The trouble with John Kerry’s “unbelievably small” comment
Here’s what Kerry said:
“We’re not going to war,” Mr. Kerry told reporters Monday after meeting with British Foreign Secretary William Hague in London. “We will be able to hold [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort, in a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we are talking about doing; an unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”
Trouble is:
(1) The word “unbelievably” is all too believable. That is: people do not believe what this administration says anymore (or John Kerry, for that matter), and that even includes Obama’s supporters.
(2) Not only is it “unbelievable” because Obama’s and/or Kerry’s veracity is in question, but it’s unbelievable because their judgment is in question. War, and attacks that amount to less than war, is inherently unpredictable, and this administration is foolish if it thinks such a thing can be predicted and strictly limited.
(3) If it’s so unbelievably small, how can it be so very believably effective?
“Never do any enemy a small injury.” –Niccolé² Machiavelli
The problem is Obama’s Libya intervention.
Started as R2P and limited, grew into an extended bombing campaign instrumental in regime change. Most believe R2P was just a pretense from the start to take out Qaddafi.
Bush was always up front about his military deployments. Other nations didn’t have to like it, but they could trust that the US would do what Bush said we would do … and not do what Bush said we weren’t doing.
And now Russia is saying that Assad is going to give up his chemical weapons. Obama will say that his reset has led to cooperation with Russia to bring about world peace–no need for a congressional vote. Take your motion sickness pills. The spin will be unbelievable.
Here is a great summary of whats happening in Syria by Ryan Crocker (via Powerline):
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/containing-fire-syria
Bottom line, when people make statements like the one Kerry just made, it smacks of sugar-coating the truth. And, even the dullest person who hears Kerry’s rambling understands when he’s being sold a bill of goods. When Kerry introduces a word like ‘unbelievable,’ in the context that he uses it, it comes across as a sales pitch. Of course, that’s exactly what it is, a snow job! This proposed Syrian ‘teach a lesson,’ limited, TLAM strike is so far outside of the Clausewitzian concept of ‘war as an extension of politics,’ that it looks like a Black Swan! We might just find one if this strike occurs.
It’s what I call the Democrat “gadget play” mentality. It’s more than noteworthy that the two only times in history that nukes have been dropped in war were dropped by a Democrat. By and large, leftist presidents are far more apt to fling missiles, make airstrikes, or to otherwise be enamored what in football might be called “gadget plays,” because they lack the political cojones to weather the criticism that comes with a tough grind-it-out ground war. It has shown itself in numerous other ways, be it Clinton bombing aspirin factories in Sudan, Carter’s doomed Iranian hostage rescue mission, or this “unbelievably small” thing, which is just another another gadget play by a warrior Democrat president. They do love war when they can run their little gadget plays.
expat,
Thanks. Clarifying and sobering.
Ryan Crocker is The Man.
G Joubert,
What was the gadget play by Truman in Korea?
Unfortunately, if not a snow job, Kerry typifies the attitude with which we have gone into battle since Viet Nam; i.e., there is no will to win.
I personally have no interest in throwing certain American treasure and perhaps, additionally, American lives into a conflict to assuage the ego of this narcissist-in-chief.
To those who say American credibility is threatened, I respond that American credibility and resolve has already been discounted on the world stage by Obama’s actions over the last 5 years. The only people who do not see Obama as a feckless coward are the U.S. media and his Obamista base.
G Joubert,
Not a Democrat I, but I would have to give Truman a pass on his use of two nuclear bombs. I simply do not see Truman as such a cojone-less president in the same vein as a Carter, a Clinton or an Obama.
Kerry’s statement has convinced me; John Kerry is unbelievably small. You can draw your own conclusions about the man who appointed him to be Secretary of State.
I am sure that if the Russian initiative comes to pass, Obama will declare victory for his policy. On the other hand, it may obscure but will not erase the incredible muddle that preceded it.
It is very fashionable to point out that all sorts of people around the world are watching what we do. They will draw their own conclusions about this Administration’s coherence and resolve.
Truman was already involved in a ground war. Check out Okinawa’s casualty list.
