Shootin' the Breeze

and random targets

Archive for the tag “Libya”

A Modest Proposal for World Peace Via the Weiners

I would not bet on a victory for Anthony Weiner in the New York City mayoral election.  However, I have an idea for alternate employment for him and his wife, Huma Abedin.

Mr. Weiner is Jewish.  His wife is Muslim.  His sexting has put more strain on their marriage than merely their religious difference.  Since they are still together, apparently they are both extraordinarily skilled at conflict resolution as well as being experts on Facebook networking.

Huma Abedin works for Hillary Clinton.  Some of you will recall that Ms. Clinton was, until recently, Secretary of State, a job which made her the boss of all American ambassadors to foreign embassies around the world, including Benghazi, Libya.

Huma grew up in Saudi Arabia, where her mother still lives.  She must have knowledge and insights about the troubled Mid-East.

Anthony has, well, “people skills” and is very out-going, to a fault perhaps.

What a team!  I suggest that they be sent to Syria as co-ambassadors.  They can make friends with Assad and bring him around to the American Way.  Maybe they could get him involved with Facebook friends as a way to get his mind off killing rebels AND maybe they could get the rebels in Syria to make friends with Assad through Facebook rather than direct military action.

Who better?

Problem solved.

You’re welcome!

Help Me Understand Syria (and President Obama)

A year ago, when the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and our ambassador killed, our military was not brought in to protect Americans at the embassy.  That failure to protect Americans is still being investigated.

America did not punish Libya for not protecting American diplomatic guests in that country.

The apparent use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Syrian government against its own citizens is horrible, yet, unlike the Benghazi situation, does not, as far as I know, involve American citizens.

England, our ally, is not backing President Obama’s desire to intervene in Syria.

Russia is very opposed to U.S. involvement.

Is this not something for the United Nations?

Until I am persuaded otherwise, I do not see why the United States of America should attack Syria.  I see that as lighting a powder keg.

If one of President Obama’s daughters was being threatened and he did nothing, and then, sadly, she was killed, and he still did nothing, then if a child was being abused by his own father in another country, should our President then be committed to saving the foreign child from that child’s family or just do a better job protecting his own family?

May God grant wisdom to our leaders.

Mitigating Scandals By Passing The Buck

A few weeks ago I wrote a few pieces about my pre-campaign for political office, probably the U.S. Senate then, but now I aspire for higher office.  My pre-campaign is like pre-approval for a credit card — it is not yet approved and my campaign is not yet announced.  However, I have been learning a lot by observing the current administration’s approach to what lesser politicians would perceive as criticism.  President Nixon could take lessons from President Obama.

President Nixon thought he had to admit or deny accusations about Watergate.  President Obama is way more cool than that.  He actually jumps on the bandwagon of the accusers.  He embraces the opportunity to empathize with his critics.  He is very upset by what has happened in Benghazi, what has been done by the I.R.S., and what has been done by the F.B.I.  He is appalled, just like the rest of us.

President Nixon was concerned that the famous “buck” which President Truman had said stopped in the Oval Office actually did stop there.  President Obama has a very different viewpoint.

He is unapologetic about not protecting the ambassador killed at our embassy in Libya.  He is appalled that it happened and he is appalled that anyone would blame the State Department or the military or him.  He wasn’t at fault because he did not really know what all was going on that fateful night.  It was his night off.

Apparently, the buck has not stopped at all.  It was no one’s fault, not even terrorists.  The people who attacked the embassy might not have been terrorists as we commonly use the word.  They were terrorists in a very complicated sense of the word “terrorist” that is so complicated that the denial of this tragedy being caused by terrorists for too long was, well, due to a misunderstanding.  It is complicated, like I said.

