Why does President Obama have 3 accounts on Twitter?

On May 18th, President Obama opened a 3rd Twitter account, @POTUS, after using @barackobama since March 2007 and @WhiteHouse as President.  One reason to wonder why Obama has a 3rd Twitter account is looking at the small number of tweets, 4 so far, one saying hi, one about Camden meeting on police brutality, one a joke about Hillary running for President, and one about coast guard graduation and climate change.

NPR commented on who Obama was following, and who he is not following,

It's heavy on Chicago sports teams, (Blackhawks, White Sox, Bears and Bulls), Cabinet officers and executive agencies. He's also following the three colleges and universities he attended: Columbia, Harvard and Occidental. No celebrities, or journalists for that matter, have made the list yet.

While Funny or Die shows fake(?) deleted tweets from @POTUS, Sunlight Foundation's "Politwoops" website of deleted Tweets from politicians shows no deleted tweets from @POTUS, but does contain deleted tweets from @barackobama, @whitehouse, and the no longer active @obamainagural

One answer to why Obama has 3 accounts could be to track who tweets threats to President Obama, as I saw here from the New York Times, writing as it's headline 

Obama’s Twitter Debut, @POTUS, Attracts Hate-Filled Posts

this should not be shocking to anyone following the vitriol doled out to the President since day 1, even breaking new records of disrespect, like when Congressman Joe Wilson shouted "You Lie" during a joint session of Congress.

The New York Times explains that

it took only a few minutes for Mr. Obama’s account to attract racist, hate-filled posts and replies.

but here is where a story about long-standing racist attacks against President Obama get interesting and concerning.....the government's response. (emphasis mine)

a user calling himself @jeffgully49, who has posted other images of Mr. Obama in a noose, and whose Twitter profile picture shows Mr. Obama behind bars. “We still hang for treason, don’t we?” his post said.

The writer, Jeff Gullickson of Minneapolis, subsequently posted on Thursday that his reply to Mr. Obama had earned him a visit from the Secret Service at home. Reached for comment, Mr. Gullickson responded by asking in an email how much The New York Times would pay him for an interview.

White House officials and a Twitter spokesman said they could not determine the percentage of postings to Mr. Obama that were racist. But they appeared to be a small number in what was an otherwise social-media-fueled show of love for Mr. Obama, who was drawing followers at a breakneck pace — nearly 2.3 million by Thursday afternoon — and hundreds of worshipful messages that welcomed him to Twitter and praised him on everything from his appearance to his policies.

continued

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said that the language directed at Mr. Obama was unfortunately “all too common on the Internet,” and that officials would probably not spend much time trying to block abusive commenters from the president’s account.

“What we believe is that the president’s new Twitter handle is one that can be used to important effect and to communicate with the American people and to engage the American people,” Mr. Earnest said. “We’re pleased with the early response to it.”

The Twitter account @BarackObama, which was created eight years ago and is controlled by the liberal activist group Organizing for Action, has long been a target of racist postings, as has the official @WhiteHouse.

Law enforcement response

The Secret Service has a special “Internet Threat Desk” that monitors them, assessing whether they constitute a genuine danger and what should be done in response.

“People have the right to free speech,” said Brian Leary, a Secret Service spokesman. “We also have the right and an obligation to determine a person’s intent when they say something.”

The response can range from a conversation determining someone’s intent all the way up to working with the local United States attorney’s office to prosecute someone, Mr. Leary said.

Law enforcement agencies can also submit requests to Twitter when postings appear to pose immediate physical danger to someone, and Twitter will provide information about the account. A Twitter transparency report for the second half of 2014, the latest available, showed that the government had made more than 1,600 such requests. Twitter had furnished information in 80 percent of those cases.

“Like all of our technology industry peers, we do not proactively monitor content,” said Nu Wexler, a Twitter spokesman. “Individual users and law enforcement authorities — including the U.S. Secret Service — report content to us, and we review their reports against our rules, which prohibit violent threats and targeted abuse.”

I think given the lack of need for Obama to have a new platform of communication, especially a 3rd account on Twitter, lends more credibility to my theory that this launch may be a way to monitor those who attack Obama with news of this new account.

And I'm not alone in point this out, I'm just wondering if this was an intention all along.

WaPo says Uh, you probably don’t want to tweet to @POTUS, actually

Not only does the Secret Service already monitor Twitter for threats, but the White House is archiving each and every thing @POTUS tweeters say. Ashley Feinberg flagged this relevant piece of the White House Online Privacy Policy:

On Twitter, the White House automatically archives “tweets” from official White House accounts, “direct messages” sent to or from official White House accounts, and “mentions” (tweets from other users to official White House accounts)…

… in other words, when you tweet “leave Michelle for me @POTUS,” or something even more inappropriate/creepy, that lives in an official White House Archive for eternity (slash, for potential future scrutiny).

To be clear, this isn’t just a White House thing: The principle applies, in one form or another, to most types of social networking. Some personal data, once uploaded to Facebook, never really disappears unless you close your account. Tweets, even after deletion, can live on in caches (… and elsewhere). Even your Google searches — which feel so fleeting, so meaningless, in the moment! — can be archived and aggregated and, potentially, subpoenaed for use in court. 

Gawker gave more explicit examples of sexual tweets Obama has received, and reminded everyone that White House policy is to archive it all under the Presidential Records Act.

Huffington Post's Jason Linkins suggested Obama delete his Twitter account and also commented on the work Secret Service would now be doing monitoring threats (Washington Examiner was to the point writing the headline Obama's Twitter feed gives Secret Service something else to monitor)

For a president, Twitter is just one more avenue in which your every move will become politicized (which is already happening) and where racist trolls lurk around every corner. (Speaking of, think about all the new work the Secret Service is going to have.)

and adding my point that Twitter as a communications platform is unnecessary

It's also completely unnecessary for a president to be on Twitter, because there is a whole media apparatus already assembled that's ready to broadcast any stray utterance to the masses. Barack Obama could walk into the White House Press Room; say, "Hey, guys, check out this delicious avocado toast I made"; and by nightfall it would be translated into three Politico items, broadcast on every cable news channel, mined for at least two think pieces, and adapted as a metaphor for Maureen Dowd to beat to death over the next four years.

Anyone who thinks that this new outlet is going to be a venue for the president's unvarnished, sincere opinion needs to get his head examined. And yes, that cute little exchange between Obama and former President Bill Clinton was absolutely a tidy bit of Oval Office kayfabe. Anything that gets posted to the @POTUS account will be vetted within an inch of its life, and anything remotely interesting will be stripped out and watered down.

Obama takes action on Israel, but it's not sanctions

**Breaking News Update

This update is regarding a law Knesset passed on December 8 about African refugees in Israel, mainly from Sudan and Eritrea.  The bill refers to them as "work infiltrators" much like the American discussion around migrants and refugees from Mexico and Latin America.

From Association for Civil Rights in Israel

Update: On December 18, the High Court of Justice issued a temporary injunction to prevent the implementation of the law. Accordingly, no new asylum seekers can be sent to the Holot detention facility. The state has until December 28 to lodge a formal response.

Statement from Hotline for Refugees and Migrants

Israeli Human Rights Organizations Appeal against the Newest Anti-Infiltration Law: “The Government is Continuing to ignore and mock the High Court of Justice”

A collection of human rights organizations submitted an expedited legal petition to the High Court of Justice calling for the invalidation of the latest amendment to the Anti-Infiltration Law, and for an interim order to delay the implementation of the law with regards to those who are yet to be summoned to the Holot Detention Facility. The petition was submitted to the court this morning (December 18, 2014)

The law mandates 20 months of detention without trial for asylum-seekers. They'll be torn from their lives in Israel & sent to detention.
— HRM Israel (@HRMIsrael) December 21, 2014

The Guardian posted an article featuring interviews with refugees filmed in April

we heard fresh accounts of many former Holot detainees having decided to return to East Africa out of despair only to be arrested by state authorities upon their arrival. They are then either imprisoned for treason or disloyalty for initially fleeing the country, or simply disappear without trace.

All of the detainees have lived in Israel for at least five years. Many own businesses and speak fluent Hebrew; some are orphans who have just graduated from Israeli high school. Their visible frustration at finding themselves in this situation is understandable. 

Shortly after we visited more than 800 men marched out of Holot and through the desert in the searing heat towards the Egyptian border. They demanded to be recognised as refugees released from the facility, issuing the following statement: “We have made a commitment to keep on struggling for our basic rights and we will never give up, justice and equality will last forever.”

And now back to the main article

Republicans claim that Obama hates Israel, responding angrily to even the possibility that Obama might sanction Israel over more illegal settlement building

The stories prompted an outcry from congressional Republicans.

“Recent reports suggest that your administration has held classified meetings over the past several weeks to discuss the possibility of imposing sanctions against Israel for its decision to construct homes in East Jerusalem,” said a letter sent Friday by 48 members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Israel is one of our strongest allies, and the mere notion that the administration would unilaterally impose sanctions against Israel is not only unwise, but is extremely worrisome.”

It turns out that Obama is not sanctioning Israel, but Obama did take action on Israel.

On Friday Obama did however sign into law S. 2673, the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014.  The bill started during the summer war in Gaza.  Here is Senator Boxer introducing the bill to the Senate on August 1. (Rep Ros-Lehtinen introduced the original bill in the House in 2012)

We have a bill, Senator BLUNT and I, and it has 81 cosponsors on it. It is the Israeli American strategic partnership act, and it will send a strong signal today that we stand with Israel. We want peace. We want justice. We want a good life for the Israelis and the Palestinian people. But you cannot do it when you have a terrorist organization running, in essence, the Gaza Strip.

continued

this bill authorizes $200 million in the value of U.S. weapons sales in Israel to a total of $1.8 billion. It is a stockpile that is intended to be used by U.S. forces, but in event of emergency, Israel can tap that. And, my God, this is an emergency. It is so critical. In fact, just last week the United States provided Israel with ammunition from the stockpile after Israel requested help to replace its depleted supplies. We shouldn't be waiting another hour to pass this, and here we are as the clock ticks down and we go off on our break and as my friend knows, this bill doesn't cost one slim dime—not one slim dime—not one penny. It is such a signal to Israel that we stand with her. It also has an energy section where we help Israel develop her natural gas supplies to become energy independent.

Keep in mind why this language from Congress is important. We learned in September 2013 from Snowden documents that NSA shares raw data with Israel as outlined in a March 2009 agreement published by the Guardian. (WashingtonBlog wrote that the revelation “Implies NSA May Be Putting Israel’s Security Ahead of America’s”)

The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.

Israel is allowed to receive "raw Sigint" – signal intelligence. The memorandum says: "Raw Sigint includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content."

According to the agreement, the intelligence being shared would not be filtered in advance by NSA analysts to remove US communications. "NSA routinely sends ISNU [the Israeli Sigint National Unit] minimized and unminimized raw collection"

The memorandum of understanding, which the Guardian is publishing in full, allows Israel to retain "any files containing the identities of US persons" for up to a year. The agreement requests only that the Israelis should consult the NSA's special liaison adviser when such data is found.

Notably, a much stricter rule was set for US government communications found in the raw intelligence. The Israelis were required to "destroy upon recognition" any communication "that is either to or from an official of the US government". Such communications included those of "officials of the executive branch (including the White House, cabinet departments, and independent agencies), the US House of Representatives and Senate (member and staff) and the US federal court system (including, but not limited to, the supreme court)".

While Israel is a US strategic partner in military and intelligence matters, Israel is also a target of US intelligence  

Although Israel is one of America's closest allies, it is not one of the inner core of countries involved in surveillance sharing with the US - Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This group is collectively known as Five Eyes.

The relationship between the US and Israel has been strained at times, both diplomatically and in terms of intelligence. In the top-secret 2013 intelligence community budget request, details of which were disclosed by the Washington Post, Israel is identified alongside Iran and China as a target for US cyberattacks.

And now we can go back to Obama's press release after signing the bill, saying (emphasis mine)

underscores the United States unshakeable [sic] commitment to Israel's security and its future. This bipartisan piece of legislation reflects the importance placed by my Administration on strengthening and deepening U.S.-Israel bilateral cooperation and ties. It reinforces critical defense and security programs, which have reached an unprecedented level under my Administration.  It also lays the groundwork for increased trade and cooperation across a range of cutting-edge fields, including energy, water, agriculture, and technology.  Sections 11(b) and 12(c)(2) of this bill purport to require me to provide to the Congress certain diplomatic communications and direct the Secretary of State to undertake certain diplomatic initiatives.  Consistent with longstanding constitutional practice, my Administration will interpret and implement these sections in a manner that does not interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy and to protect the confidentiality of diplomatic communications.

Here are some key sections as summarized by CRS of the most recent version that

Passed House without amendment (12/03/2014)

(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on September 18, 2014. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Section 7

Authorizes the President to:(1) share and exchange with Israel research, technology, intelligence, information, equipment, and personnel that will advance U.S. national security interests; and(2) enhance U.S.-Israel scientific cooperation.

Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into cooperative research pilot programs with Israel to enhance Israel's capabilities in: (1) border, maritime, and aviation security; (2) explosives detection; and (3) emergency services.

(Sec. 11) Requires any certification that a sale or export of major defense equipment to a country in the Middle East will not adversely affect Israel's qualitative military edge to include:

• an explanation of Israel's capacity to address the improved capabilities provided by the sale or export;

• an evaluation of how the sale or export alters the regional strategic and tactical balance;

• an identification of any new capacity or training that Israel may require to address the regional or country-specific capabilities provided by such sale or export; and

• a description of any additional U.S. security assurances to Israel made, or requested to be made, in connection with the sale or export.

Despite Obama administration officials anonymously calling Netanyahu names to Jeffrey Goldberg and shaking their head at illegal settlement building, Obama is silent on even the possibility of sanctions.  (see also Richard Silverstein's post here).

Christian Science Monitor reports that instead of sanctions other actions may be taken.

According to those unnamed officials: "For example, the United States may refrain from vetoing condemnatory resolutions against the settlements in the UN Security Council. Or it could issue clearer instructions to American officials about the ban on cooperating with the settlements or funding activity in them."

continued

just a year ago, Obama's White House was campaigning vigorously against a European Union plan to outlaw funding to Israeli settlement groups.

The US has been a steady funder of Israel since the country's independence. Since 1996 alone, the US has given $50 billion to Israel, most of that military aid. The earmark for this year was over $3 billion.

Reductions and delays in such aid have been rare in modern US history. You have to go back to Ronald Reagan, who halted delivery of cluster munitions to Israel between 1982 and 1988 for the last major step to curtail military aid (Reagan acted over concerns the munitions were being used illegally in the war in Lebanon). The last US financial rebuke to Israel was under President George H. W. Bush, who delayed the provision of loan guarantees to Israel in 1991 contingent on a freeze in settlement expansion. The following year the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin agreed to a freeze. The loan guarantees were delivered, though settlement expansion continued.

In spite of Obama's reluctance to impose sanctions against Israel generally, in 2011 the State Department did sanction

a leading Israeli company, Ofer Brothers Group, for activities supporting Iran’s energy sector.

While the State Department’s decision caused Israel considerable embarrassment, it was the timing that created the greatest stir. It came soon after Mr. Netanyahu’s friction with Mr. Obama over using the 1967 borders as a basis for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

continued

According to the State Department, the Ofer Brothers Group and its Singapore-based subsidiary, Tanker Pacific, are being sanctioned along with Associated Shipbroking of Monaco for their roles in a September 2010 transaction that provided a tanker valued at $8.65 million to the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines.

The shipping company has been cited by the United States and the European Union for its role in supporting Iran’s proliferation activities. Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg told reporters in Washington that “Iran uses revenues from its energy sector to fund its nuclear program, as well as to mask procurement of dual-use items.”

The State Department determined that Tanker Pacific and Ofer Brothers Group “failed to exercise due diligence and did not heed publicly available and easily obtainable information” that would have indicated that they were dealing with the Iranians. As a result, the two companies are barred from security financing from the Export-Import Bank of the United States, from obtaining loans over $10 million from American financial institutions and from receiving United States export licenses, the State Department said.

While sanctioning one business for violating sanctions against Iran is a good step (issues of sanctions against Iran aside), Obama should take a stronger stand against Israel's actions instead of just shaking their heads and calling each other names and diplomatic statements like Obama

remained concerned about the settlement construction and had made that frustration "known very clearly" to the government of Israel.

Obama can take some advice from his Republican predecessors, normally seen by Republicans as great friends of Israel regardless of their actual records, including George W. Bush, who [among other amazing examples pointed out here by NJDC]

made the explicit threat to withhold loan guarantees from the Israelis due to the expansion of their “security fence” deep into Palestinian territory.

as Zaid Jilani pointed out in 2010 when Republicans were again outraged at Obama (because when are they not angry at him) when Obama envoy George Mitchell suggested that loan guarantees could be withheld (sort of the threat of a threat) in order to pressure Israel in the peace process.


Eisenhower threatened sanctions twice against Israel which were effective in changing behavior. 

Finally, it was the threat of sanctions that forced Israel in March 1957 to withdraw. Eisenhower threatened that the US would cut off all private assistance to Israel, which amounted to $40 million in tax-deductible donations and $60 million annually in the purchase of bonds. He would also terminate shipments of agricultural products and all military assistance, including deals already in the pipeline. He canceled export licenses for the shipment of munitions or other military goods. The threat of sanctions in the form of a resolution to the UN requiring the termination of all aid to Israel by UN members if it failed to withdraw was also decisive. Similarly, to force the British to pull out, the US administration withheld financial aid and applied an embargo on American oil.

Not the first time

In January 1952 the Truman administration threatened to withhold economic assistance if Israel did not replace its guards along the Jordan river, who were known to be particularly violent, and Israel complied. In 1953, Israel began to construct a canal near the B’not Yaakov bridge which would divert water from the Jordan river into Israel. The canal was being constructed in a demilitarized zone, and violated the armistice agreements. Israel had done something similar in 1951 when it drained another lake that was part of the Jordan River system, and was also in the demilitarized zone. In October 14-15 of 1953, Israel raided the Jordanian village of Kibya. This seemed to be the last straw for the Eisenhower administration. The UN Security Council strongly condemned Israel for the Kibya raid (with no veto by the US) and the State Department confirmed publicly they had suspended the $26 million of allocated Mutual Security Act funds. Israel then agreed to stop work on the diversion canal, and the US approved payment of the funds that were suspended.

The Institute for Historical Review in 1996 compared Eisenhower's actions towards Israel with Kissinger's later diplomacy  and looks at some of the possible consequences that resulted from Kissinger's leniency towards Israel.

Kissinger's policy was prohibitively costly to the United States. By making Israel the military superpower of the region, the Kissinger policy also led to tragic events. These included Israel's bloody 1982 invasion of Lebanon, an action based on its new arrogance of power stemming from US-supplied weaponry. Even graver, however, was the fact that Israel was allowed by Washington to continue its occupation and settlement of Jordanian and Syrian land. This occurred during the same period that the United States became Israel's major patron and supporter starting in the 1970s under President Richard M. Nixon and Kissinger.

The dramatic increase of US aid while Israel violated official US policy against military occupation was a declaration to the world that where the Jewish state was concerned politics outweighed principle. These events led to the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. Yigal Amir, the murderer, was one of the Jewish fanatics who emerged during the long occupation and were dedicated to retaining the occupied territories. Had Kissinger, like Ike, driven Israel off the occupied land, Amir's motive for the assassination would never have existed. The occupation would not have lasted nearly three decades and the extremist cult devoted to keeping the land that began growing strong in Israel in the 1970s would not have come into being.

Reagan actually followed through on threats as Jim White pointed out during the war in Gaza last summer when he asked if Obama would show the courage that Reagan did

Questions raised regarding the use of U.S.-supplied military equipment by Israel in Lebanon in June and July 1982, led the Reagan Administration to determine on July 15, 1982, that Israel “may” have violated its July 23, 1952, Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement with the United States (TIAS 2675). Concerns centered on whether or not Israel had used U.S.-supplied anti-personnel cluster bombs against civilian targets during its military operations in Lebanon and the siege of Beirut.

continued

On July 19, 1982, the Reagan Administration announced that it would prohibit new exports of cluster bombs to Israel. This prohibition was lifted by the Reagan Administration in November 1988"

Syria recently called for sanctions against Israel after Israel ("allegedly") bombed Damascus Airport and Dimas, a neighborhood near Damascus.  (Richard Silverstein says "This would make at least the sixth Israeli invasion of Syrian territorial sovereignty to attack military-security targets.")

Syria on Monday called for U.N. sanctions against Israel over alleged airstrikes on Syrian soil, including one that struck the Damascus International Airport on Sunday.

Muallem made the comments at a joint press conference with Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif, who echoed his sentiments.

Russia, which along with Iran is the Syrian regime’s chief international backer, demanded an explanation from Israel on Monday. Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement that Russia was “deeply concerned about this dangerous development, which requires a detailed investigation."

This week saw the beginning of a new relationship with Cuba after the 50-plus year embargo and assassination attempts failed to bring about the changes we wanted to see in Cuba. Maybe it's time we rethink how "successful" our relationship with Israel has been and maybe back up our anonymous name-calling and diplomatic statements such as

"remained concerned about the settlement construction and had made that frustration "known very clearly"

with sanctions against illegal activity, or even threats of sanctions which have also been effective when shown to be real threats of action.

Obama hates war but...

This is still a work in progress.

I've been wanting to write this piece for awhile now, comparing how the media portrays Obama's record on war to his real record as President.

A quick version would go something like this.

Obama hates saying the word war but....doesn't mind doing it

For example he often cloaks war in euphemisms or in smaller scale, reminding Americans that he is cautious not to repeat Bush's mistakes.

Obama expanded American airstrikes and other military actions and talked of preventing the massacre as examples of how he talks about war.

President Obama said he was ordering an additional 475 service members to Iraq, bringing the total rushed there to about 1,500 troops. But the president repeatedly promised that the American troops – scores of whom will advise Iraqi forces – “will not have a combat mission.”

Three years ago, President Obama declared “the tide of war is receding.” He would have a hard time making that claim today. 

The pre-emption doctrine, circa 2002, lives in 2014......This is not the first time Mr. Obama has invoked the pre-emption doctrine: It was the fundamental legal justification for most drone attacks and special forces raids. But Wednesday evening, it became part of an expanded mission

When Mr. Obama says the effort “will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist,” he is essentially saying that borders will no longer limit him.

Still Republicans criticized his speech (here's Charles Krauthammer)

And beyond the strategy’s halfhearted substance is its author’s halfhearted tone. Obama’s reluctance and ambivalence are obvious. This is a man driven to give this speech by public opinion.

continued

You could sense that Obama had been dragged unwillingly into this new unproclaimed war. Which was reminiscent of Obama’s speech five years ago announcing the surge in Afghanistan. In the very next sentence, he announced a fixed date of withdrawal. Then added, lest anyone miss his lack of enthusiasm, “The nation that I’m most interested in building is our own.”

Meaning, not Afghanistan

At the time, I called it the most uncertain trumpet ever sounded by a president summoning the country to war. I fear the campaign against the Islamic State will be a reprise. 

Here are politicians from both parties reacting to his speech

House Speaker John Boehner praised the speech a little, then said a speech is not a strategy, then said it was

a cause for concern that the president appears to view the effort against ISIL as an isolated counterterrorism campaign, rather than as what it must be: an all-out effort to destroy an enemy that has declared a holy war against America and the principles for which we stand.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said

“Tonight the President laid out a strong and decisive strategy to destroy ISIS without repeating the mistakes of the past in the Middle East.

Senator John McCain (at least quoted here) went straight to the point

“I think it was a very weak argument."

Somewhat surprisingly, Huffington Post asked someone not currently in political office (but may soon try again) who as a Republican, still liked it.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called the speech "the most explicitly pro-American speech" President Barack Obama has ever given.

Senator Dick Durbin brought up the need for legal authorization, but still supported his President

"I commend the President for clearly presenting to the American people his strategy for leading a multinational force to confront this barbaric terrorist organization known as ISIL.

Retiring Representative Mike Rogers supported the President

“The President is to be commended for his decision to take action against ISIL targets, wherever they are, including Syria.

So there are some Republicans offering support, others criticize Obama, some do both, and Democrats largely support their President's war even as many criticized Bush's wars more resolutely.

Roll Call noted similarities in responses to the speech.

But I don't see a reluctant warrior at all.


Obama in May at West Point Graduation

Mr. Obama disputed critics who say his cautious response to crises like Syria’s civil war and Russian aggression toward Ukraine had eroded America’s leadership in the world. Those critics, he said, were “either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.”

But for a president who has promised to take the United States off a permanent war footing, Mr. Obama painted an unsettling portrait of the world, 13 years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The nation, he said, had, in effect, traded Al Qaeda in Afghanistan for a more diffuse threat from extremists in Syria, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Mali and other countries. 

He is portrayed as hesitant to use military force, reluctant to project power abroad, leading from behind, weak on foreign policy, Romney in 2012 accused Obama of going on "apology tours." Recently with the war on ISIS he has been called a "reluctant warrior" on almost every news network.

I will show you how while not saying the word "war," instead using words like hostilities, strikes, Administration officials use words like kinetic action to describe bombs, airstrikes, etc.

Obama has said repeatedly that he is a war president, but few seem to listen.  Republicans don't think he's bombing enough, and Democrats only hear him repeat that he was "elected to end wars not start them."

This was from his ISIS speech on September 10th

I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.

The Daily Beast on Obama's expanding war on ISIS.

At first Obama asserted his authority to unilaterally authorize airstrikes in Iraq because as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, he had a responsibility to protect U.S. citizens and facilities. 

But almost as soon as he began the air campaign, Obama’s war got much broader. By the end of August, U.S. aircraft were striking ISIS targets in Iraq near the Mosul dam to protect Iraq’s critical infrastructure. In a few short weeks, the initial narrow aims of the war had expanded.

Now Obama seeks to expand that war even more. Addressing the nation Wednesday evening he said he reserved the right to strike ISIS targets in Syria. “I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are,” he said.

I completely disagree with Benjamin Wittes argument here

Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow and research director in public law at the Brookings Institution, said the legal argument was a “very thin reed.”

“If they are relying on the 2001 AUMF for this, then what the president is saying is, essentially: This war, like all wars, must end; we can’t have endless wars; stop me before I sin again,” he added.

I believe that I will show that Obama is using the 2001 AUMF (as well as 2002 Iraq War Authorization) to justify war anywhere.  Besides US law, there is also the issue of international legal justification for war.

Obama’s legal issues are not confined to U.S. law either. The administration has not explained how the strikes accord with international law.

According to the U.N. Charter, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Exceptions are granted for self-defense, or when the U.N. Security Council specifically authorizes it. The Obama administration worked hard to secure a U.N. Security Council resolution before using American military force inside Libya in 2011.

Washington in the past has also used international humanitarian law to justify use of military force without U.N. endorsement—for example, when U.S. forces attacked Serbia during the Clinton administration. President Obama said Libya had to be attacked to avert a genocide in Benghazi.

In Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia, host governments invited U.S. forces in, as opposed to Syria. But President Obama is not seeking any U.N. Security Council permission for this fight. He is not seeking permission from the government in Damascus to conduct airstrikes, and he is not asserting that the strikes are needed for humanitarian purposes. A draft U.N. Security Council resolution circulated this week makes no mention of authorizing such a war.

Not only is Obama not reluctant to fight wars, the only thing he does seem reluctant about, or arguing that he doesn't need or already has is any legal authority, either Constitutional or international.


EARLIER DRAFT

President Obama has been seen at least in the Mainstream media as a President who is a "Reluctant Warrior," hesitant to commit troops to Afghanistan past 2014, hesitant, unbearably light, unserious.

Syria's Foreign Minister said (in 2013) that

President Barack Obama is "hesitant" and "confused" after he postponed a threatened military strike on the regime to seek Congress approval.

While Obama was "hesitant" and confused" in 2013 to bomb the Syrian government without Congressional approval, he has just begun bombing ISIS (and Khorasan) without any approval from Congress.

"weak on foreign policy" Free Beacon

Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) took direct aim at President Barack Obama’s “weak and indecisive” foreign policy approach

The Tan Suit also said some important things about some stuff....

President Obama gave a press conference today.

The Washington Post said

Obama wore a tan suit while talking about Ukraine, and political Twitter promptly went nuts.

Yes the suit was different, and Twitter did go a little nuts, and the article highlights some of the fun.  But as always we were not just making fun of the suit. 

@philipaklein  made a "bypass Congress" joke

This is what happens when Obama bypasses Congress to purchase a suit.

@john_dingell  didn't know what all the fuss was about

I see no problem with the suit.

We also asked some tough questions. The Tan Suit said some important things.

The media likes to distract us.  We cannot let them do that.  The policy is too important.  We can have our fun and then must get back to work.

Here are some of the issues raised by the speech.

Washington Post

"We don't have a strategy yet"

President Obama made bluntly clear Thursday why he has not yet implemented a comprehensive U.S. response to the Islamist insurgency that is rapidly spreading across the Middle East.

“We don’t have a strategy yet,” Obama said

 Our allies in the Middle East are nervous

When a superpower, the superpower, is reluctant in developing policy, it’s not only about leadership, it’s about having a coherent approach to crises,” said another regional official.

“The ball is in the U.S. court,” said a third.

Senior officials from four Middle Eastern states spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid public indications of disquiet with Obama.

Some Arab states are not that worried about ISIS (since many of them fund ISIS against Iran-backed Syria and the Assad regime), and some of our allies in Europe are not eager to join another "coalition of the willing" due to the debacle that was the previous Iraq War.

Two U.S. allies in the Arab world – Egypt and the United Arab Emirates – have shown their priorities by carrying out airstrikes not against ISIS but against targets in a different war zone: Libya. And for Persian Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, some analysts argue, ISIS is scary, but the far more mainstream Muslim Brotherhood is still considered a broader, long-term political threat to the region’s kings and autocrats.

The real way to defeat ISIS is to persuade our "allies" in the region to stop funding them.  They deny funding ISIS directly, but experts point to indirect funding as well as supporting fundamentalism as fueling the rise and growth of ISIS.

Tarek Masoud, who teaches at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and has written extensively about Islamist movements, said the Jordanians are “spooked” by ISIS and that the Egyptians would be game for any action that weakens Islamists, the arch-enemies of the military regime in Cairo. Still, he said, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar were far more crucial to any anti-ISIS effort.

“I can see the three tightening up controls on fund raising for ISIS,”

It has also been argued by some that Assad himself let radical groups grow as a way to prove that he is necessary in power to keep radical groups at bay.

The least useful way is to pretend that there is no dilemma, and that, whatever each might say, the interests of Assad and ISIS are aligned. The basis for this argument is that Assad has, in the course of the war, strategically picked his battles with various rebel factions, first going after the ones that he believed to be domestic political threats, which in turn allowed ISISto grow stronger. (Another theory is that Assad wanted ISIS to be powerful because it made the opposition as a whole look bad.) But at best this is a short-term perspective. Assad and many in his circle are Alawites, whom ISIS regards as apostates; the group is a real threat to Assad and to his base.  

Here is Lawrence Wright documenting the birth and growth of ISIS

In 2000, Zarqawi, a Jordanian who had been a convicted thief and sex criminal before turning to radical Islam, created his own group, drawing from his country and the region known in Arabic as al-Sham, or the Levant—that is, Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. He called his force at that time the Army of the Sham.

Zarqawi had a different goal in mind. He hoped to provoke an Islamic civil war, and, for his purposes, there was no better venue than the fractured state of Iraq, which sits astride the Sunni-Shiite fault line.

Kerry is going back to the Middle East after the NATO summit next week

Next week, he said, he will consult NATO allies on larger plans for Syria, Iraq and the Islamic State at an alliance summit in Wales, Obama said. Immediately afterward, he is sending Secretary of State John F. Kerry to the region to meet with Middle Eastern leaders.

Obama's contentious relationship with Congress (yes the Republicans are also to blame) is affecting the Contitution (see Executive Orders and War Powers Act)

He rejected criticism from some lawmakers for not seeking congressional approval for the limited Iraq operation. “As commander in chief, I have the authorities to engage in the acts that we are conducting currently,” Obama said.

Congress is divided, but not clearly on bipartisan lines

This time, with the midterm elections just over two months away, lawmakers may be even less inclined to take a politically risky vote on military action.

“I see no reason to come to Congress because, if he does, it'll just become a circus,” Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., said this week.

Still, some lawmakers are calling for Obama to put military action in Syria to a vote. Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, a frequent critic of the administration’s foreign policy, has said Congress should “certainly” authorize such steps. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat and White House ally, has also called for a vote on the president’s broader strategy for going after the Islamic State.

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2014/08/28/6272044_obama-says-russia-responsible.html?sp=/100/104/422//&rh=1#storylink=cpy

Again, the media is playing partisanship, but it's not about "it's nice to be asked to go to war" it's the law after 60 days (the President is given some authority to start on his own under Article 2 of the Constitution

Unlike the partisan lines along which they have split on other issues, Congress has been divided on Syria, with many Democrats opposed to any return to war in the Middle East. Some Republicans have shared that concern, while others have pressed for more military action.

But both Republicans and Democrats agree that they want to be asked.

Obama did not call Russian invasion an invasion

Although he said he expected to impose additional sanctions, he declined to call Russia’s latest moves an invasion, as Ukraine and others have, saying they were “not really a shift” but just “a little more overt” form of longstanding Russian violations of Ukrainian sovereignty.

 So in the end yes Obama wore a tan suit that looked a little weird.  Twitter erupted just like it does over everything that happens anywhere, no matter how trivial or important.  We can have our fun, but we must also not allow the media to distract us.  We must pay attention to the policies as well.

I sent out some thoughts as well

We don't have a strategy

this statement must have Republicans screaming "Benghazi" at their TVs
here  and here  (and some on the right did take notice @slone)

It is not just part of my responsibility, but it is a sacred duty for me as Commander-in-Chief to protect the American people.  And that requires me to act fast, based on information I receive, if an embassy of ours or a consulate of ours is being threatened.

(Not a tweet) 
So our strategy is not to defeat ISIL? (emphasis mine)

in some of the media reports the suggestion seems to have been that we’re about to go full scale on an elaborate strategy for defeating ISIL, and the suggestion, I guess, has been that we’ll start moving forward imminently and somehow Congress -- still out of town -- is going to be left in the dark.  That’s not what’s going to happen.

Here are just a few of the tweets I saw today.

Something missing from Obama's speech....Pakistan
 
@thekarami

Not one comment or question to Obama today on Pakistan, where elected gov asked army to step into political crisis NYT

@bungdan wrote

As soon as we have an Iraqi government in place, the likelihood of Iraqi forces being more effective significantly increases." - Obama today

@emptywheel responded

@bungdan One of those details no one will notice bc of the suit.

Marcy Wheeler @emptywheel also noticed that the tan suit would distract some journalists from covering the important issues

Tan suit: A good way to distract journalists from turning Constitution into "making sure their voices are heard."

There was also the #NoStrategyEmptySuit hashtag

There were also many tweets complaining that news coverage was about the suit, and mocking the criticizm of Obama but not other presidents.

@stevesilberman

You actually *didn't* have to run an article about the tan suit.

 And several "how dare a President wear a tan suit" outrage clarifications

@Arianna8927

Breaking News: a non black president has worn a tan suit and everyone was okay with it.

@EricWolfson

WHAT KIND OF PRESIDENT WEARS A TAN SUIT?!?!?! (or does he not count because he was never ELECTED…?) #TanSuitGate

 


And with almost everything Obama does or doesn't do, there's Jimmy Carter

And finally, there was this non-tan suit gem

A message from the State Department