Madeline Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates – Russia, Putin, and the Constant Threat of a Megalomaniac

During a panel discussion at Aspen, CO – former Secretaries of State, Rice and Albright, joined by former Defense Gates, and moderated by former Undersecretary of State, Burns, one thing was made extremely clear – the greatest threat in their combined opinion was Russia, Putin specifically. The discussion was televised by CSPAN with the video available at www.c-span.org/video/?3207821/former-cabinet-secretaries-russia-ukrain. What this blogger took away from this meeting of extraordinary minds is the following: Putin is either seriously deranged an ego-maniac whose hunger for a return of the Soviet Union, with a penchant for Stalinism is of serious concern. The Russians run “black opps” in the East, which account for hatred of the west in nations/cultures that would celebrate the demise of the U.S.A. and Russia considers itself to be, psychology speaking, nurtured so to speak having lost the cold war. They see themselves as the “East” and the West (Europe/America’s) as the foe.

Also of interest was the constant near agreement between Rice and Albright – giving credence to the dismal state of affairs with Putin at the helm, and to be certain, not without some stunning humorous wit, on the part of the panel.

As there are so many threats in the world at present, understanding a bit more about the relationship between Russia (Putin) and the West is enlightening.

One writer for the Huffington Post, had a slightly different take on the panel, notwithstanding the fact that it is necessary to stymie Putin with his aggressive push to the Ukraine, the writer turns to blame the entire problem with Russia on the United States, specifically the Kennedy administration. The love of Russia and denial amongst progressives has historical significance in that those erstwhile professors living in the world of academia, and envisioning a perfect society, having either visited or viewed films of the perfect Russia, were duped like so many others into believing that all was perfect. While of course, the U.S. was to blame.

From an historical perspective, the murder of the Czar and subsequent “revolution” was promulgated by the trend of the monarchy to push the nation westward, to join Europe, to become more civilized, less Eastern, and each and every subsequent dictator envisioned himself as an Alexander the Great. This apparently in the combined opinions of those who have met the man is also true. It is well worth watching.

Rand Paul, the Kentucky Derby & Foreign Policy

The Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, a likely 2016 Presidential candidate, went to the Kentucky Derby this weekend – and invited, as a guest, Rupert Murdoch. The event was covered in some detail by the New York Times, although not as a society piece – between the descriptions of traditional Kentucky Derby couture (a la, page 6 of the Post), the Times brought up the political ramifications associated only with Republicans – and Rupert Murdoch.the New York Times – Undoubtedly, the Times failed to mention that Republican’s aside, there are Democrats that Murdoch holds in some esteem – namely Hillary Clinton (also a possible 2016 candidate). (Fox News).

Paul, a prolific fund raiser may have invited Mr. Murdoch for more than say, a Republican Blessing.

The Washington Post then, seriously, asks the question: "What is Rand Paul is right about foreign policy”? - Apparently, polling suggest that Senator Paul is on the right side of the majority of Americans, including Democrats and Independents – the most amazing aspect of this poll discover, according to the Post is the fact that Republicans’ are equal in the mix of those wishing less direct involvement in foreign escapades. (Washington Post).

Of course, if history were taught at Public and Private Institutions those in the “know” would recall that George Washington was of the same mind as Senator Paul.

President Obama’s Speech on Syria – Failure to Convince – Analysis – The President Needs a New Speechwriter

Monday morning quarterbacking is always the rule of thumb for both amateur and professional pundits and with the President’s speech on Syria last evening, there is plenty of fodder available – thus adding two cents is a natural inclination for this blogger.

Understanding the text of the speech as written here: at nationaljournal.com - the first mistake was not having another speechwriter take a crack at it.

It was apparent from the beginning of the delivery to the final painful minutes that the President did not particularly believe what he was saying – in parts of the speech, specifically as it related to actual “war”.

As the speech sent two or three messages – from the need to attack, the actual fact that the U.S would attack (Syria) to the President playing nice and asking Congress for permission to attack – and it was with immediacy – then switching gears and speaking to the Putin’s rescue of the world, back to having Congress not vote on authorizing force – yet keeping the military at the ready – it is no wonder that those watching were somewhat confused! (Ft. Way News Journal –AP)

Therein lay the problem mixed messaging delivered by an individual who appeared totally uncomfortable about the message – two things were striking. One, that the children were the important aspect of his interest in the Syrian matter – that is without a doubt a moment of sincerity, and secondly, that he was not enamored of war at all and would prefer a peaceful solution. Other than those two instances – it was difficult to believe that the President believed a word he was saying.

