Blame Game: The Truth Behind Syrian President Assad's Accusation of Western Hypocrisy

by Nomad

In an attempt to deflect his role in the death of his nation and the subsequent exodus of its people, President Assad said it was all the West's fault and it was hypocritical to cry over dead children.

Yesterday The Wall Street Journal reported on an interview with the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. During the carefully arranged interview, Assad pointed the finger of blame and hypocrisy at Western countries. These countries, he implied, have backed rebels aiming at toppling the Assad regime. 

This, he claims, is turn what has led to the flood of refugees. 

The Interview and the Numbers

Seated before a panel of very sympathetic Russian reporters, President Assad explained that the reason for the mass desertion of the population is because of terrorism.

"Actually those refugees left Syria because of the terrorism, mainly because of the terrorists and because of the killing, and second because of the results of terrorism. When you have terrorism, and you have the destruction of the infrastructure, you won’t have the basic needs of living, so many people leave because of the terrorism and because they want to earn their living somewhere in this world.

“The West is supporting terrorists since the beginning of the crisis when it said that this was a peaceful uprising. The West is crying for them."

“How can you be sad for a child that dies at sea and you are not sad for the thousands of children, elderly, men and women who died at the hands of terrorists in Syria.”

If you are worried about them, stop supporting terrorists. That’s what we think regarding the crisis. This is the core of the whole issue of refugees.

(For the full interview click here.)

While there is no shortage of hypocrisy in this crisis, Assad's remarks certainly hit a new low in attempts to manipulate world opinion. 

The facts, however, speak for themselves.

No Ideas, No Options: Why the GOP Alternative to a Iran Nuclear Deal is All-out War

by Nomad

An opposition party is supposed to offer alternatives to the ruling parties initiatives. In the case of the Republican party, the alternative to the Iran Nuclear deal is military conflict.

As Congress mulls over the fine print in the Iran Nuclear Arms agreement, it is interesting to listen to some of the reactions of Republican candidates.
It was always perfectly clear that anything that emerged from Obama administration's efforts would be condemned by the Republicans. 

Had the agreement had the   diplomats of the Iranian Republic marching the Supreme Leader in chains to the waiting American warships, Republican Congressmen would have been complaining that the chains were of the wrong weight or that that the speed of the military escort was too slow.

The criticism began long before Congress ever got a chance to look over the actual agreement. That criticism, some say, had much more to do with the bad relationship between the parties and the Right's animosity toward Obama than the particulars of the Iran deal.

Why Immunity for Bush and Cheney May Not Be the Final Word

by Nomad

Claims of immunity might have so far protected former Bush officials (including the ex-president and former vice president Dick Cheney) but as this post explains, treaty obligations demand that action be taken. 

In light of the revelations of CIA torture, some people have rightfully begun asking why the people involved- who have admitted that they authorized the interrogation techniques- should not be held accountable. Isn't it clear that the things done were illegal? 

How is it possible that a US government official, like Dick Cheney, can escape accountability even though he/she had all but admitted human rights crimes, as defined by international standards

The exact legal means for escaping accountability wasn't recently devised especially for the Bush administration. It was, in fact,  established back in 1988.

TheTruth Behind Obama's Use of Ambassador Posts as Political Rewards 2/2

by Nomad

In Part One of this two-part series, I told you about the recent embarrassing confirmation hearing for one of Obama's ambassadors. The quality of the president choices has been called into question. More importantly some on the Right have been asking whether the president isn't simply rewarding his top dollar campaign contributors with these positions. 

It's a good question. In this part we will look at the more recent history of this practice and how it has evolved in the last forty years.

A Look Back: Carter, Bush and Son

Candidates that have run on a reformist platform - like Obama- have fallen into the same trap. President Carter, for example, came under fire in 1977 for exactly the same thing. An article in The Telegraph reported at the time that four top ambassadors were high dollar contributors to Carter campaign in the Georgia governor's race in 1970. 

But, of all the presidents, Carter holds the record for the most number of career appointees, meaning people who have spent their lives working for the Foreign Service- not friends or political contributors. 

In 1980 Congress actually attempted to restrict the practice with The Foreign Service Act. It stated that the Foreign Service, which of course includes ambassadors, should be operated on the basis of merit principles. Merit naturally requires some kind of career in the diplomatic service. More specifically, the Act states that ''contributions to political campaigns should not be a factor in the appointment of an individual as a chief of mission.'' 
Upon signing of the bill into law in October of that year, President Carter said:

This bill provides the first comprehensive revision of personnel legislation for the United States Foreign Service in 34 years. It is an important step in the reform, simplification, and improvement of personnel administration in the Government, a top priority of my administration.

