BluegrassBulletin.com

John Kerry Traitor To Our Ally Israel?

John Kerry couldn't be expected to do anything other than act as a traitor to our greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel now could he?  I mean, during the Viet Nam war he was a traitor to his own country, remember?

Now he is prepared to force a deal between the terrorist leaders of Palestine and the leaders of Israel that goes something like this:

US Secretary of State John Kerry will offer Israeli and Palestinian negotiators a political trade-off: Israeli recognition of the 1967 lines as a basis for the future Palestinian state, in return for Palestinian recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, Palestinian sources told the Saudi daily Al-Watan on Sunday. [The Times Of Israel]

Now let's see, what would this mean that Israel give up?  Half of Jerusalem, the Wailing Wall, The Temple Mount, Old Jerusalem, and the tomb of Jesus Christ.

And just who is it that he will propose handing these things over to?

Hamas, the dominant Islamist movement in Palestine, deserves credit for this transformation of Palestinian society. It is a potent and dangerous threat to the very fabric of Palestinian society, and ultimately Israeli society as well. But Islamism cannot be seen as an isolated movement treatable with a local cure when, in fact, it is part of a global movement bent on uprooting existing regimes in the Middle East and replacing them with Islamist regimes. Born as the Palestinian offspring of the international Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas began as the Brotherhood’s vehicle to combat Israeli occupation in the outbreak of the intifadah. But it swiftly expanded, aspiring to drive the Jews out of all parts of Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and replace the Zionist state with a Muslim theocracy...Each of these institutions became a vehicle for Hamas ideology indoctrination—to oppose secularism, to fight the cultural onslaught of the West, and above all, to wage military jihad against the enemies of Allah. It is these institutions that breed the violence and engineer public consent for terrorism within Palestinian society. [investigative project]

Oh and just in case you forgot who John Kerry used to be before his plastic surgery and time in relative obscurity after losing his race for the White House, here's a reminder.

 

What Would The TEA Party Say About Women's Rights?

We are constantly being told that the GOP is struggling to win votes among American women.  This suggests that the democrats have a better reputation among women voters for women's rights.  Now we hear of a shocking answer by Secretary of State John Kerry to a female reporters question on his trip to Saudi Arabia.

Following recent news of a Kuwait woman being arrested for driving her ill father to the hospital, in violation of the law there that prohibits women from driving cars, a reporter asked Kerry where he stood on the issue of the Saudis having the same rules in the larger context of women's rights.  Here was Kerry's response:

“It’s no secret that in the United States of America we embrace equality for everybody . . . [but] it’s up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decisions about its own social structure.”

As one commentator pointed out:

[T]he response was immediately noted by civil libertarians as coming off as remarkably relativistic and restrained. Yet these responses are clearly scripted on diplomatic trips. Women’s rights is not a question of “social structure.” That is how the Saudis view it. It is their religion and social structure that is cited for the medieval treatment of women. Equality is a human right that by definition transcends “social structures” and national preferences. Otherwise, racial and religious discrimination would be simply a matter of cultural tastes. [Turley]

I want you to re-read that again.  It was "civil-libertarians" who objected.  Aren't the "civil-libertarians" a big part of the TEA party?  And isn't the Ron Paul influenced TEA party decidedly "non-interventionist" when it comes to foreign policy?

So why would civil libertarians feel entitled to even comment on how another country treats its women?  Moreover, let's not forget that this is a democrat Secretary of State presumably representing our democrat president.  So tell me now, how is it that the democrats can claim the "women's vote" and the civil libertarins can complain like toothless dogs on a short heavy chain barking with no chance of biting, but the GOP with its strong record of standing up for women's rights is the party that has problems winning the women's vote?

Oh, yeah, I forgot.  The GOP thinks the government shouldn't pay to have baby girls suctioned apart or burned alive with chemicals or pulled out of the womb and stabbed in the brain.  It's all about that abortion thing isn't it?  You know, the FIRST civil right, the "right to life".

