Obama: speaking for the world
I’ve got a new article up at PJ: “The Magical, Mysterious, Disappearing Obama Red Line.”
If you think you know how twisted Obama’s latest statements on the “red line” were, think again. They’re even worse than that.
[ADDENDUM: James Taranto makes some related points.]
Thank you.
Whenever the original texts are looked at in any issue concerning Obama, you find that he just doesn’t care whether or not they support his position. Where did this start? He tested this with his birth certificate, and the overwhelming support almost everyone (hope it wasn’t you) gave him created the monster we have today.
Let’s see. How to apply the one word put down. Are you a “red liner?”
Great article Neo. Btw, are you no longer calling yourself Neo over at PJM?
Nice drilling, Neo. I’m bookmarking it.
I had mistakenly believed the prohibition on NBC use, specifically viz Syria, had a stronger statutory and policy base than there is.
Contrast that to our intervention in Iraq which had a redundantly overflowing US statutory, UNSC resolution, and policy base. With precedents.
Clinton, despite his shortcomings on effective action, methodically dotted the Is and crossed the Ts on Iraq in shaping the law, policy, and precedent components of the case against Saddam that Bush used after 9/11. That there isn’t a stronger legal-rational basis for Obama’s proposed action on Syria is an indicator of another aspect of his poor leadership.
Here’s the thing about Obama. Using Max Weber’s typology, Obama from day one has relied on Charismatic authority instead of Legal-Rational authority. Bush relied on legal-rational authority. The modern Western norm is legal-rational authority with charismatic exceptions like Hitler. (Which shows legal-rational authority is not necessarily in our social nature, but a matter of social discipline.)
Anyway, I thought the question was really about the credibility of Obama’s leadership. Obama dodged that question. Instead, he changed the question to his preferred answer, which as you point out, is on weaker legal-rational grounds than is commonly (and I) believed.
He does not take responsibility for what comes out of his mouth.
Add: Add this to the growing list of critical questions that Congress should challenge Obama’s Syria proposal on but most likely won’t.
Also, this brings to mind how Obama far exceeded the already questionable and novel R2P mandate in Libya.
Bush responded to 9/11 with controversial but still legally grounded measures. Bush regularly relied on Congress and the UN perhaps even more than necessary. Obama has preferred to act extralegally.
Neo — Bill Clinton set the precedent for ludicrous interpretations with his famous line about the meaning of “is”. Now Obama must figure that the meaning of “I” and other first person pronouns can be interpreted to mean “I the world”, “I the congress”, etc.
As professional who has training in psychological disorders, there must be some case to be made he suffers from an illness or disorder. I’ve suggested sociopath, but I’m an engineer and tend to call people like Obama names, that may or may not be appropriate. What is this creature?
Even more disturbing, what kind of disorder is the MSM suffering from that they will not treat the president of the United States like an adult? These people are as childish and immature as he is –they cannot even raise the obvious concerns about a man who lies and distorts without the slightest bit of guilt or concern. I’ve never seen such a widespread lack of integrity or interest by a group of people. It’s almost surreal.
In the mean time the Iranians are getting closer to building a nuclear weapon, one that they’ve promised to use. Is there a red line on that?
Obama: speaking for the Jihadist world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnS9-pm8vCY#t=26
The magical, mysterious, disappearing American.
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/obama-addresses-american-islamist-convention
Eric wrote:
“(Which shows legal-rational authority is not necessarily in our social nature, but a matter of social discipline.)”
I think it comes from a mature culture that has a set of expectations with respect to rule of law, etc.
For example, compare the American Revolution to the French version, then the earlier English version (which also was an American revolution). The success of the American and earlier English revolutions is the result of a mature culture that demanded rule of law. The French revolution was that of a childish culture that didn’t understand rule of law.
Eric wrote:
“Bush responded to 9/11 with controversial but still legally grounded measures.”
Controversial?