But there is a tendency by the Leftist alliance to involve the US in wars and then not clean it up, until a Republican comes along.
I have a mind that catches allusions and I think of Robinson Jeffers poem, Science, whose last lines read:
“A little knowledge, a pebble from the shingle,
A drop from the oceans: who would have dreamed this infinitely
little too much?”
Seems kind of dumb to be announcing Obama’s will to only engage in “an unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.” Like, “Yoohoo, weak horse here! Just looking to appear engaged without risking anything, you guys.”
Smart diplomacy, my a$$.
expat, Crocker’s insights are, IMO, invaluable. This is a man who knows the ME as well as any living American. His review of the history in Syria and of the various factions involved is brief but long on insight. Hama rules = no rules. That was a phrase that came from the massacre at Hama by Bashar’s daddy. It is good to remember that is what we face when dealing with the ME. As he states, we have forgotten but the various factions in the ME have not. It is an area where people literally live for revenge and don’t ever forget a wrong.
I particularly liked this:
“So what are the options? First, to recognize that as bad as the situation is, it could be made much worse. A major western military intervention would do that. And lesser steps, such as a no-fly zone, could force the West to greater involvement if they proved unsuccessful in reducing violence. The hard truth is that the fires in Syria will blaze for some time to come. Like a major forest fire, the most we can hope to do is contain it.”
Kerry and Obama’s formulations of small ball policy are akin to throwing bucket of water, or worst case, a bucket of gasoline on a forest fire. To put out a forest fire, one needs to have a plan to contain it until it burns itself out. Then a plan for mopping up and eventual reforestation. All requiring long term thinking and planning. IMO, the Obama policy is aimed at the near term – the 2014 elections.
The problem with starting an “unbelievably small” action is that the other side may not subscribe to your theory of war. See Hitler, Poland, and 1939 for example. So what do we do when Iranian and Syrian suicide bombers begin visiting our malls and schools?
T –
I didn’t want to bog down on nukes, because the discussion is Syria. But, after researching it, I gotta put nuking Japan down as just another D gadget play. Eisenhower is the one who turned me on this topic.
Before Hiroshima Truman sent Secretary of War Stinson to see Eisenhower, who’d just gotten finished cleaning Germany’s clock, to ask him if he thought he should use the A-bomb on Japan:
Eisenhower: “…in [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
“During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer
mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…”
– Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
Later, in a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:
“…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”
– Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
JJ: “Crocker’s insights are, IMO, invaluable.”
I’m sure there are other ME academics whose knowledge rivals Crocker’s, though probably not many. What sets Crocker apart is he was a main player on our team – second only to Petraeus – that turned around Iraq in the COIN “surge”. For that reason, I trust his judgement has steel.
If Crocker says our focus should be on containing the damage to Syria, then I’ll go with that.
The takeaway from Crocker’s piece other than the general strategy of containment is the Syria conflict offers an opening to go back to Iraq via the Strategic Framework Agreement in order to help secure Iraq from the spillover terrorism from the Syria conflict. Obviously, the US presence would be on different and smaller scope than last time, but it’s a 2nd chance for us to see that project through. We haven’t been gone from Iraq so long, it shouldn’t be difficult for our guys to resync with their Iraqi partners.
Add: If Obama restored a significant US presence to Iraq, that would go a long way to redeem him in my eyes.
I should have included the quote in the earlier comment – 2nd takeaway from Crocker:
I liked Crocker’s containment idea too. I just saw from a WaPo news piece that Obama is welcoming the Russian idea and that he will keep the prssure on till Assad shows that he will go along with it.
G Joubert,
Sorry but I disagree about Truman.
He only learned of The Manhattan Project upon Roosevelt’s death in April, ’45. Operation Downfall (the invasion of the Japanese home islands) had predictions of over a million Allied (almost all US) casualties. The predicted Japanese deaths were also well over a million people. So the invasion in the fall of ’45 would have cost well over two million plus casualties. The two atomic bombs killed about a quarter of a million people. War accounting may be harsh and cruel, but by any mathematical standards a quarter of a million is far less than two million. Also, the Japanese had one bomb exploded (on Hiroshima) but they still would not surrender. After the bomb on Nagasaki, Japan’s military was still in the fighting mood and did not want to quit the war. It was the Emperor who forced the military to surrender. But again, only after two atomic bombs wiped out two of their cities. Truthfully, I don’t think a Commander-in-Chief has ever made a more momentous decision. IMO, based upon the projections for the invasion of the Japanese home islands, Truman most assuredly did the right thing, post-modern BS artists notwithstanding. And the other thing always ignored is that the firebombing campaign against Japanese cities (mostly constructed of wood and paper) killed more than the two atomic bombs.
It is historical revisionist nonsense to even claim any ‘wag the dog’ scenario for Truman’s use of the two bombs. And remember, after Fat Man and Little Boy, we had no nukes left in our arsenal (the other nuke we had was used at the Trinity Test). So if Japan failed to surrender after the two atomic bombs, it was Operation Downfall time, with all the misery of invading a fanatical country with civilians ready and willing to die in suicide attacks.
Dropping the two atomic bombs saved lives. Period.
Addendum: Truman was an artillery captain in WWI, so he faced the crucible of war. The only war Owebama has been in is when the Choom Gang fought to get more pot.
Truman had personal experience of war while Owebama has no experience in anything other than being a communisty organizer.
No to Syria as there is no such thing as a small war. What is it they say, war plans survive until first contact with the enemy? That would be Syria, in spades, what with both sides in the civil war hating the US.
Eric; “The takeaway from Crocker’s piece other than the general strategy of containment is the Syria conflict offers an opening to go back to Iraq via the Strategic Framework Agreement in order to help secure Iraq from the spillover terrorism from the Syria conflict.”
That would certainly make sense for containing the spread of violence. I don’t think it would be easy. It’s only been 18 months since the last soldiers left, but things have been steadily going down hill there. It would undoubtedly take more will and more public support than the Obama administration can muster, unless they were more decisive and clear-sighted in their policy.
One thing I have always tried to do is to visualize what my reaction would be to having foreign troops on our soil. My gut reaction is that, even if they were well intentioned, (As our troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea have been) it would not go down too well. I suspect that’s particularly true in the Muslim world. That’s why nation building may be a bridge too far unless you have decisively defeated the country and imposed unconditional surrender. A lesson from WWII that we have forgotten. As of now that’s not in the cards in the ME.
I still see the big picture as:
1. Containing the jihadis as well as we can.
2. Keep the oil flowing. (That means keeping the oil states out of the hands of jihadis.)
3. Keep the Suez open. (For free world trade and energy supplies),
4. Stop the flow of Islamists into the West.
Difficult, yes, but we can do those things if we see the problem and then take the actions to implement the solutions. Patience and will is what it takes. As their oil runs out the Muslim countries will either reform or collapse.
“If it’s so unbelievably small, how can it be so very believably effective?”
Now there’s a truly inconvenient truth. What Kerry cannot say is that the actions that he seeks at Obama’s behest are not for Assad but for domestic consumption, an attempt to pull Obama out of the corner he finds himself in…
Eric,
Crocker should hold his wish in one hand (“The United States has a Strategic Framework Agreement with Iraq. We must use it to engage more deeply with the Iraqi government”) and, spit in the other and, then see which he has more of…
G Joubert ,
Eisenhower was wrong.
Perhaps not in his assessment that the Japanese sought an ‘honorable’ end to the war, which we would have called surrender and they would have privately called a ‘time-out’. But in his wishful thinking that the Japanese would have accepted any conditions indistinguishable from unconditional surrender. And nothing less than unconditional surrender was sufficient, given the Japanese Bushido culture. Remember, top military members were planning on assassinating the Emperor (before his nationwide speech) to prevent surrender after being nuked.
Clearly, Eisenhower in July of 1945 was NOT giving sufficient weight to the implications of the Battle of Okinawa, which had just ended the month before, where the Japanese fought to the last. The estimates of 5-25 million deaths, if the US was forced to invade Japan, were not unfounded.
Truman was faced with three choices; 1) nuke the bastards, save 5-25 million lives @ the cost of Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s civilians 2) invade Japan and sacrifice 5-25 million American and Japanese lives or 3) settle for a ‘conditional’ surrender which would have left Japan’s Bushido culture intact to fight another day.
To put that last choice in context, consider settling for a ‘peace’ that, after the war, left the Nazi’s a viable political force in Germany.
JJ,
Permit me to suggest adding to your strategic big picture:
Minimize as much as practicable, our dependence upon foreign oil by developing our oil resources.
Launch both a Manhattan project to develop ‘fusion’ nuclear power AND provide tax incentives for private research into alternative energies.
Basically end Muslim immigration into the US.
Expel anyone whose activities are linked to radical jihadist elements.
End Saudi financial influence in the US.
Remember, top military members were planning on assassinating the Emperor (before his nationwide speech) to prevent surrender after being nuked.
That’s rather off.
They had planned and attempted to execute a kidnapping of the Emperor, to let the military keep fighting and attrit the allies enough that they will allow the Emperor to “live” afterwards. That’s all the top echelons cared about at the time. It’s not like they cared about living, since after the surrender many of them committed hara kiri.
The Japanese at the time of the A bomb was to delay things, bleed America, in order to present a conditional surrender. Face, pride, saving the Emperor, were all part of it. Saving lives wasn’t. It’s no more different a plan than Saddam had, North Vietnam had, or the Democrats had in Iraq.
Eisenhower never bought into the mass casualties scenario scare tactics, which were concocted to make it look like we had no alternative. I’ll take Eisenhower’s take on the situation over Truman’s.
And note, Eisenhower’s comment to Newsweek, “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing” was in 1963, after he’d been president for 8 years and with 18 years to mull it over.
And this is America’s legacy: the first and only country to use nuclear weapons against an enemy. What is our karma for that? Thanks, Ds.
Truman didn’t have have many other options. He could go with the invasion, hope the Japanese surrendered with some conditions he would accept, but by that time the Russians would have bisected Japan the way Korea and Germany was split apart. That would have been a problem for future Americans, kicking the football down the road to the new gen. Like Korea actually…
Bringing the war to an end sooner, is more Sherman esque and thus more rational, than the other kinds of American “war strategy” people have come up with. Now if Truman tried this and he somehow ended up nuking Kyoto and Tokyo, killing the Emperor… well that’d would have been a very Democrat thing to do, like Diem. Oops, my bad. But since he succeeded, we can’t quite pin that label on him.
Eisenhower didn’t speak the full truth. The Japanese was ready to surrender, but only on certain conditions. Conditions Truman either could not accept or he didn’t trust the Japanese Emperor.
Of course the Japanese didn’t trust Americans either, that’s why they refused to surrender unconditionally, cause they know “what they would” do if someone surrendered unconditionally and it was “bad”.
MacArthur eventually met up with Emperor Hirohito and a good working relationship + trust was developed. But that’s a what if scenario.
If Eisenhowever wants to blame Truman for not trusting Hirohito and the Japanese surrender conditions, that’s one thing. But to portray the Japanese surrender as a simple matter is a bit misleading.
This is what happens when you turn over the state department to young female campaign operatives and political hacks. You treat your enemies like children, and formulate the military equivalent of a ‘time out’. Like a reset button – more infantile, sophomoric nonsense trating world diplomatic matters like grade discipline problems.
“Mr Assad. Your behavior has been very bad. You need a time out. You’re not going to get to play with your chemical weapons for 2 days”.
The people at the state department appear to me to be mostly thirty-something women, who are quick to give snarky, smug responses to serious qustions, who take great pleasure in the political power of their position, and who enjoy giving a virtual middle finger to anyone and everyone that isn’t an outright sychophant. The only spokesperson I’ve seen over the age of 35, who happens to be a male is Thurston Howell himself. Not that he’s any better. The Condoleeza Rice’s and James Bakers of the world have been replaced with a bunch of snots.
