[273] Big Coal Worse Than Keystone, Israel Undermines Peace, Japan"s Radioactive Nightmare

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

• Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.


• Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.


• Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.

[273] Big Coal Worse Than Keystone, Israel Undermines Peace, Japan"s Radioactive Nightmare

Obama"s Wing-it Diplomacy Undermines U.S. Credibility

Here’s how the Obama folks have been starting to spin Syria. The president made a credible threat to use military force in Syria. At the same time, he worked behind the scenes to get Russia’s Vladimir Putin to push Bashir al-Assad to give up chemical weapons.

These two seemingly discordant initiatives, brilliantly coordinated, combined to produce a process to eliminate Assad’s chemical weapons without even a shot being fired across the bow.

Of course, every bit of this is false. Only the most credulous Obama fans are fooled.

Back on Aug. 20, 2012, in response to an intelligent question from NBC’s Chuck Todd, the president said that the use of chemical weapons by Syria would be a “red line” that would “change my calculus.”

That’s a threat to go to war. As the Washington Post’s Walter Pincus points out, once a president declares a red line, he should be prepared to back it up. He should order military contingency plans, consult with members of Congress and seek support from foreign governments.

There is no evidence that Obama did any of these things in a serious or sustained way in the 366 days between his red-line statement and the use of chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus — not even after British and French intelligence reported the use of chemical weapons last spring.

Then during the week of Aug. 26-30, leaks poured out from the administration that Obama would order air strikes in Syria, but only little ones. Regime change was off the table.

On Friday night before the Labor Day weekend, Obama suddenly decided, during a walk in the White House grounds, to seek congressional approval.

Were any soundings taken of congressional opinion before that decision? It doesn’t seem likely.

Even the slightest pulse-taking would have suggested that getting majority approval would be difficult in a House of Representatives where most Republicans mistrust the president and most Democrats are congenitally dovish.

Especially when public opinion strongly opposed any military intervention.

Attempts to propitiate Democrats by stressing that air strikes would be only a pinprick inevitably repelled Republicans willing to support only measures that would weaken or dislodge the Assad regime.

After Labor Day, as media vote counts started showing a majority of House members voting or leaning no, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, who accompanied Obama on his Friday night walk, was still predicting that the administration would prevail. That was either insincere or delusional.

The claim that the Russians agreed to push Syria on chemical weapons only because Obama threatened to use force requires a belief they thought he would do so after an adverse congressional vote. Not likely.

Nor is it likely that John Kerry’s statement in his Monday press conference in London that the attack could be avoided if Syria submitted to international inspections was part of a calculated strategy. Kerry’s next words were, “But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.”

Kerry was winging it, and so was Obama when he spoke favorably of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s offer to push Syria to give up its poison gas.

So the president’s Wednesday night speech included words supporting military action and other words explaining that it wasn’t necessary.

It can be argued that Obama’s decision to hold off on air strikes and negotiate with the Russians is better for the United States in the short run than the other two alternatives on offer — ineffective air strikes or a landslide repudiation of the commander in chief by Congress.

But in the long run, it’s a terrible setback for America.

Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger muscled the Soviet Union out of Middle East diplomacy back in 1973. In the 40 years since, American presidents have kept the Russians out.

Now they’re back in. A nation with a declining population, a weakened military and an economy propped up only by oil and gas exports has suddenly made itself the key interlocutor in the region.

Obama has allowed this even though it’s obvious that effective disarmament is impossible in a nation riven by civil war and ruled by a regime with every incentive and inclination to lie and conceal.

The negotiations and any fig-leaf inspection process can be dragged out for weeks, months and years, as Saddam Hussein demonstrated.

Obama said he hoped to degrade Syria’s chemical weapons program. Instead he has degraded his own — and America’s — credibility. 

Michael Barone is Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner, co-author of The Almanac of American Politics and a contributor to Fox News.

RealClearPolitics – Articles

Obama"s Wing-it Diplomacy Undermines U.S. Credibility

Obama"s "Red Line" Undermines U.S. Power

Blunder after blunder. That’s been the story of President Barack Obama’s policy toward Syria.

In April 2011, Obama said dictator Bashir al-Assad “had to go.” But he did little or nothing to speed him on his way.

At an Aug. 20, 2012, press conference, in campaign season, he was asked about Syria’s chemical weapons and said “a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.”

On Aug. 21, 2013, a year and a day afterwards, chemical weapons were used in large quantities in the Damascus suburbs a 20-minute drive from United Nations inspectors.

Last week, all signs — strong statements by Secretary of State John Kerry, leaks of detailed military plans — indicated that Obama would soon order what he described as “a shot across the bow.”

But on Saturday, Aug. 31, he announced that he would ask Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the use of military force — even though he believed he had authority to do it unilaterally. That means delay until Congress assembles Sept. 9 — time for Assad to put his military assets out of harm’s way.

There are strong arguments for voting against a resolution, the exact wording of which is not established at this writing.

Obama’s “limited, tailored” approach seems certain not to destroy Assad’s chemical weapons and may well not deter him from using them. And we have the president’s word that he is not seeking “regime change.”

In the unlikely event that air strikes do undermine the Assad regime, we have no assurance that an alternative would be preferable. Al-Qaida sympathizers may gain the upper hand.

At the same time, there are strong arguments against a vote countering a resolution. Undermining the power of even a feckless American president risks undermining the power of the presidency — and of America — for years.

Crossing a president’s “red line,” however improvidently drawn, should carry consequences, however limited.

Many in Congress, and not just Republicans, surely resent being called upon to authorize an action that public opinion polls indicate is widely unpopular, particularly among the Independent voters who can determine election outcomes in many states and congressional districts.

If a vote were taken this week, the resolution would be rejected — just as a similar resolution was, unexpectedly, rejected in the British House of Commons Aug. 29.

Some Democrats want the resolution to strictly limit the president, while Republicans like Sen. John McCain want a broader permit that would allow for regime change.

Presidents usually prevail on issues like this, where they can argue that national security is at stake, and the administration can probably round up enough votes in the democratic-majority Senate.

That will be much harder in the Republican-majority House. Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have both endorsed a resolution.

But Boehner and Democrat Chris Van Hollen have both called this a conscience vote and said their parties will not whip the issue. The White House will have to do the hard work of rounding up the votes.

At midweek The Washington Post listed only 17 House members favoring military action and 130 opposed or leaning against.

Most House Democrats voted against the Iraq War resolution in October 2002, when most voters favored it.

Their party has dovish instincts going back to the Vietnam War and has been largely ignored by the administration since it lost its House majority in 2010.

House Republicans, the object of Obama’s continued denunciations and disdain, are not inclined to trust him at all. Many surely believe they’re being set up as fall guys for a president whose chief political goal is regaining the House majority for Democrats in 2014.

That suspicion was surely enhanced in Sweden on Wednesday when Obama said, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”

But the world is not clamoring to enforce it. The only nation contemplating joining the United States in military action is France. That’s 38 fewer allies than joined the United States after the supposed unilateralist George W. Bush, with congressional authorization, ordered troops into Iraq.

Former Bush administration official Elliott Abrams has argued that Obama’s foreign policy is designed to restrain and reduce America’s power in the world. The twists and turns of his policy toward Syria certainly seem to be having that effect. 

Michael Barone is Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner, co-author of The Almanac of American Politics and a contributor to Fox News.

RealClearPolitics – Articles

Obama"s "Red Line" Undermines U.S. Power