Obama: “South Soudan At ‘precipice’ of civil war”

obama1_940

 

“Recent fighting threatens to plunge South Sudan back into the dark days of its past.”

Barack Obama

Aljazeera | 20.12.2013 à 14h26

South Soudan At ‘precipice’ of civil war

Barack Obama, is now calling for an immediate end to the fighting in South Sudan, warning the country stands at the “precipice” of civil war.

Obama, who earlier announced he had deployed 45 troops to the violence-wracked country on Wednesday to protect US personnel and interests, warned that “recent fighting threatens to plunge South Sudan back into the dark days of its past”.

“Fighting to settle political scores or to destabilise the government must stop immediately. Inflammatory rhetoric and targeted violence must cease,” the US president added in his statement.

“All sides must listen to the wise counsel of their neighbours, commit to dialogue and take immediate steps to urge calm and support reconciliation. South Sudan’s leaders must recognise that compromise with one’s political enemy is difficult; but recovering from unchecked violence and unleashed hatred will prove much harder.”

To learn more about the situation:

http://www.aljazeera.com/video/africa/2013/12/cloneofpeacekeepers-killed-at-south-sudan-un-base-20131220131338939488.html

To be continued…

JMD

 jmdlive@lefuturistedailynews.com

The Obama Paradoxicality and Complexity

 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

Obama into damage control mode

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 under fire over civil liberties

OBAMA-Sorry

Barack Obama under fire 

WASHINGTON – As the United States of America president for the last 4-1/2 years, Obama has faced accusation after accusation of impinging on civil liberties, disappointing his liberal Democratic base and providing fodder for rival Republicans as he deals with the realities of office.

When he took office in 2009, Obama promised to close the Guantanamo camp but it remains open. Today, Obama says he will revisit that pledge and blames Congress for blocking his plan. Under his presidency, we have seen aerial drone strikes abroad, in places such as Pakistan and Yemen. We have seen repeated seizure of journalists’ files and phone records.

Even though there were reasons to think Obama would have been different from some of his predecessors, because of his background and because of what he said during the electoral campaign, we have to realize he his no different from some presidents like George W. or Nixon when it comes to balancing national security and individual liberties issues.

Obama is no Clinton and no Kennedy and his marketing and preaching approach of the presidency will never make up for his mistakes. Obama is now facing the realities of being president. When he won his place as the first African-American in the White House, many Americans applauded another advance in the country’s long civil rights movement. Since then, while Obama is still trying to present himself as a progressive Democrat, he has not been very successful at representing himself as a fiery civil libertarian. Under his presidency, there has been a constant effort from the Obama’s administration to control the message.

Even though Hilary would have been a better president than Obama and the fact that Sarah could not have done worse, whatever the situation, compared to the abuse of the George W. Bush-era, the Watergate scandal during Richard Nixon’s administration and the Iran-contra controversy during Ronald Reagan’s years, we still in the minor-abuse league.

Lets see, what will happen next.

JMD

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

 jmdlive@lefuturistedailynews.com

 

Bashar al-Assad warned by George Obama not to use chemical weapons

obama

Obama: “The world is watching!

NATO – “Any use of chemical weapons in his fight against encroaching rebel forces would be met by an immediate international response.”

The warning from NATO came as U.S. government sources said Washington had information that Syria was making what could be seen as preparations to use its chemical arsenal. International concern over Syria’s intentions has been heightened by reports that its chemical weapons have been moved and could be prepared for use.

If the Obama administration was looking for an excuse to get involve, they found one. U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday told Assad not to use chemical weapons. “The world is watching! The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable and if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons there will be consequences and you will be held accountable,” Obama said.

This is déjà vu.

JMD

The Obama Absurdity or the James Bond Syndrome!

Obama: “Israel has every right to defend itself from Gaza missiles attacks”

A few days ago, while touring Burma, the USA president, Barack Obama had this surprisingly absurd commentary on the tragic escalation of violence between Israel and Gaza: “Israel has every right to defend itself from Gaza missiles attacks”.

While the true situation is quite the opposite, the United States President message was loud and clear: “Hamas is the aggressor”.

Well, Mister President, for most of the observers, except yourself and your friend Netanyahu, over the years, Israel always has been the aggressor. There may be the usual discussion about who draw first blood but what we have seen in the last few weeks looks exactly like the repeat of the late 2008 Israeli aggression against the Palestinians.

What is it that you do not understand Mister president?

Israel simply needs the Goddamn land to expand and the Palestinians are in their way. If Israel has the right to defend itself, the Palestinians, Mister president, have exactly the same right.

For years now, with the full support of the United States of America representatives, while subjecting the entire population of Gaza to the most severe forms of collective punishment, Israel has tried to fool the world by setting forth its own narrative of events. Since 2007, thanks to Israel and the support of the United States of America representatives, Gaza has become the largest open-air detention center in the whole world.

For the Palestinians to escape what have become their concentration camp, there are not too many options: either they surrender their identity to take an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state or, they fight back.

No matter your opinion on the subject, what we see now, is the people of Gaza screaming for justice while Israel is trying to decide how much violence they can unleash on Gaza without being targeted by the World public opinion.

Unless Iran decides to get involve in the actual Israeli-Palestinian conflict and this is still a probability: Gaza is no fair game Mister president. This conflict is a one-way street, a one sided-war where Israel holds all the cards of the deck.

Without the support from Iran or the support of any other country, the only thing that Gaza can do against Israel is to keep on firing off meaningless salvos of rockets as a gesture of resistance and pray.

Whatever you are trying to make us believe Mister President, Hamas is absolutely no match for Israel and, this, is without saying about a less known reality: according to a recent UN Report, the way things are going, Gaza will be totally uninhabitable by 2020.

I am telling you, Mister President, Hamas will be out of rockets well before 2020 and unless you and your Israeli friends need the Palestinian land to build a McDonald or a new Wal-Mart, why the rush?

I guess that Capitalism cannot afford to wait.

JMD

jmdlive@live.ca

JMD Public Affairs & Communications; Michel Ouellette JMD’s Systemics; Le Futuriste Daily News; Michel Ouellette JMD on Pinterest; JMD’s Opinion & Factuality on Tumblr; JMD Live on Twitter; Michel Ouellette JMD on Facebook

Patriot Missiles in Syria: About time!

By: Michel Ouellette JMD

David Cameron, British Prime Minister

 “Anything, anything, to get that man out of the country and to have a safe transition in Syria.”  – David Cameron

Now that the US Elections are over, and that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is sitting on the wrong side of the fence, – he openly supported Mitt Romney who was in favor of an Israeli attack on Iran – western efforts to oust Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad have shifted dramatically.

“Anything, anything, to get that man out of the country and to have a safe transition in Syria,” British Prime Minister David Cameron told Al-Arabiya news network in Abu Dhabi before flying to Saudi Arabia. Britain as even offered Al-Assad immunity as a way of persuading him to leave power.

With Britain and Turkey now saying that they will deal
directly with rebel military leaders to shape the opposition to the regime into a coherent force, NATO members are now discussing protecting a safe zone inside Syria with Patriot missiles. These developments came within hours of President Obama’s re-election. Planning for a safe zone inside Syria had been put on hold pending the US election. 



Now that the US Presidential is over and that the door is open for a missile deployment, there is a clear an opportunity for Britain, America, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and like-minded allies to come together and get rid of Al-Assad once and for all.

Will they do it?

Cameron is currently on a tour of the Middle East and speaking on Obama’s re-election said: “I am hearing appalling stories about what has happened inside Syria so one of the first things I want to talk to Barack about is how we must do more to try and solve this crisis.”

My educated guess: No balls Obama will not move!

JMD

jmdlive@live.ca

The Strategy and the Perfect Storm that Paved a Winning Path for Obama

By: Michel Ouellette JMD on NOVEMBER 7, 2012

President Obama’s official portrait

Early spring 2012, President Obama’s Chicago veteran campaign staff is confronting the question that would ultimately decide the presidency: how to run against Mitt Romney?

The choice discussed was whether to campaign against Romney as a flip-flopper or to cast him as a protector of the privileged at the expense of the middle class, a man who willingly fires people and is disconnected from how average Americans live their lives. The choice was made: Mitt Romney was to be shown and depicted as a heartless executive. While the Obama campaign decided to set the campaign’s course in the summer of 2012, Romney’s senior staffers put their money on winning a decisive autumn. But, as the attacks mounted from the Obama’s side, many of the Romney’s advisers were really concerned. Instead of addressing the issue then, it was decided to wait for a later time, during the convention and the debates. – First mistake.

The Obama’s campaign decision to focus on Romney helped set an angry tone for the multibillion-dollar campaign that was to come and was the deciding factor of this presidential election. The turnout, yesterday of the African-Americans, Latinos, women, and young voters in swing states proved it. Obama, weighed down by a poor economy and the sudden eruption of violence and conflicts in the Middle East, needed help. Bill Clinton came to the rescue and Mitt Romney himself did the rest. The Republican’s brash condemnation of Americans who do not pay federal income taxes, Romney’s quick criticism of the administration for a spike in Middle East violence, and even his choice of a running mate that brought unexpected tension into the campaign all worked against his mid-fall effort to surmount Obama’s lead.

Obama’s effort to portray Romney as a part of the economic problem resonated in the upper Midwest, where the race in many ways was cemented. In Ohio, Obama’s early decision to bail out the auto industry, and Romney’s opposition to the plan, helped frame the contest in the incumbent’s favor before it even began. In the final stretch, Obama almost squandered his hard-won lead with a bewildering performance in his first debate with Romney. But, for a candidate whose political career has been touched at times by luck, Hurricane Sandy arrived with a week left in the race and disrupted Romney’s effort.

All my money was on Romney but I never could have predicted Sandy.

JMD

jmdlive@live.ca

For full details on how the Obama Campaign was conducted: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/the-strategy-that-paved-a-winning-path/2012/11/07/0a1201c8-2769-11e2-b2a0-ae18d6159439_story.html

 

USA Election 2012: What about the poor?

To strengthen or to overhaul the American nation’s safety net?

President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney have vastly different views on how to help the 46.2 million Americans in poverty and the more than 30 million people who are near poor.

Between 2008 and 2011In the United States, the number of people in poverty jumped 16%, the Medicaid rolls jumped 23.5% while food stamp enrollment soared 46%.

Just who is elected president matters a great deal for the poor.

JMD

jmdlive@live.ca

Reference:  http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/05/news/economy/obama-romney-poor/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Syrie, une tragédie dans l’indifférence?

Des crimes de guerre qui demeurent impunis

Des avions bombardent une ville aux mains des rebelles. Dans un immeuble civil, roquettes et bombes tuent 23 enfants. Des dizaines de dépouilles enveloppées dans des linceuls blancs et des sacs en plastique portant la mention “parties de corps” jonchent les trottoirs. Quelques moments plus tôt, des enfants jouaient dans la rue. Où sont-ils ?

Des avions de chasse syriens larguent des bombes à sous-munitions, des engins de fabrication soviétique, des RBK-250 et des AO-1Sch. Ces bombes tuent de manière indiscriminée. Femmes et enfants, corps démembrés jonchent les rues.

Tout a commencé il y a dix-neuf mois par un mouvement de contestation pacifique contre la dictature de Bachar Al-Assad. L’indignation populaire est devenue révolte et maintenant guerre civile. Pas un jour sans qu’un innocent ne soit tué. Et maintenant? Des attentats aveugles sont perpétrés par des djihadistes. Les morts ne se comptent plus, 20 000? 40 000? Qui sait? Les blessés se comptent maintenant par centaines de milliers.

Des villes entières sont ravagées, des villages sont en ruine, les récoltes détruites. Campés dans les décombres des villes, sans nourriture, sans eau ni électricité, sous le tir croisé de l’armée et de la rébellion, l’hiver sera long pour le peuple Syrien et personne ne s’en préoccupe.

Alors que la Russie, l’Iran, l’Irak et le Hezbollah libanais fournissent armement et assistance militaire au régime de Bachar Al-Assad le truand, l’Arabie saoudite, le Qatar et les Etats-Unis appuient la rébellion en leur fournissant du matériel de communication. C’est avec très peu de succès que les rebelles Syriens réussissent è abattre les avions de Bachar en leur lançant des walkies talkies et des portables. Personne ne livre à la rébellion les armes lourdes et les missiles antiaériens qui lui permettraient de neutraliser la chasse et les hélicoptères de combat du régime.

Tous ceux qui disposent de suffisamment de pouvoir pour mettre fin à ce conflit, Américains, Européens, Chinois et Russes, craignent – avec raison – que ce conflit déborde au delà des frontières de la Syrie. Quel aveuglement, ceci est déjà arrivé. Conséquence de l’absence de couilles, pour les Occidentaux et de l’obstructionnisme opportuniste des Russes et des Chinois, alors que l’on pave les rues de la Syrie des corps mutilés et démembrés de milliers d’innocents, la guerre syro-syrienne s’internationalise. Hier le Liban, aujourd’hui la Turquie, demain la Jordanie. D’un côté l’islam, l’Arabie saoudite  et l’Égypte; de l’autre, les pays non arabes tous alliés des Etats-Unis et de son président émasculé. D’un côté une rébellion syrienne majoritairement sunnite; de l’autre, la branche minoritaire chiite et la République islamique d’Iran, le Hezbollah libanais et l’Irak, tous soutenant Bachar le despote Al-Assad appartenant à la secte alaouite.

Que ce soit pour se tenir à distance du conflit, ou pour appuyer Damas, en Europe, aux Etats-Unis en Russie, en Chine et partout ailleurs dans le monde, on met en avant l’argument de la radicalisation islamiste de l’insurrection. Alors que des innocents sans ressources meurent dans les rues, c’est là beaucoup de masturbation intellectuelle et de diarrhée verbale, pour défendre et justifier l’indéfendable et l’injustifiable.

Des gens meurent, des femmes et des enfants innocents crèvent inutilement! Quoi de si difficile à comprendre ? Plus les combats se prolongeront, plus les djihadistes multiplieront leurs attentats terroristes meurtriers. Plus cette guerre civile durera, plus il sera difficile de gérer l’ère post-Assad. Non ce n’est pas une question de compréhension, tout simplement une question d’opportunisme politique d’une part et, d’absences de couilles d’autre part.

Il est malheureux que je ne sois pas suffisamment fortuné. Des couilles j’en ai mais je n’ai malheureusement pas les moyens. Donnez–moi ces moyens et je vous règle toute cette affaire en moins de deux !

JMD

jmdlive@live.ca