ADVERTISEMENT

The deadly civil war in Syria has captured international attention with the revelation that chemical weapons are being used by the Assad regime currently in power. The United States appears to be moving toward some action on this front.

ADVERTISEMENT

Report from Reuters:

The United States would only take action on Syria in concert with the international community and with legal justification in response to the alleged chemical weapons attacks in Damascus, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Monday.

Hagel, speaking on a trip to Indonesia, declined to discuss U.S. military options under consideration by the White House, or to say whether he thought a military response was likely.

“The United States is looking at all options regarding the situation in Syria. We’re working with our allies and the international community,” Hagel told a news conference in Jakarta.

“We are analyzing the intelligence. And we will get the facts. And if there is any action taken, it will be concert with the international community and within the framework of legal justification.”

Hagel planned to speak with his British and French counterparts about the situation in Syria, a senior U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The timing of those upcoming calls was unclear, the official said.

Is this something the United States should be involved in?

91 COMMENTS

  1. I have a reply to this that should have been considered a long time ago in many other places – MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS!!!! We have enough problems in our own country that are very troubling and also are breaking the bank with budget deficits that stagger the imagination. The Middle East is nothing but a chopping block for our brave men and women coming back with deaths and injuries that also boggle the mind and threaten to destroy the cream of our population crop. All that we have done, starting with Iraq, and Iraq is, in all probability, returning to the same state of unrest that existed there before we sacrificed so many young men and women to death and horrible states of injury. We have to stop trying to be the Policemen of the World!!!!!

    • Herb Johnston — you are 100% correct.

      But since our War Policies (usually referred under the euphemism of “US Foreign Policy”) are determined by what’s best for Israel (not the USA), we’ll have to await and see how they (Netanyahu & AIPAC) rule on this new possible war….

      If they say “Aye” — than Obama starts bombing and runs the risk of getting impeached.

      If they say “Nay” — Obama gets to stay in power for another day.

  2. No we do not have the $ to engage in a Syrian conflict , nor does Obama have approval from Congress to do so . He doesn’t have the authority to make any arrogant decisions to go to war on his own! Unless we are being attacked , I don’t support any military action .

  3. This whole thing is so sickening. The warmongers kept trying to corner Obama last year. Out of frustration, he said, ok, look, if we find that they’re using a WHOLE BUNCH of chemical weapons, we’ll have to re-evaluate. Notice the “whole bunch,” and “re-evaluate,” not act.

    Since then, the media have tried to make his “red line” to be ANY use of chemical weapons, which is NOT what he said.

    And we’re seeing the same thing again. Obama said that the inspection is coming “too late,” and the media are trying to make it sound as if he said, “too little, too late, so we’re going in.” The truth is that he said “too late” meaning it was probably too late to find any residue since the chemicals dissipate and degrade rather quickly.

    No matter what Obama says about Syria, the media are going to twist it into sounding like we need to start yet another war. Whereas, Lori, it’s obvious that Obama is doing everything he can to keep us OUT of Syria. But when you have all the NeoCons running around, waving their arms, and screaming that the sky is falling, all blasted through the media, the public will probably be talked into yet another conflict–without a declaration of war, of course.

    Actually, that’s exactly what Obama should do–DEMAND a declaration of war before using the military at all. In the day of twitter, there is NO reason we can’t go back to the Constitution, and demand that our CONGRESS authorizes any and all wars in the future. If they give him a declaration of war, there is no way around it, but at least we’ll have names of people to defeat in 2014.

  4. Some more for the discussion….

    A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only nine percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

    • Nate: That sounds great, but remember that SEVENTY PERCENT (70%) of the American public was against the war in Iraq until we were committed to it.

      My guess is that there will be a new lie about something in Syria that is so heinous sounding that the public will be neutralized. Meanwhile, France is trying to look like they belong at the “big people’s table,” so they’re hot to send troops anywhere they can. And Britain has always wanted to beat up on people in the Middle East. Not sure why.

      If you listen to McCain and Graham, you’d think it’s our job to police the world–and punish anyone and everyone who doesn’t do exactly as we like.

