Deep in the Purse

Red Letter Day
As Western powers pressed the Syrian authorities to permit United Nations inspectors to examine the site of a claimed poison gas attack outside Damascus, France said on Thursday that outside powers should respond “with force” if the use of chemical weapons was confirmed.
...
The notion of “red lines” was initially introduced last August by President Obama, who said the use of chemical weapons in Syria would radically alter American calculations about the war.

At the time, Mr. Obama declared that the use or deployment of chemical or biological weapons would “change my calculus” and “change my equation.” (NYT, 8/22/2013)

The Middle East is a cesspool. Bush went in because of 9/11. We get that. Beyond that, however, we believe that the U.S. should stay out other than to back Israel, the only democracy in the region. Obama's hesitancy to get involved is understandable. Give weapons to the "freedom fighters" and they will turn around and kill Americans at the first opportunity. But Obama was the one who said "red line." He created the current problem which has America looking weak because he will not enforce a line that he himself drew in the sand. He is a foreign policy rube.


Soiled
A federal judge sharply rebuked the National Security Agency in 2011 for repeatedly misleading the court that oversees its surveillance on domestic soil, including a program that is collecting tens of thousands of domestic e-mails and other Internet communications of Americans each year, according to a secret ruling made public on Wednesday. (NYT, 8/21/2013)

Let's play a game. Substitute 2007 for 2011 in the above excerpt. How many times would the name of President George Bush appear in this article? If you guessed "more than five times" you would probably be right. 

Now guess how many times the name President Barack Obama appears. 

Correct. Zero.


Chelsea Mourning
Bradley Manning, sentenced to 35 years in military prison for the biggest breach of classified U.S. documents in U.S. history, said in a statement on Thursday he is female and wants to live as a woman named Chelsea.

"As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning, I am a female," Manning, 25, said in the statement read on NBC News' "Today" show.

"Given the way that I feel and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible," Manning said. "I also request that starting today you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun."

Manning's lawyer David Coombs said on the program that he expected Manning to get a pardon from President Barack Obama. (NYT,8/22/2013)

Where to begin? First, perhaps, a rare RedStateVT correction, albeit provisional. Yesterday, we predicted a pardon of Chelsea Manning by President Hillary Clinton. Turns out that Obama might beat her to it.

Next we wonder how taxpayers feel about the fact that they will now be on the hook for Manning's hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery. (That's what they call it, right?)

The world is upside down, my friends. Upside down. 


Usual Suspects
In the past, for example, Mr. Spitzer has railed against offshore tax shelters, portraying them as dubious practices of the financial elite.

On his Current TV news talk show last fall, he wagged his finger at “offshore shelters and other games that are suspect,” as he questioned the personal finances of Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate.

But as of 2011, the last year for which public documents are available, the Spitzer family trust invested in at least four funds that are incorporated offshore.

That strategy has insulated the trust from taxes it would have owed for investing in certain kinds of domestic funds. (NYT, 8/21/2013)

Proof (once again) that there are two sets of Liberal standards.