Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts

Saturday, December 7, 2024

Gabbard Is Dangerous

 Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Our next book is about the 2024 election. The consequences of that election are coming into view.  Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's pick for DNI, is a clear and present danger to national security.

Tim Snyder on Tulsi Gabbard:
In June 2015, as a congresswoman from Hawai'i, Gabbard visited Syria. During her stay, she was introduced to girls who had been burned from head to toe by a regime air strike. Her reaction to the situation, according to her translator, was to try to persuade the girls that they had been injured not by Syrian forces, but by the resistance. But this was impossible. Only Syria (at the time of her visit) and Russia (beginning weeks later) were flying planes and dropping bombs.

Either Gabbard was catastrophically uninformed about the most basic elements of the theater of war she was visiting, or she was consciously spreading disinformation. Those are the two possibilities. The first is disqualifying; the second is worse.

And if she was spreading disinformation consciously, she was also doing so with a pathological ruthlessness. Anyone who would lie to the child victims of an air strike to their burned faces would lie to anyone about anything. In January 2017, she visited Syria again, this time to speak to Assad. She began thereafter to deny that his regime had used chemical weapons on its own people. That was a very big lie.

... 

As Director of National Intelligence, Gabbard would do enormous harm, unwillingly or willingly. She is not just completely unqualified for this role -- she is anti-qualified. She is just the sort of person enemies of the American republic would want in this job. This is not a hypothetical -- Gabbard is the specific person that actual enemies of the United States do want in the job. The Russian media refers to Tulsi Gabbard as a "Russian agent" and as "girlfriend," with good reason.

Gabbard is worse than unfit. Her public record is as a disinformer and apologist for mass murderers. And there is nothing on the other side of the ledger. There are no positive qualifications. (Yes, she wrote a bestselling book. It became a bestseller because she scammed her followers into donating to a PAC which bought the book in bulk.)

Thursday, November 14, 2019

Trump: Erdogan "Has a Great Relationship with the Kurds"

In Defying the Odds, we discuss foreign policy issues in the 2016 campaign.  The update  -- recently published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.  Trump's betrayal of the Kurds could be an issue in 2020.

Trump, with Erdogan:
And, by the way, I think the President, he may have some factions within the Kurds, but I think the President has a great relationship with the Kurds. Many Kurds live currently in Turkey. And they’re happy and they’re taken care of, including healthcare — we were talking about it before — including healthcare and education and other things. So that’s really a misnomer. But our relationship with the Kurds has been a very good one.
Jonathan Swan at Axios:
 An Oval Office meeting yesterday with Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan took a dark turn when Erdoğan pulled out his iPad and made the group watch a propaganda video that depicted Kurds as terrorists, according to three sources familiar with the meeting.

Monday, October 28, 2019

Trump's Sunday

In Defying the Odds, we discuss foreign policy issues in the 2016 campaign.  The update  -- recently published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.  

Trump's day started out well...

Then came the caveats...

And at the end of the day came the booing...

Friday, October 18, 2019

"Cleaned Out" and "Ultimate Solution"

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Trump's character and record of bigotryThe update -- recently published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms. This past summerhe told several Democratic congresswomen to "go back" to their countries.

Remarks by President Trump Upon Arrival of Air Force One, Fort Worth, TX, October 17.
So you have a 22-mile strip.  And for many, many years, Turkey — in all fairness, they’ve had a legitimate problem with it.  They had terrorists.  They had a lot of people in there that they couldn’t have.  They’ve suffered a lot of loss of lives also.  And they had to have it cleaned out.

And Erdogan is okay with Hitler allusions. From The Guardian in 2016:
Turkey’s president has been pushing for some time for a new presidential system to govern the country, sparring with critics who accuse him of attempting a power grab.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s latest comments in favour of greater executive powers are unlikely to help him bring those critics round. On Friday he was quoted by Turkish media as citing a striking example of an effective presidential system – Germany under Adolf Hitler.