      When I look at these things, I try to think strategically. In this case, I think it’s clear that Obama wants nothing to do with Syria–but then why is Kerry so vocal about it? I think it’s a good cop/bad cop thing. I think they’re hoping if Kerry talks trash about Syria that people won’t notice that we are not taking military action.

      • I’d agree the President wants little to do with Syria except to use it as a distraction in the media. However, it’s bad diplomacy to draw any line in the sand and then waiver if it might have been crossed. Examining this now, when you set qualifications such as “a bunch,” that is open to interpretation and is very bad language when dealing with issues of foreign policy and whether military intervention is on the table. I’m not sure how to scientifically measure “a bunch” and clearly the media isn’t either.

        The situation the administration is currently in is self-inflicted by a poor choice of words. As an English teacher, I’m sure you’d prefer to not measure things in “bunches.”

        • Nate: I agree that “a whole bunch” is both imprecise and beneath the level of the office. Obama is always trying to sound like “one of us.” (Afraid of sounding “uppity.”)

          But I disagree that he’s using Syria as a subterfuge. I do believe that he wishes it would just “go away.” Today there were reports of ethnic cleansing by the rebels there–and attacks on Christians AND burning down churches by the rebels. So there are no “good guys” in that battle. Also, remember that polls showed that 20% of the people want Assad out, 20% want him to stay. and that leaves 60% (a solid majority) who just want to be left alone, and that’s exactly what we should do–leave them alone.

          I also don’t believe that the problem is “self-inflicted.” It’s media inflicted. Obama was clear that he would NOT get involved in Syria unless there was massive use of chemical weapons. Even so, the jackals are trying to say the “red ilne” was ANY use of chemical weapons, which just ain’t true.

          • But, he said “whole bunch,” not “massive use.” It’s like saying if you “come near” my house versus saying “if you are within 100 feet of my property” I’ll call the cops. What is “near” my house? On the doorstep? In the driveway? On the same street?

            What is a “bunch?” A measure of the amount of chemicals used? A measure of the casualties? A measure of…. ?

            His choice of language created this self-inflicted issue which the media is running with. He probably should have kept quiet and not issued any ultimatums from the beginning. Thus, they wouldn’t be so obliged to make all kinds of contradictory and/or seemingly incongruous statements between Obama and Kerry.

            Here’s the bonus question: How do America’s enemies view this drama as it plays out? Do we care?

            • Nate: Nonsense. I began my last comment by saying I would have preferred a more sophisticated term, but no one who speaks English will see a “whole bunch” as less than A LOT. And no one who is honest will see the current alleged incidents as “a lot.” Whether in terms of volume, casualties, or any other measurement.

              As for your “near” argument, if you HAD said 100 feet, they would be fully justified to stay 101 feet away all day–because you gave them permission. Likewise, if he had said “if they use 10 tons of gas,” they would use 9 tons, and be untouchable. But we do not WANT them to use 9 tons, so he left it vague.

              He did not have the option to “keep quiet.” He was being badgered daily by the warmongers. They demanded an answer. If he had “kept quiet,” THAT would have been the story. “What’s he hiding??”

              And if he was “vague,” how could it be an “ultimatum”?

              As I said elsewhere, I think the Obama/Kerry comments are pure “good cop/bad cop.” They think if they give the media bluster that it will give them something to “report” short of action.

            • Comparing the use of “a bunch” to “a lot” is pretty funny, just in terms of discussion’s sake. I rarely wade this far in but parsing his words is meaningful given the current state of things.

              Here’s a question. Did making any “red line” statement, even a vague one, tempt the regime into testing what a “bunch” might be? How much can we (Assad) get away with? Assad isn’t from Texas (as far as I know) so he might not know what a ” bunch” is.

            • Nate: We have short memories. Again, at that time, the media were all over him, and people like Graham and McCain were ranting that we needed to force the world to do what we wanted. All these people were pushing him to send arms and shoot missiles.

