Most students are taught that the Cuban missile crisis was when John F. Kennedy stared down Nikita Khrushchev and prevented World War III.   This is often referred to as Kennedy’s greatest moment.  But the reality is not quite that clear.  The Cuban missile crisis began when the U.S. discovered missiles in Cuba, capable of hitting the U.S. that appeared to have nuclear warheads.   Kennedy ordered the Cuban blockade and after a tense standoff, Khrushchev apparently blinked and agreed to remove those nuclear armed missiles.  Unfortunately the truth is very different from the myth.  Khrushchev won this encounter big time.  As part of the agreement to end the crisis, Kennedy agreed to let Castro rule a communist Cuba without interference from the U.S.  Not only did Kennedy agree to not invade Cuba, he agreed he wouldn’t support anyone else either.  In addition, Kennedy agreed to remove nuclear armed Jupiter Missiles from Italy and Turkey.

In case you question this, here is a copy of a letter Khrushchev wrote to Kennedy:

http://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct26/doc4.html

Here is an excerpt from that letter:

Let us therefore show statesmanlike wisdom. I propose: We, for our part, will declare that our ships, bound for Cuba, will not carry any kind of armaments. You would declare that the United States will not invade Cuba with its forces and will not support any sort of forces which might intend to carry out an invasion of Cuba. Then the necessity for the presence of our military specialists in Cuba would disappear.

Khrushchev got more than that.  He also got Kennedy to remove our Jupiter Missile from Turkey:

According to Wikipedia:

The confrontation ended on October 28, 1962,^[7] when Kennedy and United Nations Secretary-General U Thant reached an agreement with Khrushchev. Publicly, the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba and return them to the Soviet Union, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for a US public declaration and agreement never to invade Cuba. Secretly, the US also agreed that it would dismantle all US-built Jupiter IRBMs, armed with nuclear warheads, which were deployed in Turkey and Italy against the Soviet Union

Now we learn that it was even worse than this, which is pretty bad. It turns out that Castro actually kept some tactical nuclear weapons that Kennedy did not even know existed.  It was Khrushchev who unilaterally disarmed Cuba, because he did not want to risk Castro starting a nuclear war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/cuban-missile-crisis-unto_n_1967544.html

So, in exchange for Khrushchev agreeing to remove nuclear weapons he didn’t even want in Cuba, we gave Castro the green light and withdrew our missiles from Turkey.  In other words, Kennedy got snookered and he knew it.   A bitter and angry Kennedy was determined to find somewhere else to take on international communism.  He found it in South Vietnam, conveniently on the other side of the world.

In the following interview with Chet Huntley, Kennedy explains his plans for Vietnam:

http://dailynightly.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/09/20405441-kennedys-63-pitch-reverberates-in-obamas-action-plan?lite

Kennedy’s die hard supporters pretend that if only Kennedy had lived we might have avoided the Vietnam War.  That may or may not be true, but it is certainly not what Kennedy said in this interview.  It was Kennedy, not Lyndon Johnson, who was determined to make a stand in South Vietnam.

The situation in Syria is déjà vu all over again.  Just like Khrushchev did not want nuclear weapons in Cuba, Putin does not want chemical weapons in Syria.  And, just like Khrushchev wanted Castro to retain power in Cuba, Putin wanted Assad to retain power in Syria.  We still don’t know the final result in Syria, but it sure looks like Putin will get exactly the result he wanted.  We may or may not get rid of chemical weapons in Syria, but Assad is very likely to stay firmly in power.  Any agreement to get rid of WMD is Syria is almost certainly going to require the U.S. to leave Assad in power.

Oba0ma has been humiliated and embarrassed on the international stage.  He has no support from either the liberal left or the conservative right.  He also has no support from the international community.  He ended up accepting a ludicrous proposal from Putin because it was his only option.  He may pretend this is just great diplomacy, but even Obama knows he got snookered.

