Maddow laying groundwork for war again.

[No Elephants]

A while back, before the bomb Syria applecart was upset, Maddow made a case for why other nations should join us in bombing innocent Syrians for allegedly humanitarian reasons, one of the most heinous oxymorons I have ever had the misfortune to hear. (Makes "Great Depression" seem downright cheerful in comparison.) http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2492699

Well, obviously, if Obama has been, in theory, chewing over intevention (beyond providing weapons, CIA, etc.) for at least seven months, there was no imminent need for the US to start bombing Syria to protect the US, was there? Of course not. Because if there had been an imminent need, surely Obama would have begun bombing, right?

Last night, Maddow began laying the groundwork for why no one, let alone the US, should trust Russia to safeguard WMD or potential WMD, like nuclear weapons or materials necessary for making nuclear weapons, or, say, chemical weapons, like those Syria possesses. (MSM now saying Syria is "the" super power of chemical weapons. Obvious much?)

In her painstaking way of building a case, Maddow spoke to how, when the USSR broke up--to the total shock of the US, she claims--many of the nations that were once part of the USSR had nuclear weapons and/or materials for making nuclear weapons, that were totally unsecured. Until the heroic US, at the urging of Democratic cold warriors like Nunn, stepped in and helped secure them.--And, by then, the real and present danger that materials necessary to make nuclear weapons might have gotten into the hands of terrorists.

(Rachel said nothing about our own security as to WMD, nuclear, chemical and biological, which has, on past occasions, been shown to be less than perfect. However, like Republicans, New Democrats seem to be far better at casting stones at others than they are at seeing their own flaws.)

Boys and girls, can you guess the connection between that and Putin's brokering a deal for Syria to give up its form of WMD?

Heck, if we can't trust either Syria or Russia with WMD, even if one or both has no intention to create global danger, why, this whole attempt at preventing a conflagration in the Middle East is just never going to work, is it? To the contrary, it's going to present in imminent danger to the national security of everyone on the planet, including the US, isn't it?

And you know what happens when the CIC perceives an imminent danger to US national security? Yep, you guessed it. The War Powers Resolution gets triggered, the WPR being a law by which Congress purported to empower the President to take defensive war actions without first seeking the approval of Congress, as Articles I and II of the Constitution seems to require. (Article I by express statement that Congress has the power to declare war; and Article II by omitting any mention of power in the President/CIC to initiate an act of war--and despite the attempts of the Obama administration to re-define "war" in a nuclear age to mean only "boots on the ground," bombing another nation, or the territory of another nation, or the ships of another nation, is indeed an act of war. Just ask Japan and Germany.)


The powers of the CIC under the WPR had not been triggered before, because of perceived absence of an imminent threat to national security, as stated above. But, also as stated above, Rachel painstakingly proved that things get very, very dangerous for everyone on the planet once Russia gets involved with WMD, especially for nations that are primary targets of terrorists as we are. Badda boom, badda bing. Unilateral power in the executive to act under the WPR.

Is the WPR itself constitutional? Never been tested in court, but we know what the former lecturer on voting rights and campaign finance law at UChi would say.

[Enthusiast]

1. I wish I could disagree.

I will no longer record or watch Rachel. The entire MSNBC line-up is on the band wagon.

[NinetySix]

2. I still watch.

I find I never agree with ANYONE 100%, and Rachel is no exception. I do appreciate her anti-corporate, pro-labor economic stances, but I also find her decision to support the "shoot first, ask questions later" crowd bizarre and uncharacteristic of her previous stances on military action in the Middle East. Do MSNBC anchors have to toe a corporate (read: GE as largest defense contractor) line in order to receive clearance to broadcast? I would have thought they had greater independence than Faux....

Of course, on Faux, those poor anchors have to adjust their principled stances daily to comport with their inerrant opposition to all things Obama Administration. So it could be worse; MSNBC could be both inconsistent AND unprincipled.

[No Elephants]

4. I think MSNBC is unprincipled. I don't put a lot of stock in consistency.

If one is wrong or mistaken, inconsistency in positions would be a vast improvement, no?

[Enthusiast]

6. Yes, it could be worse. But, comparing the media to the standards of Faux

we will lower the standards for all the rest. John Stewart's piece last night illustrated this very well. Of course Fox is ridiculous, CNN a little less so(barely)-leaving MSNBC to appear almost objective. But MSNBC's strict official establishment message is clear if we look closely.

Bring back Olbermann!

[DeSwiss]

3. Bingo!

Rachel said nothing about our own security as to WMD, nuclear, chemical and biological, which has, on past occasions, been shown to be less than perfect. However, like Republicans, New Democrats seem to be far better at casting stones at others than they are at seeing their own flaws.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/air-force-stripped-17-officers-launch-nuclear-missiles-internal-rot.php">Air Force Stripped 17 Officers Of Ability To Launch Nuclear Missiles Due To Internal ‘Rot’

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5006916&page=1">Top Air Force Officials Fired

[Enthusiast]

5. Holy shit!

Have any Republicans voiced the opinion that we should replace these officers with private contractors?

Idiocracy, baby!

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. Do they pay MSNBC to toe the party line always? is that why Olbermann got fired?

[No Elephants]

8. I don't know if MSNBC gets paid to toe the line.

However, the role of MSNBC is to support Democrats and criticize Republicans, much as the role of Fox is to support Republicans and criticize Democrats. However, as Enthusiast correctly pointed out to me, Fox will go further to do that, such as by deliberately making up "facts."

I don't know if Olberman ultimately got fired for not toeing the line. From things he alluded to obliquely while on air, I think he was chastised for a number of things, like his Worst Person in the World segment. I also know that, when he and MSNBC failed to agree on a new contract, his show was the highest rated show MSNBC had (with the possible exception of its soul numbing law and order type programming). That included Rachel Maddow's show, which was new on MSNBC at the time, compared with Olbermann's.

I also know that, according to Cenk Uygur, he was told to be less critical of the Obama administration. If you google, you can probably find info on that, including a view of Cenk being interviewed on the subject. I would do it, but I have just googled for that stuff once too often.

I don't get Current, so I don't know if Cenk toned down once he got on Current. We all have to eat and no one seems to be paying a lot to people to tell the whole truth about both Democrats and Republicans. The best we can hope for anymore is what I call "two idiots yelling at each other." Although commentators from different sides yell less than they used to when networks got the idea that two biased people somehow got the truth across more than one objective reporter.