDs, the case for attacking Syria is far weaker. While not insignificant, Assad allegedly killed about 1500 people with chemical weapons as opposed to the thousands of Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq War and thousands of his own citizens during the Kurdish uprisings known to have been killed by Saddam using chemical weapons. Further, unlike the build-up to the Iraq War, Obama has managed to assemble a coalition of only 5 countries - France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. These are good allies but certainly not without their own motivation which is probably vastly different from ours. As a result of his failed effort to gain wide international support, the US was embarrassed when British Prime Minister, David Cameron, was denied authority to use force against Syria by the British House of Commons after pledging to help. Humiliation loves company! Lastly, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has warned that any military strikes against Syria would be illegal unless in self-defense under the UN charter or if approved by the UN Security Council. Since Syria is unlikely to attack the US directly and Security Council members, Russia and China, are opposed to any military action against Syria, these criteria will not likely be met. Congress may ultimately approve the president's use of force but only because the country has been put into a position where unless we act, its credibility will be damaged by yet another inept Obama Administration foreign policy blunder. So this is where things currently stand: Heads the Bad Guys Win; Tails America Loses!

The Curious Case of PFC Manning

Slowly but surely we learned the real reason PFC Bradley Manning betrayed his country by providing highly sensitive classified information to the Wikileaks website. It started out that Manning was distraught after his female impersonator boyfriend broke up with him. Perfectly understandable! Divulging secrets that damage national security and jeopardize people's lives is the natural response to a failed personal relationship. As time went on, we also learned that there was more to the story. The Army wasn't sensitive to Manning's gender identity issues and didn't help him with his feelings of not belonging. It is shocking that the military didn't jump to transform itself to make a maladjusted soldier more comfortable. After all, the military is well known for being accepting of those who don’t or can’t fit in, right? After being sentenced to 35 years in prison for providing classified information to the Wikileaks website, Manning’s attorney began to discuss the possibility that his client may appeal to President Obama for a pardon. Really? On what grounds? Apparently, Manning and his lawyer quickly realized that, even under this Administration that never ceases to amaze by making decisions contrary to what the average American would consider reasonable, a pardon was unlikely. Suddenly, Manning declared that he is a woman and wants to be called Chelsea. His/”her” lawyer says that “Chelsea” wants to begin hormone therapy paid for by, you guessed it, the military! A military spokesman released a statement almost immediately saying that the US military does not pay for hormone therapy or gender re-assignment surgery to treat sexual identity issues. If you think that is the end of the story, I predict you will be proven wrong. Expect Manning and his lawyer to take legal action to force the military to pay for his/”her” sex-change operation that will cost the very citizens he/”she” betrayed as much as $100,000. And if you think that the chances that a judge would rule in Manning’s favor are unlikely, consider the following. In 2012, a federal judge in Boston ruled that Massachusetts prison officials must provide a publicly funded sex reassignment surgery to an inmate serving a life sentence for killing his wife. This is what things have come to in America in the 21st century! Madness I tell you! Madness!!!

If Obamacare is so good...

If Obamacare is so good, why:

    Did the president delay implementing it - oh but only the employer mandate - the average "Joe
    Smo" has to buy health insurance which in most cases has gone way up in price;

    Is everyone is calling it a "train wreck" even Democrat members of the House and Senate;

    Did members of Congress quietly exempted themselves and their staffers before going on August
    recess;

   Did presidents of 3 of the largest unions - the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the United
   Food and Commercial Workers International Union and UNITE-HERE, a union representing hotel,
   airport, food service, gaming, and textile workers - write President Obama a letter urging him to
   delay implementing it;

  Does the non-partisan CBO (the Congressional Budget Office) continue to estimate the cost of the
  program will skyrocket, and

  Did they have to change the wording on the official Affordable Healthcare Act website from "if you
  like your current doctor, you can keep your current doctor" to "if you like your current doctor, you 
  may be able to keep your current doctor." and "if you like your current healthcare plan, you can
  keep your current healthcare plan" to "if you like your current healthcare plan, you may be able to
  keep your current healthcare plan".

