Archive for the ‘US’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

In a democracy, oppositions must oppose, governments must govern

October 9, 2013

I was listening yesterday to President Obama’s press conference where he accused the Republicans of “extortion”.

“But I also told him that having such a conversation, talks, negotiations shouldn’t require hanging the threats of a government shutdown or economic chaos over the heads of the American people. …. 

….. members of Congress, and the House Republicans in particular, don’t get to demand ransom in exchange for doing their jobs. And two of their very basic jobs are passing a budget and making sure that America’s paying its bills. They don’t also get to say, you know, unless you give me what the voters rejected in the last election, I’m going to cause a recession.

…. So let me explain this. If Congress refuses to raise what’s called the debt ceiling, America would not be able to meet all of our financial obligations for the first time in 225 years.”

He sounded petulant. It sounded like “Give me back my ball” to me.

But the fundamental foundation of any democracy is that ruling parties govern, to the extent that they have the ability and as they may be constrained by the opposition. It is a fundamental of preventing excesses by a majority against a minority that oppositions oppose to the best of their ability. Oppositions must oppose as best they can. Governments must govern given such opposition. It is the task of government to make the compromises necessary to be able to govern. And the bottom line is that the Republicans in the House are opposing and that Obama and his Democrats are failing to govern.

I certainly don’t know enough about the issues involved to have any decided opinions. But I do think that the US debt is an indicator of many years of profligacy. Obamacare itself may be a wonderful thing but the opposition in the House don’t think so. Passing any budget (and it is actually approving an increase of a debt limit) cannot just be a formality where the ruling party merely gets its way and the opposition knuckles under. One could argue that passing a “balanced budget” is some kind of a fiduciary responsibility of the representatives but this is not such a question. It is for the passing of a grossly “unbalanced budget” and to, thereby, increase the national debt.

So when an opposition does what it is supposed to and succeeds in opposing any measure proposed by a ruling party, it is actually evidence of a failure to govern. There can be no failure of the responsibility of the opposition to oppose.

What Obama seems to be complaining about is that he has not the ability to find the compromises to be able to overcome the opposition!

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on In a democracy, oppositions must oppose, governments must govern

Trigger happy in Washington

October 4, 2013

Just a “little” story with one death of a 34 year old mother in Washington on a day when over 300 would-be migrants from Africa drowned off the Sicilian coast. Yet I find it more disturbing and I wonder why?

A dental hygienist – with her baby in her car – apparently drove over some lowered security bollards outside the White House  and then panicked as security officers went – it seems  – more than a little berserk in trying to stop her. She had her toddler with her in the car. She was unarmed.

But after a hot pursuit she was shot dead in a fusillade of some 15 shots.

Stamford Advocate: A Stamford woman was shot and killed after trying to ram her car into a White House security barrier and leading police on a high-speed chase past the Capitol with her 18-month-old daughter in tow.

Miriam Carey, 34, of 114 Woodside Green, drove her black Infiniti coupe onto a driveway leading to the White House and over a set of lowered barricades.

When Carey couldn’t get through a second barrier, she spun the car in the opposite direction, flipping a Secret Service officer over the hood of the car as she sped away, said B.J. Campbell, a tourist from Portland, Ore.

A representative of Carey’s family in Brooklyn, N.Y., said the family is still gathering information and was surprised by Thursday’s incident.

The family was expected to issue a statement later Thursday night, said Dennis Jones, a friend of the family.

Carey was a licensed dental hygienist and according to a local law enforcement official, she suffered from mental illness, but had no criminal record.

But this is Washington. Where weighty matters such as government shut-downs and debt crises and wars and drone strikes are decided.

Security services protecting the most important people in the US – and therefore the World – have carte blanche when it comes to protecting their charges. I noted that the politicians were very quick to thank their trigger-happy security staff.

So what is just another death of a “disturbed” but unarmed woman who panicked – even if it happened a little closer to home than the great people in Washington are used to? Just some very minor collateral damage in the Great War on Terror.

What disturbs most – I think – is the indiscriminate application of power and brute force on the one hand and the total helplessness of the victim on the other. She drove over a barricade that had been lowered (and effectively was not there). She seems to have been surrounded by screaming armed security and panicked. Who wouldn’t? Once the security staff got their guns out it was only going to end in one way. She was probably doomed from the moment she drove over the lowered security bollards — and everything that followed was then inevitable. And it is that inevitability of her death the moment she drove onto the wrong driveway that disturbs.

