Archive

Éditorial / Editorial

 OBAMA7534912

“What do I do next?”

EDITORIAL – Sometimes he will professed ignorance, some other times he will professed support; he will always talk but rarely act. Sometimes he uses his office aggressively; other times he looks unacquainted with the work of his own administration. This is governing the Obama way, governing à la carte, governing to please the crowds and look good: Say what the people say, agree with everyone, sit down and relax.

Obama has been willing to push the bounds of executive power when it comes to making life-and-death decisions about drone strikes on suspected terrorists or instituting new greenhouse gas emission standards for cars. But at many other times he has been shying away. On deportations of illegal immigrants, he first said he didn’t have the authority only to eventually gave in after months of public protest and private pressure from immigrant and Hispanic advocates, granting relief to certain people who had been brought to the United States as children. In key moments, Obama often opted against power plays. In the 2011 debt-ceiling fight, Obama ruled out unilaterally raising the country’s borrowing limit.

What else can you expect from arrogance and vanity. Leading the Obama way is leading from behind. This is the arrogance of power. I did not know; I was not told; I strongly oppose; I strongly support; they will have to pay for it; there are options; don’t argue with me; I am always right; yes we can; no I won’t. Leading the Obama way is leading without action, leading in inaction, leading by confusion and above and over everything else leading absolutely nowhere.

Obama’s sometimes-yes, sometimes-no approach can give the appearance that he’s all over the map but you will always find some to say his approach is deliberate and coherent: on national security, he exercises power to keep the country safe, whereas on domestic issues, he acts strategically on a case-by-case basis. For some others, Obama is deeply concerned both that his office . . . never violate its primary duty to abide by the Constitution’s checks and balances and that he nonetheless exercise those powers to the limit as needed to protect the nation and its people.

Obama came into office promising to rein in what he charged were frequent overreaches of executive authority by George W. Bush’s administration. He vowed to strive for non-ideological, bipartisan solutions to problems. In practice, Obama followed Bush’s lead when it came to executive power in fighting terrorism and other areas. His administration invoked the state-secrets privilege to avoid disclosing information when challenged in court, and Obama asserted executive privilege to withhold information from Congress amid questions about the Fast and Furious gun-tracking operation. He adopted a more aggressive stance on domestic policy after Republicans won control of the House in 2010, directing staff to look for ways to use administrative actions as end runs around a polarized Congress.

Obama’s advisers said the president thinks about executive power strategically and is willing to exert it fully — such as on environmental regulation — if doing so helps him move past obstacles on Capitol Hill and achieve specific objectives. “The president is always looking for ways to use his executive authority to advance his policy agenda,” White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said. The only downside to this Obama way of governing is that he is seen as inconsistent or weak, and absolutely inconsistent and unpredictable.

JMD

 jmdlive@lefuturistedailynews.com

Tayyip_Erdoğan

No luck Tayyip Erdogan

WASHINGTON – Like my 5 years old would say, “I guess Mr. Barack received the message from Mr. Al-Assad: Why don’t you shut up and just mind your own business … you are so full of hot air!”

Taking a cautious line at a joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, Obama said yesterday he reserved the right to resort to both diplomatic and military options to pressure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but insisted that U.S. action alone would not be enough to resolve the Syrian crisis.

Erdogan had been expected to push Obama, at least in private, for more assertive action but Obama made no mention of deeper engagement. “What we have to do is apply steady international pressure,” Obama said.

Earlier on Thursday, Turkish President Abdullah Gul criticized the world’s response on Syria as limited to “rhetoric”. Turkey has been one of Assad’s fiercest critics, throwing its weight behind the uprising, allowing the rebels to organize on its soil and sheltering 400,000 refugees.

JMD

 jmdlive@lefuturistedailynews.com

Bashar al-Assad

 Do I hear you!

UNITED NATIONS — Wednesday May 15, 2013 will be remembered as a critical date in the resolution of the Syrian conflict: A nonbinding resolution was passed by the UN calling for a political transition to end the civil war there, putting the onus on the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop the killing.

Acknowledging the total uselessness of this resolution as well as their functions, the 193 overpaid useless pathetic members of the general assembly recognized that, like their every other diplomatic useless non-realistic initiative regarding Syria, their new repeated approach would probably fail to stem the violence or coax out a political solution.

