Luzinski's Gut wrote:By the way, the real reason why we're not doing anything is because of the Northern Distribution Network.

Google that up and you'll see why.

Luzinski's Gut wrote:By the way, the real reason why we're not doing anything is because of the Northern Distribution Network.

Google that up and you'll see why.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Why do we have to provide the direction? And what was our end goal in Syria if we invaded??? People like to say deomcracy is slow. Well, everything is slow, unfortunately. If it isn't, rash, horrible decision create unintended consequences.

I'm not talking about an invasion... I'm just talking about clear and predictable behavior. Let me recap the Obama Adminstration's dealings with Syria:

1. Obama says (Aug 2012), in response to a question about using military action to ensure that Syria's chemical weapons are kept safely out of the hands of people who would use them, that it's a clear red line if the chemical weapons are utilized.
2. Assad uses chemical weapons on own people.
3. Kerry and Obama condemn the attacks. Kerry calls it a moral obscenity, and Obama said that it was in America's national security interest to retaliate, warning that a failure to do so could put U.S. troops in the path of chemical weapons in the future.
4. Various European parliaments vote for inaction.
5. Administration insisted that we may intercede without a broad coalition.
6. Obama then pivots and asks a Congress that can't agree what day of the week it is to vote on military intervention, all the while suggesting that he may still intervene even if Congress votes it down.
7. Putin steps in and brokers a deal for Syria agrees to turn over it's chemical weapons. They have turned over about 1/3 to date.

Now, if the plan was for the US to bumble along with indecision and internal contradiction so that Putin could be the reasonable one (nominated for the Peace Prize LOL), then Mission Accomplished. As it stands, the penalty enacted on Assad for using illegal weapons is... he gives up his weapons... eventually.

Do you remember when President Bush's political adversaries starting ragging on him during the first days after 9/11? Or during the first days of the invasion of Iraq? Me neither. Whatever you think of the holder of the presidential office, if you are actually concerned about the nation's welfare you don't go on TV mocking him and saying he's weak.

The Syria debacle was the low point of President Obama's presidency in the foreign policy realm - not because he didn't use force but because he needlessly boxed himself in with his "red line" talk and then had to climb down from his imprudent threat because getting involved in the Syria Civil War is such a bad idea. The White House has some argument that the threat of force secured a deal to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles. But it may have been luck as much as anything.

.........

What President Obama could do is give Putin an ultimatum to leave Crimea or be forcibly expelled. Then we'd have a real test of strength and Putin would see deep potential costs to his actions. But even the President's toughest critics recognize this would be insane. It's really not a good idea to get into a land war with the world's other major nuclear power on their own terrain. (And whatever we think of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine now they were part of a single country for centuries and in terms of experience, tactics and knowledge it's home ground for the Russian Army.)

Russia is not 'on the march'. It is trying to assert dominance over countries on its immediate borders whereas it used to have that control to the borders of Western Europe. We've extended our military alliance to or almost to its borders. Russia is ringed by NATO members the US is treaty bound to defend - Poland and the Baltic State being now the diciest and most dangerous places where that promise has been applied.

This is a big crisis for US foreign policy and President Obama meets it at an inauspicious moment. But if you're hearing macho wish projection and not terribly well concealed Putin-envy rather than clear demands for tangibly different policies and actions, there's a reason.

Russia has agreed to a meeting with representatives from NATO on Wednesday to discuss the Ukraine crisis as Kyiv’s new leadership has announced the start of direct talks with Moscow to ease the last days’ tension, particularly at the pro-Russian region of Crimea.

Speaking at the Ukrainian capital, after a meeting with the new Prime-Minister and President, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday condemned Russia’s “act of aggression” in Ukraine and said Moscow, which has taken control of the Crimea region, was looking for a pretext to invade more of the country. Kerry threatened Russia with “isolation” if the country “don’t de-escalates the situation”. The United States has begun spelling out its response to Russia’s incursion, announcing a suspension of all military engagements with Russia, including military exercises and port visits, and freezing trade and investment talks with Moscow.

Hours earlier, President Vladimir Putin said that Russia saw no need to use military force in the Crimea region of Ukraine for now, in remarks apparently intended to ease East-West tension over fears of war in the former Soviet republic.

The use of force by Russia in Ukraine would be a choice of last resort, Putin said, and sanctions being considered against Moscow by the West would be counter-productive.

Putin told a news conference at his state residence outside Moscow there had been an “unconstitutional coup” in Ukraine and ousted leader Viktor Yanukovich, an ally of Russia, was still the legitimate leader of the country despite giving up all power.

Putin ordered troops involved in a military exercise in western Russia back to base on Tuesday in an announcement that appeared intended to ease East-West tension over fears of war in Ukraine.

Luzinski's Gut wrote:By the way, the real reason why we're not doing anything is because of the Northern Distribution Network.

Google that up and you'll see why.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:A global community is working on it, as it should be. This isn't, and shouldn't, be on us to figure everything out.

I'll bet some folks in Syria appreciate the global community's deliberate sense of process.

Why do we continue to do this to ourselves?