If this is only a train wreck, America will be very lucky!

Too Many Unasked Questions Surround Edward Snowden

       The Guardian published a letter by Dr Agnes Callamard (Executive director, Article 19) on August 6th arguing on behalf of more than 150 civil society organizations that the US should leave Edward Snowden, the NSA Whistleblower, alone. While I'm not thrilled by the NSA's intrusion into the private communications of American citizens, I think it is extraordinarily dangerous to just accept at face value that Snowden is some noble whistleblower as Callamard and many others appear to have.
       There are so many unanswered questions surrounding Snowden. More importantly, there are a lot of unasked questions. Specifically, I think the following questions that I don't think I have heard asked need to be asked and answers need to be obtained. How did this guy get jobs (either as a government employee or contractor) with the CIA, NSA and defense contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton? Positions with these organizations are extremely competitive. Snowden is a high school dropout! There were rumors he got his GED at Anne Arundel Community College but a college spokesman was quoted in The Capital as saying that the school has no record of him receiving a GED from them. Likewise for the cyber-security coursework he supposedly completed. How did he get a security clearance - especially in positions that usually require passing a polygraph examination? Did no one verify claims on his resume regarding his education? Did those performing his background checks not do their job? Or did they falsify information? These questions allude to a far more sinister situation. Was Snowden's access to all this highly classified information and sensitive programs the result of those charged with checking his background failing to do their job or was it a case of some person or persons who have infiltrated our security community, paving the way for a spy?
       We need to know these answers. That is why Snowden doesn't deserve to be "left alone".

Everything Wrong with the Zimmerman Case ...but the Verdict!

