by Jack
UPDATE 30 AUG 2013: Well now what, shoot or don’t shoot? England has backed out and says it’s not a good idea to lob missiles into Syria at the moment and Russian has sent ships into Syrian waters to do what? Well, we’re not quite sure why they are there, but it’s likely they are there in defense of Syria, then you have to wonder if we’re doing the right thing? Polls show America people are as much against military action as the Brits are.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here’s the latest developments in Obama’s sketchy plan to fire missiles into Syria as punishment for using poison gas on it’s own people. England has temporarily withdrawn from military action against Syria. Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron was stunned when Labour Party leader Ed Miliband said they wanted to delay action because the legislation authorizing the intervention left too many question unanswered. ‘I’m clear that this is a very grave decision to take military action that the House of Commons would be making and I didn’t think that that decision should be made on an artificial timetable when the House of Commons wouldn’t even have seen the evidence today from the UN weapons inspectors,’ he said.
Meanwhile, the French military is ready to commit forces to an operation in Syria if President Francois Hollande decides to do so, the defense minister said Thursday. But the chief of state, who met with the head of the Syrian opposition, stopped short of announcing military intervention over a suspected chemical weapons attack.
Russia has steadfastly opposed any US or UN military actions against the Assad regime and has upped the ante by sending two missile equipped warships to the region. The appearance of the Russian warships close by US warship was an unexpected development, but it is believed the Russian ships were deployed in defense of any outside naval attack on Syria by foreign powers.
Just three days ago Syria’s Ambassador to UN, Bashar Ja’afari, strongly denounced the use of poison gas and reiterated that such use was indeed a war crime and and an offense against humanity. He emphatically denied Assad’s forces would never chemical weapons, but claimed the opposition has on three occasions. He suggests the civilian deaths were the result of rebel forces. The ambassador said rebels have used poison gas on at least three occasions and said in a written letter to the UN, “three heinous incidents that took place in the countryside of Damascus on (August) 22nd, 24th and 25th where members of the Syrian army inhaled poisonous gas.”
Bashar Ja’afari said the latest allegation of the use of poison gas was absurd and made no sense because Syrian forces were in that same area and they would have been firing upon their own soldiers. Bashar Ja’afari demanded that a complete investigation be completed before considering any attacks on Syrian forces.
The white house has been busily “leaking” info so all Assad has to do is move his helicopters until after any strike.
Only an ignoramus tells the enemy when, where or how when they’ll strike. Guess that describes the white house these days.
‘Course, that assumes that Obumble will actually do more than dither . . . .
Who the he## is our leader?! Yesterday Kerry stood in front of our flag and faced the nation live while Obama recorded a message while sitting at a table during a meeting break.
Mr. Obama, stand up, man up, get off of your butt, put down the deck of cards and golf clubs, be a leader and stop leading from behind Kerry and others to give you cover.
From Allen West:
“Consider the irony as we draw close to the one-year anniversary of the Benghazi attack. President Obama says the use of chemical weapons in Syria threatens our national security and we have an obligation to act. In contrast, our US Consulate (sovereign American territory) was attacked in Benghazi, our Ambassador was killed along with Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALS (Ty Woods and Glenn Doherty) and the only indignation shown was over a video. Need I mention the ensuing lies? But where was the obligation to act in response to Benghazi? The events in Syria are horrific to be sure, but to dismiss the attack and loss of American lives in Benghazi is unconscionable.”
Where was Obama during the Benghazi attack? (We still don’t know if he was playing cards again or shooting hoops.) Why didn’t he show the same outrage for the four Americans killed on US soil?
Does anyone remember the world ever “laughing” at our president? Just do a “Obama Syria laughing” search.
From Real Politics.
Obama’s Bread and Circuses:
“Obama told PBS on Wednesday that US strikes on Syria would be “a shot across the bow.”
But as Charles Krauthammer noted, such a warning is worthless. In the same interview Obama also promised that the attack would be a nonrecurring event. When there are no consequences to ignoring a warning, then the warning will be ignored.
This is a very big problem. Obama’s obvious reluctance to follow through on his pledge to retaliate if Syria used chemical weapons may stem from a belated recognition that he has tethered the US’s strategic credibility to the quality of its response to an action that in itself has little significance to US interests in Syria.
And this brings us to the third vital US interest threatened by the war in Syria – preventing Iran, al-Qaida or Russia from scoring a victory.
Whereas the war going on in Syria pits jihadists against jihadists, the war that concerns the US and its allies is the war the jihadists wage against everyone else. And Iran is the epicenter of that war.
Like US deterrent power and strategic credibility, the US’s interest in preventing Iran from scoring a victory in Damascus is harmed by the obvious unseriousness of the “signal” Obama said he wishes to send Assad through US air strikes.
Speaking on Sunday of the chemical strike in Syria, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned, “Syria has become Iran’s testing ground…. Iran is watching and it wants to see what would be the reaction on the use of chemical weapons.”
The tepid, symbolic response that the US is poised to adopt in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons represents a clear signal to Iran. Both the planned strikes and the growing possibility that the US will scrap even a symbolic military strike in Syria tell Iran it has nothing to fear from Obama.
Iran achieved a strategic achievement by exposing the US as a paper tiger in Syria. With this accomplishment in hand, the Iranians will feel free to call Obama’s bluff on their nuclear weapons project. Obama’s “shot across the bow” response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons in a mass casualty attack signaled the Iranians that the US will not stop them from developing and deploying a nuclear arsenal.
Policy-makers and commentators who have insisted that we can trust Obama to keep his pledge to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons have based their view on an argument that now lies in tatters. They insisted that by pledging to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, Obama staked his reputation on acting competently to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. To avoid losing face, they said, Obama will keep his pledge.
Obama’s behavior on Syria has rendered this position indefensible. Obama is perfectly content with shooting a couple of pot shots at empty government installations. As far as he is concerned, the conduct of air strikes in Syria is not about Syria, or Iran. They are not the target audience of the strikes. The target audience for US air strikes in Syria is the disengaged, uninformed American public.
Obama believes he can prove his moral and strategic bonafides to the public by declaring his outrage at Syrian barbarism and then launching a few cruise missiles from an aircraft carrier. The computer graphics on the television news will complete the task for him.
The New York Times claimed on Thursday that the administration’s case for striking Syria would not be the “political theater” that characterized the Bush administration’s case for waging war in Iraq. But at least the Bush administration’s political theater ended with the invasion. In Obama’s case, the case for war and the war itself are all political theater.
While for a few days the bread and circuses of the planned strategically useless raid will increase newspaper circulation and raise viewer ratings of network news, it will cause grievous harm to US national interests. As far as US enemies are concerned, the US is an empty suit.
And as far as America’s allies are concerned, the only way to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power is to operate without the knowledge of the United States.”
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/09/01/obamas_bread_and_circuses_119793.html#ixzz2deleQijg
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
BO slipped up and actually told the truth.
========
America Needs a Truthful President:
Never Let It Be Said that Obama is Not a funny guy.
He said WHAT ??!!
Of course, EVERY true Christian — sometimes — occasionally blurts out “My Muslim Faith” during a casual conversation with a good friend, and there’s no TelePrompter.
In this case, HOW CONVENIENT! that the “news reporter” friend, just happens to be a true Democrat master Spin-master of CLINTONIAN proportions, Mr. George Stephanopoulos
— “to the rescue.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IKQhkh8xhE0
We need a truthful president…first time I have ever agreed with Obama! lol -Jack
Where the votes stand on Syria:
“Below are our whip counts for both the House and Senate, based on public statements made by each member. The graphic includes all 100 senators and will include all House members once they all weigh in publicly.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/02/where-the-votes-stand-on-syria/
Doug LaMalfa hasn’t yet indicated how he’ll vote.