I recently lost my job.
So now I am applying for Unemployment Insurance, and have been thinking, as I always am, about politics.
A million questions to verify who you are, what your current job situation is, make sure you are looking for new work, how and if you qualify and the terms in which you can lose your benefits. First call this number, then that number, lots of steps for verification and compliance. And you have to call every week to ask for the past week's benefits, and keep documents showing that you have been looking for work.
Unemployment insurance is something everyone who works pays into, and it is for those who have lost their jobs, not for those who quit or don't look actively for work. Steps are taken to prevent waste fraud and abuse, and the maximum benefit you are allowed isnt even that much to live on. But yes it's always better than nothing.
The GOP always complains that government bureaucracy is too burdensome and that any cure for any ailment whether its the economy or any other aspect of society is always to deregulate and cut taxes. But in always attacking the long procedures of navigating through government processes, they of course fail to mention that the private sector has the same procedures, plus a profit motive as the bottom line, which does nothing to make the experience of dealing with it any easier, and it costs more and is as equal or more prone to corruption, waste, fraud, abuse etc.
Think of the Obamacare website, which is a marketplace for private insurance companies. The website itself has problems because of government procurement procedures, technical glitches and policy changes right before the launch---initially the website would let you browse plans and then register later, but then the Administration said that people must sign up first, and then look around.
The change in policy caused glitches that lasted 2 months.
Now think of airline travel, hotels, credit cards, store return policies, insurance companies, etc etc.
Does anyone have pleasant experiences dealing with these private companies when something goes wrong?? Lost bags, canceled services, wrong transactions show up and you have to clear them, long lists of procedures to go through before a transaction can be done, and lists of reasons why they can't help you. And of course refunds always take several weeks, but new charges show up immediately.
Private sector companies are no better than the Government when it comes to laws that don't make sense, long lists of bureaucratic red tape to cut and steps to take before you get anything done. GOP just likes corporate America.
LIBDEM TWEETS---tweets from @libdem2 and @libdemwasjailed
Showing posts with label Govt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Govt. Show all posts
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Thursday, October 10, 2013
GOP versus the Government
Government IS NOT THE PROBLEM-----EVERYTHING is Government!!!
The GOP Shutdown, “”Govt is the problem”” and the Declaration of Independence and Constitution
We in America have a government OF BY AND FOR the people to protect our rights and protect our liberty---
That is what the Declaration of Independence and Constitution set up---an accountable government that follows the will of the people (majority rules), a Congress of Representatives and Senators by state to ensure equal representation in Congress, with a Bill of Rights of individual liberty that Government ENFORCES and lives by---
We have the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition the government in order to make sure Congress listens to the people they represent
Why we have government
The Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Constitution sets up a Congress of a House and Senate, Role of President and the Courts, sets guidelines for laws and prohibitions----there aren’t many actual laws in the Constitution, but mostly a guideline for Congress who is the Legislative branch that will be writing laws (you can do this but not this when writing laws, etc)
GOP on Govt “”being the problem, hindering the economy,”” BLAH BLAH BLAH
Our Government as set up by the Constitution
PRINTS MONEY and loans it out to banks
establishes Patents to protect inventions and protect the profits of inventors
created roads and post offices for trade and mail, regulate banks
gives licenses to businesses, entrepreneurs, inventors and workers,
regulates labor and safety laws.
THE PRIVATE SECTOR GOES THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT!!!
Without Government services THERE IS NO PRIVATE SECTOR!!!!
Friday, September 13, 2013
The ""State Secrets"" Secret
From This American Life http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/383/Origin-Story
OVERVIEW by me from the full transcript
A plane crash, a supposed secret mission, a claim of negligence, a refusal to turn over accident report, and declassification 40 years later
This week (June 2009), when the Attorney General [Alberto Gonzalex] appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he told them that any day now, he'll be delivering the Administration take on how to change the state secrets privilege.
