Liedership by the Panderer in Chief

[ValueSleuth]

Palm,

I agree with your assessment, especially the last paragraph, which I quote below.

VS

"Wonder what he would think of the EU situation today? In the end there are too many desires for dominance by the world powers and there will never be total peace (and nothing very close to it) and fair trade. Too many dogmatic views/desires, too much greed, too much hatred; and it's on the rise, not decline. Wish we could just look at the trade/business issues, but that's not possible IMHO. Would love for it to happen, but it's not in the cards; especially with China/Russia on the rise and the situation in the ME. I cannot/will not see Russia as a nuisance only. I daresay the US and the EU really don't see them that way, and I don't think Israel sees them that way. Economics/trade is just a piece of the the puzzle when considering world powers and what they are up to."

[admin]

Well, the jury will be out on this. I think on balance, spreading capitalism, trade, and economic interdependence is usually conducive to reducing tensions and increasing prosperity and peace.

Mind you, US neo-cons basically agree with that and I was agreeing with them, although I have to say that I thought their method of implementation (the barrel of a gun) was (and is) a distinctly high risk strategy and was dependent on a considerable degree of optimism.

But in essence, they are right. A more capitalist, integrated Middle-East is likely to be a lot less dangerous place.

As nasty as the Putin regime is, my gut feeling would be it's better to engage with them in this way (creating economic interdependence) than isolation and confrontation, but the pay-off of that strategy are likely to be long-term (if at all), while some of the cost might be all to visible rather immediately.

[ArtM72]

Tree-

The State Department is part of the Administration. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/99494.htm. My comment stands, although I’ll accept you didn’t mean your indictment of everyone lying to include State.

The Vice President didn’t throw anyone “under the bus” last night. The intelligence business is hard. They don’t always get everything right, certainly not everything right immediately. Getting things right most often is not achieved with snap judgements, even while those are sometimes necessary. Finding and punishing the perps will take time.  That is the position of Biden and Obama and I believe the correct one.

The Libyan consulate is not American soil. 'Laws and Rules Regarding Extraterritoriality' on integrity-legal.com: 'There is a common misconception that Embassies and Consulates have extraterritoriality. As anecdotal evidence of this misconception, people will often say things like, “the US Embassy sits upon United States soil.” For the most part, this is not the case as extraterritoriality is not conferred upon an Embassy or Consulate, but in some situations extraterritoriality may be created by Treaty'. Since the Libyan government is still forming I doubt such a treaty is in place.

There is no evidence I’ve seen that the consulate’s security was denied ammunition.

I would suggest most if not all of your concerns, and their soundness, might be answered at this site: http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/26/myths-and-facts-about-the-benghazi-attack-and-p/190150. I won't bother to go through it all, but there were some truly outrageous things said since the attack by people with direct access to major media markets.

Be careful who criticize for failing to do diligence.

[Petrovale]

Palm makes a very important point, which I interpret as follows: If you are a hegemonic power, being on top of the world, it's very easy to preach "Free Trade". Your currency, no longer linked to gold, is accepted as a means of payment worldwide. It's depreciation or appreciation explains many trade- and balance of payments benefits. The country in question can run a huge military industrial complex, and a large part of its budget deficits is financed by countries within its sphere of influence.

Of course, this is part of the vicious circle of the Euro disaster, which is interrelated with the fate of the US Dollar. Every 50-60 years, a hegemonic crisis ensues, and the hegemon has to devolve power to other state(s) to help create a new political consensus and a material basis for growth. The decompression phase can be painful as the new missionaries, this time, do not come from America or Europe, but from Brazil, Russia, India or China. Sorry, I'm just repeating Schumpeter's ideas from school, couldn't resist.

The bad part, in my opinion, is that our historical conscience doesn't extend beyond these temporal cycles, and we can no longer think out of the box. During the interbellum, my grand dad used to run a simple smuggling business between Holland, Belgium and Germany. In relative terms, his cross border contacts, traffic and revenues still exceed mine, seated behind this dumb computer... So, you can imagine that the competition is as intense as it used to be in the 1920s and 1930s... Not much changed.

