Kerry seeks no fly zone

And Obama flies by the seat of his pants on Syria.

CNN reports – 10/6/2015

Washington (CNN)Secretary of State John Kerry has raised the possibility of a no-fly zone in Syria to protect civilians even as President Barack Obama has consistently rejected the idea, several administration officials told CNN.

Turkey, France and the Syrian opposition have long pushed for a safe zone to protect civilians from Syrian airstrikes, but the Obama administration has repeatedly rejected the idea as too difficult to implement.

Senior administration officials said serious logistical concerns remain, including who would enforce it and the need to divert resources from the campaign against ISIS.

Senior administration officials said Russian airstrikes have repeatedly targeted CIA-backed rebels, despite Moscow’s assertion that it is only attacking ISIS targets.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/politics/john-kerry-no-fly-zone-syria-obama/

Obama says its too difficult calling the arguments for it mumbo jumbo. Funny how mumbo jumbo, from Obama, was in fashion in Libya and on Egypt.

“When I hear people offering up half-baked ideas as if they are solutions, or trying to downplay the challenges involved in this situation — what I’d like to see people ask is, specifically, precisely, what exactly would you do, and how would you fund it, and how would you sustain it. And typically, what you get is a bunch of mumbo jumbo.”

So his position is: ‘ask everyone else questions, not me.’ We get enough mumbo jumbo from Obama. I wonder where his Muslim Brotherhood help is? Speaking of “downplaying challenges involved,” we weren’t the ones calling ISIS a JV team mocking their abilities.

Though in the trails of is adventures, Obama’s own half-baked ideas have been on the menu despite the advice against it. No-fly zones were all the rage in Libya — which worked out real well.

Barry has an excuse for every type of action mentioned, from no-fly zones to aiding the rebels to helping Kurds. He mocks any suggestions for not appreciating the complexities. Obama had approved a training program, which netted 4 or 5 trained fighters in the 500 million dollar program. Now that plan is being scrapped. Mission failure complete.

Obama said of the no fly zone proposals:

“…but my job is to make sure that whatever we do we are doing in a way that serves the national security interests of the American people, that doesn’t lead to us getting into things that we can’t get out of or that we cannot do effectively.”

His job is saving his ass from shame or embarrassment, which he seems to be getting in spades for not doing anything. Only in Obama’s utopian reality did he expect to be commended for not doing something. Now he complains about the difficulties of possibly having to do something. National security interests of American people? When has he worried about that: Benghazi, border, sanctuary cities, executive amnesty, denying the ISIS threat, illegal alien crimes, not having a strategy, enforcing the law, answers for Benghazi, Iran nuclear deal.(speaking of getting into bad deals)

Now that Russia has inserted itself in the middle of Syria, it seems Putin has again helped Obama by creating another excuse. Barry owes Vlad for the efforts. He criticizes their efforts while it creates cover.

Well, Obama already made a big mess in Libya, and gave a big assist in Egypt’s disaster a few years ago. He is now reaching for strategy on Syria, and for ISIS. He decided long ago not to do anything there. So it is a matter of condemning any suggestions.

Obama and Kerry have already applied their boilerplate explanation on what Russia is doing. They “are acting out of weakness.”

At this point maybe the military is hoping Obama doesn’t have any more half-baked ideas of his own up his sleeve. But then clearly the major security threat is climate change anyway. Never mind the climate coming from Moscow is not very hospitable — and global temps are spiking.

I got an idea. Why can’t Obama call Russia and Putin racist and tell them they are only doing this because he’s black. They would never do this if he was white.

Finally a foreign policy doctrine emerges

Well, after countless attempts by media to describe Obama’s doctrine and many questions to the White House, it finally oozes out. Like anything this administration does when attempting to drive a message, they repeat it until it becomes part of the news cycle. Apparently it finally reached the saturation level. This report comes from Politico.

‘Don’t do stupid sh–‘ (stuff)

By MIKE ALLEN | 6/1/14 | Politico

Forget The New Yorker’s “leading from behind,” and even President Barack Obama’s own “singles … doubles.” The West Wing has a preferred, authorized distillation of the president’s foreign-policy doctrine: “Don’t do stupid shi*t.”

The phrase has appeared in The New York Times three times in the past four days. So, if the White House’s aim was to get the phrase in circulation, mission accomplished!

The phrase – as “Don’t do stupid stuff,” with a demure disclaimer that the actual wording was saltier and spicier than “stuff” — appeared in the Los Angeles Times at the end of Obama’s Asia trip this spring, was reprised in the lead story of Thursday’s New York Times.

But the West Wing hit the jackpot Sunday when it was used twice in The New York Times — once in the news columns, and once in a column by Thomas L. Friedman, who had been part of an off-the-record roundtable with Obama on Tuesday.

The Columbian newspaper of Vancouver, Washington, actually had the scoop, when it reported in February that it kept selling out of mugs that are emblazoned: “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff.” http://goo.gl/9oQ8d3

Here is a timeline of the phrase’s propagation in the press:

— Christi Parsons, Kathleen Hennessey and Paul Richter in the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune of April 29: “The president’s aides have scrambled to put things in simpler terms. ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is the polite-company version of a phrase they use to describe the president’s foreign policy.” http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-obama-military-20140429-story.html

— Christi Parsons and Kathleen Hennessey in the L.A. Times and Chicago Tribune on May 25: “Privately, White House officials have described the working label for Obama’s doctrine as ‘Don’t do stupid stuff.’ Within the tight circle of foreign policy aides in the White House, the shorthand captured Obama’s resistance to a rigid catch-all doctrine, as well as his aversion to what he once called the ‘dumb war’ in Iraq.” http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-obama-foreign-policy-20140525-story.html

— Mark Landler, in the lead story of Thursday’s New York Times: “In private conversations, the president has used a saltier variation of the phrase, ‘don’t do stupid stuff’ — brushing aside as reckless those who say the United States should consider enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria or supplying arms to Ukrainian troops.” http://goo.gl/WG20of […]

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/dont-do-stupid-shit-president-obama-white-house-107293.html#ixzz33p8jeIxX

Okay, so you see the pattern and the point with the examples. So now I ask if the trade of one deserter, potentially a traitor, for 5 top Taliban does not qualify under the “Don’t do stupid stuff” banner? Why not since he did it?. So if that is one’s foreign policy doctrine, doesn’t it open you to criticism? Doesn’t it just cry out for criticism, if that is the standard? That’s my theory why they didn’t put one out before, fear of criticism.

Hey, these are young idealist speechwriters and they didn’t come up with one before? I mean they create narratives out of thin air about terrorist attacks or statements that were not received well by the public. They’re creative if anything, i.e. “change you can believe in”? Wouldn’t they have come up with one? Not for lack of inspiration, certainly, but because they did not want their words to be judged, or held to them. It might open them to attack based on a doctrine.

I wonder why they see fit to put forth one now? Why so simplistic, you could even call it dumb? As many times as they repeat it, there must be reason. I have some theories. Is it the go to excuse when asked about a failure to act, or failure to react — that they don’t want to do “stupid stuff”?(something you’ll regret) It’s a catch-all answer to “why not?” Or when you got a bunch of yahoos in your ranks, maybe they need a constant reminder.

But I’ve said before, his real doctrine is denial. To those of us who thought we heard it all, apparently we’re not even close.

Exhibit A:
When visiting a Pennsylvania diner, a reporter asked a foreign policy question and Obama said, “Why can’t I just eat my waffle?”

RightRing | Bullright