Krauthammer: Obama's Incompetent Syria Fiasco

Once again Charles Krauthammer hits the nail on the head. He says that Obama's actions make it very clear that he wants no part of Syria.  Krauthammer cites Obama's lack of effort to do anything about Assad until the red line comment forced him to.  Then, Sir Charles says, Obama isn't sure what to do next.

Sen. Bob Corker: “What is it you’re seeking?”

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:“I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.”

– Senate hearing on the use of force in Syria, Sept. 3.

We have a problem. The president proposes attacking Syria, and his top military officer cannot tell you the objective. Does the commander in chief know his own objective? Why, yes. “A shot across the bow,” explained Barack Obama.

Now, a shot across the bow is a warning. Its purpose is to say: Cease and desist, or the next shot will sink you. But Obama has already told the world – and Bashar al-Assad in particular – that there will be no next shot. He has insisted time and again that the operation will be finite and highly limited. Take the shot, kill some fish, go home.

What then is the purpose?

Dempsey hasn’t a clue, but Secretary of State John Kerry says it will uphold and proclaim a norm and thus deter future use of chemical weapons. With a few Tomahawk missiles? Hitting sites that, thanks to the administration having leaked the target list, have already been scrubbed of important military assets? [Krauthammer Opinion Enquirer]

While I have personally been advocating for more than a year that we take some action to assist the innocent people in Syria being slaughtered by their own government, I now tend to agree that the greatest danger of taking action is that the commander who would be in charge is totally incompetent.  It would be like trusting a gun to a toddler.

Taking no action has the potential for bad consequences, not the least of which is the real possibility that we will be tested again.  But giving the keys to the war machine to Obama is far more reckless.

Rush Limbaugh: Growing Evidence Obama Behind Syrian Chem Attack

It will be a day or so before the full measure of his satire can be discerned but Rush Limbaugh says that there is growing evidence that the chemical weapons attack in Syria which Obama says crossed his red line was in fact launched by opposition forces and perhaps has Barack Obama's fingerprints on it framing Assad.

But Rush isn't alone.  A pretty well researched article at The Right Scoop has much more evidence on this.  You should read it.

Invitation To Enter The Debate On Syria: Reasons Why, And Reasons Why Not Take Action

Barack Obama has asked the American people to debate the issue of whether or not to use force against President Assad of Syria.  I am creating this forum for you to weigh in.  And to get things started here are some reasons why we should, and why we should not, use force.

YES, USE FORCE

1.  Iran is behind the Syrian government and has set up this scenario to drag the United States through the streets of the world, taunting us as weak and indecisive with no stomach for war impotent to do anything meaningful to stop the advance of their brand of radical Islamic Jihad.  We must deal harshly, and swiftly with this growing threat and regain our composure in the face of terrorism.

2.  A Syrian/Iranian power in the Middle East is a threat to many of our interests, including stability of world oil supplies, shipping and the safety of our allies and friendly nations such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and those nations where growth is tied to western civilization rather than the backward looking ideology of Islamic fundamentalism.

3.  Iran has vowed to develop and deploy a nuclear weapon against Israel which would most certainly spark a global war.  Syria's use of chemical weapons is a test case.  We must inflict maximum punishment else Iran will make the world much more dangerous.

4.  There is a humanitarian component to this problem that we should have dealt with much earlier.  It was at one time the top reason to take action.  It is no less important now, but other things have passed it.

NO, DO NOT USE FORCE

1.  We do not have a president that we or the world trusts any longer to lead the military correctly.  Our standing in the world is likely to suffer more under President Obama than it did under Jimmy Carter.  He is clueless, at best, and dangerously mis-aligned in his loyalties at worst.  The number one reason to not use force is due to the lack of a leader.

2.  We cannot afford another war.  Our treasury is empty.  Our nation too deeply in debt.  Wars are expensive and no surgical strikes will stop a mad man only war can stop him, a war we cannot afford to fight.

3.  We cannot guarantee success of the mission.  In fact, we have not succeeded in much we have every done in the Middle East.  Either our intelligence, our diplomats, our leaders or our lack of understanding of the issues presented have made us look like fools for decades.  We are meddlesome busy bodies who tend to make matter worse rather than better.  We need to get out of the cockpit before we crash and burn.

Okay, these are some of the arguments I've been hearing for and against action in Syria.

Would you like to open the debate here?  Before you comment, please review our comment policies.

Let the debates begin. (Many people in elected office read this blog daily.  Your participation will not go unnoticed.)

Syria: What's It Really All About?

EDITORIAL

Cynics will tell you that Obama's only reason for going into Syria would be to make himself look good after having made the "red line" speech.  Haters will tell you that Obama wants to do everything possible to collapse the US economy and another war is a quick way to do that.  But what is the Syria issue really about?

First, when you hear the word Syria, think Iran.  Assad is the bait Iran has laid in the Middle East to entice us into armed conflict.  The goal is a war in which Iran can excuse its planned attack on Israel and other interests in the region of importance to the United States.

Second, much of the Middle East is aligned with our interests.  Despite the homegrown terrorism of Osama Bin Laden, we are still very entangled with Saudi Arabia.  We have friends in Turkey and Jordan.  Iran is the bully thug of the region and the more stable governments would like nothing more than to see the Iranian's brought to heel.  While our friends don't want war to disrupt their comfy lives, they would welcome somebody putting a boot on Iran's throat and Syria is as close as it gets.

Third, with Iraq and Afghanistan winding down buhzillionaires who you never hear about are facing loss of revenue from sales of everything from food, fuel, and clothing to weapons, machinery and vehicles.  They have a very well funded lobby in Washington that is charged with the duty to see that government contracts for their goods continue to get signed.  In otherwords, forces behind the scenes at home are pushing war.

Fourth, Obama has a political game to play. And a show of military strength has always helped give presidents more political capital.  By putting the GOP right smack dab in the middle of the debate whether to take action or not, Obama can score points, divide his opponents and create political chaos.

Fifth, what's at stake is the world's view of America's tolerance of dangerous activities like using chemical weapons, amassing nuclear weapons, threatening global terrorism and Islamic Jihad.  Iran is creating a recruiting and training station for these activities and has virtually declared war on the rest of the world.  Many countries are worried what might come to them out of Iran.  The United States is viewed as the least tolerant of terrorism having 9-11 as a reason to have declared war on it.  The world is looking to see if the USA blinks on this one.

And next, there is of course the issue of human rights for which the USA still stands as a beacon of hope.  Do we have credibility, or do we engage in selective enforcement of human rights only when it serves our needs.  No, we are not the world's policemen, but we are the world's savior as our fathers proved near the middle of the last century.

What's the Syria issue really all about?  These things and any other sales pitch for one viewpoint or the other which will be trotted out as America debates what we stand for, what we stand against and who stands with who.

Syria: Politics Obama Style

President Obama has made the biggest political calculation of his life on Syria. John Kerry has stated the issue to be whether the USA can be both respected and feared in the future when it comes to standing strong in favor of human rights. The President has handed the hot potato to Congress where Republicans control the House.

Will the USA take military action to punish Assad for using chemical weapons or not? It is now a question of Congress's resolve, not the President.

His move is calculated to further divide the GOP by inflaming TEA party non-interventionist types against presumably more hawkish establishment types. Since the Democrats in Congress are likely to also split, a resolution authorizing military action will only come by a coalition of establishment R's and Obama's D's, adding further fuel to the TEA party argument that the establishment GOP is no better than the far left.

And what is at stake in this political calculation by our President? Our reputation as a nation and our standing in the world for one thing. Plus, of course, don't forget that the military-industrial interests in the nation will be looking to see who is on their side when it comes to funneling money into campaigns next year.

You think this is about Syria, or its people or human rights? Think again. It's about politics, Obama style.

Why Has Globalist Obama Avoided A UN Resolution In Syria?

Barack Obama called himself a "citizen of the world" in his 2008 Berlin speech.  His approach to foreign policy since has suggested that he is more interested in making the world "one" than in quarterbacking a victory for America.  But now, however, when Syria is accused of using chemical weapons against its own citizens Obama seems prepared to "go it alone" and launch missiles into the country.  Why is he avoiding a UN solution?

The question can probably only be answered by conspiracy theorists and deep White House insiders.  Odds are that forces far more powerful than Obama could ever hope to become control the millions and billions of dollars that military actions generate.  And because they control the money, they control the president.

If stinger missiles cost the US government about half a million dollars each, what do you think those things will fetch on the black market?  And if you own a company that makes and sells military equipment to the government and it never gets used, how are you going to sell more unless they use some of what they've got?

And how about the companies that provide food, and fuel and medical supplies and contract for computer technology or get rent from the use of their satellites, or that need the fire power of a government to make an offer to a foreign leader that he "can't refuse"?

The world is not what it appears to be and what is going on behind the scenes is more than we will likely know in our lifetimes.  But, for a president who claims to be so "transparent" and such a globalist, one would think he would make his case either to the American people, via our Congress, or to the UN.

Doing neither raises suspicions about his motives and justification.

Unintended Consequences Out Of Syria?

Having delayed our efforts to help the victims of the Assad regime fight off his oppression earlier we are now in a position where the POTUS is about to engage in unilaterally staged armed aggression against the Assad regime, an effort which might be helpful to Al Qaeda.  But that's not the worst of it.

Obama came to power under the mantra of "Bush lied, people died."  That mindset had its roots in the belief that there were no "Weapons of Mass Destruction" found in Iraq and that therefore the invasion and the loss of American lives was a fraud.

But do you remember the news reports of convoys of trucks leaving Iraq just before the invasion heading to Syria?  And do you remember the reports that Saddam Hussein had secreted his WMD's out of Iraq in advance of our coming?  And do you remember his refusal to allow inspections?

Well here's one for you.  What if Obama does in fact "go in" to Syria and finds that the chemical weapons which John Kerry confirms were used, were the WMD's from Iraq?

Who'd be the fraud now?

Scrambling The Eggs In Syria? Obama Threatens To Bomb

The weekend saw a flurry of articles about the chemical weapon attacks in Syria.  First there was the news itself and all the horrific photos of dead children.  Then there was the expression of outrage by the USA and British governments.  Then came news that the US really doesn't own the high ground here.

Not only are there serious questions swirling around the attacks in Behghazzi which suggest that the outpost there was connected with a potentially illegal arms trade with the Syrian rebels, but the people being supplied the arms might have been Al Qaeda.

Then came the declassified news that Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons attack in the 1980's might have been carried out with help from the USA followed by a cover up of how much we knew about the attacks.

Then we were told that Obama was scouting out targets to bomb with cruise missiles, which of course sent the world on high alert and caused the Russians to weigh in.  Oddly enough the Russians, though not to be trusted, did provide at least some food for giving a missile launch a second thought.

Al Qaeda stokes the ire of Muslims angry at what they see as the defilement of their lands by the oil-seeking, infidel West

The West is drawing up a list of targets for Cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling the Assad regime.

How will Syria’s main allies, Russia and Iran, respond? Putin’s spokesmen deplore the poison gas attack, but suggest it might have been the work of the Syrian rebels, which include Al Qaeda elements. They point out that Assad’s military is winning and doesn’t need to resort to using illegal weapons, and suggest that only the rebels stood to gain from the international anger aroused by such an attack. [Gateway Pundit]

Considering that the targets might very well include any where evidence of the US supplying arms to Al Qaeda might be located, the decision to bomb could have less to do with unseating the Assad regime and more to do with scrambling the eggs to hide whatever it was that we were doing to supply the really bad guys who might themselves have been the source of the chemical attacks.

Gotta keep an open mind here folks.

Al Qaeda stokes the ire of Muslims angry at what they see as the defilement of their lands by the oil-seeking, infidel West. - See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/#sthash.vSr6B6ic.dpuf