Gaping plot holes don’t prevent this nearly current espionage thriller from grabbing its audience and keeping them hooked all the way to its socially volatile ending. As the title hints, England’s CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) method of public [and private] surveillance comes into play during a case involving the terrorist bombing of Burough Market in central London. The trial of a foreign suspect plays out in a secret London court where romantically-linked defense attorneys (played by Eric Bana and Rebecca Hall) struggle to find the truth beneath a thick stack of government-propagated deceptions.
Obama Is Actually Dissing Congress
•
An interesting yet mostly unremarked upon consequence of Obama’s surprise decision to seek congressional authorization for attacking Syria is that it perversely has the effect of delegitimizing the role of Congress in making war as well as the separation of powers.
Let me explain.
If the legislative branch has equal weight with the executive – you know, the way the founding fathers intended, what you learned in school – then Obama’s statement that he has the right to attack Syria without congressional approval but is simply asking in order to have a vigorous debate makes him the head of a parliamentary monarchy, not a president. Students of history will recall that King Louis XVI recalled the monarchal French parliament, the Estates-General, in 1789 in order to propose solutions to his government’s financial problems. They were a consultative body. But they served at the pleasure of the king and could be disbanded by him.
The former University of Chicago law professor is essentially arguing that Congress exists as a consultative body, not one with equal powers to him. In fact, under the United States Constitution, Congress has far more warmaking powers than the president, and the oft-talked-about term “commander-in-chief”, under the meaning of the 18th century when it was written, was a largely ceremonial position.
It is true that many presidents, going back to the early 19th century, have usurped Congress’ role. However, that doesn’t make it legal. What Obama is doing goes even further than presidents who ignored or bypassed Congress. He is in effect saying that whether Congress is consulted or not is up to him. It is amazing that nobody sees this.
Bear in mind, the fact that Obama claims that he is doing this in order to respect democracy is belied by his attempt to get his British allies to ram through approval, only to have it turned down by Parliament. He wanted to do this without Congress, but he can’t do it without the British or any significant popular support among the American people. So in a sense, he is allowing the Republicans to take the blame for whatever happens or doesn’t happen in Syria due to action or inaction. It’s just another cynical move.
By attempting to rush the American people into a war in under a week, and undermining the basic separation of powers to an unprecedented extent, President Obama may well be the most dangerous chief executive who has led United States of America.
HARRISBURG PATRIOT-NEWS CARTOON: Fracking Democrats
•
This cartoon is for The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
The Democratic Party can’t decide what it cares about most: its liberal base, which cares about the environment, or its campaign coffers, which receive major donations by energy companies.
More BS From Obomber
•
Obama says that the chemical weapons attack allegedly launched by the Syrian government is an attack upon human dignity and, if unpunished, would make a mockery of the international conventions against chemical weapons. I don’t understand. Don’t drone strikes (one killed at least three innocent Pakistanis yeaterday) consist of an attack upon human dignity? What about international conventions against torture, to which the United States is a signatory? Why doesn’t Guantánamo qualify as cause for international military action? He says we have to do something. Wouldn’t diplomacy qualify as more than doing nothing?
However, it is mighty white of him to grant permission to Congress to weigh in, thus getting their hands as dirty as his. The funny thing is, he is willing to wait for them to come back into session in September. Clearly, this is not an imminent threat against United States or Congress’ vacation would have to be cut short.
Handicapping Obama’s Next War
•
An unprovoked — remember, they’re no threat to us — U.S. attack against Syria seems inevitable. When will it happen? What form will it take? What happens next? Here are my bets.
Second answer first: I agree with everyone else that it will probably be a series of cruise missile strikes against Syrian military bases, radar facilities and government offices. There can and probably will be unforeseen secondary explosions, as when fuel supplies and arms depots blow up, and fire travels through gas lines under streets to destroy whole blocks. Civilian casualties will be substantial, in the hundreds. Not that Syrian army personnel deserve to be blown up for Obama’s ego, but the Western media doesn’t care about them.
First answer: Sunday East Coast time. Gives the UN time to withdraw their inspectors, who are leaving today, and takes advantage of the media blackout over the long holiday weekend here in the States. Belligerents typically take the weekend attack approach, especially when there is little support for the war they’re about to start.
