The changing of the Benghazi Talking Points for Political Reasons was not Political according to CIA

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Susan Rice said it.  Hillary Clinton said it.  And President Obama said it.  Over and over again.  The attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was due to a YouTube video that incited a spontaneous protest that resulted with an attack on the mission with assault weapons and pre-sighted mortars.  Highly improbable but that’s what they said.  Over and over again.  It wasn’t a terrorist attack.  Because President Obama killed Osama bin Laden and won the War on Terror.  The 2012 campaign slogan was Osama bin Laden is dead.  General Motors is alive.  And al Qaeda is on the ropes.  On the run.  No longer a threat to the United States.  That’s why we had to reelect President Obama.  For he sure couldn’t point to any successes when it came to the economy.

Of course beefing up security in Benghazi would have harmed that narrative.  So while the British were pulling out of Benghazi because a resurgent al Qaeda was making it too dangerous the U.S. State Department denied Ambassador Steven’s request for additional security.  Because a resurgent al Qaeda was making it very dangerous in Benghazi.  But the American people didn’t hear that.  No.  All they heard was that Osama bin Laden is dead.  General Motors is alive.  And al Qaeda is on the ropes.  On the run.  No longer a threat to the United States.  Of course the murder of four Americans in Benghazi said otherwise (see Former CIA official: No politics in Benghazi memo by DONNA CASSATA, AP, posted 4/2/2014 on Yahoo! News).

The CIA’s former deputy director said Wednesday he deleted references to terrorism warnings from widely disputed talking points on the deadly 2012 Benghazi attack to avoid the spy agency’s gloating at the expense of the State Department…

Morell, a 33-year veteran of the agency who has served six Republican and Democratic presidents, insisted that politics had no bearing on the revisions to the talking points and said he was under no pressure to protect either President Barack Obama or then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton…

The White House, wrapped up in a fierce presidential campaign, made only minor editorial changes to the talking points, according to the onetime CIA official.

The intelligence community’s talking points, compiled for members of Congress, suggested the Sept. 11 attack stemmed from protests in Cairo and elsewhere over an anti-Islamic video rather than an assault by extremists.

Republicans have accused the Obama administration of trying to mislead the American people about an act of terrorism in the final weeks before the November election.

Morell deleted references to extremist threats linked to al-Qaida in versions of the talking points that were used by Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in a series of Sunday talk show appearances. Morell said his actions were driven by the information provided by intelligence community analysts and the Defense Department.

The deleted references to terrorism in the talking points were not political?  His revisions to the talking points were not to protect either President Barack Obama or then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton?  Funny.  As that’s exactly what they did.  They protected President Obama and helped him win reelection.  And they protected Hillary Clinton.  Who is now the Democrat frontrunner for 2016.  Well, so far, at least.

The left is still trying to blame 9/11 (the first one in 2001) on President Bush and Condoleezza Rice.  For missing the signs that al Qaeda was a threat.  And that something big was coming.  Can you imagine the fury over Benghazi had it happened under President Bush’s watch?  While they were in a campaign season?  There would be no talking point revisions.  They would have lambasted President Bush and Condoleezza Rice.  The press would have torn into this story like a pack of hyenas tearing into a gazelle.  The media would have crapped all over the Bush administration.  But the Obama administration?  When the president, Hilary Clinton and Susan Rice all lied about a YouTube video?  Over and over again?  When the CIA revised the talking points so it didn’t sound like there was a problem with terrorism anymore?  All lies.  And a huge cover-up.  But we hear nothing but the sound of crickets from the media.

Sure, they can say it wasn’t political.  But the result of those revisions was very political.  It helped President Obama win reelection.  Because he had al Qaeda on the run.  Which he didn’t.  In fact, his foreign policy has made the world a more dangerous place.  For al Qaeda is resurgent everywhere.  In Egypt.  Libya.  Syria.  Iraq.  Afghanistan.  Yemen.  And elsewhere.  Oh, and Iran is working on a nuclear bomb.  And Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea to Russia.  Because he could.  This stuff is happening in part because people voted for President Obama believing the lie that al Qaeda was on the run.  When it wasn’t.  And because we reelected President Obama his failed foreign policy continues.  As the bad people of the world stand up and take notice.