              They were adamant, so if you read his comments in that light, you realize that (a) he could hardly have been less aggressive, and (b) his main concern was the SAFETY of the chemical weapons.

              At that time, it looked like the rebels were going to win easily, and Obama was worried that al Qaeda (who were fighting with the rebels) would get the weapons. He was NOT speaking against Assad, except to the extent that he felt he had to, to quiet the hawks a bit.

              So–no, the point was that the media and the hawks were violently pushing for immediate action, and in that context, the “bunch” meant that the situation would have to be pretty drastic before we’d be sucked into it. And worrying what Assad might think assumes that we SHOULD be policeman of the world.

        • I take it you have not spent much time below the Mason Dixon. Everything is characterized by “bunch”…meaning a large amount. Merriam-Webster Dictionary has a definition for the word. What statement made by President Obama used the term “line in the sand”? That is a media interpretation and very bad language to describe military intervention. (Coming from Texas where that term originated I fully know the meaning behind the phrase). President Obama is an educated man and beyond a doubt knows the definition of the words he selects. However, he has no control on how others choose to interpret and critique those words.

          I did not write this as a defense for President Obama but in defense of truth

          • I concur with you! I’m just pushing this discussion along. I was merely pointing out that once you issue a statement::

            “If you do X, I’ll do Y”.

            You create a line in the sand. X could be anything, maybe it’s very lenient and imprecise but it’s some imaginary line not to be crossed.

            “If you throw a whole bunch of snowballs at me, I’ll start throwing back.”

            In that line, I get to determine how much it will take to reach a whole bunch.

            • Nate: Precisely. Do you not see that you have come around to my side??

              And, as usual, people rely on third and fourth generation “reporting,” like the old “telephone” game. So now, the media are trying to say there’s a “red line” that if we can come up with some chemical excuse, we can go to war (“yippee!!”).

              The truth is that the press conference of August 20, 2012 was really about keeping chemical weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Read the real question and answer:

              CHUCK TODD: Mr. President, could you update us on your latest thinking of where you think things are in Syria, and in particular, whether you envision using U.S. military, if simply for nothing else, the SAFE KEEPING of the chemical weapons, and if you’re confident that the chemical weapons ARE SAFE?

              PRESIDENT: . . .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.

              —–If you read it carefully, Obama is not even talking about use by Assad. He’s talking about worrying that the weapons will fall into the hands of “the wrong people” (ie, al Qaeda,who by the way, are fighting with the rebels).

            • I’m not on a side, just playing devil’s advocate and moderating here.

              Here’s Obama’s words translated to C# logic.

              if (WholeBunchWeapons == Utilized || WholeBunchWeapons == Moved)
              {
              RedLine = Crossed;
              }

              So if they’re moved OR used, the red line is crossed. Am I misinterpreting what he said? He did use the term “red line” with some qualifications for how to cross the line, no?

            • Nate: Well, you’re working really hard at it. From the full quote, you can see that the question AND his answer was about the TRANSFER of the weapons to a third party, and only secondarily use. Also, he specifically said transferred TO the hands of “the wrong people,” so he wasn’t saying his concern was Assad’s use of the weapons.

              And finally, what are the consequences? Yes, he did use the phrase “red line,” but what was on the other side of the line? Just that it would “change my calculus. . .change my equation.” So your equation is irrelevant, since IF “a whole bunch” of weapons were moved or used, it would change HIS equation. In which direction?

              The media have had to do real mental gymnastics to try to make his words sound as if he would take action in response. He just said “if A, then B,” in which B is no more than changing his opinion.

              My impression is that Obama is consulting other national leaders (as GHW Bush did before the Gulf War). He’s making no commitment, he’s listening. And if he can get the same kind of coalition, he would go in.

              China’s stance seems to be the “Non Interference Prime Directive.” Meanwhile, Russia has softened its stance. If Obama could get China to remain neutral and get Russia’s tacit support, an attack on Assad is feasible. But that still doesn’t make it right.

            • The warships are moving in. Seems like the President doesn’t care about input from other nations. Plus, if the media is driving this thing, why are there ships positioning themselves to attack?

              http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/iteam&id=9219987

              I keep poking you here because you’re arguing that Obama’s being dragged into this against his will.