It didn't take too long for the Reagan administration to ignore that. According to a 1983 study by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan tied for the number of political ambassadors they appointed, at 32 percent each, according to a 1983 study by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA). That figure is just above an average of roughly 30 percent since World War II.

By the time George H.W. Bush became president, it was as if the reforms of 1980 had never been written . In 1989 one report found that half Bush's administration's 26 reported ambassadors-designate were President Bush's enthusiastic campaigners, or direct Republican campaign contributors or old friends of the family. At that time, President Bush had set a new standard for the spoils system. 

Newsweek Fumbles the Truth about Obama NASA Initiatives

by Nomad

They used to teach children that "reading is fundamental." In a democracy, for the voting public to keep informed, reading might be more than fundamental- it could be a matter of life or death. Naturally this assumes that an interested citizen can find accurate, honest writing by reporters actually bothering to check the facts. As any Fox News critic could tell you, repeating inaccurate statements lends a sense of authenticity to them.

Newsweek's "Chicken Little" cover story last week about asteroids and the (yawn) threat they pose to Earth. It has everything the editors of a magazine in decline might think is catchy. An opportunity for some nifty graphics, loads colorful prose, and with that recent Russian meteor, timeliness masking as relevance. And nothing collects random eyeballs like fear-mongering. 

It's not that it can't happen. It's not that extinction by falling sky-rock isn't possible. Ask the dinosaurs. (Actually you can't ask them, which just goes to show you.) But that story just been done unto death and even a real-life example in Russia can't breathe new life into the subject. (Witnesses to the actual asteroid's pass-over seemed discerningly calm. We are all lucky it didn't set off a pesky nuclear war.)

When it comes to rehashing subjects like this, the general rule of thumb is: a subject is pronounced DOA whenever Hollywood has made two films about it. A television film? and it becomes a joke at the office. 

Despite that, the story caught my attention. But halfway through the article I was stunned by one line.

"President Obama, canceling the shuttle and the manned mission to the moon and Mars, left open the possibility of one day landing on an asteroid."

That clause buried in the middle of the matter-of fact statement caught my eye. Any writer worth his/her mettle should have double-checked it instead of repeating the conventional- but wrong-wisdom. Any editor should have caught the mistake. Beside telling writers that it's "'I' before "C" except after "E," editors are supposed to check things. (And I am not referring to the failure to capitalize "moon.")

Mitt Finds a Mate? Michigan Governor Rick Snyder

by Nomad

While nearly every name -except Sarah Palin -has been floated, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is the latest to be a possible vice-presidential pick for Mitt Romney.

Snyder's not what anybody would call a shining star, something of an unknown, but considering some of the other possible choices, lack of public familiarity isn't such a bad thing. In many ways, the selection of Snyder makes a lot of sense.

Last month, when Romney toured the state, he was joined by Snyder who stated:

“Our comeback is being slowed down by the mess in Washington And if you look at the issues there, they’re the same issues we had here. We need more and better jobs.”

Without question, things in the state have, indeed, been rough, but, as the LA Times reports, the situation is slowly improving:

When Obama took office in January 2009, Michigan’s unemployment rate was 11.3%. It rose to 14.2% in August 2009, but had slid back to 10.9% by the time Snyder took office in January 2011, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since then, it has declined further to 8.5%.

That's great news for one of the most desperate areas of the country. But that kind of news is probably not the best news for the Republican campaign. In an effort to find some kind of negative aspect, Snyder blames Washington for the delay in the improvement. Blaming Washington plays well, of course. 

However, when it comes to how the problem developed in the first place, some people thing, Snyder has a few fingers pointed in his direction.

On Taxes, Reagan Sides with Obama against Romney

by Nomad

Though the Republicans of today like to consider themselves the party of Reagan, as we see, nothing could be further than the true. Reagan- whether you were fond of the man or not- would never have given his approval to a platform of  preferential taxation on the rich. That sly political fox would have told you that a politician would have to be completely  out of touch to try to run on such a ridiculous notion. 

Nevertheless, Mitt Romney wants to make the Bush taxes cuts permanent (or at least, for the foreseeable future.) Here is how he frames the discussion.

"I know there are some that say, look, we should lower taxes for the very highest-income people. My view is very simple: The people that have been hurt most by the Obama economy, has been the middle class. That's why I cut taxes for the middle class." 