But the President is safe and all the Senators and Representatives are safe. A job well-done?

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Behaviour, US | Comments Off on Trigger happy in Washington

An oblique view of the looming US government shutdown points to incompetence in governing

October 1, 2013

It is 6am in Europe and midnight, Monday 30th September in Washington. A US government shutdown is looming because of disagreement between the President and the Senate on the one hand with the House on the other. The Senate has a Democratic majority while the House has a Republican majority. The two sides cannot agree on budget measures to keep paying for government.

There is much – but very predictable – pointing of fingers.

My view is from another aspect. It is not the role of an opposition to lie down in front of the ruling party. It’s job is to oppose. That is the fundamental of the “check and balance” of a two party system. It is the job of the ruling party to do as little as is necessary in compromising with the opposition to be able to govern – not to blame the opposition. A failure to govern is in itself evidence of an inability to govern. It is evidence of incompetence.

It is the job of the Republican opposition to oppose. It is for the President and the Democxratic majority in the Senate to give in as little as is necessary and as much as is sufficient to be able to govern.

I cannot help but conclude that the President and his Democratic majority have lost sight of the fact that it is their responsibility to make the compromises sufficient and necessary. It is not the role of the Republicans to lie down and be rolled-over. In the hierarchy of things it is for the House to “propose” and the Senate and the president to “dispose”. When whatever comes up from the House is unacceptable and has to be rejected by the Senate or the President it indicates that the President and the Senate are not doing what is sufficient and necessary to get proposals from the House that can be approved.

There is a large element of risk aversion and a fear of “screwing his courage to the sticking place” about President Obama. The Senate Democratic majority is guilty of simple incompetence.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on An oblique view of the looming US government shutdown points to incompetence in governing

German helicopter probes US consulate in Frankfurt for spy station

September 10, 2013

The US NSA’s wide-spread surveillance of friends and foes alike revealed by the Snowden documents is creating an atmosphere of distrust. South American countries are not pleased after the revelations that leading politicians have had their e-mails intercepted and hacked by the NSA. Of course many of the intelligence agencies in European countries have been complicit in the indiscriminate surveillance. Now it seems that the NSA have also probably been helping US companies by spying on their rivals such as Petrobras, SWIFT and other foreign firms.

In Sweden you haven’t really arrived if you aren’t important enough to have had your e-mail intercepted!

But suspicions are now running very high about all US installations.

The Local:

A German police helicopter has flown low over the US Consulate in Frankfurt looking for a secret listening station, prompting a call from the American ambassador to Germany’s foreign ministry.

The helicopter circled low over America’s consulate in Frankfurt on August 28th on the orders of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s chief of staff Ronald Pofalla, magazine Focus reported on Monday.

Pofalla had declared the NSA spying scandal – sparked by whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations of a mass surveillance programme – over. 

But the helicopter flight, whose mission was to gather evidence of the supposed spying station – hints at the German government’s lack of trust in its ally’s spying activities on German soil. The helicopter slowly flew twice over the consulate at a height of 60 metres to photograph the site, Focus reported. 

Probably the only safe course is now for any country and for any company with US competitors to assume that they are being spied upon and to assume that every US government installation abroad is involved in the surveillance.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on German helicopter probes US consulate in Frankfurt for spy station

Obama hits pause button and Senate delays Syria vote

September 10, 2013

As I speculated yesterday, putting Syrian chemical weapons under International control has taken off as a potential “negotiated” solution which could avoid a US strike.

The speed with which the suggestion of international control has been taken on by so many of the parties including Syria (but excluding Al Qaida and the various opposition groups) is – I think – encouraging. But the message from the Obama administration is now incredibly mixed. Instead of giving the impression of an iron fist in a velvet glove the prevailing impression is of Obama having gone too far and now scrambling to avoid implementing a strike.

Even the Senate majority leader felt it necessary to delay any vote in the Senate. Members of Congress were also highly irritated by Kerry’s statement yesterday that the strike would be “unbelievably small”. This must have stung their egos — since of course nothing the Congress votes for can be for anything “unbelievably small”!

