Predictable History, Unpredictable Past: Behold Baffling 'Brilliance': Bammy on Bashir

25 September 2014

Behold Baffling 'Brilliance': Bammy on Bashir

On Tuesday (at a fundraiser, of course), President Barack H Obama said:

'So what we’ve seen is American leadership at its best.'

If the below is any indication of what he considers American leadership at its best, then I'd hate to see what he considers to be an unmitigated clusterfuck...

12 November 2008: President-elect Obama sends delegation to meet with 'reformer', Bashir al Assad.

14 June 2009: Obama sends his Middle East special envoy, George Mitchell, to Damascus to set about 'breaking the diplomatic cold that (has) prevailed between the two countries since 2005.'

February 2010: On President Obama's behalf, Senator John Kerry visits his 'dear friend', Bashir al Assad, and says:

'Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States.'

April 2010: Obama sends his 'envoy', Kerry, to again meet with al Assad. Kerry says:

'Syria can play a critical role in bringing peace and stability if it makes the strategic decision to do so.'

October 2010: Senator Kerry, with Obama's approval, meets with the Emir of Qatar and says:

'Assad is a man who ‘wants to change’ and that Israel should cede the Golan Heights to the Syrians ‘at some point.’'

27 March 2011: Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, says:

'There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.' (3 Pinocchios from WaPo)

19 May 2011: Obama says:

'Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime –- including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him. The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests. It must release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests. It must allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and will continue to be isolated abroad.'

18 August 2011: Obama says:

'The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. His calls for dialogue and reform have rung hollow while he is imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people. We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.'

17 February 2012: Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, says:

'I think it's premature to take a decision to arm the opposition movement in Syria, because I would challenge anyone to clearly identify for me the opposition movement in Syria at this point.'

26 February 2012: Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, says:

'First of all, we really don't know who it is that would be armed. This is not Libya, where you had a base of operations in Benghazi, where you have people who were representing the entire opposition to Libya. You could get your arms around what it is you were being asked to do and with whom. We don't have any clarity on that.Well, first of all, what are we going to arm them with, and against what? You're not going to bring tanks over the borders of Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan. That's not gonna happen. So maybe at the best, you can smuggle in... automatic weapons. Where do you go? And to whom are you delivering them? We know that al-Qaeda, Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al-Qaeda in Syria? Hamas is now supporting the opposition. Are we supporting Hamas in Syria? So I think, you know, despite the great pleas that we hear from those people who are being ruthlessly assaulted by Assad, if you're a military planner or if you're a Secretary of State, and you're trying to figure out do you have the elements of an opposition that is actually viable, we don't see that.'

20 August 2012: Obama says:

'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. That would change my equation.'

3 December 2012: Obama says:

'I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command -- the world is watching. The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable.'

12 February 2013: 'Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reveale publicly for the first time at a Senate hearing that they supported the proposal (to arm Syrian rebels) last year by senior officials including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA director David Petraeus.'

30 April 2013: Obama says:

'Well, first of all, on Syria, I think it’s important to understand that for several years now what we've been seeing is a slowly unfolding disaster for the Syrian people. And this is not a situation in which we've been simply bystanders to what’s been happening. My policy from the beginning has been that President Assad had lost credibility, that he attacked his own people, has killed his own people, unleashed a military against innocent civilians, and that the only way to bring stability and peace to Syria is going to be for Assad to step down and to move forward on a political transition. In pursuit of that strategy we've organized the international community.

We are the largest humanitarian donor. We have worked to strengthen the opposition. We have provided nonlethal assistance to the opposition. We have applied sanctions on Syria. So there are a whole host of steps that we've been taking precisely because, even separate from the chemical weapons issue, what’s happening in Syria is a blemish on the international community generally, and we've got to make sure that we're doing everything we can to protect the Syrian people.

In that context, what I've also said is that the use of chemical weapons would be a game-changer not simply for the United States but for the international community. And the reason for that is that we have established international law and international norms that say when you use these kinds of weapons you have the potential of killing massive numbers of people in the most inhumane way possible, and the proliferation risks are so significant that we don't want that genie out of the bottle.

So when I said that the use of chemical weapons would be a game-changer, that wasn’t unique to -- that wasn’t a position unique to the United States and it shouldn’t have been a surprise.

And what we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don't know how they were used, when they were used, who used them. We don't have a chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened. And when I am making decisions about America’s national security and the potential for taking additional action in response to chemical weapon use, I've got to make sure I've got the facts. That's what the American people would expect.

And if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in a position where we can't mobilize the international community to support what we do. There may be objections even among some people in the region who are sympathetic with the opposition if we take action. So it’s important for us to do this in a prudent way.

And what I've said to my team is we've got to do everything we can to investigate and establish with some certainty what exactly has happened in Syria, what is happening in Syria. We will use all the assets and resources that we have at our disposal. We'll work with the neighboring countries to see whether we can establish a clear baseline of facts. And we've also called on the United Nations to investigate.

But the important point I want to make here is that we already are deeply engaged in trying to bring about a solution in Syria. It is a difficult problem. But even if chemical weapons were not being used in Syria, we’d still be thinking about tens of thousands of people, innocent civilians -- women, children -- who’ve been killed by a regime that’s more concerned about staying in power than it is about the well-being of its people. And so we are already deeply invested in trying to find a solution here.

What is true, though, is, is that if I can establish in a way that not only the United States but also the international community feel confident is the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, then that is a game-changer because what that portends is potentially even more devastating attacks on civilians, and it raises the strong possibility that those chemical weapons can fall into the wrong hands and get disseminated in ways that would threaten U.S. security or the security of our allies.

...

By game-changer I mean that we would have to rethink the range of options that are available to us.

Now, we’re already, as I’ve said, invested in trying to bring about a solution inside of Syria. Obviously, there are options that are available to me that are on the shelf right now that we have not deployed. And that’s a spectrum of options. As early as last year, I asked the Pentagon, our military, our intelligence officials to prepare for me what options might be available. And I won’t go into the details of what those options might be, but clearly that would be an escalation, in our view, of the threat to the security of the international community, our allies, and the United States, and that means that there are some options that we might not otherwise exercise that we would strongly consider.'

20 August 2013: Obama says:

'I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people. 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. That would change my equation.'

21 August 2013: Obama Deputy Spox, Josh Earnest, says:

'As you have heard us say over the course of the last year and half or two years, that each of these circumstances is a little bit different, and it's important that we have a unique method and set of policies to deal with each discrete situation. So as the President said yesterday in terms of Syria, we're watching very closely the stockpile of Syrian chemical weapons; that any use or proliferation efforts related to those chemical weapons is something that would be very serious and it would be a grave mistake. There are important international obligations that the Syrian regime must live up to in terms of the handling of their chemical weapons. And the officials who have that responsibility will be held accountable for their actions and will be held accountable for living up to those international obligations.'

27 August 2013: Obama's Spox, Clown Carney, says:

'I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change. They are about responding to a clear violation of international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons. It is not our policy position to respond to this through regime change. We will take an appropriate response, and the president and his team are evaluating the options to them. And the president will make an assessment and an announcement in due time...there isn't any doubt (that chemical weapons were use on a)... significant scale' (establishing Syria's transgression). Broadly speaking, I think it's important to note that it's in the clear national security interests of the United States that the use and proliferation of chemical weapons on this scale not go unanswered.'

28 August 2013: Obama says:

'We have looked at all the evidence, and we do not believe the opposition possessed nuclear weapons on – or chemical weapons of that sort. We do not believe that, given the delivery systems, using rockets, that the opposition could have carried out these attacks. We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences.

We're consulting with the international community. And you know, I have no interest in any kind of open-ended conflict in Syria, but we do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable.

Again, I have not made a decision, but I think it's important that if, in fact, we make a choice to have repercussions for the use of chemical weapons, then the Assad regime, which is involved in a civil war, trying to protect itself, will have received a pretty strong signal, that in fact, it better not do it again. And that doesn't solve all the problems inside of Syria, and, you know, it doesn't, obviously end the death of innocent civilians inside of Syria.'

31 August 2013: Obama declares:

'Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.

Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see -- hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children -- young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.

This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets...(the Pentagon is) prepared to strike whenever we choose (but the formal decision is) not time-sensitive (and could come) tomorrow, or next week or one month from now.'

4 September 2013: Obama says:

'I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.'

20 January 2014: Obama 'flippantly' declares:

'The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.'

28 May 2014: Obama says:

'In helping those who fight for the right of all Syrians to choose their own future, we also push back against the growing number of extremists who find safe haven in the chaos...(As a result, I'm) calling on Congress to support a new Counter-Terrorism Partnerships Fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity, and facilitate partner countries on the front lines from Yemen to Libya to Syria to Mali.'

20 June 2014: Obama opines:

'I think this notion that somehow there was this ready-made moderate Syrian force that was able to defeat [Syrian President Bashar] Assad is simply not true, and, you know, we have spent a lot of time trying to work with a moderate opposition in Syria. When you get farmers dentists and folks who have never fought before going up against a ruthless opposition in Assad, the notion that they were in a position to suddenly overturn not only Assad but also ruthless, highly trained jihadists, if we just sent a few arms is a fantasy. And I think it's very important for the American people - but maybe more importantly, Washington and the press corps - to understand that.'

26 June 2014: Obama's National Security Council Spox, Caitlin Hayden, says:

'While we continue to believe that there is no military solution to this crisis and that the United States should not put American troops into combat in Syria, this request marks another step toward helping the Syrian people defend themselves against regime attacks.'

11 July 2014: Obama supports 'compromise' with Bashir al Assad concerning his stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons factories.

8 August 2014: Obama tells Thomas Friedman of The New York Times:

'This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.'

18 August 2014: Obama says:

'Today we mark an important achievement in our ongoing effort to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction by eliminating Syria’s declared chemical weapons stockpile. The most lethal declared chemical weapons possessed by the Syrian regime were destroyed by dedicated US civilian and military professionals…. (This) advances our collective goal to ensure that the Assad regime cannot use its chemical arsenal against the Syrian people and sends a clear message that the use of these abhorrent weapons has consequences and will not be tolerated by the international community.'

4 September 2014: Obama's administration expresses 'surprise' and 'concern' that Bashir al Assad 'hid some of its chemical arsenal and weapons manufacturing facilities from inspectors.'

http://imgick.cleveland.com/home/cleve-media/width620/img/darcy/photo/15758728-large.jpg

4 September 2014: Obama baffles them with his 'brilliance':

'I don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a strategy yet. We need to make sure that we've got clear plans, that we're developing them. At that point, I will consult with Congress and make sure that their voices are heard. But there's no point in me asking for action on the part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done.'

10 September 2014: Obama says:

'Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, Isil through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy...I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against Isil in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven. In the fight against Isil, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like Isil, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.

ISIL is not 'Islamic.' No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state; it was formerly al Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria's civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government nor by the people it subjugates...ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple, and it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.'

10 September 2014: Obama's former Special Adviser on Syria, Frederic Hof, says:

'The case is compelling that had we taken a different course two years ago we’d be in a much better situation right now than what we face.'

11 September 2014: Obama's Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, says:

'(The President wants) to wage war only against ISIS, not the regime in Damascus. What the president is focused on right now, and the authorization that he feels he has under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, is to take the steps that are necessary to prevent ISIL from establishing a safe haven in Syria, and succeed in degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL.'

14 September 2014: Obama's Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, says:

'If it’s not the Syrian opposition, trained and equipped by the United States, authorized by Congress and the president … then it’ll have to be U.S. troops...The president made a decision on that. We’re not going to do that.'

16 September 2014: Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin Dempsey, tells the Senate:

'To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets (i.e., put boots on the ground), I will recommend that to the president.'

17 September 2014: 'The Obama administration, working through the Russian government, has secured an agreement from the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad to permit U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State targets in parts of Syria, according to a source briefed on the secret arrangements...In essence, that appears to be what is happening behind the scenes in Syria despite the hostility between the Obama administration and the Assad government. Obama has called for the removal of Assad but the two leaders find themselves on the same side in the fight against the Islamic State terrorists who have battled Assad’s forces while also attacking the U.S.-supported Iraqi government and beheading two American journalists...Yet, this secret collaboration may go even further and include Syrian government assistance in the targeting of the U.S. attacks, according to the source who spoke on condition of anonymity. That is another feature of U.S. military protocol in conducting air strikes – to have some on-the-ground help in pinpointing the attacks.'

23 September 2014: Obama's deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes, said:

'(U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power has) in recent days (notified her Syrian counterpart) of the fact that we would take direct action (but did not) provide them advance notice of the timing or of targets that the U.S. was going to strike.'

23 September 2014: Obama announces;

'Last night, on my orders, America’s armed forces began strikes against ISIL targets in Syria...Earlier this month, I outlined for the American people our strategy to confront the threat posed by the terrorist group known as ISIL. I made clear that as part of this campaign the United States would take action against targets in both Iraq and Syria so that these terrorists can't find safe haven anywhere...Meanwhile, we will move forward with our plans, supported by bipartisan majorities in Congress, to ramp up our effort to train and equip the Syrian opposition.'

23 September 2014: Col Ralph Peters (Ret) observes:

'Now, we went in the middle of the night because that way the buildings were empty and President Obama didn’t want to hurt any terrorists. In the middle of the night you blow out windows, you knock down antennas. The right time to hit, if you wanted to hurt the Islamic State terrorist militants would have been 10 or 11 in the morning...These strikes last night were designed to limit terrorist casualties. These were not serious, manful strikes...If you wanted to kill terrorists, you would have hit those headquarters and compounds and logistics sites at 10 or 11 in the morning, when they were crowded with leaders, staff officers, flunkies, etc. Instead, we hit empty buildings at night. We knocked down antennas; we blew out windows. That is not the way to defeat terrorists who behead Americans...(You don't) wage war by measuring it out in teaspoons.'

24 September 2014: Bashar Ja'afari, Syria's ambassador to the United Nations, warned:

'(The United States had better not to repeat the) fiasco in Iraq by undertaking the same kind of blind military attacks.'

http://bokbluster.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/140812obamadoctrine.jpg

'you guys CELEBRATED your party refusing to even vote on Obama’s Syria request last year. how pathetically and lethally stupid you guys are.'

- everdiso on September 22, 2014 at 10:46 AM

No, you fucking moron. I opposed striking Syria last year for the exact same reason that I opposed Obama & Hillary’s Libyan misadventure. Removing Qadaffi has led to a failed state with Islamists taking over most of the country (and our Embassy in Tripoli). #SmartPower!!!

Removing Assad last year would have resulted in al-Baghdadi already being in charge in Damascus.

Unlike Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Pelosi and others, I have NEVER thought that Assad was a ‘reformer’ and have ALWAYS considered him a bad dude, but ISIS is far more dangerous to our national security than another brutal dictator in the Middle East.

If you want to see pathetic and lethally stupidity on display, look no further than what is left of the Iraq-Syria border. ‘Rebels’ on the Syrian side were (last year) and are our allies to whom we are supplying munitions and intelligence. When those same ‘rebels’ cross over into Iraq, the Obama administration considers them the bad guys and are going to try to take them out with airstrikes.

You see, according to the Obama administration, whether one is to be classified as a terrorist depends, apparently, on geography, not ideology, not stated intentions, and certainly not actions.

El Piso, if you want to see what 'pathetically and lethally stupid' looks like, take a gander of yourself in the mirror.

But, as you said...

'sit back, relax, and watch how a smart war is won easily, kiddies.

you’ll only make yourselves look sillier by yelling and screaming about it.'

- everdiso on September 23, 2014 at 10:56 AM

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Like Libya?!?!?

Stop it, yer killin’ me!

Like Yemen?!?!?

I think ALL of my ribs are broken!

Like ISIS: ISIS Hasn’t Lost ANY Ground Since Obama Began Airstrikes Six Weeks Ago?!?!?

El Piso, you're going to be seeing that quote of yours thousands of times over the next several years. Enjoy!

Related Reading (back when we were going to bomb Syria because of Assad, not the 'rebels'):

Pic of the Day: President Obama, Please Explain Why We Are Arming People Who Do This...

Obama's Speech: Pontifications On A Political Pratfall

Syria, 'Red-Lines,' and Obama's Feckless Foreign Policy

Postcards From Syria (Photo Essay)

Don't Be Insane: Say 'No' To Arming The Syrian Savages

Dems & Syria: Hawk Nose On; Dove Nose Off

Syrian Rebels Caught With Sarin Gas

Obama And Syria: Britain Has Helped Obama Rediscover The Constitution. No Need To Thank Us, America

The Constitution, the Sour Spot, and the Great Syria Train Wreck

http://tinyurl.com/l49aysh

25 September 2014

Behold Baffling 'Brilliance': Bammy on Bashir

No comments: