The “What Will The World Say About Us If We Don’t Attack?” #Syria Argument

Update II: American army boots in Syria??? #JohnKerryBotox was for it before he was against it. We kid you not. The past remains present as today we heard it straight from the horses’ mouth, a.k.a. John Kerry, just thinking out loud: I can’t rule out boots on the ground if Syria implodes.

Would you buy a used car from this man or from Barack Obama? Hard to believe we ever campaigned so hard for Kerry in 2004.

——————————————————————————————————

Update: Why do Republicans keep John Boner as Speaker? Today we hear from bonehead Boehner: I support Obama’s call for action in Syria. Cantor too wants to give the treacherous boob more authority to screw things up even more than he already has. As foolish as these Republicans are it is hypocrite Nancy Pelousy that takes the prize for most incoherent support for Barack thus far with her chatter about “the children”. Here’s your spokeswomen attack supporters:



Supporters of giving Barack Obama authority to initiate a flaccid thin-prick attack on Syria have a lot of explaining to do, as we outline in our main article below. Those that want to give the drunken rodeo clown more liquor and guns because “Assad must be punished for using chemical weapons” have to provide an “exit strategy” (and an overall rational and strategy) but they refuse to do so because they don’t know what Obama will do other than bumble and stumble. These supporters of attack authority for the Peace Prize Putz Prez know that Obama continues to state that the attacks will be very limited, short, and not designed for regime change.

Supporters of authority for Peace Prize Putz Prez, like Boner and Pelousy, who applaud Obama’s “limited” attack dream to “punish” Assad should answer the points we raise below (like why Assad will be strengthened by “surviving” an American attack) and some of those raised by Obama adorer Al Hunt:

“Critics of intervention are now asking, if we strike now, what do we do when Assad does it again?

Supporters must provide an answer to that question. There’s more from Obama adorer Al:

“Former U.S. Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, one of many former top officials who are rarely consulted by this White House (he ran the Pentagon during the Kosovo air attacks in 1999), worries that the president’s plans for Syria are merely tactical, without a clear strategic objective or mission. Has the administration, for instance, seriously considered the likelihood that Russia and Iran will resupply Assad immediately after a strike? Will anything the U.S. does, Cohen wonders, make Assad think, “Hey, we might lose this thing, let’s negotiate a settlement.”

Others worry about being dragged into a protracted engagement.

“Unless the administration gets real lucky, they’re in a terrible box,” says Aaron David Miller, a longtime U.S. diplomat. The president has to respond, he says, though there is the danger of “an incremental drip by drip intervention.”

That would be a disaster. After Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. voters won’t tolerate another war unless critical national interests are at stake.”

That “drip by drip intervention” sounds an awful lot like Vietnam war style “escalation”. We punish Syria – Syria gets bragging rights – Syria gets resupplied by Russia/Iran – Syria gets out the Sarin gas again – we punish/escalate a little bit more then a little bit more, then a little bit more – meanwhile Iran rejoices as it completes its nuclear weapon. All the while Obama forbids Israel from attacking Iran or Syria on the grounds that he is “punishing” the evildoers and not to worrrrry about an Iran Nuke. Or does Obama wrist slap “punish” once and then ignore whatever else Assad does?

Supporters of enabling the Boob and his boobery have a lot of ‘splaining to do.

——————————————————————————————————

Some people we respect want the congress to vote “yes” and give Barack Obama authority to “attack” Syria. We find most of the arguments in favor of an attack risible and delusional. The only argument that carries some weight is the “what will the world say about us if we don’t attack Syria for the use of chemical weapons?” But the question should be “what will the world say about us if we do attack Syria?”

If the Congress votes to give Barack Obama authorization to attack Syria for use of chemical weapons the answer to the latter question is “What is wrong with Americans? Do they never learn? Do the Americans still not understand that the problem is Iran, not the sideshow client Syria? Does the American Congress still not realize that Barack Obama is a clueless, treacherous man-child not to be provided with matches? Why are Americans about to follow callow Obama into a trap he talked himself into in order to cover up the fact that Obama does not know what he is doing? Are Americans suffering from collective Attention-Deficit-Disorder?

The American Congress should not approve of Barack Obama’s bumbling mumbles of a “red line” stupidly stated during an election year – with a vote to authorize an attack on Syria. If the American Congress wants to vote on something constructive then the American Congress should vote for a resolution to (1) condemn Syria as a vicious puppet of Iran; (2) authorize specific and limited financial and military assistance to whatever groups other than Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda type organizations fighting against the Syrian regime; (3) authorize assistance to an attack on Iran nuclear weapons development facilities; (4) condemn the Muslim Brotherhood specifically and like minded terrorist organization in whatever country they operate within; and (5) declare that the American government will pursue terrorist organizations and government that threaten the United States without respite.

* * * * *

The smart professor at Legal Insurrection has some smart things to say before coming out the wrong side of the rabbit hole:

“I agree with just about every criticism of Obama’s handling of the Middle East and Syria in particular — in fact, I’ve made the arguments myself for years.

I agree with just about every criticism of Obama’s “red line” and dawdling and backing himself and our nation into a policy corner where we have no good options and have squandered credibility.

I agree with just about every criticism that Obama is seeking Congressional authorization, or denial, for cynical political purposes.

I agree with just about every criticism of Obama’s vague plan to fire across Syria’s bow.

I agree with just about every criticism that we don’t know where things end if Assad falls.”

So why then give matches to this goofy treacherous clod? The answer at every turn from those that want to give the man-child nuclear matches is that ‘if America does not do it who else will uphold the international order?’ We agree that the United States is and must be the leader of the world. But we believe the United is and must be the SMART leader of the world. The United States must keep its eyes on the prize and not get distracted. Syria is a sideshow. Syria is a distraction. Iran is the problem. Terrorist Muslim organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood are the problem. A smart United States must keep its eyes and firepower focused on the puppet-master (Iran) not the puppet (Syria).

Obama Dimocrat Charlie Rangel thinks Obama has thus far been an embarrassment on Syria:

“Democrats, too, are expressing frustration at Obama’s failure to act decisively after his ‘red line’ speech.

Charles Rangel, who represents the Harlem section of New York City, said Monday said ‘of course it’s embarrassing’ that the president didn’t act immediately after chemical weapons use was discovered.

Rangel opposes a Syrian military strike but said Obama’s delay on Saturday was also a major embarrassment to Kerry – who had demanded strong action a day earlier.

It’s ‘unheard of,’ Rangel said on MSNBC, that a president would allow the world to see him issuing an empty threat.

‘So of course it’s embarrassing, I wish it didn’t happen, ‘ he said. ‘

I guess Secretary Kerry is even more embarrassed than me after making his emotional speech that this was urgent.

Why would anyone argue that a drunk clown be given more liquor and guns? Obama has been, at best, an embarrassment – so why empower an embarrassment? To make the America as “shining city on a hill” and America as “world leader and must attack” argument? This is a strong disconnect in logic. The world is not going to be impressed if the American Congress empowers embarrassment Obama. Does this argument make any sense?:

“Republicans should support some version of the authorization of force resolution. They should do so even if they think that the President’s policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks; they should do so even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and they should so even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment. The simple fact is that the nation and our allies will be at further risk if the world sees a presidency that is weakened and that has no credibility to act. Partisans may be tempted to see such a result as condign punishment for the President’s misjudgments; they may feel that he deserves to pay the price for his hypocrisy and cheap and demagogic attacks on his predecessor. But at the end of the day, Republicans need to rise above such temptations; the stakes are too high.. The weaker the president’s credibility on the world scene, the more the need to swallow and do what will not weaken it further. President Obama is the only president we have. That remains the overriding fact.”

So because Obama is going over the cliff the American Congress should vote for the country to go over the cliff with him? We should give more liquor and guns to the drunk clown?

The author of that particularly bizarre argument goes on to admonish Republicans not to weaken the presidency nor become isolationist. To us the obvious response is that what weakens the institution of the Presidency is blind support for a weak treacherous President that weakens the nation with foolish face-saving adventurism. As to isolationism, we are not advising a Fortress America mentality should take hold. What we argue for is focus on the the real dangers not the distractions. But the same arguments continue to be made for additional liquor and guns to the drunk clown, “…if you allow the red line to fade, the mullahs in Tehran are going to be the ones who take the greatest note of that red line fading….” This is crazy talk.

The mullahs in Tehran will be very happy indeed to watch as the United States distracts itself with Syria. The race for nuclear weapons in Tehran is helped, not hindered, by an attack on Syria. A congressional resolution that rejects a Syria distraction attack and refocuses on puppet-master Iran is what will terrify Iran most and show the world that Obama is a clod but that the United States is not a nation of lemmings prepared to go over the cliff for Obama the drunken treacherous clown.

What should have been done, or maybe should have been done, is not the issue, and some wise people recognize this unpleasant reality:

“Sometimes the best thing we can do is stay out of the way. It may be that a year or two ago, we could have played a constructive role by supporting relatively sane elements among the rebels, but those days are gone. We can’t support the rebels now without aiding Islamic extremists. In my view, if we are not prepared to bring about Assad’s demise–and we probably shouldn’t be–the best thing we can do is stand aside.”

None of this should mean that the United States should be a pitiful helpless giant guided by a drunken clown. The American Congress, as we suggested above, should keep Assad off balance by authorizing aid to non-Muslim Brotherhood type organizations.

Obama worship machine William Saletan repeats all the same risible arguments and ends with a dare:

“The better reason to hit Syria is colder and simpler: If Bashar al-Assad doesn’t pay for gassing his people, he and others are more likely to use weapons of mass destruction again. To discourage that, we have to make him suffer. [snip]

If you don’t want a military strike in Syria, fine. Make your case for sanctions or some other alternative. Whatever you propose doesn’t have to save Assad’s people. But it had better hurt him.”

Want to hurt Assad? Attack the puppet-masters, not the puppet. Want to hurt Assad? Don’t do a thin-prick attack that allows Assad to glorify himself as a “survivor” who defied the United States and has become larger than life. Want to hurt Assad? Keep focused on puppet-master Iran and make them fear for what their puppet is doing.

A vote to empower the drunken treacherous clown is folly that weakens America. A vote against authorization empowers America not the drunken clown. Vote for America, not the drunken treacherous clown:

“Of the bad and worse alternatives, the worse is attacking without specifying our aims, means, and desired results. Yet to do so would convince Obama to drop the idea.

If the objective is to weaken Assad without empowering al-Qaeda-like Islamists, then non-intervention serves that goal far better.

If the objective is to destroy WMD depots, and send a global lesson that they are taboo, where are they and how are we to take them out? And what of the irony that Assad is probably no worse a custodian of WMD than is the opposition that we would de facto aiding?

If the point is to save face after the empty rhetorical redlines, then at this late date a few hours of cruise missiles will be interpreted by those who count — Russia, Iran, China, North Korea — as a half-serious and pathetic attempt to restore credibility.

There are many good reasons for being smart and doing what is in the interests of the United States, not to save Obama’s nonexistent “credibility”:

“The president is a spent force, both domestically and internationally. Congress should help by voting to cut our losses; it should resist opening the door to the uncertain consequences of a military campaign conducted, without conviction or clear purpose, by this commander in chief. If Republicans can limit the president’s authority to wander and blunder on the world stage, there is a moral obligation to do so.

Of course Syria should be viciously punished for using chemical weapons, but who trusts this president to do so in such a way that also sends a clear message to Iran? No one does. Why would they? Better to leave Iran with a modicum of doubt than let them witness any more of the tepid uncertainty, lack of conviction or absence of moral clarity from President Obama.

The only thing worse than no response from America is a floundering response, so Congress should stop it while they can. We don’t need to go through the half-hearted lobbying effort in Congress, which will just underscore the incompetence and incapabilities of this administration. Republicans should vote to end this disaster now. A vote of no confidence is in order.

The problem is that we have serious problems that require an able president both at home and abroad. It is too soon for our president to be a marginalized lame duck. Doing nothing is one thing, but doing harm by not properly wielding the power a president holds is another.”

The dumb thing is to go on a gun shooting adventure with a drunken clown. The smart thing is to let the drunken clown to go over the cliff alone. Barack Obama is the one in crisis, not America.

Share

217 thoughts on “The “What Will The World Say About Us If We Don’t Attack?” #Syria Argument

  1. Politico is worried for L’il Barack:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/obama-congress-syria-rolling-the-dice-96148.html?hp=t1

    “This could be the biggest miscalculation of his presidency,” a senior House Democrat told POLITICO Sunday. “Not only is his credibility on the line but the country’s credibility is on the line, so he is rolling the dice by taking this to Congress.”

    The prospects for passage of Obama’s war resolution are dim. Prominent Democratic allies of the president have said they won’t vote for it in its current form. Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) said Sunday that his aides are working on new language. But even a resolution that circumscribes the president’s authority to strike Syria more than the relatively open-ended version he sent to the Hill Saturday would face a tough vote in both chambers. [snip]

    Republicans say it’s Obama who has the most to lose.

    “This vote is entirely on the president,” said a leadership aide. “If it fails, it’s on him, not us.”

    Behind closed doors, administration officials are making the case that America — read Obama — will look terrible on the international stage if Congress rebuffs him.

    Problem is, lawmakers may not really care if Obama looks terrible. From gun control to immigration to fiscal issues, Obama has spent much of the last three years hitting congressional Republicans for blocking or slowing his agenda. Republicans could return the favor simply by playing it straight.

    If Obama was trying to jam Boehner, who had clamored for consultation but pointedly declined to take a position on strikes, with a vote that would split the Republican caucus, it hasn’t worked yet.”

    Politico is worried sick L’il Barack stuck his grey head between fence posts and now can’t get out.

  2. Admin. I commend you on the above analysis. For the same reason we do not give loaded guns to children, or to people with sociopathic tendencies, Congress should do what parliament did, and refuse to authorize this war. Bill Jacobsen just returned from a trip to Israel, and the fate of that democracy is much on his mind. But Syria is, as you say, a side show, and we will not restrain Iran by attacking Syria. The tail will not wag the dog. Although I regard Colin Powell as a liar and a racist, I do think the doctrine commonly associate with his name is the correct formula for deciding whether foreign intervention is warranted: i) a clearly defined strategic interest–not some variant of the domino theory, ii) second, public support (which rises and then falls as time goes on) and iii) third, an exit strategy. The other point goes to the nature of war–that properly construed it is an instrument of policy, and if it is not that, then it is simply an act of senseless violence, regardless of how cleverly it is disguised as some moral crusade–in an region of the world that is not particularly fond of crusaders.

    Streiff at Red State, who has a military background, agrees with us, and said this:

    I strongly oppose military intervention in Syria.

    There is no genocide in Syria. The only ethnic cleansing is being done by the people we would be aiding. The chemical non proliferation regime is not in jeopardy because Syria already has chemical weapons and doesn’t seem to be providing them to anyone else. We are not trying for regime change. And, of course the Syrian rebels are mostly al Qaeda.

    In short, this would be a military strike with no objective other than killing some luckless Syrian conscripts… and innocent bystanders.

    I’m also a realist. Our Congressional caucus is running like scalded dogs from the idea of standing up to Obama. Really, why should they show more courage on Syria than they have on any other confrontation with Obama? When a vote finally takes place I fully expect them to give Obama carte blanche to do what he wishes.

    Some will vote because the are afraid of being called out the next time Assad decides to kill people. More will follow the blandishments of the GOP “smart set” and vote out of some misguided sense of protecting the credibility of Barack Obama.

    One such example appears is that of James Ceaser of the University of Virginia whom Bill Kristol tells us is a leading conservative thinker. (I don’t move in those circles so I just have to take his word for that.)

    They shouldn’t. (snip) ( My note: Ceaser is one more academician with his facts, and his assumptions all wrong. But because a NEOCON like Kristol calls him a conservative, we are supposed to give him carte blanche?)

    The reason we are in this mess is because Barack Obama is temperamentally ill suited for the presidency. Assad used chemical weapons… and Russia and Iran are backing Assad… because they have taken the measure of Obama and they have, correctly, determined that his is a weak and petty little man who is only capable of weak and petty responses. His military strike at Syria is precisely such an action.

    Instead of taking Creaser’s advice and acting like a doting parent who caves into a tantrum-throwing toddler in the supermarket (we mustn’t hard the precious little thing’s self esteem), Congress owes it to the nation and to the office of the president to put Obama in a time out.

    Rather than taking a page out of Obama’s playbook and voting “present”, Congress should keep Obama from doing still more damage to US prestige and security abroad, even if they won’t act to do so on the domestic front. They should vote no and let him own the results, good or bad.

    http://www.redstate.com/2013/09/02/conservatives-should-oppose-syrian-intervention/

  3. Behind closed doors, administration officials are making the case that America — read Obama — will look terrible on the international stage if Congress rebuffs him.
    —————
    How can anyone with any integrity conflate Obama with America. They are polar opposites.

  4. Brilliant post admin. This message needs to get to the sheeple.

    It is being reported that Assad is moving his assets away from areas that could be struck by cruise missiles. Artillery and documents are being moved to residential areas and schools (I think I would move some to Russian advisor locations).

    It is also being reported that Putin is prepared to dispatch Russian lawmakers to Washington to lobby congress not to authorize any military action.

    NBC is reporting that 5 destroyers and at least 1 submarine is positioned in the Mediterranean.

    PLEASE BOTH HILLARY AND BILL – STAY SILENT ON THIS ISSUE!!!!

    Hillary 2016

  5. PLEASE BOTH HILLARY AND BILL – STAY SILENT ON THIS ISSUE!!!!
    ——————–
    Yes. Obama demanded the center stage and the world gave it to him. He spoke, they applauded, he nodded, they bowed, he cleared his throat, and they fell to their knees.

    Yes indeed. It was a love fest, a new heaven and new earth.

    But it was built on the shifting sands of a flawed character.

    And now there is trouble in paradise.

    What should be done.

    Some are keen to find someone other than him to blame.

    But let us consider the equities.

    Messiah Obama has managed to hoist himself by his own petard.

    Would it not be best for all concerned to let him twist in the wind?

    And what about us–meaning the country?

    His interests and the country’s interest are not the same.

    If anything, they are inversely proportional.

  6. The Austrian Diplomat Karl Metternich constructed a new world order out of the ashes of the Napoleonic Empire. That empire endured for a hundred years–from 1815-1914. It was based on real politic, alliances and deterrence. Barack Hussein Obama tried and failed to create a new world order based on hopium and the cult of personality. It lasted through one election cycle, thanks to the treason of big media. Despite vast differences in style, competence, vision, apology tours, and dare I say it, results, those two “diplomats” had one important thing in common: Neither one of them was named John. As you will see below, a real diplomat takes a close look at the genius of Obama and his foreign policy in the current crisis. Rather than characterize his comments, I will let his words speak for themselves. (Hint: the Obama IRS is currently reviewing his tax records.)

    Clinton’s Syria Advisor Slams Obama’s ‘Strategically Appalling’ Response

    Fred Hof, the career diplomat who led the US response for much of the Syrian crisis, slammed President Obama this weekend for his “strategically appalling” response to Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons. Hof, who last year was tasked by then Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Obama to lead US negotiations to resolve Syria’s civil war, said Obama’s last-minute switch to seek Congressional approval for a military strike in Syria undermined US authority in the world.

    “By not making it clear from the outset of the crisis that he would seek the approval of the Senate and House for a military response to the Assad regime’s chemical atrocity,” Hof wrote, “the president’s jarring change of direction now runs the risk of thoroughly undermining whatever remains of allied confidence in his leadership.”

    Hof writes that, “the events of the past ten days suggest that there was no administration forethought to the possibility of a major chemical incident in Syria; there was no plan in place to respond to a major chemical attack by a regime that had already demonstrated its deep and abiding contempt for the president and his red lines.”

    Hof argues that Obama’s recent actions would lead many to believe that the decision to seek Congressional approval “is less a bow to American constitutionality than a further attempt to kick the can down the road.”

    Obama didn’t seek Congressional approval for the military action he authorized in Libya. That action was directed at toppling the regime of Libyan dictator Gadaffi, a more intense and much broader objective than Obama says he wants in Syria. In his remarks on Saturday, Obama even stated that he believes he has the authority to order a strike on Syria. That he didn’t, Hof argues, nor call Congress immediately back to Washington, undermines US credibility in the world.

    Hof is not some outside expert observing the seen from afar. He joined the Obama Administration at the start of the President’s first term as a special advisor of the Middle East. He worked closely with Clinton and Special Envoy George Mitchell on Middle East peace negotiations. He was the lead diplomat for issues related to Syria and Lebanon.

    In March, 2012, President Obama elevated him to the rank of Ambassador and gave him responsibility for handling the US response to the deteriorating situation in Syria. He abruptly resigned the position just 6 months later. News of his resignation came just two works after the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

    Hof’s critique of the Obama Administration is must reading for anyone trying to understand America’s increasingly feckless response to the events unfolding in Syria. Almost a year ago, President Obama told reporters that Syria’s use of chemical weapons was a “red line” that, if crossed would generate a US military response. It seems inconceivable that no contingency plans were draw up for just such an event. Yet, as Hof argues, that seems to be the case.

    Congress doesn’t return to Washington until next week. Even if strong support builds for military intervention, it will likely be several days before Congress approves action. This gives the Assad regime at least two weeks to prepare for any possible US attack. The regime is no doubt, even today, moving its chemical weapons arsenal to unknown locations. The limited engagement Obama claims he wants may be completely ineffective.

    As Hof laments, “there will be no ‘do-overs.'”

  7. Correction: that “international system” lasted from 1815 (The Treaty of Vienna) until 1914 (the outbreak of World War I).

  8. Rassmussen polling bullshit:

    Startling Findings About Race Relations: Then and Now

    Monday, September 02, 2013

    Nearly 2/3 of all voters say that race relations have improved over the last 50 years.

    But just one-in-10 say that race relations have improved since President Obama took office in 2008.

    Blacks are even less convinced than whites and other minority voters that things have gotten better.

    In January 2009, just before Obama’s first inauguration, almost half of Americans said his election signaled the start of a new era in race relations. Three-quarters of blacks felt that way.

    Those who were in their mid-teens or older at the time of King’s speech are less likely to say that relations have improved over the last 50 years.

  9. Vladimir’s taking Obama up on his promise of flexibility. 🙂
    MOSCOW.President Vladimir Putin hopes to send a delegation of Russian lawmakers to the United States to discuss the situation in Syria with members of Congress, the Interfax news agency reported Monday. Russian legislators Valentina Matvienko and Sergei Naryshkin proposed that to Putin, saying polls have shown little support among Americans for armed intervention in Syria to punish President Bashar Assad’s regime for an alleged chemical weapons attack. The lawmakers said maybe U.S. legislators can be persuaded to take a “balanced stance” on the issue. Putin supported the initiative, which would require formal approval by the Foreign Ministry. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57600994/putin-plans-russian-delegation-to-sway-congress-on-syria-strike/

  10. “The Middle East is already on fire now,” Mekdad said. “And we think any wisdom in the United States — and we hope the Congress will exercise this wisdom — will not allow the United States to tarnish its image once again in wars in the Middle East.”
    holdthemaccountable
    September 2, 2013 at 9:03 pm
    ———————–
    Well, thank god for that. Congress needs to hear the other side of the story. I mean the truth rather than the cornucopia of lies from the Obama regime. Just look at that McNutt carry on about how if we do not bomb Syria back to the stone age, we will send the wrong signal to Iran. He gets flushed and grits his teeth, and I for one can hardly understand him. And he warns us that not bombing Syria back to the stone age could have dangerous implications. If you want to talk about dangerous implications, think back to the apology tour, and the diplomatic missteps which have led up to this point. The dangerous implication McNutt refers to are for the most part self inflicted. And, to top it all off, this is what McNutt considers humor:

  11. Well now . . . the dealer is showing us his cards. This ain’t about humanitarianism. It is about Iran. No surprise that. Larry Johnson gives us the whole history in the link below.

    I must confess, until Obama took office, and started rattling the sabre, I never really understood what H.L. Menken meant when he said patriotism is the last bastion of scoundrels.

    What we will see in the days ahead is an astroturfed patriotism 24-7 by the evil people in big media.

    If Putin’s people want to speak to Congress, someone should ask them how they would propose to stop the use of chemical weapons, and see if they have any constructive ideas, which have been ignored by those who want a war with Iran–the Obama regime, the neocons and big media.
    —————————————

    Lindsey Graham, the prickly Republican Senator from South Carolina, was just on Bret Baier’s show rattling the saber about going to war with Iran. (If anyone can locate that video let me know.) Of course, this is not new on his part. Just a month ago he was speaking at a conference of Christian extremists and stated the following:

    “If nothing changes in Iran, come September, October, I will present a resolution that will authorize the use of military force to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb,” Senator Graham told a cheering audience at the “Christians United for Israel” conference earlier today.

    This is war regardless of justification. War for war’s sake.

    James Zogby put it into proper perspective a few months back:

    In the coming days watch as the Israeli lobby and Neocons step of the heated rhetoric that we must strike Syria in order to put the fear of God into Iran. Crazy talk, but that’s where we are at. And the very ones making this argument are happy to ignore the role of the United States, Turkey, the UK, France and Saudi Arabia in fomenting revolution against Assad and the Syrian military.

    This is a clear case of outside intervention, a violation of international law. But the United States and its band of buddies are quite selective when it comes to the matter of international law. We only care when it suits us. Yet, we indulge ourselves in the fantasy that we are special. Nope, just one more group of self-interested thugs.

    http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/76306/syria-and-the-iran-cannard/#more-76306

  12. Wbboei, earlier you posted about Frederic Hof. Now Ben Smith’s Buzzfeed (Obama apologist Ben Smith wrote this past weekend that Obama’s policy on Syria was “bold” and brilliant) is also turning with this story on Hof which expands the critique:

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/miriamelder/foreign-policy-hands-wonder-whats-the-point-of-obamas-syria

    Frederic Hof spent President Obama’s first term as the State Department’s point man on Syria. He is now a furious administration critic, and a symbol of the growing consensus in the professional foreign policy community that the Obama Administration — no matter how its last-minute detour through Congress turns out — has badly bungled its Syria policy through two years of popular uprising turned bloody civil war.

    “The events of the past ten days suggest that there was no administration forethought to the possibility of a major chemical incident in Syria,” wrote Hof, currently a fellow at the Atlantic Council, where his former boss is Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. Hof had floated the specter of a chemical attack by the regime months ago.

    The results of this mystifying lack of preparedness have been abysmal,” he wrote, calling Obama’s decision to seek congressional approval for the strikes “constitutionally sound, but strategically appalling” and suggesting the White House find “an objectives-based strategy.”

    Hof struck at what, for those who spend their time thinking about grand strategy and not domestic politics, is the heart of the matter. The administration has consistently separated the goals it hopes to achieve with a military strike — punish Assad, send a warning to similar states, restore U.S. credibility — from the objectives it hopes to achieve politically: to reach a negotiated peace in Syria with Assad no longer at the country’s helm. In terms of strategic planning, the separation of the two is almost a rookie error.

    No one is underestimating the complexity of a conflict that combines elements of sectarian violence and a wider proxy war between the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Yet a consensus focused on the Obama administration’s foreign policy missteps has begun to emerge.[snip]

    Yet as the chaos spread, the Obama Administration had a good reason to resist involvement: Obama was elected as the anti-Bush, with no mandate clearer than staying out of messy conflicts in the Middle East. In doing so, the administration has missed the opportunity to build ties — and the political careers — of moderate elements in the rebellion, and is increasingly hostage to the fear of who will replace Assad once he falls.

    Sitting on the sidelines of the Middle Sast for two years has had its effect.

    “The structure of US alliances in the region has completely changed,” said Ayham Kamel, a Beirut-based analyst for Eurasia Group. “You have an environment where there are no back channels to resolving issues in the region.

    On Thursday, Obama travels to Russia for a summit of the G20 nations. The meeting was always going to be tense, coming at a time when US-Russia relations stand at a post-Cold War low. Now the world will be watching its results with intense interest. One question: Will Putin use the gathering as a means of trying to humiliate Obama or will he indicate some desire to put pressure on Assad — assuming, and many US diplomats privately don’t, that he has that power?

    In the meantime, six U.S. warships armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles have been stationed in the Mediterranean Sea. Congress is due to reconvene on September 9. He will face pressure to go stronger on Syria, and to not go in at all.

  13. Over at Breitbart there are the most vile, nasty, hateful, sexist comments about Hillary’s tweet.
    I suppose those people are so eaten up with Clinton hate that they must be proud they helped get Barack
    Obama elected instead of Hillary.

  14. admin
    September 2, 2013 at 10:43 pm
    ———————
    Yes indeed.

    Smith is an ass kisser and hold him in low regard.

    But I am not surprised that he is doing an about face.

    The article you posted by his former employer Politico tells the story.

    They are starting to wee wee all over themselves

    As a broad consensus by foreign policy experts begins to gel.

    This guy Hof strikes me as a deep thinker–unlike Samantha Power

    In addition, he was the point man on Syria

    When guys with his stature break ranks with Obama, others will find the courage to follow

    He offered Obama the right advice, it was not accepted, he resigned

    And now Obama’s chickens . . chickens . . chickens . . . have come home to roost

    Yes, I know, that is what Obama’s spiritual adviser said about our country

    But Obama is a plagiarist himself, thus he has no cause to complain

  15. The Rock

    “PLEASE BOTH HILLARY AND BILL – STAY SILENT ON THIS ISSUE!!!!”

    _______________

    Amen! Amen!

    Voting Hillary, the photo in that link you posted is priceless! Naval officer holding a sign that says,

    “I didn’t join the Navy to fight for Al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war.”

    You’re right, “nuff said.”

  16. Southern Born
    September 2, 2013 at 11:03 pm

    Over at Breitbart there are the most vile, nasty, hateful, sexist comments about Hillary’s tweet.
    I suppose those people are so eaten up with Clinton hate that they must be proud they helped get Barack
    Obama elected instead of Hillary.
    ______________

    Yep. They have a lot to be proud of don’t they? I think that every time I hear Rush L, flipping the hell out about Obama (of course, he always has to mention Hillary, too). That sucker helped put Obama where he is today. And, I’m sure that in spite of the fact that Rush and some of the other right wingers claim to be so patriotic and to love their country so much, even with the damage Obama has done, they would still rather see Obama in the WH than Hillary. They are some twisted suckers.

  17. And who’ll pick up the pieces
    Every time two fools collide–Dottie West
    —————————————–
    Good old Lurch. After indicting his dinner companion, preaching holy war, having the rug pulled out from under him– just when you think it cannot bet worse, it does. Anti war protesters appear at his town house at Beacon Hill. No they do not have any service medals to throw against the wall, like he once did. But they make their presence felt.

    A perfect end to a perfect day for an anti-war warmonger? Or, as a yachtman like him might say, a perfect storm? The grand finale would be if Teresa left him for a younger man and took her money with her–the money she inherited from her first husband, John Heinz. Question: Why are they always named John? I will give you one guess.
    —————————
    They weren’t personally home yesterday, but if John and Teresa* were angry that anti-war protestors were pounding on the door of their Beacon Hill townhouse, they might want to dust off their copy of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, or borrow a copy from Kerry’s boss, who trained under Alinsky acolytes in Chicago.

    Alinsky recommended that radical protestors descend upon the homes of what the Occupy crowd dubbed the “One Percent” in 2011; apparently, the goal in Saul’s fevered mind was to apply pressure by sufficiently angering the protestee’s neighbors, thus indirectly roping them as well into Alinksy’s patented formula of the protest as a form of organized public psychotherapy, to borrow from Mark Judge’s recent article. (snip)

    I wonder if Alinksy’s heirs ever thought the old man’s techniques would boomerang against them? But then, the run-up to, well, whatever we’re going to do or not do in Syria has seen much of the left’s rhetoric of the past few years reflected through a funhouse mirror.

    http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/09/02/when-alinskyites-collide/

  18. What’s the deal with Ben Smith? The points he argues in the article posted by admin, are all academic and hypothetical. And, he seems to have tried to disguise them sufficiently, in order to be able to claim to be right, or maybe to be able to formulate an excuse of Obama – regardless of the outcome.

  19. Over at Breitbart there are the most vile, nasty, hateful, sexist comments about Hillary’s tweet.
    I suppose those people are so eaten up with Clinton hate that they must be proud they helped get Barack
    Obama elected instead of Hillary.
    ——————————–
    Some of them did cross party lines and vote for Obama early in the game. But by the time I got to Indiana, Rush had them going to the primary and voting for Hillary. As a matter of fact, we gave them campaign materials because they hated Obama more than they hated Hillary. Their role in 2016 is to take down Christie. If they do that, they can be allies, regardless of what they say about Hillary now.

  20. Here is Glenn Greenwald’s take on General Michael Hayden . . . .

    In 2006, the New York Times won the Pulitzer Prize for having revealed that the NSA was eavesdropping on Americans without warrants. The reason that was a scandal was because it was illegal under a 30-year-old law that made it a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison for each offense, to eavesdrop on Americans without those warrants. Although both the Bush and Obama DOJs ultimately prevented final adjudication by raising claims of secrecy and standing, and the “Look Forward, Not Backward (for powerful elites)” Obama DOJ refused to prosecute the responsible officials, all three federal judges to rule on the substance found that domestic spying to be unconstitutional and in violation of the statute.

    The person who secretly implemented that illegal domestic spying program was retired Gen. Michael Hayden, then Bush’s NSA director. That’s the very same Michael Hayden who is now frequently presented by US television outlets as the authority and expert on the current NSA controversy – all without ever mentioning the central role he played in overseeing that illegal warrantless eavesdropping program.

    As Marcy Wheeler noted: “the 2009 Draft NSA IG Report that Snowden leaked [and the Guardian published] provided new details about how Hayden made the final decision to continue the illegal wiretapping program even after DOJ’s top lawyers judged it illegal in 2004. Edward Snowden leaked new details of Michael Hayden’s crime.” The Twitter commentator sysprog3 put it this way:

    Inviting Hayden to comment on regulation of surveillance is like having Bernie Madoff comment on regulation of Wall Street.”

    But inviting Hayden to do exactly that is what establishment media outlets do continually. Just yesterday, Face the Nation featured Hayden as the premiere guest to speak authoritatively about how trustworthy the NSA is, how safe it keeps us, and how wise President Obama is for insisting that all of its programs continue. As usual, no mention was made of the role he played in secretly implementing an illegal warrantless spying program aimed directly at the American people. As most establishment media figures do when quivering in the presence of national security state officials, the supremely sycophantic TV host Bob Schieffer treated Hayden like a visiting dignitary in his living room and avoided a single hard question.

    But worse than the omission of Hayden’s NSA history is his current – and almost always unmentioned – financial stake in the very policies he is being invited to defend. Hayden is a partner in the Chertoff Group, a private entity that makes more and more money by increasing the fear levels of the US public and engineering massive government security contracts for their clients. Founded by former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, it’s filled with former national security state officials who exploit their connections in and knowledge of Washington to secure hugely profitable government contracts for their clients.

  21. wbb

    ” As a matter of fact, we gave them campaign materials because they hated Obama more than they hated Hillary.”

    ____________

    Maybe the Republicans crossing over to vote in the Dem primary did hate Obama more than Hillary, but Rush acknowledged that he wanted to keep Hillary in the running as long as possible in order to fuel a fight between Hillary’s supporters and Barack’s. The longer she stayed in the running, he opined, the worse it was for the Democrats.

  22. Maybe the Republicans crossing over to vote in the Dem primary did hate Obama more than Hillary, but Rush acknowledged that he wanted to keep Hillary in the running as long as possible in order to fuel a fight between Hillary’s supporters and Barack’s. The longer she stayed in the running, he opined, the worse it was for the Democrats
    ———————–
    Correct. But we took advantage of it. What was the name of that operation, do you recall? Something about chaos.

  23. Frankly, I did not care what motivated people as the time so long as they went to the polls and voted for Hillary. In terms of demographics, our sweet spot was with the less educated segment of the democrat base, and that took me to some rather scary places. In one case, I spoke to an old lady in a run down part of western Pennsylvania who swore that Obama was the devil. I played along with it, and made sure she got to the polls. Afterwards, I thought she was a little wacko, but I now know that she was right. If you look at you average bot, even now, Obama owns him body and soul.

  24. I get what you’re saying wbb. We needed votes for Hillary, regardless who was voting for her and why. My point was just that Rush and some of the hard core right wingers have a hatred for Hillary – or speak as if they do – that is irrational in it’s intensity. Their dislike of her is such that it blinds them to any positive quality she possesses.

    You’re right about the bots – Like Robert Johnson, they sold their soul to the devil in 2008, and don’t even want it back. Similarly, some conservatives would refuse a chance to get into heaven if they thought Hillary was holding the door for them.

  25. What the hell is he trying to prove by being so arrogant and rude? Is he trying to show the world how tough he is? Or is he trying to live up to the name of rodeo clown?
    ====

    Another Putin Snub: While In Russia, Obama Will Meet With LGBT Activists Instead of Meeting With Putin

    Last month, Obama infuriated Vladimir Putin by referring to him as a “bored kid in the back of the classroom.” and cancelled his bilateral meeting with Putin. To add to the tension, instead of meeting with Putin, on Thursday President Obama will meet with the LGBT activists in St. Petersburg while visiting the area during the G20 summit.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/another-putin-snub-while-in-russia-obama-will-meet-with-lgbt-activists-instead-of-meeting-with-putin/

  26. uh oh…..

    Russian defense ministry says it has detected 2 ballistic objects fired toward eastern Mediterranean

  27. Not clever, its stupid stuff like this that starts wars…..

    Update: Israel says it carried out a joint missile test with the US in the Mediterranean

  28. Egyptian Liberal Newspaper Claims Obama Is A Muslim Brotherhood Member, Says MB Leader Threatened To Release “Papers” Proving His Membership…
    That would certainly explain Obama’s inexplicable support for the Brotherhood.

    Via Shadi Hamid, who is the Director of Research at the Brookings Institute’s Doha Center:
    Newspaper also claims that son of MB leader threatened Obama w- release of “papers” revealing his MB membership: pic.twitter.com/x4lV2JdS91

    http://weaselzippers.us/2013/09/02/egyptian-liberal-newspaper-claims-obama-is-a-muslim-brotherhood-member-says-mb-leader-threatened-to-release-papers-proving-his-membership/

  29. McCain may withdraw support of Syrian strike if Obama refuses to bring the big, super-sized can of whup-ass.

    *********

    “McCain threatens to pull support on Syria if strike is too limited”

    By Jonathan Easley – 09/03/13 07:54 AM ET

    “Sen. John McCain (R-Ari.) said Tuesday that he wasn’t a lock to vote in favor of intervening in Syria because he feared the U.S. military strike wouldn’t go far enough.

    “I can’t support something that may be doomed to failure in the long run,” McCain said on “The Today Show,”

    McCain, who is among the most vocal members of Congress supporting regime change in Syria, said he wont’ be sure if he is a “yes” vote on a potential strike until he reviewed the plans to make sure they were forceful enough.

    The statement ramps up rhetoric McCain used a day earlier, after he and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) met with President Obama at the White House.”

    (snip)

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/319919-mccain-threatens-to-pull-support-for-syrian-strike-if-it-doesnt-go-far-enough#ixzz2dpa

  30. President ‘Present’
    Obama’s pattern of indecisiveness continues — and it has Democrats worried.9/3/13.
    Washington is abuzz with talk about how much President Obama has damaged America’s credibility with his indecisiveness on Syria. It’s become accepted fact that Obama’s decision-making style resembles that of an academic convening an unruly seminar whose participants he largely disdains. What he is not is a decisive leader with the ability to bring disparate players together behind a common purpose.
    This shouldn’t be a surprise. We had inklings of it a long time ago. Back when Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton accused him of “taking a pass” on tough issues when he was in the Illinois state senate….
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357412/president-present-john-fund

  31. Another Putin Snub: While In Russia, Obama Will Meet With LGBT Activists Instead of Meeting With Putin

    Last month, Obama infuriated Vladimir Putin by referring to him as a “bored kid in the back of the classroom.” and cancelled his bilateral meeting with Putin. To add to the tension, instead of meeting with Putin, on Thursday President Obama will meet with the LGBT activists in St. Petersburg while visiting the area during the G20 summit.
    ——————
    Doesn’t this set up the perfect counter move for Putin–assuming he is even interested in it? Suppose he goes to Congress, tells them that he has some influence with the Assad administration whereas Obama does not, therefore, he will meet with Assad and review the entire matter, as long as Obama and the US stay completely out of it for the next 6 months and cease and desist in any further discussions of a massive military strike between now and then. He could also pass out copies of the book The Guns of August, with additional copies to those members of big media who know how to read anything besides their Harvard diplomas. Just think of it, Putin could get a Nobel Prize–for doing something, whereas Obama’s is cheap, because he got one for doing nothing.

  32. The point is, Putin could position himself as the peace maker, and cast Obama as the warmonger. Wouldn’t that be rich. Obama would have to retreat to that Hawaiian mansion owned by his venture capitalist, i.e. vulture, who Obama has pardoned for the crime of being part of the 1%, pout for a while, and play a lot of golf His big media blow jobs, or blowjobs for short, since that is descriptive of what they do incessantly, could sing take me along if you love me, etc. Let dead souls who write Obama pulp fiction and manage his stagecraft deal with that. And may Soros rot in hell, for what he has done to this country and its future.

  33. Egyptian Liberal Newspaper Claims Obama Is A Muslim Brotherhood Member, Says MB Leader Threatened To Release “Papers” Proving His Membership…
    That would certainly explain Obama’s inexplicable support for the Brotherhood.
    ———————-
    There is definitely something to all this . . all the unanswered questions about his past, etc. and his blind support for an organization which is devoted to the imposition of Sharia Law.

  34. I have no stomach for what lies ahead. I refuse to get head up here in the street theater. Congress will authorize this madness, we will attack with cruise missiles and special forces, Assad, who represents no threat to the United States will be toppled, there will be a period of violence and instability and eventually a brutal al Quaeda dicatatorhship will emerge. Big media will cover the story with baited breath, when Assad is brought down, they will rejoice, they will try to convince the world that the victors are benign democrats, and when they turn out to be vicious killers, big media will turn its attention elsewhere. Right now they are praising his decision to go to congress, claiming that he has single handedly restored constitutional government when the truth is, the army is broke and to pursue this ill fated enterprise, congress must appropriate money.

    http://www.redstate.com/2013/09/03/syria-a-romance/

    http://www.redstate.com/2013/09/03/obamas-sticky-syria-situation/

  35. Obama Vetoed Israeli Strike on Iran, Israel’s former NSC chief says
    September 3rd, 2013 – 5:34 am

    President Obama stopped Israel from launching an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities a year ago, according to the then head of Israel’s National Security Council, Gen. Giora Eiland. Gen. Eiland spoke with Israeli journalist Rotem Sella, a former former senior writer for the daily Ma’ariv, at the Daily Capitalist blog on the “Mida” online news site. Some quickly-translated extracts from Sella’s report are below:

    Exclusive: Prime – Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was about to order an attack on Iran in September 2012, but canceled the operation in response to U.S. pressure, the former head of Israel’s National Security Council said last month. Gen. Giora Eiland (retired) added that Israel “has a real ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” and that it is possible that the American veto was related to the presidential election then in progress.

    “At the time [September 2012] the Prime Minister thought that we had gotten to a critical point on the Iranian issue and planned to carry out attacks,” Gen. Eiland said at a closed-door conference held on August 19, adding that “Israel did not have in principle approval of U.S. military operations, unless Americans require one – cut prevented any action. ” According to Eiland, the issue was raised at a meeting between Netanyahu and the Americans, who said that the planned attack was out of the question for them, which led to its cancellation.

    Since the cancellation of the planned Iran’s nuclear program has continued to progress. Today, argues Eiland, Israel again faces a difficult choice. “Time has passed and we stand before exactly the same decision, with less time. ” He added, “The lack of resolution is dramatic.”

    In an interview, Gen. Eiland said, “There are many things Israel can do things independently. In the case of construction in Jerusalem, an assault in Gaza or other issues relating to our area we do not need to ask the Americans when we act, even if they do not like it. Yet when it comes to something with broader concerns to U.S., we cannot act against their judgment. “

    The best scenario for Israel, Eiland believes, is an American attack on Iran, but “the lack of U.S. enthusiasm for action in Syria signals that this possibility is not realistic.” The issue of prospective US approval of an Israeli attack remains an open question. “There are variables that have changed since last year primarily in the internal affairs of the United – States, which was then in full swing in elections,” the retired general said. In September 2012, when Eiland headed Israel’s National Security Council, Obama was in trouble due to his poor performance in the first televised debate with Romney. He may have preferred to avoid a war that could harm his re-election campaign.

    Do circumstances today allow Netanyahu to attack? That is difficult to assess. But while the Syrian story and Obama’s hesitations occupy the headlines, it is important to remember that the real drama is in Iran.

  36. wbboei

    September 3, 2013 at 9:42 am

    Doesn’t this set up the perfect counter move for Putin–assuming he is even interested in it? Suppose he goes to Congress, tells them that he has some influence with the Assad administration whereas Obama does not, therefore, he will meet with Assad and review the entire matter, as long as Obama and the US stay completely out of it for the next 6 months and cease and desist in any further discussions of a massive military strike between now and then. He could also pass out copies of the book The Guns of August, with additional copies to those members of big media who know how to read anything besides their Harvard diplomas. Just think of it, Putin could get a Nobel Prize–for doing something, whereas Obama’s is cheap, because he got one for doing nothing.

    Wbb,

    You might have something there. That is a perfect geopolitical checkmate. It portrays bumbles to his allies as weak and impotent, while Russia’s allies see Putin as strong in the face of the only other world superpower. China gets emboldened by this powerplay and moves with strength against Chinese Taipei knowing that the world has turned its back on bumbles. Israel SEEING that its most powerful protector is impotent and that Palestine, Egypt and Syria are backed by a more powerful nation comes back to the negotiating table at Putin’s behest.

    This is shaping up really bad for bumbles.

    Hillary 2016

  37. Herein lies the madness of the Syrian venture, and why it will ultimately fail, as it did in Iraq

    First of all, war is an instrument of policy, not an end unto itself, so said Clausewitz, the Prussian general widely regarded as the leading expert on the subject in the modern age. His treatise is studied at the war colleges around the world, and his insights form the basis for sound policy. And, if policy is the basis for war, or if, as Clausewitz said, war is simply policy be a different means, then policy must have a rational purpose and an end game. Without that, war becomes nothing more than senseless violence.

    Second, if war is an instrument of policy, then it is axiomatic that the underlying policy have an end game. In the case of Syria, there is no end game other than the toppling of the Assad regime. That may not be what they are willilng to admit, but that is what they are thinking. The problem is they are not thinking beyond that, because if they do succeed in toppling Assad, then the likely outcome will be a period of instability, followed by the ascension of al Qaeda to power, and the emergence of a rogue state, openly hostile to US interests.

    Third, the conduct of war depends on the quality of leadership of the commander-in-chief. After all, war is the realm of risk, there is friction in war, and no battle plan survives the first engagement. To achieve success, the commander must constantly adopt, and must deal with incomplete information sometimes described as the fog of war. Therefore, he commander must have fierce determination to win, and the “coup d ‘oeil”– an intellect that even in the darkest hour retains some glimmerings of the inner light which leads to truth and the courage to follow that light to wherever it may lead. Obviously, Obama lacks those personal qualities. A commander cannot vote present.

  38. Leanora
    September 3, 2013 at 11:52 am

    Oh Crap!
    ====

    Boehner: ‘I’m Going to Support the President’s Call for Action’ in Syria

    __________

    Why did Barack feel the need to get another dog when he has Boehner?

  39. Boehner: ‘I’m Going to Support the President’s Call for Action’ in Syria
    —————–
    Of course he will. He is too weak to do anything else. He is a coward.

  40. There is no two parties anymore, its one big bunch of useless idiots, no difference between Dem or GOP anymore, we need to burn both houses to the ground.

  41. Boehner now votes present….

    Boehner office: “Speaker expects the White House to provide answers to Members’ questions and take the lead on any whipping effort”

    Useless ass. We have no leadership or accountability, its a bunch of guys playing circle jerk and who can look the biggest twit on tv.

  42. Boner helps out Obama on Syria; Kerry says Syria’s Assad is Hitler; Hitler has not commented on Syria – he has other problems: 🙂

  43. If we attack Syria with planes and cruise missiles, then we will become, in effect, al Qaeda’s air force.

    I understand that Boeher has no concern about that, but I certainly do.

  44. Update: Why do Republicans keep John Boner as Speaker? Today we hear from bonehead Boehner: I support Obama’s call for action in Syria. Cantor too wants to give the treacherous boob more authority to screw things up even more than he already has. As foolish as these Republicans are it is hypocrite Nancy Pelousy that takes the prize for most incoherent support for Barack thus far with her chatter about “the children”. Here’s your spokeswomen attack supporters:


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtF-G9hSwxc

    Supporters of giving Barack Obama authority to initiate a flaccid thin-prick attack on Syria have a lot of explaining to do, as we outline in our main article below. Those that want to give the drunken rodeo clown more liquor and guns because “Assad must be punished for using chemical weapons” have to provide an “exit strategy” (and an overall rational and strategy) but they refuse to do so because they don’t know what Obama will do other than bumble and stumble. These supporters of attack authority for the Peace Prize Putz Prez know that Obama continues to state that the attacks will be very limited, short, and not designed for regime change.

    Supporters of authority for Peace Prize Putz Prez, like Boner and Pelousy, who applaud Obama’s “limited” attack dream to “punish” Assad should answer the points we raise below (like why Assad will be strengthened by “surviving” an American attack) and some of those raised by Obama adorer Al Hunt:

    “Critics of intervention are now asking, if we strike now, what do we do when Assad does it again?

    Supporters must provide an answer to that question. There’s more from Obama adorer Al:

    “Former U.S. Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, one of many former top officials who are rarely consulted by this White House (he ran the Pentagon during the Kosovo air attacks in 1999), worries that the president’s plans for Syria are merely tactical, without a clear strategic objective or mission. Has the administration, for instance, seriously considered the likelihood that Russia and Iran will resupply Assad immediately after a strike? Will anything the U.S. does, Cohen wonders, make Assad think, “Hey, we might lose this thing, let’s negotiate a settlement.”

    Others worry about being dragged into a protracted engagement.

    “Unless the administration gets real lucky, they’re in a terrible box,” says Aaron David Miller, a longtime U.S. diplomat. The president has to respond, he says, though there is the danger of “an incremental drip by drip intervention.”

    That would be a disaster. After Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. voters won’t tolerate another war unless critical national interests are at stake.”

    That “drip by drip intervention” sounds an awful lot like Vietnam war style “escalation”. We punish Syria – Syria gets bragging rights – Syria gets resupplied by Russia/Iran – Syria gets out the Sarin gas again – we punish/escalate a little bit more then a little bit more, then a little bit more – meanwhile Iran rejoices as it completes its nuclear weapon. All the while Obama forbids Israel from attacking Iran or Syria on the grounds that he is “punishing” the evildoers and not to worrrrry about an Iran Nuke. Or does Obama wrist slap “punish” once and then ignore whatever else Assad does?

    Supporters of enabling the Boob and his boobery have a lot of ‘splaining to do.

    ——————————————————————————————————

  45. I always suspected this was the case. 🙂

    War On Terror: As the regime of Bashar Assad disintegrates, the security of his chemical arsenal is in jeopardy. The No. 2 general in Saddam Hussein’s air force says they were the WMDs we didn’t find in Iraq.

    King Abdullah of neighboring Jordan warned that a disintegrating Syria on the verge of civil war puts Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons at risk of falling into the hands of al-Qaida.

    “One of the worst-case scenarios as we are obviously trying to look for a political solution would be if some of those chemical stockpiles were to fall into unfriendly hands,” he said.

    The irony here is that the chemical weapons stockpile of Syrian thug Assad may in large part be the legacy of weapons moved from Hussein’s Iraq into Syria before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    If so, this may be the reason not much was found in the way of WMD by victorious U.S. forces in 2003.

    Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm#ixzz2drKWCxVp
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

  46. Seriously WTF…John F’n Kerry “I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be on the table.”

  47. WTF

    John Kerry: Boots on the ground is still an option. “We won’t take it off the table.”

    so yet another lie……..

  48. Who would you believe, honestly nothing on the same page : Hagel mentions “war” when Kerry said this isn’t “war.” Which is it?

  49. Typical dereliction of duty…..

    Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton said Tuesday that at the current time, the only reason she would vote in favor of an attack on Syria was out of loyalty to Barack Obama.

    Appearing on radio’s Bill Press Show, the non-voting delegate from the District of Columbia also said if the President actually gets the votes he needs, “it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage”

  50. Guess Kerry got a phone call sometime in the last 5 minutes…..

    Now Kerry is back to stating no boots on the ground. 10 mins ago he said he wont take boots off the ground as an option

  51. Seriously Kerry just answered a question about Russia…”To my knowledge, I have no knowledge.”

    Does that make you feel safe and just tell you he is lying his ass off.

  52. Lol, best tweet ever after Kerrys senate hearing screendeath…….

    “Scarey, Assad was a joke when he took over for his Dad. Now, I’m not sure this administration is a match for him.”

  53. Honestly

    Kerry making very clear WH remains committed to lowest common denominator military response.

    Whats the point….big scarey, whats he gonna do, chuck a glass of water in Assads lap and call him a bad name…….

    Mydog could run this administration better than these clowns.

  54. So the one issue Obama can get bipartisan congressional support on is airstrikes that some 70% of Americans oppose? I seriously give up on this political shit.

  55. Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton is a real sicko.

    She would support the murder of innocent civilians out of loyalty to Obama?

  56. Jawdrop moment…..

    McCain: “We know who the bad guys are, right?” Kerry: “For the most part.”

    What………….

  57. Lol, now there is a real poll for you……

    RepAndyHarrisMD: Constituents who have contacted my office by phone or mail oppose action in Syria 523-4 so far.

  58. Moon, the indications I am getting is that although Boehner and Cantor intend to vote in favor of this, they will take their time, not whip the vote, and as a result members will be free to vote their conscience, which should coincide with the interests of their constituents. Obviously, there will be immense pressure on them by big media, the Israeli lobby and the military industrial complex whose interests favor such an attack. Larry Johnson has already alluded to this.

    There is no question in my mind that this will be an ill fated venture, like all the rest of them which preceded it. The problem is one of grand strategy alluded to above. After the initial shock and awe, it will turn to shit. At this point Obama is committed to a limited engagement, and no troops on the ground. When it does not succeed, he will be forced to escalate. But for now it is beer and skittles. Big media blow jobs are purchasing tailored fatigues with matching accessories, and preparing for the adventure of their lives ala Beau Geste. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beau_Geste.

  59. Our grand strategy is upside down. The center of gravity here is Iran, not Syria. Israel was prepared to attack Iran’s nuclear facility last year, but Obama stopped them from doing so, because it could adversely affect is election. Had he allowed them to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities at that time, we would not be in the situation we have with Syria. By attacking Syria, and not allowing Israel to attack Iran, we end up with the worst result of all: a nuclear Iran, and an al Qaeda government in Syria. Of course the brilliant minds in the Obama regime–Power, Rice etc. have no inkling of this.

  60. Sen. Rand Paul making the fair, obvious point that if the president is attacking either way, this upcoming vote is meaningless. Kerry cornered like a deer in headlights.

  61. Leanora
    September 3, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    I have to agree with Matt on this:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/matt-drudge-tweets-why-would-anyone-vote-republican/
    ———————
    Better yet. Why would anyone vote? Neither party represents the American People. Nothing will change until the base of the Republican Party starts a new party, and we get something going along the lines of what Mark Levin is talking about in his new book The Liberty Amendments. The interests of Washington and the interests of the American People are mutually exclusive.

  62. Wow, forktongue…

    Kerry : “The President is not asking you to go to war…He’s just asking you to take military action against Assad.”

    Eh so airstrikes is not declaring war, its only really really telling someone off. Fuckwit.

  63. Here is the obama / MB story again, but this time with more details. Included are hacked e-mails showing that Washington approved a plan to stage a false flag and that the administration may be complicit in a war crime.
    ====

    Did the Obama Regime help plan the Syrian chemical attack in order to take down Bashar Assad and replace him with the Muslim Brotherhood?

    There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East ­ mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters ­ which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.

    Global Research by Yossef Bodansky – The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.

    http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/09/03/did-the-obama-regime-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack-in-order-to-take-down-bashar-assad-and-replace-him-with-the-muslim-brotherhood/

  64. Bwahahahahahaha

    jimgeraghty ‏@jimgeraghty 2m

    I had previously dismissed the Kerry botox rumors, but today his entire face looks like it’s been ironed.

  65. How do you take these fuckers seriously…

    mcCain caught playing poker on his phone during Syria hearing….obviously gives a shit……

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/the-senates-syria-hearing-live-updates/?id=ed01ca14-222b-4a23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0a

    McCain playing poker on his iPhone

    As the hearing continues, our ace photographer Melina Mara reports she spotted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) “passing the time by playing poker on his iPhone during the hearing.”

  66. Oh Hillary, why oh why oh why did you open your mouth……

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/03/hillary-clinton-backs-obamas-call-for-action-against-syria/?wprss=rss_election-2012&clsrd

    Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton backs President Obama’s call for Congress to authorize military action against Syria, a Clinton adviser said Tuesday.

    “Clinton supports the president’s effort to enlist the Congress in pursuing a strong and targeted response to the Assad regime’s horrific use of chemical weapons,” the adviser said in a statement.

    It was the first comment from the former secretary of state on Syria in the wake of the chemical weapons attack there and the president’s decision to put military action on hold for now while asking for Congress to give him the authority to launch a retaliatory attack.

    Clinton has long been a proponent of a more vigorous U.S. response to the civil war in Syria. As a member of the administration, she argued in favor of doing more to arm and assist rebel forces.

    Clinton is scheduled to deliver a speech next week on the controversy over the National Security Agency’s surveillance program. The setting could give her a forum to offer additional comments on the Syrian situation and the congressional debate now underway.

    ……………..

    However she did not specifically endorse a strike, she endorsed him seeking Congress’s approval.

    Still she should have stayed out of it.

  67. Honestly McCain, you get caught and you send this tweet out….do you think its funny? Don’t you think this hearing would garner all of your limited attention.

    John McCainVerified account ‏@SenJohnMcCain

    Scandal! Caught playing iPhone game at 3+ hour Senate hearing – worst of all I lost!

  68. Obama Playing Golf , Mccain plays poker on phone in war hearings, Kerry is lying through his paralysed face and they want to attack a country? what are we doing with these people, we deserve better?

  69. Folks, everything you want to know about this whole Syria operation can be found during Rand Paul’s questioning…especially at the end. Kerry is going on about no boots on the ground and asks the General if he would like to speak on this. The General replys, “NO, I WOULD NOT.” Kerry then mutters, but audible, “you just pulled the rug from under me.”

    Go listen starting at the 3 hour 15 minute mark.

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/

  70. “McCain: “We know who the bad guys are, right?” Kerry: “For the most part.”
    ______________

    Are there any good guys?

  71. Obama Playing Golf , Mccain plays poker on phone in war hearings, Kerry is lying through his paralysed face and they want to attack a country? what are we doing with these people, we deserve better?
    ————————-
    Somewhere between a three stooges movie and Saturday Night Live. They are a parody of how leaders ought not to act. Pathetic showing. Did you happen to notice the demeanor of Major Kong (the character in the movie Doctor Strangelove who opens the bomb bay door of his B-52, hops on the nuclear weapon and rides it down to earth like a rodeo cowboy riding a bull) i.e. John McCain, while Ron Paul is talking. At first he looks like a zombie, then he looks derisive and dismissive and then he moves out of the picture and plays pocket pool. A mind is a terrible thing to lose. We must do everything we can to support Alzheimers research, and put John out to pasture. I checked with the Viet Namese communists and they categorically refuse to take him back. They told me he is your problem. We tried to rehabilitate him and it was no use.

  72. Maggie Haberman from Politico was on Charlie Rose and gave a bit of clarity as to what Hillary’s statement actually was. It was classic Clinton. It did NOT agree with what the president’s strategy was except to say that going to congress was a good idea. Haberman also reminded us that the first position Hillary had as SOS along with General Patreus was vetoed by the president when the conflict was in its early stages.

    Haberman was asked by Rose about President Clinton’s view (or possible public view) of the Syria situation and she said very stoutly that the president would most likely echo Hillary’s released statement. That leads me to believe that they came together to craft a response that supported without supporting bumbles.

    I take back my damn… 😛

    Hillary 2016

  73. Rand Paul clearly got the better of Sad Sack Kerry in that exchange.

    For me, it highlighted the fact that there is no strategy beyond punishing Assad.

    Going to war under these circumstances, without realistic strategy or end game endangers the American People.

    And again, if Obama had let Israel take out Iran’s nukes, we would not be facing this situation.

    Iran, not Syria, is the center of gravity of this conflict.

    And we do not have the guts to deal with that issue.

  74. Well, it is beginning to look like we will be going to war with Iran after all. . .
    ———————————
    Current Article
    The SARIN Psyops Story–A US/UK Contrivance

    By Larry Johnson on September 3, 2013 at 5:45 PM in Current Affairs

    It is highly unlikely that the Syrian Government authorized and ordered a chemical attack using the nerve agent Sarin against rebel strongholds in Damascus on the 21st of August. It appears that this incident was carried out, at a minimum, with the complicity of the United States and Great Britain.

    An old friend who is well plugged into the area shared with me today that he learned of a meeting that took place on 15 August on Turkey’s border iwth Syria. It was between a Senior Turkish intelligence officer and a rebel aligned with the Free Syrian Army. A CIA officer also was attending but not “participating.” The rebel rep pressed for an urgent supply of weapons and announced, “there will shortly be an event that will lead the United States to strike inside Syria.”

    Six days later we get this first news flash:

    LONDON (AP) Britain”s foreign secretary says the country will ask the United Nations Security Council to discuss claims of a chemical weapons attack near the Syrian capital, Damascus. Syrian opposition groups say at least 100 people were killed during a fierce government offensive against rebel-held areas, and some activists say regime troops used “poisonous gas.”

    The Syrian government denied its troops used chemical weapons.

    Britain”s Hague said Wednesday that “if verified, this would be a shocking escalation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. We are determined the people responsible will one day be held to account.”

    He said U.N. chemical weapons inspectors, who are currently in Syria, should be given access to the site.

    How convenient?

    So, what are we to make of the appearance that the intelligence community provided zero warning of an imminent attack? The United States surely has the ability to monitor the chemical weapons sites in Syria. Did the daily intelligence brief to the President or the Secretary of Defense warn of an impending attack? If no, why not?

    Why did it take days for the intelligence community to render a judgment, that is still quite caveated, indicating that this event was the work of Assad?

    The more we hear the hysteria in the voices of Obama and Kerry, screeching and pleading that we must do something or else Iran will get us. This is nothing more than a thinly veneered effort to lay the groundwork for a war in Iran.

  75. If the best argument for leaping into the unknown is that if we fail to attack Syria then no one will respect us, is a delusional argument, because with Obama at the helm, we are well past the point of being respected. His apology tour proved to the world that we don’t even respect ourselves, so why on earth should anyone else?
    ——————————————–

    On Syria: Not At This Time

    By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | September 3rd, 2013 at 09:18 PM

    What exactly is the American national security threat of a Syrian civil war, which has pulled in and financially harmed Hezbollah? What exactly is the American national security threat when a regime that hates America is fighting a rebel alliance that hates America and is supported by Al Qaeda?

    National Review makes perhaps the most credible case for an attack and it is an intellectually weak case. The Editors, who’ve called for taking out Syria since we invaded Iraq, write, “If we don’t act in this case, after all this windup, Iran and Hezbollah will take note of how little our admonitions to not acquire or use weapons of mass destruction really mean. We can’t know exactly what would come of our self-inflicted humiliation, but it would be nothing good. For that reason, we would vote ‘yes’ on the authorization…”.

    The argument National Review makes is a child rearing argument. If one tells one’s child to stop or get a spanking and no spanking comes, the child will act worse. This is not a parent-child situation. This is a situation between sovereign powers and, in the run up to the discussion, we are told by the Administration that launching missiles into another country is not an act of war. One wonders if the Administration would feel the same way if Syria launched missiles into the United States.

    “Congress should not authorize blowing up another country just so an unserious President can save face.”

    The Wall Street Journal echoes National Review with this conclusion: “The reason to do this and authorize the use of force is not to save this President from embarrassment. It is to rescue American credibility and strategic interests from this most feckless of Presidents.”

    To those, including National Review and the Wall Street Journal, who argue that our credibility is on the line and we will no longer be taken seriously unless we act — we have already passed a point at which people stop taking us seriously. Bombing Syria will not suddenly restore credibility.

    In fact, there is nothing that suggests this civil war has short term or long term national security implications for the United States. Those implications may be there, but they have not been made. Claiming Iran and Hezbollah “will take note of how little our admonitions … really mean” has no weight in light of a multi-year failed effort to stop Iran from nuclear armament and Hezbollah from continuing its war against everybody else in Lebanon and northern Israel.

    This all begs the question: where are the grown ups?

    John McCain playing poker on his iPhone during a hearing on Syria is not grown up. Barack Obama flippantly declaring a red line is not a grown up. John Kerry’s refusal to describe the missile strike as an act of war is not the action of a grown up. John Boehner and Eric Cantor seeking to use an act of war as leverage in budget negotiations is not a grown up thing to do.

    About the only grown up out there seems to be General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said an operation in Syria would necessitate troops in Syria, but believes, “rebels fighting the Assad regime wouldn’t support American interests if they were to seize power right now.” He can’t even say what we are seeking in Syria. So much for claiming the United States needs to bomb because of our credibility and interests.

    We must also revisit the situation in Iraq.

  76. The chicken-chit bastard didn’t want to live the same life he forced onto those 3 girls..a life of imprisonment.

    “Ariel Castro, the man convicted earlier this year of kidnapping three woman, holding them in his Cleveland home for nearly a decade, and repeatedly sexually assaulting them, committed suicide in his Ohio jail cell Tuesday night, according to an Ohio corrections official.

    A statement from the Ohio Department of Corrections said Castro, 52, was found hanging in his cell at the Correctional Reception Center in the town of Orient at 9:20 p.m. local time. After prison medical staff attempted to perform life-saving measures, Castro was transferred to The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, where he was pronounced dead at 10:52 p.m.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/04/cleveland-kidnapper-ariel-castro-found-hanging-in-cell/#ixzz2dthuiUrI

  77. Here is the draft resolution by Menandez and Corker, both of whom want to go to war. (Note: if they want to say we are not going to war, only authorizing limited military response, I say don’t try to bullshit me. If we do this we are going to war, because the enemy will respond, and things will escalate. And we will act as al Qaeda’s air force.)

    You can read it if you like but here are a few of the highlights:

    1. the military response is limited to WMD’s (which are not clearly defined), and the purpose must be either to respond to a respond, deter, or degrade the use of such weapons by the Syrian government.

    2. ground troops for the purpose of combat operations are not authorized (note: the authorization document is silent on the use of special operations forces, which will no doubt be used to aid the rebels, etc.)

    3. the authorization is limited to 60 days. (which means it is renewable).

    http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Syria_Joint_Resolution1.pdf

    Once this thing gets started, none of this will mean anything. Just as no battle plan survives the first engagement, these limitations will fall by the wayside, and a year from now or less we will be at war with Iran.

    They will have to raid 401 Ks and social security to pay for it. And then you will most likely see conflict here at home.

  78. VotingHillary

    September 4, 2013 at 1:08 am

    “Ariel Castro, the man convicted earlier this year of kidnapping three woman, holding them in his Cleveland home for nearly a decade, and repeatedly sexually assaulting them, committed suicide in his Ohio jail cell Tuesday night, according to an Ohio corrections official.

    Hell is too kind a place for this coward.

    Asshat.

    Hillary 2016

  79. wbboei

    September 4, 2013 at 1:11 am

    Here is the draft resolution by Menandez and Corker, both of whom want to go to war. (Note: if they want to say we are not going to war, only authorizing limited military response, I say don’t try to bullshit me. If we do this we are going to war, because the enemy will respond, and things will escalate. And we will act as al Qaeda’s air force.)

    I think the most frustrating thing is that a meager 70% of the public see this as a fools’ errand and have said as much in poll after poll. This is truly taxation without representation if this foolishness passes.

    This country NEEDS Sarah Palin now more than ever….

    Hillary 2016

  80. Update II: American army boots in Syria??? #JohnKerryBotox was for it before he was against it. We kid you not. The past remains present as today we heard it straight from the horses’ mouth, a.k.a. John Kerry, just thinking out loud: I can’t rule out boots on the ground if Syria implodes.

    Would you buy a used car from this man or from Barack Obama? Hard to believe we ever campaigned so hard for Kerry in 2004.

    ——————————————————————————————————

  81. From the clowns at Ace of Spades:

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/343077.php

    Now in the large I’m for the bombing of foreigners – partly on principle and partly just personal satisfaction. Especially when they’re actual bad people like the Assad regime. But sometimes there really is nothing at all in it for us and we’d all be better off if they brutally slug it out for a few years.

    But even if I were convinced that Syria-bombing was exactly what was needed, I would still never put it into the hands of this particular collection of clowns, blowhards, naïve radicals, preening narcissists, high-functioning retards, and generally clueless-but-arrogant space-wasters. Hell some of these people I’d be nervous even trusting to pick up my mail and feed my pets while I was on vacation.

  82. We are being lied to again. Somewhere in the mix is John Brennan. He was involved in the phony WMD pretext for the war in Iraq, and was promoted because of it. Now he is in charge of the CIA. It is hard to imagine a worse choice. A former Secretary of the Navy expressed grave misgivings to me about Brennan, so nothing he does surprises me. In both cases, we are talking about manufactured evidence supplying the pretext to war, which will make a small group of people rich and the American people and their heirs far poorer. A couple years ago, I mentioned a comment by a friend of mine who is a Washington DC lawyer. He said he walked into the Capitol Grill restaurant, and spoke with a contractor who was doing business in Iraq, and plainly stated he hoped the war never ended because he was making so much money. That is the entire mindset of Washington DC, and it gets worse by the year. Larry exposes the big lie in his comments below.
    ————————————————————————

    The WMD Bamboozle

    By Larry Johnson on September 3, 2013 at 2:38 PM in Current Affairs

    Here we go again. A President uses the specter of WMD aka WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION to frighten the public and justify military action. In 2003 it was Iraq. The next victim, Syria. But the definition of WMD is slippery. It can mean anything we want it to mean. Two small bombs along the route of the Boston Marathon? Yep, WMD. Only killed three people but, but in our Brave New world of magic words, that counted as “MASS DESTRUCTION.”

    Now we are being lied to about the use of a chemical “weapon” in Syria. Yes, lied to. We really do not know who did what, but the Obama team and their lackeys have decided that Assad is the culprit regardless of proof. Worth noting that there is a credible media report of the rebels claiming they did it (accidentally of course). Still no public medical evidence to prove what the chemical was. Obama and his buddies on the Republican right claim it was Sarin, but I put zero stock in any Government claim. The United States has a track record, proven, of lying.

    The basic message Obama is sending by his fixation on chemical weapons is this–as long as you kill hundreds of thousands with conventional weapons it is okay. We do it all the time. We routinely hit unsuspecting souls, including women and children, with drone missiles. See, as long as our hearts intend good things it is okay to kill civilians. We’ll just say we are sorry.

    Obama now wants the United States to commit an act of war in order to salvage his prestige because he made the stupid public comment creating an imaginary red line if chemical weapons were used. The argument? If the President makes a promise and does not deliver America, per these hawks, is at risk. What bullshit!!

    The conflict in Syria is not about making the world safe for chemical weapons. This is about saving face for an American President who deserves no face. A pompous, self-important cretin who decided to draw an unenforceable red line in Syria last year during the heat of a political campaign. Now, in order to try to project an image of strength, he will lash out at Syria in his impotence-fueled rage and hit meaningless military targets.

    Obama is not alone in this. He is being egged on by the same dunderheads that saw invading Iraq as a swell idea. Many in that crowd to this day continue to insist that taking out Saddamn and sending more than 100,000 US troops to Iraq was the right thing to do. Of course, they happily ignore the sectarian civil war that continues to rage and costs the lives of more than 1000 Iraqis each month. What the hell? We just tell ourselves it is a victory and it is so. Reality no longer matters.

    Crazy John McCain is out there insisting that the United States must weaken Assad and allow the Free Syrian Army to take over. The addled, mad Senator from Arizona enjoys ignorance and delusion. He asserts, without one shred of proof, that the Free Syrian Army is not under the thumb of Islamic radicals and is a viable fighting force. Of course, McCain proved to be so obtuse on these matters that he had his photo snapped with Sunni terrorists earlier this year.

    McCain uses the novel argument that we must attack the chemical stockpiles that are now controlled by the Syrian Government in order to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. Except, if we weaken Assad and the Al Qaeda terrorists that dominate the opposition in Syria take over, they, the terrorists, will in fact have control of the chemical weapons. This is the stupidity and myopia of Obama and McCain. Goddamn them both.

    And one more thing. CIA Director John Brennan was part of the team that helped sell the bogus intel on Iraq to the Congress and a trusting public back in 2003. Now that he is in charge he is back to his old tricks and deceit. He got away with it once and was promoted. Why not a second time?

  83. As I watch the drum beat and build up to this war, and the rogue we will be supporting, I am reminded of something which was mentioned by General Fuller in his book The Conduct of War. Fuller was credited by Hans Guderian (Panzer Leader) and all others, as the inventor of Blitzkrieg doctrine, therefore his insights are worth considering:

    “There is a very good historical precedent for a thesis which belongs to the creme of the diplomatic tradition in better times. It is the thesis that if two rivals are offering an alternative threat to the existing order, and if you are unwilling to let the rascals fight it out themselves, then choose carefully the time of your intervention in their struggle and see that you intervene only in time to save the weaker of the two. For as long as there are two combatants the world can breathe; but if you destroy one of them in the name of self righteousness then you are using your blood and treasure to build up the other into a greater monster than ever, and you will infallibly have to face it at the next stage of the story. In other words, the the policy of ridding the world of aggression by a war of righteousness is like using the devil to cast out the devil, and it never works.”

  84. Ariel Castro……on the upside, we wont be paying for his prison hotel nor the number of appeals he would lodge……shame more of these scum don’t die quickly instead of decades at our expense.

  85. I am going to stick my neck out and express my glee at the ruins Obama has made of his Presidency. Not only did he split the Democratic party in 2008 which I thought was a possibly fatal weakening in the long run by creating more independent voters with a significant number of new at least occasional Republican voters, the imbecile is doing it again with his anti-war acolytes. The anger from the hard left who have any principles left (I know there are not that many left but there are a few as evidenced by some pretty stiff criticism that is being directed his way). Will most of them stay in the herd? Probably but they know that their delusions of being approved of by their Euro-trash pals is gone and any future contact will receive a curled lip. Boehner’s passivity and acquiescence is on the surface troubling. But he is not helping Obama. Members are free to vote their conscience as if they had one thus there is no unified Republican opposition. The Republicans are very quiet about their favorite subject-war except for the mad, bad McCain whose 15 minutes was up several years ago. So Boehner threw it over to the Senate run by Obamacrats who promptly wrote a resolution limiting President Dummy Trash-talker to 90 days and no troops. The senate is treating Obama like a teenager and saying you have to be home by 10 and by the way there is one gallon of gas in the hoopty. Boehner has protected himself from being Obama’s whipping boy if this goat rodeo heads even further south which is the oh so obvious intent of a Congressional vote. He also essentially invited Obama to make his case lobbying members with the absolute knowledge that he is too lazy to do it. There is also a weird triangulation (polygon-ulation?) developing with various factions of both parties, some even cross party, all over the place. It is like stomping roaches for this White House with 2014 mid-terms shining the flashlight. The first year of his second term has been an absolute disaster. Nothing has gone as planned and shows he is incapable of doing anything but run his ignorant, bullying, ego-driven mouth and to distract from his domestic policy implosion. The mood in the country is ugly and he playing with matches.

  86. Thank God for Rush. Maybe he can get this story out!
    ===

    AUDIO: Rush Limbaugh: What If Assad Was Framed By The Rebels And The Obama Administration

    Rush Limbaugh presents mounting evidence that poses the question: What if the Obama Administration is working with Syrian rebels to set up Assad? A sample of the transcript is as follows:

    “There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East ­ mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters ­ which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition. The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the ‘horror’ of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.”

    Hat Tip RightScoop who has posted an excellent article documenting various Middle East sources, videos, and research from Yossef Bodansky’s piece, Walid Shoebat, and a MintPress article.

    See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/audio-rush-limbaugh-what-if-assad-was-framed-by-the-rebels-and-the-obama-administration/#sthash.lWU3Zq5e.dpuf

  87. Yesterday morning on Fox & Friends John McCain said that Muslims shouting Allah Akbar were the same as Christians saying Thank God. Debra Burlingame sent him this tweet. BTW Debra lost her brother, not her husband. Her brother was one of the pilots.
    ===

    9/11 Widow To McRINO: “Allahu Akbar” Is The Last Human Sound On United 93 s Cockpit Voice Recorder Before It Slammed Into The Ground…
    http://weaselzippers.us/2013/09/03/911-widow-to-mcrino-allahu-akbar-is-the-last-human-sound-on-united-93s-cockpit-voice-recorder-as-it-slammed-into-the-ground/

  88. First look at the Obama-approved Muslim Brotherhood replacement for Bashar Assad of Syria

    After being banned in Syria for more than 30 years, the Muslim Brotherhood has appointed as its new chief in Syria, a Canadian Muslim, Hassan Hachimi, who will head the political arm of the Brotherhood, no doubt with its sights set on doing what Mohamed Morsi did in Egypt – bribing his way to the presidency – under the guise of democracy. The military arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, is busy staging chemical attacks on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama.

    Creeping Sharia (h/t Susan K) The political bureau of the Syria’s Muslim brotherhood (MB) announced (August 9, 2013) the official return of the Islamic movement to open political activity on Syrian soil after more than three decades of being banned by the Syrian regime.

    Following is a translation of the MB’s announcement (originally in Arabic):
    “Hassan Hachimi, MB’s head of political bureau, inaugurated during his visit to Aleppo in northern Syria few days ago the first office of the organization in the country after an absence that lasted decades of open political activity of the MB.” “The opening of an office of the MB party inside Syria is a great challenge in the face of Assad’s regime and a step that stresses the Muslim Brotherhood’s determination for a public return and to found, along with all other Syrian groups, a new political life in the country.”

    http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/09/04/first-look-at-the-obama-approved-muslim-brotherhood-replacement-for-bashar-assad-of-syria/

  89. Making his most passionate plea for military strikes in Syria, President Obama on Wednesday said the credibility of the U.S. — and that of the international community as a whole — is on the line, and a failure to act against the regime of President Bashar Assad will embolden war criminals, dictators and despots for years to come.

    Speaking at a press conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Mr. Obama said he believes Congress will ultimately approve action against Mr. Assad’s government, which U.S. intelligence officials have concluded has used chemical weapons against its own people repeatedly in the country’s ongoing civil war.

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/4/obama-credibility-congress-line-syria-vote/#ixzz2dvxGUM1o
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

  90. I expect that we will hear from Ted Cruz on this issue. I do not know what the polling looks like from his state. If American interests were at stake, I have no doubt they would favor war. But where as here:

    1. American interests are not at stake,

    2. the supporting evidence for war was manufactured by a rogue CIA * and–

    3 the apparent motive is to rehabilitate the credibility of Obama **

    I suspect that the prevailing sentiment in Texas will not favor intervention.

    * see comments by former CIA analyst and expert Larry Johnson, at 2:10 a.m. above (The WMD bamboozle)

    **Obama is viewed in Texas as the darling of the elite Harvard educated class, who spits in the face of the American people every chance he gets. This factor outweighs their customary willingness and elan to go the war.

  91. A failure to act against the regime of President Bashar Assad will embolden war criminals, dictators and despots for years to come.–Obama
    ———————–
    Purple prose riddled with non sequitur.

    War criminals, dictators and despots?

    Excluding Obama?

    A failure to act would embolden others to use chemical weapons?

    Did attacking Iraq over WMD’S deter Assad’s ALLEGED use of them?

  92. Repost from TCH.

    Why, every time we come up on a significant crisis like Syria, does a significant portion of people I read online act like a military strike is not a declaration of war? There is no such thing as air strikes without war.

    Unless you are prepared to say that if another country launched a shitload of Tomahawks into continental US it wasn’t an act of war. You can shrug your shoulders and say you aren’t outraged at the missiles hitting our cities are just “tactical strikes.”
    It’s war, and pretending it is just a “surgical strike” or a “limited engagement” or “just sending a message” is a joke. It’s magical thinking designed to help people cope with the go on/get along and to convince themselves they are not warmongerers.

    When you start dropping bombs and lobbing missiles at another country that is an act of war, regardless of whether you have made a formal declaration of hostilities first. And Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution states:

    The Congress shall have Power… To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/2013/09/03/just-out-of-curiosity-5/

  93. Well, now giving credit where it’s due, if anyone would know what it takes to “embolden dictators and despots” Obama would.

  94. Foxy:

    “Unless you are prepared to say that if another country launched a shitload of Tomahawks into continental US it wasn’t an act of war.”
    __________

    At the least, we would call it an act of terrorism. Such an act is distressing to think about, but you gotta love the creative language – and the image it congers. It’s raining tomahawks!!

  95. It is 1898 all over again. The elites who covet empire are preparing to unleash the dogs of war. Mark Twain and other voices of sanity oppose war. They argue that the evidence is flimsy, the result uncertain, and the effect of this war will be to change our destiny as a nation, from a republic to an empire.

    The pretext for war was the sinking of the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor. Evidence appears that the bomb was planted. But this evidence is brushed aside. William Randolph Hearst, the father of yellow journalism preaches holy war in his newspapers. Suddenly, the public mood changes, and the march to war becomes unstoppable. The war goes fast, but it brings in its wake instability. A two year revolt in the Philippines, a succession of dictators etc.

    The park I walk in in the evenings is named Volunteer Park in honor of those who fought in the Spanish American War. There is a headstone commemorating their selfless contributions to freeing the people of the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. from the yoke of Spanish tyranny. It is the stuff of fiction.

    Nunc pro tunc—then as now. For today, we have big media pounding the drums of war for the establishment, and marginalizing evidence that Britain and the United States conspired to create out of whole cloth a causus belli (http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/76322/the-sarin-psyops-story-a-usuk-contrivance/#more-76322). And in Kerry, Obama, and others in the goddamn America crowd, piously invoking patriotism is support of murder and crass partisan motives. And, as it did in 1898, the public mood will change and the march to war, and the thousand misfortunes it will bring to this country will become unstoppable. The second guessing will come later, if at all.

  96. freespirit
    September 4, 2013 at 11:04 am

    Foxy:

    “Unless you are prepared to say that if another country launched a shitload of Tomahawks into continental US it wasn’t an act of war.”
    __________

    At the least, we would call it an act of terrorism. Such an act is distressing to think about, but you gotta love the creative language – and the image it congers. It’s raining tomahawks!!
    _____________________________–

    Barry would probably call it Work place violence. 🙄

  97. Nuclear warheads reportedly moved from Texas to South Carolina

    A high level source has confirmed a secret US nuclear warhead transfer is underway to the East Coast from Dyess Air Force Base, home of 7th Bomb Wing located just outside Abilene, Texas.

    The move of the nuclear warheads to South Carolina is reported to be a secret transfer without paper trail.

    “Dyess is beginning to move out nuclear war heads today. I got a tap from DERMO earlier. He said it was the first time they have been even acknowledged since being put there in the 80 s. No signature was required for transfer… There was no directive. He said that Dyess Commander was on site to give authority to release. No one knew where they were going really, but the truck driver said to take them to South Carolina and another pick up will take them from there.” –

    See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/nuclear-warheads-reportedly-moved-from-texas-to-south-carolina/#sthash.tl5DfJOs.dpuf

  98. There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.

    The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.

    On August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major and irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US Intelligence [“Mukhabarat Amriki”] took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. Very senior opposition commanders who had arrived from Istanbul briefed the regional commanders of an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development” which would, in turn, lead to a US-led bombing of Syria.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack/5347542#sthash.tOJ0lQQ1.dpuf

  99. At this point, the dimmest bulb in the ranks of Obots should realize that their deity is simply a pawn in the hands of others. This think is taking on the appearance of a farce. Obama is like that talking doll chatty Kathy. Pull his string and he repeats the pre determined script. If the American People value the republic and do not wish to be reduced to peasants, then at the very least they will tell the NBC pollsters that there is no national interest at stake, the evidence supporting this war is at best suspect, and they do not favor killing people overseas to prop up a puppet of the elites. Therefore, they unalterably oppose this fools errand, and are concerned about the thousand misfortunes which will befall the country if we pursue it. What I would hope to see is Obama, and Congress to be acting contrary to the wishes of the American People, because we can build a third party on that example.

  100. “If the American People value the republic and do not wish to be reduced to peasants…….”
    ******
    The topics of the daily Street Theater may be important but are a distraction from the economy which will reduce the majority of Americans to the level of peasants.

    From WSWS:

    “Market turmoil signifies a new global financial crisis in the making”

    “Concerns are growing in international financial circles that the conditions have been created for a major, and potentially uncontrollable crisis, as soon as the US Federal Reserve begins cutting back on its purchases of US treasury bonds under its “quantitative easing” (QE) program.”
    ****
    Under the QE program, which involves purchases by the US central bank of treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities to the tune of almost $1 trillion a year, interest rates in the US have been reduced to record lows..
    ***
    The lowering of US interest rates also set off a “carry trade” in which financial speculators borrowed at very low rates and invested in emerging markets at higher rates of return than those obtainable in the US. According to the Financial Times, since 2010 capital flows into emerging markets have reached $1 trillion a year as a result of the “unconventional monetary policies” in the advanced economies.

    Now speculative capital is starting to move in the opposite direction in anticipation of “tapering” and an increase in US interest rates. The outflow has accelerated as the currencies of emerging market countries start to fall, prompting speculators to take their money out before they suffer significant losses.
    *****
    International Monetary Fund director general Christine Lagarde has called for “further lines of defence” to be built to try to protect the world economy from an emerging markets crisis. But nothing has been proposed, and, in any case, the amounts of finance involved should a rush for the exits begin, are beyond anything the IMF could control.
    *****
    The underlying causes of this volatility were highlighted in a recent report by the management consultant firm Bain and Company. It pointed out that the relationship between the financial economy and the underlying real economy had reached “a decisive turning point.” While real output was slowing, the volume of financial assets had expanded at a rapid pace and was now ten times the value of the global output of goods and services.

    In other words, the world economy increasingly resembles an inverted pyramid in which an expanding volume of financial assets—the growth of which is being fuelled by the policies of the Fed and other central banks—sits on top of a base that is declining in relative size.
    ****
    The US financial system has become so dependent on the purchases of treasury bonds by China that a major credit crisis in that country—and there are warnings of one in the making with Chinese debt rising from 130 percent of gross domestic product in 2008 to 200 percent today—and a consequent withdrawal of funds from US markets would set off a financial earthquake.
    ****
    etc., etc., etc.

  101. Some Dems are getting it….

    Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY): this is not a fight for democracy in syria. it’s a fight between a dictator and rebels whose best fighters are AQ

  102. Answer Benghazi before you talk about Syria! -Rep. Duncan to John Kerry

    John Kerry to Rep. Jeff Duncan “We want to talk about people killed by gas, and you want to talk about Benghazi and Fast & Furious”

    Well yes, i’d like answers too Kerry.

  103. God fucking riddance…..

    GOP Sources: House Speaker Boehner Will Step Down After 2014 Elections

    Did he finally get the message that his party thinks he’s spineless.

  104. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/john-boehner-retirement_n_3866110.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

    WASHINGTON — Former aides to John Boehner and other high-level GOP operatives are increasingly convinced that the House Speaker will step aside after the 2014 midterm elections, according to interviews with a dozen Republican sources.

    All summer, rumors have been swirling around the Hill and K Street that the speaker has had enough and that 2014 would be his last year with the gavel. Then the message went out in July: Boehner (R-Ohio) is not leaving.

    Boehner told his inner circle at dinner that there was no truth to the talk, and authorized his people to spread the word around town. A story appeared in Politico the next day, reaffirming Boehner’s stated commitment to stay past 2014.

    “These inside-the-Beltway parlor games take place every two years. The speaker has made clear publicly he intends to remain in his position in the next Congress,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told HuffPost.

    But not everyone close to the 63-year-old speaker is so sure. “He has to say that. He can’t not say that. The minute you say [you’re leaving], you’re done,” said one former GOP leadership aide who is part of Boehner’s circle. “Everybody around him thinks this is his last term.”

    Despite the effort by Boehner to tamp down speculation that he will depart the House after the 2014 midterms, multiple cooks in Boehner’s kitchen cabinet think the Republican is still strongly considering making his exit just over a year from now.

    “I’d be surprised if he did [stay],” said one former senior aide to Boehner, who, like many consulted for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity to protect their relationships. (HuffPost spoke to four top former Boehner aides, two current aides, five former leadership aides close to Boehner’s inner circle, and a GOP operative on familiar terms with his circle.)

    Boehner has plenty of reasons to make this coming year his last, but one may be more compelling than the others: It’s not at all clear he could win. His deputy, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), is not expected to challenge him, but during the last election a bloc of insurgent tea partyers threatened to derail Boehner’s election by depriving him of the 218 votes he needs to hold the gavel. The insurgents pulled back a bit, and Boehner won the speakership with 220 votes. “He barely won the last one and that group of opposition has only grown,” said one former leadership aide. “The ones who were in on it and got cold feet basically gave him a reprieve. They won’t be willing to do that again.”

    Only three more tea partyers would need to join the effort to block his next reelection — hardly a difficult feat, given the challenges Boehner presently faces: a vote on military action in Syria, immigration reform, a government shutdown and a debt ceiling standoff, all in the context of a full-scale effort to stop the implementation of Obamacare, which Boehner is entirely powerless to do.

    “It’s probably not up to him,” said one GOP operative. “The natural assumption is that he leaves. It’s the overwhelming, working assumption as people are making strategy going into 2015 and 2016.”

  105. The Uni-Party and it’s sociopathic puppet have taken this country in an Orwellian alternate universe when “KGB” Putin and the propaganda arm of the Communist Fourth International, WSWS, seem to be the purveyors of “truth”.

    From WSWS:

    “Obama, Congress and the coming war against Syria”

    President Barack Obama’s change of course in seeking US congressional authorization for military aggression against Syria, far from representing a more measured or democratic approach, is aimed at providing political cover for an unpopular war of unlimited scope. What is being planned goes far beyond anything that the US and world public have been led to expect.
    ***
    Congress is being enlisted in this effort in the form of an Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution, which is to be rammed through with the support of the leaderships of both big business parties, the Democrats and Republicans.
    ***
    While administration spokesmen, led by Secretary of State John Kerry—formerly the richest person in the US Senate—have vilified the Assad regime as the equivalent of Hitler’s Third Reich, Washington has yet to produce a shred of verifiable evidence that the Syrian military was responsible for a chemical weapons attack on August 21 outside Damascus, the casus belli for the coming US aggression.

    Instead, it has merely amplified propaganda from the US-backed opposition—a group of cutthroat militias spearheaded by Al Qaeda. Thus, in laying out the case for a US attack, Kerry made the claim that 1,429 people were killed in the August 21 attack, while Washington’s principal ally, Britain, put the number at 350. Even the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a group supporting regime-change in Syria, put the figure at roughly 500 and dismissed the US estimate as “propaganda.”
    ***
    The passage of a new AUMF on the pretext of responding to the use of chemical weapons in Syria will have effects that are easily as far-reaching and potentially even more catastrophic.

    Writing on the web site Lawfare, Goldsmith warns, “There is much more here than at first meets the eye. The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the US Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets—either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g., the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.”

    The resolution authorizes the use of force “in connection with the use of chemical weapons,” to prevent the use or proliferation “within, to or from Syria” of not only such weapons, but any “components of or materials used in such weapons.” In addition, force can be used to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.
    ****
    From talking of firing a “shot across the bow” of the Assad regime and conducting a “limited and tailored” operation, Obama has begun assuring members of Congress, and particularly right-wing Republicans, that the coming US military operation will have serious “teeth” and will be aimed in large measure at both “degrading” the military capabilities of the Syrian government and “upgrading” the capacities of the so-called “rebels.”

    This was the intention all along, with chemical weapons dragged in as a pretext for a military intervention aimed at reversing the defeats suffered by the Al Qaeda-led militias over the past several months.
    ****
    etc., etc.

  106. President Barack Obama flew to Sweden on Wednesday for a diplomatic meeting ahead of a two-day G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. Obama held a wide-ranging press conference in Sweden relating to the White House’s effort to build support for a strike on Syria in the wake of that government’s use of chemical weapons on civilians. One Swedish reporter cornered Obama on the contradictions contained in the fact that a Nobel Peace Prize winner is planning to launch his second war against a sovereign nation.

    “I was wondering,” the reporter began, “could you describe the dilemma to being a Nobel Peace Prize winner and getting ready to attack Syria?”

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/swedish-reporter-asks-obama-if-nobel-peace-prize-presents-dilemma-when-planning-syria-attack/

  107. WASHINGTON — A U.S.-led attack on Syria without United Nations support would be a war crime regardless of congressional approval, Noam Chomsky, the antiwar activist and author, said in response to President Barack Obama’s announcement that he would seek Hill approval.

    “As international support for Obama’s decision to attack Syria has collapsed, along with the credibility of government claims, the administration has fallen back on a standard pretext for war crimes when all else fails: the credibility of the threats of the self-designated policeman of the world,” Chomsky told HuffPost in an email.

    Chomsky recently traveled to the region to learn more about the Syria crisis, and his comments there led some to believe he was open to military intervention if negotiations failed to produce peace. “I believe you should choose the negotiating track first, and should you fail, then moving to the second option” — backing the rebels — “becomes more acceptable,” he said.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/02/noam-chomsky-syria_n_3851911.html

  108. Obama tapes recording for US Muslim Brotherhood group “my administration is proud to be your partner”

    We just reported on Mohamed Magid, the president of ISNA, working directly with the White House as well as sitting on a Homeland Security group that deals with ‘extremism’. If you haven’t seen that report you should go there now. It explains, in part, how the leaders of the Holy Land Foundation were convicted of funding terrorism, specifically the Islamic terror group Hamas whose goal is to destroy Israel, and that this Holy Land Foundation was spun off of a US Muslim Brotherhood group called ISNA. Because the US government wanted to indict the leaders of the Holy Land Foundation, ISNA was put on a list of unindicted co-conspirators of the Holy Land Foundation to be prosecuted at a later time. And they would have been had that not come at the end of the Bush administration.

    So considering all of that, you wouldn’t think an American president would be in bed with a group who is responsible for funding a terror group who wants to destroy Israel, our greatest ally and the only Western power in the Middle East. But he is. Here is a message he sent to ISNA just the other day:

    Video

    He supports the Muslim Brotherhood abroad and supports them at home…and opens the doors of America’s White House to them.

    http://therightscoop.com/obama-tapes-recording-for-us-muslim-brotherhood-group-my-administration-is-proud-to-be-your-partner/

  109. If the U.S. attacks Syria it will be an act of war because we attacked another nation – not because Noam Chomsky says so and not because the UN says so. The people in the United States are guided by the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the United States of America.

  110. In the past, I have mentioned what a pathetic excuse for a newspaper the Seattle Times and that they have an unbroken record of looking the other way when those they choose to support commit errors. In a word, they are corrupt.

    In the case of Obama, they have been a lap dog, and they have removed from their newspaper any syndicated columnists who take issue with him–Krauthammer, Will, etc. And they put in fuck sticks like EJ Dionne, David Brooks, and Tom Freidman, all of who are lapdogs.

    A perfect example of their bias and chicanery can be seen in today’s headlines announce in haec verba: “OBAMA THROWS DOWN THE GAUNTLET TO CONGRESS”.

    No honest person could possibly construe the three stooges movie which preceded this, culminating in a quick departure to year-up and a rehearsed speech as anything but the actions of a coward and incompetent.

    And no honest person would construe his passing the hot potato congress so he can blame them however they vote, as showing respect for the constitution, or throwing down the gauntlet.

    It was an example of crass opportunism, and the tip off is his statement that he does not need to go to congress and retains the right to do so if they vote against authorization.

    It takes the worst kind of liar and propagandist to put out a false deceptive headline like that on the front page of his newspaper, to bamboozle a gullible city. In short, it takes someone like Frank Blethan.

    This kind of crap goes all the way back to his grandfather Colonel Blethan, who became a brevet general in the Spanish American War in 1898 for doing nothing. And he did nothing about police corruption, but sunk the career of an enterprising King County prosecutor who moved against it.

  111. I just transferred money to a guaranteed account. The Dow will drop like a hot potato I think if we go to war. Gas prices, this is going to be a cluster.

    American life’s lost for what? Absolutely nothing!

  112. What a clustrfu*k of a Congress do we have here?
    *******

    BOEHNER, CANTOR ENDORSE ‘BLANK CHECK’ ON SYRIA STRIKE

    by MIKE FLYNN 4 Sep 2013, 9:26 AM PDT 15 POST A COMMENT

    On Tuesday morning, House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced their support for President Obama’s proposed military action in Syria. Their support came hours before Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel first testified before Congress on the Administration’s plans. The specific details of military action are unknown at this time. Which begs the question, what are Boehner and Cantor supporting?
    On Saturday, when he announced he was going to seek Congressional approval, Obama said he wanted “limited” targeted strikes to “degrade” Syria’s ability to launch chemical weapons. The draft resolution he sent to Congress, however, allowed for a more open-ended engagement and didn’t specifically rule out sending troops into Syria.
    On Monday, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham said their support of a military strike was conditioned on Obama broadening the mission to embrace “regime change” as a goal. They also urged Obama to arm the Syrian rebels with heavy weapons, a move opposed by 70% of Americans.
    In his testimony on Tuesday, hours after Boehner and Cantor endorsed military action, John Kerry opened the door to the possibility of ground troops invading Syria. In subsequent questioning, he tried to minimize that possibility.
    On Wednesday, the House Foreign Relations Committee will meet to discuss possible military action in Syria.
    What, exactly, have Boehner and Cantor endorsed? Why did they announce support before the Administration had presented its case before Congress. On Tuesday, Speaker Boehner met with President Obama in the White House. Obama no doubt convinced him that military action in Syria is in the best interest of the United States.
    With interventionists like McCain and Graham pushing for open war with Syria, however, it is uncertain what specific actions Congress may ultimately authorize. How can any Congressional leader support any action before initial hearings have been held in that body?
    The speed with which Boehner and Cantor endorsed a “blank check” on military action in Syria suggests that they will also seek quick appeasement on the looming budget and debt ceiling fights. They seem to have settled on a “prevent” defense. Boehner and Cantor will give Obama everything he wants, in the hopes that the GOP will take control of the Senate next year. Then, in their minds, they would have more political leverage.
    Although I am opposed, I can intellectually make an argument for supporting some kind of action in Syria. There is, however, no argument to defend a “hey, whatever you come up with, we support” approach.
    Abandoning principle to secure political advantage is a fast-track to minority status. It is a further reminder that the House has a Republican majority. We need a Conservative majority.

  113. Oh no! Not again!
    ===

    Mob of Teens Who Could Look Like Obama’s Sons Beat White Man To Death…

    Des Moines police are still looking for one of three 18-year-olds accused of beating a 40-year-old Des Moines man to death Sunday.

    Yarvon Nathaniel Russell, James Alon Shorter and Kent Anthony Tyler III, all of Des Moines, were charged Friday with first-degree murder. The teenagers are accused of killing Richard Daughenbaugh, who was found severely beaten in a parking lot near the Center Street bridge around 1 a.m. Sunday morning. He later died at Iowa Methodist Medical Center.

    Russell and Shorter were arrested and are being held at the Polk County Jail. A warrant has been issued for Tyler’s arrest. Police were still looking for Tyler as of 6 p.m. Saturday, said Des Moines Police Sgt. Jason Halifax.

    Several dozen people were in the parking lot when Daughenbaugh was beaten and watched the attack, police believe. Police suspect three or four others participated in the attack.

    “The phrase ‘mob mentality’ is probably accurate here,” Halifax told the Register on Friday. “Once the assault began, acquaintances of the suspect jumped in.”

    http://weaselzippers.us/2013/09/04/mob-of-teens-who-could-look-like-obamas-sons-beat-white-man-to-death/

  114. If Larry Johnson’s surmise is correct, i.e. that the evidence of a chemical attack by Assad was manufactured, and if the attack on Syria is a dress rehearsal for an attack upon Iran, then the use of the word “weapons of mass destruction” which is broad enough to cover nuclear weapons, and the text of the war authorization draft resolution which covers response to wmd attacks, and preemptive action. That same kind of resolution could be used to justify an attack on Iran. And he believes that the Obama regime is laying the ground work for just that. And that alone should convince anyone, everyone that Obama is just a pawn in a larger game. That game is to clear the path for world government and global markets, which is a loss to most Americans.

  115. If the Syrians hide their chemical weapons in civilian centers, then any US air or cruise missile strike could result in those poison gasses being released. The Syrian government could then blame the US for inadvertently unleashing those chemicals on their population and would then be able to get sympathy from the world for their plight against US aggression. If the US then sends the Marines into Syria, then what is to prevent Syria from using chemical weapons on them to defend itself against the infidels? Things could quickly spin out of control in the region if Iran decides to intervene and strike Israel as well and turn a regional conflict into WWIII if Russia is dragged into the conflict too.

  116. “If Iran decides to intervene and strike Israel as well and turn a regional conflict into WWIII if Russia is dragged into the conflict too.”
    *****
    “Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) asked Hagel, “Where did these chemical weapons come from?”

    Hagel said “there is no secret the Assad regime” has had a “significant stockpile” of chemical weapons. Wilson asked him if there was a particular country that may have supplied Assad with chemical weapons.

    “Well, the Russians supply ‘em, others are supplying them with those chemical weapons. They make some themselves,” Hagel said.”
    *******
    The Def. Sec. Hagel, testifying before a Congressional committee, accuses Russia/Putin of supplying chem. weapons to Assad. Wow!!…That ought to get the G20 off to a good start!!

    Obama, Kerry, Hagel; has there ever been a more inept trio? Hagel, I think, is especially stupid and dangerous; saying Russia/Putin supplies CWs to Assad is getting close to declaration of war, given the alleged stipulations in the Congressional Authorization of Use of Military Force.

  117. If Russia keeps its military advisers in its ally Syria, then imagine Putin’s response if their advisers get killed by US aggression there. An emergency UN Security Council meeting and General Assembly resolution later could then result in Russian troops into Syria coming into direct conflict with US invading troops there followed by Russia sending its Black Sea fleet into the Mediterranean after forcing their way through the Dardanelles of Turkey, a NATO member, and getting into a shooting match with the US Sixth Fleet and Greek navy ships, Turkey invoking NATO’s agreement that an attack on one is an attack on all members, the Russian army mobilized on the border of Turkey, well you get the picture.

  118. Obama, Kerry, Hagel; has there ever been a more inept trio?
    ————————-
    No. Never.

    In fact, the make Moe Larry and Curly look like Phi Beta Cappa material.

    I used to think that weathermen were the only ones who could get in wrong 90% of the time and retain their jobs.

    When you stop and think about it, it is just unthinkable.

    Two thirds (2/3) of that misguided were Harvard trained.

    The remaining third could not afford Harvard education, so he is just doing what comes naturally.

  119. Given the interlocking alliances in the region, this could turn into a repetition of the start of World War I except with far deadlier weapons.

  120. The fraud thinks he is Kennedy and this is Cuba and Khrushchev.

    This Putin is no Khrushchev, and the fraud is no Kennedy…

  121. The cure will be worse than the disease:

    Obama’s Small Penis Moment in Syria–This is a US/UK Intel Op

    By Larry Johnson on September 4, 2013 at 11:41 AM in Current Affairs

    Hey, don’t blame me. It is Jon Stewart’s fault. He correctly and accurately noted that the showdown in Syria is nothing more than 7th grade dick measuring by an inadequate, insecure male. Amen!!

    Give Stewart props. He is not buying into the traditional media love fest with their savior, Barack.

    He nails it on many fronts.

    You should also be paying attention to a piece that appeared yesterday, written by Yossef Bodansky. Bodansky is hearing the same things I am. I have it from a different source, but the message is the same:

    There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.

    The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.

    On August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major and irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US Intelligence [“Mukhabarat Amriki”] took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. Very senior opposition commanders who had arrived from Istanbul briefed the regional commanders of an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development” which would, in turn, lead to a US-led bombing of Syria.

    The opposition forces had to quickly prepare their forces for exploiting the US-led bombing in order to march on Damascus and topple the Bashar al-Assad Government, the senior commanders explained. The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive.

    Indeed, unprecedented weapons distribution started in all opposition camps in Hatay Province on August 21-23, 2013. In the Reyhanli area alone, opposition forces received well in excess of 400 tons of weapons, mainly anti-aircraft weaponry from shoulder-fired missiles to ammunition for light-guns and machineguns. The weapons were distributed from store-houses controlled by Qatari and Turkish Intelligence under the tight supervision of US Intelligence.

    These weapons were loaded on more than 20 trailer-trucks which crossed into northern Syria and distributed the weapons to several depots. Follow-up weapon shipments, also several hundred tons, took place over the weekend of August 24-25, 2013, and included mainly sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles and rockets. Opposition officials in Hatay said that these weapon shipments were “the biggest” they had received “since the beginning of the turmoil more than two years ago”. The deliveries from Hatay went to all the rebel forces operating in the Idlib-to-Aleppo area, including the al-Qaida affiliated jihadists (who constitute the largest rebel forces in the area).

    Several senior officials from both the Syrian opposition and sponsoring Arab states stressed that these weapon deliveries were specifically in anticipation for exploiting the impact of imminent bombing of Syria by the US and the Western allies. The latest strategy formulation and coordination meetings took place on August 26, 2013. The political coordination meeting took place in Istanbul and was attended by US Amb. Robert Ford.

    More important were the military and operational coordination meetings at the Antakya garrison. Senior Turkish, Qatari, and US Intelligence officials attended in addition to the Syrian senior (opposition) commanders. The Syrians were informed that bombing would start in a few days.

    History will eventually record that the events of the last month were part of a broader US/UK intel effort in response to desperate pleadings from the Turks and the Saudis. The Israelis, at least some in the intel and defense community, correctly understand that an Assad free Syria creates a greater risk for the safety and security of Israel.

    Don’t be surprised to see more information emerge in the coming days that will appear to further implicate Bashir Assad and his Army. This information will be intel plants and designed to support a broader Covert Action. The goal is to get rid of Assad. Nobody in the United States or the United Kingdom is doing anything to ensure that Assad is replaced by a moderate, non-secular government. The CIA and MI6 are blindly moving forward and oblivious to real threat posed by the radical Islamist who are carrying the fight to Assad’s Army.

  122. Current Article
    Obama’s Red Line Amnesia

    To big media, Obama is god. He is scrumpdelitous.

    To the rest of us with an IQ over room temperature, he is a sociopath.

    Glibness and Superficial Charm

    Manipulative and Conning

    Grandiose Sense of Self

    Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”

    PATHOLOGICAL LYING: “I never drew a red line on Syria”, etc,

    Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt

    Shallow Emotions

    Incapacity for Love

    Need for Stimulation

    Callousness/Lack of Empathy

    ————————————————–

    By Larry Johnson on September 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM in Current Affairs

    The chutzpah of this asshole is genuinely breathtaking. He insists that he set no “Red Line” with respect to Syria. Horseshit!!

    Don’t take my word for it, simply hold Obama accountable for his own idiotic rantings:

    But, Barack hopes you forgot he said that. He was pandering today (Wednesday) in Sweden:

    Obama must be impeached. He is a liar and a danger to this country’s national security.

  123. Say No On Syria
    By DICK MORRIS
    Published on TheHill.com on September 3, 2013

    Printer-Friendly Version

    Congress should reject President Obama’s appeal for authorization to attack Syria in retaliation for its alleged use of chemical weapons.

    Just as state Sen. Barack Obama opposed the use of force resolution against Saddam Hussein in 2002, Congress should turn aside the president’s appeal to attack now that his particular “red line” has been crossed in Syria. If he was against drawing the line against Hussein, what is the need to draw the line with Bashar Assad?

    In “The Great Deformation,” former Budget Director David Stockman writes eloquently about the costs of a “welfare” and a “warfare” state, noting that they both drain our national economy — the warfare state particularly. With our economy trembling on the brink of a major crash, in the opinion of many economists, this is no time for another expensive military operation.

    Above all, it is wrong to commit our nation’s military to a confused and contradictory conflict. How can we fight when The Wall Street Journal attributes to a Pentagon official the fear that “the wrong groups in the opposition would be able to take advantage of [an American bombing campaign]?” He said that the administration did not want to topple Assad from power — just to punish him for using gas.

    This kind of half-in, half-out mission is exactly the kind of intervention we must avoid. It creates its own momentum and leads to ever greater involvement, regardless of the initial intent.

    Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has said that we would become “al Qaeda’s airforce” should we attack Assad. The evidence is overwhelming that al Qaeda is the alternative to Assad in Syria. The illusion of a liberal, democratic alternative is as ephemeral in Syria as it has proven to be in Egypt. In bombing Assad, we would inevitably become involved on the wrong side of a civil war. Not that Assad is the right side; there is no right side, and we should stay out.

    Why is the president asking for congressional approval of his intervention? Is it a sudden concern for the limitations of executive power? Or is it a desire to use the gas episode to get a Gulf of Tonkin-style open-ended OK for intervention in this civil war? Could it be related to his desire to appease the Saudi monarchy by backing the rebels that Riyadh desperately wants to win?

    We must all step back, at this juncture, and question what five decades of war have accomplished. Vietnam was, unquestionably, a total waste of men, money and political credibility. We lost, and we would have accomplished nothing had we won. The fall of the Soviet Empire would not have been hastened one day by defeat or advanced one day by victory. The war between China and Vietnam within years of the end of U.S. involvement showed how flawed the domino theory really was.

    The first Gulf War, obviously, achieved nothing. It left Hussein in power and we had to go in again. The second Gulf War is increasingly appearing to be destructive in its impact. We seem to have succeeded only in giving Iran a staunch ally in the Middle East. The recent killing of 52 Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf — the sanctuary we established for opponents of the Ayatollah — reportedly by Iraqi forces, shows how flawed our involvement was.

    The Afghan War has degraded al Qaeda’s ability to fight, but the broader effort at nation-building has only really propped up a regime that non-governmental organization Transparency International rates as the second most corrupt on Earth.

    Libya? The jury is still out, but the activity of al Qaeda there, as evidenced by the Benghazi raid, indicates it may have a similarly disappointing outcome.

    It is plainly time to say no. It is time to heed the warning of President Eisenhower against limited wars, unbalanced budgets and the military industrial complex.

    Syria is, indeed, the time to draw a red line. But the line should be against military adventures.

  124. Kerry, compares a cruise missile attack on Syria to the Normandy invasion.

    Big media is absolutely thrilled by this comparison. Thrilled.

    Unfortunately, others have a somewhat different impression of Sad Sack Kerry and his rhetorical flourish.

    They are have no intention of getting down of their knees like big media does.

    Well, I guess that is what makes a horse race.

    Here is a fair sample of the opinions on the other side of this particular red line.
    ————————————————
    What a f’ing idiot. We didn’t partner with American enemies in Normandy like we are in Syria you jackaloon! YOU are partnering with Al Qaeda/Al Nusra in Syria, you fool! They’ve been killing Syrians.

    I agree 100% about Kerry being a f’ing idiot… and he has now disgraced all of those Patriots that fought and died on the beaches of Normandy!!! My Grandfather being one of those Patriots..

    Wow, you must be really proud of your Grandfather. He certainly was not disgraced by the likes of Kerry. John Kerry just disgraces himself and obviously has been smoking something..

    Obama’s pole?

    Not only is he traitorous, he has no knowledge and understanding of US and Military History….
    ….This comment is a slap in the face to the men who volunteered to defend the world from a genocidal maniac….many lost their lives, more were wounded, and those who survived were left with life long memories of the horrors of war….
    ….disgrace is not adequate to describe un-American, Traitorous, Low-life Scum….like Kerry…

  125. wbboei

    September 5, 2013 at 12:10 am

    {EMPHASIS MINE}…Indeed, unprecedented weapons distribution started in all opposition camps in Hatay Province on August 21-23, 2013. In the Reyhanli area alone, opposition forces received well in excess of 400 tons of weapons, mainly anti-aircraft weaponry from shoulder-fired missiles to ammunition for light-guns and machineguns…… The deliveries from Hatay went to all the rebel forces operating in the Idlib-to-Aleppo area, including the al-Qaida affiliated jihadists (who constitute the largest rebel forces in the area).

    Sooooooooooooo according to Larry Johnson (who I consider very credible), we are arming al Qaeda with weapons that (wait for it) CAN BRING DOWN PLANES. Isreal must just LOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE us right now.

    We are sooooooooooooo f&%k’d.

    Hillary 2016

  126. ‘Obama’s Presidential Library’ is an outhouse 🙂

    ‘I’m not even certain he even deserves that level of respect’

    It doesn’t matter if you think Barack Obama is the No. 1 or No. 2 president in American history.

    There’s an outhouse in New Mexico labeled “Obama’s Presidential Library” to accommodate both.

    Located in Tucumcari, N.M., near historic Route 66, the man who posted the sign has no apologies for the message concerning the commoder-in-chief.

    “It’s like watching TV. If you don’t like what the hell you’re watching, turn the channel,” the man told KOAT-TV, refusing to provide his name.

    “I’m not even certain he even deserves that level of respect, but that’s my opinion.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/obamas-presidential-library-is-an-outhouse/

  127. Egyptian Media Portray Obama As Satan

    Egyptian media is publishing the image below of Barack Hussein Obama as Satan himself. Wow! Such a huge contrast from the halos that Liberal U.S. media portray in all their images of Obama. Wonder if Liberal media or Bill O’Reilly will accuse Egyptian’s of being racist? Didn’t Liberals get upset with the History channel for a similar comparison?

    Raymond Ibrahim at PJMedia posted the following accompanying information:

    Popular and widely read Egyptian newspaper Al Wafd published the above picture today portraying U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama as Satan himself. The unflattering picture has been making the rounds on Facebook in the Middle East and, according to Al Wafd, is representative of the hatred growing numbers of people in the region have for the American president, thanks to his staunch and unwavering support for Islamists and jihadiis ­ whether in Nigeria, Libya, Egypt, or Syria ­ even as they terrorize, murder, rape, and burn down Christian churches, that is, even as they engage in diabolical

    See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/egyptian-media-portray-obama-as-satan/#sthash.x5nhbIoq.dpuf

  128. Revealed: Pentagon knew in 2012 that it would take 75,000 GROUND TROOPS to secure Syria’s chemical weapons facilities

    Securing Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles and the facilities that produced them would likely require the U.S. to send more than 75,000 ground troops into the Middle Eastern country, MailOnline learned Wednesday.

    That estimate comes from a secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012.

    U.S. Central Command arrived at the figure of 75,000 ground troops as part of a written series of military options for dealing with Bashar al-Assad more than 18 months ago, long before the U.S. confirmed internally that the Syrian dictator was using the weapons against rebel factions within his borders.

    ‘The report exists, and it was prepared at the request of the National Security Advisor’s staff,’ a Department of Defense official with knowledge of the inquiry told MailOnline Wednesday on condition of anonymity.

    ‘DoD spent lots of time and resources on it. Everyone understood that this wasn’t a pointless exercise, and that eventually we would be tasked with going and getting the VX and sarin, so there was lots of due diligence.’

    The logistical difficulties of bringing Syria’s chemical warfare infrastructure under control stands in stark contrast with the text of a resolution passed Wednesday by a powerful Senate committee, and with assurances Secretary of State John Kerry has given committees in both houses of Congress.

    The War Powers Resolution, which passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee late Wednesday on a bipartisan 10-7 vote, includes text noting that it ‘does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.’

    If President Obama were to deploy ground forces in Syria, the final words of that phrase – ‘for the purpose of combat operations’ – could become a loophole large enough to drive a Humvee through.

    Speaking to the committee on Tuesday as he made the case for a congressional authorization to bomb critical Syrian military sites, Kerry seemed to leave open the possibility that ‘boots on the ground’ could be marshaled specifically to secure chemical weapons stockpiles ‘in the event Syria imploded, for instance.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411885/Syrias-chemical-weapons-Pentagon-knew-2012-75-000-ground-troops-secure-facilities.html#ixzz2e0rLT2DP

  129. Re my 6:51 comment, the link is to a brilliant Tom Marino questioning Kerry and Marino. Hope you will watch it.

  130. Re my 6:51 comment, the link is to a brilliant Tom Marino questioning Kerry and Marino. Hope you will watch it.
    Should be
    Re my 6:51 comment, the link is to a brilliant: Tom Marino questioning Kerry and Hagel.

  131. Tony Stark
    September 4, 2013 at 8:59 pm

    If the Syrians hide their chemical weapons in civilian centers, then any US air or cruise missile strike could result in those poison gasses being released.
    _______________________________________

    Exactly Tony. 😯

  132. At yesterday’s Senate hearing, Rand Paul asked whether Obama would abide by the vote authorizing force against Syria. Kerry blustered on about what war means and concluded that Syria doesn’t qualify:

    SEC. KERRY: “Senator . . . The president is not asking you to go to war . . . He’s simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who’s been willing to kill his own people . . . That’s not — I don’t — you know, I just don’t consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to Congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young Americans in harm’s way. That’s not what the president is asking for here.”

    Kerry has been to war and protested war. He got medals, said he gave them back, then claimed he didn’t. He’s been against unilateral war, then for it. If anyone has been on every side of war, it’s John Kerry.
    – See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/hilarious-kerry-redefines-war-unsupported-by-military/#sthash.9hUUxHXL.dpuf

  133. Estimating that action could cost the $1 billion a month and require “thousands” of ground troops, Dempsey said strikes would be “no less than an act of war” with no guarantee of success.

    Dempsey said intervention would likely embolden extremist groups.

    “We have learned from the past 10 years… that it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state,” Dempsey added.

    http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/McCain-calls-Dempseys-warning-against-attack-on-Syria-disingenuous-321858

  134. Admin
    “So why then give matches to this goofy treacherous clod? The answer at every turn from those that want to give the man-child nuclear matches is that ‘if America does not do it who else will uphold the international order?’ We agree that the United States is and must be the leader of the world. But we believe the United is and must be the SMART leader of the world. The United States must keep its eyes on the prize and not get distracted. Syria is a sideshow. Syria is a distraction. Iran is the problem. Terrorist Muslim organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood are the problem. A smart United States must keep its eyes and firepower focused on the puppet-master (Iran) not the puppet (Syria).”

    —-

    Absolutely, Admin!!

    Baracus Olessimus is the epitome of incompetence.

  135. I always wondered why the German people didn’t stop Hitler from his monstrous actions. I know many lost their lives trying to stop him…

    Now I understand –

    The US has a monster in the Whitehouse, that is not only incompetent, lazy and corrupt, but he has no pride for our country and is destroying race relations, the economy, our image around the world and causing us to be so much worse off then when he took office…yet the media and his followers are allowing all this destruction because they are too afraid to admit they were wrong about him.

    Stupidity at it’s finest!!!!!!!!!!!

    I never thought I would hate one of our leaders more than Bush or Nixon…but Barry will have that top prize for the rest of my life.

  136. Well I see Bill Clinton is out wagging the dog again for His Highness.

    I had purchased a Ready For Hillary sticker and already had it on my car.

    I see Hillary now as an extension of Obama and off of his shitty policies.

    Bill Clinton must have got caught with his p e n I s out again or else he and Hillary are both as stupid as Obama.

    I cannot in good conscious rally around Hillary any more.

    I took off my sticker and I won’t be supporting Hillary if she runs.

    I will be working my a s s off for someone who stands up for true American values.

    Bill Clinton has kissed Obama’s a s s and continues to do so and my extension he puts Hillary kissing the ring as well

    She’ll lose if she gets the nomination because people will be sicker than ever of the Obama minions.

    I will campaign against her.

    Sorry Hillary is 44 friends but I’m over the Clintons.

    Dot

  137. SEC. KERRY: “Senator . . . The president is not asking you to go to war . . . He’s simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who’s been willing to kill his own people . . . That’s not — I don’t — you know, I just don’t consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to Congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young Americans in harm’s way. That’s not what the president is asking for here.”
    ——————————-
    The president has no idea what he is asking for. He thinks that he can order air strikes, degrade Assad, that the al Qaeda forces will march to victory and they will embrace the tenets of Hamilton and Jefferson. The president also believes in the tooth fairy. But that does not mean we should.

    There are two rational choices here. One is to continue covert operations, but to refrain from direct military action, which is tantamount to war, regardless of the semantic games Kerry is playing. For as General Dempsey’s comments make clear, direct military action in the form of air attacks will lead to war, and quite possibly wider war. Also, the efficacy of such attacks is belied by the results of saturation bombing by allied forces which did not demoralize the German people, but galvanized them and inspired them to fight on.

    The other course of action is the one that McCain advocates, which I personally regard as Dr. Stangelove, and that is to deal with the center of gravity, which is of course Iran. But if that is to be done, I believe that it is best that Israel do it, because that does not create the same sort of super power confrontation which would occur if we do it. And, all China has to do is stop buying our T-bills, and our economy will be bankrupt.

    I was reading Clausewitz. In chapter 4 entitled The Danger of War, he deals takes the novice who believes in the glory of war, and brings him to the battlefield where things are not as imagined. As he moves closer to the front line, and passes through layers of increasing danger, he sheds his illusions and comes to realize that the light of reason is refracted in a manner quite different from that which is normal in academic speculation. And that is an apt comparison to messiah obama, who surrounds himself with ivory tower academics like Power and Rice who are clueless about war. And although Kerry makes great moment of he fact that he has been to war, it is doubtful that he has been in the thick of it for an extended period of time. River boat patrols are different in character and degree from the Normandy landing which he, or his script writers, cite so freely.

  138. I honestly believe that half the problem here is Obama is so weak that he cannot control the CIA, whereas the entire premise of the Constitution is that the military be controlled by the civilian authority. And, lest we forget, the CIA is a branch of the military. As such, this has the ring of Seven Days in April, without the kind of president portrayed by the actor Fredrick March who was willing to take on the military, in support of the goal of any LEGITIMATE president, which is to achieve peace and prosperity. The president we have is a cipher, and more is the pity for that.

  139. On my latter point, which is that the second rational course of action is to let Israel take out the nukes, we now know that Israel was prepared to do exactly that a year ago, and Obama stopped them because he did not want anything to interfere with his re election campaign. The point is, that is a viable option, and the less restrictive alternative to doing it ourselves.

  140. In other words, we could let them do it, and back them up. Our military presence in the area could deter retaliation by Iran or potentially Russia, and it would have not invite China to cut us off.

  141. I still dont know why we are killing our men when the rich arabs in saudi and elsewhere are sitting on their asses getting the US military to do the dirty work, its not like the Saudis and their ilk have a stellar record when it comes to being evil to its people.

  142. At some point this strategy becomes a lose lose scenario for the United States, does it not? If the air strikes are ineffective, then it furthers the perception created by Obama that we are a paper tiger. Conversely, if they are effective, then the end result will be an Islamist government hostile to our interests. When the best case senario and the worst case scenario are equally bad, why waste the lives and the treasure we don’t have. Again, we have to keep clear in our minds the fact that the Obama regime and the United States are entirely separate entities. What is good for one is not good for the other. That is a hard one for the sheeple to understand, but it is definitely true.

  143. Let me tell you what real desperation looks like. Voting for McCain to prevent Obama from winning and wrecking the country. Which assumes, naively, that is McCain had won, he too would not wreck the country. Both of them are mentally deranged. And that is the state of our politics today. It is a choice between tweedle dumb and tweedly dumber.

  144. “On my latter point, which is that the second rational course of action is to let Israel take out the nukes, we now know that Israel was prepared to do exactly that a year ago…..”
    *******
    Israel doesn’t have the capability to “take out” the Iranian nuclear program; they could probably damage the hardened low level enrichent facility at Natanz but Iran moved their 20% enrichment program to Fordow in 2011. The Fordow facility is under a mountain and not vulnerable to bombing. Surrounding infrastructure, ie. electrical grid, etc. could be damaged but that would not take out production. Israel’s “heavy lift” bombers are 25 F-15Is which could carry a max of three 5000 lb “bunker busters”.

  145. Kerry is a master of obfuscation:

    Congressman Marion: Saddam used chemical his people as well. Yet you and Obama argued AGAINST military intervention. Now Assad chemical weapons against his people and you support military intervention. What has changed?

    Secretary Kerry: chemical weapons were not the basis for intervention in Iraq. (Comment: this is an admission that there is no precedent for military intervention based on chemical weapons, only nuclear one–which undermines Kerry’s position. What he should have said was there was no civil war in progress in Iraq which we could have piggy backed onto).

    Secretary Kerry: ultimately, Saddam was held accountable for that crime and his other crimes and he hung. (Comment: this is non responsive to the question. The question focused on Kerry and Obama’s thinking before the fact–then vs. now. They opposed that action before the fact then, and they advocate action now, for the same offense. Instead of dealing with that contradiction, he evades it by referring to what happened after the fact, and he now endorses a the result of military action which he and Obama opposed at the time, which reinforces the contradiction.

    To the extent that Iraq and Syria are identical enough to present the same question–whether or not to intervene, and to the extent that we can ignore the butcher bill of the first intervention, the only salient difference is that in this case the president is of the Democratic Party and he has mismanaged the entire problem to the point that we have no coalition, and former allies in the region refuse to lend assistance. Frankly, I am sure the CIA has kicked this entire can much further down the road than people realize and if we do intervene Assad will topple, and then we will have a far worse situation on our hands. (Note: remember Larry’s G-2 that this chemical attack was orchestrated to coincide with a US attack).

  146. Israel doesn’t have the capability to “take out” the Iranian nuclear program; they could probably damage the hardened low level enrichent facility at Natanz but Iran moved their 20% enrichment program to Fordow in 2011. The Fordow facility is under a mountain and not vulnerable to bombing. Surrounding infrastructure, ie. electrical grid, etc. could be damaged but that would not take out production. Israel’s “heavy lift” bombers are 25 F-15Is which could carry a max of three 5000 lb “bunker busters”.
    ————————–
    Then how do you explain the fact that they were prepared to move on those facilities a year ago, if they did not have the capability? How about a little Lend Lease? Have those weapons been moved to more secure sites in the interim changed?

  147. The Fordow facility is under a mountain and not vulnerable to bombing.
    ————————————-
    Then the only alternative is special ops–or an assault by a massive ground force? How viable is that?

  148. Clarification: moved to more secure sites in the interim, i.e. between 2012 when Israel was prepared to attack and now.

  149. “On my latter point, which is that the second rational course of action is to let Israel take out the nukes, we now know that Israel was prepared to do exactly that a year ago,”
    *****
    In Jan., there were reports of explosion/fire inside the Fordow facility. Iran denied it but said that the sabotage had been discovered before damage was done. Also was the Stuxnet attack on the Iranian nuclear program in 2010 by Israel.

    Also the US tried to develop a nuclear penetrator/bunker buster during Bush admin. to deal with Fordow type situations but the program was cancelled after testing of the penetrator show that it couldn’t work.

  150. Larry Johnson reports that his contacts are saying, as has been said here and at other sites, that no proof of Syrian government using chem weapons. His understanding is that the US and UK, in collusion with the Saudis and Turks have planned this, and the chemical weapons issue is contrived, in order to justify US military action in Syria.

    As you have said wbb, Obama is not the only dog pulling the sled – maybe not even the lead dog.

    ____________

    From No Quarter:

    ++++++

    “Obama and Kerry Are Lying About Syria”

    By Larry Johnson on September 5, 2013 at 1:03 PM in Current Affairs

    “Barack Obama and John Kerry are lying about what has happened in Syria.

    Yes, I have a record of doing this. Friends on the inside of the CIA warned me back in May of 2003 that the intel on Iraq was cooked and the American people were being fed a lie. Unfortunately, I learned this too late and was unable aggressively to make the case before we launched the invasion. Here’s what I said back then, and I was right:

    My friends in the CIA are still around and they are now warning me that both the United States and the United Kingdom know that Bashir Assad is not responsible for the incident on 21 August that killed and maimed Syrian civilians. While it is true that a chemical of some sort caused the fatalities and injuries, it was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military quality chemical weapons from the Syrian arsenal. The CIA knows that this is the case yet, with John Brennan at the head of the Agency, is deliberately lying and misleading members of Congress, the media and the public.

    As I noted in an earlier piece, this was a pre-planned effort by the rebels to create an incident that would bring the United States into the war.

    It was prepared in collaboration with the Saudis and the Turks. The canisters containing the chemical agent were opened and people in the immediate vicinity were affected. Some died and some suffered physical injuries.

    Important to note that no single Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent has been recovered from the area. Not a single shred of physical evidence exists to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in Chemical weapons. And, there still is no medical evidence backing up the specious claim by Kerry and Obama that this was sarin.

    I personally call on President Putin and other leaders at the G-20 to hold Obama to account and to demand proof. Obama cannot supply it. He is lying. He is being aided in this deceit by David Cameron, the British Prime Minister. If the United States proceeds to carry out a military strike on Syria it will be committing the same kind of crime committed by Adolf Hitler in launching an unprovoked and unwarranted attack on Poland in 1939. The stakes are this high and the United States must be stopped from committing war crimes against the government and people of Syria.”

  151. OK, after reading this again, it’s not clear that US and UK were aware that the Saudis, Turks, and Rebels in Syria were cooking this up as a way to get the US to attack – or to provide an excuse. Larry’s article asserts that Brennan, CIA head, is lying to congress about what happened. Obviously, Kerry and Obama know they’re lying and/or have told him to use misinformation in order to get approval from congress for an attack.

    Just wanted to clarify that my explanation of Larry’s article above, is is a misinterpretation on my part.

  152. ” How about a little Lend Lease? ”
    ******
    12/2012:

    “Israel Is Set To Receive 5,000 US Bunker Buster Bombs After Delaying Its Attack On Iran”

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-sale-of-5000-bunker-buster-bombs-to-israel-israel-bunker-busters-in-exchange-for-not-striking-iran-2012-12

    From the perspective of what information is available to the public, the major limitation that Israel has is the lack of long range bombers. Inorder to really damage the Iranian program, sustained delivery of 5000lb and better yet the new 30,000 lb “bunker busters” would be needed. Inorder for the Israeli air force to hit targets in Iran with F-15 an F-16 aircraft, they need mid-air refueling and then face heavy anti aircraft missile defense.

  153. This article is several days old, and is from a source about which I know nothing. Excerpts were posted at Cannonfire blog, and it looked interesting , so I checked it out. The article is pretty long, so I’m posting just a couple of excerpts. Hope it hasn’t been previously posted here. Haven’t seen it.
    ________________

    “EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack”

    “Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.”

    By Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh | August 29, 2013

    “The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.”

    However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

    “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

    Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

    Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

    Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

    “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

    “When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.”

    Snip

    “Saudi involvement
    In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandar’s role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.

    Ingersoll referred to an article in the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleging that Bandar offered Russian President Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for dumping Assad.

    “Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” Ingersoll wrote.

    “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Bandar allegedly told the Russians.

    “Along with Saudi officials, the U.S. allegedly gave the Saudi intelligence chief the thumbs up to conduct these talks with Russia, which comes as no surprise,” Ingersoll wrote.
    “Bandar is American-educated, both military and collegiate, served as a highly influential Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., and the CIA totally loves this guy,” he added.
    According to U.K.’s Independent newspaper, it was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first brought allegations of the use of sarin gas by the regime to the attention of Western allies in February.

    The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the CIA realized Saudi Arabia was “serious” about toppling Assad when the Saudi king named Prince Bandar to lead the effort.”
    Snip

    http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

  154. BERLIN — Russia says it has compiled a 100-page report detailing what it says is evidence that Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, were behind a deadly sarin gas attack in an Aleppo suburb earlier this year.

    In a statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website late Wednesday. Russia said the report had been delivered to the United Nations in July and includes detailed scientific analysis of samples that Russian technicians collected at the site of the alleged attack, Khan al Asal.

    Russia said its investigation of the March 19 incident was conducted under strict protocols established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that governs adherence to treaties prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. It said samples that Russian technicians had collected had been sent to OPCW-certified laboratories in Russia.

    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.UiipSH_nL_Q#storylink=cpy

  155. In my soon to be 77 years as a citizen of the United States of America, having lived through Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the dark days of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Watergate, 9/11 and all the other serious and profound events our beloved nation has been involved in over the last three quarters of a century, I have to say with all sincerity that I have never seen a president as confused, befuddled, impotent, insincere and as out of his depth as Barack Obama has become in dealing with the Syrian issue.

    When you’re the leader of the free world, you don’t make statements you can’t back up and you don’t draw lines in the sand, watch your enemies cross them with impunity and go off and play a round of golf.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/charlie-daniels/2013/09/03/charlie-daniels-column-citizens-take-syria#ixzz2e3kl89ii

  156. US Congress speaker John Boehner refuses to meet Russian delegation

    Up to now I have not believed anything serious would be done in Syria.

    Now, I’m beginning to believe something big might be in the works.

    WHY DO I BELIEVE THAT?

    Because John Boehner is refusing to meet with a delegation of Russian lawmakers who have come to the US to discuss the Syrian situation on Capitol Hill.

    Obama has ruined our relationship with Putin.

    If a Republican refuses, in the wake of obama’s disastrous diplomacy, to attempt to renew such communications, then that Republican has no goal for the future Republican leadership of the US (i.e. the Presidency) ….

    UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES THAT WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT which makes it unreasonable for us to even bother speaking with any Russian leaders on the issue of Syria.

    http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2013/09/us-congress-speaker-john-boehner.html

  157. Leanora
    September 5, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    US Congress speaker John Boehner refuses to meet Russian delegation

    Up to now I have not believed anything serious would be done in Syria.

    Now, I’m beginning to believe something big might be in the works.

    WHY DO I BELIEVE THAT?

    Because John Boehner is refusing to meet with a delegation of Russian lawmakers who have come to the US to discuss the Syrian situation on Capitol Hill.

    Obama has ruined our relationship with Putin.

    If a Republican refuses, in the wake of obama’s disastrous diplomacy, to attempt to renew such communications, then that Republican has no goal for the future Republican leadership of the US (i.e. the Presidency) ….

    UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES THAT WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT which makes it unreasonable for us to even bother speaking with any Russian leaders on the issue of Syria.

    http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2013/09/us-congress-speaker-john-boehner.html
    ———————-
    It is clear to me that we are headed to war with Iran to save Israel. Larry Johnson has made that point crystal clear and has pointed out all the contradictions. We are on the verge of this now, and the end game is not coming together. Boehner does not want to allow a direct appeal to his wavering colleagues for fear that they will say no.

Comments are closed.