The United States of America under President Obama is weak.  It may talk the talk but it sure doesn’t walk the walk.  So the bad guys are getting bolder.  Knowing the time is right to push the United States around.  For we are a sleeping bear that just can’t be wakened.  Apparently.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It turns out that there are some Similarities between Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Putin

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

Hillary Clinton compared Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler over his excuse to enter Crimea.  To protect ethnic Russians.  Much like the excuse Hitler used to enter the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia.  To protect ethnic Germans.  Because the Czechoslovakians were oppressing them.  A trumped up charge.  Much like Vladimir Putin’s claims that the Ukrainians were oppressing the Russians in Crimea.  Clinton received some blowback for her comparison of Putin to Hitler so she walked it back a little.  But was she wrong in her comparison?

Actually, no.  For there are Crimea-Sudetenland similarities.  But it probably ends there.  For Hitler had much bigger goals.  He wanted to recover all of the Germanic lands lost in the wake of World War I.  For he felt the Germanic people were special.  Even thought of them as the master race.  And loved Germanic mythology.  Especially those featuring Germanic glory.  And the destiny of the Germanic master race.  Which is why he loved Richard Wagner.  And could listen to those 5-hour operas all day long.

He planned on taking Slavic lands (especially the breadbasket of Europe—Ukraine) for living space.  Lebensraum.  To take their food for the master race.  Leaving the Slavs to starve to death.  Expanding the borders of Greater Germany.  To fulfill the Germanic people’s destiny.  That’s what Hitler wanted.  But Putin surely doesn’t share any similar goals as these (see Vladimir Putin’s heroes: Russian president motivated by writers’ messianic view of country’s destiny by Joseph Brean posted 3/21/2014 on the National Post).

…a young mystic poet and philosopher named Vladimir Solovyov gave his first public lecture in Saint Petersburg. A “wild looking” intellectual gadfly with long hair and “fiery” eyes, he expressed a vision of Russian destiny that, a century later, has made him a philosophical hero of the man behind Russia’s latest Crimean adventure, the long-serving autocratic President Vladimir Putin.

“The lecture had a markedly conservative agenda, close to the Slavophile belief in Russia’s divinely inspired historical mission,” according to Solovyov’s biographer, Judith Deutsch Kornblatt. “In it, he criticizes the blind, monolithic power of the East as well as the fragmented power of the West; the former destroys the freedom of the individual, while the latter leads to unchecked egoism and anarchy.”

Solovyov’s argument — still so relevant that Mr. Putin reportedly assigns his political underlings to read him — was that “hope for the future resides only with a third people, the Slavs,” whose national character integrates the other two extremes…

Mr. Putin is a product of the Soviet Union and sees its collapse as the greatest disaster of the modern era, a view that is rooted in a deeper narrative about Moscow as the “Third Rome,” said Neil MacFarlane, Lester B. Pearson Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford, focused on the politics of the former Soviet Union.

The collapse of Russia under his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, further strengthened Mr. Putin’s resolve to restore its former glory, and writers like Solovyov — obscured during Soviet rule, he rose in prominence following the 1980s Glasnost policy of openness — had a “visceral appeal.”

Russia’s divinely inspired historical mission?  Moscow is the Third Rome?  The collapse of the Soviet Union is the greatest disaster of the modern era?  Return the former glory of Russia?  Perhaps Hillary Clinton didn’t need to walk anything back after all.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Russia’s Annexation of Crimea is similar to the Democrat’s annexation of the American Health Care System

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 9th, 2014

Week in Review

In the movie Yellowbeard there was a scene at the docks where a guy was asking who wanted to join them on a well-paid, well-fed, adventure holiday on a modern rat-free, leak-proof ship.  Any volunteers were to just lie down on the ground with their eyes shut.  Then a guy hit them over the head.  Knocking them unconscious.  At which point they volunteered for that adventure holiday.  That’s one type of ‘democracy’.  Here’s another (see Ukraine Secession Referendum Does Not Have a ‘No’ Option by Noah Rayman posted 3/7/2014 on Time).

Crimea, which voted to put the question of secession from Ukraine to a referendum, has released a ballot with severely limited choices, and all of the options come with strings attached

“No” is not an option in the upcoming referendum in Crimea on whether to split from Ukraine…

The two questions, written in Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean Tatar, ask:

•“Do you support joining Crimea with the Russian Federation as a citizen of the Russian Federation?”’

•“Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea’s status as a part of Ukraine?”