This creates a very dangerous situation where Obama may be tempted to do something risky and stupid in a desperate attempt to appear relative.  Both Obama and Kerry are starting to talk tough about Iran.  I fear Obama may be desperately looking for his South Vietnam.  Some place where he can at least pretend someone still respects him.

I hope that I am wrong about this, but fear this is pretty accurate.  I hope that those who are secretly rejoicing at the very public humiliation of Barack Obama will keep in mind that when he is humiliated, we are all humiliated.  The Cuban missile crisis was bad enough.  The Vietnam War was much worse.

TDM

I have been trying to gain as much information as possible about the alleged Sarin gas incident in Syria.  This is difficult because there are classified reports which are not released to the American public.  Some, but not all of these reports have been viewed in private sessions with top Republicans.  Actually, that is not quite accurate.  These people have been “briefed” regarding these classified reports, they have not necessarily been allowed to see the raw data.

The White House is claiming that 1,429 people were killed in a gas attack.  That number is disputed by other sources and at least some of the casualties were not from gas.  This is significant because the White House position is that Syria launched missiles loaded with Sarin gas in an assault.  If that is true, it seems likely that there would be more than 1,429 deaths and certainly more than the lower estimates of 325 to 355 from groups like Doctors without Borders.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/13/us-syria-crisis-intelligence-idUSBRE98B1C220130913

The video documenting this event has clearly been edited.  In some cases this is brutally obvious even to a rank amateur.  For example one guy appears to have been died in more than one video allegedly taken at different times.  The video’s themselves seemed a little too convenient.  This has the look and feel of a staged event or at least an event where someone knew what was going to happen at a specific time and a specific place.  It is clear that some people were gassed and one could assume that at least some Sarin gas was involved.

The first big smoking gun was an apparent intercept of a phone call involving a senior Syrian Defense official.  In this call, this person was allegedly demanding to know who had authorized this.  Obviously, this is not necessarily proof that the regime was involved and may actually be evidence of the opposite.

The latest smoking gun is that Syrian troops in the area were given the order to put on gas masks.  This was followed shortly by the missile attack that apparently included gas.  But common sense says that this is not evidence that the missiles contained gas, it is only evidence that something triggered the Syrian military to put on gas masks.  One would assume that if the rebels used gas, and the Syrian military picked up on this, the same order would be given.

Following is an excellent article on al-monitor which provides insight on events:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/09/obama-syria-strike-israel-smoking-gun.html

One unidentified source gave a possible alternative theory:

Let’s say that a rebel group like Jabhat al-Nusra (affiliated with al-Qaeda), or the ISIS organization (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, also affiliated with Sunni extremists), wanted to hit the Free Syrian Army (FSA). They could have exploited the Syrian army bombardment to launch a gas bomb on the same neighborhood, under cover of Assad’s shelling.

And by the way, says the source, the neighborhood that was attacked is considered to “belong” to the FSA, the key opposition organization. In such a situation, he explains, the extremist rebels win on all counts: They strike their competitors and also galvanize America into military action against Assad, finally. This is a classic win-win situation, and from the huge amount of evidence that I accumulated, I can’t say that it is totally illogical.

In addition, adds my source, Assad would have to be totally detached from reality or be a Shiite suicide bomber to use such large quantities of chemical weapons and in such intensity, precisely when the rebels are weakening and he is gaining momentum. It seems to me — he says — like a classic “false flag” instance: when an operational tactic is executed by a certain party, but attributed to another party whether intentionally or accidentally. I suggest we wait patiently until the UN inspectors complete their report; perhaps it can illuminate the situation more precisely, so says my source.

It is important to note that the writer, Ben Caspit, an Israeli journalist, took this data and discussed it with Israeli intelligence people who scornfully claimed that they had undeniable proof that the chemical attack was done by the Assad regime.  He concludes that Israeli intelligence really believes this, but he correctly points out they are not perfect and have been wrong about important issues in the past.

The White House desperately wants to believe that Assad was responsible for that gas attack; otherwise this situation is even more ridiculous.  Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham also want to believe that, because they both jumped on the bomb Syria bandwagon.

Russia and Assad want the world to believe that it was al Qaeda who used gas, for obvious reasons.

I frankly don’t trust either of them and that, in and of itself, is a huge problem.  How on earth can we trust an administration that has lied so often about so much?  I mean these guys still haven’t given us a straight answer on Benghazi.  And John Kerry, as I pointed out before, has less than zero credibility.  On the other hand I wouldn’t trust either Putin or Assad to give an accurate report on the daily high temperature.  So I guess we are left to decide which liar to believe.

If I had to choose right now, I have to admit that the argument by Russia and Assad makes more sense.  I have reached this conclusion based on two obvious facts.  First, there aren’t enough dead people.  Second, it was the rebels, not Assad, who had the most to gain from a gas attack.

There are a lot of supposedly smart people who have been briefed on the intelligence who are absolutely certain that Assad ordered the attack and that gives me pause.  But, there seems to be zero motivation for Assad to use chemical weapons and if he did use them, they sure didn’t work very well.  I just have this nagging feeling that if Syria had really launched missiles with Sarin gas warheads that we would be dealing with a lot more dead people.  On the other hand, if the rebels did this, the casualty figures are just about exactly what I would expect. If Assad did this, he is really stupid.  There is no evidence that Assad is stupid.  If the rebels did this it was a spectacular success.  They came close to getting Obama to bomb Syria and they did convince Obama to arm the Syrian rebels.  If this was a false flag scam by the rebels, it worked brilliantly because Barack Obama, John Kerry, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and a cast of thousands all fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Hopefully, someone will investigate this and tell everyone the cold hard truth, regardless of who it helps or who it hurts.  Sadly there isn’t a single person, in either political party, that we could trust to do that.

TDM

During a playoff game between the San Francisco Giants and the Chicago Cubs in 1989, Will Clark was up to bat with the bases loaded.  The pitcher was Greg Maddux.  The catcher went out to the mound to ask Maddux about how he wanted to pitch to Clark.  Maddux said that he wanted to use fast balls away.  Unfortunately for Maddux, Will Clark read his lips and he hit the next pitch for a homerun.  Later Will Clark admitted that he knew what pitch was coming.  This is why every pitcher today covers his mouth with his glove when talking on the mound.  It probably would have been wiser for Clark to keep his mouth shut as well, because once pitchers learned about this they quickly fixed the problem.

In the recent Colorado recall election two state senators strongly in favor of gun control were recalled.  This was a major victory for the NRA and for gun advocates across the country.  It was also a major defeat for Mayor Bloomberg, who donated a ton of money to defeat the recall elections.  But the real story here may be something else.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairman of the DNC and easily one of the dumbest people ever elected to congress, said “voter suppression” was the reason her candidates lost.   The candidate, Angela Giron, repeated the charge on CNN:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/09/13/recalled-colorado-senator-has-a-meltdown-on-cnn-n1699391

Most people immediately dismissed this as traditional Democratic sour grapes.  Liberal Democrats are always shocked to learn that a high percentage of people don’t buy the crap they are peddling.  But the real problem for Democrats is that she just may have been telling the truth:

Giron: What this story really is about, it’s about voter suppression. When Colorado has voted by mail — 70 percent of Coloradans vote by mail — and we didn’t have access to that mail ballot, I mean, I —

This just may be an admission by Wassermanshultz and Giron that vote by mail is used by Democrats to gain additional votes through voter fraud.  When Democrats were denied the vote by mail scam, they lost big time.  The problem is more likely to be voter fraud when vote by mail is allowed rather than voter suppression when it isn’t.

Here is how that works and why it is so hard to control  Imagine someone in a nursing home who is registered to vote, but not all that active.  A nice smiling young man or woman shows up and offers to help them vote.  They are very nice and even help them fill out the ballot and put it in the mail for them.  Now imagine this happening over and over again including in some cases where the voter may not even speak English.  Is it really a surpise that a high percentage of these vote by mail ballots miraculously turn out to vote for the Democratic candidate in far higher percentages than for those who show up at the polls?

It is bad enought that Democrats have no problem with people voting who are not required to identify themselves.  At least somebody shows up.  But with massive vote by mail, how on earth can anyone be sure who is doing the actual voting?  How can they even be sure this is truly a secret ballot?   Do 70% of hte people really need to vote by mail because it is too hard to vote in person?  Republicans have only two choices here.  They either change the laws, to remove this type of potential abuse, or they become better at playing the game than Democrats.

I think, possibly for the first time in her life, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz was right about something.  I do think that the lack of the ability to vote by mail did impact this important election.  Republicans should study the results in Colorado and learn from this experience.  We may have a Will Clark moment here where a political opponent accidentally told the truth without realizing people can read lips.

TDM

The National Geographic channel ran a program tonight remembering 9-11.  There were extensive interviews with George W. Bush, along with videos of his public appearances.  It was a stunning reminder of how well Bush handled this.  At one point Bush visited ground zero.  He talked about how he planned on shaking the hand of every man working there, looking him in the eye and thanking him for his service.  This was followed by his off the cuff speech from the top of a ruined fire truck when he said:  “I can hear you, the rest of the world can hear you and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”  That, my friends is what a President sounds like.

What a contrast with the pathetic speech by Barack Obama Tuesday night.  Where did we go so wrong?  Where did we forget what it was like to have a real President and why that matters?  Where did we forget that honesty, integrity and leadership in a President of the United States should never be taken for granted?

We allowed the liberal media to destroy Bush, by failing to challenge them when they started lying about nearly everything.  We allowed people to accuse Bush of lying about the intelligence regarding WMD in Iraq when the hard cold documented facts prove the opposite was true.  Even today we allow people to ignore that fact that not only did George W. Bush had strong bi-partisan support for both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, it was Democrats who were the loudest voices urging him on.  Even today we allow naïve fools to pretend that we gained nothing from removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Those assumptions are absurd.  If you think things are bad now, just imagine having to deal with someone like Assad if the Taliban were still in control of Afghanistan providing a safe haven for al Qaeda.  Just imagine trying to deal with Assad if Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq, with everyone still convinced that he also had large stock piles of WMD.  Now add in the real potential that Saddam Hussein would have his coveted nuclear weapon.  Explain exactly how Barack Obama, or any other President, could possible deal with that.  Obama couldn’t generate the guts to launch a couple of cruise missiles against Syria who is ill equipped to fight back.  Explain, once again, how Bush got it all so wrong and why we would be so much better off if he hadn’t cleaned out at least some of the trash.

When you’re done with that explain why George Bush is responsible for the deregulation of the financial markets that was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1998.  Explain why Bush is responsible for the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when these organizations exploded in size under the leadership of Bill Clinton.  Did you miss the part where Bush was begging congress to give him the power to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, warning congress that failure to act could bring down our economy?  Did you forget that we had the quickest recovery from a recession in our nation’s history, in spite of 9-11, under the leadership of George Bush.  Did you notice that we had sustained dynamic job growth up until the end of 2007?  If it was all Bush’s fault, as Obama claimed, how did that happen?

The economy started to sour in January of 2007.   So what happened in January 2007?  Did George W. Bush change?  NO!  Did he change his economic policy?  NO!  What changed was that Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House and Harry Reid became Majority Leader of the Senate.  Both came into office determined to force Bush to surrender in Iraq and to end the Bush tax cuts that were fueling our economic growth.  They were determined to change things.  They did.  They made everything worse.  When we stupidly elected Barack Obama to be President our current economic mess became inevitable.

