Maybe it’s jet lag.
Maybe it’s the sleeping pills.
Whatever. Barack Obama has melted down. Reality has slipped his grip like a wet salmon. Obama has always been one to take credit for everything (“I got Bin Laden”) and own everything (“my military”) yet never, ever take responsibility for anything. At his news conference in Sweden he said things that a rational person could never utter.
STEVE HOLLAND, REUTERS: Have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved? Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines? And were you able to enlist the support of the prime minister here for support in Syria?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That’s point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.
The world set the red line? Which world is that??? Not this world. Let’s crank up the Wayback machine.
Obama issues Syria a ‘red line’ warning on chemical weapons
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus,” Obama said. “That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.”
That sounds very much to me like he set a red line.
Obama said Syria does not pose an imminent threat:
“We may not be directly imminently threatened by what’s taking place in a Kosovo or a Syria or a Rawanda in the short-term but our long-term national security will be impacted in a profound way and our humanity’s impacted in a profound way.”
Wait- what? That’s not what he’s been saying.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLkvuXsMnCs[/youtube]
Again, the Wayback machine:
In a speech at a 2002 anti-war rally, Obama, then an Illinois state senator, conceded that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was “a brutal man,” “a ruthless man,” “a man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.” He noted that the Iraqi dictator “has reeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.”
In short, there was no question that “the world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.” Still, Obama said, “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States.” Hence a U.S. invasion aimed at overthrowing him would be “a dumb war,” “a rash war,” “a war based not on reason but on passion.”
Notably, Saddam’s crimes against his own people included using chemical weapons against Kurds in northern Iraq, a campaign that killed some 5,000 men, women, and children. That murderous assault, in Obama’s view, did not justify U.S. intervention.
Today, by contrast, Obama says a sarin-gas attack that caused about 1,400 of the 100,000 deaths so far in Syria’s civil war demands an American response in the form of missiles aimed at President Bashar al-Assad’s forces. “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” Obama asked in a speech on Saturday. Presumably the same message he was willing to send when he opposed war with Iraq.
And BTW, his credibility is not on the line. Ours is.
“My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line and America and Congress’s credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — For more than a week, the White House had been barreling toward imminent military action against Syria. But President Barack Obama’s abrupt decision to instead ask Congress for permission left him with a high-risk gamble that could devastate his credibility if no action is ultimately taken in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack that crossed his own ‘‘red line.’’
The stunning reversal also raises questions about the president’s decisiveness and could embolden leaders in Syria, Iran, North Korea and elsewhere, leaving them with the impression of a U.S. president unwilling to back up his words with actions.
This is astonishing, even for Obama.
Let’s be very clear here. Obama blurted out the “red line” thing. Not the world. Obama put his credibility on the line- not ours. He is now desperate to drag us into something most Americans oppose. I do not believe it has to do with anything other than pulling his ass out of the fire alone. We have seen no compelling evidence for action. He has not made the case to the UN. Speaking which, the UN Secretary General said that any action by the US without UN approval would be illegal.
And that makes things very interesting.
Should the US act alone- is it an illegal act in the eyes of the world? What would that do to our credibility? Would Russia be justified in responding to such an illegality? Would Iran? Would Assad be justified in tossing some munitions at US bases in Iraq?
Hardly anyone supports action right now, especially in the absence of proof and has been posted here and here, there are a lot of doubts.
It is only fair for the rest of us to wallow in the same self-righteous indignation Senator Obama so enjoyed prior to sitting in the big chair.
It’s not so easy, is it?
This is about Obama’s ego more than anything else. I hope that liberals will finally catch on to this charlatan, this empty suit. If it’s the world’s problem, let the world take care of it. If the world set the red line, let them handle it. It can’t be our credibility on the line for something the world did.
It’s time to put on the big boy pants, Barack, and stop blaming everyone else. As you sow, you know….
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 40 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 45 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter who is in the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@DrJohn: Leahy’s the biggest Code Pink Lib. in the Senate. He thinks Obama’s too far right. This peacenik will vote no regardless. Strange bedfellows Dr J.
Mata Isn’t it interesting how all those who normally hate the U.N. now call on them to be the final arbitrator. Strange bedfellows indeed.
@Richard Wheeler:
I have to agree with you there….