As for next steps, Western “experts” are constantly predicting retaliatory attacks by U.S. victims and their allies. Though blowback is inevitable, it won’t come in such an obvious or immediate form. Nothing much will happen to the U.S. as a result. But it does take the U.S. down a dark yet familiar road of escalation. If cruise missiles attacks fail to deter Assad from using chemical weapons (which we don’t know that he did), then maybe we need to use greater force? If the rebels fail to gain an advantage, hawks will repeat the Libya argument that we need to do more to help them. And if the Qaeda-affiliated insurgents win, then we can attack them. More likely, this will further inflame anti-Americanism around the world, hasten a Talibanized Syria and turn the Middle East not into a fireball, but a series of increasingly sporadic wildfires. Good fun, just the way Washington policymakers like it.
Polls currently have war against Syria running about 50-50. Here’s everything you need to know about the American media: how many antiwar “experts” are we hearing from on CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews? I still haven’t seen a single one. Even Barbara Lee went on MSNBC yesterday to say that the case for bombing Syria was compelling, but she thought Congress should vote on it.
War Against Syria: A Look Back
•
If history serves as precedent, Obama could use the long news blackout of the Labor Day weekend to launch an air war against Syria. Seems like a good time to look back at some cartoons that anticipated this moment – work about American intentions to attack Syria, and about militarism in general.
The U.S. is supporting Islamist rebels in Syria who are terribly reminiscent of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan:
As in the 1980s, we support them enough to win, not enough to make them like us:
Bush wanted to attack Syria in 2003:
And of course, there’s the bigger issue:
LOS ANGELES TIMES CARTOON: 100% Hugless
•
I draw cartoons for The Los Angeles Times about issues related to California and the Southland (metro Los Angeles).
This week: People are lining up to run for mayor of San Diego in the aftermath of the sexual harassment scandal that toppled Bob Filner. Advantage goes to the man or woman who can guarantee no more unwanted hug-gropes.
SYNDICATED COLUMN: 7 Questions You Should Ask About Syria
•
Lightening-Quick Obama Makes Bush’s “Rush to War” Look Slow and Methodical
Ten years ago, George W. Bush and his henchmen were beginning their war against Iraq. They wanted to invade hours after 9/11. But conning Congress and the public into invading a country that posed no threat to us delayed the invasion until March 2003. This week, as the media celebrates the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and Martin Luther King’s iconic speech, it is shock- and awe-inspiring to see how far America has come. Where it took a white president a year and a half to pour on enough lies of omission, contextual lapses and leaps of logic to gin up a stupid, illegal war in the Middle East, our black president did it in a week.
Here we go again. A Baathist autocrat is in American crosshairs. The justification: WMDs. Also, he “kills his own people.” Which we haven’t cared about before. But: WMDs.
Ten years ago, the Baathist tyrant of Iraq denied the WMD accusations and invited UN weapons inspectors to verify his claim. Which they did. Because he was telling the truth. But the Bushies didn’t want to wait. No time! Had to invade right away!
And: again. “At this juncture, the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the UN team is too late to be credible,” an Obama official said five days after Syrian troops allegedly fired poison gas into a neighborhood on the outskirts of Damascus, killing over 1000 people.
“Too late”? Really? Assad’s government OKed the inspection less than 48 hours after the UN asked. On a weekend. I have editors who don’t get back to me that quickly. Doesn’t seem like a slow response from a government that doesn’t have diplomatic relations with the U.S. Also, they’re kinda busy fighting a civil war.
Now is a good time to think about some things the American mainstream media is omitting from their coverage — concerns strikingly similar to issues that never got discussed back in 2002 and 2003.
1. “Chemical weapons were used in Syria,” Secretary of State John Kerry says. Probably. But by whom? Maybe the Syrian army, maybe the rebels. Experts tell NPR: “The Free Syrian Army has the experience and perhaps even the launching systems to perpetrate such an attack.” Maybe we should ease off on the cruise missiles before we know which side is guilty.
2. Assuming the attack was launched by the Syrian army, who gave the order to fire? Maybe it’s Assad or his top generals. Assad denies this, calling the West’s accusations “nonsense” and “an insult to common sense.” Which, when you think about it, is true. As Barbara Walters and others who have met the Syrian dictator have found, Assad is not an idiot or a madman. He is a well-educated, intelligent man Why would he brush off Obama’s “red line” about the use of chemical weapons last year? His nation borders Iraq, so it’s not like he needs reminders of what happens when you attract unwanted attention from the U.S. Why would Assad take that chance? His forces are doing well. If the attack came from Assad’s forces, maybe it originated on the initiative of a lower-level officer. Should the U.S. go to war over the possible actions of a mid-ranked army officer who went rogue?
3. “The options that we are considering are not about regime change,” says the White House PR flack. So why is Obama “days away” from a military strike? To “send a message,” in Beltway parlance. But the air war that the attack on Syria is reportedly being modeled after, Clinton’s campaign against Serbia during the 1990s, caused the collapse of the Serbian government. Regional players think, and some hope, that degrading Assad’s military infrastructure could turn the war in favor of the Syrian rebels. If toppling Assad isn’t Obama’s goal, why chance it?
4. When you bomb one side in a civil war — a side that, by the way, might be innocent of the chemical attack — you help their enemies. Assad is bad, but as we saw in post-Saddam Iraq, what follows a dictator can be worse. Syria’s rebel forces include radical Islamists who aren’t very nice guys. They’ve installed Taliban-style Sharia law in the areas they control, issuing bizarre edicts (they’ve outlawed croissants) and carrying out floggings and executions, including the recent whipping and fatal shooting of a 14-year-old boy for making an offhand remark about Mohammed. Obama is already sending them arms and cash. Should we fight their war for them too?
5. Why are chemical weapons considered especially bad? Because the U.S. has moved on to other, more advanced ways to kill people. And because we claim to be exceptional. Paul Waldman of The American Prospect notes: “We want to define our means of warfare as ordinary and any other means as outside the bounds of humane behavior, less for practical advantage than to convince ourselves that our actions are moral and justified.” And, as Dominic Tierney argued in The Atlantic, “Powerful countries like the United States cultivate a taboo against using WMD partly because they have a vast advantage in conventional arms.” If 100,000 people have died in Syria during the last two years, why are these 1000 deaths different?
6. White phosphorus is a chemical weapon that kills people with slow, agonizing efficiency, melting their bodies down to their bones. The U.S. dropped white phosphorus in Iraq, notably in the battle of Fallujah. The U.S. uses depleted uranium bombs in Afghanistan. Those are basically chemical weapons. The U.S. uses non-chemical weapons that shock the world’s conscience, such as cluster bombs that leave brightly colored canisters designed to attract playful children. Assuming the Assad regime is guilty as charged of the horrors in Damascus, why does the U.S. have the moral standing to act as jury and executioner?
7. Why us? Assuming that military action is appropriate in Syria, why is the United States constantly arguing that we should carry it out? Why not France, which has a colonial history there? Or Turkey, which is right next door? Or, for that matter, Papua New Guinea? Why is it always us?
Because our political culture has succumbed to militarism. Which has made us so nuts that we’ve gone from zero to war in a week. Which brings up a quote from the “forgotten MLK,” from 1967: “I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.”
Some things never change.
(Ted Rall’s website is tedrall.com. Go there to join the Ted Rall Subscription Service and receive all of Ted’s cartoons and columns by email.)
COPYRIGHT 2013 TED RALL
Teach for America: Union Buster
•
Outfits like Teach for America claimed to be filling a shortage of teachers. Now they’re arguing that teaching should be a short-term career.
If there was ever any doubt, it is now gone: these groups are much less interested in teaching America’s inner-city schoolchildren than they are in busting teachers unions. There is no other logical explanation for the laughable assertion that a teacher can become a great teacher in one or two years, as Wendy Kopp argues. Everyone knows that good teaching requires lots of experience. Unfortunately, from the standpoint of antiunion, cheap employers, experienced teachers have to be paid for. It’s so depressing to watch professionals be replaced by amateurs.