Asked on his return from a visit to Saudi Arabia whether an executive presidential system was possible while maintaining the unitary structure of the state, he said: “There are already examples in the world. You can see it when you look at Hitler’s Germany.
“There are later examples in various other countries,” he told reporters, according to a recording broadcast by the Dogan news agency and reported by Reuters.

Thursday, October 17, 2019

Endorsing Ethnic Cleansing, Acknowledging a Quid Pro Quo, and Announcing a Blatant Emoluments Clause Violation: "Get Over It"

In Defying the Oddswe discuss Trump's character and record of dishonestyThe update -- recently published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.


The Best Words

Syria may have some help with Russia, and that’s fine.  It’s a lot of sand.  They’ve got a lot of sand over there.  So there’s a lot of sand that they can play with.
But we were supposed to be there for 30 days; we stayed for 10 years.  And it’s time for us to come home.  We’re not a policing agent, and it’s time for us to come home.


Wednesday, October 16, 2019

"No Angels"

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Trump's dishonesty .     The update  -- recently published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms. Impeachment is becoming likely.

Today Trump tried to justify his betrayal of the Kurds:  "The Kurds are very well protected; plus, they know how to fight.  And, by the way, they’re no angels, but they were with us.  They are no angels."

He has said that others are "no angels."

  • Senate Democrats who criticized Brett Kavanaugh: ""I watched those senators on the Democrat side, and I thought it was a disgrace. And partially because I know them. I know them too well, and you know what, they are not angels."
  • The wrongly-convicted Central Park Five: "Speak to the detectives on the case and try listening to the facts. These young men do not exactly have the pasts of angels."
  • Migrants: ""These are tough people.  These are not angels.  These are not little angels."

Sunday, October 13, 2019

Syrian Debacle: "Let Them!"

In Defying the Odds, we discuss foreign policy issues in the 2016 campaign.  The update  -- recently published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.  

Carlotta Gall and Patrick Kingsley at NYT:
Hundreds of relatives of Islamic State fighters fled a Kurdish-run detention camp on Sunday morning after Turkish airstrikes hit the surrounding area, an aid group said, deepening the crisis prompted by the Turkish-led invasion of northern Syria.
The escapes raised fears that the attempts to contain affiliates of the militant group were crumbling.
A Kurdish official also said that the flag of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, had been raised in the countryside between the camp in the Kurdish-held town of Ain Issa and the Turkish border, another indication of how the Kurdish authorities were losing control of a region they had freed from the extremists only months ago.




Saturday, October 12, 2019

An Unusal Approach to International Relations

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Trump's dishonesty and his record of disregarding the rule of law.     The update  -- recently published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms. Impeachment is becoming likely.

Lloyd Green at The Guardian:
On Wednesday Bloomberg reported that Trump had pressed Rex Tillerson, who at the time was nominally secretary of state, to push the justice department into killing an investigation into Reza Zarrab, a Giuliani client, for allegedly violating sanctions designed to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Specifically, in a February 2017 Oval Office meeting, Trump had invited Giuliani, and Michael Mukasey, Bush 43’s attorney general and a former federal judge, to lobby Tillerson on that score.
...
Like Trump, Giuliani can engender a sense of disappointment and disgust among those who know him best. Ken Frydman, a New York-based public relations whiz and a veteran of Giuliani’s 1993 mayoral race, recently wrote: “The man I worked for in 1993 is not the man who now lies for Donald Trump.”

Frydman isn’t alone. As another Giuliani alumnus told the Guardian, “There is tremendous disappointment that a man we once greatly admired and who was worthy of that admiration has become a lapdog to a conspiracy theorist president.” The aide explained: “It’s heartbreaking in so many ways because – at his core – for better or worse, Rudy was always his own man. Sadly, he no longer is.”




