President Peace Prize asks the world what he believes to be a tough question

*
I listened to the President's statement today about the inevitable message that will be sent to Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad in the form of Tomahawk cruise missiles that are certain to destroy a number of people not named Bashar Hafez al-Assad. I was listening out of a portion of the corner of one of my two ears, so my brain has no accurate transcription of his remarks, and I am too lazy to look them up. (Plenty of others are busy doing that right now, though, so go read their stupid blogs if you like your disingenuous political speeches to be quoted directly.)

Anyway, there came a point where President North Star asked The World if they were prepared to deal with the consequences of "doing nothing" about Assad's terrifying new way of dealing death to his citizens. I guess this was the President's way of challenging The World to justify the position that a nation should hold its fire until an achievable military objective can be defined and articulated. I suppose the President thinks his question is tantamount to The Riddle Of The Sphinx. It's not, really. One retort might be along the lines of "yeah, conducting chemical warfare violates the norms of 'civilized warfare.' And so does committing an act of war against a sovereign nation that doesn't pose one scintilla of a military risk to the citizens of the United States.

Also, does anyone remember President Peace Prize "sending a message" to the President of the University of California - Davis 2 years ago when her campus dicks waged chemical warfare against peaceful student protestors during the November 2011 Occupy sit-ins?

If the President wanted to "send a message" to Mr. Assad about using chemical warfare against his citizens, why didn't he do that 3 days before the attacks, since US intelligence agencies knew in advance that it was going to happen? Or, at least, why didn't he "send a message" to the intended victims of the gas?

Wait: do US citizens still get to ask rhetorical questions these days?

President North Star wants to send a message

*
There may have been a bygone era when the pen was mightier than the sword. But that was then. Now, President North Star---the most peaceful Earthling of 2009*---evidently believes that the cruise missile is more powerful than a menacing diplomatic cable to a pipsqueak tyrant in the Middle East.

If it were possible to fly a few Tomahawks up the fundament of Bashar Hafez al-Assad and his senior staff in order to "send the message" that he needs to die, then war hawks and doves would at least have an issue to debate. But it seems more likely that the people who will be dying in the inevitable "surgical strike" on Syria had no meaningful role in the acquisition or use of banned chemical weapons last week. And, to me at least, it seems just as likely that Mr. Assad will go about his business using whatever materiel suits his purpose.

If President North Star would like to send someone a message, my suggestion would be to marshal his eloquence and aim it at Russia and China. Those are the actors who thwart the (potentially) constructive involvement of the only authority that has any business intervening with force against Assad's government, namely the UN. Why not spend a week or two letting the world know who provides Assad with his munitions and cover? Why won't President North Star use his pulpit to take the world to church on this crisis?

(Answer: because it might disrupt some corporate cash flows).
____________________

* Unimportant observation: looking back at the text of the post I linked to above, I'll take a puny victory lap about the main point, but cringe at how naively I framed it. Yuck!

The fall product rollout [update]

*

A few days after I mused here about the new war for which the neocons and corporate media have formed their very own Occupy-style drum circle I had this idea, but I felt it would sound too silly to trouble you with before giving careful consideration to my choice of wording. Welp, as seen on Balloon Juice, it looks like someone has described the prospective conspiracy that corporate media would be expected to denounce as... "a conspiracy theory":

Here’s a prediction. Netanyahu, in league and concert with Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, will make his move to get rid of Obama soon. And he will be more lethal to this president than any of his domestic foes.

See, I think there are certain ideas that may be too dangerous for a nobody like me to fluff up on my crummy blog, but Andrew Sullivan evidently thinks his high profile as a celebrity blogger will protect him from right-wing opprobrium. We'll see about that.

You may remember back in January when the publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times had to "step down" for suggesting that maybe "Israel's most inner circles" might "order a hit" on Barack Obama in order to rid themselves of an unfriendly US president. So here's another approach that might amount to a fatal political hit if the "product" were rolled out as an October Surprise.