This is the takeaway from a personal perspective. The man has been in office for two terms, he has never preferred military action, and is not familiar with the workings, relying on advisors, he prefers to wait for an answer to come – an epiphany if one will to any given global or local situation that deserves of military intervention. That epiphany may take weeks, or months – it is not that he is a coward, or that he has no ability, he appears to be a man who does not wish to dirty his hands with conflict and would wish anyone else would make that decision. The aforementioned explains a lot – as to why we were a dollar short and a day late on Iran in 2009 – which would have quelled the nonsense in the middle east, had those opposing the regime been supported and allowed to have their way. Then Libya, Egypt, etc – world leaders supported, then abandoned – much like Staten Island in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

It is the crushing weight of the decisions to make, and not have made in time, that appears to weigh heavy.

If only the speech had touched on the following points: There is evil afoot in Syria, they have used chemical weapons on their own people. I had contemplated a strike on Syria, which I feel would have been justified. However, understanding the lack of support by the American People and the willingness of the Russians to intervene, we can rest a little easier tonight. The Russian intervention was likely due to my saber rattling, and for that contribution we are grateful. The Syrians have decided to come clean to Russia, and the world, and will allow the destruction of their chemical weapons. WE will make sure of that. Should they pull a fast one – then our military will be able to strike. I don’t plan on a ground war, rather, I’ll lob one of those pin-point targeted missiles we own (remember Saddam's sons?), right at the Regimes living room – that will end the problem – for us. Now I can move on to domestic issues. Thank you and goodnight.

That would have been more believable.

Right now, this late in his Presidency – he needs to take care with his speeches, and to make sure that he is who is really is at all times – so that he is comfortable and therefore believable.

This is all tongue in cheek, as anyone with sense knows that the man is a Politician – and that few if any politicians actually say what they mean, but – there is hope – it always springs eternal – He needs a new speechwriter. – or he should start writing his own.

Should we Stay or Should we Go – Mixed Emotions On Syria – Clouding Moral Imperative – Opinion

The debate has been raging for far too long, be it the administration or those forces both right and left who are weighing in on a pending strike in Syria over the regimes use of chemical weapons on its peoples. Regardless of one’s political aspirations and/or bent, it is always a fair manner in which we, as a nation, have weighed use of military force to free a people of a madman. The evidence is growing (and has been there for sometime – that chemical weapons were used in the Middle East, be it in Iraq, when Saddam Hussein murdered the Kurds, or now, in Syria, as a means to eradicate the rebel forces. The innocents suffer – that’s the end of the game.

French intelligence is insisting that the use of chemical weapons on innocents is taking place as reported by the French – The Local, the government is now sharing images with the public – and they are disturbing. The U.S. has been bickering over a military strike, as Britain’s usual backbone crumbled, and the Russians are warning against a strike on an area of the world in which they actively arm those that support cruel regimes.

Therefore, as the UN is now wondering what Lebanon is going to do with a million Syrian refugees and that agency is weighing which political moves made be at hand to stop the murders (Financial Times) – our President has politically stepped back to get an approval from Congress, and those members who are, for political, not ideological reasons, bucking Obama, should knock it off – and now.

There is a great deal at stake here for the U.S. as it stands in the world, and should we, as a people, or our leaders, more specifically, show division and distrust in our leadership, over party politics at a time when innocents are being murdered – it will send a stronger message to those who would harm their own, and us as well.

For one, never being a war-monger and as a mother, always praying for deterrents - it is those images of women and children that always haunt and bring out the U.S. A. in a soul. If we, as a nation, have the ability to stop murder, then we should use the full force of our military to do so. That does not mean putting boots on the ground, but a sustained and massive strike on strategic targets (airfield, palaces, and military command centers) would be a great start.

There will be risks, to be sure, perhaps a few Russians who are helping the regime might fall, or perhaps, once the dictator is no longer, a more militant group will be in power, or perhaps, just perhaps there will be fewer civilian deaths, and those contemplating similar action will think twice before proceeding. One must prefer the later. We, as a nation, are not the world’s policemen, which is often the argument used. However, we are, are at least appear to be a moral nation, one which, when shown atrocities, move to prevent father harm to the innocent.

Timing and decisiveness may not be the strong suit of this Administration, where in 2009 in Iran, an opportunity was lost while the world, waited and waited to weigh in, giving the Mullah’s time to bring in reinforcements to put down a massive revolt. That said, an opportunity to right a wrong has existed for months, and as the evidence is at hand, the I’s dotted the t’s crossed, it is time to put politics aside, and do the right thing.

It really makes one wonder, if the left (i.e. Pelosi and Reid) are suddenly Hawks, and the right, (pick a name, any name) are suddenly Doves, something smacks of political gain all the way around. The public may not have a taste for war, but this is not war, per se, it is a rescue mission. Again, it is a moral imperative that a nation with as many resources at hand as has the U.S. – intervene.

Note on Title, loosely based on lyrics by the Clash – appropriate in this situation.