@Greg:
So…………….you’re in contact with the Syrian jihadist rebels in order to know exactly what they are lobbing at the Syrian military?
Do you have to go to some café in Damascus to get internet servicer?
@MataHarley: Mata, as I told RW earlier, resulting to ‘name calling is the last response when you know you’ve lost. I don’t understand him lately, he’s proud of the fact that he is a former Marine officer, but he has clearly lost all standards of the Marine Corps. I doubt very many Marines would be proud to stand with him with his childish name calling tactics.
To RW and Greg. Question about Mr. Shot across the bow, he has now said his only intent is to send a message, not regime change, not to kill anyone. Just a warning. If you were in a speed boat and you were going to crash it into a ship to sink it and you knew the only thing anyone would do to stop you is to fire one shot across your bow, would it slow you down? That’s the status of Your lustrous leader, he has told them he will do nothing further than a ‘shot across the bow’. Pitiful? Agreed?
@MataHarley: Sorry Mata, but as you know, some people here are dumber than dirt. If you think I’m one of them, so be it.
Don’t forget I’m one of those potential converts you speak of.
Richard, I know you aren’t dumber than dirt, which is why it annoys me when you stoop to that level in debate. When I’m around, you know I’m going to call you on it. And that observation about Saudi vs stolen was one of those moments. Your bad fortune was that I was around to witness it at that moment.
I still have hopes for you… always will. Even when you resort to lowest common demoninator idiocy.
@Greg: #18
I have some news for you Greg. The US did not declare war against Germany because they were gassing Jews. In fact, the US would not have declared war against Germany AT ALL had it not been for the fact that they were allies with Japan and Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. It didn’t matter (to the Dimocrats in charge of the US) that they invaded Poland in 1939 and executed a lot of them in gas chambers. As has been said, Syria is not a signee of the CW ban treaty and they only used it within their own country, not a US ally. It’s their business, not ours. Just as Germany wasn’t.
@Redteam: Exactly Greg. We should have just let Hitler gas the 6 million Jews with impunity. None of our damn business.
Mata Are you reading this?
@Greg: Awww Geez Greg. more education time for you:
Have you ever heard a a little place called Hiroshima or another one called Nagasaki? Would you say that the two atomic bombs dropped there were DISCRIMINATEING and only killed ‘military’ personnel? Would you say they were ‘precisely aimed. Did those that use it feel as if they would only kill certain ‘military’ persons, or do you think they thought it would kill everyone in the city, from new borns to 100 years old? Do you think they were eradicating human beings without regard for their involvement or non-involvement in the conflict?
Are the victims of the chemical weapons more or less dead than the victims of Hiroshima? Would you advocate the UN passing a treaty banning atomic weapons? Let’s see if you are consistent.
What we know. There were several dozen CIA on ground in Bengozi on September 11, 2012. We know a meeting with a Turkey Envoy had concluded it’s meeting with Ambassador Stevens about an hour before the “spontaneous protest” occurred. We know that the CIA was there to find 400 surface to air missiles that had gone missing in the coup of Kaddafi. We know that at some point the “protest” went bad, with some protestors thinking Obama had played them. This might have been caused by Doherty and Woods not knowing of the mission or the stand-down orders to the several dozen CIA on the ground. This might explain the protestors running up to the cameras yelling “don’t shoot, were from Morsi.” This might explain the $8b bribe the 2nd in command under Morsi, who is currently on trial for war crimes in Egypt, claims Obama gave Morsi to start building more (terrorist) homes in Gaza. BBC is also including a story about Turkey, Turkish Army, Assyrian refugees, and the US concerning the overthrow of the Assad regime. BBC claims that the US supplied the sarin gas. We know the Saudis are willing to pay for US expenses in this endeavor. We know we have been had before by helping Muslims fighting Muslims. Think Kosovo. So know we want to team up with the Wahabi to fight the Shia?
@Richard Wheeler:
I know you’re not aware of it RW, but that’s EGGZACKLY what the USA did. Not a damn thing. In fact, at the end of the war, the US was ‘surprised’ to find that it had happened. Ta Da, can’t get enough of educating these Libs, they must have been educated in some of their lib schools. Dumb everyone down to the lowest level.
