++Yesterday on Face The Nation, John McCain blasted the Obama Administration for failing to make headway against ISIS. Senator McCain claimed that ISIS still held Kobani in Syria. Tonight,that is no longer true. The Kurdish troops finally seized the town and ISIS withdrew. The Iraqi forces today announced they had withdrawn from the Diyala Province having pushed ISIS out.
++Josh Marshall wrote more about Bibi's misadventures and openly wrote that he did not know what it meant either here or in Israel. He did say that every wise observer knows not to underestimate Bibi in his political maneuvers. As long as the issue centers around security he gains.
++The Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer said that Bibi had a "sacred right" to address Congress since a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to the world's only Jewish country. He did not comment on Israel's nuclear arsenal and how that may be used to defend Israel.
++Bennet Kelley in "the Unbearable Rudeness of Bibi" at the Huffington Post reminds us that Bibi has acted this way with all American Presidents, not just President Obama. It seems so long ago that James Baker refused to meet with then Foreign Minister Netanyahu because he lied so much. Or Bill Clinton twisting his arm to accept the Oslo Accords, only to find Bibi was cheating at the edges. Clinton got so annoyed he had James Carville run Ehud Barack's campaign against Bibi. Or that even under W, the White House told Israel not to go ahead with the settlements but Bibi did anyway. Kelley goes into the sordid history in his piece including the hours Kerry put in stopping the Security Council vote.
++Michael Tomasky in "How will Obamaa punish Netanyahu?" summarizes the flap and zeroes in on another United Nations vote to get even. I doubt it. The White House is trying to paper over the rift for now.
Showing posts with label Michael Tomasky. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Tomasky. Show all posts
Monday, January 26, 2015
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Totally Confused
++I will admit I am totally confused over what I think about the recent aerial attacks on Syria and the ultimate stakes of the game.
++Michael Tomasky advises us that Obama's war is not like George W. Bush's for a variety of reasons. His primary focus is on the fact that the reasons for President Obama's actions are rather self-evident and not based on lies or mistruths such as WMD or Saddam's non-connection to 9-11.
++Tomasky believes Obama's coalition is more consequential than W's because of the array of Sunni nations actually involved and flying fighter jets. Andrew Sullivan quarrels with this saying that George H.W. Bush's coalition was more substantial during the Gulf War.
++But Andrew raises the question so many people have raised--the legal justification of the aerial attacks and the potential--or likelihood--of producing more terrorism and actual threats to the United States.
++Ross Douhat has actually been writing sane articles in the New York Times suggesting that a goal of degrading and containing is plausible but beyond that there are no players on the ground who can fill the political and military vacuum.
++President Obama has eschewed the rhetoric about freedom and democracy and has basically asserted the priority of a stable region. Chris Dickey in the Daily Beat has been very skeptical of this saying that the status quo is gone and can't be fixed.
++One theme that comes up, which perplexes me. Writers are saying that the aerial bombing of Syria will strengthen Assad's regime and the Syrian rebels whom we support are against the strikes. How can Assad be stronger? If you have lost over half your country and the other half is in exile,how do you become stronger--and over what? This is like saying Hitler in the Bunker could hunker down and wait out the onslaught. The problem is that the United States sort of wants--really--wants Assad gone but needs him around to tolerate the airstrikes. But what happens afterwards.
++It is quite clear that the United States is coordinating their attacks with Iran and informing the Syrian foreign ministry of all impending strikes. The U.S. weird dance with Tehran has Israel upset. Bibi Netanyahu met with President Obama to express concerns that he will go wobbly on the nuclear talks and loosen the sanctions because of Iran's cooperation in both Iraq and now in Syria.
++The veteran reporter Walter Pincus has shown his chops recently in the Washington Post in his articles outlining how and what President Obama's strategy is. His articles are actually very appreciative of how President Obama has assembled his international coalition and exactly what its goals are.
++President Obama made his annual presentation to the United Nations today and talked about ISIS as being the incarnation of evil whom the entire global community must resist.
++Russia informed the United States that the coalition wasn't a private club and they would participate even if not asked.
++Charlie Rangel, Democrat from New York,raised issues near to my heart. Charlie wants to re-instate the draft and adopt a war tax. Funding for this adventure has not been discussed by the debt-conscious Congress.
