Mr. Kerry.  I am a Vietnam Veteran.  On April 22, 1971 I watched with disgust as you testified before congress with that same arrogant sneer so obvious in the recent hearings regarding Syria.  Your testimony in 1971 showed a total lack of respect for your fellow Vietnam Veterans.

You claimed that U.S. military personnel “personally raped, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turn up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.  “

You claimed that “these were not isolated instances, but rather crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”

While there were isolated incidents of such behavior, the vast majority of American troops served with honor and integrity.  It is one thing to express opposition to the war.  It is something else to sit there and arrogantly lecture congress, in your uniform, while telling outrageous lies and distortions that slandered and defamed every one of the more 500,000 men and women who served in South East Asia.  You also dishonored the more than 58,000 Americans who paid the ultimate price in that conflict.  Sadly, this happened more than 42 years ago, yet no one has ever held you accountable for your outrageous and irresponsible behavior.  There is no statute of limitations on such an act of dishonor.

Now you are back, with the same arrogant sneer, trying to convince congress to give authorization to start another war.  Yet on numerous occasions you gave statements regarding your personal opinion of President Assad.  As recently as March 2011, you said the following:

  “So my judgment is that Syria will move; Syria will change, as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West and economic opportunity that comes with it and the participation that comes with it.”

In March 2010, you said the following:

“I have long argued that America’s national security interests are well served by engaging with Syria.”

“I believe that with confident, carefully calibrated diplomacy, we can show Damascus what it stands to gain by moderating its behavior – and what it stands to lose by going in the other direction. To succeed, we must present Damascus with a clear choice and a vision of a different future.”

Mr. Kerry, we are now faced with making the crucial decision regarding war and peace based on the testimony of a man who burst into the national spotlight by telling outrageous lies under oath to another congressional hearing.  We are faced with making this crucial decision regarding war and peace based on the personal judgment of a man who has been consistently wrong about Syria in general and President Assad in particular.

The American people deserve better than this.  They deserve better than you.  You are a disgrace to the uniform you wore.  A man with your demonstrated lack of integrity and character should have been disqualified from holding any responsible public office.  It is bad enough that you were elected to the United States Senate.  It is bad enough that you were chosen by the Democratic Party to be their candidate for President.  But the ultimate insult to the Vietnam Veterans you slandered and defamed would be to allow you to lead us into a bloody and unnecessary war, with a country that you previously said represents no threat to us.

I quote from your testimony on April 22, 1971:

In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to use the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

Mr. Kerry, there is nothing in Syria, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America.  To attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Syria by linking such loss to alleged atrocities on one side of a civil war, while ignoring similar actions by the rebels is “to use the height of criminal hypocrisy.”

If President Obama wants to make the case for war, he should do so himself.  He could hardly have found a less qualified spokesman.

TDM

President Obama is firmly committed to delaying the decision on Syria.  He gave a news conference to clarify his position, where he said he knows he should and he knows he could but he also knows he shouldn’t so he couldn’t.  This an emergency situation the world cannot ignore, so when he’s done with his vacation and congress is back in town they are going to hash it out and firmly decide.

In the meantime, John Kerry is visiting all the talk shows trying to look and act mean.  The only thing scarier than President Barack Hussein Obama is the thought that he is getting guidance from John Kerry.  Actually, Kerry is low down on the list; Obama’s primary guidance counselor is rumored to be Valerie Garrett.  This is the same Valerie Garrett who tried to talk him out of authorizing the raid on Osama Bin Laden.  We can’t even dream of a sudden illness solving the problem, because the Vice President is Joe Biden.  It is really hard to be optimistic about this.

My guess is that Putin is having trouble controlling the giggles.  We truly have the dream team in place, if you are a fan of Russia and our other enemies around the globe.

It appears as though the grand plan is to launch a limited number of air strikes and cruise missile attacks.  In the meantime we have given Assad more than enough time to prepare.  There are already reports that he is locking up captured rebels in important military installations.  My guess is that he will add in a lot of innocent civilians.  Don’t be surprised if he also decides this would be a good place to store those chemical weapons.

Suppose one assumes that it was Assad who authorized the use of chemical weapons.  (So far that has not been proven and one wonders why he would do this, because he is clearly winning the war.)  But, assume that he did do this.  Would he hesitate to create a situation where any attack by the U.S. would result in massive civilian casualties?  Do we really think we can solve the problem of Assad killing innocent people by launching a military assault destined to kill more innocent civilians?

In the deluded world of the liberal left, this is ok, because it will be limited in scope.  Liberals only believe in limited war where there is no risk to our troops and we are very careful to avoid any potential for actual victory.

In the meantime congress is in a real pickle.  If they do not give Obama approval, we will look even more weak and pathetic. A weak President endangers us all.  In addition, at least some people will try to paint this as racism.  Yet how can anyone believe this administration with all the lies and deception that has taken place over the past four years.  More importantly, how can anyone honestly believe that Obama is remotely capable of making good decisions if things go wrong?  Even if members of congress convince themselves that something needs to be done about Syria, who in their right mind would trust Obama to get the job done?  Syria is definitely a problem, but the real risk to our national security is our incompetent Commander in Chief.

The rest of the world is already on to Obama.  The British Parliament gave a resounding vote of no confidence.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/syria-intervention-downing-street-vote

While Cameron took the direct hit this was really a rejection of Obama’s leadership.  The only country pretending to help us so far is France.  But one should keep in mind that the French are famous for biting off more than they can chew.  They are primarily known for negotiating surrender after catastrophic defeat.  In addition, the French surrender monkeys are already chirping and Hollande may not get authorization to help either.

http://www.france24.com/en/20130901-usa-stalling-syria-puts-pressure-france-francois-hollande

This is a real mess.  Perhaps the only thing more damaging that failing to give authority to President Obama is giving him authority he is destined to misuse.  This time there is more than the U.S. economy or our health care system at risk.  Obama could easily blunder his way into World War III.

England found itself in exactly this position at the onset of World War II.  The problem was solved when the British Parliament got rid of Neville Chamberlain and replaced him with Winston Churchill.  Unfortunately that option is not available in the U.S.

The biggest problem with Syria is that the problem will not remain limited to Syria.  In some ways removing Assad is similar to dismissing an abusive prison warden.  It feels good at that the time, until you realize that the inmates are the real problem.  If Assad is removed from power don’t expect a smooth transition to a secular democracy.  It is more likely to look like Libya or Iraq before the surge.  The thought of having Assad in control of chemical weapons is disturbing.  But the thought of those weapons getting in the hands of the rebels, which means in the hands of al Qaeda, is a thousand times worse.  Assad may be truly evil, but he does not appear to be suicidal.

Ultimately I think that the only responsible option available to congress is to tell Obama no.  The most likely decision will be to micro-manage stupidity.   I expect congress to give Obama some authority, but far less than he wants and nowhere near enough authority to actually solve the problem.  This is easy to predict, because it would be the worst possible decision.

TDM

The White House is now in full-fledged panic mode.   Currently there are two letters to Obama warning him to not take action against Syria without congressional approval:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/nancy-pelosi-barack-obama-syria-96065.html

Despite the challenges of acquiring lawmakers’ signatures during the August recess, two missives demanding a congressional debate have gained steam in recent days on Capitol Hill. One, spearheaded by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) and carrying the support of 140 House Republicans and Democrats, demands that the administration seek authorization from Congress before striking Syria. The other, drafted by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and supported by 54 Democrats, urges Obama to come to Congress for approval of military action.

Obama is trying to drum up support from congress with a last minute conference call.  He looks and acts desperate.   This is insane.  The only emergency here is the need for President Obama to wipe the egg off his face.  Syria is not about to attack us or attack Israel.  There is no imminent threat.  There is no justification for an emergency response.  But if we attack them, they just might do both.

The risks of launching cruise missiles at Syria are enormous.  Let’s assume Assad does have large quantities of chemicals, including nerve gas.  Let’s assume that he did gas his own people.  Now let’s assume that he knows which military installations are most likely to be attacked with a cruise missile.  All Assad has to do is move some of those chemicals to the targeted sites.  Then if we launch a strike we are very likely to set off a catastrophic event.  During the first Gulf war we attacked a facility in Iraq that had artillery rockets filled with Sarin.  The place is so contaminated that even today, more than 20 years later; no one dares go near the place.  (This story should also be a stark reminder to those people who don’t think Saddam had WMD.  There is actually no doubt that he had them, the only question is where did they go?   Syria???)

http://cns.miis.edu/stories/100304_iraq_cw_legacy.htm

Even Assad doesn’t have WMD in these locations; he certainly has captured rebel soldiers.   It is hard to believe that we can launch cruise missile attacks without killing a lot of innocent people:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/130830/exclusive-syria-army-defectors-say-us-strikes-could-kill-assad-

Would it surprise you to learn that there are reports that the military loyal to Assad has surrounded themselves with civilians?  Would a military that is accused of using gas warfare on its own people hesitate to do this?