Only 59 out of the UN members had enough sense or decency not to take part in this grotesque display of political nonsense and diplomatic as well as personal insanity or senility. The resolution passed 107 to 12, it fell far short of the 133 votes in support of a similar resolution last August. The 59 abstentions reflected the widespread sentiment that the new absolutely useless repeated initiative will not help in any way to solve the Syrian conflict.

Even my little 5 years old can understand that!

Keep on going Bashar, you can do it!

JMD

 jmdlive@lefuturistedailynews.com

obama1_940

Obama shooting back at criticisms

THE WHITE HOUSE – Wednesday May 15, 2013, the White House acknowledged the rising political dangers of the mushrooming Obama’s administration scandals. In a tumultuous few hours, the administration moved forcefully to counter criticism of its handling of the deadly attacks of the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, the seizure of the Associated Press reporters’ phone records in a Justice Department leak investigation, and the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative patriots and Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny. In his most aggressive response, Obama announced that the acting IRS commissioner had handed down his resignation.

Days of deflecting blame by the president had sparked criticism on his willingness to accept any kind of responsibility for his own failures, and his usual way of avoiding any kind of blame by always pointing the fingers in somebody else’s direction. Now facing increasing criticism, Obama, known for his deliberative style and an aversion to overreacting that often push him into inaction, decided yesterday that it was time to fight back.

Appearing at the White House, he said the administration had forced the resignation of acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller and he strongly condemned the agency’s apparent targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny. He promised to cooperate with Congress in an investigation. Obama’s appearance came shortly after the White House released a series of emails detailing discussions about the now famous “talking points” memos that U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice used when discussing the September 11, 2012, attacks by Islamic militants on a diplomatic compound in Benghazi. Hoping to defuse criticism about the secret seizure of phone records from Associated Press journalists, the administration sought to revive a 2009 media shield bill sponsored by Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The bill would give federal protection to reporters who decline to reveal their confidential sources, but would also allow national security needs to outweigh those journalists’ rights.

Nobody including Obama himself shall expect this White House response to put an end to the controversies, but it shows the president willingness to openly face its potential political fallout. With congressional elections approaching in 2014, there is no other open option for Obama; any longstanding political damage can show on the Democrats’ efforts to maintain control of the Senate and retake the majority in the House. Immediate political damage control counter measures may well be appropriate but without further evidence of wrongdoing that traces directly to the White House, the three scandals may not resonate widely with voters over the long-term.

Personally, I would not expect too much from all of this window dressing nonsense.

 JMD

Michel Ouellette JMD
Public Affairs & Communications
Columnist, Novelist, and Futurist

 jmdlive@lefuturistedailynews.com

Source:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-usa-obama-scandals-damage-analysis-idUSBRE94F04720130516

Obama official Portrait

Barack Obama

Nearly five months second term, none of his projects from his first mandate have been completed and he has already lost control of his second term agenda, if he ever had one in the first place. His future as a comedian is more promising than his political career.

Much rhetoric and not very much action, Obama seems to suffer from an incurable form of verbal diarrhea. Maybe, like he already suggested, he should just pack up and go home. Many now tend to believe him when he says that his job is very difficult: intelligence sharing “this is hard stuff”, closing Guantanamo “It’s a hard case to make”, Republican governors blocking his health-care law’s implementation “that makes it harder” and responding in Syria “it is a difficult problem” he says.

Well Mister president, if you cannot stand the heat, maybe it is time for you to step out of the kitchen, what I believe you have already done.

JMD

Michel Ouellette JMD
Public Affairs & Communications
Columnist, Novelist, and Futurist

 jmdlive@lefuturistedailynews.com

 

obama

Barack Obama

US president Barack Obama said on Friday he does not foresee a scenario in which he would send US troops to Syria. However, if Syria is found to have used chemical weapons, he will be considering sending lethal aid to Syrian rebels he said, before adding: any additional steps taken by the United States, will be based on the facts on the ground in Syria and what is in the best interests of the American people and US national security. He also stressed out that he would not be pressured prematurely into a deeper intervention into Syria.

A New York Times/CBS News poll released last Tuesday found that 62 percent of Americans believe the United States has no responsibility to do anything about the fighting between Assad’s forces and anti-government rebels confirming my opinion and most certainly Obama’s opinion that the USA does not have any interest or business whatsoever in the Syrian conflict. This is the only reason why Obama has repeatedly shied away from any other than diplomatic US involvement in the Syrian conflict. This is Obama, a lot of hot air, a lot of showmanship and very little if no action.

Yes indeed, Obama will either go down in history has one of the most indecisive or most clever president the United States never had. No matter the judgment of time, his presidency is and will stay one of a lot of hot air and very little action.

JMD

Michel Ouellette JMD
Public Affairs & Communications
Columnist, Novelist, and Futurist

 jmdlive@lefuturistedailynews.com

 

FRONTLINE "Dreams of Obama"

I am but Benjamin will have to take the blame!

A new flurry of threats by Israeli leaders to strike Iran on their own has coincided with a visit by U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to finalize an arms deal that will guarantee Israel’s regional military supremacy over the Middle East for a decade or two.

Last week, Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz boast that Israel can act alone if need be and that’s true. But this was without saying that before yesterday; Israel’s military capabilities were not enough to deliver a knockout blow against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the in-flight refueling capability being the key factor in such a long-range operation.

Well, yesterday, the United States made Israel’s dream possible.

First, in March, Obama brokered a rapprochement between Turkey and Israel and now this. Why press Israel not to attack Iran, for fear of igniting a region-wide conflagration, and then provide it with the very systems they need to make such and attack possible? Is there something in the wind here that I long suspected and feared?

The Israelis have long threatened to unleash unilateral airstrikes on Iran, despite U.S. pressures not to and despite their own limitations. They’ve been pretty quiet in recent months. Then last week, the Pentagon announced the Israeli government was seeking to buy 86.4 million gallons of petroleum products, mostly fuel used by Israeli air force jets.

Is there something in the air?

Yesterday, the US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon announced the signature of an armaments deal that will ensure the military supremacy of Israel over the Middle East for the next two decades. Hagel pointed out that the deal involves the selling of defense platforms never before made available by the United States to another country, adding that he had begun talks with Ya’alon about a future assistance program to Israel for 2017, when the current agreement ends.

“We are in a tough neighborhood in the Middle East,” Ya’alon said. “Iran is a security threat which funds Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. It is involved in terrorism in the whole world – Afghanistan, Yemen, and Libya.” Ya’alon said that while he prefers a diplomatic solution to end the Iranian nuclear program, Israel is prepared to defend itself by itself.

Finally, last week, the Pentagon announced it was sending 200 American soldiers to Jordan, adding that the deployment could end up being part of a larger movement of 20,000 soldiers to secure loose chemical weapons in neighboring Syria.

There is definitely something cooking!

While the American and Israeli defense officials are welcoming their new arms sale agreement as a major step toward increasing Israel’s military strength, some others Israeli officials are saying that this new deal is still leaving them without the weapons they need if they decide to attack Iran’s deepest and best-protected nuclear sites.

The new weapons sale package includes aircraft for midair refueling and missiles that can cripple an adversary’s air defense system. But what the Israelis wanted most was a weapons system that is missing from the package: a giant bunker-busting bomb designed to penetrate earth and reinforced concrete to destroy deeply buried sites. According to both American and Israeli analysts, this weapon known as “Massive Ordnance Penetrator”, is the only weapon that would have a chance of destroying the Iranian nuclear fuel enrichment center at Fordow, which is buried more than 200 feet under a mountain outside the holy city of Qum.

Iran having consistently denied that it wants nuclear weapons and has called its uranium enrichment activities peaceful, the Obama administration always has been and is still reluctant to even discuss selling such capability to the Israelis pointing to a decision by President Obama to send advanced refueling tanker planes to Israel that would make it possible for the country’s fighter aircraft to reach as far as Iran.  A similar refueling capability was turned down during the administration of former President George W. Bush.

To attack or not to attack, that is the question!

“It’s all about timetables,” said Dore Gold, the president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and a member of Mr. Netanyahu’s inner circle of strategists: “If you say the goal is to halt Iran in the enrichment phase, you don’t have much time, maybe you can give it another year or more.”

The bets are open!

JMD

Michel Ouellette JMD
Public Affairs & Communications
Author, Novelist, and Futurist
jmdlive@live.ca