I believe Bush’s war resolution passed the House with nearly 40% of Democrats voting “yes”, and the Senate with over 60% of Democrats voting “yes”. Senate Dems who supported the war include Obama VP Biden, SoS Clinton and SoS Kerry, so Obama must consider the “yes” vote to be reasonable. Yet the war was his most controversial decision, but only when it became politically convienient for Democrats to attack it–when we were hip deep in it in 2005 and 2006 and 2007.
Other controversial Bush policies include the Patriot Act, in which the big Democrat push was to . . . unionize TSA.
The Bush controversial policies only became controversial with Democrats when they became unpopular with the general population. Democrats rode these issues with Bush when they wished to appear tough of national defense, and Obama nominated these same Dems to high office.
Oh, and then it goes without saying that the same Dems who voted for Bush’s war (at the decision point! Heh) and later attacked it (when attacking it was politically benificial but damaging to the US) later lead us into war in Libya (to al Quida’s benifit) and are attempting to do so in Syria (likely to al Quida’s benifit).
Don,
Agreed.
Neo,
I used your analysis in a post, pretty much cleaning up what I said upthread here:
FYI, I changed ‘exceeded’ to ‘stretched’ in my post regarding the Libya intervention because R2P doesn’t have clearly delineated limits to exceed. But Obama certainly stretched the rationale of R2P in Libya.
Yep, makes me long for the good old days of Jimmy Carter.
Worst.president.ever.
Liberals used to say they would cringe when that cowboy Bush stepped up to a microphone, for fear he would say something stupid and lead us into war. Who’s wearing the ten-gallon hat now?
It’s duce difficult to pin the tale on this donkey.
Having seen enough, I figure that the press corpse is as memory impaired as a flunkard.
blert,
For the complicit media, it’s all about the narrative frame. Whatever is useful to the story stays and is reworked to fit. Whatever is an inconvenient misfit for the story drops away.
It would be interesting to see how Paul Johnson would describe the ironic “coincidence” of the Senate meeting to vote on aiding jihadists occurring on Sept 11.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/09/senate-to-vote-on-aiding-al-qaeda-in-syria-on-september-11th.html
Obama: speaking for the World.
That is the key. That word “World” makes the inexplicable Obama explicable.
Outrageous liberalism beget the totalitarian Obama whose final ascent is the merging of religion and state. But that’s been done, and it’s name is Islam. And Obama, as crazy and ridiculous as this may seem, believes he is the historical figure who is destined to unite East and West. So he lectures (and alienates Islam) and he lectures (and alienates) classical liberals (conservatives) while knowing that his base has absolutely no where else to go. His followers want to follow him above America to that place where his throne sits above all the governments of the world. As his priests, they expect to rule and be afforded the treats of obedience. His ultimate appeal, cause and engine is spiritual. He is a type of Christ, or more correctly, he is an anti-Christ.
now more warships are heading to the Med…
Este jueves
Ejército chino envéa buques de guerra a Siria
El ejército de China envié³ este jueves buques de guerra a la costa siria para observar las acciones de los buques de EE.
China now has sent warships…
Russia is sending three more ships to the eastern Mediterranean to bolster its fleet there
Iran is announcing its moving some ships there too in the near future…
can anyone figure out how many things are all around each other, with hostiles too?
6- USS San Antonio a amphibious transport dock (designed to deliver up to 800 Marines ashore by landing craft and helicopters.)
5- USS Stout an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer
4- USS Mahan an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
3- USS Ramage and Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer
2- USS Barry an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer
1- USS Graveley and Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer
but those leave out the Nimitz Carrier (group) which is also heading to the area…
USS Nimitz is a supercarrier (huge)
and the friends they go nowhere without
USS Princeton – is a Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser
USS Stockdale – an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup – Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
USS Higgens – a Flight I Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
USS William P. Lawrence – Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer
is it me or is that nearly 10 destroyers in the area for a country like Syria?
and this is to be a “limited military strike”?
here is what i could find is being rotated in by russia
Moskva – s the lead ship of the Project 1164 Atlant class of guided missile cruisers
Nastoichivy – Sovremenny Class Destroyer
Novocherkassk – Sovremenny class destroyer
Minsk – landing ship
Admiral Panteleyev – Udaloy-class destroyer
Varyag
Priazovye – spy ship – very little available
unknown number of submarines as they never publish where they are or go…
other ships were already there and still are
HMS Westminster was doing exercises but haven’t heard they left, and they were with the Italian navy.
and they will keep six typhoon jets there…
22 countries border the sea
French daily Le Monde proclaimed Wednesday “Opening of the G-20 in a cold war climate”. Actually they said: Ouverture du G20 dans un climat de guerre froide
So what’s it all about, Alfie?
Clues:
What to do if a neighbor opposes a pipeline?
While my Qatar gently weeps
Qatar bankrolls Syrian revolt with cash and arms
For Qatar, owner of the world’s third-largest gas reserves, its intervention in Syria is part of an aggressive quest for global recognition and is merely the latest chapter in its attempt to establish itself as a major player in the region, following its backing of Libya’s rebels
that should be enough to make sense of it.
Qatar wants a regime that will allow it a pipeline and making lots of money
the Sauds want control of the flow. ie. allow the pipeline, but use it for influence
Russia likes Assad as he keeps the pipeline dead, and Gazprom makes oodles
Destabilizing the area threatens Chinas economic ability
if Obama topples Assad, its great for the Sauds he bowed to, and Qatar… and VERY bad for Russia.
in 2011 the headline read:
World’s Largest Profit at Gazprom Pays for Putin’s Pipes
and now?
Gazprom Reports 35 Percent Fall in Net Profit in the First Half of 2013
basically Russia accuses the ukraine of tapping the pipelines and using some gas for domestic reasons, and so it went back and forth with Russia saying no gas for them and so on and so on… this has kind of spooked others that they don’t want to be in similar position
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Major_russian_gas_pipelines_to_europe.png
the link above does not show the area in question, but how does Qatar get its gas to sell it to Europe? Qatar, Iraq, then to where? either Syria or Turkey…
note that the stuff in Egypt has put their pipeline through to Syria in and so, guess what has improved whose profits by shortening that one?
and Israel…
The Leviathan gas field is a large natural gas field located in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Israel. It was discovered in November 2010 The gas field is located roughly 130 kilometres (81 mi) west of Haifa in waters 1,500 metres (4,900 ft) deep in the Levantine basin, a rich hydrocarbon area in one of the world’s larger offshore gas finds of the past decade
and guess who also has gas to sell? Syria itself
100 kilometers far from the capital Damascus, at a depth of 3,113 meters with a production capacity of 400,000 cubic meters per day. (discovered 2011)
but what Qatar and Iraq have..
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the field holds an estimated 1,800 trillion cubic feet (51 trillion cubic metres) of in-situ natural gas and some 50 billion barrels (7.9 billion cubic metres) of natural gas condensates.
This gas field covers an area of 9,700 square kilometres (3,700 sq mi), of which 3,700 square kilometres (1,400 sq mi) (South Pars) is in Iranian territorial waters and 6,000 square kilometres (2,300 sq mi) (North Dome) is in Qatari territorial waters
at peak production estimated: 60,000 million cubic feet per day or 60,000,000,000 cubic feet per day
Gazprom supplies less than 2,000,000,000 a day
In 2011, the company produced 513.2 billion cubic metres (18.12 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas
Qatar can match that in 10 days…
at stake is Gazproms 153.0 billion…
all the countries that are in play are the countries that have gas, or can allow gas to reach Europe.
BHO (& McCain, etc.) is tiptoeing through a mind field as if it was a field of tulips.
Art,
Yeah, this is in the mix. The whole equation is changing and the power/economy is shifting to the good guys. It’s why it’s possible that Putin orchestrated the chemical attack just like he probably has something to do with the plane that went down with the whole Polish government?
Obama is a puppet, meaning diabolical schemes are passing through him while he remains wistfully unaware of anything except his own greatness and destiny to rule.
Art…
Qatar is NOT going to find the Shi’ite government of Maliki easy going for Sunni gas exports to Europe.
Qatar, a serious backer of the MB, is NOT going to find Wahhabist KSA easy going for Sunni gas exports to Europe.
Qatar’s only realistic market is towards the east: India and Red China — plus Japan.
Europe is going to frack long before Qatar makes economic sense.
I don’t know where the zany notion got started… but it’s insane.
Absolutely no-one is going to contract for Qatari gas while the Leviathan is in front.
And who says that the Israelis won’t find additional fields in the Med?
Qatar bent on this course because of the old man. He’s been deposed. His Arab Spring project was gutting the national budget. (A political Taj Mahal … with the same outcome)
Give health care, give Syria, give freedom, give the world?
Not while we’re alive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgbCtHV2cA8
Line up and declare, No More Obama, No More Queer&GRSPFKRN, No More Socialism, No More Hollywood, No More Big Education, No More Welfare, No More RINO’s, No More Taxes, No More Green, No More UN, No More [add your topic].
Jim Carrey: They want to like us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QinR7d5na28
Credit him for consistency …”You didn’t build that” … “I didn’t draw that”.
blert, the issue is who gets what part of a 1.53 billion prize. ie. 1.5 TRILLION in ten years IF needs dont rise.
so lets look at this strategically, and forget arab spring, thats spravka for your consumption so that the people do not get in the way of the things they do…
so your going to have to point out to me that when 1.5 trillion to 3 trillion are on the table, do you really think the people in arab spring are the real thing?
from Russia perspective, the output of Qatar, once it hits the pipeline, and the output of Israel, and the output of Syria… and the output of Syria…
their trillion dollar monopoly goes where?
Gazprom’s activities accounted for 8% of Russia’s gross domestic product in 2011
the people are incidental among these people
ie. they don’t care, only you do (and the victims themselves)
so lets lay out everyones interests here…
you can talk tactics and not get the plot
i will talk strategy, of which your tactics is one tiny thing
Russia: They have a trillion dollar monopoly, and they have used it to control the states that receive gas. they have shut gas off, and threatened to do that, and so grind another countries economy. Ukraine, on top of that, decided to tap the lines, and so Russia cut gas off to them to punish them, and gave them a 7 billion dollar bill. 10% of the economy is at stake. future increases in revenue are at stake. power over Europe and the choices they make is at stake. [So russia is FOR ASSAD, as he refuses to have the pipeline and refuses his own people from that economy]
[this also explains why the left hates natural gas even though its cleaner. the US is a glut and cant buy any, and if we have a glut we can be added to the roles of gas producers that sell to other countries. the more that sell, the lower the price goes note that once you actually work out the real thing – EVERYONES behavior suddenly makes sense and does not confuse anymore – and you did not have to make ANY leaps of guesses at all]
Ukraine: due to their war with Russia over gas and economy, it would benefit them greatly if they were able to find other sources. especially sources that would prevent Russia from blackmailing them (And retaliating for their thefts) [Ukraine is for a new regime – they do not care who. as long as they can have choice and better economy on their end]
Qatar: they have spent over 3 billion of their own personal money (Qatar is a royal state with an emir), to buy the people who are doing all the stuff and who are called rebels. whats in front of them and their people is the ability to produce 60 billion cubic feet a day. 10 days production equals ALL of gazprom. so they can basically make gas so cheap, that Russia cant afford to run their own anymore. they have no choice but to run their line through the other royal property. however, after that the choice is Iran, or Syria to turkey. the Saudis are taking a tax on the line going through their country, and wants more. so if Syria falls to Qatar, they get to connect here and don’t have to pay more to use that country. [they are against Assad, and want their own, but will accept Saudi control as making lots of money is better than making less and paying Iran]
Saudi. the saudi government cant lose in this. regardless of how it turns out, they will make lots of money. so their game is how to maximize it. realizing that qatar has put syria in play, they are going to try to do to qatar what china did to russia in indonesia. take over qatar coupe, and work, and put their people in. so qatar and saudi are fighting among the rebels and those gamesmen. they see this as a cheaper way to get syrian control, and double tax qatar gas, which would fund keeping control of that. which would then give them more influence and power too. all good to them. even if they fail, they still get to tax qatar through their own. by fighting for syrian passage, they get to deny iran their enemy, the money to rebuild a big army and make other weapons again [so the sauds are against Assad, they want the pipeline. they would like to have control, but even if they dont, its better going through a new government in syria, than the old mullas in iran. they also see a lot of money to be made in libya, egypt, and syria, in construction. remember? osama bin laden was worth 300 million due to construction? ]
Iran: iran shares the fields with qatar, and so wants to put their share and share the pipeline. this would mean a cut of he trillion. think they could build a nuclear weapon with an extra trillion? maybe… [they are for assad, as he will force the pipeline through their country]
libya: a small player. but libya is against assad as the arab pipeline would allow them (Through egypt) some access. when obama bombed them he was getting several feathers in his cap among these entities. by taking out libya he reduces the competition by one entity so russia was happy. he also made saud happy as it seemed he was also making it possible for them too. both saw him as helpnig them. [libya is out of play as far as this game is concerned, they cant fund the pipeline and that, and so, this favors russia and Assad staying]
egypt. this is where the pipeline starts, and so libya to egypt, is eating the salami of support and money for the pipeline. ie. egypt and libya were giving money to topple syria because assad was blocking their future. [the pipeline starts with them, so they wanted assad out… so they were toppled and taken out of the game]
israel: israel has the new leviathan fields. they are as huge as the name implies. and with the pipeline in place, they could also put stuff on the market. their position is a bit more complicated. [suffice it to say, that they want assad out, as that would allow them the pipeline and the market. the others fear their entry in the market will, like US entry, have them making new equipment new storage new technology. they are feared for being able to out invent and so dominate the industry across the countries with technology. which happens if they have a part in the business themselves. ie. their own business makes them experts which they can then sell and cost otehrs who have to buy to be competitive. so its like a tech tax from brain derived better stuff]
Syria? it dont matter what syria wants, unlike the saudies and the emir, they do not have the resources and other things, along with the hundreds of yers history of networks to protect htemselves. after world war ii destroyed the thing and made these countries all stand alone, they have never been strong enough to be anything other than the other toys of other countries. (egypt nearly got out of that trap). [of course assad wants to stay, so from him they want him. people probably want him to leave, then the gas would make more economy. they probably dont care as far as it goes which leads them, sauds or qatar OTHER Than what each sect would do to them. ie. if the sects didnt prey on them, they would not care who as long as economyh was better. but the pain complicates their desires]
EU: the european union wants assad out, the pipeline in, the monopoly broken. however they are not stupid. they are not going to dance on a grave before its filled in and join the dead. so they are keeping quiet as russia has a vindictive streak that might retaliat now if they tried to play to hard. so you dont hear them going in there and saying, lets help get assad out. [they want assad out, the pipeline in and a choice of a better place to buy. but they cant piss russia off, as russia today can turn the gas off and do what to them? so their hands are in other hands. its precisely why they want those others]
UK the uk has its usual, better to have a finger in the pie than nothing. they are flush with natural gas, do not need anything from europe, and russia has no hold on them. however, they have a large muslim population and easy access through the chunnel that complicates things. ie. the payout either way is not enough for them to throw their hat in [they would like assad out, but like the saudis, they win a bit either way. he stays, and they can sell to europe a bit, and europe cant compete as easy… he goes, and europe market climbs and they do business. so they are not going to go in as they win eithe rway, and dont need the attachments]
china? china and russia are partners now, with 50 billion in trade with each other making them russias biggest single client. they share tech, and so far things are nice. [china dont care who wins, but has to show up to look good. the US wont penalie them for being there, but russia will penalize them for not being there. so they send ships, watch, and side with russia. why? well if you look at the pipeline of gas, how much gazprom goes to china? russia can cut them off for a few days, see how they like it]
USA… usa interests are complicated and have personal interests of politicans who use outside countries resources and help to secure power. ie. they dont represent thepeople any more, and so they need a way to get the people to decide to want what they want. obama big mistake was the red line in the sand, and forgetting about it. TIME was the error, in that time and the situation is kind of like those movie scripts where cardinal richeleu gives a writ “the person carrying this note does what he doesn with the full blessing of the cardinal” and is stuck when the note is in the wrong persons hand. by making that statement, he made it possible for third parties to control him and the US. which is what they did. it makes no sense that assad would gas the people. he is not losing, and it works againt him. so this was probably false flag. why? a third party can force the us to act and so bring down assad. so the false flag is not from russia, who wants assad. it has to be either qatar, saudi, ukrain, eu, etc… or all of them a bit… [USA is another country with a win win situation… regardless of what is done, they willt ake a negative hit, they always do, so its not even a concern. its like a cohice between a needle in the right arm, or a needle int he left arm. either way, you get a needle and so thinking of a choice of action in regards to that is a waste. if the pipeline does not go, we can sell gas, we have expertts like israel, we do construction too, and so on… if assad falls, we have a market that can benefit from a better european economy. russia is not a trade partner much, so that isnt a concern. so ultimately, they woudl have been best to stay out of it, and then try to copt the leader the sauds or the qatars put in. his bowing though tells you where his future personal benefit may come, and he may have had his schooling paid for, and so this is a saudi payback thanks]
obama putin g20 – utlimately the game there is to discuss this without revealing the stuff above. the people of the US May be miffed to find out they are part of this bs… and then mess up the ability to make choices. so they are fighting at the g20, and no one can figure out why. but if you could correc the speach with whats behind and at stake, it would sound a bit like this
Obama: high putty baby, thanks for the reset… could you do me a solid and take a 1.5 trillion dollar hit to your people, and your personal bank acounts and those of friends, and give up the power you earned. it would be so convenient, and help…
Putin: are you a nut and a jackass too? why shouold i give up 1.5 trillion in 10 years minimum? my people would not be kind to me. since you gave away trillions, why dont you pay for it. your offering nothing. not that we would fulfill our side of a bargain, but at least offer us one
and so on…
which isnt going ot happen
and slamming a nucler state with more than 10% drop int heir embattled economy, is to them, an act of war…
so…
now its your job to figure out how the game ends.
and so blert doenst try to claim that logic applied to emotions is rational argument…
here are the supporting data
notice the date
why?
because most of my answers come because i can remember more than whats in front of me blert, and i do not try to apply logical thinking of the personal kind to people like an emir who has thousands of people to think of, which a lone person doesnt.
humans are not always rational, so other than vulcans, your logical analysis is fallacious, as it does not take in the actual information.
so notice the date
Jun 23, 2012
Saudi Arabia and Qatar funding Syrian rebels
“The payment has been going on for months and the agreement was made on April 2 by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with logistical organization from Turkey where some Free Syrian Army factions are based,” said the source, who requested anonymity.
by the way… you do know that the rebel base is in turkey, right? and that assad would have to bomb turkey and start a war with them in order to hit the rebel leaders? the rebel leaders have no such limitation.
so you can guess who turkey wants… they want to tax that gas, and have built the pipeline and are waiting… so they are helping the rebels that way
the telegraph
Qatar ‘playing with fire’ as it funds Syrian Islamists in quest for global influence
Questions are increasingly being asked about weapons and money being supplied to Islamist rebel groups in Syria by sympathetic Arab states, because of growing fears that they are falling into the hands of jihadists and other extremists.
Syria’s Secular and Islamist Rebels: Who Are the Saudis and the Qataris Arming?
Out of Istanbul, the two Gulf states play a game of conflicting favorites that is getting in the way creating a unified rebel force to topple the Assad regime
How Qatar seized control of the Syrian revolution – FT.com
Qatar bankrolls Syrian revolt with cash and arms – FT.com
Qatar Red Crescent Funds Syrian Rebel Arms
U.S. Wary As Qatar Ramps Up Support Of Syrian Rebels : NPR
[edited for length by n-n]
There’s no need to worry about missing Obama in a few years. The Left has plenty of Caligulas to replace him with. This is, after all, their war on humanity. If you consider yourself human, you can consider yourself at war with the Left, whether you like it or not.