Always careful to distract voters and frame the discussion but never actually saying one thing or another. Extending the Bush cuts? His answer is to talk about tax cuts for the middle class. Never mind that the middle class ARE paying their share. That's not the problem. That's not even the question. 

But back in 2008, he was far less careful about his pronouncements.

The Conspiracy Theory, 9-11, and Susan Lindauer

Susan Lindauer

by Nomad
Each of us has a personal limit as to what we are prepared to believe or not. Every religion, every news report and documentary and every conspiracy theory continually probes those limits of our capacity to believe.

The Theory of Conspiracy

The term, conspiracy theory, is nowadays used as a pejorative or dismissive term. 

Without any further discussion, a State Department official or a reporter might say with a smirk, "Well, you know what conspiracy theorists are going to say..."

Because aren't people who believe in conspiracy theories unbalanced or gullible or just plain ignorant? 

But the idea that there could be an alternative version of history is not something that strikes me as strictly incredible. Call it a conspiracy theory, if you will, but giving it that title doesn't make it any more or less invalid. As any scientist will tell you, not all theories are equal but then that's what makes them theories. Each of us has to weigh the evidence in our own minds, to measure it against our own personal sense of reality, and to accept or reject the unconventional hypothesis. 

The fact that the term, conspiracy theory, is used in this way, some would see, is a sign of the closing down of rational thought or the triumph of orthodoxy and dogma. After all, conspiracies do exist and the only way to determine their veracity is, of course, to speculate upon them. 

Karl Rove and the Truth about the Hunt for Bin Laden 1/2

By Nomad

In a Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal op-ed article, former Bush strategy advisor Karl Rove recently wrote:   

As for the killing of Osama bin Laden, Mr. Obama did what virtually any commander in chief would have done in the same situation. ..For this to be portrayed as the epic achievement of the first term tells you how bare the White House cupboards are.

It is interesting that Rove would even dare to remind the American people how completely inept the Bush administration was. Interesting, but not particularly surprising. This is Karl Rove- a man who has never felt any great need to be honest to the American people.

Obama’s Impeachment: Mr. Jones and the War Powers Act 2/2

by Nomad

In the previous post in this series, we examined in detail the resolution put forward by Republican Congressman Walter B. Jones of North Carolina charging President Obama with impeachable acts for his handling of the incidents in Libya last year. For the most part, we have seen them to be specious and without any real foundation. As I mention at the close of that post, there still seemed to be something I was overlooking. We'll begin with a closer look at the law.

The War Powers Act as Written

source:

To understand more about the War Powers Act, we need to take a small step back in time. 

In an attempt to put in practice the lessons learned from the Vietnam War, in 1973 Congress established the War Powers Resolution (later called the War Powers Act) which attempted to limit the president’s ability to wage undeclared wars; more precisely to limit the president’s ability to conduct a protracted military engagement without the authorization of Congress.

The act also attempted to clarify the ambiguity on the Constitution which considers the president the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while at the same time, gives Congress the power to declare war and to provide the funding.

The Secret Problem with Jeb: Why Another Bush is not the Solution 1/2

by Nomad

Some in the Republican party still consider Jeb Bush a possible candidate in a run for the White House. This two-part series lays out the case against Bush in exact detail. 

In the last presidential election, many people were stunned at the quality of the candidates. They looked outside of the pool for a Republican candidate with solid credentials and a familiar name.  
One name that’s been put forward is former Florida governor, John Ellis “Jeb” Bush, the younger brother of the former president George W. Bush and  second son  of the former president, George H. W. Bush. As writer Joe Conason notes:

The first obstacle that Jeb would have to surmount is that to most Americans outside the Sunshine State, he is known only as the brother of George W. Bush, most recently named one of the two worst presidents in the past half-century by respondents to a Gallup poll—rated just above the late Richard M. Nixon, in fact.

Let’s face it. That’s a mighty heavy burden. You could even add another brother, Neil -master of the S & L crisis and a grandfather, Prescott who raised FDR's hackles for his banking deals with the Nazis. All and all it's quite a family hall of notoriety. Even his father was not what would call a major success, come to think of it. (Let's not get ahead of ourselves.)

Apart from the collective automatic flinching at the mention of the Bush name, Jeb Bush appears on the surface to have a lot going for him. Sean Trende, writing for RealClear Politics puts it this way:

For many conservative Republicans, the dream outcome of the primary season is a brokered convention. Disappointed in the four remaining choices, they hope to change horses in August, and draft their preferred candidate, be it Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, or Paul Ryan.

But like a lot of things in the world of politics, appearances can be deceiving.