The current constitution states that the Crimean Constitution must be approved by the Ukrainian Parliament.  Meaning that any secession of the Crimean peninsula must be approved by the Ukrainian Parliament.  Which is why the second question, though it appears as a vote to stay a part of Ukraine, is basically the same as the first question.  For the 1992 Crimean Constitution removes the clause about any Crimean constitution having to be approved by the Ukrainian Parliament.

So what does this mean?  It basically means anyone who opposes the annexation of Crimea by Russia should just lie down on the ground with their eyes closed.  Forever.  Because however you vote (option 1, option 2 or no vote) Russia will annex the Crimea.  Even though current Ukrainian and Crimean law forbid this.  But that’s the advantage of being a former KGB dictator.  If you don’t like a law you just re-write it so you do.  Sort of like President Obama rewriting the Affordable Care Act some 29 times so it doesn’t harm the Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.  So they can complete their annexation of the American health care system before the people can do something about it in the next election.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Did a Racist America vote for a Black President and 12 Years a Slave?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 9th, 2014

Week in Review

On a recent Daily Show they did a skit about racism in America.  A lot of people say there is no more racism in this country.  So they showed how racist people were in their little sketch.  But with a black president one has to ask themselves is there structural racism in the United States?  Or were they finding racism where there really wasn’t any?  Perhaps we can ask a higher authority (see Oscars: ’12 Years a Slave’ puts spotlight on Hollywood’s approach to race by John Horn posted 3/4/2014 on the Los Angeles Times).

Was it ultimately a race about race?

The best picture Oscar is meant to honor the year’s greatest achievement in film, and “12 Years a Slave” had no shortage of supporters before winning the top honor Sunday. But for all the film’s artistry, the undercurrent of many “12 Years a Slave” conversations hinged on race and how Hollywood has for decades given short shrift to one of the most inglorious chapters in the nation’s history…

All the same, two Oscar voters privately admitted that they didn’t see “12 Years a Slave,” thinking it would be upsetting. But they said they voted for it anyway because, given the film’s social relevance, they felt obligated to do so…

Though most Oscar ceremonies carry a bit of suspense, the tension inside the Dolby Theatre on Sunday night was palpably different.

Would “Gravity,” an apolitical thriller about a space accident, return to earth with the best picture? Or would Oscar voters endorse “12 Years a Slave,” a film that many feared was so unsettling they put off viewing it until the last moment, if they watched it at all? Or as DeGeneres said in her opening monologue, “Possibility No. 1, ’12 Years a Slave’ wins best picture. Possibility No. 2, you’re all racists.”

Well, there you have it.  The movie 12 Years a Slave won.  Therefore, we are not racists.  It’s good to have settled that once and for all, isn’t it?

Imagine the poor filmmakers whose movies didn’t have to win the best picture Oscar to prove America wasn’t racist.  But I’m sure they’ll get over losing eventually.  I mean, what’s winning when there is the greater good to serve?  Besides, how important is winning an Oscar anyway?  It’s not like they have an annual ceremony where people are overwhelmed by emotion and have better career prospects after being honored by the Academy.  Well, come to think of it, there is.  So apparently winning an Oscar is a big deal.  Unless, that is, there is a social statement to make.  Then it means nothing to the people who lose even if they had a better picture.  While at the same time meaning everything to the winner.  Even if it’s only a social statement made with a potentially inferior film.

Of course we’ll never know what film was the best film.  Not when people vote for a film they’ve never watched because they felt it was the right thing to do.  Gee, do you think that’s how President Obama won both of his elections?  For it sure looked like people voted for him without ever looking at his record.  I mean, even the Nobel people awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama even though he didn’t do anything yet to earn it.  It was for the peace he was going to make.  A bit risky giving out awards for future achievement.  As we can see by the world becoming a less peaceful place during the Obama years.  Unrest in the Middle East.  Two uprisings in Egypt.  Civil War in Syria.  Al Qaeda in Iraq.  Air strikes in Libya.  Four dead Americans in Benghazi.  Drone strikes killing innocent civilians.  Iran working on a nuclear program.  North Korea testing rockets.  Russia invading Crimea.

Perhaps the Nobel people will ask for their Peace Prize back.  For unlike an Academy Award where the judging is subjective events on the ground are objective.  And real.  Whatever the Nobel people thought President Obama was going to do it is clear he didn’t do much to advance peace.  Making it look like the Nobel people voted for President Obama the same way some of the Academy members voted for 12 Years a Slave.  Because it seemed like it was the right thing to do.  Making a decision based solely on race.  Hmmm, making a decision based solely on race?  That reminds me of something.  I think there is a word for that.  What was that?  I can’t recall.  It just slipped my mind.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saudi Arabia labels Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 8th, 2014

Week in Review

During the Arab Spring President Obama told Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak that he had to go.  A man who was the anchor of peace in the Middle East.  Since then the Middle East has grown less safe.  And closer to Iran.  Which hates Israel, the United States and Western Civilization.

The most organized political opposition in Egypt at the time of the Arab Spring was the Muslim Brotherhood.  An organization that Mubarak had outlawed in Egypt.  As they tended to agree more with Iran than they did with the Mubarak regime.  When they stepped in to fill the political vacuum left by Mubarak President Obama and his fellow Democrats were quick to recognize the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  Even gave them military aid.  Despite their being a terrorist organization (see Saudi Arabia lists Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah as terror groups posted 3/7/2014 on UPI).

Saudi Arabia added the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and two Syrian-based groups to its list of terrorist organizations Friday, officials said…

Abdel Latif al-Sheikh, head of the Saudi religious police, described the Brotherhood, Hezbollah, ISIS and al-Nusra Front as groups “ruled from outside to serve political purposes.”

“They are groups that fight moderate Muslims and are causing troubles around the world. This is what we consider against Islamic principles and has given a negative impression about Muslims in the West,” Sheikh said.

Here’s something you don’t hear often.  Or ever.  A Muslim nation speaking out against Islamist extremism.  But Saudi Arabia prefers peace.  Which is why they liked Hosni Mubarak.  And were very unhappy seeing him go.  Especially with the Muslim Brotherhood replacing the Mubarak regime.  Mubarak kept the peace.  The Saudis liked that.  Even though they don’t much care for Israel.  But they would take a peaceful world with Israel in it any day over a world without Israel if it meant having no peace.

Israel is not the source of all the unrest in the Middle East.  There is a huge divide in Islam that has killed more than any war or occupation involving Israel has killed.  Sunni versus Shia.  Saudi Arabia is Sunni.  Egypt, too.  While Iran is Shia.  Saudi Arabia prefers peace.  Iran prefers revolution.  Which is why Hosni Mubarak was good for Egypt.  Saudi Arabia. Israel.  The Middle East.  And world peace.  The Saudis understood this.  Which is why they call the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.  While the Obama administration does not.  Which is why they gave military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Georgia Specialty Plate to Include Confederate Battle Flag

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

Between combat and disease the American Civil War claimed some 620,000 lives.  The bloodiest war in U.S. history.  Killing more than all the wars from the Revolutionary War through the Vietnam War.  The North lost about 360,000.  While the South lost about 260,000.  So the North suffered about 100,000 more dead than the South.  However, the population of the South at the end of the war was approximately 3,000,000.  While the north had about 29,000,000.  So as a percentage of their population the North lost about 1.3% of her population.  While the South lost about 8.6% of her population.  Which is why some in the South want to honor their war dead (see Group puts Confederate flag on Ga. specialty tag by AP posted 2/19/2014 on Yahoo! News).

Georgia officials have once again approved a specialty license plate featuring the Confederate battle flag, infuriating civil rights advocates and renewing a debate among those who believe the symbol honors Confederate heritage and those who see it as racially charged.

Southerners call the American Civil War the War of Northern Aggression.  In which they fought for states’ rights.  After their control of the federal government faded thanks to the population growth in the north.  They lost control of the House.  And the only way to keep control of the Senate was by admitting new states into the union as slave states.  Finally, the Fugitive Slave Law was the last straw for some in the north.  Requiring them to capture and return runaway slaves even though those slaves were legally free in those northern states.  So a large federal government was good when it helped southern slave owners.  And states’ rights were bad when it didn’t help southern slave owners.

The rich southern planters controlled the government in the South.  They had the wealth.  And the slaves.  Their lives were like the lives shown on the plantations in the movie Gone with the Wind.  A landed aristocracy.  Just like it was in feudal Europe.  Only with slaves instead of peasants.  Wealth and power were concentrated in few hands.  Creating great wealth inequality.  Most southerners were dirt poor and worked on family farms and were too poor to even own a slave.  But it was these people the rich planters used to fight a war for them to preserve their landed aristocracy.  Not the American dream the Founding Fathers envisioned.  Or the dream these dirt-poor southern farmers were trying to live.  The freedom to be left alone to work their own land.  Which is, of course, why they went to war.  Someone was invading their land.