[Palm]

Great points/comments. And with this I slide.............off...............to....................... THE WEEKEND!!! Have a good one all. Russia takes over the world next week! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!

[Palm]

Petro, interesting comments, and I like the hegemonic term. Coincidently so does the CSIS; a think tank which in August recommended certain measures to counter the rise of China in the Asia/Pacific region.  Doesn't sound like they expect open trade to bring people together:

"US think tank plans military build-up against China

By Peter Symonds
13 August 2012

A paper by the Washington think tank, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), entitled “US Force Posture Strategy in the Asia Pacific Region: An Independent Assessment,” provides what amounts to a blueprint for the Obama administration’s military preparations for conflict with China.

While the CSIS is a non-government body, its assessment was commissioned by the US Defense Department, as required by the 2012 National Defense Authorisation Act, giving semi-official status to its findings and proposals. The paper involved extensive discussions with top US military personnel throughout the Pentagon’s Pacific Command. The CSIS report was delivered to the Pentagon on June 27, but gained media coverage only after its principal authors—David Berteau and Michael Green—testified before the US House Armed Services Committee on August 1.

The report featured prominently in the Australian media, which headlined one of its proposals: to forward base an entire US aircraft carrier battle group at HMAS Stirling, a naval base in Western Australia. If implemented, the recommendation would transform the base, and the nearby city of Perth, into a potential target for Chinese and Russian nuclear missiles. The proposal serves to underscore the far-reaching implications of the CSIS assessment, which is in line with Obama administration’s confrontational “pivot” to Asia, aimed against China.

The CSIS assessment declares that the underlying US geostrategic objective in the Asia-Pacific region has been to prevent “the rise of any hegemonic state from within the region that could threaten US interests by seeking to obstruct American access or dominate the maritime domain. From that perspective, the most significant problem for the United States in Asia today is China’s rising power, influence, and expectations of regional pre-eminence.” In other words, the prevailing American hegemony in the region must continue.

The document recognises that military strategy is bound up with economic imperatives. It identifies “trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement” as crucial to “a sustainable trans-Pacific trade architecture that sustains U.S. access and influence in the region.” While declaring that the US “must integrate all of these instruments of national power and not rely excessively on US military capabilities,” it is precisely America’s relative economic decline that is driving the use of military power to maintain its dominance in Asia, as in the Middle East.

Having identified China as the chief potential rival, the report rules out any repeat of the US containment strategy employed to isolate the Soviet Union during the Cold War—thus pointing to the United States’ economic dependence on China. Significantly, the authors reject a power-sharing arrangement with China, or, as described to the armed services committee, “a bipolar condominium that acknowledges Beijing’s core interests and implicitly divides the region.” This latter conception, in one form or another, is being promoted by some strategic analysts in the US and Australia as the only means of preventing war. The CSIS report rejects any pull back by the US from Asia, which would effectively cede the region to China.

Having ruled out peaceful alternatives, the CSIS paper sets out a military strategy. The authors do not openly advocate war with China, declaring that “the consequences of conflict with that nation are almost unthinkable and should be avoided to the greatest extent possible, consistent with U.S. interests.” They do not exclude the possibility of conflict in the event that US interests are at stake, however, adding that the ability to “maintain a favourable peace” depends on the perception that the US can prevail in the event of conflict. “U.S. force posture must demonstrate a readiness and capacity to fight and win, even under more challenging circumstances associated with A2AD [anti-access/area denial] and other threats to U.S. military operations in the Western Pacific,” the report states.

Thus, in the name of peace, the US is preparing for a catastrophic war with China. US strategic planners are especially concerned with China’s so-called A2AD military capacities—the development of sophisticated submarines, missiles and war planes capable of posing a danger to the US navy in the Western Pacific. While the US habitually presents such weaponry as a “threat” to its military, in reality China is defensively responding to the presence of overwhelming American naval power in waters close to the mainland. US naval preponderance in the East China Sea, the South China Sea and key “choke” points such as the Malacca Strait, menaces the shipping lanes from the Middle East and Africa on which China relies for energy and raw materials.

