I guess The One really bought into the B.S. of his great oratorical powers as well as his overhyped interpersonal skills. Russia and China laughed at him and his U.N. ambassador Susan Rice (his next National Security after he wins reelection), and vetoed a resolution condemning the Syrian regime lead by the murderous “reformer” and Iranian stooge Bashar Assad.
by Caroline Glick
The Obama administration is absolutely furious at Russia and China. The two UN Security Council permanent members’ move on Saturday to veto a resolution on Syria utterly infuriated the US’s President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice. And they want us all to know just how piping mad they really are.
Rice called the vetoes “unforgivable,” and said that “any further blood that flows will be on their hands.” She said the US was “disgusted.”
Clinton called the move by Moscow and Beijing a “travesty.” She then said that the US will take action outside the UN, “with those allies and partners who support the Syrian people’s right to have a better future.”
The rhetoric employed by Obama’s top officials is striking for what it reveals about how the Obama administration perceives the purpose of rhetoric in foreign policy.
Most US leaders have used rhetoric to explain their policies. But if you take the Obama administration’s statements at face value you are left scratching your head in wonder. Specifically on Syria, if you take these statements literally, you are left wondering if Obama and his advisers are simply clueless. Because if they are serious, their indignation bespeaks a remarkable ignorance about how decisions are made at the Security Council.
Is it possible that Obama believed that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would betray Bashar Assad, his most important strategic ally in the Middle East? Is it possible that he believed that the same Chinese regime that systematically tramples the human rights of its people would agree to intervene in another country’s domestic affairs? Outside the intellectual universe of the Obama administration – where stalwart US allies such as Hosni Mubarak are discarded like garbage and foes such as Hugo Chavez are wooed like Hollywood celebrities – national governments tend to base their foreign policies on their national interests.
[,,,,,]
In fact, it is impossible to believe that the administration was unaware that its plan to pass a Security Council resolution opposing Assad’s massacre of his people – and so jeopardize Russian and Chinese interests – had no chance of success. The fact that they had to know the resolution would never pass leads to the conclusion that Obama and his advisers weren’t trying to pass a resolution on Syria at all.
Rather they were trying to pass the buck on Syria.
We have two pieces of evidence to support the view that the Obama administration has no intention of doing anything even vaguely effective to end Assad’s reign of terror that has so far taken the lives of between five and ten thousand of his countrymen.
First, for the past 10 months, as Assad’s killing machine kicked into gear, Obama and his advisers have been happy to sit on their hands. They supported Turkey’s feckless diplomatic engagement with Assad. They sat back as Turkish Prime Minister Recip Tayep Erdogan employed the IHH, his regime-allied terror group, to oversee the organization of a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian opposition.
Second, the administration supported the Arab League’s farcical inspectors’ mission to Syria. That mission was led by Sudanese Gen. Muhammad al- Dabi. Dabi reportedly was one of the architects of the genocide in Darfur. Clearly, a mission under his leadership had no chance of accomplishing anything useful. And indeed, it didn’t.
AND SO, after nearly a year, the issue of Assad’s butchery of his citizens finally found its way to the Security Council last month. Many in the US expected Obama to use the opportunity to finally do something to stop the killing, just as he and his NATO allies did something to prevent the killing in Libya last year.
Ten months ago Obama, Rice, Clinton and National Security Council member Samantha Power decided that the US and its allies had to militarily intervene in Libya to ensure that Muammar Gaddafi didn’t have the opportunity to kill his people as Assad is now doing. That is, to prevent the type of human rights calamity that the Syrian people are now experiencing, Obama used the UN as a staging ground to overthrow Gaddafi through force.
Sadly for the people of Syria, who are being shot dead even as they try to bury their families who were shot dead the day before, unlike the situation in Libya, Obama has never had the slightest intention of using his influence to take action against Assad. And faced with the rapidly rising public expectation that he would take action at the Security Council to stop the killing, Obama opted for diplomatic Kabuki.
Knowing full well that Putin – who is still selling Assad weapons – would veto any resolution, rather than accept that the Security Council is a dead end, Obama had Rice negotiate fecklessly with her Russian counterparts. The resolution that ended up being called to a vote on Saturday was so weak that US Rep.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued a statement on Friday calling for the administration to veto it.
As Ros-Lehtinen put it, the draft resolution “contains no sanctions, no restrictions on weapons transfers, and no calls for Assad to go, but supports the failed Arab League observer mission,” and so isn’t “worth the paper it’s printed on.”
She continued, “The Obama administration should not support this weak, counterproductive resolution, and should also reconsider the legitimacy that it provides to the Arab League – an organization that continues to boycott Israel – when it comes to the regime in Damascus.”
But instead of vetoing it, the administration backed it to the tilt and then expressed disgust and moral outrage when Russia and China vetoed it.
The lesson of this spectacle is that it we must recognize that the Obama administration’s rhetoric hides more than it reveals about the president’s actual policies.
THE FIRST place that we should apply this lesson is to the hemorrhage of administration rhetoric about Iran.
For the past several weeks we have been treated to massive doses of verbiage from Obama and his senior advisers about Iran. The most notable of these recent statements was Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s conversation with The Washington Post’s David Ignatius last week.
Panetta used Ignatius to communicate two basic messages. First, he wanted to make clear that the administration adamantly opposes an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear installations. And second, he wanted to make clear that if Iran strikes Israeli population centers, the US will come to Israel’s defense.
The purpose of the first message is clear enough.
Panetta wished to increase pressure on Israel not to take preemptive action against Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
The purpose of the second message is also clear.
Panetta spoke of the US’s obligation to Israel’s defense in order to remove the justification for an Israeli attack.
After all, if the US is obliged to defend it, then Israel mustn’t risk harming US interests by defending itself.
When taken together, Panetta’s message sounds balanced and responsible. But when examined carefully, it is clear that it is not. First of all, it is far from responsible for the US government to tell its chief ally that it should be willing to absorb an attack on its population centers from Iran. No government can be expected to sit back and wait to be attacked with nuclear weapons because if it is, the Americans will retaliate against its attacker. Panetta’s message was not just irresponsible.
It was obnoxious.
And this leaves the first message. Since Obama was elected the US has devoted most of its energies not to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but to pressuring Israel not to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And Panetta’s remarks to Ignatius were consistent with this mission.
[.....]
We only know three things for certain about Iran. It is getting very late in the game for anyone to take any military actions to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran will not stop its nuclear weapons program voluntarily. And Obama will not order US forces to take action to stop Iran’s nuclear project.
What remains uncertain still is how Israel plans to respond to these three certainties. The fact that Israel has waited this long to strike presents the disturbing prospect that our leaders may have been confused by the Obama administration’s rhetoric. Perhaps they have been persuaded that the US is on our side on this issue and that we don’t have to rely only on ourselves to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
But as the foregoing analysis of the administration’s very angry words on Syria and very sober words on Iran demonstrates, Obama and his deputies use rhetoric not to clarify their intentions, but to obfuscate them. Just as they will do nothing to prevent Assad from continuing his campaign of murder and terror, so they will do nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Read the rest – Obama’s rhetorical storm
Tags: Caroline Glick
Let this Syrian civil war go on and on.
I wouldn’t put it past أوباما to send some of our already-stretched-way-too-thin military assets to bomb Syria, just like he did with Libya.
Without Congressional Approval, mind you.
Macker wrote:
That does not apply to The One.
no spring time for Syria
You gotta trust Assad; he’s a DOC-tor.
Moe Katz wrote:
The Chinless Opthamologist looks rather moronic.
@ Speranza:
Yep, some cartoonists draw him with a neck as wide or wider than his head, which works well.
Exctly.
The Chinese just wanted to stick it to us. Russia doesn’t want NATO to create another Islamic state. See Bosnia, Kossovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. We don’t have a good track record.
We need to pursue our interests and tell the UN to take a hike.
@ Rodan:
We have no interest in Syria.
Or Bosnia, Kosovo or Libya, for that matter.
@ lobo91:
Payback for them assisting in the killing the marines in 1983 and them helping al-Qaeda attack us in Iraq. But you do have a point. We should have hit Syria when we discovered they were helping to kill US troops. But that time has passed.
That said, I do want the Syrians to kill each other.
O/T I take Mom in for breast cancer surgery today at 11:30am any and all prayers would be appreciated. Thank you…
doriangrey wrote:
prayers for you and your mom
for CW
BLOODY SCARY COCKTAIL
Selfridges’ mixologists have come up with a clever way of incorporating this spicy little number into a recipe to help with the mother of all hangovers: A devilishly spicy Bloody Mary made with 100,000 Scovilles Naga Chilli Vodka
Ingredients
50ml 100,000 Scovilles Naga Chilli Vodka
100ml Tomato Juice
Juice of half a lemon
Dash of Worcestershire Sauce
Dash of Tabasco
Few dashes of Bitter Truth Celery Bitters
Few dashes of Master of Malt Chipotle Bitters
Pinch of salt
Pinch of freshly ground black pepper
Garnish: Celery stick, a slice of cucumber and a plum tomato
Few ml olive oil.
Method
Combine the ingredients in an ice-filled Boston Shaker and gentle roll them (do not shake) for about 30 seconds. Once thoroughly chilled, pour through a strainer into a Hurricane glass or Highball. Top with a grind or two or fresh black pepper and a glug of Olive Oil. Make cuts in the celery, cucumber and tomato so that they may be pushed onto the rim of the glass, then add a couple of straws.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2097813/Worlds-hottest-naga-chilli-vodka-goes-sale-Selfridges.html#ixzz1lno8TQTw
@ doriangrey:
you got it.
@ doriangrey:
Prayers for your family. I hope it all goes well.
@ doriangrey:
Prayers for your Mom.
and yah think you have problems
He musthave been desperate! Moment masked armed robber in US stole sex doll at knifepoint
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2098070/Police-search-man-stole-rubber-doll-sex-shop.html#ixzz1lnoo3ZEp
@ mawskrat:
It’s Lewd Pig looking for a replacement fo rthe worn-out Ms.Ssssssss!
doriangrey wrote:
Will do!
God bless You and Your family.
@ doriangrey:
Got my fingers crossed and a prayer in my heart for her.
Obama is something of an Intl punchline to a really
bad joke. Myrkle & Sarkozy think that he is a fool
as does Israel & now Canada.
Egypt is a defacto hostage situation, that we haven’t
seen since Iran & Jimmy Carter.
Egypt operates on our dime, but they apparnetly have
no fear dissing us.
mawskrat wrote:
Police hope to find the doll before the unspeakable happens!
@ Iron Fist:
Poor dolly!
The BBC is frakkin nuts
Whose side are they on? BBC tells journalists to stop calling Abu Qatada ‘an extremist’ – and they can’t show pictures of him looking fat either (but we can, soherehe is!)The term ‘extremist’ suggest a value judgement, say Beeb bosses Cleric should instead be described as ‘radical’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2098129/BBC-tells-journalists-avoid-calling-Abu-Qatada-extremist.html#ixzz1lntZzylv
Macker wrote:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/report-syria-military-options-under-review-113823.html
ht weaselzippers
Speranza wrote:
Thank you, that actually means a lot to me.
@ mawskrat:
@ citizen_q:
@ Iron Fist:
@ Rodan:
@ Prebanned:
Thank you…
@ mawskrat:
The Ceeb up here has similar guidlines, in fact I don’t think they even use the term radical. “Mis-understood” gets used a lot though, or “non-affiliated”.
@ waldensianspirit:
The Pentagon is beginning a preliminary review of U.S. capabilities if President Barack Obama were to order military action to stop growing unrest in Syria, according to a report published Monday — though administration officials insist they remain focused on finding a non-military solution.
The hard part is figuring out how to expose our military to enemy fire without allowing them to reduce the opposing force’s ability to fight and without taking the initiative away from the opponent.
It has taken years to get the taliban built back up enough in Afghanistan so they can cause take over when we leave.
PaladinPhil wrote:
I don’t misunderstand them and they are affiliated with terrorist organizations. And this is the mainstream of Islam, everywhere in the West. What the BBC, CBC< etc. are doing is war propaganda for the enemy.
@ doriangrey:
Prayers
@ Iron Fist:
The Progressive media is on the enemy’s side.
mawskrat wrote:
Heavens to Betsy you would not want do come out against mass murder, rape, misogyny, child brides, FGM, etc….., and say something that might be construed as a value judgement. At least if muslims are the perpetrators of course.
Sebelius & Axlerod are now saying that there needs to
be “Compromise” with the Catholic Church over the
government pharma mandates.
They know that the Church can’t compromise, this is just
an attempt to make the BHO Administration appear reasonable
RIX wrote:
my wife works in a convent and years ago she was
able to get a presciption for birth control pills
for medical problems. so they can be had just not for
birth control reasons
Oh and for those of you who didn’t see it when I posted it last night…
Speaker John Boehnor and Congressman Darryl Issa conspire to betray America.
@ Iron Fist:
Obamie would love to have the BBC rules
and regulations here
@ doriangrey:
I’d enjoy seeing Boehner cry while losing his job
waldensianspirit wrote:
After this, I’d love to see him cry as he is frog marched off for criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice.
off to the basement construction poject
BBL
@ doriangrey:
Boehner is useless as a Eunuch.
Oh, well isn’t this special…
Dependency Index Surges 23% Under Obama
@ PaladinPhil:
CBC = Canadians Broadcasting Caliphate?
@ mawskrat:
Birth control pills also work for acne.
Personally, I have no obection to contaception.
But the issue is tenets of the Church & this is
Obama saying that his secular values trump any
religious beliefs.
@ RIX:
It’s too bad we can’t tell them either give up the Hostages…or lose the Aswan High Dam!
@ m:
Charles Johnson is in the category!
Macker wrote:
And then blow it up anyway!
@ RIX:
He would never do it with Islam.
Macker wrote:
That would get their attention, but BHO would never
threaten that, much less actually do it.
Rodan wrote:
No he woudn’t. He seems to have complete respect for
religion when it comes tos Islam.
Christianity, particularly Cathlics not so much.
@ RIX:
I wonder, is Rev.Wright’s anti-American, anti-Semitic Church also anti-Catholic? An intrepid reporter could probably find out, though they have sanitized their web site. It would involve a lot of watching Jeramiah Wright rave to his audience, but if he is (as I suspect) anti-Catholic, that would be a nice piece to bring up during the election, especially after this ruling.
@ Iron Fist:
Yes. The Catholic Church is viewed as Imperialists/Colonialists.
@ RIX:
.
Obama figures that since many other Christians hate Catholics, its a win-win for him. He unfortunately might be right.
Rodan wrote:
Not to mention their damned obsession with morals, ethics and consciences.
Rodan wrote:
TheyHe counted onAmericaChristian to remain passive, he counted wrong.@ Iron Fist:
Agreed.
Macker wrote:
More like “Canadians Broadcasting Communism”. There’s not a single leftist or totalitarian ideology that they don’t <3
@ Iron Fist:
I can’t imagine that Rev Wright is not anti-Catholic.
He seems to hate everybody.
There used to be CDs of the Revs sermons in the
lobby.’After some enterprising reporter got his
hands on some, they were removed.
@ doriangrey:
I don’t see that big an outrages from Non Catholics, with a few exceptions. The attitude seems to be, that’s our problem.
@ PaladinPhil:
Ah, so they aren’t to the Caliphate part like the Brits are. Yet.
Prebanned wrote:
From Orbit. QED
@ Macker:
There is also a French service of the CBC called Radio-Canada, which is even further left and hopelessly pro-Palestinian.
Rodan wrote:
I cant make you see what you don’t want to see, and you do seem determined to see all other Christians as hating Catholics.
@ doriangrey:
Even people with no faith have taken exception to what is obviously an Unconstitutional violation of free excercize of religion. I hope (and pray!) that the Supreme Court strikes this overreaching hypocrisy down quickly.
@ doriangrey:
That has been my experience. Especially on Conservative blogs like Pre 2008 LGF, Hot Air and other places its open season on Catholics and the Catholic Church. Heck, even here there was Catholic bashing. We cracked down on it here and we lost people.
I have experienced and seen bigotry due to my faith and ethnicity. It is very prevalent on my side politically. The GOP winks and nods to Catholic and Hispanic bashing (Except Cubans). Then they pretend to get upset at Obama’s anti-Catholic bias and I just don’t see it as genuine, since the GOP plays footsies with Catholic and Hispanic haters.
Now with the Left, they are very bigoted. So as a Catholic/Rightwing Hispanic, I get it from both the Right and Left.
If you walked in my shoes for a week, you would understand.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290276/were-all-catholics-now-david-french
waldensianspirit wrote:
You trying to make Rodan burst into flames?
@ doriangrey:
Wouldn’t that make him a Phoenix?
Oh Allahdamn it, I can honestly say that I did not see this one coming, though quiet honestly I guess I should have.
Super. Bradley Manning for the ( wait for it… ) Nobel Peace Prize
Iron Fist wrote:
No, just a flaming Catholic…
doriangrey wrote:
I’ll take Flaming Catholics for $200, Alex!
The real problem is polling Catholics
In the spirit of the Waldensian Catholics are an infuriating group to support.
58% agree with Obama! What am I supposed to do about it? Can I expect them not to cave?
@ Iron Fist:
LOL! The same thought came to mind. Speed dating, Lewd Pig style.
@ doriangrey:
Best wishes to you and your Mom, Dorian.
Report: Biden And Bill Daley Warned Obama Against Contraception Mandate Over Fears It Would Alienate Catholic Voters…
He knew the polls
@ waldensianspirit:
The Catholic sociologist Father Andrew Greeley noted many decades ago that US Catholics have a Protestant value system.
My family was Catholic, while I was small we changed to a non- denominational style and I was baptized. I have family members that go to Catholic Mass and I go with them sometimes, it has been a while.
I go to Methodist services whenever I am visiting my grandmother.
I bet if Christians would hop around a little say 2 services a year it might bring us closer.
There is only one Church one Salvation.
@ Moe Katz:
This is an interesting case in point.
waldensianspirit wrote:
Individual democrat Catholic may well cave, they are after all democrats before Catholic’s, the Catholic church on the other hand will refuse to submit.
@ Macker:
In a famous Freudian slip of years gone by: “The Canadian Broadcorping Castration.”
Alberta Oil Peon wrote:
Thank you AOP.
@ Alberta Oil Peon:
LOL!
Russia and China knew exactly what Obama was in 2008.
Which is more than can be said of those who voted for him.