@Redteam, #61:
Thanks much for the history lesson, although this had already come as news to me over half a century ago.
Actually, it took Pearl Harbor to actively involve us in the war in Europe precisely because of prevailing attitudes such as yours. Roosevelt understood the issues long before the public, and had begun providing assistance to Britain long before Pearl Harbor. War preparations were already underway in the United States in 1940. Isolationists such as yourself strongly opposed these efforts.
@MataHarley: #62 Mata:
You can’t expect any more from RW, I’m sure he’s the victim of having been educated in a Liberal Run school system where that is the standard. Lib School Standard No. 1. Dumb them all down to the lowest level. Standard 2. Don’t keep score, that way they won’t know how dumb they are.
I’m not sure what your point is, rich. RT is correct. The US did not intervene on genocide/gas chamber reasons but because of the attack on Pearl Harbor. At the time of our entrance, that wasn’t even a blip on the admin’s radar for reasons to the nation. (Obviously providing financial assistance to Britain had nothing to do with Jewish genocide) That would, of course, be the iconic liberal hero… FDR… who never advanced humanitarian reasons for the purpose of war. Never would have flown with the populous anyway.
Not sure what you’re seeking here. Some sort of non existent parallel which casts the US as the genocide savior of WWII? Sorry… we don’t fit that profile as a nation. In fact, considering how we ended it, we can hardly hold ourselves up as the quintessential model for non proliferation and humanitarianism, right?
Ergo, Greg is grasping at desperate straws. He has a habit of that since he has lots of time on his hands, free from seeking self education. :0)
And you’re trying to expand on that straw man?? Hang… don’t even know why anyone wants to discuss WWII and gas chambers with Greg. He’s the guy who said he didn’t even want to discuss ten years ago, and the disappearance of Iraq’s WMD to Syria in convoys detected by US Geo-spatial agencies, because he said it was irrelevant. Now, all of the sudden, WWII is?
Desperate…
@Redteam: The sad part is you’ve got no problem with it happening. None of our business you say. Children dying in agony in Syria. Their problem.
You got no soul R.T. My guess is you see it as a weakness.
Semper Fi Mercy For Animals
@Redteam: Expect you were home schooled by your mama when you weren’t working on that rebel farm. Then you enlisted in the Navy and enjoyed your cushy bunk, air conditioning and 3 squares.
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler: I don’t think you or I would appreciate fighting next to the same enemy that has blown some of our troops to Hell. I don’t like al Qaeda and I don’t think you do either, regardless of political ramifications.
We will have troops in Syria to affect regime change; otherwise, it is futile posturing. It would be impossible to ask to send troops now, but to finish the job of a half-assed mission with no objective or strategy might seem logical to the loons we have in DC.
I don’t want to see anymore American patriots walking around with missing legs because of a failed foreign policy. Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iraq are immense Charlie Foxtrots and examples of a failed foreign policy in the ME. Syria can join them without our assistance.
You asked.
@Skookum: Thanks Skook. There’s plenty of blame to go around Marine.
@Richard Wheeler: We went to war with Germany because they were gassing Jews? That’s a new one on me. I thought it was because they declared war on us first.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm
If you research the history of the Holocaust, you’ll find that Germany gassed, and for that matter, killed more Jews after we went to war with them. Gassing didn’t come into use as a major way of killing the Jews until 1942. Until then, they were primarily killed by mass shootings.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/timeline.html
In fact, you’ll find that FDR didn’t establish a program to rescue the Jews until 1944:
http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007749
@another vet: I agree with your analysis. Not my point in #70.
@Richard Wheeler: But it seemed to be in number #63:
@Richard Wheeler:
I don’t think that someone who supports Democrats should complain about “children dying.”
“1994, as he returned from the latest round of talks in neighboring Tanzania, Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana was killed when his plane was shot down outside of the country’s capital, Kigali. Habyarimana’s death provided the spark for an organized campaign of violence against Tutsi and moderate Hutu civilians across the country. Despite the efforts of United Nations peacekeepers, extremist Hutu groups killed between 800,000 and 1 million people across the country in only 100 days.”
Of course, Bill Clinton apologized for not acting on the genocide happening in Rwanda, after he left office. Bet that made all those dead Rwandan children feel better that he at least apologized for his lack of, wait, what did you call it? Soul.