The State Secrets Privilege is--- If you are suing the US Government, the Government can claim that taking your case to court would reveal sensitive national security information. If they do that, simply by making that claim, they can get your case thrown out of court. The judge won't even usually look at the evidence to see if the Government is fibbing.
A US Air Force B-29 in October 1948 took off in Georgia to test an experimental navigation system, radar system. Three civilian engineers from RCA were onboard as part of the test team. The plane engines caught fire. The plane crashed over Waycross, Georgia, October 6, 1948.
FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW
OVERVIEW by me from the full transcript
A plane crash, a supposed secret mission, a claim of negligence, a refusal to turn over accident report, and declassification 40 years later
This week (June 2009), when the Attorney General [Alberto Gonzalex] appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he told them that any day now, he'll be delivering the Administration take on how to change the state secrets privilege.
The State Secrets Privilege is--- If you are suing the US Government, the Government can claim that taking your case to court would reveal sensitive national security information. If they do that, simply by making that claim, they can get your case thrown out of court. The judge won't even usually look at the evidence to see if the Government is fibbing.
Under the Bush administration, this increased dramatically. They got judges to throw out lawsuits regarding the torture and rendition of detainees in the War on Terror, over Guantanamo, over the wiretapping of American citizens.
Barry Siegel
Yeah, well, the state secrets privilege came about as a result of a 1953 Supreme Court decision, US v. Reynolds.
A US Air Force B-29 in October 1948 took off in Georgia to test an experimental navigation system, radar system. Three civilian engineers from RCA were onboard as part of the test team. The plane engines caught fire. The plane crashed over Waycross, Georgia, October 6, 1948.
The widows of the three civilian engineers onboard sued the Government: negligence. During discovery process, the widows asked for the Air Force accident report. The Government wouldn't turn it over, wouldn't turn over the accident report. A Federal District judge, a very brave one, William Kirkpatrick, who was hearing the case, ordered the Government to produce the document. He said you can just turn it over to me in private. I'll look at it in chambers. The Government wouldn't hand it over even to the judge to look at in private in chambers.
Judy Loether, daughter of Al Payla started researching the case online. And I said, well, what do I want to look up tonight? And for the first time, I typed in the combination of B-29 plus accident, and I had never done that before. And the first hit was accidentreport.com. And this page comes up. Accident reports from military crashes from 1918 through 1955.
There was nothing in there about the secret equipment or the secret mission of the plane other than the mention that there was secret equipment on the plane. And that, of course, was in the newspapers.
Ira Glass Instead of that stuff, what was in the accident report was a stark, very detailed account of Air Force negligence. There was a lot of negligence. This particular B-29 had a history of trouble: fuel leaks, faulty engines. It had been repeatedly grounded. The engines on all B-29s had a tendency to overheat and were supposed to get special heat shields installed to fix that, but this plane never got them. On this flight, the engines caught fire, and the pilot made some errors that compounded that problem and sent the plane into a spin.
Ira Glass
All of these reports had been declassified in the 1990s.
Ira Glass Instead of that stuff, what was in the accident report was a stark, very detailed account of Air Force negligence. There was a lot of negligence. This particular B-29 had a history of trouble: fuel leaks, faulty engines. It had been repeatedly grounded. The engines on all B-29s had a tendency to overheat and were supposed to get special heat shields installed to fix that, but this plane never got them. On this flight, the engines caught fire, and the pilot made some errors that compounded that problem and sent the plane into a spin.
Ira Glass In his reporting, Barry Siegel lists some of the other kinds of cases that have fallen under the state secrets privilege since this precedent was set. "In 1990," he writes, "families of 37 crew members who were killed by Iraqi missiles hitting the USS Stark sued the contractors responsible for the ship's antimissile system. The Government said trying the case would reveal state secrets, and this got it thrown out of court.
**In 2000, a CIA employee sued the agency for gender discrimination. The Government said trying the case would reveal state secrets, and this got it thrown out of court.
