'But it was a good
speech.'
- libfreeordie on September 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM
Why
am I not surprised that you find an incoherent and inconsistent speech ‘good’?
Old & Busted:
‘The world owes me a debt
of gratitude for preventing Assad from using nuclear weapons.’
- Obama, speech
New Hotness:
‘The Syrian military
couldn’t harm us. It doesn’t have the capability.’
- Obama, same speech
Got
that?
‘You should thank me for
preventing Assad from using nuclear weapons that he doesn’t have and whose
ability to produce them was taken out by the Israelis, but, don’t forget, the
Syrian military couldn’t harm us anyway.’
- What President Obama said – DISTILLED
I
know, I know! You thought it was ‘good’ because he didn’t spend the entire 15
minutes stuttering with ‘ers,’ ‘ums,’ and ‘uhs' and...
‘I wuvs me my SCoaMF
soooooo much!’
- liveenslavedthendie
As
Slate wrote:
'If your foreign policy
has to be rescued by a dictator, you are doing it wrong. That’s where President
Obama finds himself today. Putin is providing Obama an out he couldn’t find for
himself.'
*******
'He made a compelling
case for the importance of enforcing international treaties with military
action.'
-
libfreeordie on September 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM
Syria
is not a signatory to the chemical weapons ban treaty. That’s why he keeps
referring to ‘international NORMS‘
rather than ‘international LAW.’
Obama’s ‘This-Is-How-I-Really-Feel’ Old & Busted:
‘MY
military.’
Obama’s
Convenient New Hotness:
‘OUR military.’
******
‘We cannot just turn
away…’
Why
not? We do it every day.
We
do it in the Sudan, Rwanda, the Congo, etc. When asked about the genocide
being waged by the Islamist group, Boko Haram, against Christians in Nigeria on
his recent trip to Africa, Obama blamed the Christian government.
When
Obama starts speaking out against the oppression, torture, rape, and slaughter
of Christians in the Middle East and Africa, then I’ll start listening to him
with regard to the deaths of 400 children.
Outside the denominational media, two
individuals have done more than anyone else to cover this phenomenon: Paul
Marshall (of the Hudson Institute) and Brian Grim (of the Pew Research Center).
All the data I have seen indicate that Christians are at present the most
persecuted religious group world-wide. Grim recently testified about this
before the European Parliament: He stated that Christians are directly harassed
by governments in 102 countries and by “social actors” (read lynch mobs) in 101
countries. There has also been decent coverage by the United States Commission
on International Religious Freedom, the independent agency set up with
government funding, in addition to the bureau within the State Department that
reports on religious freedom worldwide every year.
In its 2013 report the Commission has a
list of 8 countries (which include China) designated “countries of particular
concern” (CPCs, who are reported as such to the President and the Congress, for
possible US government actions). The 2013
list includes 3 Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. There
is an additional list of countries heading toward CPC status, including 4
Muslim-majority or heavily Muslim countries: Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria (its northen
part), and Pakistan. It is fair to conclude that Christians have
most to be afraid of from actions by Muslims, be it by courts, government
policies, or by mobs of enraged Muslims encouraged by police inaction.
Obama’s ‘Work with your oppressors, torturers, rapists, and murderers’
Old & Busted:
Obama’s New Hotness:
‘We cannot just turn away
from children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor.’
- President Obama, 10 September 2013
Now,
if those Syrian children had been survivors of late-term abortions, letting
them writhe in pain and go still in a cold hospital linen closet wouldn’t be a
problem for Obama.
Also,
I just LOVED the lies
like this one (paraphrased):
‘Unlike George W Bush, I
am actually deigning to seek the authorisation for military force from Congress
and the United Nations.’
Unlike
Barack Obama, Bush DID
go to the United Nations and obtained 6 resolutions, which were added to 14
previous resolutions passed during the Bush I and Clinton administrations.
The
Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed the House
420-1-10 and the Senate by a 98-0-2 margin and was signed into law on 18
September 2001.
The
Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution passed the
House 297-133-3 and the Senate by a 77-23 margin and was signed into law on 16
October 2002.
Obama is a despicable liar.
******
'Obama’s plea to the
right to remove the blinders fell on deaf ears. The American right has now
officially come out as Assad supporters.'
- verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM
Nah,
READ ~>
46
reasons.
The Left’s Old & Busted:
‘How DARE you
question my patriotism and accuse me of siding with terrorists!’
The Left’s New Hotness:
‘The American right has
now officially come out as Assad supporters.'
- verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM
******
'...As dedicated as they
are to opposing whatever Obama might support, in this case their desperation to
rationalize that position has them parroting b.s. Russian propaganda that Assad
didn’t use these weapons. (At least they’re not still doubting he has them
– but only because Assad only now admits that.)'
- verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM
Desperation?
The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of
Americans oppose Obama's Syrian Folly.
Assad
has NOT admitted using
chemical weapons on ANYONE.
Associated
Press destroyed Obama's claims in his speech about 'we KNOW that Assad used chemical
weapons.' We know nothing of the sort. We know that there is
conflicting information from the Germans, as well as others. We KNOW that even stalwart Democrats have
said that they are unconvinced by the evidence and Congressman Alan Grayson has
accused the Administration of 'manipulating the evidence' to bolster support
for Syrian strikes.
'Military power is most
definitely required.'
- verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:18 PM
It
would also be illegal under American and international law.
Remember
when you screamed about ‘illegal’ wars?
'The president does not
have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorise a military attack
in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to
the nation.'
- Senator Barack Obama, The Boston Globe,
20 December 2007
From
Declaring War Is One Power
That The President Absolutely Does Not Have, let’s look at
what the War Powers Resolution Act actually says with regard to its
purpose and policy:
(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to
fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and
insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will
apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces INTO HOSTILITIES, OR INTO SITUATIONS WHERE IMMINENT
INVOLVEMENT IN HOSTILITIES IS CLEARLY INDICATED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES,
and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Congressional legislative power
under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the
Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the
power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not
only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.
(c) Presidential
executive power as Commander-in-Chief; LIMITATION
The constitutional powers of the
President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent
involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to:
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization,
or
(3) a national emergency created by
attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed
forces.
Has
Syria declared war on the United States?
No,
but AQ has and it is part of the ‘rebels’ of whom we are asked to arm and
assist.
Is
there yet any specific statutory authorisation for airstrikes on Syria?
Not
yet.
Has
a national emergency been created by an attack from Syria upon the United
States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces?
Nope.
And,
from the international standpoint, even Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the
United Nations, has warned that a strike against Syria without a mandate from the UN
Security Council would be illegal. His Special Envoy
on Syria stated:
'Syria is in very, very
serious trouble, and we have been asked from time to time, ‘What about use of
force by members of the international community? We say what
international law says. And international law says that no country is allowed
to take the law into their hands; they have to go to the Security Council.'
- Lakhdar Brahimi, United Nations Special Envoy on Syria
So,
yeah, Americans are perfectly sane to wonder if some insanity is running
through the administration. You taught them well during your years
of screaming 'Bush's illegal wars!'
Ever
consider that, perchance, Democrats like Obama are Victims of Their Own Success?
'Worth noting a contrast
can only be drawn by equating a full scale ground invasion with a limited missile
strike. Which for me means there is no comparison.'
- verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM
‘Cuz,
like, um, ya know, Libya has turned out so well.
Why
don’t you ask Vietnam veterans about best laid plans and ‘good intentions’?
‘We are not about to send
American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought
to be doing for themselves.’
- President Lyndon Baines Johnson, October 1964
President
Eisenhower recognised the problems with ‘limited airstrikes’:
‘Employment of airstrikes
alone…would create a double jeopardy: IT WOULD COMPRISE AN ACT OF WAR AND
WOULD ALSO ENTAIL THE RISK OF HAVING INTERVENED AND LOST.’
– Pres Eisenhower on intervening in Vietnam on behalf of
France
******
'If anything, Obama’s
speech was pretty clear as to what the objective was.'
- verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:06 PM
And,
what would that be? Two years ago, he said 'Assad must go!' One
year ago, he drew a red line. Ten days ago, after knowing of several uses
of chemical weapons in Syria and looking the other way, he said that Assad MUST be punished. And, on Monday,
his National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, wrote this:
'Our overarching goal is
to end the underlying conflict through a negotiated, political transition in
which Assad leaves power.'
- Susan Rice – 9 Sep 2013, 1:27 PM
So,
what happens after Assad leaves power? What happens to his WMD? Are
you willing to put 75,000 troops on the ground
to protect them, which is the estimate from the Pentagon?
'Is your position is that
because they are in the middle of a civil war, Assad should be allowed to gas
civilians with impunity?'
- verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:06 PM
My
position has ALWAYS
been: The United States should stay
out of civil wars.
