By Rich Kozlovich
The New Republic was and still is a leftist organ originally "founded by Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann through the financial backing of heiress Dorothy Payne Whitney and her husband, Willard Straight, who maintained majority ownership.” All of whom were either communists, Soviet agents or fellow travelers calling themselves ‘liberals’.
Eventually Straight’s son, Michael, became an editor at the New Republic. While attending that famous cesspool noted for generating Soviet spies, Cambridge University in England, he met those infamous English Soviet spies, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean and Anthony Blunt, all communists and all secret Soviet spies, one of which he also became.
The problem with the left is a lack of consistency. They demand war today and then condemn that war tomorrow. The problem with the left’s lack of consistency is the total lack of moral foundation. Their views are based on shifting sand. Whatever works that day must be right. The New Republic is clearly a ‘liberal’ rag that is pushing for ….dare I say it….. war! Note this article:
BY
There are at least three questions to ask about Syria: First, what exactly is happening there; second, what is the United States doing about it; and third, what, if anything, should the United States be doing about it? It is hard to sort out the details of what is happening in Syria; but the outline is pretty clear; and it’s also fairly clear that the U.S. should be doing something consequential if, as reported, the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons against its people. But it remains unclear what the U.S. is actually doing or planning to do. Let’s take the questions one by one.
What is happening in Syria? Syria’s civil war began in the spring of 2011 with popular demonstrations like those that had toppled regimes in Tunisia and Egypt. But instead of standing aside, the Syrian military shot and killed demonstrators, tortured dissidents and burnt down homes and businesses. When that didn’t stop the opposition, the regime conducted scorched earth sieges and launched air strikes against villages and cities. So far, about 70,000 Syrians have perished—about half have been civilians—and as many as 1.3 million have been driven from their homes. And that’s of a population of only 23 million….To Read More…
So what history should we look to for the answer? Let’s look at Obama’s decision to interfere in Libya and how really good that worked.
“Disorder and terror” have gripped Libya following the blast at the French Embassy, and rumors swirl of another attack. Jamie Dettmer reports on the rising tension in the capital.
Diplomatic missions here in the Libyan capital are observing the strictest security procedures following suspicions that the bombers behind last Tuesday’s blast at the French Embassy have rigged a second car with explosives and are hunting for another high-profile Western target.
Embassy protection teams and private security contractors working with foreign businessmen and nongovernmental organizations are on high alert, and the United Nations compound on the outskirts of Tripoli has introduced onerous security measures and placed severe restrictions on the movement of their diplomats.
The French Embassy wasn’t the only target on Tuesday—the second target was, according to diplomatic sources, the British Council, a government-funded educational body under the aegis of the British Foreign Office. That attack was thwarted by security guards; the bombers were foiled as they were preparing to park a rigged vehicle in front of the compound gate, diplomatic sources say.
A British Embassy spokesman said they could neither confirm nor deny that a bombing attempt on the British Council took place. "It would be inappropriate for us to comment while investigations are under way."…….To Read More...
Now, since it appears they are asking for more of the same in Syria they must believe Libya was a great success. Thus the leftist brain trust wants more of the same….do I understand that correctly?
By Charles P. Blair, Special to CNN
Syria’s civil war is the first to engulf a country armed with weapons of mass destruction. Understandably, the unfolding cataclysm precipitated by that country’s collapse has prompted new levels of uncertainty and risk. But where exactly does the Obama administration stand on managing the various threats posed by Syria’s chemical weapons?
An April 25 letter from the White House to members of Congress included the Obama administration’s seventh notice threatening unspecified but “significant” action if the al-Assad regime crossed the “red line” on chemical weapons activity. But by remaining mute on what specifically constitutes a chemical weapon in the context of its “red line,” and by characterizing the mounting evidence of chemical weapons use by Syrian military forces as requiring “credible and corroborating facts” validated by the United Nations, the administration clearly wants to avoid (or at least delay as long as possible) substantive action against the regime.
I would love to know what his views were when Bush wanted to attack Afghanistan and Iran….and then asked the Congress and the U.N., and got their blessings. Who has Obama asked? No one? Really!
Whether you agree with Bush, Obama or Joe the Plumber you can’t help but be disgusted by the lack of consistency within the media. So then, why would anyone want to interfere in this mess? The Islamists are out of control and there will be no solutions until they wear themselves out and no outside interference will change that. As for the Arab Spring claptrap.....that is as delusional as anything I have heard since I heard Bush stated that Islam was a religion of peace.
Does anyone in Washington read history books?
No comments:
Post a Comment