Obama's Chickens Come Home to Roost ... Weak Response to Putin Allows Invasion of 16,000 Russian Soldiers

Obama's chickens have come home to roost.


Over the past week, Russia has flooded more than 16,000 troops into the Crimean peninsula. Ukrainian Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev told the U.N. Security Council.  Council members asked Russia to withdraw only to be told by Ambassador Vitaly Churkin (at right) that Russia's purpose is to preserve democracy and to protect millions of Russians in Ukraine by stopping radical extremists.

Really?  Russia just happened to have 16,000 troops sitting around with nothing better to do than invade Ukraine.

According to Sergeyev, ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych had asked Russia to send troops "to establish legitimacy, peace, law and order, stability, and defending the people of Ukraine."

The peace-loving soldiers of Mother Russia have surrounded military posts and other facilities, effectively taking control of the peninsula from Ukrainian authorities. 

"Swear Allegiance or Face an Attack"

A Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman has reported that the commander of Russia's Black Sea fleet boarded a blocked Ukrainian warship telling the men aboard, to "Swear allegiance to the new Crimean authorities, or surrender, or face an attack," he said, according to the spokesman, Vladislav Seleznyov.

In a "strong" show of force, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Monday that sanctions against Russia weren't just possible, but likely.

Likely.

Putin Asks for & Receives Approval to Use Force in Ukraine - Obama Responds Weakly

Russian President Vladimir Putin has sent unmarked Russian-speaking military forces to the Ukraine during a time of great upheaval in the region.

Russia won't confirm that these soldiers are theirs, but they certainly are not from Canada.  There are also another 150,000 Russian troops conducting "military exercises" near the Ukrainian border.

Putin followed this invasion of a sovereign country with a request to the Russian parliament for an approval to send troops into Ukraine as tensions continue to rise, especially within the Crimea region.

The request for legislative approval in Russia came just one day after weak statements from United States President Barack Obama on the subject.  

On Friday, Obama said: 

"The United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.  

"Any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing, which is not in the interest of Ukraine, Russia, or Europe. "It would represent a profound interference in matters that must be determined by the Ukrainian people."

Coming from a world leader who said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a red line, "there will be costs" sounds pretty weak.

Obama and European leaders would do well to learn from the mistakes of the past.  Appeasement of dictators, in any form, only leads to further aggression from those dictators.  

That was clearly demonstrated by England Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, which conceding the German-populated Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany. 

Chamberlain saw that as a way to avoid war with Hitler's Germany.  However when Adolf Hitler continued his aggression by invading Poland, leading Britain to declare war on Germany.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Make no mistake about it ... Putin sees an opportunity to restore a part of the former Russian empire and he has already taken bold, bold steps to do so, by force.

At this point, Obama hasn't said or done anything to distinguish himself Chamberlain when it comes to taking a strong stance against Russian aggression in Ukraine.

American Truism.

Benghazi Highlights the Most Commonly Ignored History Lesson: It's Not the Crime; It's the Cover-up

What are the lessons to be learned from this Benghazi mess?  

At this point, that's not completely clear.

What is clear is that the Obama Administration put politics above the safety of its people and put political considerations ahead of the truth.

How many times must politicians learn the lessons of Watergate:  

The cover-up is almost always worse than the actual misdeed.  

If President Richard Nixon had come clean in the early days of that scandal, it would have been a blemish on his presidency, but he would not have faced impeachment and certainly would not have been forced to resign.

It is a simple, simple lesson, yet our so-called "leaders" seemed destined to repeat history over and over because they always think they're different somehow, that the most basic of political truisms don't apply to them.

And then, they get burned.

Does President Obama himself hold personal responsibility for the mistakes of Benghazi?  We'll probably never know, but the buck stops with him as the Commander in Chief and Head of State.  He might not have made the Benghazi mistakes, but his appointees did, and therefore he is forever tied to those mistakes.

Could military forces have arrived in Benghazi in time to save American lives under terrorist attack?  We'll probably never know that either.

What we DO know is that the politics-first crowd of Obama Administration personnel sought to portray what was clearly a terrorist attack on Americans in Benghazi as an impromptu protest spurred by a little-known YouTube video rather than admit that a terrorist attack on an American embassy cost American lives on Obama's watch.

