At least we've got John Kerry on our side...

This sounds like it should be from The Onion, but it's actually from The Globe and Mail. (Obviously, that doesn't make it true, but...)

“We’re not going to war,” Mr. Kerry told reporters Monday after meeting with British Foreign Secretary William Hague in London. “We will be able to hold [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort, in a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we are talking about doing; an unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”

Of course, an "unbelievably small, limited kind of effort" is almost certain to produce an "unbelievably small, limited kind of result." Any results that aren't "unbelievably small [and] limited" are almost certainly going to be unintended results, and probably negative.

There's also this classic:

“The end of the conflict requires a political solution,” he said. “There is no military solution and we have no illusions about that.”

We know that there's "no military solution," so the obvious next step is an "unbelievably small, limited" military action, because "unbelievably small" military gestures are how we always get to political solutions.

Obviously, if you're going to pick John Kerry to be Secretary of State, you aren't going to do a good job managing foreign affairs. The next time John Kerry is right about anything will be the first. But this seems spectacularly wrong-headed, even for Kerry. "Yeah, we're going to attack, because we said we would, but we aren't actually going to do any damage because it will be a small attack, so it's just empty symbolism to show Assad that we're capable of empty symbolism, because otherwise, the President who drew that red line in the sand will look like a feckless idiot, rather than a strong leader, because nothing says strong leadership like telling people beforehand that your attack won't do anything useful."



It's hard to believe that this isn't selling well in the heartland, or even on Capitol Hill...

U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in Benghazi attack

Reuters

The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack on their car, a Libyan official said, as they were rushed from a consular building stormed by militants denouncing a U.S.-made film insulting the Prophet Mohammad.

Gunmen had attacked and burned the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, a center of last year's uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, late on Tuesday evening, killing one U.S. consular official. The building was evacuated.

The Libyan official said the ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was being driven from the consulate building to a safer location when gunmen opened fire.

"The American ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets at them," the official in Benghazi told Reuters.

The US consulate is United States sovereign territory. That is an attack on the United States. An act of war.

What are we - and by we, I mean, of course, the Federal Government, the "only thing that we all belong to," the "things we do together," under the Commander in Chief - going to do about it?

You know, other than apologizing for offending Muslims with our freedom of speech.  Oh, and attacking the Romney campaign for having the nerve to comment on it...

If Bush said it - episode # 2975...

Poles Demand Obama Apology For "Polish Death Camps" Comment

Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, a longtime pro-American voice, tweeted: "The White House will apologize for this outrageous error. [Prime Minister Donald] Tusk will make a statement in the morning. It's a pity that this important ceremony was upstaged by ignorance and incompetence."

In ceremonies honoring a hero of the anti-Nazi resistance, President Obama made reference to "Polish death camps." Well, yeah, there were death camps in Poland - set up by Germans, run by Germans, and used to exterminate Poles. "Polish death camps" is not an appropriate way to refer to them, and the Poles are justifiably outraged.

Another brilliant foreign relations coup from President Competent...

Clueless foreign policy

More vicious, no-doubt racist criticism of President Messiah Obama:

Mr. Obama’s own credibility is so diminished (his approval rating in Israel is 4 percent) that serious negotiations may be farther off than ever.

Peacemaking takes strategic skill. But we see no sign that President Obama and Mr. Mitchell were thinking more than one move down the board. The president went public with his demand for a full freeze on settlements before securing Israel’s commitment. And he and his aides apparently had no plan for what they would do if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said no...

From those noted right-wing crackpots at the ... New York Times?

"The worst kind of ally..."

Remember how President Obama was going to change America's image overseas? Well, he's accomplishing that...
Britain's AWOL Ally

Brown claimed just days ago that Obama would make an Afghanistan announcement in the “next few days”. Now, we have no idea when the announcement will come. But this isn't Gordon Brown’s fault – it’s Obama’s. The way Washington is treating Britain is deplorable and the subject of an excellent cover piece tomorrow by Con Coghlin (cover image above). As Con says in his piece:

'The Afghan issue has made clear the astonishing disregard with which Mr Obama treats Britain . As he decides how many more troops to send to Afghanistan – a decision which will fundamentally affect the scope of the mission – Britain is reduced to taking a guess. The White House does not even pretend to portray this as a joint decision. It is a diplomatic cold-shouldering that stands in contrast not just to the Blair-Bush era, but to the togetherness of the soldiers on the ground.'

Obama is simply not there. And in this respect he is, as we say on the cover, the worst kind of ally.

I don't think that this is actually the "change" he was selling, though...

Show trials in the Big Apple

I agree with every word of this:

The strange thing about the Obama administration's decision to hold these civilian al-Qaeda trials is that the project is flawed even based on the premises of its staunchest defenders: They talk about due process and the rule of law, but the trials can't possibly provide anything close to the level of objectivity that applies in an ordinary criminal-law setting. There is no way the defendants will get an impartial jury in New York, and there is no way the government will actually release the terrorists if they are acquitted. Thus the courtroom proceedings in Manhattan will be, in a very real sense, show trials. They are designed purely for PR purposes, so that the Obama administration can pay lip service to the ideal of due process while implicitly rebuking the Bush administration for failing to respect the rule of law.

...

there is no way we can prosecute the War on Terror while providing the full panoply of ordinary due-process protections to enemy combatants. And no amount of hope can change this reality.

President Clueless

One of these things is not like the others...

(One doesn't have to strain the imagination to suspect that a George W. Bush visit that looked like that might have generated some buzz in the mainstream press.)

"...the narcissism of a leader..."

Michael Gerson nails President Narcissistic Gasbag Obama:

Obama’s rhetorical method in international contexts -- given supreme expression at the United Nations this week -- is a moral dialectic. The thesis: pre-Obama America is a nation of many flaws and failures. The antithesis: The world responds with understandable but misguided prejudice. The synthesis: Me. Me, at all costs; me, in spite of all terrors; me, however long and hard the road may be. How great a world we all should see, if only all were more like…me.

Excellent analysis - read it all.

US on the wrong side again...

For all those who didn't realize before the election that Barack Obama was a fan of leftist dictators, we follow the spectacles of the US being wrong on Venezuela and Iran with the US being wrong on Honduras.:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with ousted Honduran President Miguel Zelaya in Washington Tuesday, signaling unequivocal US support for Mr. Zelaya’s return to office.

Let's re-write that slightly, to make the situation clear:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with [legally and democratically] ousted Honduran President Miguel Zelaya [and aspirant leftist dictator] in Washington Tuesday, signaling unequivocal US support for [unrepentant leftist] Mr. Zelaya’s [illegal and unconstitutional] return to office [against the Honduran Constitution and the wishes of the Honduran people].

Matthew Hoy has it right...

The insanity of this policy by the Obama administration cannot be understated. It used to be the GOP that was (oftentimes rightly) criticized for propping up tyrants and despots because they were “our” tyrants and despots. At the height of the Cold War, a valid defense for that realpolitik position could be made. But where is the greater evil on the horizon that we are willing to sacrifice the Honduran people for? It is no longer the Soviet Union and worldwide communism.

In fact, the main evil we face in much of the world today is the thugocratic regimes like Iran and Venezuela, wacko nut-jobs like North Korea, and communist China. Yet, in this situation, we’ve actually allied ourselves with Venezuela’s Chavez!

Further endearing ourselves overseas...

It is, of course, usual for heads of state to exchange gifts, particularly when meeting for the first time. So when British Prime Minister met with President Obama last week, it was standard protocol that there would be an exchange of gifts.

Mr Brown's gifts included an ornamental desk pen holder made from the oak timbers of Victorian anti-slaver HMS Gannet, once named HMS President.

Mr Obama was so delighted he has already put it in pride of place in the Oval Office on the Resolute desk which was carved from timbers of Gannet's sister ship, HMS Resolute.

Another treasure given to the U.S. President was the framed commission for HMS Resolute, a vessel that came to symbolise Anglo-US peace when it was saved from ice packs by Americans and given to Queen Victoria.

Finally, Mr Brown gave a first edition set of the seven-volume classic biography of Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert.

The White House issued a press briefing today that put on record how much Mr Obama had appreciated the gifts.

Well, that all sounds lovely and appropriate. The kind of gifts that one head of state gives to another, particularly as they reaffirm a "special relationship." And, of course, Mr. Obama reciprocated.

Gordon Brown has been given a collection of 25 classic American films on DVD as his official gift from Barack Obama. The Prime Minister flew home from his successful trip to Washington this morning with the 'special collector's box' of films hidden in his luggage.

No. 10 had tried to keep the present a secret...One reason for the secrecy might be that the gift seems markedly less generous and thoughtful than the presents taken to Washington by the Prime Minister.

Hmm... I wonder if that set of movies* also sells for $15 at the White House Gift shop, like the little models of Marine One given by Mrs. Obama to Mrs. Brown for the Brown sons.


The funniest line comes from a commenter at Ace of Spades' site, who said that "Gordon should take the pen back and give Mr. and Mrs. Racially Sensitive a Betamax copy of Song of the South..." (As always, there's a language warning if you go to Ace's...)


* - No word on whether the DVDs are region 2 and PAL so that the Prime Minister can at least watch them in Great Britain, or if they're region 1 and NTSC, so that they'll make nifty coasters...