Support for President Obama’s call for military airstrikes in Syria is sliding on Capitol HIll.

President Obama’s push for congressional approval for military airstrikes in Syria ran aground Monday, forcing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to delay a procedural vote as opposition builds among senators in both parties.

Six senators, including five Republicans and one Democrat, announced Monday they would vote against a resolution authorizing the use of force — a strong indication that the administration’s efforts to build bipartisan support have been ineffective.

The Senate was scheduled to vote Wednesday on a procedural motion to begin formal debate on the resolution, but Reid announced late Monday the vote would be delayed in order to buy the president more time to make his case to senators and the public.

“What we need to do is make sure the president has the opportunity to speak to all 100 senators and all 300 million American people before we do this,” Reid said.

The delay also came amid reports that Russia was seeking a deal with Syria to dismantle its chemical weapons program. Obama said in television interviews Monday such a deal could circumvent the need for U.S. military intervention, but senators had not been briefed on the development and expressed skepticism.

“I have no idea what’s going on. It’d be great if the Russians could convince Assad to turn over his chemical weapons to the international community. That’d be a terrific outcome. I just am very dubious and skeptical,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Comments made Monday in London by Secretary of State John Kerry describing the military effort as “unbelievably small” also rankled lawmakers. Graham said Kerry “undercut everything the president has been doing for the last couple of days” to build support.

That there was strong opposition to Obama’s war in the House was known but this has now spread to the Senate.

The rapid clip of senators announcing their opposition on Monday raised serious doubts that the president would be able to muster the necessary support in either the House or Senate. The GOP-led House is not likely to take up a resolution unless the Senate can pass it first. A final Senate vote was expected this weekend, but Reid’s decision to delay the formal debate puts the schedule in flux.

Five GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Mike Enzi of Wyoming all announced opposition Monday, as did Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.

Briefings by top administration officials and a weekend conversation with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel were not enough to sway Alexander. “I see too much risk that the strike will do more harm than good by setting off a chain of consequences that could involve American fighting men and women in another long-term Middle East conflict,” he said.

If a US strike does not take place the losers will be Obama (for being so strident so quickly) and Al Qaida.

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Syria, US | Comments Off on Obama hits pause button and Senate delays Syria vote

Are Obama / Kerry preparing a face-saving exit?

September 9, 2013

UPDATE!

Looks like my speculations  this morning may not be so far off the mark:

Washington Post: 

Syria ‘welcomes’ Russia proposal on chemical arms

========================================================================

It might just be wishful thinking on my part or it could be that Obama and Kerry are preparing a face-saving path to abandoning their strike on Syria rather than suffer a humiliating rejection in the the US House of Representatives.

For the first time that I have noticed, Kerry is now “offering” Assad a way to avoid a strike – by giving up all his chemical weapons. I could be mistaken but I perceive the beginnings of a change in Kerry’s strident tone. The rhetoric for a strike from Kerry and Obama is not letting up – but it’s the first time that a possibility of a strike not happening has been mentioned. Of course if Congress and the Senate back Obama then there will be no need to back down and the exit path will become unnecessary. I also noted some US voices suggesting that Obama could postpone any vote in Congress until after some – so far – undefined moves in the UN as being advocated by the EU and other countries (including Russia). Putin for his part has also indicated that if the UN were shown the evidence and concurred then he would also support some – as yet unspecified – UN action against Syria.

Of course Assad would not/could not just give up his chemical weapons and certainly not to the US. But it is not unthinkable that he may be willing to put them under the control of his Russian allies. So if a suitable “formula” is evolved where the Russians perhaps “take charge” of Assad’s chemical weapons or in some other way secure their “safe-keeping” then Kerry and Obama could claim that their objective of preventing any further such attacks has been achieved. And if in addition the Russians are acting – or seen to be acting – on behalf of the UN in arranging such a scenario it would not only give Assad a way of saving face but also give the US the possibility to claim that Assad has conceded the supremacy of the UN. More importantly if such a scenario were being arranged it would give Obama and Kerry a “reason” for waiting with the vote in the House and for waiting with the strike.