No government is going to allow a Nazi swastika on a license plate to commemorate the SS.  Because the SS did some bad things.  Some would even say they were evil.  The Confederate soldiers, though, were not evil.  They were Americans.  Who were lied to by the planter elite.  So they could maintain their Old World aristocracy.  These men fought bravely in battle.  And suffered horrible casualties.  Even Abraham Lincoln held no ill will towards these men.  When a general asked Lincoln how the defeated Confederates should be treated he said, “Let ’em up easy.”  All they had to do was sign paroles saying they would no longer fight and they could go home and resume their lives.  There were to be no retributions.  For once the war was over they were fellow countrymen again.

So putting a Confederate battle flag on a license plate is less of a sign of racism and more of a remembrance for those who fought in the battlefields of the Civil War.  Especially for the 8.6% of the population who perished.  Leaving behind widows.  And orphans.  So many that it was hardly possible for someone in the South not to have lost someone in that war.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Americans love Winston Churchill because he stood up to the Nazis and Communists when others Wouldn’t

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

The Americans and the British have a special relationship.  We are BFFs.  And are each other’s most important ally.  For when there is a dictator to vanquish or a peace to maintain you can count on the Americans and the British.  Despite their complicated past.  And sometimes conflicting interests.  Why, the Americans have a special place in their hearts for two great British leaders of the 20th century.  Margaret Thatcher.  And Winston Churchill (see Winston Churchill, an all-American hero by Tim Stanley posted 10/31/2013 posted on The Telegraph).

This week, a bust of Britain’s greatest leader was installed at the heart of the Capitol building. So why does the cult of Winston still hold Washington in thrall..?

Americans heard Churchill’s war broadcasts – and it’s this image of resolution and pluck that stayed with them throughout the Second World War, and beyond. After Germany’s defeat, and thrown out of office by Labour’s surprise 1945 election victory, Churchill leant moral leadership to the fight with Soviet Communism. On March 5, 1946, he gave a speech before 40,000 at the small town of Fulton, Missouri, in which he declared: “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent.” This was the rhetorical starting gun for the Cold War. The simplest reason why Churchill is so popular in the US is that he was an ally in three global wars.

Why are Americans in love Winston Churchill?  Perhaps I can best answer that question in song.

In case you didn’t make out the lines in the last verse they are included here.

Others will respect you
Others will elect you
They’ll accept your calls
Others will desire you
They may not admire you
But they will admit
You do transmit
Balls.

When others wanted to appease the Nazis Churchill didn’t.  When others wanted to embrace the Soviet Union Churchill didn’t.  When others wanted to give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety he chose essential liberties.  This is why Americans love Winston Churchill.  We respect him.  And he transmited balls.  Unlike some of our world leaders today.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The Syrian Rebels tell us what they think about the Russians by firing a Mortar on their Embassy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama warned the Syrian regime that if they use chemical weapons that they will have crossed a red line.  And if they did the president warned the Assad government that he would be indecisive and dither.  Well, someone used chemical weapons.  And the president true to form was indecisive and dithered.  Until the Russians stepped in.  And told the world that they would take care of everything so the Syrian regime does not use chemical weapons against the rebel forces again.  Something that was guaranteed to please all parties concerned (see Mortar fired at Russian embassy in Damascus by Associated Press posted 9/22/213 on The Guardian).

A mortar round landed in the Russian embassy compound in Damascus on Sunday, Syria’s state news agency said. There was no immediate report of casualties.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based activist group, reported that the embassy had been the target of several previous failed rocket attacks by rebels. Russia is a leading backer of Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president.

Guess the rebels don’t like the Russians as much as President Obama.  And probably won’t be pressing a ‘reset button’ any time soon.

It is rather ironic.  The country responsible for the brutal attacks by the Assad regime on the rebel forces—Russia—is the country President Obama has entrusted the safety of the rebels to.  In fact, there is a good chance Assad got his chemical weapons from the Russians to begin with.  At least those not gifted to him by Saddam Hussein on the eve of the Iraq War.

Way to go, President Obama.  That’s showing Assad and his sponsor.  Russia.  Telling them that if they don’t stop their brutal attacks on the opposition then he’ll have no choice but to help Assad and Russia win the Syrian civil war.  Your pull numbers may be falling here.  But Vladimir Putin must love you.  He doesn’t respect you but a former KGB officer couldn’t think of a better president to be in office during Russia’s ascendancy to past Soviet domination.