Further:
Sarin
gas = WMD
al-Qaeda
= WMD
BTW,
the Syrian rebels have admitted to using chemical weapons.
'Why didn’t you just
include – Fear = WMD? So if AQ is a factor…we’re supposed to shrivel up?'
- verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 1:38 PM
No,
instead, we should use arm, aid, and assist them by targeting Assad with
‘incredibly small’ airstrikes. /
You
know. Like these guys:
And,
these...
‘Israel is an enemy
country. I say this loud and clear. It occupies Syrian lands. The FSA will not
change its position regarding that country before it withdraws from the Syrian
lands, and recognizes the legitimate rights of the Arab Palestinian people.’
- Brigadier General Salim Idris, Chief of Staff of the US-backed
Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army
*
Abu Osama al Tunisi, the Commander of the Syrian Free Army, pledged allegiance
to and said that SFA members were joining al Qaeda; and,
*
Colonel Abdul Jabbar al-Okaidi, the head of the United States-backed
opposition’s Syrian Free Army, appeared in a video alongside Abu Jandal, a
leader of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State in Iraq and Syria; and,
*
4 out of 5 Syrian Free Army commanders have demanded that they be able to work
with al Qaeda; and,
*
Syrian rebels have admitted (and the UN has agreed) that they have used
chemical weapons; and,
*
The rebels are into cannibalism and beheadings; and,
*
The ‘moderate’ rebels have attacked the predominantly Christian village of
Ma’aloula, which is home to some of the most ancient Orthodox Christian relics,
a major pilgrimage destination, and is on the UNESCO list of tentative world
heritage sites – all of which has caused the community of Trappistine nuns to condemn
Obama for his silence on the atrocities being committed upon Christians
‘despite all justice, all common sense, all mercy, all humility, all wisdom;’
and,
*
They have been committing documented atrocities all over Syria.
Those
would be the same ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels that idiots like Obama, Kerry, and
McCain want us to aid, assist, and arm.
And,
where did they get that idea? From this woman:
Elizabeth
O’Bagy, the advisor to Kerry, and McCain on the Syrian rebels, HAS BEEN FIRED from the Institute For
The Study of War FOR FALSELY CLAIMING THAT
SHE HAS A PhD!!!
‘But,
we can tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys those
with legitimate credentials and those that are lying their asses off.’
- President Bam, Secretary of State Lurch and Senator Insane
McVain
Kerry
and McVain told us to read her WSJ op-ed to assauge any
concerns we had about the 'moderate' Syrian rebels and listen to what she has
to say because:
'She probably knows more
about the Syrian rebels than anyone and she will tell you that there are far
more 'moderates' than those associated with al-Nusra and al-Qaeda even though
she is a paid consultant for a Syrian rebel advocacy group.'
Her major reports on the Syrian opposition include: 'The Free Syrian Army, Jihad in Syria, and Syria’s Political Opposition.'
From Politico's article: 'O’Bagy’s Aug. 30 op-ed piece for the Journal,
“On the Front Lines of Syria’s Civil War,” was cited by both Kerry and McCain
last week. McCain read from the piece last Tuesday to Kerry, calling it “an
important op-ed by Dr. Elizabeth O’Bagy.” The next day, Kerry also brought up
the piece before a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing and described it as
a “very interesting article” and recommended that members read it.'
Obama,
Kerry, and McVain have been low-balling the percentage of Islamists among the
rebels and telling us that we have nothing which about to worry, but we are
supposed to overlook that, arm them, help them, dismiss any concerns that we
might have as to what becomes of Syria after Assad, and NOT ask:
'Why are we being asked
to aid our enemy?'
*******
'And so to my friends on
the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with
a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.'
- President Barack Obama, 10 September 2013
Saving
your face is not a just cause nor is aiding Islamists nor is intervening in a
bloody civil war with an 'incredibly small' effort nor is claiming that we are
for intervening everywhere, especially where there is no national security
interest.
http://tinyurl.com/p2alw8m
1 comment:
Some of the things I agreed with in his speech:
‘OUR military.’
‘We should exhaust diplomatic channels.’
‘Americans are concerned about the Syrian rebels.’
‘We shouldn’t be the world’s policeman.’
‘Americans are against this intervention.’
I also sort of agreed with this:
‘I’ve asked Congress to delay a vote.’
While I’d love to see Congress wipe the smug, dismissive, and arrogant look off of his face, a historic loss could send mixed signals to the world.
Post a Comment