Tuesday, September 3, 2013

As the Advocates of Unlawful Intervention (and expanded war) Weigh In...

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



As Congress considers the irrational logic behind the Obama Administration's argument for military intervention in Syria the likely Democratic Party nominee for President in 2016, Hillary Clinton, comes down squarely on the side of the MIC and continuation of the United States of America's role as the world's policeman. Just as did the current Secretary of State, and former anti war activist John Kerry has done. Prepare yourself America for more of the same, as this nation actively seeks a way to continue to lose credibility worldwide.

POLITICO - Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backs President Barack Obama’s move to urge Congress to back a targeted effort in Syria, in the first comments from her camp since the president unveiled his plan, POLITICO has learned.

“Secretary Clinton supports the president’s effort to enlist the Congress in pursuing a strong and targeted response to the Assad regime’s horrific use of chemical weapons,” a Clinton aide told POLITICO.

Calls had been increasing on Clinton to weigh in on the president’s plan for Syria.

Clinton is giving a speech next week that she’d indicated would focus on the debate over the National Security Agency, but it is possible that the focus could shift.

The potential 2016 presidential contender has been picking her spots on the national issues she chooses to discuss, as she takes time since leaving Foggy Bottom to develop her office at the Clinton Foundation and give speeches, as well as work on her new memoir.

But avoiding Syria was hard to imagine, even as Clinton associates insist she hasn’t made up her mind about a run for the White House. Her tenure at the State Department will be both the platform for a future campaign, should she launch one, and not commenting would leave the appearance of daylight between her and the incumbent, who is pushing hard to sell Congress on authorizing a limited strike.

It was reported earlier this year by The New York Times that the White House had nixed a proposal by Clinton and former CIA head David Petraeus to arm some Syrian rebels...
Which by the way means siding squarley with Al Qaeda. {Read More Here}

The Geneva Accords and the War Powers Act aside it is becoming more clear than ever why the Founding Fathers cautioned and advised future generations to steer clear of foreign interventions.

Witness the party of WAR and advocate for continued expansion of the Military Industrial Complex. The very same that President Dwight Dwight Eisenhower warned America of in his Farewell Speech to the Nation in 1961, note especially his comments beginning at approximately the 6 min. and 20 sec. mark.

Unfortunately our nation has been on a constant military footing non stop since WW II. The question for this nation is, "when will it be time time to stand down?"

Via: Memeorandum

10 comments:

  1. There is not the evidence to say this "means siding squarely with Al Qaeda." From the testimony we all saw today, it was clear the situation isn't quite what some are making out when it comes to any terrorist radicalization of the revolution. The senators were more than once told they'd be briefed on that specific subject confidentially, and were assured the situation is not just some terrorist/tyrant Mexican standoff.

    It's unclear to us citizen observers what exactly would happen if Assad is so weakened by strikes against his delivery systems that his regime falls. But we do know the Free Syrian Army is the main rebel force, they and their mostly younger, educated supporters are not particularly inclined toward radical Islamism. And importantly, they have the key technocrats to restore order and therefore they could help to restrain the polinationalist-theocrats. Sort of another Egypt situation. It's better than all-out civil war, and if you argue that the PT's are gaining clout in the rebellion, then wouldn't it be better to act now then wait for them to accumulate more?

    I do find the notion that we are without national interest here a little absurd. Whether you or I like it or not, we are already long-since entangled over there and there's no just walking away from that shit storm now. I don't know what good would come of this, but I am quite certain it will turn out better than any of the prior President's escapades. Just imagine if the entire Iraq War had been just a few months of missile strikes...

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I do find the notion that we are without national interest here a little absurd. Whether you or I like it or not, we are already long-since entangled over there and there's no just walking away from that shit storm now."

      Why the hell not? I'd say right now is a GREAT time to walk away from the shit storm.

      "I don't know what good would come of this, but I am quite certain it will turn out better than any of the prior President's escapades."

      Why's that? Because your philosopher-king is in charge?

      I truly cannot believe how hypocritical liberals are on this Syria fiasco. It blows my mind.

      Delete
  2. Put partisan politics aside for a moment....

    With the aftermath of WWII and the economic situation in Europe we saw Russia and communism as a threat to our existence and thus began the cold war.

    A world of two superpowers, with their satellite nations, and a few non-aligned nations.

    On one hand Eisenhower makes his famous MIC speech but at the same time he was also one of the architects of the cold war. He could of taken us down a different path but he did not.

    Reagan knew that the Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse and thus realized that shortly their would only be one superpower. He could have taken us down a different path but he did not.

    Oh yes, there were lots of times in between these two presidents when things could have changed but the reality is our military today is a result of the cold war and Eisenhower governed at the beginning of the cold war and Reagan at the end....the critical times when drastic change could have made a difference.

    GWB sold us on the Iraq war and you voted for him twice, by telling us that Saddam used WMD on his own people...

    So, how do we say now, "Oh sorry world, we draw the line on chemical weapons used on ones own people" to the borders of Iraq?

    Assad in Syria can use chemical weapons all he wants.

    Syria is also a much bigger threat to Israel than Iraq ever was...what do we tell the Israelis?

    We will let Assad do as he pleases?

    We worry about Iran and here we have a chance to go after Hezbollah, which is supporting Assad.

    So, let Assad slide by this time and Iran will have nuclear weapons in no time.

    Exactly how do you dismantle the MIC? How do you change almost 70 years of standard operating procedures for a country?

    Even Rand Paul, who I suspect will vote against attacking Syria has a huge problem in regards to MIC because with two military bases in Kentucky the military is the largest employer in the state.

    Just direct military spending, not including the National Guard, the contracts Humana has with the military and the VA, and not including retiree benefits, direct military spending accounts for over 10% of Kentucky's annual GDP.

    So, its one thing to complain and criticize but exactly how do you unwind something so HUGE?







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So, its one thing to complain and criticize but exactly how do you unwind something so HUGE?"

      Slowly?

      The problem as I see it is that nobody is really trying.



      Delete
  3. Note to all future Presidents - don't make any more idiotic red lines.......Just for the record, I was against the Iraq war, too, but I do find it kinda funny that Kerry wants to hammer Assad for gassing a couple hundred prople but he didn't want to do anything to Saddam Hussein for gassing 50,000 Kurds and 100,000 Iranians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bush shouldn't have sold Saddam those WMD.

      FYI...

      President Obama: I didn’t set a red line. ... The world set a red line. ... My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line.

      Indeed. Since when did Obama solely decide the use of chemical weapons was a red line? Did that belief not exist before Obama? I'm pretty sure it did, Will. Yet Will spins this as idiocy from the president he has grown to dislike (intensely).

      Delete
  4. Partisan politics aside, spin away folks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Did I spin?

    Look, I really wish we weren't involved here at all. And I'm sure Israel is putting a lot of pressure on us to do something here (taking out Syria's delivery systems would be good for Israel no matter what comes of the civil war). On the other hand, "pro-Israel" politicians here in the States seem very leery. This whole thing is just one ugly mess.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A joke jersey, wasn't addressing you specifically.

      Or was it a joke? Don't rightly know anymore, so leaving it up to others to decide. They pretty much do anyway regardless.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.