Daily news sites

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Interesting possibility from the NEW REPUBLIC.

This, apparently, is how diplomacy happens these days: Someone makes an off-hand remark at a press conference and triggers an international chain reaction that turns an already chaotic and complex situation completely on its head, and gives everyone a sense that, perhaps, this is the light at the end of the indecision tunnel.

Speaking in London next to British Foreign Secretary William Hague on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that perhaps the military strike around which the administration has been painfully circling for weeks could be avoided if Bashar al-Assad can "turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that.”

The fact that Kerry immediately followed with, “But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously,” didn't seem to bother anyone. (Probably because they were focusing on his other slip-up: calling the promised strikes "unbelievably small.")

The Russians immediately jumped on the impromptu proposal, calling Kerry to check if he was serious before going live with their proposal to lean on Syria. An hour later, they trotted out Syria's foreign minister, Walid al-Mouallem, who said he too was down with the proposal, which was a strange way to get the Syrians to finally admit they even had chemical weapons to begin with. Before long, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, the English, and the French were all on board, too.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, the White House was just as surprised as anyone. Asked if this was a White House plan that Kerry had served up in London, Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken was unequivocal. "No, no, no," he said. "We literally just heard about this as you did some hours ago."

So that's good. At least everyone's on the same page.{Read More}

Interesting hypothesis indeed. Possibly correct. Possibly... not?

If planned all along by the Obama administration recognizing Russia's national interests in Syria it would be a stroke of diplomatic genius. Perhaps only the Shadow (will ever) know(s) the real truth truth.


Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Always enjoy watching people trying to connect the dots.

From Think Progress, the publication I usually always disagree with.



Yuppers...

Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


The adrenalin rush of the drums of war. From Barack Obama nonetheless!

Just in from the Los Angeles Times.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is preparing for a longer bombardment of Syria than it originally had planned, with a heavy barrage of missile strikes followed soon after by more attacks on targets that the opening salvos missed or failed to destroy, officials said.

The planning for intense attacks over a three-day period reflects the growing belief in the White House and the Pentagon that the United States needs more firepower to inflict even minimal damage on Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces, which have been widely dispersed over the last two weeks, the officials said.

Two U.S. officers said the White House asked for an expanded target list in recent days to include many more than the 50 or so targets on the initial list. As a result, Pentagon planners are weighing whether to use Air Force bombers, in addition to five warships now on patrol in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, to launch cruise missiles and air-to-surface missiles from hundreds of miles offshore, well out of range of Syrian air defenses.

Syria is also within range of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Red Sea, which includes one cruiser and three destroyers, all capable of firing cruise missiles.

"There will be several volleys and an assessment after each volley, but all within 72 hours and a clear indication when we are done," said one officer familiar with the planning.

The officers requested anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the campaign.

The stepped-up military planning comes as President Obama and his aides prepared to press their own offensive to seek public support, as well as congressional votes for authorization to use military force to punish Assad's government for alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians last month.

Obama plans to blanket the nation's airwaves in coming days to make his case to a skeptical public. ... {Read More}

What a difference power and a few years can make. Oy Vey!

Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Is part of the President's considerations in contemplating U.S. military intervention into the Syrian civil war the impact and possible consequences to our only true ally in the region, Israel? I would hope so, and perhaps he has. But given the history of reciprocal loyalty between our two nations it is reasonable to think any U.S. air strikes may have unintended consequences that would negatively impact our our ally. And result in loss of life in Israel as a result.

From THE HILL.

Israel is setting up its Iron Dome missile defense system outside of Jerusalem as violence continues in neighboring Syria.

According to an Agence France Presse (AFP) report, the Israeli military is deploying a battery of the missile shield west of the city, signaling concern about threats from a possible Syrian attack

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz quotes a military official who said that the likelihood is low that the country would be attacked by Syrian rockets, however "we have a clear responsibility to prepare for any scenario in order to protect our citizens."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a cabinet meeting on Sunday that his nation was “an island of tranquility” amid “the storm raging around us,” according to AFP. He did not mention Syria specifically.

The battery near Jerusalem is not the first to be deployed in recent months. One was moved into position near Tel Aviv last month, and a few other systems have been put in place around the country. Many of the batteries have been set up in cities closer to the border with Syria, which runs along Israel’s north.

Haaretz reported that the Israeli Defense Forces are considering deploying another battery in northern Israel. {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

TPM - Hmm, What say you?



Via: Memeorandum

by:Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Senator John McCain (R-AZ)

Republican Senator John McCain, the RINO that he has turned into, has decided to oppose the Senate draft resolution on Syrian intervention because it doesn't go FAR ENOUGH in insuring America's continuing military posture in the region. Of course Mr. McCain claims he opposes boots on the ground but this is nothing more than political BS. For McCain it is quite likely the truth is "whatever it takes to topple Bashir al-Assad is his real position. And we all know how well that worked out for the nation on many fronts with Iraq, don't we?

FOX News - Sen. John McCain, President Obama's biggest cheerleader on Capitol Hill for a strike in Syria, said Wednesday that he would not support a Senate panel's draft resolution authorizing the use of force -- forcing a key Senate panel to delay a vote.

"There are a number of people who are unhappy," McCain told reporters on Capitol Hill. Asked if he supported the measure, McCain said, "In its current form, I do not."

The decision was a setback for the administration's effort to win swift support from Congress for an attack. McCain's opposition, though, is likely a negotiating tactic to win more aggressive language in the resolution. McCain said Wednesday afternoon he wants to see a provision that states U.S. action must be aimed at a "reversal of momentum on the ground."

It's unclear how far the rest of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will go, with some members worried the resolution already goes too far. The committee pushed off a planned meeting and possible vote until Wednesday afternoon, though the committee's top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker, said he's fairly certain they can begin work on the resolution later in the day.

McCain, who has long favored stepped-up U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, said he opposes the resolution crafted by fellow Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Bob Corker of Tennessee. The resolution puts a 90-day limit on action and says no American troops can be sent to Syria (Emphasis Added)... {Read More}

Hopefully saner heads prevail and the President is denied Congressional support for this yet another unjustified military intervention into another sovereign nation's civil war. Hasn't the nation wasted enough lives and treasure on the foolish notion it's our job to police the world?

Via: Memeorandum

UPDATE:

President Obama has made it clear he has the right to intervene in Syria (exercising his executive authority) whether or not Congress gives it's approval. NICE. The War Powers Act and the Geneva Accords working in favor of the grand design to achieve that One World Order with the U.S.A. leading the way. Something the American Oligarchy has long sought to achieve. Going back to Woodrow Wilson and the failed League of Nations.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - President Barack Obama said he retains the right to order strikes against Syria even if Congress doesn't authorize them, but he is seeking approval from U.S. lawmakers because he thinks it will strengthen America's response.

"We will be stronger as a country in our response if the president and Congress does it together," Mr. Obama said at a news conference on Wednesday in Stockholm.

Asked whether he would launch strikes in Syria if Congress doesn't authorize them, the president said: "As commander in chief I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America's national security. I don't believe that I was required to take this to Congress. But I did not take this to Congress because I think it's an empty exercise."

What national security issue what that be Mr. President?

It certainly seems like an empty exercise. Especially so if Congress has leveler heads and votes no on authorizing unjustified military intervention.

His comments come after leading lawmakers from both parties said Tuesday they would support military action in Syria to deter the future use of chemical weapons, pushing the U.S. closer to military strikes against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. But many of the rank-and-file lawmakers remain unswayed, and Congress could ultimately vote against military action in Syria, forcing Mr. Obama to act unilaterally.

Mr. Obama also lashed out at critics who said he boxed himself in by saying last year that if Mr. Assad used chemical weapons he would be crossing a "red line" that would prompt U.S. action. "I didn't set a red line," Mr. Obama said. "The world set a red line" when it outlawed the use of chemical weapons, he said.

"My credibility's not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line, and America and Congress' credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important," Mr. Obama said, referring to international laws against the use of chemical weapons.

Well Mr. President, to many who remember prior words and positions you have spoken/taken yes, your credibility is on the line.

Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

This is a day I have long waited for. A day that gives me great satisfaction. Reasoned and reasonable liberals and conservatives in a bi-partisan fashion have sent a strong and constitutionally correct signal to the President.

Perhaps most rewarding for me is that these conservatives are finally acting like conservatives ought to be acting every time it comes to ordering military action against another sovereign nation. With extreme skepticism and caution.

Liberals, to their great credit are "bucking" their party leader. Good news from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps the ultimate outcome will be as the President seems to favor. If the President listens to the peoples representatives, whether they give or withhold Congressional approval for intervention the people have won. Just as our Founders intended.

Maybe this mood will take hold and last? Naw, not likely given the republican tendency to be the consummate party of the contrary.

The Hill - The opposition to President Obama launching unilateral military operations in Syria exploded on Thursday when dozens of liberal Democrats joined scores of conservative Republicans in warning the administration that any strikes without congressional approval would violate the Constitution.

In a letter to Obama, 53 liberal Democrats — including a long list of Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) members — argued that, while the human rights atrocities being committed by the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad are "horrific," they alone "should not draw us into an unwise war – especially without adhering to our own constitutional requirement."

"While we understand that as Commander in Chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack," reads the letter, which was spearheaded by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a former head of the CBC.

"As such, we strongly urge you to seek an affirmative decision of Congress prior to committing any U.S. military engagement to this complex crisis."

The message comes on the heels of a similar letter, released Wednesday by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), warning Obama that "national interests" alone are not enough to authorize military force without Congress's stamp of approval.

"If you deem that military action in Syria is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request," reads the Rigell letter, which has been endorsed by 140 House lawmakers, including 21 Democrats.

There is some overlap between the two campaigns; 12 of the Democrats signing the Rigell letter have also endorsed Lee's message.

The congressional pushback highlights the dilemma facing Obama as he tries to bring an end to Syria's bloody and long-running civil war.

On one hand, Obama faces increasing pressure to intervene on behalf of civilian victims amid escalating attacks, particularly since last week's alleged toxic gas assault by Assad's forces. On the other, Obama ran his first campaign for president largely on a platform of ending conflicts, not starting them. And an attack on Syria risks alienating the voters who are still holding him at his word — especially if it's done without congressional approval. {Read More}