You may be wondering why the Obama administration (in the guise of UN Ambassador Susan Rice) is claiming that last week’s protests and murders in the Middle East were spontaneous, ad hoc exhibitions of ire against an obscure anti-Islamic YouTube movie, despite the fact that the Libyan government itself is saying that the aforementioned murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and members of his staff was part of a “precalculated, preplanned attack” by a terrorist group. After all, not only is the latter explanation the more believable one (disorganized rioters rarely bring rocket-propelled grenade launchers to spontaneous demonstrations); it’s frankly the less insulting one, given that the administration is essentially taking the position that it’s reasonable to expect Muslims to bring rocket-propelled grenade launchers to spontaneous demonstrations. And yet there Ambassador Rice is there, busily embarrassing herself all over the television – and with the pitying disapproval of her peers, too.
What’s going on?
Sheer pragmatism. A clumsy lie beats admitting to eight years of hypocrisy, you see. (more…)
At least, according to the New York Times: “The Obama administration has for now abandoned efforts for a diplomatic settlement to the conflict in Syria, and instead it is increasing aid to the rebels and redoubling efforts to rally a coalition of like-minded countries to forcibly bring down the government of President Bashar al-Assad, American officials say.” Which is all very… nice. The Assad regime is, of course, a second-generation fascist regime that routinely brutalizes its own population and funds international terrorism on a regular basis. It’s even been credibly argued that the Syrian regime has existing stockpiles of chemical and/or biological weapons – you know: WMDs. Eliminating another Baathist regime from the board would be, if you’ll forgive the phrase, a mitzvah.
What I want to know is this: again, again, precisely who or what authorizes the executive branch to commit acts of war on other countries without the input of the legislative branch? – Because while the NYT article talks about how the administration is meeting with our allies’ various civilian defense apparatuses (one hopes that we’re at least going to get paid this time), and holding regular planning sessions in house on how to deal with Syria, and coordinating with the Syrian opposition itself… nowhere in this article is there any indication whatsoever that the President is meeting or planning or coordinating with, well, Congress. Congress, in fact, seems to be entirely out of the loop on this one. And it’s going to be a race – just like it was with our Libyan adventure – to see who will be more hypocritically silent on this: Congressional Democrats, or the antiwar Left.
Speaking as an actual Brandybuck: Oh, really?
I somehow suspect that Pravda didn’t really want me to get the reaction that I did from reading this:
Hillary Clinton as the US Secretary of State will not change anything. The color of the skin does not change the essence of aggressive politics. She definitely enjoys great respect in the United States as a woman who returned to big politics after the infamous scandal with her husband. Unlike Condoleezza Rice, Clinton has a more subtle perception of the moment. She realizes that life is not based on the American dream but follows a completely different motto: “We either swim or drown.”