The CSIS report approves of the repositioning and strengthening of US military forces in the Western Pacific that has accelerated under the Obama administration’s “rebalance” to Asia. This includes: consolidating US bases, troops and military assets in Japan and South Korea; building up US forces on Guam and Northern Mariana Islands, strategically located in the Western Pacific; stationing in Singapore littoral combat ships—relatively small, fast, flexible warships capable of intelligence gathering, special operations and landing troops with armoured vehicles; and making greater use of Australian naval and air bases and positioning 2,500 Marines in the northern city of Darwin. In addition, the paper confirms that the US has held discussions with Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam over possible access to bases and joint training.

The document also reviews US efforts to strengthen military ties throughout Asia—from India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to Burma, Indonesia and New Zealand—as well as with its formal allies. Significantly, in ranking military contingencies from low to high intensity, it identifies Australia, Japan and South Korea as critical allies “at the higher spectrum of intensity”—in other words, military conflict with China—“with other allies and partners at the lower spectrum of intensity.”

While broadly dealing with all contingencies, the CSIS assessment is primarily focussed on “high intensity.” Its recommendations involve the further development of military arrangements with South Korea, Japan and Australia, and also between these allies. It recommends the implementation of the latest military agreements with Japan and South Korea. In relation to Japan, the document makes the strategic significance of Okinawa clear. It is “centrally located” between Northeast Asia and maritime Southeast Asia, and “positioned to fight tactically within the A2AD envelope in higher intensity scenarios”—that is, it is crucial in any war with China. The Obama administration has intransigently opposed Japanese government calls to relocate the large US Marine base at Futenma off Okinawa.

The CSIS document is not the official policy of the Obama administration: its findings are couched as recommendations. It considers all scenarios, including maintaining the status quo and winding back US forces from the Asia Pacific region, neither of which it favours. However, the most ominous aspect of the report deals with a substantial list of steps that could be taken to markedly strengthen the US military throughout the region.

As well as basing a US nuclear aircraft carrier in Western Australia, these include: doubling the number of nuclear attack submarines based at Guam; deploying littoral combat ships to South Korea; doubling the size of amphibious forces in Hawaii; permanently basing a bomber squadron on Guam; boosting manned and unmanned surveillance assets in Australia or Guam; upgrading anti-missile defences in Japan, South Korea and Guam; and strengthening US ground forces. While recommending consideration of all these options, the CSIS specifically calls for more attack submarines to be placed at Guam—that is, within easy striking distance of Chinese shipping routes and naval bases.

Any of these moves will only heighten tensions with China and the danger of an arms race and conflict in the Asia Pacific region. The CSIS assessment points to potential flashpoints, from the Korean peninsula and the Taiwan Strait to the South China Sea and the disputed borders between India and China. The report clearly represents the thinking more broadly within the Obama administration, and top US military and intelligence circles that are recklessly preparing and planning for war with China."

[admin]

Just stumbled upon the following:

Opinion: Debunking the GOP’s false narratives about the Benghazi attack

By Juan Williams - 10/22/12 05:00 AM ET

Tweet

With the presidential candidates preparing for Monday’s final debate on foreign policy, it is time for American journalism to hit pause on the political spin cycle and — without taking sides — make three corrections to the record about the campaign’s most controversial foreign policy topic: the murder of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.

The first correction is to the charge that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice lied to the American people in the days after the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

Rice told television interviewers the violence grew out of a spontaneous demonstration, prompted by an American anti-Muslim video.

Here is the simple fact: The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper has confirmed that Rice told the truth in describing the assessment of the intelligence community at the time of her remarks.

She was not the only one relying on those initial intelligence reports.

Two days after the attack, CIA Director David Petraeus briefed the House Intelligence Committee. Petraeus told lawmakers the best intelligence showed it was a demonstration sparked by the video that got out of hand, according to Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), the panel’s ranking Democrat.

Patrick Kennedy, the Undersecretary of State for Management, also said — in testimony before Congress earlier this month — that anyone would have said exactly what Rice said based on the intelligence available at the time.

Some U.S. officials have said they never believed the attack was mounted by a disorganized mob, but that was not the official assessment.

The spin-free truth is that Rice accurately stated what U.S. intelligence showed at the time, and stressed that there was an ongoing investigation where conclusions were subject to change.

Now for the second correction.

It is being charged that requests for extra security in Benghazi were denied by the administration.

The suggestion is that the attack would have been stopped, and the ambassador still alive, if the requests had been granted.

But at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this month, Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and head of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, testified that the request was for added security in Tripoli, the capital of Libya, and not Benghazi.

The added manpower would have been based 400 miles away from the violence.

In addition, U.S. security officials report more guards could not have repelled heavy weapons used by the attackers.

The Wall Street Journal has reported “a four-man team of armed guards protecting the perimeter and four unarmed Libyan guards inside to screen visitors.”

In addition, "Besides the four armed Libyans outside, five armed State Department diplomatic security officers were at the consulate.”

There is an air of hypocrisy about this second charge from Republican critics.

House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million in funding from Embassy Security as part of their most recent budget.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) conceded this in a CNN interview.

“Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country… When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this.”

The third and final correction comes in response to the charge that the attack on Benghazi is evidence that al Qaeda is resurgent.

The Romney campaign argues that, notwithstanding the Obama administration’s claims, the threat from al Qaeda has not significantly diminished despite the death of Osama bin Laden.

The reality is that missions authorized by the Obama administration have killed the top commanders of the terrorist group, including bin Laden.

In addition, President Obama’s drone strikes targeting al Qaeda members have decimated the remaining members of the group.

Tommy Vietor, a National Secretary Council spokesman, explains the impact.

“Our assessment that we have decimated al Qaeda leadership is unchanged. Dozens of their senior leadership have been taken off the battlefield as a result of the president's anti-terror policies,” Vietor said.

“We know affiliates like al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula will seek to target us and that's why we go after them relentlessly."

This is a key point.

No one is arguing that all Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is gone.

There are still radical groups intent on killing Americans. As one incarnation of al Qaeda is smashed, another one may emerge.

Young Islamic radicals are currently a threat in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, but they are not the same terrorists that attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.

Once the political spin stops, the bottom line is there is no evidence so far to support the Romney camp’s claim of incompetence or a cover-up by the administration. There is only a tragic attack on the United States, our understanding of which is becoming clearer as new intelligence comes to light.

Win at all costs and apologize later is the rule in political campaigns, and the GOP has seen Obama’s approval rating on foreign policy fall in the aftermath of the Libya attack.

But this is one political strategy that is based on deliberate misinformation about the Benghazi assault.

Juan Williams is an author and political analyst for Fox News Channel.

[ArtM72]

Anyone questioning whether they should be voting for Obama or Romney in the next week must ask themselves if we would be better off if other nations can trust what we say or not.

[admin]

Well, to his credit, Romney didn't raise the issue in the last debate, I was a little surprised at that at first, but this could explain why.

It's going to be a pretty tight election, didn't look that way a couple of weeks ago but that first debate changed quite a bit.

[Tree]

Just stumbled upon the following:

Opinion: Debunking the GOP’s false narratives about the Benghazi attack

By Juan Williams - 10/22/12 05:00 AM ET

Tweet

With the presidential candidates preparing for Monday’s final debate on foreign policy, it is time for American journalism to hit pause on the political spin cycle and — without taking sides — make three corrections to the record about the campaign’s most controversial foreign policy topic: the murder of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.

The first correction is to the charge that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice lied to the American people in the days after the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

Rice told television interviewers the violence grew out of a spontaneous demonstration, prompted by an American anti-Muslim video.

Here is the simple fact: The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper has confirmed that Rice told the truth in describing the assessment of the intelligence community at the time of her remarks.

She was not the only one relying on those initial intelligence reports.

Two days after the attack, CIA Director David Petraeus briefed the House Intelligence Committee. Petraeus told lawmakers the best intelligence showed it was a demonstration sparked by the video that got out of hand, according to Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), the panel’s ranking Democrat.

Patrick Kennedy, the Undersecretary of State for Management, also said — in testimony before Congress earlier this month — that anyone would have said exactly what Rice said based on the intelligence available at the time.

Some U.S. officials have said they never believed the attack was mounted by a disorganized mob, but that was not the official assessment.

The spin-free truth is that Rice accurately stated what U.S. intelligence showed at the time, and stressed that there was an ongoing investigation where conclusions were subject to change.

Now for the second correction.

It is being charged that requests for extra security in Benghazi were denied by the administration.

The suggestion is that the attack would have been stopped, and the ambassador still alive, if the requests had been granted.

But at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this month, Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and head of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, testified that the request was for added security in Tripoli, the capital of Libya, and not Benghazi.

The added manpower would have been based 400 miles away from the violence.

In addition, U.S. security officials report more guards could not have repelled heavy weapons used by the attackers.

The Wall Street Journal has reported “a four-man team of armed guards protecting the perimeter and four unarmed Libyan guards inside to screen visitors.”

In addition, "Besides the four armed Libyans outside, five armed State Department diplomatic security officers were at the consulate.”

There is an air of hypocrisy about this second charge from Republican critics.

House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million in funding from Embassy Security as part of their most recent budget.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) conceded this in a CNN interview.

“Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country… When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this.”

The third and final correction comes in response to the charge that the attack on Benghazi is evidence that al Qaeda is resurgent.

The Romney campaign argues that, notwithstanding the Obama administration’s claims, the threat from al Qaeda has not significantly diminished despite the death of Osama bin Laden.

The reality is that missions authorized by the Obama administration have killed the top commanders of the terrorist group, including bin Laden.

In addition, President Obama’s drone strikes targeting al Qaeda members have decimated the remaining members of the group.

Tommy Vietor, a National Secretary Council spokesman, explains the impact.

“Our assessment that we have decimated al Qaeda leadership is unchanged. Dozens of their senior leadership have been taken off the battlefield as a result of the president's anti-terror policies,” Vietor said.

“We know affiliates like al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula will seek to target us and that's why we go after them relentlessly."

This is a key point.

No one is arguing that all Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is gone.

There are still radical groups intent on killing Americans. As one incarnation of al Qaeda is smashed, another one may emerge.

Young Islamic radicals are currently a threat in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, but they are not the same terrorists that attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.

Once the political spin stops, the bottom line is there is no evidence so far to support the Romney camp’s claim of incompetence or a cover-up by the administration. There is only a tragic attack on the United States, our understanding of which is becoming clearer as new intelligence comes to light.

Win at all costs and apologize later is the rule in political campaigns, and the GOP has seen Obama’s approval rating on foreign policy fall in the aftermath of the Libya attack.

But this is one political strategy that is based on deliberate misinformation about the Benghazi assault.

Juan Williams is an author and political analyst for Fox News Channel.

Since when JUAN WILLIAMS credible?? Ever the impassioned objective analyst.....not!

Too funny, he almost saw the light when PBS boted him for telling the truth, almost.

Let me see.......State Dept. officials watched the attack in real time and it took 2 weeks to determine it was a terrorist attack??  Obama lied in the 2nd debate and Candy saved his butt only to say later that night that Romney was 'right but chose the wrong words' .  Maybe one of these days Obama will call all terrorist attacks what they are....terrorist attacks.  Obama still can't call the Fort Hood killings by a soldier yelling 'allah akbar' (forgive the spelling) a terrorist attack and calls it 'workplace violence'.  Good thing American's see through the smoke to the point where ROmney didn't have to beat him up on Lybia again last night.  That has already been scored as an Obama failure and now cover-up.