       I probably followed the George Zimmerman case closer than most people. Not because I was particularly interested in it but because the CNN coverage of the case blared on the TV in the break room across from my office all day. As a result, I think I have a very good understanding of the case.
       From the beginning, everything about the George Zimmerman case was wrong but in the end, the jury got the verdict right. I realize that many of you might disagree with me but please hear me out.  First of course, Trayvon Martin shouldn't be dead. That goes without saying. However, this case should have never been a national news story. Not because Trayvon isn't important (he is every bit as important as any other young American whose life ended too soon) but because it gained national attention for all the wrong reasons. Before they had their story straight, our corrupt and yes I'll say it, evil media began a campaign to stir up trouble. If there was any racism at all involved in this incident, it was completely the doing of the media. Without checking their facts, they latched on to this story as "White Man Kills Unarmed Black Teen." They saw the name Zimmerman and assumed, "Has to be a white guy with that German name! Maybe even...wait for it...a Jew!" Yes good ole fashioned anti-Semitism is alive and well in the hearts of our mainstream media. When it turned out to be completely wrong, instead of correcting the story, they worked hard to 'adjust the facts' to make the story work. George Zimmerman became a white Hispanic! What? Never heard that term before? Neither had anyone else. To sell advertising and support an unsustainable 24/7 news cycle, the media was willing to create a story, even at the expense of the Martin family, the African American community, public safety, George Zimmerman, race relations in the U.S. and the American justice system. NBC news skillfully edited the 911 tape to remove the operator's question asking Zimmerman is the person is white, black or Hispanic which made it appear as if Zimmerman just volunteered the information that Trayvon was black and that Zimmerman was profiling him because of his race. Then to continue to keep tensions high, the media showed old pictures of Trayvon; ones that made him look like a particularly young, vulnerable and innocent little boy. It wasn't until much later that they showed current pictures of Trayvon as he really was - a much taller, mature young man. None of this was in the best interest of justice for Trayvon or George Zimmerman. Unfortunately, the media weren't they only ones 'poisoning the well.'
       Buying into the false picture painted by the media, the usual suspects - the race hustlers, left-wing pundits, the "America is an awful place" crowd, to name a few - jumped on the bandwagon and began demanding Zimmerman be charged with murder even though the initial investigation determined it to be an apparent case of self-defense. The President of the United States weighed in and declared that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon and the civil rights division of the Justice Department dispatched investigators to Sanford, Florida to look for evidence that Zimmerman or the Sanford Police Department were racists - they found no evidence. Political pressure led to the firing of the Sanford Police Chief for refusing to charge Zimmerman with murder because he believed there was a lack of evidence. A special prosecutor, Angela Corey, was then appointed and made the decision to skip the usual grand jury hearing, immediately arrest Zimmerman and charge him with second degree murder. This would turn out to be an overreach on Corey's part and was the first of a series of mistakes by the prosecution that ultimately led to Zimmerman's acquittal. Had the charges initially included some potential lesser charges, there is a good chance Zimmerman may have been convicted of one of them but that was not to be.
       For reasons known only to her, Corey went for the big charge, swung for the fence and struck out. All the witnesses for the prosecution, proved to support the defense's case rather than build the case for second degree murder against Zimmerman. The star witness,  Rachel Jeantel, actually struck me as mentally challenged. Her monotone responses to the defense lawyer's cross-examination questions made her sound more like a 1950's era lobotomy patient than a credible witness and her inability to read her "own" written statement because it was written in cursive led to the revelation that she dictated it to a friend. Lastly, her refusal to acknowledge Trayvon's characterization of Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker" as racist threw any credibility she had out the window. How the prosecution didn't see how bad a witness she would make is truly unbelievable. The prosecutions other witnesses proved no better. 
       Under questioning by the defense attorney, the policeman, Officer Serino, who did the initial questioning of Zimmerman admitted that he believed he was telling the truth after initially saying he thought he was lying. The only eyewitness,  Jonathan Good, claimed he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman giving him an "MMA-style ground and pound". Lastly, Zimmerman's testimony... "Wait you say, Zimmerman never took the stand in his own defense!" Technically, you are correct but for all intents and purposes he did when the prosecution played the police video of Zimmerman's statements and re-enactment of the event. By doing so, the prosecution allowed Zimmerman to "testified" without being able to cross-examine him and pick this "testimony" apart. The jury got to hear Zimmerman's side of the story in his own words and essentially was able to take it at face value - a devastatingly bad decision by the prosecution! As bad as these mistakes were, they weren't the only prosecutorial missteps.
       In addition to the prosecution's witnesses ending up being better defense witnesses, there were also instances of misconduct on their part - the most egregious of which was the withholding of evidence from the defense. This was only disclosed when a whistle-blower reported it and I'm sure this left the jury thinking it was being withheld by the prosecution because it proved the defense's case. Even if Zimmerman had been convicted, this would have been immediate grounds for appeal. Shortly after filing the charges, Corey called a press conference and began smiling, preening and "showboating" for the cameras which, along with the many other instances of improper handling of the case, may have resulted in tainting the jury pool. Regardless, six jurors acceptable to both the defense and prosecution were found but even with these 'impartial' jurors, it was apparent that the case for second degree murder was very weak.
       Lastly, in the "eleventh hour" the prosecution sensing it had lost the case for second degree murder ask the judge to allow the jury to consider lesser charges. In my opinion, this was a bad move because the prosecution hadn't made a case for the lower charges, the defense hadn't defended against the lesser charges, and I'm sure the jury saw this for the "straw grab" that it was. When the jury returned with their verdict, they found Zimmerman not guilty of all the charges as they should have because the prosecution failed to prove its case.
       Everything about the Zimmerman case was wrong except for the verdict. The prosecution made mistake after mistake and the media pushed a weak case against Zimmerman by distorting the facts. Certainly not everyone is going to be happy with the outcome but our justice system did its job. Since the verdict, there have been those that have tried to stir up trouble but fortunately most Americans, even those who were deeply disappointed in the final results of the trial, resisted the temptation to resort to violence. There are also calls to charge Zimmerman with federal charges. Heeding any calls for trying George Zimmerman for federal civil rights or hate crimes now would be a grave mistake and wouldn't be right. It would be giving into lynch mob justice that isn't in the best interest of anyone. History gives us ample evidence of this.