This is a brilliant plan.  We are going to show our outrage at the death of innocent civilians by bombing Syria and killing more innocent civilians.  It would be one thing if we were going to go in and clean up the swamp, but that is clearly not on the table.

In addition, the above is probably closer to the best case scenario than the worst case scenario.  We know that Russia has Sunburn anti-ship missiles that appear to be very potent.  We know that Iran has some of these missiles.  Does Syria have them?  We don’t know.   Just imagine the response if Syria or even Iran, somehow manages to blow up one of our capital ships.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/aerospace-defense-blog/2013/07/how-vulnerable-are-u-s-navy-vessels-to-advanced-anti-ship-cruise-missiles.html

Our Incompetent in Chief is trying to gain a lot by risking a little, but instead he is risking a lot to gain virtually nothing.  The latest theory is that Obama has to do something so that he won’t be mocked for doing nothing.   I can’t imagine a worse reason for going to war.  Is it any surprise that the most naïve and incompetent man ever to run for President of the United States is proving to be the most naïve and incompetent President of the United States?  At a time when we need to believe in our government, the Obama administration is shocked to learn that if you consistently lie about things, eventually no one believes you anymore.   The situation in Syria is a mess.  We desperately need a skilled and courageous leader.  Instead, we have Barack Obama.

TDM

We are in the midst of something remarkable.   Just a few days ago a military strike against Syria looked inevitable.   That is not true today.   David Cameron called parliament into emergency session and asked for authority to take military action against Syria.  Parliament turned him down.  It was a humiliating defeat for Cameron.  The last time that happened in Great Britain was 1782, when the British Parliament intervened to end the Revolutionary War with the United States.  This public humiliation of Cameron also had an impact on the political environment in the United States.

Once again Ted Cruz is way ahead of the curve.  He asked why parliament was discussing this but congress was not.  Good question.  John Boehner is openly challenging President Obama.  He has written him a letter demanding that Obama consult with congress and make the case for taking military action against Syria.  He has warned Obama that in his opinion if Obama does not do that he will be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.  He has demanded that Obama show leadership and explain to congress why we are doing this and what we hope to accomplish.

One serious problem for Obama is that then Senator Joe Biden threatened to impeach George W. Bush if he dared attack Iran without congressional approval.   Biden later doubled down during an interview with Chris Matthews where he said that a President does not have the power to do this without congressional approval.  Neither congress nor the President want to test the constitutionality of the War Powers Act passed on November 7, 1973.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

The war powers act was passed in spite of President Richard Nixon’s veto.  Every subsequent President has taken the position that the war powers act is unconstitutional, yet they have also made very sure they never tested this position.  But now we have a President who may have blundered his way into exactly such a constitutional crisis.  If President Obama had ordered an assault on Syria shortly after learning of the alleged chemical attack, he would have received support from both parties.  Republicans have a long tradition of putting national security ahead of party politics.  They didn’t even challenge Clinton when he ordered air raids on Iraq, in spite of there being no crisis, during the middle of his impeachment trial.

The delay in taking action has resulted In the American people and members of congress having time to reflect on this situation and the results are earth shattering.  Some public opinion polls have only 5% of the population supporting military action against Syria.  The most optimistic survey I have seen shows support at only 31%.  Obama is rapidly losing the political base necessary to support taking military action.

It is impossible to predict what will happen.  If Obama backs off now and does not take military action against Syria, he will suffer a humiliating international political defeat.  Even if he comes up with some face saving explanation for changing his mind, no one will take him seriously in the future.  On the other hand, if he attacks Syria with such widespread public opposition and in direct defiance of congress, he better hope for overwhelming success.  Otherwise he is likely to trigger a constitutional crisis.  This naïve, arrogant and incompetent President may have painted himself into the ultimate corner.

The Voice of America is finally being heard and it is a resounding rejection of Barack Obama as our Commander in Chief.  It is increasingly clear that Obama has lost the support of leaders in both political parties.  As Lincoln once said:  you can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.  Right now, Obama isn’t fooling anyone.

TDM

I was in Target the other day when I ran across the monster of the midway.  There was a young boy about 4 years old throwing a world class hissy fit. His mother was screaming at him with threats no one believed.  I wondered how bad it was at home.  One thing was certain; this kid is going to be a real handful unless something or someone intervenes.  All of us have been frustrated by our children, from time to time, but most of us learn that meaningless threats seldom work.  The worst threat is one which accomplishes nothing, even if carried out.  My favorite is: “don’t make me tell you again.”  That always works!  Another classic is: “keep it up and you’ll be sorry.”  Teddy Roosevelt figured this out.  That is why he said:  “speak softly, but carry a big stick.”

Unfortunately we have an administration that often speaks loudly and is terrified of sticks. How many times have we heard Obama say that if Syria uses chemical weapons he will take action?  Well, here we are.  A lot of people believe that Syria has used chemical weapons.  The New York Times seems to think so.

”http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/world/middleeast/text-of-kerrys-statement-on-chemical-weapons-in-syria.html

If you read the test of John Kerry’s little speech, he doesn’t say that Syria has used chemical weapons.  Instead he says he thinks they did, but he isn’t sure, but they are acting suspicious because they aren’t cooperating with the investigation.  Gee John…check out Benghazi if you want to see that little trick.  By the way John, weren’t you the one who said Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat with nuclear weapons?

In the meantime RINO Republicans are egging on Obama to take action:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/25/mccain-graham-call-military-action-syria-chemical-/

It is embarrassing when someone as naïve and incompetent as Barack Obama is more rational than top Republicans.  Even if these guys are right, they are wrong.  There is no chance that Obama will use sufficient force to enable a good result in Syria.  He is capable of creating massive destruction, but totally incapable of managing the aftermath.

The most Obama will do is launch a couple of cruise missiles and then only with the permission of the UN and/or NATO.  He is almost certain to kill a lot of innocent civilians.  One of the big problems with Syria is that the problems won’t be confined to Syria.  A Washington Times article last fall discusses this topic:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/25/syrian-war-boils-over-onto-us-allies-outside-jihad/?page=all

If, and that is a big IF, we are successful in getting rid of Assad, odds are that he will be replaced by al Qaeda.  At best there will be chaos that will make post war Iraq look like the Garden of Eden.  Assad definitely has weapons of mass destruction.  So what happens if he loses power?  Does anyone think the UN or NATO will send in troops to stabilize the country?  Please!  At least some of those WMD will end up in the hands of terrorists.  There are hundreds, if not thousands of hand fired surface to air missiles loose thanks to Obama botching things in Libya.  It is bad enough to think of some al Qaeda operative armed with a missile that can take down an airliner.  But that pales in comparison to al Qaeda getting its hands on some real nasty stuff, like nerve gas.

I must admit I don’t know what to do about Syria, but I am totally convinced that Obama will make things worse.  That is easy to predict, because Obama has made everything worse.  He has proven himself capable of taking any bad situation and adding insult to injury.

I personally think we have only two viable options.  We send in the troops, take over the country and clean out the trash, or we avoid getting involved at all.  Anything in between is a recipe for disaster.  Since there is zero chance that we will do what it really takes, we should just stay out.  If the fight isn’t worth winning it isn’t worth fighting.

Instead of people like John McCain giving stupid advice, Republicans should just point out that Obama is Commander in Chief and we would be very interested in knowing how he plans to deal with this.

One final thought.  I am not totally convinced that Assad was the one who used those chemical weapons.  Putin says that Assad was already winning, so he didn’t need to do that.  Based on recent reports, that seems to be an accurate assessment.  The following blog from the Telegraph UK is typical of what others are reporting:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100227893/the-west-should-prepare-for-assads-victory-in-syria/

Use of chemical weapons would be an act of desperation.  If Putin is right, Assad is far from desperate.  But if the rebels are losing, do you really think they would hesitate to kill innocent women and children and blame it on Assad?  Al Qaeda is deeply entrenced with some of the rebels.  People who won’t hesitate to kill themselves won’t hesitate to kill anyone else.  Why would Assad decide now to use chemical weapons?  He is one vicious and unpredictable dude, but he would seem to have little motivation for this.

At the moment, everyone seems to think that Assad is guilty.  But, these are the same people who thought Saddam Hussein had large quantities of WMD.  The first casualty of any war is always the truth.  I hope I am wrong, but a couple of thoughts keep circling my mind.  There are a lot of people who desperately want us to use military force in Syria.  So far these people have been frustrated by President Obama’s hesitation and indecisiveness.  If, as reported above, Assad seems to be winning the war, would at least some of them welcome the use of chemical weapons to provide the incentive needed to get Obama to take action.  Perhaps they “WANT” to believe that Assad used chemical weapons.

The ultimate act of stupidity would be to get involved in a war, we are not prepared to fight and which we have no strategy to win, because of piss poor intelligence.  This is particularly true when both China and Russia are strongly opposed.  Since this is easily the worst possible outcome, it is sadly the most likely thing to happen.

TDM

More tapes from Richard Nixon were released to the public and liberals immediately pounced.  We are once again being reminded of the evil Tricky Dicky.  But the reality is that these tapes show something very different.  The whole Watergate thing was a pathetic joke.  Some clowns, loosely connected with Nixon’s re-election campaign tried to plant wire taps at the Democratic National Committee.   To quote Hillary Clinton:  “what differences does it make?”  They got caught.  It was an idiotic plan which involved high risk for little or no reward.

What struck me was how minor the Watergate incident was in the scheme of things.  Suppose someone from Barack Obama’s campaign had got caught planting wiretaps in the Republican National Committee headquarters.  No one in the main stream media would bother to investigate.  If a House Republican committee dared ask questions about it the liberal media would howl with scorn and indignation.  It would probably be labeled as another racist attack.

It should have ended there.  The real story of Watergate is not the third rate unsuccessful burglary, it is the malicious prosecution of a President by partisan political opponents.  In the end, Nixon became even more paranoid and started viewing the main stream media and liberal democrats as enemies.  He was right about that.  Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t actually out to get you.  It is no surprise that Richard Nixon, who was under seige, developed a seige mentality.  Nixon brought about his own demise, but in some ways this is similar to an individual who is bulled into committing suicide.  Yes, the person who committs suicide is primarily to blame, but at least part of the blame belongs to those who pushed that person to the brink.

In 1968, I was a crewmember flying combat missions in South East Asia.  It was a very bad year.  There were wide spread protests and the President of the United States, Lyndon Johnson seemed determined to lose the war he personally started by lying to the American people.  When Richard Nixon was elected it was like a breath of fresh air.  He immediately restored a sense of purpose and he miraculously managed to keep his promise of “peace with honor.”  The United States won that war.  When Nixon ordered B52 raides over North Vietnam they folded like a cheap umbrella.  They signed a peace treaty and sent our POWs home.  I don’t believe the North Vietnamese would have ever risked violating that treaty with Richard Nixon still in the Oval Office.  If Richard Nixon had remained in office, South Vietnam today might look like South Korea and 3 million Cambodians might still be alive.

The liberal left with the wild support from the main stream media was successful in destroying Richard Nixon.  He contributed greatly to his own demise.  But in the end, they removed one of the most effective President’s in our nation’s history.  Even liberals are astonished by his real accomplishments.  The removal of Richard Nixon from office, resulted in a humiliating defeat in Vietnam.  The Democratic congress cut off all funds and blocked every attempt by Gerald Ford to aid South Vietnam.  They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  In doing so, they threw the sacrifices made by so many to achieve that victory on the scrap heat of history.

God Bless the memory of Richard Nixon. For me he is and always will be the man who brought me home.

TDM

Note:

Just in case you want to check out the “facts” about this, following is a link to the actual Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon:

http://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/371d1/nixonarticles.html

Compare this to what other Presidents have done.

A final note:  Democrats know that the Watergate Burglary and the cover-up of that burglary failed to reach the level necessary to justify the impeachement of a President.  So they are focused primarily on the so-called enemies list and the absuse of power.  What actually happenned is that John Dean brought a list of 200 Democrats he thought worthy of special attention to the IRS.  Treasury Secretary George Schultz basically laughed at him, told his staff to ignore the request and locked the list up in a safe.  There is no evidence that a single Democrat was actually targeted by the IRS because of Richard Nixon.

On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that the Obama administration did exactly that.  The following story in the Weekly Standard provides the details:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/former-white-house-official-deletes-embarrassing-tweet-about-koch-brothers-taxes_731862.html

In August of 2010, Austian Goolsbee, who was serving as economic advisor to President obama, told reporters that Koch industries doesn’t pay corporate income taxes.  President Obama himself was publicly demonizing Charles and David Koch, the owners of Koch Industries for giving money to Tea Party groups.   Mark Holden, an attorney for Koch Industries, disputed that claim and asked him if someone in the Obama administraiton had looked at the Koch Brothers tax return.

Just recently IRS Inspector General J. Russell George said in a letter to Republican Sentaor Grassely that his office found four cases where confidential tax records of political donors or candidates for office since 2006, and at least one case of “willful unauthorized access” since 2006.  He still refused to identify the people who were targeted:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/15/feds-admit-improper-scrutiny-candidate-donor-tax-r/

So far, no one in the main stream media seems overly concerned.

All of us are watching the news out of Egypt with more than a little shock.  It is long past time to tell the truth about what is happening there.  The United States was successful in undermining the Mubarak regime to the extent that it eventually was removed from power.  This is remarkably similar to how we undermined the Shah of Iran.  How did that work out?  Are the people in Iran better off now than when the Shah was in power?  The theory was that Mubarak was too dictatorial.  Every time there was a demonstration, the Obama administration warned the Egyptian military and police to show restraint.  They did.  We are now watching the results on our television screens.

There are no good guys in Egypt, but there are definitely bad guys.  The Muslim Brotherhood will turn Egypt back into a fundamentalist Islamic state, if given the chance.  They already tried to do exactly that after the last election.  No one should be disillusioned about the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Following is an English translation of their motto:

 “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

The Egyptian military is not above reproach, but it is a lot better than the alternative.  The reason Mubarak ruled under emergency law for all those years was that the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat.  He knew that if he did not suppress the Muslim Brotherhood, they would do never stop until they gained complete control.  Always remember that the Muslim Brotherhood was the father of al Qaeda. 

Suppose we had an extremist group operating in the United States.  They wanted to force everyone to adopt their world view.  They wanted to force everyone to adopt their religious views.  They organized violent mobs.  They rigged elections to put candidates favorable to them in charge.  When they were charged with crimes, crooked judges and biased juries acquitted them without regard to the evidence.  They often tortured and killed those they opposed.  How would we respond to that?  We already know the answer, because that is exactly what the Ku Klux Klan did.  This happened more than once.  Every time it happened, they were only stopped when the government went to war with them, hunted them down and shut them down.  We could not tolerate the Ku Klux Klan, because tolerating them is incompatible with Democracy.  We didn’t solve the problem of the Ku Klux Klan by giving them a seat at the table of power.  That would have been absurd!  Sometimes the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to refuse to take sides.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the Islamic version of the Ku Klux Klan on steroids.  They are not interested in democracy, they don’t believe in democracy.  They aren’t interested in religious tolerance, they don’t believe in religious tolerance.  They have already demonstrated many times that they will do anything and everything to gain power.  We are talking about a group that has a history of assassinating political opponents.  There is no possibility of real democracy in Egypt if the Muslim Brotherhood is part of the equation.

Unfortunately President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and RINO republicans like John McCain and Lindsay Graham are enabling the Muslim Brotherhood.  The worst possible way to handle this mess is to give the Muslim Brotherhood a preferred seat at the table of power.  Yet that is exactly what the U.S. is demanding.  It is absurd.  The fastest way to end the violence is Egypt is to allow the Egyptian military to, once again, suppress the Muslim Brotherhood.  The good news is that the Egyptian military appears ready to do exactly that.

There are signs that the Arab world, led by Saudi Arabia, is uniting behind the Egyptian Military.  Perhaps we should pay attention.  Russia is ready, willing and able to step into the leadership vacuum.  If we do not give the Egyptian military what it needs, it will obtain it from Russia.  The United States spent years maneuvering Egypt away from a strong Soviet ally under Nasser to our best friend in the Middle East.  I fail to see how letting Russia regain influence in Egypt would possibly benefit the United States or anyone else.

This is hardly new.  I wrote about this in January of 2011.  If you want to check it out, here is the link:

https://scotshonor.com/?p=640

The astonishing thing to me is accurate that turned out to be, since I am hardly an expert on Egypt.  I have never been there and only know a handful of people who went there briefly on vacation.  Everything I wrote about in January 2011 was based on information readily available on the internet or the nightly news.  This is not because I did brilliant research, I didn’t.  It is because this was and is really obvious.  Unfortunately, it is not obvious to those who are responsible for making decisions on our behalf. 

TDM

A lot of people are upset at the prospect of two Hillary Clinton mini-series.  Republicans are naturally annoyed at the blatant attempt by CNN and NBC to provide priceless advertising for the Hillary Presidential brand.  However, upon further review, I am not all that sure that this is a good development for Hillary.  For one thing, she doesn’t actually need any more name recognition.  She is certainly the most recognized female politician in America and possibly the world.  Hillary is a very polarizing figure and those people who already despise her will not change their mind because of a TV show.  But the real problem is that in order for the mini-series to draw any viewers, it must have some zing.  In the case of Hillary there are no real accomplishments, so the zing is going to come from the controversies.

Following is the article on Hillary at Biography.com: 

http://www.biography.com/people/hillary-clinton-9251306

Keep in mind that this is as favorable to Hillary as possible.  Yet it also included the Whitewater scandal and the Monica Lewinsky affair.  The bottom line is that the truth about Hillary is pretty boring stuff with no real accomplishments.  Only the scandals are interesting.  None of the items in this resume will make for a very interesting plot.  What are they going to do?  Have Hillary agonize over whether to stay with Bill after the Lewinsky affair?  Her Senate race in New York was a cake walk.  First, Daniel Moynihan resigned, so it was an open Democratic seat in a Democratic state.  Second, the Democratic nomination was handed to her on a platter.  Third, Rudy Giuliani had to drop out, so she ended up competing against Rick Lazio.  Remember Rick Lazio…I didn’t think so.  This is hardly the makings of a come from behind God Bless America story.  She lost the 2008 campaign to a candidate with the thinnest resume in the History of Presidential politics.

Currently the main stream media is spinning the myth of Hillary Clinton the political superstar.  It may be impossible to come up with the script for a mini-series that can live up to the hype.  If they ignore the controversies they will have a problem and if they cover the controversies, Hillary will have a problem.

Think about this.  Huma Abedin stood next to the Weiner as the good wife standing by her man.  She even said she was following Hillary’s example.  The problem is that even liberal women are sick of the good wife standing there smiling next to her scumbag husband.  That sends all the wrong signals.  That may help the husband, but it hardly makes the woman look good.  I will be surprised if the mini-series even happen.  If they do happen, I don’t expect them to do much for Hillary and they have the potential to puncture the myth of Hillary the great. 

In the meantime Reince Preibus has brilliants boxed CNN, NBA and the Hillary Express into a corner.  He has threatened to boycott both networks during the 2016 election if they proceed with these mini-series on Hillary.  If the series are cancelled, he wins.  If they are still produced and they are overly favorable to Hillary, he wins.  That means if the mini-series are produced they will have to include the controversies.  If that happens, he also wins.

The other point is that Hillary is peaking too soon.  The next election is in 2016.  It means nothing to be the favorite in 2013 for an election to be held three years later.  In 2005, most political pundits thought that Hillary was a shoe-in for the 2008 Democratic nomination.  How did that work out?  No one was predicting Barack Obama as next President.  In 2005 no one thought John McCain would be the Republican nominee.  As late as the fall of 2007, it looked like McCain was done as a candidate.  The only thing certain about predictions for an election more than three years away is that all predictions are predictably wrong.

TDM

Several years ago I was invited to attend a “Golden Gloves” competition as a spectator.  I was reluctant to go, because I am not a big fan of boxing and I expected mediocre performers.  I was pleasantly surprised to learn that it was a lot of fun.  What made it interesting is that fighters would participate in several bouts trying to get into the finals.  We became familiar with some of the guys and watched their careers develop, or not develop, over the course of the day.  One guy, we nicknamed “Slick” was dressed to the hilt.  He had a colorful shirt that matched his shorts and even had matching tassels on his shoes.  He danced around the ring, obviously considering himself to be the next Mohammed Ali. He looked unbeatable.   In same same division was a big Polish kid with zero boxing skills.  He could barely move and he had no clue how to defend himself.  he would just wade into the punches, with his head turned sideways to deflect the blows.  Then, when he got close to the other guy he would pummel his opponent with wild roundhouse punches.   Even a near miss was terrifying.  If he accidentallly hit someone, they went down and stayed down.  We called him “Stash.”  Stash and Slick met in the semi-finals.  At first Slick came out with an attitude.  He was dancing, jawing and jabbing.  Then Stash hit him.  All of a suddent Slick realized that he could get hurt.  The attitude disappeared and Slick became very anxious to just survive the bout.  He was running backward around the ring, as fast as he could go, while Stash stalked him like a clumsy but crazed serial killer.  It was one of the funniest things I have ever seen.  Unfortunately it reminds me of the Obama administration response to the latest incident in the war on terror.

The Associate Press is reporting that the decision to issue the terror warning and shut down our embassies was based on an intercept of a message from ak-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahri.  The following report is from the telegraph UK:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/10224477/US-embassy-closures-sparked-by-Ayman-al-Zawahiri-message.html#disqus_thread

If this is accurate, releasing this information will do grave harm to national security.  Al-Qaida was able to bring this country to its knees without firing a shot.  Al-Qaida obviously learned an important lesson from Benghazi.  They learned that this President is weak and that the United States has become an easy target.  The following article from McClatchy explains how security experts are viewing this action:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/06/198681/broad-us-terror-alert-mystifies.html#.UgIpedXD8dV

This sure looks like another TSA solution.  Rather than going after the guys who really matter, the TSA is groping young girls and grandmothers while ignoring the Muslim looking male muttering allahu akbar.  Now, Obama shut down all our embassies and went on vacation.  By taking this action he probably thinks he avoids blame if there is another attack.  In the meantime we are providing our enemies with a copy of our play book that they will almost certainly use to attack us in the future.

I can’t help reflecting on a famouse line from Franklin Delano Roosevelts first inaugaral address.  He said that the “Only Thing we Have to Fear is Fear itself.”  Well welcome to “Fear Itself.”

TDM

The Watergate Scandal started with a third rate burglary that did not matter.  Richard Nixon did not even know about this when it happened.  It was a dumb idea by some of his staff.  It was also unnecessary, because he was coasting to re-election.  What made the difference is that two Washington Post Reporters decided it was important.  They dedicated their lives to following the rabbit trails.  Eventually, the rest of the media and finally congress jumped on the bandwagon.

Up until now Benghazi has not been a big story, because the primary people covering it worked for Fox News.  What they discovered was important, but it was ignored by the rest of the media.  Many segments of the main stream media refuse to acknowledge that Fox News exists and they ignore any story if it breaks on Fox News.  But now CNN is running reports on Benghazi and that is going to change everything:

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/01/exclusive-dozens-of-cia-operatives-on-the-ground-during-benghazi-attack/

The latest theory is that this was a CIA gun running operation.  That rumor has been out there on the web for a long time, but even Fox News has avoided reporting it.  The Republicans in congress have avoided investigating this.  Perhaps part of that is reluctance on the part of conservatives and Republicans to damage national security.  Regardless of the merits of this particular operation, responsible people know that the restraints on the CIA by the Church committee did great damage to our national security.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/investigations/ChurchCommittee.htm

Much of the criticism of the CIA was justified.  But the restraints on the CIA may have resulted in 9-11.  Under the Kennedy administration, they were running bizarre plots to assassinate Fidel Castro.  It is ironic to note that it is another Democratic President, Barack Obama, who is once again using the CIA to assassinate people with drones.

If we had a congress we could trust, they should handle these problems in closed session.  But no one in either political party trusts this congress to do that.

The liberal left, on the other hand, loves to expose the CIA, without regard to national security implications.  This story is about to go nuclear.  To some extent, it doesn’t even matter whether or not CNN is right about the gun running.  What matters is that they have decided that Benghazi is an important story and they have verified the cover-up.  The rest of the main stream media will have to cover this story.  They cannot afford to ignore a major story and there is no story bigger than a Presidential cover-up.  When you combine this with recent stories linking the IRS scandal to the White House, this is a perfect political storm.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323681904578642180886421040.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The phony scandal strategy evaporated.  This CNN report can hardly be dismissed as some nefarious plot by the vast right wing conspiracy.

This has already started.  The Atlantic already commented on this::

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/the-attack-in-benghazi-worth-investigating-after-all/278299/

Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.

…But if CNN’s report is correct, the CIA is at minimum trying to hide something huge from Congress, something that CIA agents might otherwise want to reveal — itself a reason for Congress to press hard for information. And if speculation about moving weapons is grounded in anything substantive, that would be an additional reason to investigate what the CIA is doing in Libya. Dozens of CIA agents were apparently on the ground in Benghazi, Libya last September.

This story has escalated to the point where both liberals and conservatives are equally concerned.  Conservatives were concerned about an administration that covered up its own incompetence with deliberate lies and falsehoods.  Liberals are shocked to discover that this administration is also running covert ops.  Regardless of the motivation, this is a story that has real legs.

This reminds me of an old Arabian proverb:

“If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.”

CNN is the camel’s nose and the rest of the media will be there shortly.

TDM