**In 2003, a senior engineer said a Defense contractor had submitted false test results on an antimissile vehicle. The Government said trying this case would reveal state secrets and got that thrown out of court."
And so, Siegel says, "Its disturbing that in the case that made all this possible--US v. Reynolds-- the Government said that it couldn't turn over an accident report because this would reveal state secrets. But there seemed to be no state secrets at all in the accident report. At that point, it wasn't even a secret that B-29s were having these terrible mechanical problems.
In 2008, Judy Loether testified before Congress. And when Senators Edward Kennedy and then Republican Arlen Specter introduced a bill to regulate the state secrets privilege once and for all, a bill that would tell judges not just to take the Government's word when it claims that a state secret is involved in the case, but actually look at the evidence to be sure that it's true, they cited what happened in Reynolds.
This is from the press release, quote: "Recently declassified information about the Supreme Court's leading decision on the state secrets privilege-- US v.Reynolds-- provides an early example of executive abuse of the privilege. That kind of abuse will no longer be possible under the State Secrets Protection Act."
A version of the bill came out of a House subcommittee this week. The bill's on the schedule to be marked up next week by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW
We've arrived at Act Two of our show. Act Two, The Secret Life of Secrets.
This week, when the Attorney General appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he told them that any day now, he'll be delivering the Administration take on how to change the state secrets privilege. And I don't know about you, but for me, every time this comes up in the news, I have to be reminded what the hell the state secrets privilege actually is in the first place. And every time I read about it and relearn it, I think to myself, oh, right. That's one of those legal things that anybody can understand.
Basically, it's this: If you are suing the US Government, the Government can claim that taking your case to court would reveal sensitive national security information. If they do that, simply by making that claim, they can get your case thrown out of court. The judge won't even usually look at the evidence to see if the Government is fibbing.
Democrat and Republican presidents have both used this to get all kinds of cases dismissed. Under the Bush administration, this increased dramatically. They got judges to throw out lawsuits regarding the torture and rendition of detainees in the War on Terror, over Guantanamo, over the wiretapping of American citizens.
Barry Siegel
Yeah, well, the state secrets privilege came about as a result of a 1953 Supreme Court decision, US v. Reynolds.
Ira Glass
This is Barry Siegel, a reporter who wrote about the true story of US v.Reynolds for the LA Times and later in a book called Claim of Privilege. It is very possible that if we could somehow send his book back in time to the year 1953 and let the Supreme Court justices read what really happened in US v. Reynolds,they would have decided the case differently. Some important facts have come to light in the last half century about the case.
As a public service right now, in case any of you hearing my voice do someday get teleported back to the year 1953, we present now the true origin of US v.Reynolds.
Barry Siegel
A US Air Force B-29 in October 1948 took off in Georgia to test an experimental navigation system, radar system. Three civilian engineers from RCA were onboard as part of the test team. The plane engines caught fire. The plane crashed over Waycross, Georgia, October 6, 1948.
The widows of the three civilian engineers onboard sued the Government: negligence. During discovery process, the widows asked for the Air Force accident report. The Government wouldn't turn it over, wouldn't turn over the accident report. A Federal District judge, a very brave one, William Kirkpatrick, who was hearing the case, ordered the Government to produce the document. He said you can just turn it over to me in private. I'll look at it in chambers. The Government wouldn't hand it over even to the judge to look at in private in chambers.
Ira Glass
Because the Government would not comply with his order to turn over the accident report, the judge declares the widows the winners in this case by default. An appeals court agrees. It gets to the Supreme Court, whose decision you already know. It overturns the lower two courts, finds in favor of the Government, says the Government does not have to hand over the accident report once it claims that this would reveal state secrets.
But understand what happens next. There's an important thing you need to keep in mind about this Supreme Court decision.