I cant imagine Sun Tzu writing ” If you just want a little war, for example because you don’t want to be mocked, it is acceptable to tell your enemy he is going to be punished a little, as you would a servant, for not doing his chores. The punishment need only be enough to satisfy your critics. Take care that you do not irritate him with too much loss of life, lest your people may also mock you for clumsiness.”
That’s grade school discipline problems.
expat and J.J.
I think Ryan Crocker has been a national treasure for a third of a century. Our country would be richer had we more like him. This piece is one example of the result of his experience and the clarity of his thinking.
Some might ask, “why would Truman nuke Japan if he didn’t have to to end the war?” Maybe that’s not why he did it. Maybe it was a statement directed at Stalin. (And maybe he didn’t know FDR’s administration –Harry Hopkins– had already given the Soviets the secret to the bomb.)
Similarly, now it’s being said that bombing Syria really has little to do with chemical weapons, that it’s really a statement for Iran’s consideration. Whatever.
Secretary Kerry refused to characterize whether the size of the airstrikes would be “itty-bitty” or “teeny-weeny”, in order to keep the Assad regime guessing. He also declined to state whether the U.S. has the capacity to implement a Dutch rub or an Indian burn against the Syrian president.
Excellent point. It is my observation that trust is the very most important factor in any relationship. Whoever you were, you could trust Bush (even if you lied and cliamed otherwise), but you can’t trust Obama.
G Joubert Says:
“It’s more than noteworthy that the two only times in history that nukes have been dropped in war were dropped by a Democrat.”
I don’t agree. Dropping the bomb was simply the right thing to do at the time. Any POTUS wishing to end the war quickly would have done it.
Further, I don’t think the “gadet play” theory applies to old school Dems like Truman. It is much more a modern post-Vietnam development. Perhaps you can see it in late LBJ Vietnam policy, or some hints with JFK.
I do agree it definitly applies to Clinton and Obama.
There was the option to continue to burn their cities with conventional weapons and blockaiding them as they starved. But more would have died then did the way we did it.
The bombs were dropped Aug 6 and Aug 9. Soviets declared war on Japan Aug 8. Hirohito gave his broadcast Aug 15. And, some in the army attempted a coup to prevent surrender . . .
I see no issue with dropping the bomb at all. It was simply the right decision.
Interesting quote from wiki:
“Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the 60 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars, have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[54] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded on the field.[54]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
JJ,
I served in Korea. I admit the notion I picked up in Korea of honoring a commitment and protecting an investment that was paid for with American soldiers’ lives does color my thinking about Iraq. Here, we’ve handled our business for the whole of our nation’s history, but it’s not like that everywhere. The resentment is real, but so is the need. Terrorist bombs are going off in Iraq again because of Syria.
I don’t think it’s a realistic possibility, either. Like Geoffrey Britain says, it’s wishful thinking, although the man who said it more than earned the right to make the recommendation.
Going back to Iraq – again, obviously with a different kind of presence – would make a resonant political statement both here and over there about the seriousness of American leadership and honoring our commitments, without intervening directly in Syria.
As battered and flickering as it is, Iraq still offers the best hope in the region for a model of liberal reform. The US going back to help Iraq with the Syria problem makes a statement to the world about preserving that hope.
Add: I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that we already have SF, CIA, State-paid contractors, etc, working with Iraqis on the down low on the Syria spillover problem, but not publicized to avoid the political backlash.
G Joubert,
Okinawa was a concoction?
What it implied as to Japanese resistance in an invasion was mere hyperbole?
Ok…
Don,
“the option to continue to burn their cities with conventional weapons and blockaiding them as they starved.”
That still would have led, sooner or later to settling for perhaps a less of a ‘conditional’ surrender but still would have left Japan’s Bushido culture intact to fight another day.
Obama is blaming Bush for Syria:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/358047/obama-blames-iraq-challenging-case-syria-andrew-johnson
Thi guy is the world’s biggest sleazebag.
expat,
Especially since it was the Democrats’ false narrative and Leftist propaganda that soured the public more than the actual mission, which while difficult, also was successful.