What I have gotten out of it is that there are real Al Qaeda terrorists, whom President Obama assumed we all were suspecting, when in actuality the terrorists who performed the terrorism at Benghazi were merely wannabe terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda without being official card-carrying members.  It is an important distinction to our president but I’m not smart enough to understand the distinction or why it is important.  Initially we were told that it was a mob upset by a movie.  Then it was a terrorist act by non-terrorists.  Now it is terrorists who are responsible, but not Al Qaeda terrorists — they know better than to do any terrorist acts now that President Obama has Al Qaeda on the run.

President Obama is also appalled by the I.R.S. having targeted conservative groups.  Some might say that was done under his watch, making him responsible.   Those who say that are silly Trumanites who still believe the buck stops with the President of the United States.  This president is appalled just like the rest of us who are not the president.  He is just like us.  He read about it in the papers.  No one told him what was going on.  He is very appalled.  He is not to blame, of course.  He don’t know nuthin’ about it.  Ignorance is bliss, they say.

Well, President Truman did not say that ignorance is bliss.  He said, “The buck stops here.”  He should have said, if only he was not so dang forthright, “I only know what I read in the papers and now that I read what my administration has been doing, I am appalled.”  That is smart politics.    I am catching on to the modern style of leadership.  Accountability is out of style.  Empathy — that is the ticket!

Don’t say that you are sorry for what you have done or not done.  Instead, say that you understand how those of us in the general public “feel” because you feel however they feel.

President Obama and I, a pre-candidate, feel the same.  We feel the same as each other and we feel the same as the general public feels.   We have empathy.  It is easier than leadership because it is reflective and reactive.

President Obama is a lawyer.  So is the Attorney General, Eric Holder.  So am I.  The President, Attorney General and I are all appalled that the F.B.I. violated the privacy of Associated Press reporters.  We all agree that should not have been done.  We did not know and, now that we do know, the three of us are feeling sad even though we are not at fault.   I am under the impression that the F.B.I. is a rogue organization that none of the three of us control.

When I am elected, I too will make it a point to not know about such things.  I would make it my job to not know.  Whoever is in charge of the Justice Department should do something, if we only knew who is in charge.  I used to think the President and the Attorney General were in charge of the Justice Department, including the F.B.I., but it was long ago that I took American Government in high school, Political Science in college, and Constitutional Law in law school.  I was probably absent the day the teachers and professors covered the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.

I am not (yet) in the chain of command, but it is comforting to know that if I become Attorney General or President, I will not be to blame for anything as long as I am suitably appalled by what my subordinates did, or failed to do, which I won’t know about until I read it in the papers.  And, to go beyond my mentor, if elected, I pledge to never read newspapers or listen to the news.

I am also practicing my best sincere look with appropriate body language.  In the photo below I am demonstrating my transparency by gesturing with an open hand, indicating my, you know, openness and, I guess, honesty.  Who wouldn’t vote for an honest-looking cowboy who empathizes with how every American feels?

Image

Diplomatic Protection

 

Libya is hundreds of years behind the times, demonstrating that it does not understand modern diplomacy or even civilized behavior.  The attack on the United States embassy there yesterday and the murder of our ambassador was just plain primitive. 

Rules of diplomacy have evolved over hundreds of years.  Embassies and ambassadors in each others’ countries are supposed to be provided special protections, including even immunity from criminal prosecution.  The rationale is that the embassy is actually the property of the country it represents rather than of the host nation.  In other words, the attack on our embassy is considered an attack on American soil. 

Granted, the government of Libya has been in upheaval, still, if it is to be considered a sovereign nation, it ought to act like one and follow the rules of diplomacy.  Imagine the opposite — that a mob in Washington, D.C. attacked the Libyan embassy.  Would the police look the other way?  Wouldn’t our military assist if necessary? 

It was the duty of Libya to protect our embassy.  It did not fulfill its duty.  Now what do we do?

I do not recommend that we murder the Libyan ambassador for revenge, but maybe we ought to kick him out of the U.S.A. and cut off diplomatic relations with Libya until it catches up with the rest of the civilized world here in the 21st century.

Post Navigation