This program was a wake up-call.  It was a reminder that George W. Bush was a real class act and that if we do not honor such men we end up with someone like Barack Obama.  The simple truth is that Barack Obama is not worthy to be mentioned in the same sentence as George W. Bush.  In a little over four years we went from a President who was the most respected and feared leader in the world to a President who is rapidly becoming an international joke.

It is time we remembered that once we had a real leader and it is long past time we started the search for another one.

TDM

Sometimes the most important subject is the issue no one is willing to discuss.  This is often referred to as the Elephant in the Room.  It is dominating everyone’s thought process, but no one is willing to actually mention the Elephant.  One example would be when a relative is dying.  Everyone talks about everything, but no one mentions the fact that someone is dying, yet that is what everyone is thinking about.

The Syrian fiasco reminds me of an incident when I was a personal lines underwriter at Sentry Insurance in Stevens Point, Wisconsin.  I got a change request from a personal auto customer in Los Angeles.  It added a brand new 16 year old male driver along with the brand new Lamborghini his father bought him for this 16^th birthday.  I immediately hand typed a cancellation letter and sent it by the fastest possible method.  Unfortunately, by the time the letter arrived the kid has already totaled the Lamborghini.

It was insane to trust a 16 year old boy with a Lamborghini.  The results were all too predictable.   In many ways we have a Lamborghini moment in the United States.

The elephant is the room is that Syria is not the real problem, Barack Obama is the problem.   You can’t solve a lack of leadership by giving more authority to someone who is incapable of handling the authority he has now.

I suspect a majority of congressional representatives and senators in both political parties do not want to give Obama authority to launch military strikes against Syria. That number will increase when the American people weigh in on the subject.   There are probably others equally hesitant to deny any President of the United States the authority he deems necessary to defend our national security.  They know that if they do that, Obama will lose the last shred of credibility as a world leader.  When our President loses credibility, we lose credibility.  So, congress is afraid to give him authority and they are afraid to not give him authority.   Obama has boxed himself and the country into a corner from which there is no clear exit.

It is increasingly obvious that no one in either political party trusts Obama to handle this well.  His incompetence is too obvious to ignore.   Like most people faced with an impossible choice don’t be surprised if they decide not to decide.  But not deciding is a decision, usually the worst possible decision.  One Democratic Senator has already voted “present.”

In the meantime no one will be discussing what really matters.  Barack Obama is not remotely qualified to be President of the United States.  He doesn’t even offer the illusion of leadership anymore.  It was obvious that he was not qualified in 2008, when he first ran for President.  No one dared point this out.  It was even more obvious when he ran for re-election in 2012.  The main stream media ingored it again.  Even now, when his incompetence is mind numbingly obvious, no one dares talk about it.  The only good news is that for the first time Obama is taking criticism and NO ONE is claiming racism.

So what could make this worse?  Suppose that there is little evidence that Assad ordered a gas attack at all and a lot of evidence that the Syrian rebels are the ones using Sarin gas?  Watch the following video.  It is a video of a Syrian rebel apparently confessing to using chemical weapons to kill women and children.

http://www.infowars.com/video-syrian-rebel-admits-using-chemical-weapons/

In case you have trouble believing the rebels have Sarin gas, check out the following:

http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/

Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb.

On Monday, Turkish special anti-terror forces arrested 12 suspected members of the Al-Nusra Front, the Al-Qaeda affiliated group which has been dubbed “the most aggressive and successful arm” of the Syrian rebels. The group was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in December

In addition, Russia gave the UN a 100 page report they claim documents the use of Sarin gas by Syrian rebels:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/08/28/assad_nerve_gas_foreign_policy_reports_that_intercepted_phone_calls_convinced.html

The United States is ignoring all of the above and is instead proposing to go to war based on a smoking gun voice intercept.  Must be some intercept.   Read the following article and decide for yourself.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/08/28/assad_nerve_gas_foreign_policy_reports_that_intercepted_phone_calls_convinced.html

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they’re certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime ­— and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? “It’s unclear where control lies,” one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. “Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?”

