The Great Return: Hillary Clinton 2016 And More Laughs And Tears From Obama The Clown

A summer of a rodeo clown dominating headlines brings forth new laughs. King Clown Obama, the chucklehead of all chuckleheads, has us in full chuckle.

Oprah’s penis dress provoked laughs from us but not as much as the thought of Barack Obama in a Bush-like search for weapons of mass destruction – in Syria. We have no doubt that the Syrian Government is bathing rebel forces with weaponized chemicals and gasses but the irony of Obama as Bush and the neo-con hunt for WMDs can’t help but make us giggle. Are we back to 2008?

As funny as Obama on the hunt for weapons of mass destruction is, what intrigues us the most is the appalling fact that on Wednesday Obama will be oppressing with another tedious speech the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington even as cruise missiles are readied for launch. Forget “Let Freedom Ring” lets sing “Let Hypocrisy Reign”.

Anti-war Peace Prize winner Martin Luther King would be so proud. A few hours after soiling the 50th anniversary show, Obama will earn another peace prize by doing something to prove he is manly. Obama will drop some flaccid missiles on Syria all the while apologizing. The Obama Hopium Guzzlers will applaud.

Not all the Hopium Guzzlers are applauding however. At the New Republic, stronghold of Obama delusionists, there is some realization that Obama is, at best, a boob:

“As president, starting with his Prague speech in 2009, he has often said one of his top goals was preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

But there seems no way Obama can justify, either to himself or anyone else, a commitment to banning nuclear weapons but a laissez-faire approach to chemical weapons, which are now being used in warfare for the first time in a quarter-century. The drive to ban chemical weapons was fuelled by the horrors of World War I, the anti-nuclear movement by the horrors of World War II. Opposing WMD means banning both. A failure to respond to the use in Syria now wouldn’t be just a failure to make progress; it would be a major retrogression. [snip]

As for his “pivot” towards Asia, all of Obama’s speeches meant to reassure our Asian allies of our continuing and revived interest the region would end up having little impact if our policies in Syrian make it appear as the United States is so wavering that America’s idealism and its power are both on the wane.

Worst of all is the way in which Obama’s recent policies of fervent restraint undermine his administration’s past assertions about America’s role in the world. Over the past few years, as Obama’s fringe critics have accused him of wanting or seeking decline, the president and his aides have come up with bland but plausible formulations to defend their policies. We’re not trying to bring about America’s decline in the world, they argue; rather, we’re trying to do what’s necessary to preserve American role in the world for another 50 years or so.

But it is hard to square that belief with Obama’s policy of fervent restraint in Syria and Egypt. Indeed, the only power Obama seems to be asserting these days is an ironic one: it is an assertive belief in the presidential prerogative to be passive. The existing federal law says if there is a military coup d’etat against a democratic government, then American foreign aid will be cut off. All the arguments against cutting off aid—we will lose influence with the Egyptian generals, etc., etc.—are more-or-less debatable arguments, but ones that Obama should make to Congress to try to get the law changed. To ignore the law is to increase presidential power (just as the right to declare war years ago slipped quietly from Congress to the president.)

Overall, Obama has seemed recently as if he is morphing before our eyes from someone who believes, rightly, that the United States can’t always influence world events as much we would like, to someone who believes we shouldn’t exert influence, and shouldn’t even try. Even he must see now that his policy of fervent restraint has reached the end of its usefulness.

The “fringe critics” like us correctly and with precision analyzed weak Obama and his failures domestically and internationally. Now all is falling apart and Obama’s center cannot hold. The failures are attributable either to a deliberate undermining of America or sheer boobery. If it is boobery, it is showing. The hypocrisies and bumbling can no longer be kept from public view.

On Syria, which frankly does not matter as much as Egypt, it has been all out boobery all the time for Syrian Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s crime pal Barack. Whatever Barack does in Syria will be a mess because a boob can only beget boobery. There is time to consult with wiser leaders but King Clown Obama is at his rodeo too busy blustering and making a fool of himself to listen to the American people or wiser leaders. Will Obama go to Congress before attacking Syria? Don’t expect the Hopium Guzzlers to demand that from the “unitary executive” they so thrashed in 2008. Are we in 2008?

Remember in 2008 how the Obama Hopium Guzzlers trashed Hillary Clinton as a belligerent war monger? Now the monger is on the other war – Obama’s war. It would be so much fun if Hillary or somebody would denounce Obama as a war monger and say it is time for a change.

And speaking of Hillary, she is back. For those that hate Hillary and for those that love Hillary the news is great, just great. Everyone should at least enjoy the coming fight we have been writing about for so long. The coming bloodbath at the DNC is something we will love to witness and certainly Republicans should get the popcorn and watch the great return:

“But when Harold M. Ickes walked into the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on Thursday afternoon and rejoined the panel, at least one longtime Democratic strategist raised her eyebrows.

“He predated the Clinton era, but when I saw Harold reappointed to the D.N.C., he surely, in my judgment, symbolizes the return of the Clintons,” said Donna Brazile, a fellow member of the rules committee.”

That reservoir of fear and loathing, that bottomless pit of filth called Donna Brazile, sees the writing on the wall and thinks we have forgotten her treacheries and lies as she tries to ingratiate herself to Hillary & Co. We haven’t forgotten Donna. We remember.

We remember and no doubt Harold Ickes remembers:

“Mr. Ickes said he was put back on the committee by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the national committee and herself an ardent advocate for Mrs. Clinton in 2008, but he also acknowledged that he “actively sought” the seat.

It is in my view the most important committee at the D.N.C. because of its role in shaping the nomination process,” he said, adding a bit mischievously, “The goal is to design rules to nominate the strongest candidate for the general election.”

That, he added, would be up to the voters but there is no question who he believes that candidate is.

Mr. Ickes, 73, is a fixture in the Clinton’s world. He ran Bill Clinton’s New York campaign in the 1992 Democratic primary and served as a deputy chief of staff in Mr. Clinton’s White House. He was a top adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, and Mrs. Clinton’s chief liaison at the D.N.C. during her primary battle against Barack Obama. From his perch on the rules committee he memorably railed against a compromise on disputed delegates in the waning days of the Democratic primary.

At a notably less sedate national committee meeting in late May 2008, Mr. Ickes argued in vain against what he called the “hijacking” of Mrs. Clinton’s delegate share from two disputed state primaries. “I am stunned that we have the gall and the chutzpah to substitute our judgment for 600,000 voters,” Mr. Ickes said at the time.

A few weeks later, Mrs. Clinton conceded the race to Mr. Obama. The following year, with Mr. Obama as party leader, Mr. Ickes left his rules committee post. According to party records, he had served on the rules panel since at least 1992.

I was not reappointed after the 2008 election for some pretty obvious reasons,” Mr. Ickes said.

Now, five years later — with Mr. Obama a lame duck and speculation soaring about whether Mrs. Clinton will seek the White House again — her procedural maven is back in his old position at the national party.”

The party has to be purged of Barack Obama and his hoodlums. Ickes, the man with one kidney lost in the civil rights era struggles , is on the job and hopefully a lot wiser about the Chicago filth. Ickes has not forgotten why he was not reappointed and that should end all the Big Media nonsense about the Obama versus Clinton wars being buried.

Harold Ickes is not the only one that better be aware of the dangers ahead for Hillary Clinton 2016. A lot of fools affiliated with Hillary Clinton 2016 do not realize Obama will do anything and everything to stop Hillary from getting the nomination. Barack Obama organized his OAF organization to make sure he keeps control of the Dimocratic Party. Barack Obama will do what he has to do to stop Hillary and Harold from taking power and control away from him.

Hillary Clinton 2016 supporters who think Obama “owes” Bill and Hillary and that a “deal” was made in 2012 to reelect Barack Obama are fools – if they think Obama will pay up and not welsh on the deal. Remember:

“Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.”

Barack Obama is auditioning stooges for the role of the anti-Hillary 2016:

“His Republican foes branded it the “2016 Kickoff Tour” and vice-president Joe Biden made it clear to the people of “my native town, Scranton” that he hopes to build a White House campaign on tales of his humble upbringing in Pennsylvania coal country.

After recently seeming to bolster former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s credentials to be his successor, President Barack Obama went out of his way to give a boost to his No 2. [snip]

This was a signal that [Obama’s] not playing sides,” said Ed Mitchell, a long-time Democratic consultant in Pennsylvania.

He wanted to be there together with Biden so that people didn’t think that because he’d had lunch with Secretary Clinton and said nice things about her on 60 Minutes that he was favouring her.”

Obama said at Friday’s rally to promote an initiative to make college more affordable that the “reason that I love Scranton is because if it weren’t for Scranton, I wouldn’t have Joe Biden”.

Noting that it was exactly five years since the “special day” that he selected Biden as his running mate, Obama piled on the praise. “It was the best decision that I ever made, politically, because I love this guy . . . and he’s got some Scranton in him,” he said.

Biden grinned broadly, perhaps imagining the campaign commercial that could be crafted from the event.”

Did someone say “clown”?:

“In his book This Town, a dirt-dishing account of the insider world of politics that has become a summer must-read in the American capital, Mark Leibovich describes Biden as “the lovable rodeo clown of the administration”, someone Obama talked about “with a patronising over-fondness — as if the VP were the beloved family dog that kept peeing on the carpet”.

Biden’s two previous runs for the White House were spectacular failures. In 2008, his folksy, long-winded style failed to resonate and he dropped out after securing just 0.9% of the vote in Iowa.

In 1987 he was forced to withdraw when it was revealed that he had plagiarised a speech by Neil Kinnock, then Labour party leader. [snip]

A Biden presidential campaign will be like watching Benny Hill reruns,” he said. “Our Joey will be predictable — he’ll be as stale as a day-old sausage roll and cheeky in his own goofy way.”

Joe Biden is only one of the many Obama will audition for the anti-Hillary of 2016. Behind the scenes it will be just like 2008 when many Hillary Clinton supporters did not realize that Rahm Emanuel, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary’s good friend Patti Solis Doyle were secretly working for Barack Obama well before 2007.

Biden is not the end product but he is a stalking horse for the dark horse yet to arrive. Biden doesn’t stand a chance against Hillary. Obama is using dumb ol’ Joe to buy some time until the real anti-Hillary can be found or revealed.

We’ve never thought much about Biden but, a “rodeo clown of the administration”? The “dog that kept peeing on the carpet”? Isn’t that Barack? Isn’t that why things stink? It’s time we all work hard to get this clown and all his works out of the White House and back to Chicago.


149 thoughts on “The Great Return: Hillary Clinton 2016 And More Laughs And Tears From Obama The Clown


    “I didn’t think anything more of it than what we’ve done 15 years ago, ten years ago, five years ago, when we’ve done it with Bush, Clinton and Ronald Reagan,” Gessling said.

    But this time, race entered the equation. A white man dressed in a mask of a black president was just offensive to a lot of people.

    “I never did anything because of anybody’s race. I don’t care what color somebody is. If they’re blue, white, green, polka dotted, striped … it doesn’t bother me one bit,” Gessling said.


  2. chemicalobama…asshate. To think we are on the same side as Al Qaeda. What a supreme joke.

    What kept him from caring so much about the 100,000 that had been killed PRIOR to the gas? Does it really matter if your beheaded or gassed?


    November 29, 2007 5:03 PM

    PORTSMOUTH — Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.

    Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a candidate forum held Thursday at Seacoast Media Group. The forum focused on the Iraq war and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of a war with Iran, Biden said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the Oval Office.

    The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.

    Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president.

    When local resident Joel Carp asked Biden why not impeach now, given what has already been done, Biden said it was a valid point, but might not be constitutionally valid and potentially counterproductive. A case for impeachment must have clear evidence, Biden said, and blame should be directed at the right parties.

    If you’re going to impeach George Bush, you better impeach (Vice President Dick) Cheney first,” said Biden, again drawing applause.

    Biden said the best deterrent to prevent pre-emptive military action in Iran is to make it clear, even if it is at the end of his final term, action will be taken against Bush to ensure “his legacy will be marred for all time.

  4. I played golf with a friend of mine yesterday who voted for Obama and now regrets it. However, he spends most of his time raving and ranting about the tea party. He has got money. I have other friends who voted for Obama, now don’t talk about it but rave and rant about the tea party. One of them, an acquaintance more so than a friend was a senior member of the Reagan Administration, and he claimed with the changes in the Republican Party, which I interpreted to mean the rise of the Tea Party, he is now an independent. And a former boss of mine who sat on the Yahoo Board with Rumsfeld and had a family background in the Republican Party which goes back to Taft who used to stay at his grandparents house when he was in town, swore off the Republican Party and claims that he too is now an independent, and obviously voted for Obama.

    The pattern I am getting at here is this. The business Republicans feel that they are too good to be in the same party as the grass roots people, who are the heart of the ground game of the party. They need them, but they can’t stand the smell. Personally, I identify with the grass roots, the Constitution, Levin, and any candidate in either party who is for the people and not the elites. Anyway, back to my friend. I am sick of his deranged diatribes about the tea party. I have explained to him repeatedly what the problem is–our country is being taken away from us, and these people are concerned enough to do something about it, or to at least try. Mention the name Ted Cruz and he has an epileptic fit.

    I will tell you right now what it is with these people. They consider themselves part of the ruling class, and they have no respect for ordinary people. They believe that even if Obama fucks everything up, that they have enough of a cushion, or an escape strategy that it will not affect them. The closing statement by my friend, before I shut him off was that he hates Obama, but we are stuck with him for 3 1/2 more years and he does not want to hear any more criticism of him. I did not dignify that response with an answer. It is too stupid.

  5. The pattern I am getting at here is this. The business Republicans feel that they are too good to be in the same party as the grass roots people, who are the heart of the ground game of the party.
    And if they appoint Christie, it is more probable than not that they will get their wish, i.e. to not be part of the same party as their own grass roots members, and not because they will leave the party, but that the grass roots will do the exiting. That is what I am predicting will happen, and that is one schism, breach and divorce which I would not blame on the other party, or the media. The problem is with the arrogance of the elites, and their RINOs surrogates–like that stupid arrogant Rich Moran RINO Hour of Power pundit at pjmeida. They have no respect for the American People and are prefectly content to be junior partners in the graft ridden glass menagerie of Washington DC.

  6. Earlier in the golf round mentioned above, our host pointed out a new foot bridge across a strip mall to me which was adorned with a series of fences, and cast in expensive stone works. He told me that bridge was a deer crossing, and it cost $6 million. He told me it was part of the Obama stimulus plan. I had to take his word for it because there was not sign saying this project was made possible by President Obama, and your tax dollars, not necessarily in that order. Granted, Obama did not build that bridge. That would be work. So what he did do was loot the taxpayers, and it was completed with illegal Mexican labor. How is that for a happy ending?

  7. Watching Fat Donna and Bush’s Brain serenade each other on the dance floor is not only reminiscent of what occurred in 2008, but a shadow of things to come. The sight of it is enough to turn your stomach. It conjures up disturbing visions of what it would be like if Alfred Hitchock and Butterfly McQueen tried to do the foxtrot.

  8. By the way, I have it on good authority that the deer are boycotting that bridge. Therefore, the problem de jour is how to get them to forgo their reticence and use the damned thing. If they could get a family of deer to cross that bridge single file, then Obama could fly in on Air Force I, and do a photo op. And then he could deliver a Periclean speech on how thanks to his stimulus plan human beings and wild animals are learning to live together in a state of harmony and mutual trust. And if they can do it, then surely it is only a matter of time before Bibi and Abbas follow suit under the quasi divine inspiration of Obama.

  9. Admin, this post preaches the truth if I have ever heard it. I so hope we see chickens coming home to roost in 2016, and that Obama’s death grip on the Dem Party and more importantly, the country, will be broken. I gotta say, though, I’m not terribly optimistic.

    I don’t think Biden will be a problem. But, Obama and Oprah definitely have plans for Booker to be in WH, maybe not in 2016, but possibly. Their ace in the hole is the sheer number of voters who will do Obama’s bidding. He will control black votes. And, once he pushes amnesty for illegals through, he will control the Hispanics, as well.

    I was talking with a friend last week who said he was recently talking to an undocumented Hispanic worker who had been in this country for 12 years. The Hispanic man shared that he had no green card – but he had hope because Obama was working to help Hispanics.

    Of course we have known all along that was the plan.

    So, come 2016, if Obama controls the black and Hispanic votes, he can replace himself with anyone of his choosing. Hell, Oprah may be out next POTUS.

    Regarding the reported agreement between Obama and the Clintons, and his (false) commitment to support her in 2016 – surely Bill and Hillary never really trusted Obama to keep his word. They, of all people, know how treacherous this empty suit is.

    And, as has been said here before, the fact that some of the Obama Dims, like Nancy P. and Claire McScrewu, have already started talking about a Hillary run in 2016, is not a good thing. They got the ball rolling, and now, every Republican with a microphone is reporting sh** about her on an hourly basis. And, who’s defending her? Not the Dims who are supposed to be supporting her. If this were during campaign, and they had no one else to support, the traitor Dims would be forced to appear on various talk shows, write editorials, etc., and offer some defense of Hillary. As it is, she’s just out there being blasted repeatedly. She – or her spokespeople – respond if the accusation is heinous enough. Otherwise, the accusations and slams are just put out there for people to hear over and over again – with nobody who has any clout doing anything to counter the attacks. Now, we know why. They could get her out of the way early, and pave the way for the candidate of O’s choice.

    These people are so low they could walk under a snake’s belly.

    If the Republicans had possessed an ounce of sense, they would have RUN to the polls in 2008 to vote for Hillary. The moderate Republicans knew that McCain couldn’t win. They also knew that Hillary was far more centrist than Obama, and that her policies would be less objectionable to them that O. But, their hatred of the name Clinton would not allow that. So when they wax all patriotic, they need to have to answer where their love of country was back in 2008, when Rush worked to get Obama the nom. They claim to be such patriots, but they would rather see the country go down the tubes than work for a Clinton.

    If they threw in with her early on, and by some miracle, formed a coalition of sorts of moderate Pubs with the moderate Dems, they could help beat the next loser Obama has in store for us, and do something decent for this country. But hell hasn’t frozen over yet.

  10. Watching Fat Donna and Bush’s Brain serenade each other on the dance floor is not only reminiscent of what occurred in 2008, but a shadow of things to come. The sight of it is enough to turn your stomach. It conjures up disturbing visions of what it would be like if Alfred Hitchock and Butterfly McQueen tried to do the foxtrot.

    Hysterical! Thanks for starting off my morning with a laugh. 🙂

  11. Growing Evidence Supports Syrian Rebels Launched Chemical Attacks

    America needs to talk now. It can’t wait until tomorrow. It can’t wait until our lousy elected servants decide to debate the subject. There are warships headed toward Syria now and Russia is preparing to counter. This could lead to World War III and I don’t know how else to put it… YOU AND YOUR FAMILY COULD DIE FOR THESE IDIOTS. This could cost millions of lives because if Russia and China get involved, which could very well happen, this war will not be pretty. We are talking about a real possibility of nuclear weapons being used and American civilians dying.

    Let’s dispense with the partisan politics and call it what it is. There is evidence to suggest that Barack Obama would not be the first president to put us into a war under false pretenses and it is not an accusation that can be placed solely on Democrats. So let go of that and let’s come together as a country right now to talk about what is potentially about to happen, unless we get loud enough to stop it. By now most of us have heard that warships are moving in and that a cruise missile attack, though not imminent, is possible or even likely. I want to walk you through some growing evidence and then I will leave it up to you. This is your country. If you care about this country then you will get loud and do it quickly. There is no time to waste. Share the articles and videos. Get in touch with your elected reps. Go to TV stations. Hand out flyers. Do whatever you have to do to stop this war from happening. Act as if your life depends on it. Because it very well might. Washington D.C. and our mainstream media have presented ZERO proof that Assad was behind these attacks. The information I am about to show you will not provide 100% proof that Syrian Rebels are responsible for launching these attacks, but please consider this… It is more proof then we are getting from the other side. Two days ago a startling confession came from a former member of Al-Nusra. They have chemical weapons and are intent on using them. This is the side which we are supporting.


  12. CBS’s Anna Werner remains at Fort Hood and has tweeted 3 points of interest. She states verdict could come today. Then provides links to two articles. For this one she says, “interesting timing.”
    Internal Documents Reveal How the FBI Blew Fort Hood
    Nearly a year before the massacre, the bureau intercepted emails between Nidal Hasan and radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki that officials called “fairly benign.” They are anything but.
    By Mariah Blake Tue Aug. 27, 2013 6:42 AM PDT

  13. For this Werner tweets does Obama have a dilemma with Hasan vs Bales.
    August 28, 2013 Crime and Punishment, Military-Style Posted by Hendrik Hertzberg

    snip To sum up where we seem to be headed, as it is apt to be seen in many parts of the world:
    One dark-skinned Muslim with an Arab name kills two American soldiers. He is put to death.
    A second dark-skinned Muslim with an Arab name kills thirteen American soldiers. He, too, is put to death.
    A white Christian-American soldier kills sixteen Muslim civilians—three men, four women, nine children. His life is spared.
    For an American soldier to be executed, the sentence of death has to be personally affirmed by the President of the United States.
    Although Barack Obama was originally an opponent of capital punishment, by the time he ran for the Senate he was on record as supporting it in certain “heinous” cases. It’s logical to assume that he, like many other Democratic office-seekers in recent decades, took this position for reasons of political expediency, not out of conviction. Now his last campaign is behind him.
    If the Texas military court sentences Major Hasan to death, and if the mandatory appeals process exhausts itself without undue delay (Hasan, unlike Sergeant Akbar, probably won’t put up much of a legal struggle), President Obama will be confronted with a difficult choice.

  14. ColMorrisDavis has replied to Werner: Luckily for Pres Obama, neither case is likely to get thru the appellate process & to his desk before his term ends.

  15. White House enlists Bill Clinton on health care

    WASHINGTON (AP) ­ The White House is enlisting former President Bill Clinton’s help in explaining President Barack Obama’s health care law as a key phase of the reform nears.

    Clinton will speak about the law on Sept. 4 at his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark. His remarks come less than one month before the public can start signing up for the health care exchanges, which will be crucial to the law’s success or failure.

    Obama and Clinton have become increasingly close in recent years. After last year’s Democratic national convention, Obama aides dubbed Clinton the “secretary of explaining stuff” because of his convention speech’s broad defense of the president’s policies.

  16. Leanora
    August 28, 2013 at 10:17 am

    White House enlists Bill Clinton on health care

    Obama and Clinton have become increasingly close in recent years.
    How close is that?

    So close that he begged Hillary to challenge Obama in 2012.

    This line was fed by the White House to whoever the big media whore was that dutifully reported it, without edits.

    On a related note, this is another example of something that galls me.

    Bill Clinton helping Obama.

    You do not see this with other presidents.

    You could argue that Bill wanted universal health care twenty years ago, so the issue is near and dear to his heart.

    But to do this to help Obama, does not sound right to me.

    Remember, Obama is the one who labeled him a racist, through this campaign surrogates.

    I am more inclined to accept an alternative explanation.

    It makes me wonder whether the whole point of it isn’t just to stay in the limelight.

    Either way, I do not like it.

  17. Leanora
    August 28, 2013 at 5:43 am

    Growing Evidence Supports Syrian Rebels Launched Chemical Attacks
    Same way that NBC rigged the GM truck to explode to further their cause.

    By the way, I posted an article by Buchanan raising this very possibility a couple days ago.

    I hope it turns out to be true and can be proven.

    If such proof IS forthcoming, it could put an end to this dangerous and absurd policy of supporting the same organization that killed nearly 4000 New Yorkers on 9/11.

  18. Whenever Biden appears in public, the background music to introduce him should be Send In The Clown (s).

    That would set the stage for his Henny Youngman one liners, like telling the paraplegic to stand up.

    This is more than fair given the bots playing that song about the bitch referring to Hillary in New Hampshire.

  19. Admin: that clip of Rove and Fat Donna dancing together should be used to remind people of their 2008 alliance to defeat Hillary. There should be a price for treason. It is one thing to oppose a competing candidate in your own party, by deploying resources which exist within your own party. It is quite another however to go to the other party, which is the enemy of your party and solicit their help to defeat the standard bearer of your party in order to advance your own candidate. Unless the English language has lost all meaning, the word for that is treason. Simply put, Brazille is not merely a competitor to Hillary. She is a traitor to the party.

  20. This will be Obama’s legacy too, among the cognoscenti:

    A bombastic delusional hypocrite.

    Unfortunately, big media is not cognoscenti.

    They are camp followers–othing more.

    Like Rabbinical Automotons . .

    They dutifully repeat the talking points . . .

    Fed to them by the White House . . .

    Without questioning so much as a syllable thereof . . .

    And one half of the American electorate are ignoranti.

    How could it be otherwise?

    They actually voted for this fool.

    America’s Military Delusions

    By Larry Johnson on August 27, 2013 at 10:40 AM in Current Affairs

    We are a pathetic, loathsome, meddlesome nation. We combine exuberant self-indulgence with appalling ignorance of history. Yet, we convince ourselves that we are invincible and that we alone are the arbiters of what is right and wrong. We bring this mentality of hubris to a civil war in Syria, which was incited by muslim regimes in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. When we are attacked by Sunni extremists we have no problem killing women and children in the name of fighting terrorism. When Syria follows our lead, they are condemned as the equivalent of a Nazi extermination squad. While we do not comprehend our hypocrisy, most of the world easily sees us for what we are.

    Flummoxed over the rise of Iran in the Middle East, which was made possible by US policy in Iraq and our “success” in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, the Obama Administration is pursuing a proxy war against Tehran by going after their ally–Syria. However, in pursuing this policy the Obama Administration is siding with the Sunni extremists. This is the foreign policy of an Alzheimer’s patient. No memory of the past. No understanding of context. Only the burning desire to quench an immediate thirst for action of some sort. But what is the end game? Not a damn clue.

    Barack Obama may not be the first ass clown in the White House to take this country down a destructive path, but he is the first to have presented himself as a staunch opponent to military adventurism. He would not have invaded Iraq, so he says. But now? He is going to launch strategically meaningless military strikes on Syria and will only succeed in inflaming a civil war and raising the risk of global escalation. And this moron got a Nobel Peace Prize?

    Only one silver lining–Barack Obama’s impending foray into gunboat diplomacy will fully tarnish and discredit whatever legacy he hoped to carry with him when his term is up. But that will be no consolation for the soldiers, sailors, pilots and Marines who will die in the coming years as a result of this foolish action. Obama is hoping that he can do some quick cruise missile strikes that will coerce Syria’s Assad into surrendering. But that is a fantasy.

    More likely? We put our pilots over Syrian air space and some will be shot down and captured. Our cruise missile strikes on “Syrian military targets” will actually hit civilian areas and leave a pile of mangled women and children ready for filming by bored journalists. The nightmare comes if we decide to put US troops on the ground in a bid to take control of a Syrian chemical weapons site. Think of Mogadishu. The mangled bodies of dead US soldiers on display by Syrian forces. Yeah, that will reinforce America’s reputation. Short of committing to a war, we opt to shoot our wad in a paroxysm of anger and leave the strategic situation on the ground unchanged. That reinforces the image of a weak America.

    We already are retreating around the globe. We pulled out of Iraq and left it in the throes of an expanding sectarian civil war. We are pulling out of Afghanistan without quelling the Taliban or reining in Karzai’s corruption. Now is the time for US military leaders to draw a line and warn Obama not to cross it. Committing US forces to an unfunded military venture while the Pentagon budget is facing further cuts is madness. If General Dempsey and the Joint Chiefs go along with this farce then the guilt also is theirs.

  21. The sheer stupidity and lack of strategic vision of Obama and his Harvard trained cabal of advisers has undermined our credibility and ability to influence events in the Middle East. Whether or not the Obama regime decides to attack Syria, it is game over for us in the middle east. Why? Because thanks to our incompetence, and our penchant for backing the wrong horse, the power we had in the region prior to the glorious ascension of Obama to King of the World, has been displaced by something far less mercurial and unreliable: a Saudi-Egyptian alliance, wherein they–not us, become the policeman of the region, by targeting Islamic extremism, whenever it threatens to topple autocratic governments or kingdoms. Moreover, as is true in any stable and enduring alliance, each actor brings something of value to the party. Egypt needs money and it brings an army. Saudi Arabia needs an army and it brings money. Quid pro quo. And, make no mistake, that is what the United States brought to the region prior to Obama: money and the military. But under Obama, we lost our mojo, and we dabbled in radical politics, i.e. the Cairo Speech, blind support for the Muslim Brotherhood, who operated in part out of our own White House. Well . . . its over. All but the shouting. If the Obama regime attacks Syria, it will open Pandora’s box.

  22. Leanora

    August 28, 2013 at 10:17 am

    White House enlists Bill Clinton on health care

    WASHINGTON (AP) ­ The White House is enlisting former President Bill Clinton’s help in explaining President Barack Obama’s health care law as a key phase of the reform nears.

    To compare my political acumen to President Clinton’s is like comparing a remote control car to a Rolls Royce. That said, I just can’t see how his helping bumbles is a GOOD thing or how it benefits ANYONE. He is the one person that could make sense out of the pile of garbage that is the ACA.

    Just don’t get it…. 🙁

    Hillary 2016

  23. I have been lucky. I have known two federal prosecutors well. And I learned a great deal from both of them. One of them was a brash Jewish prosecutor whom I regard as a mentor. He was half Clarence Darrow and half Borsh Belt. He wielded a keen intellect and a rapier sense of humor to the delight of his clients and to the distress of those he cross examined. The other was an Irishman whose family went way back to the early days of the republic. He had a steady impressive demeanor, was a very fast thinker, and had a better sense of how to move political situations forward to the right solution than anyone I have ever known. That may have had something to do with the fact that he also ran a political machine. He reminded me of Bill Rusher, co-founder of National Review. He too was a mentor.

    Nevertheless, I have known by instinct that not every man or woman who becomes a federal prosecutor, by dint of legal experience and political calculation measures up to those two icons, both of whom enriched my life. For I know there is another type of prosecutor whose arrogance knows no bounds, who abuses the public trust and the more he sees the job as a stepping stone to higher office, e.g. the governor’s office, the more likely that crasser considerations will come to dominate his mind, his thinking, and the manner and degree to which he enforces the obligations of his office. In sum, it is a well known fact that a devious prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

    This morning I came across an article which should send a chill down your back. It concerns the behavior of a 27 year ex federal prosecutor, who was appointed by Bush and reappointed by Obama at the behest of Mary Landrieu. Amazingly, this same man is now assistant dean of the Tulane Law School.

    If you care to investigate this matter further, I invite you to view the video clip attached to that article. And then you may wish to ask yourself what kind of prosecutor he was, what sort of man he is, and whether he should have been trusted with the coercive powers which inure to that high office.


    [Candidate Obama] responded in writing to a series of questions regarding executive power from Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe:

    Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

    OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

    As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.;

    The point, of course, is that what Candidate Obama said was supposed to indicate how he would do things when he took office. It was the whole purpose of the question. To sound the man out about how he would approach a similar situation and what would guide his decision. It was to let the voting public know where he stood on such matters.

    We were all supposed to be convinced by his answer that he’d be guided by the Constitution and would rein in the use of “executive power”. Subsequent history with Obama and his actions indicates we should believe very little of what the man says. He has, time and time again, chosen to expand executive power – something he railed against in his candidacy – instead of doing the hard work of persuading and working with Congress to accept his agenda.

    This situation with Syria is just more of the same. The hypocrisy is stunning but really nothing unusual in politics today. But it does leave one wondering what the man really, honestly believes and what principles guide him when he makes decisions. At this point, the interim conclusion must be “not much”.

    Just “very little”? More like “nothing the man[?] says”.

  25. We will see whether Tulane flushes this guy.

    Think of how he could have handled it . . . but he is a bully, and evidently he cannot help himself.

    What we are seeing here at a deeper level is even more troubling.

    It is like the effort by Senator Feinstein and others to restrict the freedom of the press, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to those who work for big media.

    The original intent of the First Amendment was to protect patriots with a printing press in the basement of their homes.

    There was multi national press organizations and organs of the state like the NYT or NBC in their day.

    Hence, it is unthinkable that the original intent of the First Amendment was to protect those who are claiming the exclusive right to its protections now, via Feinstein inter alia.

    This is a threat to liberty, because the establishment can control big media.

    But they cannot control the citizen journaist.

    This is part of a larger plan to eliminate checks and balances in our political system.

    It is no less an effort by big media to marginalize citizen bloggers.

  26. There was NO multi national press organizations and organs of the state like the NYT or NBC in their day.

  27. admin
    August 28, 2013 at 1:29 pm
    If their defense for believing, in error, that Obama, unlike Bush, would adhere to the Constitution merely because he said he would, and was a lecturer in Constitutional Law, that is pretty goddamned weak on their part. ALL THEY NEEDED TO DO was to dig into his history, and who was backing him, i.e. Soros, to know that he would break that commitment when it became politically expedient to do so. If that is even a colorable defense, it is the defense of sloppy journalism.

    Here is what Michael Reagan said about this, after the fact (p. 138-9)in his book The New Reagan Revolution:

    “Soros goal is to transform America into a neo-socialist state. He advocates deep structural changes to our system of government. (snip). He appears to have a deep animus toward the Bill of Rights (Checks and Balances, and the entire idea that the people–not government are sovereign etc.).

    “Soros told Obama that in order to be successful, he would have to ram his agenda down our throats FDR style and he would enjoy FDR success. Obama got the message. Less than a month later Obama rammed Obamacare through Congress over the loud objections of the American People”

  28. This situation with Syria is just more of the same. The hypocrisy is stunning but really nothing unusual in politics today. But it does leave one wondering what the man really, honestly believes and what principles guide him when he makes decisions. At this point, the interim conclusion must be “not much”.
    The question is not what he believes but what he will do.

    The answer to that question can be found by a close reading of the books and interviews by Soros.

    From climate change, to guns, to policies in the middle east, to attacks upon so called white privilege, to mau mauing the flack catchers, to the expansion of entitlements, and everything else, there is a one to one correlation.

    If you must have an answer to the question, I will give it to you now: Obama believes in himself. Nothing more and nothing less. And he takes his marching orders from Soros.

  29. wbboei

    August 28, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    This morning I came across an article which should send a chill down your back. It concerns the behavior of a 27 year ex federal prosecutor, who was appointed by Bush and reappointed by Obama at the behest of Mary Landrieu. Amazingly, this same man is now assistant dean of the Tulane Law School.

    If you care to investigate this matter further, I invite you to view the video clip attached to that article. And then you may wish to ask yourself what kind of prosecutor he was, what sort of man he is, and whether he should have been trusted with the coercive powers which inure to that high office.

    That was both appalling and revealing. It really is sad to see where we are as a nation.

    Hillary 2016

  30. Twitter says Hasan is no longer paid $7200+ per month and jury in agreement for death. Hell keep his rank of Major a bit longer. For some reason.

  31. Any formulation of strategy must begin with the question of who the power centers are and how they might be enlisted, accommodated, or overcome in an effort to achieve the goal. For this, you don’t need to read Clausewitz. All you need is objectivity and common sense, with an emphasis on the ladda.

    Unfortunately, in the hallowed halls of Harvard, common sense is inclined to yield to pedigree, flawed assumptions about human nature, and theories that have the smell of the lamp. Also, there is self interest whic resides in the opportunity to send Harvard trained experts out to the hinterland here and abroad to spread their wisdom in much the same fashion as the Jesuits brought religion to the heathens.

    But common sense is sine qua non. And common sense, or rather that lack thereof, is at the center of Obama’s flawed strategy in Egypt, which will cost our own country dearly.

    Obama’s strategy in Egypt was to superimpose the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law upon the country. He did this based upon an election which was essentially a plebecite. It was not unlike the statement by Miss Luberack that we will have to pass Obamacare to find out what surprises are in it. And, there as here people found they did not like it and did not wish to become a theocratic statement.

    And nowhere in Egyptian society was that sentiment more keenly felt than in the military, the merchant class, the intellectuals, in short, the power center of the country. By failing to anticipate this reaction, the Obama regime embarked upon a strategy which could only end in failure, despite the continuing efforts by big media to cast this mistake writ large, as a new heaven and a new earth

  32. wbboei

    August 28, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    Initially hard to get by someone who does not appreciate Tolkien s works.

  33. FLASHBACK: Obama Questioned Whether MLK’s Policy Of Non-Violence “Makes Sense” Because The Rich Don’t Empathize With Poor People…

    “The philosophy of non-violence only makes sense if the powerful can be made to recognize themselves in the powerless. It only makes sense if the powerless can be made to recognize themselves in the powerful.

    You know, the principle of empathy gives broader meaning, by the way, to Dr. King’s philosophy of non-violence. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but rich people are all for non-violence. Why wouldn’t they be? They’ve got what they want. They want to make sure nobody’s going to take their stuff!

    But the principle of empathy recognizes that there are more subtle forms of violence to which we are answerable. The spirit of empathy condemns not only the use of firehoses and attack dogs to keep people down but also accountants and tax loopholes to keep people down.

    I’m not saying that what Enron executives did to their employees is the moral equivalent of what Bull Connor did to black folks but, I tell you what, the employees of Enron feel violated. When a company town sees some distant executives made some decisions despite the wage concessions, despite the tax breaks, and they see their entire economy collapses, they feel violence.”

  34. Reaction to Nidal Hasan death sentence
    https://vine DOT co/v/hijHrlVMXmV
    I am assuming the whole presser is on this vine thing.
    The Cahill Family had some great observations including mentioning media often to speak up and speak accurately. Mentioned groups, organizations incl govt, too. Admonished all to do their jobs. Believe transcripts are being prepared. These families may be an unexpected source of help in straightening media out … if that is at all possible. eg One daughter kept mentioning due diligence.

  35. I don’t see Alveda’s name. Guess she wasn’t there. 🙁

    Nation’s only black Senator not invited to speak at March on Washington

    Noticeably absent from the speaker line-up at the Let Freedom Ring event commemorating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington today: the nation’s only black Senator, Tim Scott.

    Scott, a Republican Representative appointed by S.C. Governor Nikki Haley earlier this year to fill former Sen. Jim DeMint’s seat in the U.S. Senate after he retired, was not invited to participate in the historic event, a spokesperson for the Senator confirmed to Red Alert Politics in an email.

    African-American leaders who did receive an invitation to speak at included Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) – who participated in the original March – Martin Luther King III, MSNBC host Al Sharpton and movie stars Jamie Foxx, Oprah Winfrey and Forest Whitaker.

  36. If you look at that line-up then it becomes obvious that the Civil Rights movement is a dead letter. Unable to adopt to new conditions and new challenges, they invoke story book images of the past, and invite relics of that by gone era who advocate solutions which have been proven not to work. It is the Darwinian process.

  37. What made King successful was that he offered a solution to the problem and he appealed to the better angels of most people. What makes these jamokes a failure is they are hucksters, and the solutions they offer are unresponsive to the problems of today. Far from a shining a path ahead, they are bitterly divisive, and they are widely seen as an annoyance.

  38. ABC tries to make case for celebration, but also forgets about Tim.
    No Republicans Onstage for March on Washington Anniversary? It’s Complicated
    Four were invited. The two Bushes who declined on understandable health reasons W had heart procedure not that long ago.
    Also Boehner, Cantor.
    not @SenatorTimScott

    And Foxy – you might be right about MLK.

  39. I agree with this comment. 🙂
    • 2 hours ago

    President Bush went to Congress and got authorization for everything he did. Iraq and Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize Bush in both of those cases. Obama on the other hand launched our nation into an illegal unauthorized war in Libya because Ghadafi made him look like a fool when he wouldn’t go like Obama said he should. The result of Obama’s unauthorized war was Benghazi, and a Libya mostly controlled by Al Qaeda. The U.S. nor our vital interest are in immediate danger in Syria. Obama has plenty of time to ask Congess for authority if he wants to attack Syria. Its usually democrats more than Republicans that demand that Presidents get authorization. So will they all be hypocrites again like with Libya, or will they demand Obama get authorization? Democrats control the Senate? What about it Senator Reid?

  40. US willing to go it alone against Syria if needed

    WASHINGTON (AP) ­ The Obama administration said Wednesday it would take action against the Syrian government even without the backing of allies or the United Nations because diplomatic paralysis must not prevent a response to the alleged chemical weapons attack outside the Syrian capital last week.

    New requests for the United Nations to authorize military action in Syria may have complicated the Obama administration’s plan to take retaliatory action on the purported poison gas attack east of Damascus that U.S. officials claim was carried out by President Bashar Assad’s forces.

  41. Egypt will not allow US & UK warships through Suez canal to attack Syria (Egpytian News)

    Pepe Escobar

    VERY interesting. According to Egyptian TV, Pinochet Sisi – the House of Saud protege – is NOT allowing US and UK warships to pass through the Suez Canal; they will, obviously, attack Syria. Cairo is AGAINST Obama’s Tomahawk war.

    Let’s see if this ends up sinking the $1.3billion in military aid from the US – which to a great extent translates into Egypt giving priority to US ships across Suez.

    Obviously the House of Saud and the UAE could easily make up for the $1.3billion. And Egypt could buy Russian weapons – as Bandar and Putin discussed in Moscow. Sisi would NEVER do this without Saudi approval (after all, they are paying the bills).

    Shadowplay is on, BIG TIME, at all levels.

  42. Leanora

    August 28, 2013 at 6:54 pm

    Egypt will not allow US & UK warships through Suez canal to attack Syria (Egpytian News)

    Remember, it isn’t bumbles Muslim Brotherhood in charge in Egypt anymore. The military there doesn’t like him and this is a PR coup for the military in Egypt as they assert their temporary legitimacy.

    Bumbles is getting it in both holes now. 😀

    Hillary 2016

  43. So Barry is all for racial violence if his bros don’t get all the free passes.

    Oh wadda shock.

    The mob and gansta style…

  44. US willing to go it alone against Syria if needed
    WE SHOULD NEVER PUT OURSELVES IN THIS POSITION WHEN, AS HERE, THERE IS NO VITAL INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES AT STAKE. We should have learned that lesson in Libya. But to intervene on the side of the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is absolute madness. I would not necessarily accept Israeli intelligence on this issue as the last word. I would wait for the final determination by the UN inspectors. Having waited this long, it is senseless to rush to judgment. Yet another example of what we have become: a nation founded by geniuses, which is now run be idiots.

  45. How can anyone be so stupid as to impose a theocratic state on a key ally over the objections of the ruling class of that country? How can anyone be so stupid as to intervene in a holy war, on the side of a terrorist organization that murdered 4000 American civilians, where there is no strategic interest involved? How can anyone be so stupid as to not anticipate an attack on the anniversary of 911, when the inevitable happens withhold rescue attempts and then lie as to the motive for the attack to the public and to the relatives of those who are killed.

    When the source is Obama, it is perfectly understandable. He is a sociopath, and has no will or capacity to govern. He is what he is. And he cannot help himself. The responsible party here is big media. They are the ones who have run interference for him, with their soft ball questions, and their harsh attacks on everyone who dissents.

    At one time they could control the national dialogue. But today they face competition from the internet. They had two ways to go. One was to improve the quality of their reporting, making sure it was fair and objective. The other way was to use their relationship with politicians to marginalize their competitors. The latter is the path they chose.

    The PAY people like Feinstein to sponsor legislation which would deny first amendment rights to alternative media sources, including the citizen journalists who were the very people the founding fathers had in mind when they passed the first amendment. This is corruption, and Senator Feinstein should be ashamed of herself for doing this. It is crony capitalism at its worst, and the real victim is the republic, the constitution and the people.

  46. Current Article
    Barack Obama: Bellicose, Incompetent and Hypocrite

    By Larry Johnson on August 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM in Current Affairs

    Barack Obama’s mishandling of all things pertaining to Syria and the Middle East is the most profound failure of any President ever to grace the Oval Office. His actions threaten the very security of this nation and may completely destabilize an already shaky Middle East. And for what? No other purpose than to burnish his own political image.

    First we are confronted by his thoughtless bellicosity. He vows to draw a red line in the imaginary sand, warning of dire consequences. This is not just a rookie error. This is the act of a clown who has never been in a real fight in his life. You do not make threats you are unprepared to back up. You must assume that if your bluff is called you will have to act. Otherwise, you will have exposed yourself as a spineless blowhard. Well, we now know that not only is Obama a spineless blowhard, he also is pretty stupid when it comes to street smarts.

    Not content to limit himself to empty threats, Obama has doubled down by now warning of inevitable bomb strikes in Syria. It is one thing for Babe Ruth to walk to the plate and point boldly to Center Field. The only person Ruth put at risk by the move was his own reputation. Ruth, however, delivered on his bold move. But Barack? He is putting our sailors and pilots at risk. When you telegraph exactly what you are going to do you give your opponent a chance to scatter assets and build up defenses. Thanks Barack. You are helping Syria prepare to defend itself against us. That, my friends, is the definition of incompetence.

    The incompetence continues on the diplomatic front. Having campaigned as a champion of the UN and other international bodies, Obama now is quick to eschew their input or help. He is claiming a “chemical weapon” attack in Syria, but has not a shred of solid proof. Rather than rally the world to gather the proof and build an air tight case against Assad, Obama is helping Assad claim the role of victim at the hands of imperial, arrogant America.

    And then there is the hypocrisy. Obama the Senator excoriated George W. Bush for using military force without a declaration of war. Here is Barack Obama circa 2007:

    And now? He is vowing to do the exact opposite of everything he claimed to stand against. This alone should be enough to impeach this clown.

  47. Comment to Larry’s piece by a special forces guy who has seen it all. Notice that he has the same reservations that I do about blindly accepting Israeli intelligence on the chemical weapons issue, inasmuch as an American attack on Syria would address some of their problems, while compounding our own. That is the thing about Obama, and Soros spotted it from the very beginning. Obama is devoid of any core values, consequently, he can be manipulated into doing anything regardless of morality, or real world consequences. More specifically, he can be used to serve other people’s agendas, which have nothing to do with the interests of the nation which a president is expected to serve. He is the true Manchurian candidate.

    • 3 hours ago

    It is alive!!! Can we gas it? Just teasing….

    I just love these people who not only drink the kool-aid they inhale it … So where do we get off being the worlds policeman? What evidence besides newspapers and duck speakers is there? I find it interesting that the target folder is directed at sites in southern Syria. You know the same sites the Israelis are concerned about? So we are relying in intel from Israel only? What everyone quit the NSA recently? You mean the NSA was not focused on Syria? NRO is on vacation? Our Sats are offline? No record of any of those launch sites? MSIC can’t figure out what pencils did what? So all the evidence comes from one FOREIGN intel source and one or two NGOs who could not tell the difference between a LARS Rocket and a ICBM?

    Look if we have concrete proof… Then go to the UN and pin Assads ears. Also ask this question? Why don’t the Brits and the French do the tip of the spear thing? Why is it always us on the tip of the spear???

    One last thing. When incidents like this happen and we are being driven by others rather than have our facts in check and drive others to us. I have to ask one question? Who prospers financially from this? Its always about money. We have not done a military humanitarian thing since… Somalia? Look what happened even there…..

  48. “The PAY people like Feinstein to sponsor legislation which would deny first amendment rights to alternative media sources…
    And about 90 others who have stayed to long…Senex, Senatrix, Senator, Senelis..

  49. This is getting absolutely stupid. I’m not even that mad at bumbles anymore. For him to b able to get away with what he is getting away with, he would need the help of thousands of people. He is getting help from thousands of people.

    Excerpt from the article {EMPHASIS MINE}

    On top of that, Britain – a key player in any air assault on Syria – changed its stance on Wednesday, saying the U.N. Security Council should see findings from weapons inspectors before any military action is taken and that the British parliament should vote on the matter twice.

    For his part, Obama insisted that while Assad’s government must be punished, he intended to avoid repeating Washington’s errors from the Iraq war.

    “I have no interest in any open-ended conflict in Syria, but we do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable,” Obama said.

    It was Obama’s clearest justification yet for a tough response against Assad, who is accused of having crossed a “red line” for large-scale chemical weapons use that Obama established just over a year ago. Hundreds of people were killed in a poison gas attack on Damascus suburb last Wednesday.
    The United States and its allies say a U.N. veto will not stop them. Western diplomats called the proposed resolution a maneuver to isolate Moscow and rally a coalition behind air strikes. Arab states, NATO and Turkey also condemned Assad.

    But British Prime Minister David Cameron was forced on Wednesday to push back his timetable after coming under fierce domestic and international pressure, and it was unclear how that might affect any Syria attack plans.

    He is trying to make the case that a country that does not have the capability or the finances to reach us, threaten us by using chemical weapons. He goes on to say that we (the US) are tasked to punish this country for this action, and that if we must go it alone, then so be it.

    Then the people on that island in Europe that follows us like a little brother buck up to the ball-less leader they have and tell him “…we will take the shaft and leave you a eunuch if you just follow that guy across the pond…”

    Which brings me back to the beginning. Why in the name of all that is sane and precious is at least every republican not in front of a camera somewhere demanding congressional oversight before this military action? Why aren’t the democrats in congress not calling the white house HOURLY to tell bumbles to slow down before he does exactly what Bush did?

    We are sooooooooooooooo f%&ked….

    Hillary 2016

  50. My “Reader’s Digest” assessment of the entire Syria matter. Do you really trust the “proof” of an administration that also told us it was a 1-year old YouTube video that caused the murder of 4 Americans in Bengazi?

    ‘Nuff said.

  51. In re. Syria: war is a racket—

    1. Zero Hedge: Not even Obama is quite clear why his WALL STREET BASED ADVISORS demand that the US rush head first into this deficit-boosting campaign (and whose primary purpose as we have been explaining for a month is to make the Untaper possible), we doubt Boehner will get a response. Separately, as the WSJ reports, 114 House lawmakers— 97 Republicans and only 17 Democrats— have signed a letter calling on Mr. Obama to seek congressional authorization before embarking on military action in Syria. We suspect that 17 would have been substantially greater if the president engaging in unauthorized war had a last name beginning with “Buh” and ending in “Oosh.”

    2. Special Ops: Look if we have concrete proof… Then go to the UN and pin Assads ears. Also ask this question? Why don’t the Brits and the French do the tip of the spear thing? Why is it always us on the tip of the spear???

    One last thing. When incidents like this happen and we are being driven by others rather than have our facts in check and drive others to us. I have to ask one question? Who prospers financially from this? Its always about money. We have not done a military humanitarian thing since… Somalia? Look what happened even there…..

    3. General Smedley Butler USMC:

    WAR is a racket. It always has been.

    It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

    In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

    How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

    I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

    During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

  52. “I am mindful that Syria is one of the few places where the immediate national security interests of the United States so visibly converge with broader U.S. security interests and objectives.”—obama aka homeboy

    Homey say wut?

    What interests of our nation are in Syria?

  53. A great comment at NQ by Canaan, whose insights are always excellent:

    • 3 hours ago

    Just checked DailyKos for some sad irony. The Netroots are muted, confused, depressed, like the Obama date rape victims that they are. After five front page posts on Fox, the War on Women, the Tea Party, Racism and Homophobia, Daily Kos finally gets around to war in Syria: “92 Lawmakers Sign Letter to the President.” 92 out of 535 (by far mostly Republican) sign a letter. Wow, that’s really the front page angle on Syria.

    “Depending on who is doing the interpreting, presidents either are or are not required to obtain congressional approval in advance under the 40-year-old War Powers Act . . .” That’s some fiery anti-war conviction from the “anti-war” Netroots.

    The most up-voted comment is something to the effect that the same Republicans signing the letter wanted Bush to bomb Syria. I don’t remember anything about Bush bombing Syria. One “Kossack” who hasn’t totally withdrawn into battered fantasy reminds the “support group” that Bush did get Congressional approval for Iraq.

    This isn’t just partisan hypocrisy by the Left. This is a concussion.

    Down the page, kos appears with the irrelevant “Death is Death,” arguing chemical weapons don’t constitute a red line because “war is bad and we oppose it.” Does he mean the U.S. should not intervene or that we should have already intervened? Kos can’t utter the name of the President who raped his brain. He refers to out-of-power “neocons” (first and twice) and vague “administration officials.” How does letting a hypocrite Imperial President off the hook because you had fantasy mindsex with him constitute war opposition? Well, a baseball bat will do funny things to your head. In the comments, the bright idea is to blame Russia for the chemical attack so Russia will stop blocking military intervention in the U.N. ??

    Schadenfreude doesn’t go this far. Obama has brutally beaten the anti-war left in the head with a baseball bat, doped them up, raped them repeatedly, and discarded them like a jimmy hat. (The cinematic image is Piper Laurie in “The Hustler” after George C. Scott was done.) Now they wander the streets aimlessly, babbling about the Tea Party. What Obama did to the anti-war left is an ugly sight.

  54. Reuters: Russian news agency reports armed forces source saying Russia to send anti-submarine ship and missile cruiser to the Mediterranean


    Your move Dohbama.

  55. The West’s Denial at Fort Hood.
    We ignore Nidal Hasan’s trial — and continue to underrate the Islamist threat — at our peril. By M. Zuhdi Jasser & Seth Leibsohn. August 28, 2013 4:00 AM
    SNIP But while Hasan’s trial may be deemed of less consequence by the media, it should not be. Indeed, the Hasan case, including his entire biography and modus operandi, should be taking up at least the same amount of media attention as the Zimmerman and Arias trials. The Hasan case should also have Americans marching in the streets. Beyond the horrific events of November 5, 2009, Hasan’s case contains within it a microcosm of the entire domestic and global threat we face from jihadism and Islamism. SNIP

  56. Why Democrats Love Failing Schools: Because Unions Pay Them To

    It is now official. For all their talk about education’s failings, and all their feigned interest in bettering the educational system, liberals once again have proven that they hate giving the disadvantaged the same opportunities as the privileged. According to Fox News, the Justice Department is trying to stop a school vouchers program in Louisiana that attempts to place children in independent schools instead of under-performing public schools. So, apparently it’s all about “the kids”. . . Unless Teacher’s Unions are set to lose a dollar.

    Louisiana is one of a few states that have implemented a very limited voucher program. Vouchers, on their own merit, should be a championed idea for underprivileged minorities and low income families. With educational dollars meant to better the learning process for students throughout the state, vouchers were given to 570 public school students so that children in impoverished and underperforming schools might reap the same benefited education as some of the most privileged in the state. However, in papers filed in US District Court, the Justice Department said that the vouchers “impeded the desegregation process.”

    Right. Imagine the horror on Martin Luther King Jr.’s face when he learned that low-income students were given the opportunity to attend some of the most exclusive and impressive academies in the state. The federal government is arguing that allowing students to attend independent schools under the voucher system “could create a racial imbalance in public school systems protected by desegregation orders.”

    Anyone else find it ironic that the first black President’s administration is blocking a reform effort that is poised to dis-proportionately benefit minority communities?

  57. Local anchor caught in Freudian reference to Obama while teasing MLK coverage last evening:
    [Paraphrase] “Coming up. The iconic I have a speech.”
    🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
    The poor guy did not have an opportunity to correct the omission until 2 minutes of adverts had gone by. Two young guys in studio. Am imagining they howled during the break. I did.

  58. US Ambassador to Israel: US strike on Syria ‘certain’

    US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro has told Israel Radio that a US strike on Syria is ‘certain’ and will be ‘strong and serious.’



    Why this statement by this individual to that audience?

    Reason #1: because Wall Street (and the City of London) sees an asset play in this, where they can make money. (Note: for insight on this, go back and read the comments at zero hedge, special ops and smedly butler usmc above.) Of all the motives for this improvident venture, this one is numero uno. There is no higher priority for cipher Obama than looting the American People, in service of the elites. (Note: Let me remind you of something Cronkite said on video tape shortly before he died: there is an elite in this country. They are the heads of finance and commerce. And they so manipulate democracy (in this case foreign policy) as to control democracy).

    Reason #2: because through a succession of foreign policy mistakes (strategic, i.e. Arab Spring) and tactical (i.e. Benghazi), the Obama regime has lost all credibility with our Arab allies in the region, in particular Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE as our primary allies in the region, and not just the leaders but the people of those countries–and that is the real test of how badly Obama, and his Harvard trained boy wonders have fucked this entire thing up. Therefore, he hopes to re-establish its influence in the region through a decisive military act).

    Reason #3: because Obama’s number one foreign policy objective when he took office, as described in the Foreign Affairs Magazine, which is bible of our foreign policy establishment was to reach a modus vivendi with Iran, has failed conspicuously and completely. Despite the earnest attempts of Big Media to construct a Potemkin Village around it. Syria is an ally of Iran, and Russia. Therefore, this so called shot across the bow horseshit, or “strong, serious, certain” strike that Shapiro peddling is a way to strike Iran without actually doing so.

    Reason #4: because the combination of Assad and Syria represent a threat to Israel that covert tactics and wars waged indiscriminately by al Queda and supported by the CIA have failed to topple the regime. And we are now at a point where Israel is prepared to take the military action which it has been threatening to take for the last two years. Therefore, the people who control Obama have decided that we must be the tip of the spear, to prevent the entire region and their economic interests from being threatened.

    All of this of course is theory. And it is based on second and third hand sources. The only things you can be certain of is this war, and all those that have preceded it in recent memory have been waged at the expense of the American People to benefit a small group and that is beyond cavil. The other certainty is that Obama is not a leader. He is a cipher and those above his pay grade are calling the real shots here. Which is why the Republicans remain silent, except for the Orange man’s heroic letter writing campaign, which will go nowhere fast, and should not win his party a single vote in the mid terms. Anybody can write a letter. It is what you do in follow up to it that counts. And, if past is prologue, Boehner will do nothing, because he fears the wrath of big media.

  59. Obama, Syria and Iraq: Any End But Victory
    Making It Up As He Goes Along

    By: Dan McLaughlin (Diary) | August 28th, 2013 at 05:15 PM | 19



    The plans being floated by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry for a wildly unpopular military intervention in Syria are incoherent on any number of levels. Rather than identify an enemy and seek the enemy’s defeat, the essential requirement for using military force, the Administration is unwilling to declare the toppling of the Assad regime as a goal – despite Obama’s own proclamation two years ago this month that “[f]or the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” Instead, according to one unnamed “U.S. official” quoted by the LA Times, the Administration wants a military strike “just muscular enough not to get mocked.” Churchillian, this is not.

    That Was Then, This Is Now

    Nor is it in line with what Obama, Biden and Kerry used to claim to believe. Once upon a time, Obama’s expressed willingness to meet with leaders like Assad made him popular in Syria. Then-Senator Obama argued in the 2008 campaign that “[t]he President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation” (Senator Biden agreed); now, as in Libya, Obama has no interest in asking for Congressional approval. Obama and Kerry once venerated the need to get UN and international approval for the use of force; now, Kerry’s spokesman says of the UN Security Council, where both Russia and China are expected to oppose military strikes, “[w]e cannot be held up in responding by Russia’s intransigence.” Obama is apparently gunshy of even explaining himself: one of his reliable proxies at Politico asks, “[i]s POTUS going to address the nation directly before embarking on military action in Syria? Many of his aides think it’s a passé tactic.”

    (UPDATE: Here’s more from Obama in 2007 sounding a very different note on Syria, and John Kerry cozying up to Assad as recently as 2011-2012).

    From Bad To Worse

    There are many good reasons to wish to be rid of the brutal Assad regime, long an Iranian proxy, sponsor of Hezbollah, supporter of the insurgency against the U.S. in Iraq, shelterer (and maybe backer) of culprits in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines, oppressor of Lebanon and assassin of its prime minister, enemy of Israel and perpetrator of serial massacres against its own people. But it seems increasingly likely that the alternatives to Assad would be even worse, ranging from domination of Syria by Al Qaeda and its Sunni extremist allies to splintering into an anarchic failed state. As it stands, the Syrian civil war is a proxy battle between Assad’s backers (Iran and Russia) and the backers of the rebel resistance (Saudi Arabia and Turkey). It doesn’t need more combatants who intend to show up, lob in a bunch of missiles and leave without resolving anything, and for the U.S. to control the post-Assad situation to our advantage would require a huge and for many reasons infeasible commitment of ground troops. We did that in Iraq in part so we would not have to do it again every time there was an opportunity to topple a dictator in the Greater Middle East – we can leave the locals to resolve these things themselves. Recent experiences in Egypt and Libya show that the public in the region hungers for change and a greater voice in how their countries are governed, but hardly inspire confidence that the results will be less anti-American or more respectful of individual liberty. The fact that Syria affects the interests of the U.S. and its allies does not mean that we currently have any options on the table that would advance those interests.

    The sole peg on which Obama’s Administration and its apologists rest the defensibility of a halfway military strike is the idea that Assad should be punished for using chemical weapons against his own people – just as Saddam Hussein once did. In my view, this is misguided as a sole casus belli: the problem of rogue regimes is the regimes, not their choice of weaponry. That was true in Iraq and it’s true now, and in particular it’s a ridiculous argument coming from the same people who told us that this was no justification for the Iraq War. It’s consistent with the idea that the problem of gun crime is guns, not criminals – another of this Administration’s pet delusions. In fact, it does not even appear that the Administration can assure that its planned strikes would disarm Assad of the weapons in question. We apparently plan to shoot at the king but carefully avoid killing him.

    The Actual Obama Record on Iraq

    Of course, say Obama’s defenders, the reason to oppose the Iraq War was that Iraq was not a threat because it had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD). That’s an easy enough argument (if not entirely accurate) to make in retrospect, but contrary to his myth-making, it’s not even what Obama himself argued at the time. Given that these parallels will be hashed out repeatedly in the coming Syria debate, and given that the case for intervention in Syria rests heavily on the credibility of the president and the Secretary of State, it’s worth recalling what Obama actually said when the Iraq War debates were happening.

    Obama’s record on the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003 basically consists of one 2002 speech criticizing the war and a 2003 interview with The Nation in which he framed the issue in purely domestic political terms:

    “Blacks are not willing to feel obliged to support the president’s agenda,” explains Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama. “They are much more likely to feel that (Bush) is engaging in disruptive policies at home and using the war as a means of shielding himself from criticism on his domestic agenda.”

    There’s no recorded instance of Obama in 2002 or 2003 arguing that Saddam did not have WMD; rather, Obama’s 2002 speech contended that the Iraqi dictator did still have the weapons he had already used against his own people a decade before, but that this was no justification for war:

    Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

    He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

    …You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

    This was wrong for a number of reasons, but apply the reasoning to Assad today: his regime is barely clinging to power. In 2004, running for the Senate, Obama would no longer even say that he would have voted against the Iraq war, noting that he had not had access to the classified intelligence that convinced nearly everyone who examined it of Saddam’s WMD programs:

    [I]n interviews around [mid-2004], Obama refused to say flatly that he would have voted against the 2002 congressional war resolution. “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,” Obama told The New York Times on July 26. “What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that, from my vantage point, the case was not made.” In other interviews that week, Obama said, “[T]here is room for disagreement” over initiating the war, and that “I didn’t have the information that was available to senators.”

    Obama later justified these comments as an effort to avoid a split with his party’s presidential ticket: Both John Kerry and John Edwards had voted for the war, after all. Yet this explanation was undermined when Obama repeated the point more than two years later. “I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought [the war] was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence,” he told The New Yorker’s David Remnick in October 2006. “And, for those that did, it might have led to a different set of choices.”

    (Kerry, of course, is now the man Obama put front and center in leading his Syria policy). In 2004, speaking of Iraq, Obama told the Chicago Tribune, “[t]here’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage,” and Obama denied at the time that he had ever called for withdrawal from Iraq.

    Eventually, of course, Obama would oppose the “surge” and call for a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a policy that would have been catastrophic. (Similarly, since taking office, Obama has resisted the pursuit of victory in Afghanistan – Obama seems not so much to be anti-war as anti-victory). That was a shrewd bit of positioning for the 2008 Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, both of whom had voted for the Iraq War, and it came only after the 2006 elections had proven the vote-drawing appeal of attacking the Iraq War.

    It’s OK When I Do It

    The lesson of both Obama’s and Kerry’s history of criticism of the Iraq War (Kerry, you will recall, voted for the war after voting against the original Persian Gulf War on the theory that the first President Bush hadn’t assembled a large enough coalition) is that it was primarily driven by partisan opposition to George W. Bush, rather than any particular principled view of how to run American foreign policy. In that light, it is perhaps unsurprising that the arguments made against Bush have been discarded and forgotten, just as all but a tiny minority of the anti-war movement has been silent on Obama’s Libyan and Syrian adventures (and the internet chorus that branded Bush and Cheney as “chickenhawks” has been silent on Obama’s and Biden’s lack of military service). But being in charge requires more than just blind partisanship, and five years into his presidency, Obama seems lost in formulating an approach to the use of military force that makes any sort of coherent sense.

  60. US, UK back down from immediate Syria strike, President Assad vows ‘victory’

    CAIRO: The US and UK on Thursday appeared to have backed down from an immediate punitive military strike against Syria, even as embattled President Bashar al-Assad vowed that his country would emerge “victorious” in any confrontation with America and its allies.

    A strike by western forces had appeared imminent but US allies were increasingly reluctant to act before hearing the results of a UN probe into the alleged poisonous gas attacks in the war-torn country on August 21.

    President Barack Obama has said he had not yet decided whether to attack Syria in response to alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, but a strike still appeared likely as the US stopped seeking a UN mandate.


  61. The plans being floated by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry for a wildly unpopular military intervention in Syria are incoherent on any number of levels. Rather than identify an enemy and seek the enemy’s defeat, the essential requirement for using military force, the Administration is unwilling to declare the toppling of the Assad regime as a goal – despite Obama’s own proclamation two years ago this month that “[f]or the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” Instead, according to one unnamed “U.S. official” quoted by the LA Times, the Administration wants a military strike “just muscular enough not to get mocked.” Churchillian, this is not.
    Kant said something like we cannot know the true nature of things, only the appearances. The appearance Obama presents to the world is one who GROVELS before dictators, begs for their forgiveness, and takes rather indecent liberties with everyone else. He has presented himself to the world as a coward, thus it is hardly surprising that he would be perceived according. The only one capable of continuing the charade that he is not a man to be trifled with is big media, and they are an even bigger laughing stock than he is. At this point, Obama is type cast. He cannot become Patten and be taken seriously. He has no second in command who could fill that role. Dick Cheney is not standing a heartbeat away from the presidency, such that people should fear him. There is only Biden, the laughing stock of the world, right up there with the New York Times. In sum, there is no good cop–bad cop move he could use. This is the end game of the elites. They were too clever by the halves. It this nefarious quest to find a cipher–a zero who could sing a lullaby to the most gullible people in the world—the 52% who voted for him, they have no one who can crack the whip when it needs to be cracked. If Hillary were president, they would not be in that position. Nor would we.

  62. It is the creme of the diplomatic tradition to approach the prospect of war obliquely and without bravado. The goal is to achieve your objective WITHOUT going to war. In order to do that, your leader must be taken seriously, whereas Obama clearly is not. In the final analysis, Clausewitz nailed it when he said, war is diplomacy by a different means. If the diplomacy which preceded it was incoherent, as Obama’s was, then an act of war will not redeem it, but merely engender further confusion and compound the diplomatic problem. War is the realm of danger. War is the realm of uncertainty. War waged in the absence of sound diplomacy, to rehabilitate an incompetent leader, is the last bastion of scoundrels.

  63. There is of course an alternative explanation for why Obama has failed in his mission to make the lion lay down with the lamb in Syria and elsewhere. It has nothing to do with Bush, or his continuing grievance against white people, or his quest to win favor with his long departed alleged father by railing against the evils of colonialism.

    Rather, it is an explanation offered by his wife, lady bountiful, that he is too good for this country. Well, lets follow that line of logic, and ask how good is he, really? The answer is he was so good, and he so loved us, that he went to Martha’s vineyard to atone for OUR sins. Obviously, it was not his sins, because HE is without sin, and is the child of an immaculate birth. And that is why there was no legitimate birth certificate, contrary to what birthers may assert.

  64. Getting back to Martha’s Vineyard, I am quite sure that the venture capitalist, aka vulture who gave Obama his house for the week did so as an act of unbridled patriotism, untainted by self interest. In other words, it was not a bribe, it was not a bribe, it was not a bribe. Perish the thought. And when that vulture goes back to Obama, and asks him for a moment of his time and a little favor, as he undoubtedly will since nothing is really free in those circles, I have no doubt that Obama will tell him in no uncertain terms, what do you take me for–a whore? And, I am equally certain that the vulture will tell him, Barry, with all due respect, we already know what you are. Now we are merely negotiating the price.

  65. 1. President Barack Obama has said he had “not yet decided whether to attack Syria” in response to alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime. (?)

    2. US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro has told Israel Radio that a US strike on Syria is “certain” and will be “strong and serious”. (??)

    How do you square that circle?

    Perhaps Harvard is offering a course on that subject this fall.

    I hope for his sake that Shapiro is not working without a net.

  66. Benghazi FOIA Exclusive Report: “No-notice” U.S. Marine assets never sent to help Americans during Benghazi or to secure crime scene­Syria at stake.

    Urgent. The road to war with Syria, Russia, Iran and China can be tracked back to the Benghazi attack and cover-up. A Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) provides more evidence that the Obama administration declined to activate available possible life-saving help in the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Sean Smith –and thwarted the FBI investigation thereby aiding the perpetrators escape from justice. There were two U S Marine Corps response options that were never called in or deployed to Benghazi– Marine Corps Embassy Security Group / Marine Security Guard [MCESG/MSG] and Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Teams [FAST].

    According to The information Paper obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) states:

    “The response time to any emergency is predicated by many factors such as time of day, advance notice or no-notice, current activities, and the locations of off-duty members of the detachments. The MSGs [Marine Security Guard] conduct a minimum of two no-notice drills per month, but most detachments conduct more drills than the minimum standard. The MSGs train to respond to protests, mass casualty/bombings, intruders, and fire and bomb threats/searches. This response training is conducted at all hours and usually will include the State Department Regional Security Officer (RSO) or his deputy as well as the MCESG detachment. In terms of FAST … their alert posture is predicated on combatant commander requirements according to threat reporting and assessment. By order of the Secretary of Defense [then Leon Panetta], the dedicated EUCOM FAST Company supports commander US Africa Command for crisis response and contingency situations. An example of this is the FAST Platoon currently deployed as a crisis response force to the US Embassy, Tripoli – it was sourced from the EUCOM FAST Company (emphasis mine).”

    See more at:

  67. This should be fun……

    Russia to call for urgent meeting of five permanent members of UN Security Council

  68. He is so Harvaaaaaaaaaaad. Separate the players from the issues. On the issues, get past bargaining positions and address underlying interests. Work like little beavers to construct win-win situations. (Getting to Yes, by Harvard Professors Roger Fisher and William Ury.)

    That approach does not work in the Middle East with dictators in Iran, or Syria. Compromise is not in their vocabulary. The only thing they understand is force. Knowing that it is counterproductive to do what Obama is doing. His strategy proceeds from a deeply flawed understanding of the cultural norms, past practices, and religious prejudices of the region. His approach and smarmy style equate to weakness.


    This is what President O’bama said in 2007….

    ” I would meet directly with Syrian leaders. We would engage in a level of aggressive personal diplomacy in which a whole host of issues are on the table. We’re not looking at Iraq, just in isolation. Iran and Syria would start changing their behavior if they started seeing that they had some incentives to do so, but right now the only incentive that exists is our president suggesting that if you do what we tell you, we may not blow you up.

    My belief about the regional powers in the Middle East is that they don’t respond well to that kind of bluster.They haven’t in the past, there’s no reason to think they will in the future. On the other hand, what we know, is that, for example, in the early days of our Afghanistan offensive, the Iranians we’re willing to cooperate when we had more open lines of dialog and we were able to identify interests
    that were compatible with theirs.”

  69. More proof that the left survives on hate.
    Our pacifist friends have gotten lazy. Now that they have a liberal in the White House (who’s about to start his third war), they just can’t find the time to do the scut work necessary to drive thousands into the streets. Body counts are apparently more important to the “anti-war” crowd than the act of going to war itself, which is a curious position to hold for people who think of themselves as pacifists.

    At least one anti-war activist is brave enough to call his fellows out:

    Though Benjamin and Martin both say the fact that Obama is a Democrat is not to blame, other antiwar stalwarts suspect the energy fizzled out when a Republican antagonist was no longer in office.

    “The Democrats are missing in action because of course the president is a Democrat,” said David Swanson, a longtime antiwar activist and author of War Is a Lie and When the World Outlawed War, who works with Roots Action, a progressive nonprofit. “That’s the biggest factor, I think. What’s tamping down the activism is partisanship.”

    “This started in 2007 when it was time to focus on electing a Democratic president and the Democrats forgot about the wars,” Swanson said. “We’ve been struggling ever since to get back to where we were in 2006.”

    Swanson also blamed the apathy on the left on a belief that intervening in Syria is a humanitarian mission, whereas with Iraq the sales pitch was defense-related.

    “The war in Syria is incredibly unpopular according to the polls, but there are some who support it because they believe it’s philanthropy,” he said.

    Heh. Yes, I suppose one could say that helping al-Qaeda is a worthy philanthropic venture. But more importantly, it points up the ridiculous posturing on the left when it comes to the U.S. taking any military action.

    To most of them, the only reason to sacrifice American blood and treasure is if our vital interests are not at stake. Only a completely selfless, noble, and altruistic intervention justifies going to war. This is a pathetic realization of the liberal self-image that projects a heroic personae for which the rest of us must stand in awe. Their absolute moral goodness places them above petty concerns like the nation or even self defense. The natural outgrowth of this philosophy is the now discredited “responsibility to protect” doctrine that was used to justify military action in Libya.

    Intervening in Syria is not a “humanitarian mission” and it definitely isn’t “philanthropy.” Killing the enemy is always a brutal, inhuman means to an end — except in this case, there is no discernible “end” except to make good on the president’s ill-advised “red line” comment on chemical weapons.

    We’re not going to bomb the Syrian army to save civilians or overthrow President Assad. Nor, apparently, is President Obama going to have to deal with tens of thousands of Americans in the streets screaming at him that he’s a baby killer and a murderer of innocents.

    That kind of treatment is reserved for the partisan enemies of the left

  70. Admin –

    Finally, some darn great news for Hillary…ahhhhhhh, waited so long for something concrete.

    (Wbb, maybe this is part of what you were hearing too?)

    “And speaking of Hillary, she is back. For those that hate Hillary and for those that love Hillary the news is great, just great. Everyone should at least enjoy the coming fight we have been writing about for so long. The coming bloodbath at the DNC is something we will love to witness and certainly Republicans should get the popcorn and watch the great return:

    “But when Harold M. Ickes walked into the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on Thursday afternoon and rejoined the panel, at least one longtime Democratic strategist raised her eyebrows.

    “He predated the Clinton era, but when I saw Harold reappointed to the D.N.C., he surely, in my judgment, symbolizes the return of the Clintons,” said Donna Brazile, a fellow member of the rules committee.”


    Ickes and Hillary are back!!!

  71. Obama’s Melting Wings

    (or It Seems The Only One O is Able to Fool Anymore is the Majority of the American Electorate–thanks to big media)

    His G8 colleagues have begun to figure out that America no longer matters. To be sure, the trappings of the presidency are a lagging indicator: He still flies in with more limos and Secret Service agents than everybody else, combined. Then again, the other American story to catch the fancy of the Fleet Street tabloids in recent days is that of the unfortunate Las Vegas man with the world’s biggest scrotum, weighing 140 pounds, yet unable to perform.

    Of his talks with Vladimir Putin, the president said, “With respect to Syria, we do have differing perspectives on the problem, but we share an interest in reducing the violence.” Putin aims to reduce the violence by getting his boy Assad to kill everyone he needs to. Obama aims to reduce the violence by giving a speech about the “intolerance that fuels extremism” — or is it the other way round? The world understands that Putin means it and Obama doesn’t — just as in Afghanistan everyone knows the Taliban means it and the fainthearted superpower doesn’t.

    Thanks to the stork delivering his bundle to Miss Kardashian (see above), Americans seem not to have noticed that the U.S. has just lost yet another war. But in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, they noticed, and they will act accordingly. On the wings of love, up and above the clouds, Obama wafts ever higher on his own gaseous uplift. Down on solid ground, the rest of the world must occasionally wonder if they haven’t confused the U.S. delegation with the world’s most empty-headed boy band.

  72. Derrick Hollenbeck: “Black Man Savagely Beats 71 Year Old White Man”

    “The Left is uncomfortable about “keeping score” of racial attacks by black males on (especially) defenseless whites. The favorite targets of these cowards are fragile elderly whites and white women; although when they are assembled in sufficiently lopsided numbers, these predators will attack young healthy white men.

    The numbers of stories about these savage attacks are growing faster than the Democrat-controlled media can smother them. …

  73. Watching Ickes video in 2008 makes me livid, just like I felt in 2008 when I watched it over, and over, and over.

    We were all right about this damn $hit, we are still right, and we are still MAD as Hell.

  74. Admin: Biden is not the end product but he is a stalking horse for the dark horse yet to arrive.
    Correct. That is how Soros operates. I wonder if they might throw this O’Malley jerk-off out there. It is too early for Booker, and the nation has had a belly full of black democrat Harvard educated politicians. That brand is spent.

  75. Shadowfax

    “We were all right about this damn $hit, we are still right, and we are still MAD as Hell”

    Absolutely. Now even angrier. Not only did Dims and the media steal the presidency from HIllary, the man they stole it for is the most anti-American, incompetent, corrupt, sleazy president in history.

    Rove and B-nut. lol A match made in hell. lol

  76. Orwellian
    Orwellian Aug 5, 2013

    @BrianAllanCobb NOTE: Baltimore’s murder rate didn’t receive deserved notice under O’Malley because it was overshadowed by Detroit & D.C.

    I am a refugee from the People’s Republic of Maryland where Martin O’Malley has the ideal constituents: an underclass of urban dependents (Baltimore City) and a hoard of federal bureaucrats (Prince George & Montgomery Counties). Throw in some poor government-dependent illegal immigrants and you have the Democrat party in permanent power. O’Malley will not best Hillary in presidential politics but he practices the model BO & the national party wishes to adopt for One Party rule , i.e.,”the fundamental transformation of America.” Adios America.

    Read more:

  77. TheRock
    August 28, 2013 at 1:13 pm


    August 28, 2013 at 10:17 am

    White House enlists Bill Clinton on health care


    Hmmm, the first thing that came to mind is – who is the person that actually tried to come up with a real plan for Universal Health care?


    Who has the most experience with the nuts and bolts and pit falls of such a health care plan?


    Who knows ObamaCare is a stinking piece of horse poo?



    Funny Barry didn’t actually ask for Hillary’s help selling this lame attempt at health care for all…

    At least Barry isn’t THAT stupid. 😆

  78. Great news

    British MPs vote against Government motion on principle of UK military intervention in Syria by 13 votes

    Britain says NO.

  79. New Snowden Leak Reports ‘Groundbreaking’ NSA Crypto-Cracking

    The latest published leak from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden lays bare classified details of the U.S. government’s $52.6 billion intelligence budget, and makes the first reference in any of the Snowden documents to a “groundbreaking” U.S. encryption-breaking effort targeted squarely at internet traffic.

    Snowden, currently living in Russia under a one-year grant of asylum, passed The Washington Post the 178-page intelligence community budget request for fiscal year 2013. Among the surprises reported by Post writers Barton Gellman and Greg Miller is that the CIA receives more money than the NSA: $14.7 billion for the CIA, versus $10.8 billion for the NSA. Until this morning it’s generally been believed that the geeky NSA, with its basements full of supercomputers, dwarfed its human-oriented counterparts.

    The Post published only 43 pages from the document, consisting of charts, tables and a 5-page summary written by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The Post said it withheld the rest, and kept some information out of its reporting, in consultation with the Obama administration to protect U.S. intelligence sources and methods.

    One of those methods, though, is hinted at in the Clapper summary — and it’s interesting. Clapper briefly notes some programs the intelligence agencies are closing or scaling back, as well as those they’re pouring additional funds into. Overhead imagery captured by spy satellites was slated for reduction, for example, while SIGINT, the electronic spying that’s been the focus of the Snowden leaks, got a fresh infusion.

    “Also,” Clapper writes in a line marked “top secret,” “we are investing in groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities to defeat adversarial cryptography and exploit internet traffic.”

    The Post’s article doesn’t detail the “groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities” Clapper mentions, and there’s no elaboration in the portion of the document published by the paper. But the document shows that 21 percent of the intelligence budget — around $11 billion — is dedicated to the Consolidated Cryptologic Program that staffs 35,000 employees in the NSA and the armed forces…

  80. The destroyer Stout is en route to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, marking the fifth destroyer to be positioned near Syria, a defense official tells Navy Times.

    It’s unclear how long five destroyers would be in the area, but the official said all are expected to remain “for the time being.”

    The Stout is expected to arrive in the eastern Med later today, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The other destroyers in the eastern Med include the Mahan, Barry, Gravely and Ramage. The Ramage arrived there late last week and was initially tapped to replace Mahan. The Stout was slated to replace Barry, the official said. Typically, the Navy has been operating with three destroyers in the Med, but top leaders deemed it prudent to keep all five in place as the U.S. weighs an attack on Syria.

  81. British PM said it was clear Parliament “does not want to see British military action in #Syria” and Government would act accordingly…..

    Obama is on his own.

  82. Tech Companies and Government May Soon Go to War Over Surveillance

    Everyone assumes that technology companies like Apple, Facebook, and Google don’t care that their customers are being spied on. I don’t believe that’s true.


    There are new interception hurdles everywhere you look. Even plain old SSL encryption is becoming more difficult to snoop on. Previously, governments could rely on complicit or compromised certificate authorities to provide them with the means to intercept encrypted traffic. Thanks to the Iranian government’s overly enthusiastic use of this technique, Google made changes to the Chrome browser to neuter the practice. Similar updates are expected soon in Internet Explorer. There goes another interception technique for law enforcement!

    And it’s only going to get worse for the poor ole G-Men. Technology companies are enabling security features that make certain types of government surveillance extremely difficult, and it’s a trend that’s set to continue. That’s why the U.S. government has long wanted laws that force tech companies to make their products wiretap friendly.

    It’s not just web providers that are making life more difficult for government intercepts. It would take Apple, for example, a negligible amount of development time to introduce the cryptographic anti-snooping features of OTR — a form of instant messaging encryption and authentication — into a protocol like iMessage. At the moment authorities can get in the middle of the keying process at Cupertino and read user content, if they show a warrant. But one simple iOS update and they won’t be able to do that anymore without setting off alarm bells: You want us to execute that warrant for you? Ok, sure, but the user will get a nice big popup warning telling them that their messages are likely being intercepted! (Still want us to proceed? Didn’t think so.)

  83. Defence Secretary says UK will not take part in any military action against Syria and U.S. will be disappointed with outcome of Commons vote

  84. Someone didnt get the WH message……

    Rep. Gabbard, DNC vice chair & Iraq war vet, announces she wants Congressional debate/vote on Syria. Did White House miscalculate here?

    How long before Jarrett gets her yanked into line.

  85. Responding to the vote, the White House said that a decision on a possible military strike against Syria will be guided by America’s best interests, suggesting the U.S. may act alone if other nations won’t help.
    Thomas Moore: you threaten like a dockside bully

    Overbearing Inquisitor: How would you have me threaten?

    Thomas Moore: with justice

    Overbearing Inquisitor: Then I threaten you will justice

    Thomas Moore: then I am not threatened.

    Likewise when Obama says he will not be deterred by Britain’s refusal to join him in this improvident police action upon Syria–this shot across the bow as he calls it, which is also opposed by the American People, and that he will decide what to do based on American interests, rather than his own vanities or the directives given to him by his Wall Street advisers, then he too will stand down.

    Question: can we take a pathological liar like him at his word on this?

    Question: does the refusal of our former Arab allies whose friendship he has squandered, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and UAE to allow our warships to use Suez canal or to do overflights in the case of Jordan go unnoticed by the great one and his big media butt boys and butt girls? Highly doubtful, because they are mad about the boy.

  86. The Commons vote yesterday was an unequivocal disaster for Obama. It was across party lines, every reasonable objection was thoroughly aired, and Cameron’s reputation is in tatters. Parliament made the US Congress look like lazy cowards. They preserved their rule of law and sovereignty. The timing was also horrible as Obama has to go face Putin at the G20 in a few days. Poor Obama. The coalition of the willing is limited to France and Saudi Arabia who are just as likely to stab him in the back as look at him. LOL. It was a great day for democracy even if it wasn’t ours.

  87. I dont think Cameron’s reputation is in tatters at all, He gave the vote to the common, they voted, said NO and has respected that outcome and said, no intervention, its more of a vote than Obama has given and the british will respect that Cameron gave a free vote.

  88. moononpluto
    August 30, 2013 at 8:20 am
    I dont think Cameron’s reputation is in tatters at all…

    I must respectfully disagree. He talked to Obama instead of his members. He held a vote without bothering to canvas the membership. He recalled the Commons to be defeated without doing the legwork to get what he wanted. It is a disaster for his leadership. This has not happened to a PM in a war vote in a couple of hundred years. Sloppy, incompetent, and frankly stupid. Miliband, who listened to the public and his party members, ran circles around him. Today he is backtracking and trying to save what he can. Let this be a lesson to the world not to listen to Obama.

  89. Thats not the response I’m getting from people here in the UK. He did consult unlike Blair who rammed it through and now Parliament said No, he is saying the people and peoples rep have spoken, thats his job.

  90. U.S. Military Officer On Obama’s Plans To Attack Syria: “I Can’t Believe The President Is Even Considering It”…

    The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

    Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

    Former and current officers, many with the painful lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan on their minds, said the main reservations concern the potential unintended consequences of launching cruise missiles against Syria.

    Some questioned the use of military force as a punitive measure and suggested that the White House lacks a coherent strategy. If the administration is ambivalent about the wisdom of defeating or crippling the Syrian leader, possibly setting the stage for Damascus to fall to fundamentalist rebels, they said, the military objective of strikes on Assad’s military targets is at best ambiguous.

    “There’s a broad naivete in the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve,” said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan. […]

    Still, many in the military are skeptical. Getting drawn into the Syrian war, they fear, could distract the Pentagon in the midst of a vexing mission: its exit from Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are still being killed regularly. A young Army officer who is wrapping up a year-long tour there said soldiers were surprised to learn about the looming strike, calling the prospect “very dangerous.”

    “I can’t believe the president is even considering it,” said the officer, who like most officers interviewed for this story agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because military personnel are reluctant to criticize policymakers while military campaigns are being planned. “We have been fighting the last 10 years a counterinsurgency war. Syria has modern weaponry. We would have to retrain for a conventional war.”

  91. Question: why do you suppose of the nearly 300 democrat senators and representatives in Congress only 19 are willing to sign a letter requiring Obama to obtain Congressional approval before going to war with Syria, and potentially Russia?

    Legal Precedent: In times past, the Supreme Court has held that the president, or as here, one holding that title, is the chief actor for this nation in foreign affairs. However, when it comes to declaring war, Article I is clear that the president must first obtain the approval of Congress. Consequently, the refusal of Democratic Congressman en masse to demand the right to weigh in on this issue, constitutes a gross abdication of their Constitutional duty.

    Answer: The reason these Democrats were keen to bring the issue before Congress when Bush and Nixon were president, but deathly afraid to do so now is simple and straightforward. Party loyalty would compel them to support their president, and that would expose them to their constituents for the liars they are. Obama can do this with impunity, and big media protects him. But the media has not invested its heart and soul in them, ergo they are expendable. Now that Britain has withdrawn from the vainglorious mission of slaughtering innocents in Syria, Obama would love to have the cover of Congressional approval. And together, with the RINOs he could get it. But I am sure that the Reid and Poopsie have begged Obama not to do it. Could he force them to do it? Yes. Will he do so? Not unless he can come up with clear evidence and a specific national interest, and even then for a lame duck like him it is a crap shoot.

  92. There are pre three conditions for foreign intervention:

    1. a clearly defined national interest

    2. public support

    3. an exit strategy

    With respect to Syria, none of these apply

    If there was a graceful way off this hook, I am sure he would take it

    About the only fig leaf he has to disengage is the UN

    The more interesting question is whether those who control Obama will allow him to disengage

    They see a potential to make vast profits, with the losses born by the American People

    They realize that Obama is a lame duck, and therefore, no longer useful to them/

  93. …oh the irony…

    O, Mr. Nobel Peace Prize Winner…ready to say FU to everyone…the Congress, the UN, our Allies…and just go Rambo on Syria bombs away…

    …when I think of the arguements I had with my ‘liberal’ friends during the 08 primaries as they attacked Hillary as a neocon warmonger for Iraq and praised O for his was restraint and his ‘change’ and ‘yes, we can’…the irony is just toooo much…

    O has made complete fools out of all of them…

  94. How can I be sure that Obama would get the declaration of war, or approval he wants from Congress if the question were brought before them, after seeing what happened in Britain?

    Simple: in Britain, they have a parliamentary system, which makes the representatives more responsive to the people, plus, they have a media that is willing to hold their politicians accountable for the gaping chasm between what they promise their voters, and what they actually do in the legislature. By contrast, today in the United States, most of our leaders do not give a flying fuck what their constituents–with enough money behind them and enough negative campaigining against challengers and with the advantages of incumbency, they are free to do the bidding of their lobbyists. And our big media is the sorriest spectacle on the planet then it comes to lying to the public and censoring what they need to know. They are singularly responsible for the demise of democracy in this country. Our democracy depends upon a well informed public, who can cast intelligent votes. Virtually everything big media does is aimed at blinding the public to what is really going on. You do not need to take my word or that of Pat Caddell for this. All you need to do is to look at what the foreign press, and even CNN reports abroad, vs. the tripe and distortion they print here, to bamboozle the mases.

  95. S
    August 30, 2013 at 11:13 am
    If you still speak to them, what do they say now. In other words, what is their delusion de jour?

  96. “There’s a broad naivete in the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve,” said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan. […]
    No shit Sherlock.

    Case in point? former Secretary Madeline Albright: ” what is the point of having this fine military if we do not use it?”

  97. O, Mr. Nobel Peace Prize Winner…ready to say FU to everyone…the Congress, the UN, our Allies…and just go Rambo on Syria bombs away…

    One can only wonder how Obama worshiping scatologists like David Brooks, and EJ Dionne are processing all this “new evidence” about their Messiah, and his Age of Aquarius.

  98. Kerry calls French “our oldest ally”, quotes Australians. No mention of UK.

    Don’t think that will go down so well in the US.

    Suddenly all pally pally with the Frenchies.

  99. The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria

    Is his plastic peace prize in jeopardy?

    He probably wants to play more with his drones.

  100. Stunner: ‘Obama Denied Gas Masks to Syrian Opposition For a Year’

    ‘Syrian opposition groups have been asking for gas masks and chemical-weapons protection gear for more than a year — and the Obama administration decided not to supply them’

    As Barack Obama gets ready to drop bombs over Syria, the Daily Beast’s Josh Rogin just dropped its own bombshell. According to his exclusive report, President Obama repeatedly rejected requests for gas masks from Syrian opposition. This week we saw more than a thousand people killed as a result of a chemical gas attack:

    The Obama administration has refused to send gas masks and other chemical-weapons protection gear to Syrian opposition groups, despite numerous requests dating back more than a year and until the reported chemical-weapons attack that struck the Damascus suburbs August 21.

    Following the harrowing attack that left more than 1,300 dead and more than 3,000 injured in East Ghouta and other Damascus suburbs, the Obama administration is contemplating a strike on the regime of Bashar al-Assad. But Syrian civilians are still trying to cope with the tragedy and treat the wounded, who include scores of children caught sleeping when the gas was dispersed. The attack zone has a fatal shortage of gas masks, chemical-weapons protection gear, and the nerve agent antidote atropine; civilians and activists have been forced to resort to crafting makeshift masks out of everyday household items.

    More chemical-weapons attacks could come, and there is now an urgent demand in rebel-held areas for gas masks and other gear. But there is also anger and frustration among opposition leaders that despite more than a year of requests to the U.S. government, the Obama administration did not send any gas masks or chemical-weapons protection gear to opposition-controlled areas.

  101. This is sick!

    Praying to God for the slaughter of children in the womb –

    Because, you know, it’s the holy thing to do:

    “We give thanks, oh Lord, for the doctors, both current and future, who provide quality abortion care.”
    We pray for increased financial support for low-income women to access contraception, abortion and childcare.”
    “Today, we pray for women in developing nations, that they may know the power of self-determination. May they have access to employment, education, birth control and abortion.”
    “Today we pray for the families who have chosen. May they know the blessing of choice.”

    Read the rest. Watch the accompanying video of politicians joining in prayer for God to enable the killing of the unborn.

    Understand fully what it is you’re watching.

    God have mercy.

  102. There has been a lot of discussion that the President hasn’t even spoken to Congress on Syria, let alone brought the matter to Congress for approval, as is required by the Constitution. Remember this tweet from Ted Cruz yesterday?

    So last night there was an administration conference call with several Congressional leaders to “consult”.

    Oh, invitation-only, by the way. Here is a list of the 26 people invited to the Friends of Barack meeting

  103. Until Barack Obama’s presidency, the one certainty an American president could count on in the risky realm of war and peace was the support of the Brits. But now Obama finds himself with only France, as the UK Parliament debated and rejected support for military action against Syria. Bashir Assad appears to have called his bluff on a chemical weapons red line. With Russia dispatching warships and Iran fulminating as usual, a stare-down is underway and Obama’s “smart diplomacy” has isolated America, and the Russian reset has exploded in his face like an Acme cigar.

    So we have two men, Obama and Putin, in a face off.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  104. If the Republicans could pull themselves together, they could slime every Democrat who has refused to stand against Obama and this ill conceived “punishment” of Syria. None of us is so naive as to believe that the game of politics does not require party loyalty, especially to the party to which the president belongs. But, the Democratic sens. and reps. owe it to the country and the their constituents to work for the best interest in this country – not for the best interest of Barack. Those who don’t should be held totally accountable for refusing to do their sworn duty.

    They said nothing when Barack rewrote the law and changed the timeline and the manner in which Ocare is to be forced upon the country.

    They said nothing when Obama and Holder involved the DOJ in a case that was solely under the jurisdiction of the state of FL.

    They did nothing when Obama, Holder, and the Old Civil Right inactivists worked to incite a race war in this country.

    They condemned Snowden, and in so doing, the concept of whistle blower

    They had nothing genuine to say against the abuses by the IRS of private groups and citizens who held different political views from the current administration.

    The list goes on, ending with the latest cowardly behavior by the Dems who have pledged allegiance to Barack Obama, and placed his interests above those of the country.

    Obama, the so-called pacifist, has proven that he lacks the guts to fight when the cause is right. But somehow musters up enough pretend righteous outrage to attack, in order to save face when Putin treats him like the unprincipled weenie he is, and publicly embarrasses him.

    The Republicans are no better. The outrage they are expressing about the Syrian attack was certainly not present when Bush exploited emotions around the 9/11 attacks, and went to war against Iraq. Of course, he did get congressional approval – based on bad intel. It was still wrong, and the Pubs defended the hell out of it and still do.

    On both sides, there is nothing of substance – nothing but political posturing and efforts to hold on to whatever power they possess.

    It’s not looking good for America.

  105. United Nations inspectors had arrived in Syria just days before the chemical attack took place, leaving many foreign affairs experts and intelligence officials perplexed as to why Assad would order such an attack and face the wrath of the international community.

    Harf staunchly defended any impending U.S. airstrikes on Syria as she was being grilled by reporters.

    When asked by a reporter, “Do you believe (Assad) ordered this attack?” Harf responded, “I don’t know the answer to that.”

  106. So that’s why obama is going to strike – the red line has to be restored. Now I know.

    Aim of U.S. Attack: Restore a ‘Red Line’ That Became Blurred

    WASHINGTON ­ The goal of the cruise missile strikes the United States is planning to carry out in Syria is to restore the smudged “red line” that President Obama drew a year ago against the use of poison gas.

    If carried out effectively, the strikes may also send a signal to Iran that the White House is prepared to back up its words, no small consideration for an administration that has proclaimed that the use of military force remains an option if the leadership in Iran insists on fielding a nuclear weapon.

    But the military strategy that the Obama administration is considering is not linked to its larger diplomatic strategy of persuading President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to yield power and support negotiations that would end the bloody civil war.

    Even if the American-led attack includes allied aircraft, the options that appear to be under consideration by Mr. Obama for Syria ­ one or two days of cruise missile strikes from at least four United States Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea ­ would not amount to the sort of open-ended campaign that might compel Mr. Assad to negotiate a transfer to a transitional government.

    “The kind of attack the administration appears to be planning will demonstrate to Syria and to others that there is a cost the United States is willing to impose for crossing clearly established American red lines and violating widely held international norms,” said Richard Fontaine, the president of the Center for a New American Security, a centrist research center.

    But, he said, “It probably will do very little to alter the fundamental balance of forces on the ground or hasten the end of the conflict.”

Comments are closed.