How about mercy for the children of the Ivory Coast?
Your “point” in #70 was to attempt to portray Redteam as heartless and cruel, and enjoying watching children die.
Cheap shot, and massive horse manure, Rich. So let me pile on. The children dying in Syria are *also* none of our business. Bring it on, guy.
Does it break my heart? Hell yeah. It also breaks my heart to watch the save a starving child ads. And the SPCA animal shelter ads get to me big time too.
So does that pain and concern mean I think we should risk even more children and innocents deaths by starting a war, under some delusion this will end?
You have a weird idea of taking care of things, rich. You see some in trouble, and don’t mind killing countless others down line to feel good about retaliation in an ensuing war, all based on momentary personal emotions. I can’t agree.
halfacarafe
hi,
you bring something new to the BENGHASI KILLING,
THAT IS VERY INTERESTING, ONE THING IS , I’m not sure that what he said about US SENDING THE SARIN IS TRUE, UNLESS IT WAS SENT BY SOME MUSLIMS IN AMERICA SECRETLY,
BUT HOW DID THEY GET IT?
WELL WE LEARNED THAT BRITSH BUSINESS HAD SENT SARIN TO SYRIA, AND SURELY NOT TO ASSAD, BECAUSE HE IS LOADED AND IS WINNING THE REBELLION,
IT HAS TO BE TO ALQAEDA,
THANK YOU FOR THOSE INFOS,
YES WORDPRESS THANK YOU
I PUSH THE BUTTON TWICE
YOU FIX IT,
On August 22, four of the five front commanders threatened to resign from the SMC, promising to break “red lines” and work “with all forces fighting in Syria,” a clear reference to the war’s growing Salafist-Jihadist contingent. The statement was read by Colonel Fatih Hasun, who is the commander of the SMC’s Homs Front and the deputy chief-of-staff, that is to say, Idriss’s deputy and the most senior officer inside the country. Hasun added that rebels would no longer respect demands by outside powers that they not attempt to take over government-controlled chemical weapons sites. In addition to demanding action in response to the government’s use of chemical weapons in Damascus, Hasun also demanded better weapons and said they were tiring of the “false promises of those who call themselves Friends of Syria.”
While the resignation seemed tentative, Hasun was less equivocal about the other red line — the opposition’s Salafist-Jihadist groups, Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) — both of which the United States has designated as terrorist entities linked to al Qaeda. Directly behind Hasun on the wall was an Islamic flag, with a pre-Assad Syria FSA flag draped to the side, a nod perhaps to the Salafists. Sitting to his right was a bearded cleric in Salafist garb. He directly stated, “we call upon all” FSA units to work with all others fighting the regime. Adding insult to injury, on August 25 Muhammad Tabnaja, field commander in Latakia for the Ahfad al-Faruq Brigade in Latakia, resigned citing the lack of support from the SMC. […]
Coordination with Jihadists groups is not really new. Operationally they have all long [ACM: probably “along”] coordinated operations against regime forces, and this has grown with time….
If you’re up for regime change, this is the regime you’ll be getting.
I already addressed this on another Most Wanted that I posted about the Obama/Kerry/Congress strike being illegal.
I’m no fan of the UN, and I’m consistent in that. However a GOP Congress signed on to the CWC in 1997 under Bill Clinton, and all that entails. They made their bed (on our behalf) in writing and with ratification, now they need to sleep in it and follow the rules… or else they need to get the hell out of dodge and go rent a motel room. It was demanded that Bush go to the UN, and he did. This group? All parties? Can’t be bothered. CWC and it’s rules be damned. Obama/Kerry & co/Congress of all stripes think they are the judge, jury and executioner of the CWC, and the other 188 members, the OPCW and the UNSC can take a flying leap.
And apparently that doesn’t bother too many on the left. Ain’t that a hoot?
Guess it’s a rule of convenience, and right now they don’t find it convenient.
Stand By! Kerry compares the possible mission in Syria to the Normandy Invasion. We have burros leading lions, excuse me, I need to walk outside and scream.
@Greg:
It sure as hell didn’t have anything to do with the fact Jews were being exterminated. It had to do with the rich people in the country wanted to get richer by dragging the country into the war. Roosevelt executed his plan to get the US into the war by cutting off all oil supplies to Japan. At the time the US was Japan’s sole supplier of petroleum products. He expected Japan to attack in Indonesia or the Philipines, not Pearl Harbor. It’s good to know you learned all this over 50 years ago, but it’s unfortunate that you didn’t remember any of it. I notice you didn’t bother commenting on how discriminating the atomic bomb was compared to gas. Aren’t we fortunate that we didn’t have the ‘do gooders’ around back then to keep the US from using it.
@Richard Wheeler: @Richard Wheeler:
You need to be careful when you’re jumping to conclusions, you don’t know where you might bounce to.
As a matter of fact, I have a problem with any people being cruel to other persons, but I don’t see it as my place to stop one arab from killing another arab in arabia. Are you saying a dictator in a country doesn’t have the right to dictate what happens in their country? As you are well aware, a benevolent dictatorship is the ultimate socialism/communism. A goal of the do gooders such as you and Greg and Obama. But somehow, when the dictator isn’t so benevolent and wants to kill some of his subjects, you want to deny him that right. If that dictator starts to interfere in the business of our country, or one that we have treaties with, it then becomes our business. Yes, the US has always been, or tried to be, the main force for good in the world, but when you have enemies within that are damned determined to bring about the downfall of the country, at some point, it has to be said, it’s not in our interest to interfere. In the case of Syria, it’s not in our interest. It’s surprising to me to learn that your definition of having soul is to interfere in other countries business. Guess they taught you that in your lib school.
@Richard Wheeler: #71
Your guessing is not getting any better RW. Nope, I wasn’t ‘home schooled’ I actually learned in a school that was not run by the teachers unions, so they actually taught us something and didn’t dumb us down to the lowest level. Then I enlisted in the Navy, and enjoyed all my experiences in the service under President Dwight Eisenhower. I appreciate everyone’s military service to the country. Tho I don’t feel it necessary to Semper Fi everyone.
@Skookum: #72
: You are aware Skookum, that both RW and Greg think that CW is much worse than these guys getting IED’d and having missing legs, etc. That’s their old song and dance.
There is a good case that Obama’s loose threat about a red line is being used by the Syrian rebel forces to drag the US into bombing Assad.
UN Reveals Terrorists Not Government Used Sarin Gas
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2013/09/03/un-reveals-terrorists-not-government-used-sarin-gas/
=== ===
[edited] U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin.
The UN independent commission on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
=== ===
EasyOpinions
@Skookum: #83
Skookum, you meant ‘barf’ didn’t you?
@Redteam: As a former hunter/trapper, it takes a lot to make me barf. Food poison or Giardia will make me lose my breakfast, but that is about it.
However, I am amazed at our former peace demonstrators who were always stressing their altruistic motives for refusing to go along with war. I watched them with curiosity while attending college, and I had this nagging feeling they weren’t on the level, but now, that a Nobel Peace Prize winner is proposing war they are so obvious in their silence. They are hypocrites and frauds, their protests were nothing more than cowardice and attempts to create dissidence. Now they are willing to use the blood of patriots to advance their pathetic political agendas.
We have politicians who are playing along with this absurd idea of a vanity war, because they are afraid of losing their cushy positions and pensions, when most of America is on the ropes and bleeding. I have lost respect for all of them, may they all rot in Hell. Let the Shias and Sunnis go at, and let Allah decide who the winners. It’s not our affair.
If you want to end the killing, tell the Saudis we are going to frack the Western states until we are major exporters. A lack of oil money will dry up the riches of the ME, the terrorist bankrolls will be gone, and the Arabs can go back to riding camels and donkeys in the deserts.
Then we can see if the next president feels compelled to prostrate himself in front of Arab dictators.
I read, and of course it is not validated but makes one wonder especially after Benghazi (where it is purported they were gun running) and fast and furious (where they were gun running) that the US and the UK had something to do with the chemical attacks. I also read that it was said that barry is a member of the muslim brotherhood, which of course may be one of the reasons along with his passport why he has paid over 5 million of taxpayer money to hide his past. Although these sound far fetched based on the actions of this current administration, I wouldn’t put anything past them.
IF only the media would get out of his ass and start to report the news instead of either making it up or covering it up, all of this could possibly come to a head. IMHO
There are two things About Obama’s approach here: One, the punitive measures discussed by the White House were limited enough not to be relevant to the American Constitution which entrusts the legislative branch with the supreme authority to formally declare war. So handing off responsibility to Congress now basically means that he has agreed to foreswear all similar instances in future meant for the White House alone. Two (following on from One), he’s effectively given up America’s position of leadership as a global superpower which is supposed to inspire and lead in the world, not subjugate itself to unnecessary restrictions, or preferences of other nations. So, not only has he chickened out, he’s relinquished the leader’s mantle. He’s also ended an American epoch.
Andrew_ M_Garland
yes it make sense,
I was wondering how come they did not check on the opponent side for doing the killing with SARIN,
there is many unholly factions there coming from other ISLAMIC COUNTRIES TO HELP ON THAT REBELLION, AND OBAMA WAS GIVING THEM A BILL OF RIGHT AND A FREE RIDE TO THE TOP JOB,
AS IF THEY WHERE HIS ANGELS TO BE THE NEW LEADERS,
GOD FORBID HE WAS SUCCEEDING IN THAT NEFARIOUS MINDSET, WHICH NOW, IS SO OBVIOUS THAT MANY SEE IT, AND BRITAIN SEE IT ALSO,
NO ONE CAME OUT TO SPELL IT TO SECRETARY KERRY,
AMERICA WON’T BE STRONGER WITH ANOTHER WAR,
NOW THAT UN CONFIRM IT, HE JUST HAVE TO LEAVE THEM TO THEIR REBELLION WITHOUT HELP ON THE OPPONENT, WHICH WOULD NEVER END THAT REBELLION,,
BENGHASI WAS ABOUT OBAMA HELPING SYRIA REBELS FROM BEHIND,
WASN’T IT? YOU CAN ADMIT IT NOW,
@MataHarley: @MataHarley: No, I understand, and thank you for pointing that out. I sometimes like to point out to anyone zealous about a cause that there’s the danger of mirroring the type of ignorance you claim to combat. That’s my overall opinion of the so-called liberal movement: it lost it’s “cause” a long time ago, and is holding on to talking points without critical thinking. john’s posts illustrate this: it’s not about dialogue and progress, it’s about “winning”.
I certainly listen to other points of view . . . as long as there is a “point of view” to listen to.
The right will find a way to tear into Obama no matter what. If he bombed without consulting Congress, he’s a traitor. Now that he wants to consult Congress, he’s weak.
Funny thing is, it was just a few years ago when these same people were calling to ‘nuke’ all the Muslims.
Wingnuts=hypocrites.
@This one:
Tough being held to your own standards, eh? LOL
Bush always sought the support of Congress and had an honest to God coalition. Obama has a coalition of the invisible.
so FA now proudly stands with the Assad/Russia/China/Iran side against Obama/Israel/Saudi side. OKaaaaaaaay!
At least you guys are consistently, no matter what, always against Obama. When will we begin hearing the gleeful noises with the deaths of the first US military? Are your actions emboldening our enemies? China,Russia,Iran, ?
@DrJohn:
As we have watched our strongest allies bail on Obama’s folly to bomb Syria and give aid and comfort to the jihadist rebels, only France has been standing behind him. But even as France is firing up the ovens to provide an ample supply of croissants (because France isn’t going to spend many francs when they can goad the U.S. into footing the bill) there are some silly little issues France seems to have with our current administration:
“The US “knows” that the Syrian government used a chemical weapon near Damascus on Aug. 21. France “knows” that happened too. The problem is that what France knows is different than what the US knows, and both can’t be right.
But France, as eager for an attack on Syria as the US, does not share that confidence when it comes to the number of dead. A report released to parliament by Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault that summarizes French intelligence findings says that based on analysis of videos taken inside Syria, only 281 deaths from a chemical attack could be confirmed. (Adding after this story was originally posted: The French summary also says the country’s intelligence thinks it likely many more died. Quoting from the French government translation to English of their summary: “Other independent assessments, produced for instance by the NGO “Doctors without borders” mention at least 355 deaths. Several technical numberings, from different sources, assess the final toll at approximately 1500 deaths. Work carried out by our specialists, by extrapolating an impact model of a chemical attack on the population of the mentioned sites, is consistent with these figures.”)
There is obviously a big difference between “thousands” and 281, and the Obama administration has not been clear on how it arrived at this number. It has also not explained how it arrived at Secretary of State John Kerry’s claim on Friday of 1,429 dead, nor how that has since increased to “thousands.””
I’m sure that Secretary of State Lurch is readying his speech about how Assad has already been found attaching wires to the genitals of the rebels and turning up the power.
So we are to rely on the fact that the intel under this Administration is so spot on that there is no way it could be wrong? We are to assume that the Obama administration, who ran as the anti-war candidate, is now so convinced that Assad is the guilty party, that we must rush into some “strategic” strikes against Syrian government forces/compounds aiding the ever growing jihadist fractions is Syria? Yet this is the same Administration that sent Susan Rice to not one, but five Sunday talk shows letting us all know that the Benghazi attacks were due to a YouTube video. And a year later, not one person, except a unimportant, little known film maker, has been punished, or even accused in the Benghazi atrocity. Fast and Furious? Who has been punished for that disaster? Anyone even lose their job over that? If Obama is worried about the dead, perhaps he should bomb the headquarters of the Mexican drug cartels. Never mind that most of those responsible for the IRS scandal have actually been promoted.
Then you have Rhodes scholars like Holmes-Norton who says that she don’t think we should go to war in Syria but hey, she’ll back the president because after all, he’s ……………………(something). You see, the image of women holding up their dead children due to U.S. strikes on Syria is not nearly as bad to Holmes-Norton as the face of a dejected Barack Husain Obama, Jr. would be.
If Obama wants the American public to have faith in his position on Syria, he needs to come clean on Benghazi first.
@Skookum: it takes a lot to make me barf.
I had to look this up and came up with ‘the premature expulsion of consumed materials through the mouth and nose.’
Yes, that was stupid of Kerry. Fools who want to go for broke in the hope that they can expand the situation for their own ends leaves little chance of improving the outcome for Syria. It’s become a disaster, regardless of whether by force of circumstances they will go ahead with what was supposed to be a token military reprisal.
My worry is Israel. In this Jewish New Year they’ve been put in an impossible situation. Of course, they can take care of themselves, but the delay in acting against Syria raises questions about Obama’s stated commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Next time President Obama meets Netanyahu and says ‘I have your back’ can he trust him? If the White House is not capable of enforcing this ‘red line’ against the use of these chemical weapons they’re in trouble.
@john:
So you’ve seen the evidence that Assad actually used chemical weapons? It doesn’t bother you that Obama is ignoring the UN and the American people? Seems to me that you haven’t learned a thing from your own tirades against Bush.
If Obama gets approval to bomb Syria- what is he going to bomb? If he topples the regime, he’ll need to send 75,000 troops to secure the WMD’s that you guys say Assad has. I can see Obama sending those 75,000 troops and then needing a lot more than 90 days to “finish the job” he started and keep ISIS and Al Nusra from taking over, because they damn sure will.
Rich, do you want our Marines fighting next to these “rebels”?
The NYT has the video, if you want to watch senseless killing.
john
IT IS THE ALQAEDA WHO DID THE SARIN SPREAD WHICH KILLED SO MANY OF THEIR PEOPLE
@MataHarley: With due respect your final paragraph is a projection by you that is absolutely wrong. If I thought a surgical strike on Assad’s wmd capabilities would INCREASE the chance of innocents dying i’d stand down.
I think we agree much of this is fueled by ODS.
If something “breaks your heart” don’t look away and let someone else deal with it. Listen to your heart, Do what YOU can through your valuable time and money to alleviate the suffering of those less blessed. This is a teaching of Christ.
reto5 I absolutely agree the Admin should tell all re Benghazi. As I’ve stated I WILL NOT support HRC until and unless this is done.
Semper Fi Mercy For All. Believe in Grace
Greg
HITLER INVADED OTHER COUNTRIES,
AND ASSAD NEVER DID INVADE OTHER, HE WAS INVADED,
CAN’T YOU SEE THE BIG GAP BETWEEN THE TWO,
@Skookum:
On it, Skook
A Just War analysis of a proposed attack on Syria.
There are eight specific criteria for judging the justice of a war, and the justice of actions within a war. Six of these deal with the justice of going to war (“waging a just war); the other two deal with the justice of actions within a war (“waging war justly”).
The first criterion is “just cause.” There are three classic just causes: to repel an attack, to retake what was taken unjustly, and to come to the aid of the victim of an unjust attack. Clearly the first two do not apply. We weren’t attacked, and we have nothing in Syria to take back. What about the third? Use of poison gas is an unjust attack, under international treaties going back to the 1920s. But who used that gas? Was it Assad? Was it the rebels? We need to know who committed the unjust attack before deciding it was a just cause for war.
The second criterion is “comparative justice.” This doesn’t mean that one side must be perfect, or the other side completely evil. It means only that one side must be more just than the other, and the degree of comparative justice limits the amount of force that may be used. If we intervene, we place ourselves “in the shoes” of the side we support. Which side in the Syrian civil war is more just? Assad? Al Qaeda? And whichever it is, by how much? Which side should we support?
The third criterion is “victory.” There are no guarantees in war, but there must be a reasonable chance of victory before engaging in war. Well, what is “victory” in this case? How will we define it? How will we know when it’s achieved? Until “victory” is defined satisfactorily, and we have a reasonable chance of obtaining it, we shouldn’t get involved. “Limited” strikes on “selected” objectives don’t define “victory.” We need to define what objective is to be achieved, not simply what targets are to be hit, and with what weapons.
The fourth criterion is “right intention.” As St. Augustine put it, just wars are not engaged in for greed or cruelty, but to obtain a just peace, to restrain evil, and to assist the good. What are our intentions with regard to the Syrian civil war? Would deposing Assad constitute a “just peace,” or would it be simply revenge on the part of the rebels? Without defining our intentions, the justice of this proposed intervention cannot be determined.
The fifth criterion is “last resort.” Every REASONABLE alternative must have been tried first, before resorting to war. Have the “less than war” alternatives have been exhausted? Have they even been tried? Jumping to war without trying less-lethal alternatives first would be unjust.
The sixth criterion is “competent authority.” The person making the decision to go to war must have the authority to do so. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is the “competent authority” to declare war. The President does not have the authority to commit the country to a war. Even under the War Powers Act, the President must consult with Congress within sixty days after initiating hostile actions, and then only when the situation will not allow of a delay (i.e. repelling an attack). Just who is making this decision to go to war? And does that person or entity have the Constitutional authority to do so?
The seventh criterion is “discrimination.” Within a war, legitimate attacks must be against enemy military targets only. Intentionally attacking noncombatants violates “discrimination.” Just who or what are we proposing to attack in Syria? Would those targets satisfy “discrimination?” Until that is answered, we shouldn’t be supporting an intervention.
The eighth criterion is “proportion.” It applies in two ways.
First, it applies to the decision to go to war. Will the harm done by NOT GOING to war exceed the harm done by GOING to war? An aggressive tyranny can do a great deal of harm. Even a very costly war (in both treasure and lives) may be better than allowing the tyranny to continue its operations. Would our intervening in Syria be “proportionate?” How would the damage we do compare with the damage that would occur if we didn’t intervene? This includes not only physical damage and deaths, but the moral damage from allowing tyranny to continue its operations.
Second, proportion applies to actions within a war. Despite attempts to be discriminating in attacking military targets only, there is often some “collateral damage” to noncombatants. If the attack was genuinely discriminating, this collateral damage was unintended. The requirement of proportion means that the good accomplished by the attack on a legitimate target must not be outweighed by the collateral damage done to noncombatants or nonmilitary facilities. Just what targets are we proposing to attack? What good will be accomplished by striking them? How much collateral damage to noncombatants and nonmilitary facilities will occur? We need to resolve this before selecting targets and weapons.
Finally, I keep hearing that a “limited” and “selective” strike is intended to “send a message” to Assad. I served in-theater during the Vietnam war. I recall how Defense Secretary McNamara and President Johnson tried to “send a message” to the North Vietnamese with “limited” attacks and “bombing pauses.” It didn’t work. It merely proved that we weren’t serious. If we want to send a message, use Western Union. If we’re going to blow things up and kill people, it ought to be for some better reason than “sending a message.”