Why do some people try to prevent/stop genocide without waiting for the international community to decide to act? Leadership is hard, but the global community is looking to the US for direction here. It doesn't have to be the US marching in and protecting Ukraine, but being clear what the ramifications of aggressive action. I hope that Obama forms a coalition with European leaders, but it's not going to be a coalition of peers. The US is going to have to provide some direction.

A judge has granted a temporary protective injunction against U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson after his wife filed paperwork accusing the Orlando congressman of shoving and injuring her during an incident this past weekend.

Lolita Grayson's petition for the injunction, dated Monday, says her husband pushed her against a door, causing her to fall to the ground, during a confrontation Saturday at their home on Oak Park Road near Windermere.

In a statement, Alan Grayson's press secretary, Lauren Doney, wrote that the allegations "are absolutely false, completely unfounded, and clearly designed to vilify and harm Congressman Grayson."

"Congressman Grayson firmly denies Ms. Grayson's frivolous accusations," the statement said.

The incident comes just less than two months after Lolita Grayson filed a divorce petition stating that their marriage of nearly 24 years was "irretrievably broken."

According to the petition, Lolita Grayson was preparing to take the couple's two youngest children to a play date when Alan Grayson "showed up, unannounced" and asked to speak with her inside.

After she refused, retrieved his mail and asked him to leave, Alan Grayson "then deliberately and with force pushed [Lolita Grayson] very hard against the front door, causing [her] to fall to the ground as a result," the petition states.

She told her husband not to touch her, then pushed him in the face and kneed him in the stomach "in order to protect and defend herself" before calling 911, her petition says.

As she was talking to the operator, Alan Grayson told his wife, in the presence of their children, that she "would receive nothing" in their divorce and would be left "in the gutter," the petition states.

Photos filed by Lolita Grayson's attorneys with the petition show large bruises to her left leg and left shoulder.

Her complaint alleges that "from time to time" in the past, her husband "has battered [her] and the parties' minor children," though she has not previously sought an injunction against him.

The petition says she now fears for her safety, citing the latest incident and his "history of physical violence toward" her.

In the statement released by his office, Alan Grayson said his wife initiated the violence.

"Sadly, it was Ms. Grayson who physically attacked the Congressman as he attempted to visit with his children. He did not respond to Ms. Grayson's violent assault," the statement said.

It added that Lolita Grayson has become "increasingly erratic" since filing for divorce, and her husband "is deeply concerned by her recent behavior and is profoundly pained by her accusations."

Juan Lopez, the congressman's director of constituent services, told the Orlando Sentinel on Tuesday that he was present at the Grayson home Saturday and watched the incident from about 15 feet away.

Lopez said Alan Grayson never shoved or struck his wife: "Absolutely not .... It's just unfortunate that this is happening and that she would say something like this."

Lolita Grayson filed for divorce in January, seeking joint, but primary, custody of their four minor children. She was also seeking their marital home — where Saturday's incident occurred — distribution of assets, alimony and child support

pacino wrote:maybe they think he'll be good at the job

mozartpc27 wrote:

pacino wrote:maybe they think he'll be good at the job

It's politically tone deaf though. The reality is, at the level we're talking about, there are always many more qualified applicants than there are jobs to fill. You have your choice - it's not as if it's this guy or some obviously incompetent boob. So, politics should figure into every decision.

Obama's political acumen is sometimes really surprisingly awful.

mozartpc27 wrote:

pacino wrote:maybe they think he'll be good at the job

It's politically tone deaf though. The reality is, at the level we're talking about, there are always many more qualified applicants than there are jobs to fill. You have your choice - it's not as if it's this guy or some obviously incompetent boob. So, politics should figure into every decision.

Obama's political acumen is sometimes really surprisingly awful.

But it is one thing to provide legal representation and quite another to seize on a case and turn it into a political platform from which to launch an extreme attack on the justice system. When a lawyer chooses that course, it is appropriate to ask whether he should be singled out for a high-level national position in, of all things, law enforcement.

...

Given this context—and the fact that Abu-Jamal was already well represented and had funds at his disposal—it is difficult to understand why, as acting president and director of litigation at the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, Mr. Adegbile chose in 2009 to enter the circus created by Abu-Jamal and inject his organization into the case. Under Mr. Adegbile's leadership and through rallies, protests and a media campaign, the Legal Defense Fund actively fanned the racial firestorm. In a news release issued when it took over as Abu-Jamal's counsel, the Legal Defense Fund proclaimed that Abu-Jamal was "a symbol of the racial injustices of the death penalty."

At a 2011 rally for Abu-Jamal, Mr. Adegbile's co-counsel on the case stated that "there is no question in the mind of anyone at the Legal Defense Fund" that [Abu-Jamal's conviction] "has everything to do with race and that is why the Legal Defense Fund is in the case."

In 2012, even after Abu-Jamal's appeals had been exhausted, and after the Philadelphia district attorney's office had put the controversial case to rest by not seeking a new death sentence (which a court had voided in 2008 on the ground of faulty jury instructions), Abu-Jamal's website reported that the Legal Defense Fund would remain active in the cause by investigating new ways to challenge his conviction.