If , in spite of the “red line having been crossed”, a US strike can be avoided by Assad ceding control of his chemical weapons then it seems to me to be something within the realm of negotiation. Especially when the benefits to the US of a very limited strike are not very evident. The benefits of such a strike  may mainly accrue to Al Qaida.

The key remains the US Congress. All “face saving” only becomes necessary and only comes into play if Obama expects to lose a vote in the House even after (and if) he has won a vote in the Senate. The next few days will tell if Obama’s rhetoric is holding sway in the House or whether he will need to use his exit strategy.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Russia, Syria, US | 1 Comment »

What do Obama, Blair and Al Qaida have in common?

September 6, 2013

They all want a  US strike on Syria – each for his own reasons.

Al Qaida has the most to gain by a weakening – rather than an elimination – of Assad’s regime. That would give them time to consolidate their dominance among the opposition groups while ensuring the eventual demise of Assad.

Tony Blair is desperate to show that all attacks by Western interests which help regime-change in the area are justified in themselves. His duplicity about WMD and Iraq will always dominate his place in History and that rankles. He is still looking for the argument which can support his fantasy that the intervention in Iraq – even without any WMD – was a good thing. He has just been interviewed by the BBC and this is to be aired on Monday. The excerpts released so far clearly reveal how utterly self-centred and self-serving he is.

What exactly Obama hopes to accomplish is quite unclear. It could be for intellectual satisfaction for having – recklessly – made his red-line box for himself. It could be to demonstrate his “moral superiority” and by extension that of the US. He (through Kerry) says 1429 people were killed by sarin gas. The French put the number at 281. The British said it was about 350. How will Obama measure success? By the number of fresh bodies on the ground? Score 1 for every Assad soldier killed! An “eye for an eye” or will he need to multply by ten to ensure that his actions are a deterrent? It is the gassing of children that must be addressed he says.  Is it only the manner of their deaths he wants to react to? How many children have died in US drone attacks so far?

Israel will be very satisfied if Syria remains in internal turbulence for as long as possible. Turkey’s Islamists will be very happy to see Assad go. Will Obama be satisfied for having strengthened Al Qaida and other Islamist groups?

Perhaps Obama with his drones and his “limited and targeted strike on Syria” is just one of the “wannabe soldier(s who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare”.

I think war is deplorable but unfortunately necessary. Human behaviour has not yet evolved to be able to avoid it. But war without any objective and primarily to demonstrate “moral superiority”?

Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College and writes in the Washington Post:

A war the Pentagon doesn’t want

…. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.

They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.

They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our “responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. 

 The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.

They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message.

Our people lament our loneliness. Our senior soldiers take pride in their past commitments to fight alongside allies and within coalitions that shared our strategic goals. This war, however, will be ours alone.

They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. …. 

…. Soon the military will salute respectfully and loose the hell of hundreds of cruise missiles in an effort that will, inevitably, kill a few of those we wish to protect. They will do it with all the professionalism and skill we expect from the world’s most proficient military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from this week’s hearings before we go to war again.

Read the whole article.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Syria, US | Comments Off on What do Obama, Blair and Al Qaida have in common?

Obama arrived 8 minutes early, Swedish Television caught napping

September 4, 2013

It has been a glorious day in Stockholm today. Blue skies, sunshine, 20°C and Obama touched down 8 minutes early. His arrival was being carried live by Swedish TV (Sveriges Television) on one channel and by Independent TV on another.  The Swedish TV channel literally “blacked-out” for about 5 minutes but the Independent channel coped though their audio feed went haywire for a few minutes.

Somebody should have told Obama that the correct form would have been to circle around in a little loop and land precisely on time. While punctuality is almost a religion here, and being late is a qualifier for eternal damnation, being early is not considered very polite either.

I remember the birthday parties for our kids when we were still new to Sweden and I could not quite understand why all the guests – and their parents – were hanging about down the street for a good 5 to 10 minutes before ringing the bell precisely – but precisely – at the appointed time. Mind you I quickly grew to appreciate that punctuality. Especially the custom of always having a  specified start and an end time for birthday parties. The relief after four hours of enduring 30 hyperactive kids when they all disappear at exactly the stipulated time is something close to ecstasy!!

Half the day’s program is over. A joint press conference with the Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt has been held. Nothing of any great significance was said. The full transcript is here. The most profound part was when Obama said:

It’s only been a short time, but I already want to thank all the people here for the warm hospitality that’s been extended to me and my delegation. This is truly one of the world’s great cities. It is spectacularly beautiful. The prime minister tells me that the weather is like this year ‘round. 

Only 2 Swedish journalists were permitted to ask questions and behaved themselves very correctly. Of course Syria and Putin and the NSA came up but little was said beyond the level of platitudes. Reinfeldt took the opportunity to mention that Sweden would now give refugees/ asylum seekers from Syria permanent residency and thereby avoided having to support or condemn military action.

But this is the first ever bilateral visit by a serving US President to Sweden and the value is more symbolic and it would be quite wrong to expect this visit to contain much substance on controversial matters. I had lunch today at my circular club and there was some little comment about the “circus” but nobody was really negative to Obama’s visit. Most were quite pleased that the President of the USA was visiting little Sweden.

Apart from the little TV glitch, everything else seems to have gone according to plan.

So far so good.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Diplomacy, Politics, Sweden, US | Comments Off on Obama arrived 8 minutes early, Swedish Television caught napping

Obama (and entourage of 500) to paralyse Stockholm

September 3, 2013

Arlanda airport and Stockholm are places to be avoided for the next 2 days. Fortunately I don’t have to be in the area till next week.

President Barack Obama and his entourage of some 500-700 people will land at Arlanda airport in Stockholm tomorrow. He will spend a little over 24 hours in the Swedish capital and then leave for Saint Petersburg and the G20 summit on Thursday.

Not only will roads be closed to all traffic, even the subway will shut down while his convoy of some 50 vehicles passes overhead. Some Metro stations will shut down. It will “be the largest interference to public transport that Stockholm has ever seen”. In some areas even cyclists and pedestrians will have to find alternate routes.

On arrival on Wednesday he will have discussions with the Prime Minister and the Swedish Government,

The pair will discuss bilateral relations, regional and global political and economic developments, trade relations, climate and energy policies as well as various foreign policy areas, likely to include Syria. A joint press conference will be held after the meeting at the Rosenbad Conference Centre.

After the meeting, the Reinfeldt and Obama are set to head over to the Great Synagogue of Stockholm to honour Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who saved tens of thousands of Jews from the Holocaust.

Next, the two leaders will motor over to the Royal Institute of Technology (Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, KTH) for a half hour look at the university’s energy innovation research. The programme will focus on Swedish innovations within the Chemical Science division, with specific attention paid to fuel cells and solar cells.

… Obama and Reinfeldt will then head for dinner, where they will be joined by the prime ministers of Finland, Denmark, Iceland and Norway.

He will likely spend the night at the Grand Hotel and will have lunch with the Royal family on Thursday before returning to Arlanda airport, Air Force 1 and his hop over to Russia.

Some minor demonstrations are expected but they will have far fewer people attending than the various parties being organised by various Swedish-American groups and societies.

Of course it is just a stop-over on his way to Russia and his mind may be preoccupied by Syria. Certainly the horde of journalists trailing in his wake will have little interest in things Swedish and will concentrate on Syria and what may transpire between Obama and Putin in the next few days.

But there are a number of matters that Obama could take up – or avoid – in a bilateral sense:

  1. He could thank someone (who?) for his Nobel Peace Prize. He can still bask in that glory till next week when strikes on Syria are implemented. In any event the prize cannot be revoked.
  2. He could thank the Swedish Government for not considering asylum for Snowden.
  3. He could thank the Swedish Government and prosecutors for cooperating in “stitching-up” Julian Assange.
  4. He will expect and demand that Fredrik Reinfeldt stand behind the US in confronting Putin about Syria. He will not have much resistance from this Swedish Government in that objective.
  5. Some of the UN samples collected in Syria are being analysed in Sweden and Obama will expect that the analysis results not contradict anything he or Kerry have alleged.
  6. He could discuss some joint PR to accompany the publication of the first part of the IPCC report on global warming at the end of the month.
  7. He is likely to avoid any discussion of the current hiatus in global warming firstly because he himself is a believer and secondly because there are more followers of the “global warming religion” in Sweden than there are members of the Swedish church.
  8. He will not expect that Sweden will even address the matter of the NSA’s indiscriminate spying  (and Carl Bildt has confirmed that this is not on the agenda).
  9. He may discuss the “Swedish model” which has received some attention in the US press though the general impression in the US remains that Sweden’s social welfare and health care system is just one little step removed from full-blown communism.
  10. However he may well ask how the the tax rebates for house-work and for house maintenance and repairs have contributed to real job creation.
  11. He is unlikely to discuss the fact that every “green job” in Sweden has cost at least two elsewhere in the economy and how renewable energy has increased the cost of electricity for the consumer.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Politics, Sweden, US | Comments Off on Obama (and entourage of 500) to paralyse Stockholm

