Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

11 September 2013

Obama's Speech: Pontifications On A Political Pratfall


'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?


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.


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.

1 comment:

Predictable-History said...

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.