It's not the deed . . . It's the cover-up that gets you.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Israeli Attacks on Syria are a Message to Iran, "Obama Doctrine" Fades

Israel has attacked Syria twice in recent days.

Now what?

Israel is taking proactive steps to ensure its defense.  While there are two sides to every story, history shows that pre-emptive strikes by the Israelis have been defensive in nature.

The latest strikes against Syria don't appear to be related to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons  against its own people, even as devastating as those reports are.  

These Israeli strikes appear to be a preemptive move directed directed at a shipment of advanced surface-to-surface missiles from Iran that Israel believed was intended for the Islamic, militant (and decidedly anti-Israel) Hezbollah.

According to the New York Times, the most recent strike was "aimed at disrupting the arms pipeline that runs from Syria to Hezbollah . . . highlighting the mounting stakes for Hezbollah and Israel as Syria becomes more chaotic."

The Times argues that Iran and Hezbollah have a keen interest in delivering advanced weapons to Hezbollah.  This is true, the Times argues, because Syria has been an effective channel for funneling weapons from Iran to Hezbollah, and if Assad loses power, that channel will be lost.

The problem lies in the reaction to Israel's actions by other countries.  Syria has already declared the Israeli attacks as a Declaration of War.  

But, with a civil war raging, it appears unlikely that Syria itself would be so bold as to respond with an attack directly on Israel.  Assad knows the Israeli response would be devastating and could launch the entire region into a major conflict, possibly drawing the United States in as well.

The recent Israeli strikes on Syria are a strategic warning to Syria, but more so to Iran.  

This is a proxy statement delivered to Iran through Syria saying, "Israel will take military action if we believe our security is threatened, and we won't wait until hundreds or thousands of our people are killed before we do so."

Iranian leaders like to rattle their sabres, but do they really want to get into a shooting war with Israel, and by proxy, the United States?

When is a Red Line REALLY a Red Line?

In the U.S., President Obama said that using chemical weapons in Syria would be "crossing a red line."  That presumably means that the US would act if it could be proved that Assad used chemical weapons against its people.  

Is this the "Obama Doctrine?" or was it simply an off-the-cuff remark?  Barry Pavel, a former defense policy adviser to President Obama has said "I'm not convinced [the President saying "red line"] was thought through."  Obama Doctrine or not, he's stuck with that position (unless he wishes to back-pedal, but that seems unlikely.

Obama has painted himself into a corner in regard to Syria, but Israel's preemptive strikes against Iranian missiles bound for Hezbollah may shift world focus away from the "Obama Doctrine" to the real actions of Israel, which may end up doing Obama's work for him.

US Fears Impending Israeli Attack on Iran over Nukes

United States officials are  worried that Israel may attack Iran's nuclear facilities at any given moment, according to an Israeli televison station.

This fear is being driven by the union of Shaul Mofaz and his Kadima party with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

United States officials are  worried that Israel may attack Iran's nuclear facilities at any given moment, according to an Israeli televison station, 

This fear is being driven by the union of Shaul Mofaz and his Kadima party with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

According to a story on the Arutz Sheva website (referencing the Channel 10 item) U.S. officials believe a Likud-Kadima government could make a quick decision about an Israeli attack on Iran at any moment, even before the U.S. presidential elections in November.

The Americans have been operating under the assumption that early elections would be held in Israel which would likely postpone an Israeli attack of Iran at least until after the election. 

With Israeli politics stabilized and the current government likely to end its term as scheduled, the situation has changed and the US is worried.

It is generally accepted by the US, European and Gulf Arab states that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, not simply peaceful, energy applications.

The position of the Israeli minister of defense remains that "as long as Iran poses a threat to Israel with its nuclear program, all options are on the table."

Defense Minster Ehud Barak recently said, "I believe it is well understood in Washington, D.C., as well as in Jerusalem that as long as there is an existential threat to our people, all options to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons should remain on the table,"

"A military option is not a simple one," Barak added. "It would be complicated with certain associated risks. But a radical Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear weapons would be far more dangerous both for the region and, indeed, the world."

Recent reports indicate that President Barack Obama is prepared to make a major concession to Iran on uranium enrichment which would allow five percent enrichment if Iran  takes other major steps to curb its ability to develop nuclear weapons.

(Summarized and excerpted from Arutz Sheva, Israel National News)

American Truism #15.

Team Obama Caught Lying About Gay Marriage Decision

Team Obama has just been caught in a lie, and most people probably haven't even realized it, yet.


A story in today's DAILY BEAST by media watcher Howard Kurtz essentially claimed that Obama's hand was forced into making a statement on his change of opinion on gay marriage because Vice President Joe Biden's endorsement of gay marriage on Sunday.


Kurtz' story says the Biden remarks "knocked the White House off what was supposed to be its message this week—student loans and economic issues.


But, this story, being pushed by the Obama camp, is a lie.


And here's how we know that:


Antonio Villaraigosa, Chair of the National Democratic Convention just blew Obama's cover story, and probably doesn't even realize (yet) what he's done.

Appearing on tonight's (Thurs, May 10th) JOHN KING USA (CNN) Villaraigosa said he had known for about two weeks that BHO would make a statement, changing his stand on gay marriage.


 "I did know a couple of weeks ago that something would be said soon . . . that the President would be making a statement soon on the issue."  - Antonio Villaraigosa


There's no ambiguity there whatsoever.  Villaraigosa answered a direct question from John King and said clearly that he had known something was brewing for two weeks.


So, why does this matter?  Who cares? 


It matters because the Obama camp has absolutely USED the media (including Howard Kurtz, who I LOVE) to make it appear that the President has been "struggling" with the issue of gay marriage and that the only reason he went public was because of Biden's "ill-timed" remarks.


According to Kurtz' DAILY BEAST article, "The declaration was not supposed to come this week. Instead, the White House had planned to dramatically unveil the shift shortly before the Democratic convention. But Obama had been agitated by Vice President Joe Biden’s own endorsement of gay marriage on Sunday, which knocked the White House off what was supposed to be its message this week—student loans and economic issues."

Kurtz goes on to say, "The president expressed his frustration to West Wing officials—some of whom questioned whether Biden had wandered off script or was trying to foster a change in policy—but Obama didn’t take up the issue with his No. 2. Asked about Biden's role in prodding him, Obama acknowledged to ABC "that I would have preferred to do it in my own time, on my own terms."

EVEN as I type this, CNN's Erin Burnett is reporting that Biden is being "thrown under the bus" for preempting Obama with his own statement.  Clearly, that's not true if people such as Villaraigosa have known about a pending Obama change for as long two weeks.


American Truism #14.

Midnight Approaches: Israel Prepares for Attack on Iran with Bunker Buster Request

Following President Obama’s address to AIPAC in which he gave the “green light” to Israel for an attack on Iran, Israel has now requested advanced "bunker-buster" bombs and refueling planes from the United States, according to a Reuters report.

These bunker buster bombs and planes would significantly improve Israel’s ability to carry out successful bombing attacks on Iran's underground nuclear sites.

That's not just MY opinion.  That supposition comes straight from an unnamed Israeli official.

As reported by Reuters, it appears that the US received the request for bunker busters and refueling planes during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington.

Other reports claim the US might supply the hardware, but only under the condition that Israel promises not to attack Iran THIS YEAR.

JUST NOT THIS YEAR?  But, 2013 would be fine?  Sounds like a political calculation on the part of Team Obama.

I’m not making a judgment here.  When all is said and done, maybe Israel has no other choice.  I believe it’s possible for a rational person to come to that conclusion, yet recent events seem to indicate that Israel is hell bent on destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities, WITH or WITHOUT the aid and comfort of the United States.

In a recent article musing upon the entire Israel / Iran / US relationship and likely outcomes, Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent for THE ATLANTIC  noted, “I don't believe the leaders of Iran are Nazis, but they certainly do talk like Nazis, and they've oriented their foreign and defense policies around the extermination of the Jewish state."

A White House spokesman denied that requests for bunker busters and refueling planes were made during the Netanyahu / Obama meetings.  But, we all know that could simply be semantics and that back channel discussions could have already taken place.   This alternative channel may very well have been Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

The White House wouldn’t confirm or deny a possible DOD possible role, saying only, "I would refer you to other officials.”

Unnamed sources on the US side confirm that these conversations DID take place between Netanyahu and Panetta.  The same source claims no deals were finalized.

While many agree that Obama’s AIPAC speech was indeed a “green light” to attack Iran and its nuclear capabilities, it still puts the Obama administration in a tight spot.

An Israeli-Iranian war would create tough political sledding for Obama in this US election year.  Such a conflict would almost certainly send oil and gas prices skyrocketing, a condition which hold great political peril for Obama.  Yet, being seen as weak on Iran and lukewarm in his support of Israel could be even worse for Obama.

None of the parties involved wants to see an Israeli-Iranian conflict.  And, while its neighbors are no great fans of Iran, a unilateral attack on the trouble-making nation might be all the excuse its neighbors need to unleash “attacks of solidarity” on Israel.

Pressure is growing on all sides, and no one appears to be willing to stand down or blink, which may make armed conflict between Israel and Iran inevitable.

While unlikely, one possibility is that taking recent events into account, Iran could decide to make a preemptive strike of its own against Israel.  This is unlikely because it would allow Israel to strike at Iran with practically no limits while giving Iran’s neighbors the cover they’d need to sit on the sidelines.  Still, the behavior of Iran’s political and religious leadership rarely follows conventional wisdom.

Obama is between a rock and a rockier place, unlikely to get any softer in the coming weeks.  He can’t be the president who allowed Iran to have a nuclear bomb.  He also can’t be the president that allowed Israel to launch a preemptive strike on Iran.  And the LAST thing he wants to do is commit American military power and lives into a new Middle East conflict.

American Truism #9.

Obama Gives Israel the Green Light to Attack Iran

In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) , President Obama today gave Israel the green light to launch a preemptive strike on Iran to prevent the Iranians from fully developing their nuclear weapons capabilities.

On CNN, Obama's remarks were portrayed opposite this analysis, both by the CNN host and by her guests.  They characterized Obama’s remarks as too soft and non-committal and critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Here’s what Obama said to AIPAC:

“We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically.  Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovreign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs.

"I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say.  That includes all elements of American power . . . including a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.

"We are investing in new capabilities. We’re providing Israel with more advanced technology, the types of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies.  Make no mistake, we will do what it takes to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.  

Later in the same address, President Obama said, ""For the sake of Israel's security, America's security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in. … Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: Speak softly, but carry a big stick."

These remarks have been interpreted as meaning that Obama is loathe to use military action against Iran, and that he is at odds with the Israelis.

I disagree.

I believe this is Obama's way of creating "cover" for himself in the event that Israel decides it must attack Iran before it is nuclear capable.

According to CNN reports, earlier in the day at the AIPAC conference, Israeli President Shimon Peres warned "Iran will be stopped."  Israel "does not seek" war he said, adding: "Peace is always our first option. But, if we are forced to fight, trust me, we shall prevail."

Speaking just before Obama, Peres said,"The United States and Israel share the same goal: to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. There is no space between us. Our message is clear: Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon."

"Iran is an evil, cruel, morally corrupt regime," Peres said. "It is based on destruction. It is an affront to human dignity. Iran is the center, the sponsor, the financier of world terror. Iran is a danger to the entire world. It threatens Berlin as well as Madrid, Delhi as well as Bangkok." 

Israel and Iran are on an all-but-assured collision course.  The Israeli government will NOT allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, but after his rhetorical attacks on the Bush administration for its actions in Iraq, Obama cannot afford to be seen as launching a possibly unnecessary attack on Iran, even in the defense of Israel.

However, as he has intimated today, Obama will not intervene if Israel determines that a preemptive strike against Iran is necessary.

Look for a strike within 90 days or less.

American Truism # 7.

Obama Camp Provides Truth for its Supporters

Kudos to FOX NEWS' Tommy Christopher for highlighting the Obama campaign's "Truth Team Tip Sheet."  

As Christopher reports, the Obama Campaign released its Obama For America Truth Team Tip Sheet.  This first round of propaganda is essentially talking points to be used by Obama supporters.  The interesting thing is that these aren't the "Democrat Talking Points" that all of the party-faithful talking heads use on the 24-hour news.  

No, these are talking points the Obama camp is hoping its supporters will use in casual, everyday conversations.

Work with a pesky Tea Party supporter that always seems to have a greater command of the political facts than you?  


No need to keep quiet anymore because Obama's "Truth Team Tip Sheet" will give you all of the ammunition required to beat back the angry hordes along with their torches and pitchforks.

Whatever happened to following the candidates / leaders and forming your OWN opinions?


American Truism #2.