Barry Siegel
Keep in mind, in 1953, the Supreme Court in ruling for the Government never itself asked to see the accident report. It voted in 1953 to believe the Government when it said it contained state secrets. And that's the foundation for the whole state secrets privilege in US v. Reynolds. It says that we have to trust the Government. If they can convince us that national security is at risk, then you don't have to even ask for the documents. So they never saw it. No one ever saw the accident report back then.
So 50 years passed. The families of these three civilians who had perished in the plane, they tried for years to find out more of what happened on that plane. They never could. The children of the engineers, who really never knew their fathers, always wondered who they were and what had happened to them. One of them particularly, Judy Loether, she was seven weeks old when her father Al Palya died.
Judy Loether
I knew my father had died in a plane crash, and I knew it was an Air Force plane, and I knew that there was a secret project.
Ira Glass
This is Judy Loether. Now, of course, she's grown. She lives in a town not far from Boston.
Judy Loether
The biggest question I had was what secret project were they doing on that plane? I mean, you know, what did my father die for?
Ira Glass
Over the years, she'd go into little spurts of looking into this. She exchanged letters with a man who had survived the crash. She went through her father's old papers and technical manuals. And then in the late 1990s, she got a computer and started searching the internet. She learned all about B-29s and about the bomb site device that her dad worked on as an engineer. It made her feel closer to him to see pictures of these things that he had made. She printed stuff out. She kept it in a notebook. And then one night in February 2000, she sat down at a computer.
Judy Loether
And again, my cursor was on that blank box. And I said, well, what do I want to look up tonight? And for the first time, I typed in the combination of B-29 plus accident, and I had never done that before. And the first hit was accidentreport.com. And this page comes up. Accident reports from military crashes from 1918 through 1955.
Ira Glass
All of these reports had been declassified in the 1990s.
Judy Loether
And I remember looking at those words and reading them like three times and thinking 1948. Wow! This place is going to have the report of that plane crash?
Ira Glass
Now, at the time, did you know that this report had been the subject of a lawsuit and that the Government refused to give your mom and the other widows this very accident report that suddenly you're actually able to get from this guy for $60-something?
Judy Loether
I hadn't a clue. I knew there had been a lawsuit, but that's all I knew.
Ira Glass
And did you know that the lawsuit turned into this famous Supreme Court precedent?
Judy Loether
No. I had no idea.
Barry Siegel
Two weeks later, Judy Loether gets mail from him, this accident report that her mom and the other widows had vainly sought 50 years before. And what's interesting about this is that she's kind of disappointed when she pulls out the accident report because she's not looking for the cause of the accident. What she really wants to know is what the secret thing was that her dad was doing on that plane. It was just a way to get to know about her dad. And to her great frustration, when she pulls out the accident report and reads it is that there's no reference at all to the secret project her father was working on.
Judy Loether
There was nothing in there about the secret equipment or the secret mission of the plane other than the mention that there was secret equipment on the plane. And that, of course, was in the newspapers.
Ira Glass
Instead of that stuff, what was in the accident report was a stark, very detailed account of Air Force negligence. There was a lot of negligence. This particular B-29 had a history of trouble: fuel leaks, faulty engines. It had been repeatedly grounded. The engines on all B-29s had a tendency to overheat and were supposed to get special heat shields installed to fix that, but this plane never got them. On this flight, the engines caught fire, and the pilot made some errors that compounded that problem and sent the plane into a spin.
Disturbed and saddened, Judy thought that she should share this document with other families from the crash, and from newspaper clippings, she learned of another woman whose father died that day: Susan Brauner. When she met Brauner, it was Brauner who told her about the Supreme Court decision.
Judy Loether
Within a half an hour of when I got home, I was reading that decision. And it was that moment, as I'm reading through the decision and it's all hinging on this accident report which I have, and I'm reading it, and the justices are saying in their decision it's a reasonable assumption that this accident report talks about the secret equipment and the secret mission, and I'm saying no. No, it doesn't talk about that at all. I couldn't understand it. It just really upset me. And then I think the fact that Reynolds was being used over and over again by the Government, it was such an important case, and it was based on this lie.