If it turns out that Syria didn’t authorize the use of Sarin gas, then it will be impossible for Barack Obama, John Kerry, John McCain and Lindsay Graham to wipe the egg off their face.

The only thing worse than requesting authority to do something incredibly stupid, is when the stupid request was based on even more stupid assumptions.  At a minimum, if gas was used, Assad’s primary crime would appear to be using it more effectively than the rebels

TDM

It was 1968.  I was enrolled in flight school at Goodfellow AFB in Texas, preparing for my first combat tour in South East Asia.  Goodfellow AFB is located in San Angelo, Tex.  One weekend a group of us drove down to San Antonio to attend the Hemisfair.  I was rather disappointed until I came across a sight I will never forget.  There was a sign saying that Henri La Mothe would dive 35 feet into 12 inches of water.  I turned the corner and sure enough there was this incredibly high and flimsy looking ladder next to what looked like a kiddie pool.  The show started with a young girl in a bikini walking in the pool with a yard stick.  She measured the water at several places and it was exactly 12 inches.  I wondered what was the trick to make the water look so shallow.  I didn’t see how it was possible that someone could really drive 40 fit into 12 inches of water and survive.

Then Henri La Mothe made his appearance.  He was dressed in a white suit that resembled the long underwear we wore in the upper peninsula of Michigan. It looks more than a little out of place in the heat of San Antonio, Texas.  Since La Mothe was born in 1904, I now realize that he was sixty years old at the time.  He certainly looked old to me and I became really curious if this was really possible.  I simply had to watch.  Then the moment came.  This rather frail looking man, wearing his long underwriter climbed that rickety latter.  In some ways the most dangerous part of the stunt was climbing that ladder.  He stood there on a tiny shelf, swaying in the wind, for several minutes and finally took his leap.  To my shock and horror, he did a full-fledged belly flop into that kidde pool.  I don’t know what I expected, but I do know it wasn’t a belly flop.  I thought he was probably dead.  But to my surprise, La Mothe jumped up and started celebrating his survival.  After the show he was interviewed and someone asked him how he trained to do this.  He described belly flopping off a kitchen chair onto a hardwood floor.  My chest hurt for days just thinking about this.

I went on to serve three combat tours in Vietnam, and completely forgot about Henri La Mothe.  I began to wonder if I had really even seen this and whether or not Henri La Mothe was for real.  Then one day in 1974 I heard a news report that Henry La Mothe had celebrated his 70^th birthday by diving 40 ft into 12 inches of water from the Flat Iron building in New York.  Sure enough, a few days later there was a picture of Henri La Mothe, in his underwear, belly flopping 40 feet into 12 inches of water.  I couldn’t help but smile and say…hey…I saw that guy.  In case some of you are skeptical, attached is a link to a contemporary report about this and a picture of Henri La Mothe, in his long underwear, making that dive in 1974:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/wildest-stunts-new-york-city-history-gallery-1.1170709?pmSlide=5

The 1974 dive turned out to be his last.  Henri La Mothe performed this stunt for 20 years from 1954 to 1974.  He died in 1987, at age 83 and the only known injury was to his nose.

At a time when there is so much going wrong, I thought it would be fun to reflect upon the flight of the Mothe.  It is a reminder that sometimes when we least expect it, we see something really wonderful.  It is also a reminder that there are people out there who will pay any price for success.  It is impossible to overestimate what a determined man can accomplish if they are willing to endure enough pain.   I am relatively sure that every belly flop by Henri La Mothe was a painful experience.  It sure looked that way to me in 1968.  Somehow I don’t think the long underwear was that effective in softening the blow.

Tonight I watched a show on the Guinness world records and another man was trying for the world record by diving 37 feet into 12 feet of water.  He seems to have inherited Henri’s long underwear suit.  Assuming this was accurate, it would seem that the dive I saw in 1968 was only two inches lower than the current world record.  I wonder if the current guy practices by belly flopping from a kitchen chair onto a hardwood floor.

TDM

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