Saturday, April 14, 2018

"Mission Accomplished"

President Donald Trump declared “Mission Accomplished!” hours after joint strikes on Syria by the U.S. and key allies, inviting immediate comparisons to President George W. Bush’s early, misplaced optimism about the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“A perfectly executed strike last night,” Trump said in a Twitter message. “Thank you to France and the United Kingdom for their wisdom and the power of their fine military. Could not have had a better result. Mission accomplished!”
Image result for "mission accomplished"




On August 27, 2013, Newt Gingrich wrote:
News that the United States is considering a military strike on Syria in response to the Bashar al-Assad regime's suspected use of chemical weapons suggests we could soon see an American bombing campaign on the war-torn country.
The atrocities that took place in Syria recently, such as those that have been taking place there for almost two years, are deplorable and inhuman.

Before bombing Syria over the regime's latest crimes, however, we should stand back and ask, "And then what?"
A brief bombing campaign in Syria might make the United States and its allies feel like they are doing something, but it will prove nothing.
We have already abstained from getting involved in the civil war for two years and have chosen not to respond to evidence (albeit less clear) of another chemical attack this year.

We have already concluded that as terrible as the civil war is, it cannot be our war. The bombing will not change this -- and then what?

Friday, February 23, 2018

Russiagate Figure Controls Mercenaries in Syria


 Ellen Nakashima, Karen DeYoung and Liz Sly at WP:
A Russian oligarch believed to control the Russian mercenaries who attacked U.S. troops and their allies in Syria this month was in close touch with Kremlin and ­Syrian officials in the days and weeks before and after the assault, according to U.S. intelligence reports.
In intercepted communications in late January, the oligarch, Yevgeniy Prigozhin, told a senior Syrian official that he had “secured permission” from an unspecified Russian minister to move forward with a “fast and strong” initiative that would take place in early February.
Prigozhin made front-page headlines last week when he was indicted by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III on charges of bankrolling and guiding a long-running Russian scheme to conduct “information warfare” during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.
He is known to have close ties to Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, forged when he was a restaurateur in St. Petersburg and expanded through what became Prigozhin’s wide-ranging business empire, including extensive contracts with Russia’s Defense Ministry.

Among his various enterprises, U.S. intelligence believes that Prigozhin also “almost certainly” controls Russian mercenaries fighting in Syria on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad. The mercenaries, employed by a company called Wagner, comprise ultra­nationalist Russians and military veterans, some of whom also fought in the Ukraine conflict, according to Russian news reports.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Trump's Ignorance on Display

At the Wall Street Journal, Gerard Baker,  Carol E. Lee and  Michael C. Bender describe Trump's recent meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping:
He said they hit it off during their first discussion. Mr. Trump said he told his Chinese counterpart he believed Beijing could easily take care of the North Korea threat. Mr. Xi then explained the history of China and Korea, Mr. Trump said.
“After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” Mr. Trump recounted. “I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power” over North Korea,” he said. “But it’s not what you would think.”
 Zack Beauchamp writes at Vox:
  1. Trump thought China could fix North Korea until the Chinese president politely informed him that North Korea is in fact complicated.
  2. Trump seems to have required the leader of China to explain basic facts to him that he could have Googled, or at least asked one of the many US government North Korea experts about.
  3. Trump came to a profound realization about one of the most dangerous conflicts on earth after a 10-minute conversation.
  4. Trump is getting his information about East Asian affairs from the leader of America’s largest rival in the region.
An interview with Maria Bartiromo of Fox:
 TRUMP: I was sitting at the table.  We had finished dinner.  We're now having dessert.  And we had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you've ever seen and President Xi was enjoying it.
And I was given the message from the generals that the ships are locked and loaded, what do you do?
And we made a determination to do it, so the missiles were on the way.  And I said, Mr. President, let me explain something to you.  This was during dessert.
We've just fired 59 missiles, all of which hit, by the way, unbelievable, from, you know, hundreds of miles away, all of which hit, amazing.
BARTIROMO:  Unmanned?
Brilliant.
TRUMP:  It's so incredible.  It's brilliant.  It's genius.  Our technology, our equipment, is better than anybody by a factor of five.  I mean look, we have, in terms of technology, nobody can even come close to competing.
Now we're going to start getting it, because, you know, the military has been cut back and depleted so badly by the past administration and by the war in Iraq, which was another disaster.
So what happens is I said we've just launched 59 missiles heading to Iraq and I wanted you to know this. And he was eating his cake. And he was silent.
BARTIROMO:  (INAUDIBLE) to Syria?
TRUMP:  Yes. Heading toward Syria. In other words, we've just launched 59 missiles heading toward Syria.  And I want you to know that, because I didn't want him to go home.  We were almost finished.  It was a full day in Palm Beach.  We're almost finished and I — what does he do, finish his dessert and go home and then they say, you know, the guy you just had dinner with just attacked a country?


Tuesday, April 11, 2017

The Dog Didn't Wag

Gallup reports:
Americans' support for the military strikes against Syria last week is historically low compared with reactions to previous U.S. military actions. Fifty percent of Americans approve of the missile airstrikes, while 41% disapprove. Ten percent have no opinion.
Gallup has measured Americans' reactions to 11 other military interventions before the latest airstrikes in Syria, stretching from the invasion of Grenada in 1983 through the military action against Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria in 2014. The complete question wording used in each assessment appears at the end of this article.
A majority of Americans approved of all of the previous actions tested with one exception: 47% approved of the bombing of Libya in 2011 (37% disapproved). Americans were most supportive of the initial intervention in Afghanistan in October 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S., and were also initially very supportive of interventions in Iraq in 1993 and 2003.
The 50% approval of the recent missile strikes against Syria is roughly similar to three other actions tested over the years with approval around the 50% level -- Libya in 2011 (47%), Kosovo and the Balkans in 1999 (51%), and Grenada in 1983 (53%).
Gallup also shows that his approval rating has flattened at 40% for several days.

Monday, April 10, 2017

The Politics of the Syria Strike: Meh!



Harry Enten at FiveThirtyEight:
Most foreign policy entanglements do not result in a “rally around the flag” event — when a president’s popularity jumps because Americans rally behind their commander-in-chief. That’s according to a 2001 study by William Baker of the Arkansas School for Mathematics and Sciences and John Oneal of the University of Alabama. Their study found that only 39 percent of U.S. military interventions1 from 1933 to 1993 resulted in a rise in the president’s approval rating. Still, 39 percent is a sizable minority of the time. So, will President Trump’s order to launch missiles at a Syrian airfield be one of them?
After former President Barack Obama laid out a four-point plan to go after the Islamic State group in 2014, I described five characteristics of foreign policy interventions that tend to increase the chances of a rally-around-the-flag effect. The list, compiled from political science papers, isn’t comprehensive, but it provides a good blueprint: The more points an intervention hits, the more likely the president’s approval rating will increase. Let’s take them one at a time.
1. Americans tend to react with greater enthusiasm when there is bipartisan support for an intervention.
....
2. Americans tend to give the president a boost when he’s acting against a major power.
...
3. Americans seem to respond more positively when the U.N. Security Council gives its approval to a foreign endeavor.
...
4. Americans are more likely to warm toward the president when there are revisionist goals at stake.
...
5. Americans are more likely to rally behind a president at the beginning of his presidency.
Huffington Post:
 Half of Americans support President Donald Trump’s missile strikes against Syria in retaliation for the Syrian government’s reported use of chemicals weapons on its citizens, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov survey. The poll also found some Americans concerned about Trump’s preparation for the attack and his failure to seek congressional authorization.

Fifty-one percent of Americans say they support Trump’s decision to order strikes, with 32 percent opposed, and 17 percent uncertain.

Four in 10 view the strikes as an appropriate response, with 25 percent considering them too aggressive, and 10 percent not aggressive enough.

Still, the poll found pessimistic views of the attack’s efficacy. Just one-third of the public thinks the strikes will be even somewhat likely to deter the use of chemical weapons, with 46 percent believing they’re somewhat unlikely or very unlikely to have any such effect.

There was little support for further U.S. response. Only 20 percent of Americans want Trump to take additional military action, while 36 percent say he should not. A plurality, 45 percent, was unsure.
CBS:
Fifty-seven percent of Americans approve of the airstrike against Syrian military targets – calling immoral the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons that led to the strike - but most are leery of any military involvement beyond airstrikes, a CBS News poll shows.
...
Few Americans are willing to see the U.S. get involved in Syria beyond the use of airstrikes. Only 18 percent would want ground troops. Half of Republicans would limit involvement to either airstrikes or diplomacy, and Democrats largely would focus on diplomatic efforts.
Seven-in-ten Americans think Mr. Trump needs to get authorization from Congress before any further action against Syria; more than half of Republicans agree.

Americans support last week’s U.S. strike in part because most say the use of chemical weapons is immoral. There’s more division on whether it constitutes a direct threat to the U.S.
Back in 2013, most Republicans opposed the idea of airstrikes against Syria by President Obama, and half of Democrats were opposed then, as well.
Since the strike. Mr. Trump’s overall job approval rating has seen an increase to 43 percent. Slightly fewer now disapprove than did before. Forty-nine percent now disapprove of his performance.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Trump and Carson Say Stupid Things About Terrorism and the Middle East

Reuters reports:
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson on Thursday likened refugees fleeing violence in Syria to "rabid dogs," and said that allowing them into the United States would put Americans at risk.
"If there is a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog,” Carson, a front-runner in some opinion polls, said Thursday at a campaign event in Mobile, Alabama.
"By the same token, we have to have in place screening mechanisms that allow us to determine who the mad dogs are, quite frankly," the retired neurosurgeon said, criticizing President Barack Obama's plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees within a year.
The Daily Beast reports:
As a means to fighting terrorism, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump wouldn’t rule out the closing of U.S. mosques and issuing special identification and/or setting up a database of Muslim Americans. When presented with the latter idea in an interview with Yahoo News, the business mogul said, “We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.” During a Wednesday evening interview with Fox News, Trump doubled down on his support for possibly closing mosques, telling Sean Hannity the U.S. may have “no choice.”

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Refugee Politics

Margaret Talev reports at Bloomberg:
Most Americans want the U.S. to stop letting in Syrian refugees amid fears of terrorist infiltrations after the Paris attacks, siding with Republican presidential candidates, governors, and lawmakers who want to freeze the Obama administration’s resettlement program.
The findings are part of a Bloomberg Politics national poll released Wednesday that also shows the nation divided on whether to send U.S. troops to Iraq and Syria to fight the Islamic State, an idea President Barack Obama opposes, and whether the U.S. government is doing enough to protect the homeland from a comparable attack.
Fifty-three percent of U.S. adults in the survey, conducted in the days immediately following the attacks, say the nation should not continue a program to resettle up to 10,000 Syrian refugees. Just 28 percent would keep the program with the screening process as it now exists, while 11 percent said they would favor a limited program to accept only Syrian Christians while excluding Muslims, a proposal Obama has dismissed as “shameful” and un-American.
David A. Graham writes at The Atlantic:
Between April and October of 1980, amid an economic downturn, Fidel Castro announced that Cubans who wanted to leave could do so. It precipitated a mass exodus toward the United States. Around 125,000 Cubans fled the island in the Mariel boatlift. The question was what to do with them once they arrived. After all, huge infusions of refugees are often unwelcome, and rumors that the “Marielitos” included many released criminals made many Americans even less welcoming.
In May, President Jimmy Carter informed Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, then nearing the end of his first term in office, that 20,000 of the immigrants would be housed temporarily at Fort Chaffee in northwest Arkansas. Clinton backed the move by his fellow Democrat publicly, but was privately furious: “How could you do this to me? I busted my ass for Carter. You’re gonna get me beat.” Once they’d arrived, the resettlement process ground to a halt, and in June, a riot erupted, and Clinton called out the National Guard. Several months later, as he’d predicted Clinton lost his bid for reelection to Frank White, a first-time candidate for office. In the same election, Carter lost the White House. The story turned out happily for Clinton, who defeated White in 1982 and went on to become president, but Carter and Clinton reportedly still dislike each other.

The Fort Chaffee story is largely forgotten by the general public, but it’s a good bet that some governors haven’t forgotten its political lessons.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Bad Poll News for Dems

Mark Murray writes at NBC:
Nearly 70 percent of Americans say they lack confidence that the U.S. will achieve its goals in fighting the terrorist group ISIS, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Annenberg poll. The findings come in the wake of President Barack Obama’s national address announcing new measures to combat the Sunni militants.
Pressure is mounting on the U.S. and its allies to cripple the militants, who have waged a brutal campaign across Syria and Iraq. ISIS already has beheaded two American journalists and on Saturday released a video showing the execution of a third Westerner, British aid worker David Haines.

The poll – conducted before the latest execution emerged – showed that a combined 68 percent of Americans say they have “very little” or “just some” confidence that Obama’s goals of degrading and eliminating the threat posed by ISIS will be achieved. Just 28 percent said they had “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of confidence. Still, 62 percent of voters say they support Obama’s decision to take action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, while 22 percent oppose it.
At The Wall Street Journal, Janet Hook reports on an earlier poll:
Democrats have a lot to worry about in the midterm elections but one of their sturdiest bulwarks against a GOP rout in the fall has been support among women. They have held significant leads over Republicans among women by a number of polling measures.
But the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll has some warning signs for Democrats who are counting on women to help them weather a tough political climate.
An important bellwether is the question of which party voters would prefer to control Congress, and it has long been the case that men prefer a Republican Congress and women favor a Democratic Congress.

But the poll conducted Sept. 3-7 found that women’s Democratic preference had shrunk to a 47%-40% margin — down from 51% -37% a month earlier. The swing was especially sharp among white women, who gave Democrats a 4 point edge in August; in the new poll, Republicans enjoyed 48%-40% advantage.
It is hard to assess what accounts for that shift but, if it proves a durable trend, the stakes are high. GOP pollster Bill McInturff said that maintaining support among women is critical for Democrats in the midterm elections, or else “a difficult cycle becomes a really terrible cycle for Democrats.”
Jay Cost has more on the earlier NBC poll:
Breaking it down by issues, we can see why Republicans are in better shape. They are more trusted on the more salient issues. Democrats have a net advantage of 28 points on who is better “looking out for the interests of women,” where 45 percent say Democrats and 17 percent say Republicans. They have a 27 point advantage on the environment, and a 15 point edge on abortion. On health care, they have an 8 point edge, which is close to their lowest advantage since 1991. But that is it for Democrats. On taxes (R+4), immigration (R+7), economy (R+10), foreign policy (R+18), the deficit (R+18) and a strong national defense (R+38), the GOP has the edge. Moreover, this advantage has either stayed the same or expanded in the last month. And on every one of these metric the party is improved from a year ago, often substantially so.
The immigration item is of most interest to me. Democrats are not dummies. There was a good reason they did not pass a comprehensive reform bill when they had complete control of government back in 2009-2010. The reality is that wide swaths of any such bill are bound to be unpopular. Once you satisfy the “stakeholders” (Obamaspeak for: interest groups that have purchased undue access to policymakers), you wind up with a rotten piece of sausage that John Q. Public does not want to eat. This is why Democrats need Republicans -- as cover on the issue. They thought they had it a year ago, and when it looked like the GOP might give in, the public favored Democrats on immigration by four points last September, 30-26. But Republicans like Jeff Sessions have been arguing passionately and effectively about how it is a bad deal for the working class (regardless of race or ethnicity), and lo and behold the issue has flipped from a year ago, to a 35-28 advantage for the GOP.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Terrorism, ISIS, and Party Politics

Last night, POTUS went on national TV to discuss strategy against ISISRich Galen points out:

  • A few months after Senator Obama became President Obama a memo was issued that stated the phrase "Global War on Terror" was no longer operationable and would henceforth be referred to as "Overseas Contingency Operations."
  • I am not making this up. The relevant Washington Post article in on today's Secret Decoder Ring.
  • Last night he used the root word "terror" (including terrorist(s), terrorize, terrorism, etc.) no fewer than 20 times in his 13 minute speech.

Gallup reports:
The Republican Party has expanded its historical edge over the Democratic Party in Americans' minds as being better able to protect the U.S. from international terrorism and military threats. At this point, 55% of Americans choose the GOP on this dimension, while 32% choose the Democratic Party. This is the widest Republican advantage in Gallup's history of asking this question since 2002.

The latest update on this 12-year trend comes from Gallup's Sept. 4-7 Governance poll, finished just days before President Barack Obama's speech to the nation Wednesday night, in which he outlined his plans for addressing the challenges presented by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other international threats.

Republicans have held a perceptual edge on this question in all but two of the 12 years that it has been asked -- 2007 and 2012. The GOP's edge has been significant in many of the other years, although the 19-percentage-point gap measured in 2002, which was previously the largest, is eclipsed by this year's 23-point Republican edge.

Friday, September 27, 2013

Americans Think Putin Was More Effective Than Obama

From YouGov, yet another stinging poll result for President Obama:
Many Americans think that Vladimir Putin was the most effective leader during the Syrian chemical weapons crisis, while approval for how Obama handled the crisis is still low.

Although Syria appears to have met the first deadline in its agreement with the United States and Russia, beginning the process of turning over its chemical weapons, few Americans trust it will fulfill its promises. That leaves President Obama in a difficult position: he continues to have little support for action against Syria, and Americans continue to disapprove of how he is handling this crisis. Worse for him, perhaps, the latest Economist/YouGov Poll finds twice as many Americans giving Russian President Vladimir Putin the nod over President Obama as the most effective leader in this crisis.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

A Divider, Not a Uniter

There has long been a divisive streak in President Obama's rhetoric and actions

Maureen Dowd notices:
President Obama also gave a speech Monday, talking at the White House while the drama unfolded at the supposedly secure Navy Yard nearby. He could have posted his original remarks on the White House Web site and replaced them with a cri de coeur on gun control, or comfort for the shaken city. The 12 who died were, after all, under his aegis as workers in a federal building.

But, jarringly, the president went ahead with his political attack, briefly addressing the slaughter before moving on to jab Republicans over the corporate tax rate and resistance to Obamacare.

Just as with the address to the nation on Syria last week, the president went ahead with a speech overtaken by events. It was out of joint, given that the Senate was put into lockdown and the Washington Nationals delayed a night game against the Atlanta Braves, noting on its Web site, “Postponed: Tragedy.”

The man who connected so electrically and facilely in 2008, causing Americans to overlook his thin résumé, cannot seem to connect anymore.
CNN reports:
"When there is a tragic event like this in the nation's capital and the local baseball team expresses that it would be insensitive to participate in the national pastime, but the president proceeds with a self-congratulatory press conference to celebrate his miniscule economic accomplishments, it tells you the Obama administration has become tone-deaf," said Alex Castellanos, a CNN contributor who co-founded Purple Strategies, a bipartisan public affairs firm. "Bill Clinton, who 'felt our pain,' would never have made this mistake."

It's not just Republicans who are critical of the president -- a senior Democratic consultant was critical of Obama's timing, too.
"Suprisingly tone-deaf. National unity has been at the heart of the Obama brand since his 2004 'there are no red states and no blue states' speech. To pass up a chance to unite the country after a tragedy was a missed opportunity. Unhelpful in terms of politics. Even more unhelpful in terms of governance," said the consultant, who asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely.
He was similarly tone-deaf in his Syria speech last week, as blogger Ace of Spades noted:
In a speech that had been good, for an Obama speech, avoiding his usual gassy nothingness in favor of tangible nouns and clear verbs of the sort he apparently was taught were poor form in college, Obama chose to drop this little insult:
And so to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America's military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.
To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor, for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.
Note that Obama's "friends on the left" believe in freedom and dignity in all people. People on the right don't, apparently.
What do people on the right believe in? "Military might." Pure force. Note that he decouples military might from any moral purpose -- he doesn't say "your commitment to keeping the nation safe" or "your commitment to a patriotic defense of America." No, such moral approval is stripped away so that Obama can speak neutrally of the one thing Obama thinks conservatives care about, naked martial power