P. 1
anti-Obama CXXXII

anti-Obama CXXXII

|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 and Kurdistan 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 this presentation…first of views 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 LIKE DEBATING WHETHER GRAVITY DOESN’T WORK OR WHETHER THE WORLD IS FLAT. IT IS DEMONSTRABLY PROVABLE NONSENSE. And 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 must vote NO on intervention in Syria! It is to fool Congress. These fools think that the only way to keep 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 he is 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 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities, Dempsey was largely (and respectfully) silent. Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. By no means 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 write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war. They are embarrassed to 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 war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective. They are repelled by the hypocrisy of 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 Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country. They are outraged by the fact that 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 confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-military-planners-dont-support-warwith-syria/2013/09/05/10a07114-15bb-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_story.html Guzzardi: This article was cited with approval by Barry Rubin at PJMedia 8 September 2013 in a very edgy article on the feckless of our commander-in-chief. A missile attack is an act of war. Where is the UN and where is the international community? An act of war because of a slip of the tongue? And it does appear, as Barry Rubin says, that the Obama Administration wants to arm the Jihadists attacking the Syrian dictator. He may have done 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 this article 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. John Kerry’s Moderates: Are Non-Al-Qaeda Syrian Rebels Really ‘Democratic’? Jonathan Spyer [PJMedia 9/6/2013] *** The very credible Yosef Bodansky shows how the US is aiding Syrian Jihadist fighting alAssad government. What did the Obama Administration know and when did they know it, about the chemical weapon attack?" [Center for Research on Globalization 9/1/2013]

Oppose: As ill-advised interventions continue to weaken public confidence in a forceful foreign policy, any short-term gains in our credibility abroad are being more than canceled-out by 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 Obama’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 approval. Yet the matter doesn’t end there. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/357887/public-opinion-and-syria-strikestanley-kurtz Guzzardi: Americans do not trust government and, thus, do not support a flawed tactic with unpredictable consequences; they do not have faith in 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 be isolationists, but they aren’t; 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’s way; for the record, I am a Zionist, not a lobbyist for the Netanyahu government. *** 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 he other [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, and willingness to act on, vital national interests. It is not embodied by any single political actor – indeed, when one branch of government acts against the national interest, our system is designed to enable the other branches to put a stop to it. http://nationalreview.com/corner/357582/syria-i-respectfully-dissent-andrew-cmccarthy

Guzzardi: I respectfully dissent from the editors’ support for U.S. military intervention in Syria, which expands on the corporate position NATIONAL REVIEW staked out last week. **************** Pushed on the Bandwagon - Obama's Syria plan forced AIPAC's hand [by Steven J. Rosen] http://tinyurl.com/nyaj3s4 {The title “speaks” for itself.} Guzzardi: Backing a bad policy is not the best way to engage in the Middle East; there is no reason to think that Obama will attack Iran the way he is attacking Syria. Obama has not been a great friend to Israel; weapons and military cooperation do not win the war of ideas. Steve Rosen mistakenly exaggerates influence of Rand Paul and "isolationists"; AIPAC is dominated by Liberal Democratic Obama supporters and enablers. Personnel is policy and every Democrat enthusiastically worked and contributed to the election of Barack Hussein Obama; he set forth his pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies in Cairo in June, 2009. We are witnessing execution of the flawed tactic of a feckless president and his Administration; hurting Assad helps Islamists. Rand Paul may have correctly claimed that US intervention in the Middle East has not been a stunning success for the US.; Ariel Sharon thought Gaza Withdrawal was a good idea and Israelis welcomed Yasir Arafat and PLO back to position of power and influence. Netanyahu backed the Wye Accords; AIPAC still endorses the Terrorist State Solution (sometimes called the “Two-State Solution”). There is nothing “isolationist” about rejecting a flawed policy that strengthens Radical Islamists; it is unclear how supporting Barack Obama inures to Israel's benefit. The Iranian centrifuges are whirling away; meanwhile, Obama debates a "red line." Also note that virtually all essays on the home-page of “Real Clear Politics” espouse anti-BHO postures, some more tentative than others, but none conveying a full-throated endorsement of his actions:

Barry's War Within - Maureen Dowd, New York Times Libya a Red Flag for Syria Intervention - Byron York, DC Examiner U.S. Has Responsibility to Protect Syrian People - Michael Abramowitz, WP Our Credibility Is Not at Stake in Syria - Anna Simons, National Interest The Best Result From Congress: A "No" Vote - James Fallows, The Atlantic Pulling the Curtain Back on Syria - Nicholas Kristof, New York Times Hesitation, Delay, and Unreliability - Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard Fears of Wounding Obama Weigh Heavily on Dems - Lillis & Wasson, Hill Obama Has Squandered His Second Term - Noah Rothman, Mediaite The Hands-Tied Presidency - Sam Tanenhaus, New York Times Congress Should Reject Obama's Syria Ploy - Charles Kesler, Nat'l Review Reject Obama's Request to Attack Syria - Denver Post How Obama Got Syria So Wrong - Trudy Rubin, Philly Inquirer

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)//-->