I don't think this idea is too insane to have been dreamed of, kicked around all hush-hush-like, or even to have arrived at some stage of planning. Because the marketplace of ideas is oversupplied with insanity. I'm sure the very idea quickens the pulse of many. And who knows: maybe certain people with the right connections and levers think they could get away with such a thing. But if that's the case, they are making one of the classic strategic blunders: underestimating the adversary.

As it happens, every President of the United States has his own "most inner circle," not to mention a heavy metal national security apparatus and---thanks to Richard Bruce Cheney and The Boy Who Would Be President---a carload of extra-constitutional surveillance and law-enforcement powers. And this one knows how to play 10-dimensional chess, so watch out.

Update: I forgot to state that any such conspiracy would not involve nobodies like Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney. But I do think it's fully plausible that it could involve Americans. I don't think there is any shortage of latent traitors on the far right.

Guantanamo grapevine

*

As it turns out, nuclear blowback evidently has been discussed by US authorities as one possible retaliation mode in the event of the hypothetical---now real---capture or killing of OBL.

I don't claim any particular knowledge of international security issues, but it does seem farfetched to me that AQ, even with sympathizers in high places, could have a nuclear weapon deployed in Europe, let alone America. I can imagine no coherent "conspiracy theory" that would have US national security personnel turning a blind eye to this sort of infiltration even given the bale of unanswered questions and unresolved contradictions that linger a decade after September 11 itself. Many, many of those questions seem to plausibly address some kind of heinous untold story about that day. (You'd have to read the book to know what I refer to.) The idea of a foreign nuclear weapon being deployed on US soil doesn't remotely have the same ring of plausibility, conspiracywise. The same goes for Europe, I think, because their secret security agencies have been working the terrorism beat for decades.

Nevertheless, that leaves a lot of real estate in the world to cover. Anyone who thinks about it could come up with scenarios that involve, say, a corrupt Pakistan (with either an internal target or with India in the crosshairs); Iran (located in quite a target-rich region with a lot of US interests); and The Desert Kingdom itself (where it's apparently an open secret that radical members of the royal family have been financing AQ for a decade or more).

Sensational and speculative? Yes. But a nihilistic force with a sense of moral infallibility and no fear of death (i.e., insane by a reasonable person's standards) could concoct dozens of justifications for a paramilitary nuclear attack that would shred the global status quo.

All things considered, I think these idle speculations at least provide one more good reason why we should avoid celebrating the assassination of OBL with a Super Bowl party.

Iranatics

*
I agree with Atrios. And I'll add that I believe most of the domestic saturation coverage of the Iran election postmortem is driven primarily by some news exec's idea that this whole Iran thing could end up being a real "happening" --- maybe even a "color" revolution if the networks play their cards right. And that could at least mean a spike in ad revenues, up to and including the possibility of a new show with an awesome flying-graphics logo, triumphal theme music, and a 21st century Ted Koppel. Wouldn't that be a "coup"? [Nyuk nyuk nyuk BONK D'OH!]

Another way to solve the Democrats' Lieberman problem

*
I addressed this problem yesterday in a post where I shared a letter that I wrote to Senator Durbin about stripping "Tailgunner Joe" Lieberman of his Senate Homeland Security Committee chairmanship. But just now, after a night of no sleep, I had an even better idea: Obama should nominate Lieberman to be Ambassador to Israel. Then appoint a strong, knowledgeable Obama favorite to be Joe's highest-ranking deputy ambassador in order both to keep an eye on him and to be involved in all substantive matters.

This solution would be a three-fer for Barack: he could make a show of personal forgiveness and "reaching out" (which could, as an option, actually be genuine); he could delight both the Israelis and AIPAC by sending them our very own little Little Knesset Man (as the other BO calls him); and most importantly, he could finally rid the Sentate of this pathetic, creepy pest.

Bonus "fer": if Joe had not succeeded in bringing the Israelis along toward moderation and a netotiation framework after about a year, the President could tell the li'l fella his services were no longer required and then ceremoniously exterminate him altogether.