++Leon Panetta appeared on Meet the Press and said that he had favored keeping troops in Iraq. He didn't mention that the Iraqis didn't want us there any longer and their parliament passed a law eating a date for our exit. He also said that he was for arming the Syrian "moderates" as were the entire NSC. this sounds damning of President Obama but as John Kerry tells it the United States could not make any effective moves until al-Malicki was removed in Iraq.
++General Hugh Shelton appeared on C-Span and mentioned that our troops on the ground were the 250,000 some Iraqis trained by American forces and if they could not resist ISIS the region had more problems than we can handle. He also mentioned something that is dear to my heart--"What possesses our political leaders to say publicly what we will or will not do." This goes for W and it goes for Obama. Sometimes the optics are that the President is less clear than he actually is.
++Oh, by the way, Hillary Clinton says she agrees with President Obama's strategy. Marine General Conway says it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.
++So far,my original complaint that there are too many moving parts that have to work right holds. I also don't see how this unfolds over time. The true "Unknown Unknowns".
++But if this is too confusing, you might get outraged that President Obama saluting his Marine President Guards while holding a latte. If you are outraged,the RNC says you can donate to the Republican candidate of your choice.
++ISIS has been a bonanza for Republican candidates. All of the Senate candidates like Brown in New Hampshire claim they know who the enemy is and they are better than their opponent at fighting them. Polls do show a wide margin in favor of the GOP in fighting terrorism and in foreign policy,both issues the Democrats had the edge from 2008 until today. So watch this space,national security could become the GOP trump card, even though they aren't in session.So you have to take them on trust.
++Dana Millbank makes the overall point that on issue such as fighting ISIS, immigration reform,and healthcare, President Obama has outflanked the Left. If President George W. Bush had done the recent acts in Iraq and now Syria,the Left would be storming in the street. I don't know. But I think I agree with Rachel Maddow that President Obama has signed onto perpetual war.
++Michael Tomasky advises us that Obama's war is not like George W. Bush's for a variety of reasons. His primary focus is on the fact that the reasons for President Obama's actions are rather self-evident and not based on lies or mistruths such as WMD or Saddam's non-connection to 9-11.
++Tomasky believes Obama's coalition is more consequential than W's because of the array of Sunni nations actually involved and flying fighter jets. Andrew Sullivan quarrels with this saying that George H.W. Bush's coalition was more substantial during the Gulf War.
++But Andrew raises the question so many people have raised--the legal justification of the aerial attacks and the potential--or likelihood--of producing more terrorism and actual threats to the United States.
++Ross Douhat has actually been writing sane articles in the New York Times suggesting that a goal of degrading and containing is plausible but beyond that there are no players on the ground who can fill the political and military vacuum.
++President Obama has eschewed the rhetoric about freedom and democracy and has basically asserted the priority of a stable region. Chris Dickey in the Daily Beat has been very skeptical of this saying that the status quo is gone and can't be fixed.
++One theme that comes up, which perplexes me. Writers are saying that the aerial bombing of Syria will strengthen Assad's regime and the Syrian rebels whom we support are against the strikes. How can Assad be stronger? If you have lost over half your country and the other half is in exile,how do you become stronger--and over what? This is like saying Hitler in the Bunker could hunker down and wait out the onslaught. The problem is that the United States sort of wants--really--wants Assad gone but needs him around to tolerate the airstrikes. But what happens afterwards.
++It is quite clear that the United States is coordinating their attacks with Iran and informing the Syrian foreign ministry of all impending strikes. The U.S. weird dance with Tehran has Israel upset. Bibi Netanyahu met with President Obama to express concerns that he will go wobbly on the nuclear talks and loosen the sanctions because of Iran's cooperation in both Iraq and now in Syria.
++The veteran reporter Walter Pincus has shown his chops recently in the Washington Post in his articles outlining how and what President Obama's strategy is. His articles are actually very appreciative of how President Obama has assembled his international coalition and exactly what its goals are.
++President Obama made his annual presentation to the United Nations today and talked about ISIS as being the incarnation of evil whom the entire global community must resist.
++Russia informed the United States that the coalition wasn't a private club and they would participate even if not asked.
++Charlie Rangel, Democrat from New York,raised issues near to my heart. Charlie wants to re-instate the draft and adopt a war tax. Funding for this adventure has not been discussed by the debt-conscious Congress.
++Leon Panetta appeared on Meet the Press and said that he had favored keeping troops in Iraq. He didn't mention that the Iraqis didn't want us there any longer and their parliament passed a law eating a date for our exit. He also said that he was for arming the Syrian "moderates" as were the entire NSC. this sounds damning of President Obama but as John Kerry tells it the United States could not make any effective moves until al-Malicki was removed in Iraq.
++General Hugh Shelton appeared on C-Span and mentioned that our troops on the ground were the 250,000 some Iraqis trained by American forces and if they could not resist ISIS the region had more problems than we can handle. He also mentioned something that is dear to my heart--"What possesses our political leaders to say publicly what we will or will not do." This goes for W and it goes for Obama. Sometimes the optics are that the President is less clear than he actually is.
++Oh, by the way, Hillary Clinton says she agrees with President Obama's strategy. Marine General Conway says it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.
++So far,my original complaint that there are too many moving parts that have to work right holds. I also don't see how this unfolds over time. The true "Unknown Unknowns".
++But if this is too confusing, you might get outraged that President Obama saluting his Marine President Guards while holding a latte. If you are outraged,the RNC says you can donate to the Republican candidate of your choice.
++ISIS has been a bonanza for Republican candidates. All of the Senate candidates like Brown in New Hampshire claim they know who the enemy is and they are better than their opponent at fighting them. Polls do show a wide margin in favor of the GOP in fighting terrorism and in foreign policy,both issues the Democrats had the edge from 2008 until today. So watch this space,national security could become the GOP trump card, even though they aren't in session.So you have to take them on trust.
++Dana Millbank makes the overall point that on issue such as fighting ISIS, immigration reform,and healthcare, President Obama has outflanked the Left. If President George W. Bush had done the recent acts in Iraq and now Syria,the Left would be storming in the street. I don't know. But I think I agree with Rachel Maddow that President Obama has signed onto perpetual war.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Obama's Syria Speech
++Before listening to the President's speech, I read Andrew Bacevich's new book Breach of Tust:How Americans failed their Soldiers and their Country. And sadly, it has to be said that no one has any skin in the Syrian game from the American side, except the servicemen and women who might have to respond. Bacevich does a brilliant job of analyzing the changing military strategies from WWII on and how the divide between the state and the society widened so that there exists no accountability or desire for accountability of the gigantic war machine.
++Having said that President Obama's speech was surprising in some aspects. I expected an Oval Office War Speech. Instead, it was delivered in the East Wing. Yesterday's flurry of events forced the speech to be about fluid events with two dramatically opposed endings--war or peace. The President made mention of the enormous war-power capabilities which have accrued to the executive branch and spoke how it was better that Congress share in the responsibility. While noting he has the constitutional right to strike, he believed it was best if a President made military actions with the full support of Congress. He distinguished this strike from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya in terms of scale and duration. He also mentioned the history of the use of chemical weapons. My great uncle Paul Demme would have been pleased since he was attacked with mustard gad during WWI and remained badly scarred for the rest of his life. President Obama said it was imperative that the United States act to prevent these attacks again. Then he sequed into the recent diplomatic offers that Syria surrender its arsenal of chemical weapons to the international community. For this diplomacy to take place, he was sending John Kerry tomorrow to Geneva to meet the Russian minister in charge of Syria.
++So The President requested the Senate suspend consideration of the authorization of military force.
++I thought the speech was fine basically framing the call for permission to use force as a deterrent to enhance a diplomatic solution. It reminded me of diplomatic gambits from yesteryear.
++Parenthetically, President Obama gave an even more moving speech today at the Pentagon to commemorate the real 9-11 attacks. But sometimes I wish he would pull back from the scripture. President Obama quoted at least six biblical passages, which even the Fundies would be hard pressed to quote.
++So how did the Syria speech go over. The CNN/ORC poll said 69% were favorably disposed to the President overall. 61% support Obama's position.37% oppose. On the question of whether Obama was convincing on his position: 47% said he did; 50% said he didn't.
++Andrew Sullivan, who spent the past week in different states of cardiac arrest because he feared Obama had made a blunder, called the talk "the clearest, simplest and most moving presidential speeches to the nation I can imagine." Read his full analysis at Daily Dish and subscribe to his blog. It is well worth the read.
++Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast also writes favorably about President Obama's speech and position but says he still has an uphill battle.
++Former Obama aide, John Faureau writes about why this was the man he supported.
++John Podhoretz writes in the New York Post that President Obama shamed the country.
++Charles Pierce in his blog for Esquire writes a perfect analysis of why Washington doesn't understand Obama because they like "guts" and not someone who engages in the active process of deciding among options. I think Pierce is right on the money because I thought President Obama had an abstract goal to sell and more sophisticated options to consider than the win-lose media could comprehend.
++John Stewart did a marvelous attack on Fox News caterwauling about Obama "losing" to the Russians. Stewart likened John Kerry to Mr. Magoo who gaffed into a diplomatic solution. Stewart asked," Do we care who gets the credit if there is no war." He cut to videoclips of people shouting they Obama lost. "Who did he lose to? Do we lose if there is no war?"
++Today's drumbeat from the Right is that Obama is letting Russia back in as a major geopolitical force.
++Marco Rubio and John Boehner spent this 9-11 blasting President Obama for failing to bring the perpetrators of the 9/11 Benghazi attack to justice. No mention he brought the perpetrator of the original 9/11 to justice when their President didn't.
++Having said that President Obama's speech was surprising in some aspects. I expected an Oval Office War Speech. Instead, it was delivered in the East Wing. Yesterday's flurry of events forced the speech to be about fluid events with two dramatically opposed endings--war or peace. The President made mention of the enormous war-power capabilities which have accrued to the executive branch and spoke how it was better that Congress share in the responsibility. While noting he has the constitutional right to strike, he believed it was best if a President made military actions with the full support of Congress. He distinguished this strike from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya in terms of scale and duration. He also mentioned the history of the use of chemical weapons. My great uncle Paul Demme would have been pleased since he was attacked with mustard gad during WWI and remained badly scarred for the rest of his life. President Obama said it was imperative that the United States act to prevent these attacks again. Then he sequed into the recent diplomatic offers that Syria surrender its arsenal of chemical weapons to the international community. For this diplomacy to take place, he was sending John Kerry tomorrow to Geneva to meet the Russian minister in charge of Syria.
++So The President requested the Senate suspend consideration of the authorization of military force.
++I thought the speech was fine basically framing the call for permission to use force as a deterrent to enhance a diplomatic solution. It reminded me of diplomatic gambits from yesteryear.
++Parenthetically, President Obama gave an even more moving speech today at the Pentagon to commemorate the real 9-11 attacks. But sometimes I wish he would pull back from the scripture. President Obama quoted at least six biblical passages, which even the Fundies would be hard pressed to quote.
++So how did the Syria speech go over. The CNN/ORC poll said 69% were favorably disposed to the President overall. 61% support Obama's position.37% oppose. On the question of whether Obama was convincing on his position: 47% said he did; 50% said he didn't.
++Andrew Sullivan, who spent the past week in different states of cardiac arrest because he feared Obama had made a blunder, called the talk "the clearest, simplest and most moving presidential speeches to the nation I can imagine." Read his full analysis at Daily Dish and subscribe to his blog. It is well worth the read.
++Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast also writes favorably about President Obama's speech and position but says he still has an uphill battle.
++Former Obama aide, John Faureau writes about why this was the man he supported.
++John Podhoretz writes in the New York Post that President Obama shamed the country.
++Charles Pierce in his blog for Esquire writes a perfect analysis of why Washington doesn't understand Obama because they like "guts" and not someone who engages in the active process of deciding among options. I think Pierce is right on the money because I thought President Obama had an abstract goal to sell and more sophisticated options to consider than the win-lose media could comprehend.
++John Stewart did a marvelous attack on Fox News caterwauling about Obama "losing" to the Russians. Stewart likened John Kerry to Mr. Magoo who gaffed into a diplomatic solution. Stewart asked," Do we care who gets the credit if there is no war." He cut to videoclips of people shouting they Obama lost. "Who did he lose to? Do we lose if there is no war?"
++Today's drumbeat from the Right is that Obama is letting Russia back in as a major geopolitical force.
++Marco Rubio and John Boehner spent this 9-11 blasting President Obama for failing to bring the perpetrators of the 9/11 Benghazi attack to justice. No mention he brought the perpetrator of the original 9/11 to justice when their President didn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)