Ira Glass
In his reporting, Barry Siegel lists some of the other kinds of cases that have fallen under the state secrets privilege since this precedent was set. "In 1990," he writes, "families of 37 crew members who were killed by Iraqi missiles hitting the USS Stark sued the contractors responsible for the ship's antimissile system. The Government said trying the case would reveal state secrets, and this got it thrown out of court.
In 2000, a CIA employee sued the agency for gender discrimination. The Government said trying the case would reveal state secrets, and this got it thrown out of court.
In 2003, a senior engineer said a Defense contractor had submitted false test results on an antimissile vehicle. The Government said trying this case would reveal state secrets and got that thrown out of court."
And so, Siegel says, "Its disturbing that in the case that made all this possible--US v. Reynolds-- the Government said that it couldn't turn over an accident report because this would reveal state secrets. But there seemed to be no state secrets at all in the accident report. At that point, it wasn't even a secret that B-29s were having these terrible mechanical problems.
Barry Siegel
It's really interesting, US v. Reynolds based on a lie. The very case that establishes the right of the state secrets privilege is a perfect example of why the Government shouldn't have that privilege.
Ira Glass
As for Judy, the more she thought about it, the more she was bothered by the fact that the Government's lawyers back in the 1950s must have read the accident report themselves, so they must have known that the Air Force was negligent. But when the lower courts found them negligent and awarded the widows some money, these Government lawyers kept appealing that decision, all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Judy Loether
That again is disturbing to me, because it's not like they were some corporation. These were three widows whose husbands were dead because of their negligence, but they were going to get their precedent at our cost.
Ira Glass
So Judy and two other families from the crash went back to the Philadelphia law firm that had originally represented her mom and the other widows back in 1953. And together, they filed a new petition in the Supreme Court. Not asking that US v. Reynolds cease to be a precedent. Too many other cases had agreed with the finding in Reynolds that that wasn't really an option. And the goal wasn't to overturn the state secrets privilege. Instead, they wanted the court to acknowledge that the Government had lied about the contents of the accident report, that the Government had committed fraud before the Supreme Court, and they wanted the court to award monetary damages that should have gone to the widows back then.
Barry Siegel
This gets a little technical into the legal, but the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General--
Ira Glass
The Solicitor General, of course, the administration's lawyer who deals with the Supreme Court.
Barry Siegel
--to respond to this petition. And the Solicitor General's argument essentially said we are not in a position now, us sitting here 50 years later, to know why the Air Force made a state secrets claim. We're not experts, and we can't know what their reasons were 50 years before.
Ira Glass
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Ira Glass
So even though the Supreme Court refused to take this case, can their petition have an effect on the law in some way? Can it be cited? Has it been cited?
Barry Siegel
Yes. That's exactly what their legacy is. I think that they didn't prevail in the Supreme Court. They prevailed in the two ways that they probably most were seeking some effect. First of all, they sure got their story out. And the other thing that they did is that lawyers now involved in litigation with the Government have started to talk about the origins of the US v. Reynolds decision. Now when the Government waives the state secrets flag in court, the other side can get up and say, well, wait a second. And it has happened.
I can tell you there was a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which finally-- one of the few rare ones, which did limit a Government state secrets claim.
Ira Glass
The court said, in this case, that they wouldn't just take the Government's word about whether there were secrets in the documents being discussed. The Government would have to show the documents to the judges, one by one, in private.
Barry Siegel
In this decision in the Ninth Circuit, which just came out in the last few weeks, there was a footnote in which these appellate judges cited what you and I are talking about today. They cited the fact that US v. Reynolds-- it said the dubious origins of US v. Reynolds.
Ira Glass
In 2008, Judy Loether testified before Congress. And when Senators Edward Kennedy and then Republican Arlen Specter introduced a bill to regulate the state secrets privilege once and for all, a bill that would tell judges not just to take the Government's word when it claims that a state secret is involved in the case, but actually look at the evidence to be sure that it's true, they cited what happened in Reynolds.
This is from the press release, quote: "Recently declassified information about the Supreme Court's leading decision on the state secrets privilege-- US v.Reynolds-- provides an early example of executive abuse of the privilege. That kind of abuse will no longer be possible under the State Secrets Protection Act."
A version of the bill came out of a House subcommittee this week. The bill's on the schedule to be marked up next week by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Government Lobbying
Goldman Sachs, Oil, GE, Monsanto and everything else (but Israel)
http://fairwhistleblower.ca/content/revolving-door-between-us-government-big-business
http://fairwhistleblower.ca/content/revolving-door-between-us-government-big-business
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Obama's Syria Speech Sept 10 and my comments
The Speech Text (MY COMMENTS ARE IN PARENTHESIS AFTER THE QUOTE)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-president-obamas-sept-10-speech-on-syria/2013/09/10/a8826aa6-1a2e-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html
PRESIDENT OBAMA: My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria -- why it matters, and where we go from here.
Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement. But I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war.
This was not always the case. In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. (do bombs distinguish?? bullets?? does any weapon ONLY hit soldiers??) And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity. (who has held us accountable when WE used napalm, agent orange, nukes in japan, or white phosphorus or depleted uranium??)
On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.
Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gasmasks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.
When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security.
Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians. (again none of this is an immediate threat that cannot be worked on with diplomacy)
If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.
This is not a world we should accept. This is what’s at stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.
That’s my judgment as Commander-in-Chief. But I’m also the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.
This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops,(SO CAN WE FIX THE VA BACKLOG NOW??? link here ) while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.
Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular. After all, I’ve spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them. Our troops are out of Iraq. Our troops are coming home from Afghanistan. And I know Americans want all of us in Washington -- especially me -- to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home: putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class. (I do wish GOP who oppose strike in Syria would be with you on domestic issues)
It’s no wonder, then, that you’re asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I’ve heard from members of Congress, and that I’ve read in letters that you’ve sent to me.
First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.”
My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. (even for chemical weapons??) I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. (I DO appreciate that reassurance, but still fear a slide into war) This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities. (My hope is it is avoided altogether OR is very limited--no more than a week--we need CLEAR ACHIEVABLE GOALS)
Others have asked whether it’s worth acting if we don’t take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there’s no point in simply doing a “pinprick” strike in Syria.
Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. (THIS is the Obama I appreciate---knowledge of history) But a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons.
Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of America. (again more nuance and wisdom----THANKS!!)
Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that’s so complicated, and where -- as one person wrote to me -- “those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?”
It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria (possibly) if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people -- and the Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism. (HOPEFULLY)
Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force? As several people wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.”
I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, (any since the civil war started?? link here OK no evidence of NEW sanctions since civil war started link here CORRECTIONS here here here) warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.
However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use. (good to hear)
It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.
I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control. We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East -- who agree on the need for action.
Meanwhile, I’ve ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight, I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.(Lets help those vets who already served!!! link here)
My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. (and unfortunately a supporter of dictators and leader of coups as well here and here) This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them. (Unless its Israel here) The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.
And so, to my friends on the right, (wait, you have friends on the right???) I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, (are you admitting you're a centrist??) I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. (well, your friends on the left ask a lot of you as well)
Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way? (we would continue to be the United States, who picks and chooses When and where to apply the laws we say we uphold)
Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.” Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.
America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. (GLAD to hear you say that again, but we CAN try diplomacy and interactions and negotiations to TRY to fix problems around the world) But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.
Transcript courtesy of the White House.
Fact check Obama's Syria case still lacks proof
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=c4pHyAza
No Satellite images or intercepts shown, video lacks evidence of who launched attacks, and number of dead is still larger than anyone else says.
The administration has cited satellite imagery and communications intercepts, backed by social media and intelligence reports from sources in Syria, as the basis for blaming the Assad government. But the only evidence the administration has made public is a collection of videos it has verified of the victims. The videos do not demonstrate who launched the attacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-president-obamas-sept-10-speech-on-syria/2013/09/10/a8826aa6-1a2e-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html
PRESIDENT OBAMA: My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria -- why it matters, and where we go from here.
Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement. But I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war.
This was not always the case. In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. (do bombs distinguish?? bullets?? does any weapon ONLY hit soldiers??) And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity. (who has held us accountable when WE used napalm, agent orange, nukes in japan, or white phosphorus or depleted uranium??)
On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.
Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gasmasks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.
When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security.
Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians. (again none of this is an immediate threat that cannot be worked on with diplomacy)
If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.
This is not a world we should accept. This is what’s at stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.
That’s my judgment as Commander-in-Chief. But I’m also the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.
This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops,(SO CAN WE FIX THE VA BACKLOG NOW??? link here ) while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.
Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular. After all, I’ve spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them. Our troops are out of Iraq. Our troops are coming home from Afghanistan. And I know Americans want all of us in Washington -- especially me -- to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home: putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class. (I do wish GOP who oppose strike in Syria would be with you on domestic issues)
It’s no wonder, then, that you’re asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I’ve heard from members of Congress, and that I’ve read in letters that you’ve sent to me.
First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.”
My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. (even for chemical weapons??) I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. (I DO appreciate that reassurance, but still fear a slide into war) This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities. (My hope is it is avoided altogether OR is very limited--no more than a week--we need CLEAR ACHIEVABLE GOALS)
Others have asked whether it’s worth acting if we don’t take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there’s no point in simply doing a “pinprick” strike in Syria.
Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. (THIS is the Obama I appreciate---knowledge of history) But a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons.
Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of America. (again more nuance and wisdom----THANKS!!)
Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that’s so complicated, and where -- as one person wrote to me -- “those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?”
It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria (possibly) if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people -- and the Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism. (HOPEFULLY)
Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force? As several people wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.”
I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, (any since the civil war started?? link here OK no evidence of NEW sanctions since civil war started link here CORRECTIONS here here here) warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.
However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use. (good to hear)
It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.
I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control. We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East -- who agree on the need for action.
Meanwhile, I’ve ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight, I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.(Lets help those vets who already served!!! link here)
My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. (and unfortunately a supporter of dictators and leader of coups as well here and here) This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them. (Unless its Israel here) The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.
And so, to my friends on the right, (wait, you have friends on the right???) I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, (are you admitting you're a centrist??) I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. (well, your friends on the left ask a lot of you as well)
Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way? (we would continue to be the United States, who picks and chooses When and where to apply the laws we say we uphold)
Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.” Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.
America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. (GLAD to hear you say that again, but we CAN try diplomacy and interactions and negotiations to TRY to fix problems around the world) But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.
Transcript courtesy of the White House.
Fact check Obama's Syria case still lacks proof
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=c4pHyAza
No Satellite images or intercepts shown, video lacks evidence of who launched attacks, and number of dead is still larger than anyone else says.
The administration has cited satellite imagery and communications intercepts, backed by social media and intelligence reports from sources in Syria, as the basis for blaming the Assad government. But the only evidence the administration has made public is a collection of videos it has verified of the victims. The videos do not demonstrate who launched the attacks.
Administration officials have not shared the satellite imagery they say shows rockets and artillery fire leaving government-held areas and landing in 12 rebel-held neighborhoods outside Damascus where chemical attacks were reported. Nor have they shared transcripts of the Syrian officials allegedly warning units to ready gas masks or discussing how to handle U.N. investigators after it happened.
The White House has declined to explain where it came up with the figure of at least 1,429 dead, including 400 children - a figure far higher than estimates by nongovernmental agencies such as the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has counted only victims identified by name, with a current total of 502. In his remarks, Obama more generally accused Assad's forces of gassing to death "over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)