The man Hillary Clinton described as a “reformer” (which she later tried to walk back), and on whom the Obama administration has pinned its hopes for peace in the Middle East, despite his having helped funnel insurgents into Iraq to kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, his arming of Hezbollah, and his service as Iran’s gateway to the Mediterranean.
As reported by AP, the Reformer-in-Chief reacts to protests in Syria the way Amadinejad reacted to protests in Iran:
Syrian President Bashar Assad blamed “conspirators” Wednesday for an extraordinary wave of dissent against his authoritarian rule, but he failed to lift the country’s despised emergency law or offer any concessions in his first speech since the protests began nearly two weeks ago.
Assad said Syria is facing “a major conspiracy” that aims to weaken this country of 23 million. The Assad family has ruled Syria for nearly 40 years, using the feared security services to monitor and control even the smallest rumblings of opposition. Draconian laws have all but eradicated civil liberties and political freedoms.
“We don’t seek battles,” Assad, 45, said in an unusually short, televised speech before legislators who cheered for him and shouted support from their seats. “But if a battle is imposed on us today, we welcome it.”
He made only a passing reference to the protesters’ calls for change, saying “we are for reform” and promising that certain measures were being studied. He did not elaborate.
Within minutes of his speech, social networking sites exploded with activists calling on Syrians to take to the streets.
When protesters took to the streets in Iran in June 2009, they were met with silence from the Obama administration, and then thrown overboard in pursuit of a grand bargain of encouraging cooperation from the Iranians on nuclear issues. It appears that the same thing is taking place in Syria.
——————————————–
Related Posts:
John Kerry’s Persian Delusion
Looks Like Iran Pwned Obama
Remember “Ahmadinejad Won. Get Over It.”
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This administration redefines incoherent.
" … encouraging cooperation from the Iranians on nuclear issues."
This brings to mind this great column by George Will. History is fascinating.
Meanwhile in Syria..
"Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, blamed "conspirators" for two weeks of anti-government protests that have rocked the nation but failed to lift emergency rule or offer other concessions. During his speech, that lasted almost one hour, Assad took aim at social networking websites and pan-Arabic satellite television news channels but made no mention of any plans to lift the state of emergency."
after Assad's speech today:
YouTube
20:21 Security forces shot randomly in the Syrian city of Latakia at protesters who were demonstrating to condemn Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s Wednesday speech. There are confirmed reports that dozens of people were either killed or injured. (S.N.N.)
20:20 “Massacres” are taking place in the Syrian city of Latakia, dozens of people have been killed. (Youth Syria for Freedom.)
"This administration redefines incoherent."
The meaning of that sentence eludes me. I think it is meant to mean that this administration's assumptions, policies and procedures are an order of magnitude more incoherent than those of any prior US administration. But that's not quite what the sentence says.
I see this administration as an ultra-coherent expression of the personality of its figurehead and the goals of its supports. To Americans bearing traditional concepts of American citizenship, idealism, enthusiasm, generosity, political organization, personal liberty, fair play and self-preservation, this administration's motivations and actions appear not only incoherent but also menacing.
"This administration redefines menace." is a statement I find true in the sense that its being menaces America and Americans of traditional bearing more powerfully and immediately than ever they have been menaced, arguably since the nation's founding. In a Civil-War-Between-the-States conceptual context, it may be argued that this administration and its supports menace both "North" and "South" more thoroughly and lethally than ever those brother camps menaced one another.
Here is the coherence of this administration in "foreign policy," which it does not really believe exists, "foreign policy" in its eyes being a figment in the imaginations of officials of a previous, evil era: this administration consistently and coherently supports initiative undertaken by Salafists and Ayatollahs and allies of either; and this administration consistently and coherently leaves to their own devices all others.
That also is this administration's "domestic policy," which is a term it considers as well a figment of feverish minds of an earlier, evil dispensation.
This administration sees no "foreign" or "domestic." It sees its Serene Self, fully All in all. That Serene Self blesses Salafists, Ayatollahs and their allies and dismisses everyone else. The actions of this administration demonstrate just that fact. As applied on physical and legal battlefields, this administration's nature and purpose evidence ultra-coherence and ultra-consistency.
Note please in confirmation of the foregoing that the African Union does not support this administration's invasion of Libya. Meanwhile, this administration claims multilateral/international support for its adventure there — i.e., it dismisses the AU's non-support. The AU is neither Salafist nor Iranian Shiite nor an ally thereof.
Note also that Russia and India are not in support of this administration's invasion of Libya.
These are important clues regarding the order of battle among the nations. This administration aims to put the USA on the losing side of the war. Salafists and Ayatollahs and their allies cannot win this one. God HImself faces away from them. That is why they are jerks. They are the ones left to their own devices. Therefore so is this administration.
@David Graham
I don't think we disagree. You say,
"Here is the coherence of this administration in "foreign policy," which it does not really believe exists, "foreign policy" in its eyes being a figment in the imaginations of officials of a previous, evil era …"
Always flying by the seat of one's pants is not foreign policy. And when the one doing the flying smugly promises "smart diplomacy," while he and his underlings constantly contradict each other in their pronouncements (and he contradicts himself as a campaigner of just a few years ago) while making it obvious he doesn't really believe in much of anything beyond the level of what you'd find talking to a group of inarticulate liberal undergrads on most campuses today, … I'd call all that incoherent.
At least as incoherent as that run-on sentence.
@ LukeHandCool
Agreed, we don't disagree, really, but I think I'm more inclined than you are — as if it really matters! — to accept what appears as incoherence/improvisation as calculated dissembling, to hide a coherent/pre-formed agenda underway in consistent execution.
This administration has brought to dissembling a new standard of achievement.
To this personality and its supports, consistency between campaigner and executive is not a consideration. Whatever it takes to keep a good view of either campaigner or executive is what they make go down. They're context driven with respect to image, superficials (e.g., willing to "throw [so and so] under the bus"), but that doesn't mean they're context-driven/improvisational at root. The improv in context is merely to hide the fundamentals, which are coherent, consistent and ongoing no matter the shifting image problems subject to improvised responses.
This administration is incoherent and inconsistent superficially. In its depths, it is the opposite of those qualities. This administration's operators and supports are hard-core, dedicated, implacable, ultra-consistent, ultra-coherent America-and world-upenders. The abyssal moment of this administration is fire, Ate come hot from hell crying "Havoc!"
In observing this administration, I focus on its depth, not its surface. That is not to discount its surface, which also is usefully observed. I focus on its depth because that's its ontological/operational engine.