Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
anti-Obama CXXXII

anti-Obama CXXXII

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by Robert B. Sklaroff
[Guzzardi's Citations]
[Guzzardi's Citations]

More info:

Published by: Robert B. Sklaroff on Sep 08, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





As the “grist” file of hyperlinks has grown to 86 pages—
and topics supplanted by ObamaCare andKurdistan demand attention
Guzzardi insists his sage-comments [reformatted] be disseminated intact;Because
they are correct [and the proper graphic has been ID’ed],
he will [it is hoped] be pleased by thispresentation
…first of vie
ws with which he concurs and, second, of views with which he disagrees.Support:DEBATING WHETHER EVEN FIVE PERCENT OF THE SYRIAN REBELS ARE MODERATE IS
that’s it
; If the administration is going to train rebels
 –and that’s what it now hints–
the administration is not drawing a red line but trying to find a back door for arms to
rebels to put a Muslim Brotherhood government in Syria. It’s a trick! Congress mu
st voteNO on intervention in Syria! It is to fool Congress. These fools think that the only way tokeep al-Qaida out of power is by putting the Brotherhood into power!http://tinyurl.com/poo5cs2 Barry Rubin is very smart and very decent person and he knows what heis talking about.***
"The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier,Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday’s
.It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the JointChiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s thundering
, Dempsey  was largely (and respectfully) silent.
Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving
military leaders. By nomeans do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who writethe plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges withdozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days,
I feel confident that what followsrepresents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have beenintimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into itsnext war
They are embarrassed t
o be associated with the amateurism of the Obama
administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White
House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to warviolates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass andhaving a clearly defined and obtainable objective.
They are repelled by the hypocrisy o
f a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our
“responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not
about threats to American security
. The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are
proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovoand not by any systemic threat to our country.
They are outraged by the fact th
at what may happen is an act of war and a willingness
to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts
would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving
professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to
This article was cited with approval by Barry Rubin at PJMedia 8 September 2013n a very edgy article on the feckless of our commander-in-chief. A missile attack is an act of war. Where is the UNand where is the international community? An act of war because of aslip of the tongue?  And it does appear, as Barry Rubin says, that the Obama Administrationwants to arm the Jihadists attacking the Syrian dictator. He may havedone so already . 
***The Kurds should be profiled as pro-Western non-Radical Muslims.http://tinyurl.com/ma3jwmc Jonathan Spyer [
Say It Again: Independence Now
] referenced in thisarticle is an intrepid seeker of truth in the most dangerous places.***Most of that
80 percent
Kerry wants us to support align with Morsi or Hamas.
Oppose:As ill-advised interventions continue to weaken public confidence in a forceful foreignpolicy, any short-term gains in our credibility abroad are being more than canceled-outby long-term losses in public will here at home.Consider in this light two of the most articulate defenses of a Syrian intervention, James
Ceasar’s from the right, and Samantha Power’s from the left.
 Ceasar argues that, even if President Ob
ama’s Syria policies stem from blunders, are
ineffective, and entail unforeseen risks, we must back him regardless, to preserve
America’s credibility abroad. This argument has force insofar as it applies to the
immediate after-effects of congressional appr
oval. Yet the matter doesn’t end there
 Americans do not trust government and, thus, do not support a flawed tactic with unpredictable consequences; they do not have faithin a feckless President who did not even defend our Libyan Ambassador and played Spades while SEALs risked their lives to kill Osama bin Laden.U.S. voters and citizens who oppose this intervention may appear to beisolationists, but they aren
 ; calling them names only alienates them,and does not engender support. As do all complicated matters, any intervention will have unintended consequences that may prove counterproductive; it is not "isolationist" to oppose an action that could endanger American lives.There are
boots on the ground 
in Jordan, already placed into harm
way; for the record, I am a Zionist, not a lobbyist for the Netanyahugovernment.
***While the credibility of an American president is no small thing, it is simply wrong to
equate Barack Obama’s credibility with that of the United States, as the editors do: “T
heother [option left to Congress besides green-lighting an attack on Syria] is to turn
[Obama] down and destroy the president’s credibility,
and hence the nation’s
 (Emphasis added.) Ironically, their editorial goes on to deride conservative opponents of military intervention as overly simplistic. But it is the editors who oversimplify matters.American credibility on the international stage is bound up in the recognition of, andwillingness to act on,
vital national interests
. It is not embodied by any single politicalactor
indeed, when one branch of government acts against the national interest, oursystem is designed to enable the other branches to put a stop to it.http://nationalreview.com/corner/357582/syria-i-respectfully-dissent-andrew-c-mccarthy 

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->