Are Kerry and Obama dancing to an Israeli tune?

September 2, 2013

There are a number of inconsistencies between the various  “intelligence” reports concerning the alleged Syrian use of chemical weapons which give rise to convoluted stories about “who knew what”, “who made up what” and “why”? That Israeli intelligence is heavily involved in presenting the “right” story is only to be expected. That Turkish sources slant everything in favour of what may help get rid of Assad is also to be expected. That Al Qaida ( and I would not put it past them to be behind the chemical attack even if only through a renegade Syrian Army general) would like Assad to be attacked and the hostilities prolonged is equally obvious. That the various Syrian opposition groups (including Al Qaida) each has its own corner to protect is apparent every day.

Perhaps everybody involved is trying to orchestrate the “intelligence” and the “evidence” –  and the result will then be something that nobody has actually designed. It is US Foreign Policy happening by accident and not by design – at least not by US design.

Admittedly many of the stories are from sources who themselves have some vested interest and nothing emanating from Syria can be taken without a major dose of salt. Nevertheless some of the stories may well have some kernel of truth. And it does seem strange that one of the first to hear about Obama’s intention to delay the expected strike and defer to Congress – before he announced it – was the Israeli Prime Minister!

Haaretz reports:

U.S. President Barack Obama called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday and informed him that he planned to delay what seemed like an imminent attack on Syria, ahead of his speech at the White House to that regard.

Obama also told Netanyahu that he would relegate the matter to Congress, and ask for a congressional vote on any military action.

Craig Murray:  

It is therefore very strange, to say the least, that John Kerry claims to have access to communications intercepts of Syrian military and officials organising chemical weapons attacks, which intercepts were not available to the British Joint Intelligence Committee.

On one level the explanation is simple.  The intercept evidence was provided to the USA by Mossad, according to my own well  placed source in the Washington intelligence community.  Intelligence provided by a third party is not automatically shared with the UK, and indeed Israel specifies it should not be.

But the inescapable question is this.  Mossad have nothing comparable to the Troodos operation.  The reported content of the conversations fits exactly with key tasking for Troodos, and would have tripped all the triggers.  How can Troodos have missed this if Mossad got it?  The only remote possibility is that all the conversations went on a purely landline route, on which Mossad have a physical wire tap, but that is very unlikely in a number of ways – not least nowadays the purely landline route. … The answer to the Troodos Conundrum is simple.  Troodos did not pick up the intercepts because they do not exist.  Mossad fabricated them.  John Kerry’s “evidence” is the shabbiest of tricks.  More children may now be blown to pieces by massive American missile blasts.  It is nothing to do with humanitarian intervention.  It is, yet again, the USA acting at the behest of Israel

Moon of Alabama: 

During next weeks discussions it will be important to point out that the U.S. “intelligence” about the chemical incident in Syria is full of holes. The paper by the British Joint Intelligence Organisation used by Cameron to ask for war speaks of 350 people killed in the incident. On Friday Secretary of State Kerry spoke of 1,429 people killed. The draft war resolution speaks of “more then thousand” killed. 350, 1,429, 1,000 – which is it?

Jack Goldsmith, the Henry L. Shattuck Professor at Harvard Law School writes at Lawfare:

The administration’s proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for Syria provides:

(a) Authorization. — The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to –

(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or

(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.

There is much more here than at first meets the eye.  The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad.  It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force.  It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.  Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.  Four points are worth making about these purposes.  First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict.  Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).  Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”  Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”).  Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit). 

…….. Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  Again, very easy to imagine.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Israel, Politics, Syria, US | Comments Off on Are Kerry and Obama dancing to an Israeli tune?

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »