WHY ARE WE SUPPORTING AL QAEDA (EASTASIA)?

27 comments

Posted on 31st August 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , , , , , ,

There were no Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. Now it’s swarming with Al Qaeda fighters. Libyan dictator Ghaddafi was fighting Al Qaeda. We killed him. Mubarek kept the radical Islamists under control. We deposed him. Assad is fighting Al Qaeda terrorists. We are about to kill him. When will the American people use their fucking brains and see what is going on.

Do you see any resemblance to Orwell’s description of war in his training manual for American democracy?

 ”In 1984, there is a perpetual war between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia, the super-states which emerged from the atomic global war. “The book”, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchic Collectivism by Emmanuel Goldstein, explains that each state is so strong it cannot be defeated, even with the combined forces of two super-states—despite changing alliances. To hide such contradictions, history is re-written to explain that the (new) alliance always was so; the populaces accustomed to doublethink accept it. The war is not fought in Oceanian, Eurasian or Eastasian territory but in a disputed zone comprising the sea and land from Tangiers (northern Africa) to Darwin (Australia) to the Arctic. At the start, Oceania and Eastasia are allies combatting Eurasia in northern Africa.

That alliance ends and Oceania allied with Eurasia fights Eastasia, a change which occurred during the Hate Week dedicated to creating patriotic fervour for the Party’s perpetual war. The public are blind to the change; in mid-sentence an orator changes the name of the enemy from “Eurasia” to “Eastasia” without pause. When the public are enraged at noticing that the wrong flags and posters are displayed they tear them down—thus the origin of the idiom “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”; later the Party claims to have captured Africa.

“The book” explains that the purpose of the unwinnable, perpetual war is to consume human labour and commodities, hence the economy of a super-state cannot support economic equality (a high standard of life) for every citizen. Goldstein also details an Oceanian strategy of attacking enemy cities with atomic rockets before invasion, yet dismisses it as unfeasible and contrary to the war’s purpose; despite the atomic bombing of cities in the 1950s the super-states stopped such warfare lest it imbalance the powers. The military technology in 1984 differs little from that of the Second World War, yet strategic bomber aeroplanes were replaced with Rocket Bombs, Helicopters were heavily used as weapons of war (while they didn’t figure in WW2 in any form but prototypes) and surface combat units have been all but replaced by immense and unsinkable Floating Fortresses, island-like contraptions concentrating the firepower of a whole naval task force in a single, semi-mobile platform (in the novel one is said to have been anchored between Iceland and the Faroe Islands, suggesting a preference for sea lane interdiction and denial).”

http://georgeorwellnovels.com/books/about-nineteen-eighty-four/#The_War

 

Experts: U.S. Case that Syrian Government Responsible for Chemical Weapons Is Weak

George Washington's picture
Submitted by George Washington on 08/30/2013 15:33 -0400

Bonus:

The civil war in Syria started in March 2011. And see this. However, the U.S. has been funding the Syrian opposition since 2006 … and arming the opposition since 2007.

So the American government’s argument that “we must stop Assad because he’s brutally crushing a spontaneous popular uprising” is false.  The U.S. started supporting the rebels 5 years before the protests started.

Moreover, reports from mainstream media sources such as the New York Times, (and here), Wall Street Journal, USA TodayCNN, McClatchy (and here), AP, TimeBBC, the Independent, the Telegraph, Agence France-PresseAsia Times, and the Star (and here) – confirm that supporting the rebels means supporting Al Qaeda and two other terrorist groups. Indeed, the the New York Times has reported that virtually all of the rebel fighters are Al Qaeda terrorists.

By supporting the rebels, we’re supporting our sworn terrorist enemies.

A War 20 Years In the Making

If there is any doubt about this timeline, please keep in mind that the U.S. and Britain considered attacking Syrians and then blaming it on the Syrian government as an excuse for regime change … 50 years ago (the U.S. just admitted that they did this to Iran) And the U.S. has been planning regime change in Syria for 20 years straight.

The Last “Humanitarian War”

Libya’s Gaddafi claimed that the rebels in that country were actually Al Qaeda.

That claim – believe it or not – has been confirmed.

According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:

The Hindustan Times reported:

“There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition,” Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.   It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.

(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion.  But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.) Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya.  Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled. There is a direct connection to Syria.  Specifically, CNN, the Telegraph,  the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime.  And the post-Gaddafi Libyan government is also itself a top funder and arms supplier of the Syrian opposition.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that there are no few good guys involved in the Syrian war. The solution is not to bomb the country … or to send more arms to the rebels. The solution is to make sure that less weapons – chemical and conventional – get into that tinder box of a country. And to stay the h@!! out of a conflict which has no bearing on our national security.

27 Comments
  1. AWD says:

    Guess who has been supplying the rebels in Syria with chemical weapons?

    According to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has been the Saudis…

    Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

    “From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak”

    The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them.

    “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.

    As Gavlak reports, Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels died in a weapons storage tunnel. The father stated the weapons were provided to rebel forces by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

    “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.

    Gavlak also refers to an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks stating that Prince Bandar threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if Russia doesn’t agree to change its stance on Syria.

    “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,” the article stated.

    “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,” Saudi Prince allegedly told Vladimir Putin.”

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 11:01 am

  2. AWD says:

    impeach-obama.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1370824841105

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdrIQw9e2QN1hifaxdIhlbsRYrR_DPSNFBfxM0FDqR0VVzPuQ8QQ

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 11:15 am

  3. AWD says:

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvcZW7j-x7ukHsckmwmE9lAuAKryT02HfTiZyATtulRyVLV8dA

    THE PROGRESSIVE’S 8-STEP GUIDE TO DEALING WITH A SYRIA:

    1. Announce that the bully’s behavior is unacceptable.

    2. Should they continue behaving unacceptably, we tell them that their unacceptable behavior cannot be allowed to continue.

    3. Should the unacceptable behavior continue anyway, then we tell them that we really mean what we said.

    4. If they’re still behaving unacceptably, then we remind them that we really, REALLY do mean what we said, and that we’re not just saying that.

    5. Should this result in only more unacceptable behavior, we tell them that this time, we’re serious.

    6. If that doesn’t work (and it usually doesn’t, but we Progs pride ourselves on retaining faith in the inherent goodness of our fellow man and our own ability to make others see reason), then we inform them that we may have to consider scheduling an appointment to go to Geneva, where we will meet with fellow peace-loving Progs to discuss the possibility of approaching the U.N. with a request for permission to advise the bullies that we may have to impose sanctions.

    7. If that doesn’t work, then we travel to some glamourous resort to attend a U.N. Conference on Global Sustainability, then fly to another resort to address a symposium on the need to keep funding the U.N. as the world’s events prove that we simply cannot hope to live in peace without it.

    8. If, by this time, the unacceptable behavior has spread and can no longer be contained, go back to Step 1 and start over, and have faith that this time, we’ll get different results.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 11:21 am

  4. AWD says:

    24965

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 11:24 am

  5. AWD says:

    OBAMA-DESTRUCTION-21.jpg

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 11:54 am

  6. Stucky says:

    At 1:15PM EST today, POS O-bomb-ah will address the nation.

    Bring the popcorn.

    Bring a barf bag.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 12:24 pm

  7. Administrator says:

    Guest Post: Where’s Congress on Syria?

    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/31/2013 12:18 -0400

    Submitted by Robert W. Merry via The National Interest,

    Where’s Congress? That’s the question that should haunt the American people in the wake of President Obama’s apparent decision to get their country into another Mideast war. In the long history of the American experience, matters of war and peace have always been hotly debated. And those debates traditionally have been most intense and concentrated in Congress.

    Remember Arkansas senator William Fulbright’s famous hearings on the Vietnam War, beginning in 1966. He was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he shared the Democratic Party label with his president, Lyndon Johnson, who had perpetrated the U.S. war effort in Vietnam. But that shared party label didn’t prevent Fulbright from going after the president with these words at the start of his hearings:

    Under our system, Congress, and especially the Senate, shares responsibility with the President for making our Nation’s foreign policy. This war, however, started and continues as a Presidential war in which Congress, since the fraudulent Gulf of Tonkin episode, has not played a significant role. The purpose of these hearings is to develop the best advice and greater public understanding of the policy alternatives available and possible congressional action to end American participation in the war.

    Clearly, Fulbright wasn’t messing around as he thrust himself into the war controversy based on his standing in a Congress charged with joint responsibility for America’s wars.

    Or recall North Dakota’s Republican senator Gerald Nye from the 1930s, chairman of the Senate Munitions Investigating Subcommittee. A rustic progressive who advocated the nationalization of what he considered troublesome industries, he also was a tireless friend to thousands of German-born Dakota farmers still angry about America’s role in the Great War. Nye wanted the country to avoid any further foreign conflicts, and so he attacked the forces he viewed as promoters of war—the big arms manufacturers, which he called “merchants of death,” and international bankers who financed the purchase of armaments and then, as Nye viewed it, fomented war to ensure a return on their investments.

    Nye’s headline-grabbing hearings fostered the Neutrality Act of 1935, which placed America on the sidelines of all international conflicts. The legislation required the president to proclaim the existence of any foreign wars and prohibited American vessels from carrying arms to or for belligerents in such wars. It was popular at the time largely because of widespread lingering feelings among Americans that the World War I adventure had been ill-conceived. Whatever Nye’s contemporaries may have thought of his legislation or the thinking behind it, no one could doubt that this driven politician intended to wield all the power that the Constitution bestowed upon him as a member of the Senate.

    Consider also Missouri’s Democratic senator Thomas Hart Benton, who served his state and party from 1821 to 1851—and demonstrated throughout those three decades a fierce independence tied to a zest for political pugilism. Although an early political ally of President James K. Polk, Benton balked when Polk sought from Congress authorization for war with Mexico that could include an invasion of the southern neighbor. He maneuvered cleverly in the Senate in opposition to Polk’s interests and threatened to unleash a full-bore opposition campaign, which could have emboldened the Whig opposition and destroyed the president’s war resolution. In the end he came around, but only after his good friend, Francis Blair, warned that opposition to the war could render him a “ruined man.”

    What these men had in common was that they mattered. And they mattered because they were willing to employ as much legislative power as they could muster to influence the big national debate before the country – and thus influence the course of events. Such politicians have nearly always emerged whenever the big guns of the American military began to roar in earnest.

    Until recently. Now we have a president who declares in word and deed that war decisions, as artificially defined by him as something short of actual war, are exclusively within his constitutional domain. And we have a Congress that shows no serious inclination to challenge that claim of prerogative and power. This is a very serious – and potentially calamitous – development in American history.

    This is not to say that men such as Fulbright, Nye and Benton – and many more who followed their path – were entirely correct in their view of foreign policy and the war decisions of their time. But they served the highly valuable purpose of ensuring that matters of war and peace would get serious attention, generate robust debate, and thus enlighten the American people about the geopolitical stakes involved. That’s what’s missing today.

    In fairness, there have been some expressions of discomfort coming from Congress. Washington’s Democratic Rep. Adam Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said that, while he’s still waiting to see what the administration has to say about a potential strike, he is “concerned” about how effective such an action could be and “worried” that it could draw the United States into a wider Mideast war. And House Speaker John Boehner, the Ohio Republican, sent a letter to Obama that seemed to be designed as a shot across the president’s bow. He asked for a “clear, unambiguous explanation of how military action—which is a means, not a policy—will secure U.S. objectives and how it fits into your overall policy.” Separately, 116 House members—ninety-eight Republicans and eighteen Democrats—sent a letter to Obama saying he shouldn’t attack Syria’s government forces without congressional approval.

    But these are largely pro forma expressions and actions, not efforts to force these crucial war-and-peace issues into the cauldron of unavoidable congressional consideration. The Fulbright and Nye hearings forced every member of Congress to take a stand, one way or the other, on the matter at hand. Benton threatened not merely to oppose his president in expression but to muster sufficient opposition to defeat the man in his most frightful hour of need.

    If Boehner really wanted to give Obama pause in his push toward another military action in the Middle East, he would foster a resolution declaring a sense of the chamber that the president of the United States must get congressional approval for any such action. He would then bring that resolution to the floor, forcing a real congressional debate (of the kind that that tired institution rarely sees these days) that would rivet the American people and place upon members the onus of actually taking a stand—not just on the matter of presidential prerogative but on the policy itself.

    Now that would be an approach worthy of the American political tradition. But no one should bet the 401K fund that that will actually unfold as Washington slouches toward another overseas action that has no real strategic significance, has very little pretense of any strategic significance, and is designed primarily to teach a lesson to a once-proud national leader whose country lies in tatters, whose life is in peril, and whose standing in history has been reduced to that of a monster. History has dealt Bashar al-Assad far more devastating lessons than Barack Obama or his country could ever administer. Meanwhile, the strategic ramifications of U.S. military strikes against Syrian targets cry out for serious deliberation and analysis. Will such deliberation and analysis emerge? Not bloody likely.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 12:45 pm

  8. Administrator says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 12:47 pm

  9. ecliptix543 says:

    I’ve spent most of the past two weeks out there amongst the Murican Proletariat. I have found only two general groups of people that still appear to be happy about the state of affairs: FSA numbnuts and the Chinese families that run the strip mall takeout places. Another war, any war, means that FSA benefits are safe in perpetuity, as cover will have been provided to continue the relentless printing of bribes. A war involving Russia and China lined up against the US (which we WILL lose, horribly) means that those Chinese peeps are thinking they’re about to be running this place once our tin-horn tyrann-economy is demolished. They are looking forward to having us slave away in their factories for pennies a day.

    The fundamental difference between our gov’t dickheads and their gov’t dickheads is the difference in attention span. We make many jokes here about the terminal epidemic of adult ADD and if it were simply a matter of random millions of Muricans being retarded simpletons, we’d be fine. But it isn’t. It’s the whole fucking thing, top to bottom. Our adversaries have the long view and we, the short and narrow. Of course Russia and China have millions of dipshit peasants just as we do, but they tend not to let them rise very far into the halls of power. We actively seek out the unqualified for positions of influence.

    Unfortunately, we have decided that it is better to be entertained by an endless parade of amusing idiots in charge of nuclear weapons than it is to be bored by actual competency in our leadership. If it were not this way, we’d have had a figure along the lines of a Ron Paul in control of the executive and Carlos Danger (a.k.a. Anthony Wiener) wouldn’t still think he had a chance at any elected office.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 1:44 pm

  10. cahuitabeachbound says:

    It looks like Barry just backed down.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 1:57 pm

  11. cahuitabeachbound says:

    Obama just made an absolute ass out of himself. He looks soooo weak. Putin must be laughing right now. Good for Vlad.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

    31st August 2013 at 2:04 pm

  12. cahuitabeachbound says:

    The incoherence of our Mid East foreign policy has just been shown in full glory. I can’t wait for the next Charles Krauthammer critique on FOX. Although I agree Krathammer is a pro Israel neocon(Being a Jew do you blame him) he does dish up a dry criticism.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 2:11 pm

  13. cahuitabeachbound says:

    Holy shit! Charles just came on.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 2:12 pm

  14. Hollow man says:

    It is their business. Let them kill each other and sort it out.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 2:17 pm

  15. Administrator says:

    I consider this a victory for the truth telling alternate media. The MSM mouthpieces attempted to rally the masses with propaganda and lies. It didn’t work. The lowlifes in Congress have been hiding under the bed. Only sites like ZH, Mish, Denninger and TBP have been providing the outrage with invading a sovereign country that poses no threat to the U.S. with no declaration of war as required by the Constitution. Obama has backed down. Now he is praying that the snakes in Congress will bail him out, like Parliament bailed Cameron out.

    This is a small victory for the good guys.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 2:18 pm

  16. AKAnon says:

    Great thread-thanks Admin.

    Ecliptix; +1, well said.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 2:48 pm

  17. Hope@ZeroKelvin says:

    Stunning, just stunning. With this “speech”, Obama has, in one stroke, thrown under the bus Kerry, the French, his own rhetoric of 3 days ago, the image of America as a superpower and his own foreign policy (=mindless blundering about the world).

    The enemies of America must be looking at this display of utter weakness and fecklessness and plotting some evil deeds as we speak. The world just became a much more dangerous place.

    No, I am not saying we should go bomb Syria. What I am saying is that when a president draws “red lines” and engages in this kind of rhetoric, he had damn well better be fucking sure what he is talking about, make the case, build the support and then fucking do it.

    Better Obama hadn’t opened his big mouth LAST year with his red line crap, he might as well have said “double dare” you to the Syrians, or whomever used that gas. Which is STILL to be determined.

    By punting back to congress, which Ovomit DID NOT DO in Libya, when congress inevitably votes NO, Obama can just paint the Republicans as evil and heartless monsters by not “responding” to these (still unclear) chemical attacks.

    This will give Obama some leverage in the upcoming debt negotiations.

    This speech should go down in history as the most craven, cynical and utterly hypocritical attempts at political maneuvering, EVER.

    Oh, and right after the speech, Ovomit is off to the golf course.

    Which makes me wonder how fucking serious, how affected he REALLY is about all those dead and gassed children.

    What a fucking pansy mom-jean wearing douchnozzle fuckwit POS.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 3:21 pm

  18. ecliptix543 says:

    Hope sez: “What a fucking pansy mom-jean wearing douchenozzle fuckwit POS.”

    That’s my favorite quote so far today.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 3:38 pm

  19. JIMSKI says:

    The idea that secondary media sources somehow derailed the syrian war is a weak argument. The fact is that no one gives a fuck. The guys with the microphones only care because it is thier guy. The other side would totally be on board if it was thier guy.

    Thank god for duck dynasty and preseason football. If there had been nothing on TV someone might have noticed Syria…………..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    31st August 2013 at 4:42 pm

  20. AKAnon says:

    Stuck-In that second pic, who is speaking-BO or Moochelle?

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 5:26 pm

  21. Administrator says:

    Hope

    We’re going to need an entire building in the TBP hall of fame for your rants.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 5:47 pm

  22. sensetti says:

    Obama backed down
    Thank the Lawd!!!!

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 6:12 pm

  23. Frenchie says:

    Putin for president, Bashar for prime minister!

    I pray so that Iranians level saudi arabia, bahrein and Qatar…

    fuck the terrorists. as said Putin “we’ll kill them all, even in the shitter if need be”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 6:52 pm

  24. taxSlave says:

    Pussy fuck head panty waist .still-more-on-t.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 7:55 pm

  25. sensetti says:

    AE3C2CEC-F74B-40C2-BD18-3F4FF649469A-2796-0000042AAE89A3AC_zpsbe27685c.jpg

    BLINK: Prez Buckles: Puts War on the Back Burner Until Congress Reconvenes on September 9
    Mac Slavo – August 31st, 2013159 Comments, Join in »
    With an issue so pressing that it threatens the security of the United States, we find it odd that the President is OK with waiting for Congress to come back in session for a vote on Syria…

    https://www.shtfplan.com/

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 8:02 pm

  26. Administrator says:

    BLINK: Prez Buckles: Puts War on the Back Burner Until Congress Reconvenes on September 9

    Mac Slavo
    August 31st, 2013
    SHTFplan.com

    President Barack Obama has back-peddled on threats to strike Syria in response to a chemical attack reportedly initiated by Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad which killed hundreds of men, women and children last week.

    In a speech this afternoon the President called for a vote in Congress to authorize war, but reserved the right to act without Congressional approval.

    Obama says he has the authority to act on his own, but believes it is important for the country to have a debate.

    Perhaps he hasn’t been paying attention, because fully 90% of Americans polled earlier this week were against any interference in Syria.

    As noted in a previous report, the only reason for why Obama would refrain from striking Syria at this time would likely come as a result of Russia’s Vladimir Putin threatening large-scale retaliation. It seems this is exactly what may have taken place amid widespread reports that Russia was mobilizing forces in the region and that they would respond by striking targets in Saudi Arabia if the U.S. commenced their attack.

    The last straw may have been Chinese and Russian officials walking out of a UN Security Council meeting in which Britain and the U.S. attempted to garner support for the strike.

    By all indications, President Obama seems to have just gotten the geo-political crap kicked out of him.

    “I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.”

    “For the last several days, we’ve heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they’ve agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session. In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America’s national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.”

    With an issue so pressing that it threatens the security of the United States and the world, we find it odd that the President is OK with waiting for Congress to come back in session for a vote on Syria.

    If Assad’s actions in Syria have “profound implications for America’s national security” shouldn’t the President be calling for an emergency Congressional vote in the next 24 hours? Or would it be too much of an inconvenience for our Senators and Representatives who are on vacation right now?

    According to Congressional schedules, Congress will not reconvene again until September 9th.

    However, Obama did note that he can push the button anytime he feels like it, despite a Constitutional mandate that only the U.S. Congress can declare war:

    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.”

    The American people have already spoken. If you were paying attention, Mr. President, you would have heard us.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 8:26 pm

  27. Sensetti says:

    A5EF85B6-2D62-4C88-BE41-99831032379C-2796-0000043835BD4457_zps9c0d3e4c.jpg

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

    31st August 2013 at 8:38 pm

Leave a comment

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.