Eric,
Yea, I remember watching all the German TV reports based on AI stories of Iraqi children dying because of our sanctions. Saddam was waging a horrendous propaganda war against the US and I’m sure loads od discontented wannabe jihadis believed it.
I am so sick of people that have erased all memories of the last decade in order to preserve their own sense of moral superiority. Unfortunately, Obama, Biden, and Kerry are sterling examples of this. They make me want to puke.
Why don’t they get it over with and just hire Baghdad Bob to replace Carney, Rice, Kerry, Clapper, Obama and the rest of the crew of liars for television appearances.
Nothing these people say can be believed.
expat, you keep coming up with great links. Obama’s greatest talent is blaming others for his failures and shortcomings. If Congress gives him the go ahead for bombing Syria and there is some awful blowback, guess who will be blamed for that?
G.B., I agree with your additions to our strategy. Especially developing our energy resources. Full tilt, all out, balls to the wall, git ‘er dun!
Eric, I don’t disagree that going back into Iraq, if done with a definite goal, could help contain things in Syria. If nothing else, it would divert Iran’s and al Qaeda’s attention away from Syria. I have noticed that wherever we go militarily we seem to attract jihadis like flies to sugar water. We whupped their butts in Iraq during the surge, so they turned their attention to Afghanistan. We’ve not been allowed to decimate them there the way we did in Iraq because – rules of engagement. With those rules of engagement in Iraq on a second go, we might not be so successful. There are so many things that are different now – “overseas contingency operations, man caused disasters, semi-surging while declaring a date certain for withdrawal,” etc. It’s not warfare, it’s lawfare.
I’m loving the debate about nuking Japan. Almost from the day the second bomb was dropped there has been a concerted effort by the intelligentsia (and the communists) to cast it as the evil act of a madman. Even Ike bought the argument. However, he was not engaged in the war in the Pacific. Things were gruesome in the ETO, but the PTO was far bloodier and I don’t think that many military people who didn’t experience the PTO could grasp how much more down and dirty it was. Only as the history has been written, has the difference become clear. A constituency has grown for both sides of the argument. Put me down as one of the group that thinks Truman did the right thing – because it worked in a very short period of time and undoubtedly saved lives on both sides. Also, we were the only country that had the bomb and a means to deliver it for five years. Had that not been true, more of Europe might have been overrun by the USSR. But that’s only my guess.
“Yes, we are going to WAR because of that bastard who used chemical weapons; oh, but don’t worry we are not going to commit to a real war, that would be too much trouble.”
That is what we hear from Democrats all the time.
It makes me almost wish for Carter again, at least he just holed up in the White House Rose Garden until his term was over. Can’t we get Obama to do something likewise? Just hole up somewhere until his term is over.
Bret Stephens comes out swinging at the Wall St. Journal:
Beyond farce. And just imagine — Putin, the grand mediator.
Stephens goes on to compare all this with how Bush made the case with regard to Iraq. This I like: “So what should President Obama say when he addresses the country Tuesday night? He could start by apologizing to President Bush for years of cheap slander.”
The whole thing is worth a read, and it’s not behind a paywall.
Sort of sad that folk like Obamaf**k. Kerryf**k, and Hagelf**k are in charge of foreign policy, aided by f**kwits and morons like McCainf**k, Grahamf**k, Cantorf**k and an assortment of RINOf**ks. The only strategy they know is “exit strategy” which is a synonym for “surrender”.
PS f**k means folk. My dyslexia makes it hard to type “lo”.
Kerry’s IQ is unbelievably small … well actually I *do* believe it.
Re expat’s link: Weasels weasel.
Ann,
Yep. Correct the false narrative of the Iraq mission and rehabilitate Bush’s legacy via a compare/contrast with Obama.
The Democrats feel that as long as they can pull the Iraq/Bush card, there is nothing they can do wrong that they can’t excuse either by blaming it on Iraq/Bush or by saying ‘Iraq/Bush was worse’.
The Dems’ current political advantage is owed to the Iraq/Bush card. Take the Iraq/Bush card away from the Dems and they’re vulnerable.
Ann, I loved the Bret Stephens piece. It’s great to read something written from the heart and not tempered by editors. I hope the pocorn line makes it into some cartoons that find their way into posters.
I don’t want to get too off topic here but reading the debate above about whether we were justified or not in using nuclear weapons on Japan, I would urge anyone who is interested in this question to read Paul Fussell’s great essay “Thank God for the Atom Bomb”.
George MacDonald Fraser (author of the “Flashman” books) also has an interesting discussion of this question in “Quartered Safe Out Here”, his memoir of his WWII combat experience as a young soldier in Burma.
The entire Obama Presidency is a daily assault on America. There is no way we escape damage.
The true fault lies with ALL of the people who voted for him. The *&&^%ed on this great country and they should never be forgiven until and unless they do some biblical version of “repenting of their sins”.
They were given the greatest country ever by other people, and riches beyond belief, and the kicked into the sewer because they thought it came with the universe and they could.
They are all like miscreant Rockefeller Heirs who thought they were actually Rockefeller.
Whatever kerry says dont matter.
as of this morning, its checkmate. and a bad one
and not cause drudge has the words up.
it really is “checkmate”
assad makes this proposal, russia accepts, this puts russian soldiers and others on the ground, and so, an attack would kill them, that would be war with russia, and so wont happen.
game
set
match
russia wins…
why dont we watch what happens to gazprom prices, as there are various ways to measure or infer which thing is more correct than another.
years ago, they slipped our people a faulty play book. in this way, our peoples best plays are innefective leading to serious and easy to avoid blunders that in the past would have been avoided by the “less sensitive”.
this is going to really really really affect things.
come and get it, easy money today….
OGZPY
EONGY
on teusday, they were flat, now, up as much as 15% (as of sept 9 close)
the market isnt open yet and posting to google.
Its times like this i wish i had a few partners that would be able to use my abilities, and then we could all take advantage of it.
with this checkmate, there is no way for the arab pipeline to get most of its wares to the european market, gazproms monopoly is safe, and so, the stock will fly up.
if you watched the stock, the point i said this turns on, you would have seen that it indicated i was right, as the worse Obama played it and dithered, the faster the stock climbed.
the arabs who built the pipeline have now lost 1.2 billion.
without the piece in syria, the chain is broken
The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) later included Syria and Lebanon. Israel, Turkey and Iraq also signed deals to co-operate in this trans-regional pipeline project
WAGPCo (West African Gas Pipeline Company) [cant find this one]
Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company (EGAS) [its a state holding]
ENgineering for the Petroleum and Process Industries (Enppi)
[this one was up 41.5% on revenue of 2.5 billion]
PETROGET [anothere egyptian company]
and Syrian Petroleum Company (SPC)
Egyptian Natural Gas Company (GASCO) is under Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC) the parent company which holds the largestportion along with the bristow group. which trades under BRS (nyse)
CVX (Chevron) shouold go down today
BRS (Bristow group) should go down
RDSA (Royal Dutch Shell)
ONGC (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited)
PTR (Petro China)
all of the above have big money and or partnersips tied up with the pipeline
Letting the Russians occupy Japan would be like letting the Soviets plant nukes in Florida aimed at DC.
As for Iraq, we should just all send them a letter apologizing for our country electing a dictator worse than Saddam Hussein on the world stage, and to communicate that they are now On Their Own.
We may have won in Iraq, but we lost the war at home. Once again, just like Vietnam.
Ymarsakar: “Letting the Russians occupy Japan would be like letting the Soviets plant nukes in Florida aimed at DC.”
You remind me of my SMH reaction at the folks who say that in 2002-2003 we should have kept Saddam in power to deal with Iran on our behalf, as though it’s forever 1980 and we could forgive and forget everything since then. It’s like saying we should have kept Hitler around to keep the peace with the Soviet Union or let the Sovs take care of Asia for us. These guys were not – and are not – US agents, and not forces for stability and security.
artfldgr,
You beat me to it. What’s the game that the Russians and Syrians are playing here? I immediately dismiss the possibility they mean to ‘help’ us.
what a roller coaster so far…
OGZPY
it will take some time for people to wake up, read the paper, then realize how bad the checkmate is.
there will be no surprises unless the big O does the unexpected audacious move and risk WWIV
i am looking at marketwatch and msn
one compares based on percent all starting with an adjusted open price of zero (Showing the dys movement)
under this one, BRS slammed the lowest before regaining. down to -1.2%
gazprom is up almost a percent so far
just jumped up again while BRS is falling again
CVX is interesting… i think they dont relize it has 32% of that pipeline…
EVERYTHING about the male gnats of this administration is “Unbelievably SMALL”. That starts with The Bama, his ‘yootful drooling minions in the White House, right through those(Cough!!)armor piercing dwarves like Kerry and Hagel.
VTC* (*VAST Testicular Concavity*)
Last(and only)set of cajones in that sad lot left the CIA under a ‘babe cloud’ less than a year ago.
You beat me to it. What’s the game that the Russians and Syrians are playing here? I immediately dismiss the possibility they mean to ‘help’ us.
maintaining their monopoly and political power over the EU who has no alternatives to gas they sell.
[though blert thinks that the religious groups are real too, so he dont get the idea that they control their people and are useful. like unions in the US having strikes at convenient times or not]
http://neoneocon.com/2013/09/05/obama-speaking-for-the-world/#comment-651561
this pipeline is the big deal in the area
and all this coincides with the left political message trying to slam natural gas..
ie. they follow the party line, not the reality line
so everywhere, in the west among potential competitors, gas is bad, even though its cleaner.
gasland lies (gas has come out of faucets way before fracking, and the gas in the faucets is not from fracking)
just as they gave us a nuclear scare, to keep us from using our super large reserves they cant match
they also killed that oil comes from below not just from fossiles (czech paper)
green house to kill coal and oil… and lock down gas
of which the left countries ignore the limits
everything fits together. including crippling the population with social movements like feminism, black nationalism, and on and on.
their game?
the same game thats has existed for hundreds of years
survival of the fittest and most successful
the great game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
2001 to present
and thanks to those special groups, it would be like we supply favor, and help nazi germany take over the rest of the world, while beleiving the opposite.
its a never ending war….
they find it easier to keep you and others out of it by fouling the ideas and things up… and it works. too busy being destracted and malformed in how they organize or who they listen to, they would never ever listen to someone who knows… because everyone claims to knwo and they cant tell them apart.
until the master tells them who to listen to, thye just mill about with ideas and refuse to read and unlock the door…
like refusing to use the key as you would rather pick the lock, even if you starve to death trying
artfldgr has it right – maybe. Obama and his dummy Kerry either just got schooled by Putin, or Obama agreed to the deal in exchange for something Putin wanted — like a unilateral reduction in our nuclear arsenal or strategic defenses. It will be interesting to see what develops down the road. But I don’t trust Obama or Kerry — either of them would sell us out their country to rescue their popularity. They are truly disgusting politicians.
Either way, the spinning by Obama’s media friends and his State Department attack-poodles will go into hyper drive, touting an Obama victory for ridding the Syrians of chemical weapons. All Hail the Obama, the lone, singularly brave and resolute leader who stood alone to champion a great cause. I’m going to be sick.
I saw this question posed on another blog but it is a good observation and question…
Putin has basically thrown Obama a political lifeline in the US. I am sure that Putin does nothing for free. What will he want from Obama in return?
Obama’s greatest weakness is no secret — his vanity and arrogance are on full display for everyone to see, and Putin is not dumb. He’s toying with Obama, and Obama is dancing like a fool. Personally, I don’t think there is anything Obama wouldn’t agree to in order keep up the illusion that he’s a clever man.
This deal gives Obama exactly what he needed- he gets to look like a hero to the MSM, while avoiding any actual military action. Like a good KGB operative, Putin recognized an opportunity to turn an enemy’s misfortune to his advantage- the question is what did he promise?
Great beat ! I would like to apprentice even as you amend
your website, how could i subscribe for a weblog website?
The account helped me a acceptable deal. I were tiny bit acquainted of this
your broadcast offered bright transparent concept