Who would have ever imagined that when Hillary Clinton pressed that reset button with the Russians it would take things back to like they were during the Cold War?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

John Kerry insults Britain because the House of Commons said ‘No’ to Military Action in Syria

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 1st, 2013

Week in Review

There is a special relationship between Britain and the United States.  The first Americans were British.  As the American colonies were part of the British Empire.  The American colonists fought alongside British regulars against the French and Indians during the Seven Years’ War.  The cost of that war and the subsequent taxation to pay for it created a bit of a falling out between the British and the Americans.  In a little thing we call the American Revolution.  After that falling out, though, we resumed our special relationship with our former masters.  Who was our major trade partner.  Not France.  Who helped us in the American Revolution.  Why?  Because Britain’s Royal Navy ruled the seas.  And had a vast empire to trade with.

The French were inspired so much by our revolution that they had one of their own.  The French Revolution.  And unlike the American Revolution the French Revolution was rather vengeful.  With French citizens killing other French citizens.  Including their king and queen.  Which just appalled President Washington.  Then the French started waging war with her neighbors.  Including their eternal foe.  Britain.  The Americans remained neutral in the conflict.  But their neutrality favored the British.  As America’s economic future was tied more closely to the British than the French.  Something that irked the French in charge of France at the time.  The same people that killed King Louis XVI.  The head of France that helped the Americans in their revolution.

Then the Franco-American relations soured.  Citizen Genêt came to the U.S.  The new French ambassador.  To encourage the Americans to support France in their wars against Britain and Spain.  Recruiting American privateers to attack British shipping.  Even basing these operations out of American ports.  Bringing captured British vessels to American ports.  And he recruited a militia to march on the Spanish in Florida.  Infuriating President Washington.  It even got the ever-quarreling Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson to agree on something.  The danger Citizen Genêt was placing the Americans in.  Risking war with the British Empire.  So they asked for his recall.  Which the French did.  But because that probably meant the guillotine Genêt asked for asylum in America and got it.  Living out his days as an American.

Then there was the XYZ Affair.  The British and the French were interdicting trade of the other with neutral powers.   Including the Americans.  The Jay Treaty eased tensions between Britain and America.  But it angered the French.  Who stepped up their attacks on American shipping.  Hoping to avoid war with France President Adams sent a diplomatic mission to France.  But the French said before the Americans could enter any negotiations they first had to pay a bribe.  And agree to a loan.  The Americans refused and left.  When word reached America there was outrage.  Congress even annulled the 1778 Treaty of Alliance.  The treaty that brought the French into the American Revolution.  And promised America military support if the British ever attacked the French.  People wanted to go to war with France.  But eventually they reached an agreement and avoided said war.

So the Franco-American alliance was tenuous at best.  And short-lived.  The French entered into it not to help the Americans succeed in their lofty idealism.  Of life without a king.  For France was an absolute monarchy.  And the last thing an absolute monarchy wants is to fill their people’s heads with silly notions of liberty.  Because that could lead to things like the French Revolution.  No.  The French allied with the Americans to regain territory they lost to the British.  Which they lost a lot of at the conclusion of the Seven Years’ War.  Which the Americans helped them lose.  No doubt weighing heavily on their minds.  As during the peace negotiations they tried to strike a deal with the British to keep the Americans east of the Appalachians.  Thankfully, for the Americans, Benjamin Franklin was in Paris during the peace negotiations.  And made a more favorable peace for the Americans.  To France’s dismay.  Which no doubt led to the tenuous Franco-American relations following the French Revolution.

So this is America’s history.  A history that is based in friendship and amity between the British and the Americans.  Apart from that small episode called the American Revolution.  While King Louis XVI did help America win her independence from Britain France’s motive for their support was to take large chunks of North America back.  Even at the expense of the Americans.  We had a brief alliance during the Revolutionary War with France.  But the Americans have prospered because of the special relationship with Britain.  Two people that share a language, a history, a culture, a legal system and a form of government (representative government).  So what does the current American administration do to our BFF?  This (see Syria: John Kerry slaps Britain in face as he calls France ‘oldest allies’ by Peter Foster posted 8/30/2013 on The Telegraph).

John Kerry administered a diplomatic slap in the face to Britain following David Cameron’s withdrawal of military support for intervention in Syria, omitting the UK from a long list of ‘friends’ prepared to support US actions against the Assad regime.

The diplomatic smart was made worse by Mr Kerry’s pointed reference to the French as “our oldest ally” – a reference that dates back to France’s role supporting America against Britain in the American Revolutionary War that began in 1776…

He then listed the Obama administration’s supporters, including the Arab League, the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation, the Turks, Australians and the French. Britain, however, was conspicuous by its absence from that list…

“Turkey said there is no doubt that the regime is responsible. Our oldest ally, the French, said the regime, quote, “committed this vile action, and it is an outrage to use weapons that the community has banned for the last 90 years in all international conventions.”

What is it with this administration and the British?  First President Obama returns a bust of Winston Churchill to the British embassy.  And now this slap in the face.  One would get the impression that they don’t like the British.  Perhaps it’s because of Britain’s support in the Iraq War.  Or that John Kerry can speak French.  And is a Francophile at heart.  But as the U.S. Secretary of State he should not spurn our BFF.

America and France are great friends.  But Britain and America are greater friends.  Because of the special relationship.  Insulting them is not stately.  It’s just impudent and impertinent.  Things a secretary of state should just not be.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Things go from Bad to Worse in the Middle East as American Allies fall on Opposite Sides of the Egyptian Power Struggle

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 24th, 2013

Week in Review

Some may think the Middle East is a homogenous region.  Where all Muslim people are the same and think alike.  But it’s not.  And they’re not.  There are huge divides between people in the Middle East.  There isn’t just tension between the United States and this region.  There’s tension between the different Muslim people.  Something President Obama apparently didn’t know with his ‘let’s make nice to Muslims so our former enemies don’t hate us’ foreign policy.  The geopolitical power struggles that exist everywhere else in the world exist, too, in the Middle East.  And you just can’t treat everyone the same (see Obama Caught Between Polarized Allies in Egypt Crisis by Terry Atlas posted 4-19-2013 on Bloomberg).

U.S. regional allies such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey are backing opposite sides in the violent power struggle in Egypt, complicating U.S. diplomacy as the most populous Arab nation is torn by conflict.

In pressing Egypt’s interim government — and the military leaders who hold the real power — for political reconciliation with Islamist protesters, President Barack Obama is finding that U.S. influence is being challenged by financial and political support from Middle East countries pursuing their own stakes in Egypt’s future…

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait have pledged billions of dollars in aid to the new Egyptian government. Qatar was a financial backer of ousted Islamist President Mohamed Mursi’s administration, and Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced last week’s government crackdown on pro-Mursi protesters as a “massacre.”

“What Qatar and Turkey say is almost a 180-degree opposite of what the Emirates and the Saudis are saying publicly,” Katulis said.

There was a balance of power in the Middle East.  And because there was a balance of power there was peace in the Middle East.  And there was one man instrumental in keeping that peace.  Hosni Mubarak.  American friend and ally.  And friend of our other friends and allies in the region.  Those who want to maintain the balance of power.  And the peace.  And our friends were not happy when President Obama told Hosni Mubarak he had to go.  Especially Saudi Arabia.  Who is trying to check the spread of radical Islamism spreading in the region.  Something Mubarak did.  Because he and his allies and friends didn’t want radical Islamism spreading through the region.  And neither does the United States.

Yet President Obama threw the one man that was instrumental in suppressing Islamist revolution in the region, by suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, under the bus.  And did nothing as the Muslim Brotherhood rose to power.  Even recognizing the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood as the legitimate ruler of Egypt.  Despite warnings from every quarter.  As the Muslim Brotherhood inspired/spawned Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda.  All anti-Western terrorist organizations.  All anti-Israeli terrorist organizations.  And all anti-American terrorist organizations.  These are the people that President Obama said the U.S. can work with.  Despite their credo being: “God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.”  These are the people that President Obama wanted to make nice to so they would stop hating us.  Because he was naive and inexperienced.  And tended to believe a little too much of the myth-making the American media was spreading about him.

The balance of power and the peace it brought is now gone.  And the U.S. has allies falling on both sides of the Egyptian power struggle.  What a mess.  And it’s not isolated to Egypt.  The Muslim Brotherhood is spreading its tentacles throughout the region.  Making the Middle East a tinderbox.  Where it’s probably going to get worse before it gets better.  Sadly.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries