What an amateur:
Before revealing he would seek approval from Congress, the President made clear that “we are prepared to strike whenever we choose.”
Strikes would be “effective tomorrow or next week or one month from now,” Obama said, adding that he is “prepared to give that order.”
So, while telegraphing to Syria and the world that we may do something, he is going to seek approval from Congress but reserves the right to go to war if he wants to even if they so no….
Is that about the gist of it?
See author page
What a politician: I am going to bomb Syria and start a war, maybe a real big war, are you with me or against me. Apparently, Obama’s cache is so powerful, he can direct the total power of the US Navy if the wrong Muslims are winning a scrap. Maybe Obama doesn’t have the power, perhaps its the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood/al Qaeda that has the power to direct the power of the US Navy. Our armed forces now seem to be at their beck and call.
Here’s my take on the whole deal, and it’s pretty grim…
Obama will order a strike, with or without Congressional approval, because HE believes he doesn’t need permission. Never mind there is no imminent threat to our country, never mind the intel that says Russia and China stand united AGAINST him on this, never mind the knowledge that Iran will use any attacks on Syria as an excuse to attack Israel. And who will suffer in Syria? Just some civilians and low level military troop. But it will be excuse enough…
Then, as the Middle East lights up in a full-on war, we’re suddenly drug into the mess, boots on the ground, yet another grinder to put our military through. As the situation scales upward, the 2016 elections approach. But Obama proclaims that the world situation is so dire, and so tenuous (a condition he alone caused) that we cannot possibly consider the idea of a presidential election until the hostilities are over…
I hope and pray that I am wrong, I hope in a couple of years I can be reminded of this post and told honestly that my fears were totally without merit. Time will tell, I sure hope I’m wrong.
Oh yeah… I think Obama already got rid of any and all Flag Officers that might have the backbone to stand up to him and deny him his very own World War…
@Skookum: Really, after what Bush said about terrorists states before his lie of a war, you’re gonna play the ‘are you with me or against me’ card. What a hypocrite.
@Scott in Oklahoma: Wrong again. He already stated he will seek Congressional approval. Turn off Fox News once in a while.
@This one:
Why would he wait for Congress to come back on Sept. 9th when he is already of the opinion that he can do what ever it is he wants to do? Obama shot his mouth off about “red lines” a year ago, and now he’s got to fish or cut bait. How does he get out of this saving face? He gets Congress to vote against it. And believe me, the American people are going to be watching how the Kumbaya Democrats vote this time. Ironic, isn’t it, that Mr. Peace himself, Secretary of State Lurch, is now a war hawk.
Never mind that it now appears that Obama is being lead around by the nose by France. That worked out well in Libya, didn’t it? France spent a few francs, goaded Obama into action, and then France bailed and we lost four American lives.
Meanwhile, Obama’s approval rating seems to be dropping like a rock, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
Whether you consider him a hawk or not, the Dems do. Enough so that liberal think tank, Foreign Policy in Focus, went the extra mile to oppose a Kerry SOS because of his past, and stated continued support of the Iraq war. His statements in 2004, saying he stood by his vote, (regardless of the WMD issue) came down to a “yes”, but would have prosecuted the war in a different (likely even more inefficient) fashion. This drove even the Dem Underground crowd into a frenzy.
Kerry is not “Mr. Peace”, and never was. He wanted the war. He just didn’t like the way it was waged, and didn’t want to fund it and supplies… like body armor. He’s an idiot…. He is also not Mr. Loyal to his fellow troops. Piss poor selection for SOS, and would have been even worse as a CiC. But he is no leftist peacenik. So he’s staying consistent, if not dumber than dirt, and despicable to boot.
A lot of Obama’s recent moves have been to cover up the SPYING he’s been doing on others.
So, no wonder Obama’s been so sure that Assad was behind this attack:
Of course anyone goes ”under the bus,” instead of Obama, himself.
Kerry just might be next.
After all he is the one still twisting in the wind while Obama waits for an uncalled Congress to come to work and act…..sometime after Sept. 9th.
I wonder what will happen on the 11th?
Whatever happens, it will not be Obama’s fault.
Either it will be Congress’ fault or Kerry’s fault or maybe even Bush’s fault.
But Obama will skate.
Should Assad be allowed to gas civilians? The US under the GOP allowed Saddam to do it, but of course taht was when we considered him an ally and he was fighting Iran. The US military is HOPING that Assad will try move his chem weapons. That will only insure up to date targeting info.
Is it possible for anyone to get over their ODS obsessions long enough to realize that this is far more serious than Obama’s personal legacy, or Kerry’s past as a so-called-peacenik (LOL). Or even his future as SOS etal?
A little focus is required here. What you should be fretting about is not whether Obama will “throw anyone under a bus”, or whether Kerry has changed his spots… which he hasn’t.
Instead the prime concern is about a (finally, and erroneously) united Dem/GOP Congress, igniting the potential for WWIII over a stupid “one world” OPCW convention, and irrelevant perceptions of any single American POTUS to save face. Who the fart cares if the world sees Obama as weak today? That’s not a permanent condition. Our military and nation usurp one flashy candidate dude from Chicago. Always has, and always will. If you don’t like the political rain today, tomorrow’s another day.
@john, you know you’ve been around FA for quite some time… on and off. I remember you as someone who was Dem/left moderate, and wanting to enlist. It’s seems you sucked up a history-deficient gene somewhere in between.
The US did nothing about Saddam? He gassed the Kurds in 1988 (an election year), then invaded Kuwait. Bush the elder took him to war, and the woodshed.
He continued thwarting sanctions, the OFF, and running black market WMD materials over the next decade, and then Bush the junior took him to war post 911 for his dealings with terrorists as his black market runners, and his continued subterfuge.
This is your idea of the “GOP allowing him to do it”???
You really need to improve your input lately. I remember you well, but have ignored your naive input in the past, as they much resemble the cryptic and forgettable (and easily ignorable) “this one” type commentary. But really… you’re embarrassing yourself here with your one liner ignorant observations lately.
[Sigh!]
People, people, this is politics. You have to know your enemy and (mentally) get down in the hog wallow with him if you’re going to understand his thought processes. Stop high-mindedly debating the actual issue and see what is really going on here–hint–it ain’t geopolitical rocket surgery.
One big mistake is comparing this situation to GWB’s actions in 03′. No, this is Wag the Dog redux all the way.
Blowing up an empty Iraqi Intel headquarters in the middle of the night. Cruise missile up a camel’s butt. Monica wars. Aspirin factory. Operation “Desert Fox” on impeachment night (for years thereafter I would break into spontaneous giggles when I imagined a political cartoonist drawing a picture of Our Bill in the iconic Rommel pose–with his trademark cap, goggles and binoculars). This is all about shooting off a few cruise missiles to save Obama’s face, AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE.
Problem is, everybody at both ends of the political spectrum knows this damned well, and for even many Dems this is a bridge too far.
Obama’s brilliant plan was to first telegraph to Bashar where he was gonna hit and when. Then fire a few Tomahawks, blitz some empty buildings, make a soaring speech as to how he had just saved the world and bask in the accolades of his praise singers while the Dems in congress did the “Freedonia’s Going To War” song-and-dance number from the Marx Bros. “Duck Soup” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyeKYQdYISg). Then take another well-earned vacation, to be followed by another blissful campaign tour of college campuses, union picnics and abortion clinics.
That was his plan until today. But I think he got cold feet. I’m betting that his internal polls and phone calls to the Hill are telling him otherwise. He is now desperate to find an excuse to stand down. So now his brilliant plan is to force Congress to decide for him. If the answer is “no,” then it was all the fault of those old Republican meanies in the House. If it is “yes,” then they get to share the blame for whatever happens. I guess this was the best he could come up with. I’ll give him points for low cunning if not brilliance.
Already some of the aforementioned praise singers are starting to call him clever (hat tip: Wretchard, pajamasmedia.com) http://politix.topix.com/news/7746-obama-puts-congress-on-the-hook-for-syria.
“…Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation. Thank you very much.”
Well, there you go. The last line of the speech is the giveaway. By the time September 9th rolls around it will magically be entirely Congress’ responsibility, not his. As for my own recommendation? I would go with a previously stated opinion that Mr. Boehner (between crying jags and visits to the tanning salon) declare that he will not bring this onto the floor of the House until the Senate has voted first. Obama’s serving up a manure sandwich? Let Dingy Harry take the first bite.
@This one: Sorry about not making that clear for reading challenged, but that was your messiah who is pressuring America. If we are talking about hypocrites, let’s talk about the Messiah’s views on a president starting wars back when he was a Senator. Yes let’s call each other names, but remember you are backing the two faced bastard getting ready to step knee deep in this Charlie Foxtrot.
@Skookum: #13
When you read something like this, Mystery grows: Journalist died prepping Obama exposé, you might just come up with a different descriptive.
Who knows where this story is going. What is clear is that the Mercedes exploded before hitting the tree. and the Brennan crap, well, that’s just more clarity on what is behind the curtain in this Admin.
@James Raider: Thanks JR, as you surely know, the gas tank on nearly all MBs is behind the backrest of the rear seat. I’ve often contemplated this position when driving gasoline powered vehicles; however, knowing MB outs a lot of thought in design features, I assumed the seat is designed to contain the gasoline during a wreck and insulate the driver from the explosion. The seats are heavily sealed with dense foam and a metallic foil insulation.
This MB was in a front end collision, with no obvious damage to the rear seat area. We are expected to believe the front end collision, with limited a limited gas supply (the fuel injection system is extremely durable and difficult to rupture with the heavy gauge metal fuel lines, an extremely dafe system) exploded with that damage and without the explosive force of the gas in the tank.
@Skookum: I haven’t paid a lot of attention to that crash, although it does seem a little suspicious; I don’t have a ton of spare time anymore. That said, I once worked a traffic crash (late 80’s?) where a guy in a 4 door Buick or Pontiac hot a big oak tree pretty square, speed at impact about 78mph. The way the floor pan wrinkled it split the gas tank, the car and the oak tree were both heavily involved in fire; one of the few people I have ever seen die in a crash while wearing seatbelts. He was leaving a long poker game, and had a lot to drink. I don’t remember his BAC, but the road curved at that tree and he didn’t. He hit hard enough to brake the seat back so it was laying flat, and he wasn’t a huge guy. High speed crashes into big trees often end up looking like that one; I have seen some that so totally destroyed the car that it was nearly unidentifiable, one that broke a Honda Accord into three large pieces, the front clip and engine 150 feet from the tree they hit. That one killed three teenage boys, we had to hunt for two of the bodies.
So if local law enforcement is confident the crash was the fault of the driver, and their investigation concludes that, I will probably accept that due to my past experiences. Crash investigators tend to take their jobs pretty seriously, and are pretty curious about anomalies in what night look like an “ordinary” crash scene.
@Scott in Oklahoma:
If you watch the video of the car, there is a flash at the rear of the car as it sped down the street. When it hit the tree, there were two flashes; boom and BOOM. What is unexplainable is the first flash as the car is still traveling prior to impact.
Do we have shades of Ron Brown in this story?
@This one:
You are a fool. State department has already come out with a statement that Obama will order the strike even without congressional approval.
this matter touch all the FREE COUNTRIES BECAUSE OF THE chemical used by any one it sounds like ALQAEDA ALSO BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO IT THAN ANYONE ELSE,
AND THEY HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY,
THE FREE COUNTRIES SAID NO IT’S AN INVASION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY,
they have a good argument and it’s not for the USA to do alone
what is really for the free countries to do as together,
if not it’s better to wait instead of bringning the the terrorist attacks on the AMERICAN SOIL
to wound the citizens who don’t agree with that war,
why drag them in it, why put the MILITARY IN DANGER OF THEIR LIVES WHEN AMERICA IS NOT
IN THE CONFLICT,
AND THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE FIX THE CONFLICT, IF THE REBELS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPLYED WITH WEAPONS ALL ALONG BY OBAMA,
IT WORK BOTH WAY, AND ASSAD DID NOT DECLARE WAR TO AMERICA, because it furnish the rebels with weapons,
@Scott in Oklahoma: Thanks for the input. I have never investigated anything, let alone a crash scene, but I know the used Mercedes cars because it is my hobby to drive these used luxury cars in my work, and I drive a lot of miles!
I talk to mechanics and body shop people who specialize in these cars to get the bottom line on the different models, to learn of the strengths and weaknesses, both for dependability and surviving a crash. I’d rather use my hands and my brain than make payments on a vehicle that will be almost worthless in three years because of high mileage.
Now, from my limited perspective, the car doesn’t appear to have sustained a lot of damage for a high speed crash against a large tree. There seems to be evidence of fire near the rear bumper, but if that vertically positioned tank would have blown, there would be more rear interior damage and fire in the trunk.
I read of the accident the next morning and saw where the driver’s door appeared to hit the tree and thought, oh boy don’t hit trees at a high rate of speed and dismissed all the theories to a typical LA lad tanked up and doing drugs, but this is getting a little more suspicious as time goes on.
Paranoia is a tricky thing, obviously those who partake illegal drugs and activities will have paranoia, but someone who is getting close to deposing a president will suffer the same paranoia. Not that this is concrete evidence of any type, but I am going to be paying more attention to this situation in the future, things are not adding up.
Maybe this explains why the UK voted to NOT go after Assad:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520
We should recall that most chemical weapons don’t sit around in mixed form very well for very long.
Just as Saddam had huge piles of chemicals that needed to be mixed together to form WMDs so, too, the UK’s chemical sales to Assad might look OK on paper but be making WMD attacks possible later.
That might explain why Cameron so meekly accepted the vote. However, he had better reasons to do so. Cameron seems sufficiently intelligent to realize as well as anyone else that there is nothing to be gained and a lot to lose by hitching his star to Obama’s wagon just to bail Obama out of the rhetorical corner he’s painted himself into. Remember that is ALL that this is about. This ain’t Blair and Bush, there’s no mutual respect and trust in this “special relationship”.
I know just enough to know how “fungible” chemicals are. These things have multiple industrial uses. All this caterwauling about where Bashar got his chem agents avoids the fact that Syria has been building a chem arsenal for about thirty-five years and has built up one of the world’s biggest entirely on it’s own.
Until I hear more, I’ll go along with the story of the intercepted “frantic phone call” story that insinuates that small-scale chem attacks may have been going on for a while and this one was unexpectedly more devastating than planned. I do NOT hold that some “rogue element” was involved cause’ I also believe the statement that NOBODY in the SAA fills or fires a chem shell without express authorization from Bashar or Maher.
I don’t think there is any good we can do in that region besides helping out the refugees (NOT bringing them here). It’s just possible that the jihadists are not actually running the show there as this WSJ report (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579044642794711158.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop) by Elizabeth O’Bagy (who has actually BEEN there) states. If so, “targeted” arming of the FSA with the anti-tank weapons they need might be just the ticket.
That story and clips on Brown Moses blog (http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2013-08-06T03:11:00-07:00&max-results=7&start=14&by-date=false) about the captured 9K33 “Osa” SAMs gave me the idea that perhaps supplying the FSA with larger, vehicle-mounted medium and light SAMs (and the necessary training to use them properly) might be just the ticket. Such systems seem quite lethal and, conversely, they are far too large and unwieldy to be of any use to terrorists–unlike MANPADS. The rebels have been talking about getting these captured Osas to within range of the Damascus Airport fight paths. If they could do that we’d have a major game-changer right there. One could also modify existing systems to degrade and become useless after a specific time limit. Might be technically feasible.
I’ll go along with Ms. O’Bagy’s assertion that she has seen that the jihadis publicity department likes to take credit for every rebel victory but that the “moderates” are the ones on the front line and that the islamists are more interested in consolidating their captured territory in the North.
One thing is certain, based on previous experience, another inconclusive, perfunctory sluicing of Tomahawks to “send a message” will burnish our enemy’s image and make us even more of a laughingstock in the region.
In 1982 Reagan let CNN images of murdered Palestinians in Beirut bully him into sending in the Marines to do…what…? We know how that ended.
In 1992 GHWB let CNN images of starving Somalis and murdered Pakistani UN peacekeepers bully him into sending in the Marines to do…what…? We know how THAT ended.
The images of gassed kids in Ghouta are wrenching but that attitude of “do something, do anything!” will accomplish no good whatsoever and only cost us dear.
Doramin
thank you for that pertinent DETAILED info,
and your point is very wise as to keep out as possible
and protect our own MILITARY,
OBAMA CANNOT ATTACK JUST TO SERVE HIS PURPOSE TO GET RID OF ASSAD
IT’S KNOWN THAT HE WANT HIM OUT, HE TOLD HIM BEFORE,
NOW THIS IS A PERSONAL VENDETTA, AND USING THE MILITARY FOR THAT IS NOT RIGHT,
YOU CANNOT START A WAR HALFWAY, IT DOESN’T FIT A LOGIC OF WAR,
IF HE START IT WILL BE A DANGEROUS WAR THAT COULD EXPAND TO MANY MORE DEATHS, MANY MORE HATER COUNTRIES PARTICIPATION,,
IT’S NOT GOING TO BE EASY, IT’S NOT GOING TO BE QUICK,
AND IT WILL COST MANY BILLIONS
Horsehockey
You actually think Obama cares sufficiently about the Middle East and Syria to work up the effort to personally hate Bashar al-Assad. Wrongo, this is all about him getting himself out of the rhetorical corner he has painted himself into with his Red Line.
Obama just wants to fire a few Tomahawks, blow up a few empty buildings and get some dramatic footage on CNN so he can proclaim America vindicated and the World saved, then prance back onto Marine One hand head back to the golf course. This is pure politics and nothing else.
Obummer himself believed that he did not need the backing of his legislature for a punitive strike against Assad when he publicly set red lines for Assad. Now the Syrian ruler brazenly violated them his decision to seek approval from Congress hasn’t really much to do with things like Americans low support for missile strikes, or what happened in the British parliament, but more with the indecisive nature of a 3rd-rate hesitant politician unwilling to bear responsibility for risky decisions. One can only wish Congress the best of luck with their future foreign affairs duties.
Augustus
he has to prove that ASSAD DID IT,
it’s not yet sure, no matter what they try to sell it,
the problem is his own credibility is is not taken by the people
and the other countries, he lost it somewhere back,
all he want is to be the one to take on ASSAD who refuse to leave when he ask him,
that now his chance to force him out,
it look strangely like WHEN HE TOLD MUBARAK TO RESIGN AND GADAFI TO RESIGN,
THE SCENARIO IS THE SAME, WITH DIFFERENT NAMES AND PLACES.
WHO WILL BE NEXT IF HE SUCCEEDE JORDAN IS SCARE,
BYE
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees,
Hi.
Yeah. And even if the U.S. still ends up striking Syria next week the message of deterrence will be a lot weaker than if it had been delivered a week ago. If the president/commander-in-chief of the armed forces determines military action is in the national security interests of the U.S. he must be able to launch an operation in a timely fashion without being subject to obstructions by members of the opposing political party who might be seeking retribution against the president over unrelated issues.
Nan G
ON 21, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ALQAEDA POSING AS A MEMBER OF ASSAD GOVERNMENT,
why would ASSAD BUY SOME CHEMICALS FROM A BRITAIN BUSINESS ,
HE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH IN STOCK,, AND WHAT IS THAT BUSINESS, IS IT ON THE SIDE OF THE REBELS, IT’S SUSPICIOUS THAT IT HAPPEN IN THE TIME OF DELIVERY OF THAT STUFF FROM BRITAIN,
HOW DID THEY GET THAT LICENCE A QUESTION ASK BY THE BRITISH,
WE KNOW THEY HAVE MANY MUSLIMS BUSINESS,
AUGUSTUS
RIGHTLY SO,and if we citizens would delay an action which is to be DONE now, we would pay for it ,
even if its on a smaller scale
but a COMMANDER OF THIS AMERICA CANNOT BE SO ARROGANT AS TO GO IT ALONE, ON A VERY DANGEROUS MISSION EVEN AS HE TRY TO MINIMIZE IT,
WITHOUT GOING WITH THE LAWS OF THIS LAND REQUIRING THE CONGRESS
TO WEIGHT IN THE LAST DECISION AND GIVE THE OKAY TO DO IT,
HE SHOULD NOT HAVE PUBLICLY SAY HE WILL DO IT ANYWAY, WITH CONGRESS OR NOT,
BYE
AUGUSTUS
MANY SAY IT’S NOT A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE,
SYRIA IS A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY, AND WITH A REBELLION WHICH HAS
DANGEROUS ALQAEDA SUPPORT,
AS OPPOSE TO ASSAD REGIME has the support of RUSSIA AND IRAN,
THIS EVEN LATE OPERATION WILL EXPAND TO AN ALL WAR, KILLING MANY OF OURS,
on FOX NEWS, RAMUNSEN DECLARE HE HAD SEEN EVIDENCE OF ASSAD REGIME RESPONSIBLE
FOR CHEMICAL ACTION AND SAID IF NOTHING IS DONE IT WILL CREATE A THREAT FOR
OTHER NATIONS
HE DID NOT GIVE THE PROOF HE HAS SEEN,
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Bees, Hi.
Maybe it’s not a security issue today, but it’s not over yet. Russia is sending at least one ship to the Eastern Mediterranean. What happens when the conflict escalates? Will 200 Tomahawk missiles be enough? I don’t know what to say. Gassing innocents is certainly bad. War is bad. A flare up with Israel in the firing line is bad. But being weak, indecisive, losing a grip on regional events is not just bad, it’s pure failure.
Augustus
hi, you came in at the same time I was coming in to give another thought,
yes you have the right argument,
I was just thinking : what if OBAMA NOW WOULD TALK DIRECTLY TO PRESIDENT ASSAD,
PUBLICLY ASK HIM TO GIVE AWAY HIS CHEMICALS TO THE SHIP WHERE AMERICAN MILITARY ARE
STANDING AND WAITING FOR ORDERS,
THAT WOULD BE A MOVE TO FIX THINGS MAYBE, AND WHY NOT TRY IT
IF IT AVOID AN ATTACK,
ASSAD DENY HAVING DONE IT, BUT TO ASK HIM TO GET RID OF ALL HIS SUPPLY WOULD BE
A BEGINNING TO TALKS INSTEAD OF BOMBS TO START,
and it would save his ego and make him look even better, and reclaimed his credibility, all over the world,
BYE
edit: OBAMA could be supported by the other world’s countries on that demand
WAR SHOULD BE THE LAST RESORT.
@ilovebeeswarzone:-
Bees, Assad won’t do it. Sunday he already called the President’s hesitation an “historic defeat.” He mocked the “American retreat.” Saudi foreign minister thinks he will use chemical weapons again if Congress opposes intervention. Whatever happens, you won’t get democracy there anytime soon.
Augustus
it’s worth trying, and the way OBAMA CAME IN ON HIM,
HIS REACTION IS TO BE EXPECTED TOO,
BEFORE THE WAR, THERE MUST BE TALK,
AT LEAST A TRIED, THIS IS IMPORTANT, LIVES ARE AT RISK,
THAN IF HE DOESN’T WANT TO MAKE A DEAL THAN MORE ACTIONS AFTER COULD BE DONE,
I still don’t think he did that one, because he is on the winning side,
that’s another strange timing for the ALQAEDA TO DO IT, THEY CAN GET THOSE SARIN ALSO, AND IT JUST HAPPENED THAT BRITAIN BUSINESS SEND IT IN THAT TIMING, WE JUST HEARD IT NOW, THERE IS MORE TO IT THAN THE EYE CAN CATCH,
BYE
@Augustus, the Russians have been revamping the Tartus port in Syria as their own naval Material-Technical Support Point installation since 2006 as part of a payment for defaulted loans from Russia to Syria. They’ve been dredging the port to accommodate for their larger draft ships. It’s no surprise that Russia is sending ships to the port, as it would have happened whether the US warships were there or not. But it sure ain’t improving the situation.
This is not just Syria, and never has been. Any aggression by the US will be viewed as hostilities, and unite Syria, Russia, Iran/Hezbollah and China as major secondary players. That will be pitted against the US, western nations (if they came on board), the Saudis/AQ and Israel. None of this is good. The Saudis hate Assad, and are backing the rebels. No surprise they claim Assad will use them again, without admitting the possibility it was the rebels who’ve used them.
i.e. the chlorine gas attack earlier this year… it was al Nusrah (AQ affiliated) who controlled Syria’s largest chlorine manuf facility, not Assad.
The US should be facilitating regional negotiations including the neighboring States, for the solutions for Syria. Not implementing military force for any bogus reasons… Convention, to save face, genocide or whatever.
Correct.
And in May 2013 his people were caught with SARIN gas in Turkey!
http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/adanada_el_nusra_operasyonu_2_kilo_sarin_gazi_bulundu-1135579
English translation here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=tr&u=http://www.adanaaktuel.com/tr/s_detay.asp%3Fid%3D18023&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAdana%2527da%2BEl%2BNusra%2Boperasyonu:%2B2%2Bkilo%2Bsarin%2Bgaz%25C4%25B1%2Bbulundu%26hl%3Den%26gl%3Dus%26authuser%3D0%26biw%3D1059%26bih%3D724
WHY are Obama, Pelosi and Kerry taking their side in Syria???
I wish I COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE LANGUAGE,
Nan G
YES , THANK YOU,
YES WHY ARE THEY ON THEIR SIDE, THOSE HUMAN LIVER EATER, FOUND WITH SARIN GAS,
A DANGEROUS BREED,
@Doramin: where have you been all this time?
You have provided a masterful summary of the politics (and it is ALL politics) behind Ø and his “plans.”
Sheesh. You don’t tell the enemy where and when you will strike.
The mindless one (the greatest Presider Ever) will start WW III so he can stay in power.
Ha.
@MataHarley:
To me, the way this chemical crisis has gone is shameful. Obama’s big mouth and then retreat does not fit well with the moral and military superpower that America still should be.
I know Syria is a complicated business, but who could have predicted that of all people, Obama, Commander-in-Chief of U.S. armed forces, would limit his authority. So now the people’s representatives must decide on military action against Syria. Why? He didn’t need that approval. It is not a war, there is no US law I know of that prohibits such an action. If that were the case the President would indeed have to talk first with Congress to undo that law. But that’s not the case.
So Obama’s doing that out of respect for democracy? No, he was elected directly by the people and that type of action belongs to his presidential powers. So is he involving Congress to get broad support in case it all gets out of control? In case a full-blown war starts against Syria when their armed forces, or their accomplices outside Syria attack U.S. citizens, its military, or its allies? He sure has got himself between a rock and a hard place. And if the parliamentarians reject a resolution to strike and he still goes ahead, and ignores them, that won’t look a good advertisement for democracy.
@MataHarley: #7 While I agree almost completely with your comment, you said about SOS: “But he is no leftist peacenik. ” and that seems to be the case now, but he has sure changed since his Anti-American activities about the VietNam war back in the 60s-70s.
Yup… was a Vietnam Navy wife myself, Redteam, so I have no love lost for Kerry. But when it comes to Iraq, he has been an unrepentant leftist hawk. I guess 40 some odd years on the taxpayers payroll changes you.
@Augustus, #43:
Obama has required a vote by Congress to make the weasels take a public position on Syria. Otherwise they’ll hammer away at him on any action or inaction in Syria, in the exact same fashion they’ve done in connection with Libya.
Obama already attempted to provide aid to the Syrian rebels. That’s gotten nowhere because the funding to do so was effectively blocked by Congressional Intelligence panels. Out of public view, they do that. In the spotlight, they criticize him for 2 years of inaction. During those same 2 years they’ve expounded incessantly on his high-handed executive decision to provide support to Libyan rebels—essentially the same sort of support that McCain and Graham advocate in connection with Syria.
I can understand why he’s going to make them take a public vote.
@Doramin: #12 An excellent summation
@Augustus, I’m not sure I understand even where you stand on the Syrian intervention issue. Nor do you need to clarify that, if you don’t wish to.
I understand that the POTUS shot off his mouth and attempted a swagger with his “red line” comments. But I don’t support intervention just to justify his foolish swagger. The US will elect another POTUS, and that CiC may lead our military and foreign policy in a completely different manner. The US, unlike ME countries, are not forever linked to a POTUS with term limits.
I also don’t understand the push back about seeking Congressional input. People seem upset if he doesn’t seek it, and equally distrustful if he does. Frankly, I think any POTUS should consult with Congress and seek the necessary approval. This is a bad thing?
As to his motives? Less important to me. I’ve stated from the start that Obama really doesn’t want to go to war, and he’s hoping that Congress gives him a legit out. Whether that absolves him on the domestic or international stage doesn’t concern me as much as the repercussions for unwise, and unneeded entrance in to a sectarian conflict between Islamist factions, that has a very good chance of becoming the catalyst for WWIII. As I said, my only support would come if Israel was attacked. Then I’m all in.
In the meantime, the Syrian opposition camp is steadily drawing Lebanon in to the Syrian war. Lebanon is, like Syria, predominately Sunni and Hezbollah holds power in their government with elected officials. But they have not had an “arab spring”, mustered up by the opposing sectarian Islamist factions. Perfect way to rile up the Lebanese, who prefer to stay out of it. A couple of months ago, even the Lebanese President was urging Hezbollah to stay out of Syrian support. Because of that support, the Syrian rebel and coalition are now bombing Beirut in retaliation.
This is a clusterfluck that was going to happen, and that no US POTUS could control. I wouldn’t have supported Bush Syrian intervention in his term (and he didn’t attempt that direction), and I don’t support intervention now. The “arab spring” – which has been a planned strategy of Zawahiri’s Islamists to topple apostate rulers in Muslim nations as the US was winding down Iraq/AfPak – needs to play out, and the US then must assess what’s left standing. Any attempts at the western powers to intercede is going to pit the larger players against each other, and it’s no longer a regional matter.
As far as Congress “sharing the blame” for whatever the vote outcome… well, they should. Why should they get a pass? They are supposed to be involved when it comes to matters of deploying our military assets. Whether this benefits Obama, or doesn’t, or whether it hurts or helps the GOP, aren’t the questions. Both the Executive Branch and the Legislative branch should act in tandem in decisions like these.. just as they did under Bush. And of course they should take equal responsibility and accountability for their decisions. That’s part of being an elected official.
My only hope is that they make the right decision. This isn’t about Obama, as much as it’s about the US and how this will affect us long after Obama is getting secret service protection as a civilian. Nor is the Syrian intervention issue one that splits along party lines. This is why House leaders Boehner and Pelosi aren’t lobbying for or against, and just letting individuals vote their conscience.
Personally, I think they’ll vote for the AUMF, and I won’t be happy about it.
does anyone know how to destroy the chemicals?
or does time destroy it, or lessen it’s strength?
or does fire explode it?
in other words, how do you get rid of those?
@MataHarley:
When I first heard of the chemical attack I was pretty sure that a rebel opposition element had done it to bring America in to the fight, and that premature engagement was wrong. Obama tried to fudge the issue claiming that the U.S. requires approval from the UN before embarking on a military initiative. But both Russia and China would veto any resolution in the Security Council that would condemn Assad for war crimes. The Russians support the regime in Iran and stand fully behind the Syrian regime which is also supported by the ayatollahs.
I’m a great admirer of Israel, so I agree with you on that point. And, as always is the case, the Jew among the nations of the world could be the first to get hit. Syria announced a list of possible targets that it would be able to reach with its long-range missiles in retaliation if the U.S. decides to attack. In addition to military targets in Turkey, and the US military base on Cyprus, the main potential targets are in Israel.
The rebels revel in committing vile atrocities. If the rebels succeed in taking over Syria jihadist packs will be on the rampage and unspeakable brutality will inevitably follow. So in this context why should the West get involved? Why not let a plague descend on both their houses? Because this was a pretty awful mass murder scenario. If nothing is ever done in similar circumstances a green light will stay switched on for other cruel regimes to act similarly. We will lose our humanity.
Targeted assassinations may be the answer. They would serve as a deterrent to other tyrants who would fear for their own lives if they behaved similarly and they would send a signal to the Iranians that the U.S. is not toothless. This would neither empower al-Qaida and the jihadists, nor necessarily lead to an immediate regime change, but it could represent the best possible outcome for the civilian population.
@Augustus, assassinate who? Even *if* Assad did use CW, which I doubt, the Syrian opposition, and especially AQ, have also. AQ is documented in using that in Iraq circa 2006-07. Why would Assad be worthy of assassination, and not the other perps?
And I’m not in favor of the US turning into a nation of hit squads, assassinating foreign leadership for political purposes.
I’m also extremely puzzled over this fixation by many that the murder of innocents by CW is more heinous and unacceptable than murder of innocents by car bombs, suicide bombers, beheading, etal. There’s a seriously big human disconnect to be able to say killing 70K via riots, internal warfare etc is acceptable, but if any of them die by a CW, war must be the response.