              He’s the Commander-In-Chief. If he doesn’t want to attack Assad, why move warships into position? Why let Kerry make bold statements? …. doesn’t add up. Plus, if he’s ineffective at stopping the escalation, despite a desire to do so, then what kind of leadership do we have?

              I think he wants to appear disinterested in Syria but he is enjoying the distraction from domestic politics. He’s trying to appear as if he’s on the side of the people who are against this conflict. Meanwhile, he’s pushing it just the same.

              As a former Senator-turned-Secretary of State might say, don’t go to war without a plan for “winning the peace”. How soon people forget their own advice.

            • Nate: I just don’t believe it We have had people screaming for war for more than a year. I believe that Obama has done everything he could to calm them down, and that includes a “show of force.” I think the warships are there as window dressing only–suggesting what we COULD do.

              Meanwhile, I do think Obama is working in the background, trying to calm down the rabid French, for example. But also, I think he’s polling the Arab League, Turkey, and others, to gauge their commitment. If there is a serious list of countries who are hot for war, we will probably be sucked in. But I think his diplomacy is based on discovering how committed they are, and also–to talk it to death, if at all possible.

              And, again, to specifically answer your questions:
              –I believe the warships are for show, to shiut up McCain et al, to calm down France et al., and probably, to show Russia that if they don’t want to cooperate with us, we are crazy enough to kill people. I think on that last note, Russia seems to be tempering its support of Assad.
              –I believe that Kerry’s bluster is the good cop/bad cop thing. Talk like a hawk, but don’t actually do anything.

              I think that the bluster is in search of some kind of guarantee that chemical weapons won’t be used in the future, and more importantly, find a way that they can be secured so that NEITHER side will use them. Perhaps Russia could help with that.

              I guess we’ll see, but at this point, I still think it’s all for show. Despite the bluster, I think this is a micro-mini replay of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I don’t think insanity will always win the day.

            • Nate — why do you expect Obama to behave differently?!

              When he opens his mouth the only truth that comes out of it is The Time and Date…(and I’d still check my watch to make sure he is not lying about that, too)….

    • Nate — LOL!

      So, doing the Math — Barrack Hussein is twice as hated by Real Americans as our despised Congress is!

      That has to be an Absolute Truth…LOL!

      Time to IMPEACH the wannabe Dictator!

  5. We should leave the entire Middle-East alone, including Syria and Afghanistan (BO has already told the Taliban they can have it), No approval for any action anywhere in the M.E. Only action would be immediate, direct, strong retaliation if any M.E. country or a concentrated al Qaeda group does a surprise attack on our the US.

  6. We must attack Syria NOW — and a few other nations, since we can!

    Trust the Media — they are telling us the truth!

    DO NOT pay attention to this 7 minute video — looks like a conspiracy that negates what our trusted friends from CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS tell us it THE ONLY TRUTH!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgEgW5KfsI
    ———————————————————————————————

    Obama will take us to this righteous path, since no longer is the US Constitution VALID under Obama Days — Congress is nowdays bypassed for the “good” of us All!

    After all, Syria is a direct threat to the USA — their Navy, Air Force and ground troops, could come any-day on American Soil and MILITARY ATTACK our country with all their might…LOL!!!

    Watch out America — these flea-bitten Muslims from thousands of miles away are building fleets of rowboats to invade our shores! Wait until they muster the construction of hang-gliders and paratroop a dozen or more crazy Muslims onto the shores of New Jersey — then, we are in for it!
    ————————————————————————————————

    Obama will attack Syria in a few days or weeks (mark my words) — because we must save overseas Muslims from other Muslims (and its the only way to make a profit for the Military-Industrial Complex that is bankrupting the USA— after-all, if there are no CONSTANT Wars, what excuse to Tax the American People for the building of “defensive” weapons NON STOP against enemies that can’t fart their way to the USA…?!)

    • Surfisher: For once, I agree with you. EVERYONE SHOULD VIEW THIS VIDEO, which shows how easy it is to fake video now.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgEgW5KfsI

      But they don’t have to work that hard at it. Back in 2002, the administration started a “whispering campaign” about WMD in Iraq. Although the on-the-ground inspectors had seen 95% of the country, and told us it was impossible, the administration “whispered” frightening “details” to a lot of different people around the world. Then, when one said, “did you hear that–?” the other person said, yes, they heard that, too. So no proof was necessary. it was “common knowledge.” Even Hillary gave her imprimatur, but of course, that was before we knew that she is a NeoCon when it comes to war.

      Anyway, EVERYONE should view this video, just so that you will be appropriately suspicious of the “evidence” that we should go into Syria:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgEgW5KfsI

      • Surfisher: One complaint I have about the media is that they have no attention span. They don’t keep track of what people say and then hold them accountable.

        But I plan to watch this. On August 26, you said Obama would attack Syria in “a few days or weeks (mark my words).”

        That is ridiculous, since if you’re going to criticize him, the rational complaint would be that he didn’t attack, when he said he wanted to.

        So, from 5 am on August 26 to just before midnight of September 29, you’re wrong. For once in your life, do you want to admit that you might have been wrong on that one? Or do you want to say that circumstances changed, and that you were right until things chanted? Use whatever excuse you want, but it would be nice if you just once said that you’re not perfect, infallible, and Godlike.

        I’m just marking your words. You were the one who marked your territory.

  7. At this moment, the United states has four warships in the eastern Mediterranean Sea armed with approximately 360 Tomahawk missiles. Enough power to obliterate Syria in a few minutes. Explicitly condemning the use of missiles, White House press secretary Jay Carney said it is just another demonstration of the “utter depravity” of the Assad regime and the lengths to which he will go to retain power. Anyone remember the “shock and awe” introducing us to Iraq in 2000? The Pentagon states we are in a “watch-and-wait mode.” Probably because Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron has to win approval from Parliament before proceeding with any military action. And France is always the unknown factor.

    The War Powers Resolution, passed after the Viet Nam War, states that the President’s powers as commander-in-chief should be “exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States.” I agree that President Obama should go before Congress and present the war plans that the Heads of our Military Forces has presented to him.

    • Tess Trueheart — answer the below without hedging!

      Do you think the USA will be better of if Barrack Hussein Obama is IMPEACHED — Yes, or No?

      Not asking for elaboration — just a Yes or No answer.

        • Goethe Behr — why do you waffle…?

          A Yes or No answer was asked — not an elaboration.

          Do you have one — so all can see your REAL Stance on the question?!

          • Sir, you are delusional. For some reason, you feel that you have a right to demand an answer, and for some reason, I have an obligation to answer. It just ain’t so.

            But since you ask, I believe that EVERY president we have ever had deserved to be impeached on some grounds. Is that good enough for you?

            Reminds me of the scene in Hamlet, in which the Prince tells Polonius to take good care of the actors. Polonius says he’ll treat them as they deserve. Hamlet replies that he should treat them better than that–because if we were all treated as we deserve, who would escape whipping?

            • Goethe Behr — not good enough, kid.

              You could have owned up…but instead chose not to.

              Generalizations are your weakness — but, once you grow up, you may actually become a responsible adult and state your principles for all to see — then, your multitudinous posts may have some sway (and not sound like one who can’t decide which side of the fence is more prevalent at a certain time)….

              Cheers — have a beer on me!

  8. We must attack Syria NOW — and a few other nations, since we can!

    Trust the Media — they are telling us the truth!

    DO NOT pay attention to this video — looks like a conspiracy that negates what our trusted friends from CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS tell us it THE ONLY TRUTH!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgEgW5KfsI
    ———————————————————————————————

    Obama will take us to this righteous path, since no longer is the US Constitution VALID under Obama Days — Congress is nowdays bypassed for the “good” of us All!

    After all, Syria is a direct threat to the USA — their Navy, Air Force and ground troops, could come any-day on American Soil and MILITARY ATTACK our country with all their might…LOL!!!

    Watch out America — these flea-bitten Muslims from thousands of miles away are building fleets of rowboats to invade our shores! Wait until they muster the construction of hang-gliders and paratroop a dozen or more crazy Muslims onto the shores of New Jersey — then, we are in for it!
    ————————————————————————————————

    Obama will attack Syria in a few days or weeks (mark my words) — because we must save overseas Muslims from other Muslims (and its the only way to make a profit for the Military-Industrial Complex that is bankrupting the USA— after-all, if there are no CONSTANT Wars, what excuse to Tax the American People for the building of “defensive” weapons NON STOP against enemies that can’t fart their way to the USA…?!)

  9. We do not need to go to war again! Americans here need money for food, housing, medical needs, etc. We need jobs here. Any action by the U.S. Government to assist in Syria and/or Egypt needs to be seriously considered before any commitment is made.

    Money should be given for refugees and medical needs, not military needs!

    • Lois: Yeah. When we talk about “aid” to Egypt, what we really mean is kickbacks to our own military-industrial complex. The “aid” we’re giving is really “selling” military weapons–and using our own money to buy them. So it’s a major domestic corporate welfare program in which Egypt is just the ruse that allows the government to feed cash directly into the arms maker’s pockets.

      • Goethe Behr — right on this one.

        Any FOREIGN humanitarian aid needs to be given by private charities (it is their job if they want it), not by our Government (whose job is NOT to take money from us by TAXATION to GIVE to Non Americans thus denying OUR OWN CITIZENS THE Monies they earned)! That’s called UNCONSTITUTIONAL THEFT BY OUR GOVERNMENT — and we must put a stop to it!

  10. Prescience — the only good thing that may come out of Obama attacking Syria is that this could be the straw that broke The-White-House-Usurper’s back.

    Since only Congress can declare War — Obama may just finally qualify for Impeachment proceedings.

    Let’s see if he is dumb enough to fall for this…(I think he is, I think he is, I think he is…).

  11. Public Radio states that Israel may not want the US to attack Syria — worrying that possible reprisals by Muslims may exceed the benefits of an US attack.

    Now the Key Question — will Barrack obey Israel’s final decision on what the USA must do (if their choice is NOT to Attack), or is he dumb enough to risk his presidency and strike out on his own volition…?

    That is the 64,000 dollar question of the day!

    Care to answer it?
    —————————————————–

    I’ll state that Barrack Hussein will do whatever Netanyahu & AIPAC say.

    • Oops, my lawyers warned me not to use the term AIPAC — since that’s an automatic red flag for NSA’s spying on Americans programs.

      Gee — next month I’ll be back in my Costa Rica retirement beach house for the winter — so if you missed me here now, come to Costa Rica dear NSA (Nazis Spying on Americans) and I’ll be happy to serve you frosted Margaritas…and maybe we can discuss your defection to a country that has no standing army, and about 17 policemen in total…LOL.

    • Surfisher: Also on Public Radio, Netanyahu, himself, said that there must be consequences for use of chemical weapons, because if they are not punished, they might attack Israel.

      • I posted this, as well, on the newer thread:
        Are we the only nation capable of policing the world – we are part of NATO. It seems to me that other nations in NATO have more to lose than the US is chemical weapons are further dispersed. Let England, France, or Germany go kick butt, rather it was Assad or an al Qaeda group posing as Assad. BTW were there any al Qaeda in the rebels that were killed???

        http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130827/182995837/Russian-Deputy-Premier-Calls-West-Monkey-With-Hand-Grenade.html
        I think the US should stand down from Middle-East / Islamic affairs, simply “lead from Behind” and tell the other nations that are 3000 miles closer to jump in and take some leadership for their perils.

        But BO won’t do that – this (throw some missiles at an ammo depot) is something he can do that can only hurt and downgrade the US’s stature and once more start something that we will never finish. AND he won’t get Congressional approval, because he believes he is a Monarch, the MainMedia supports him, crap even O’Reilly does, and there is no group in Congress capable of taking down King BO for something even this blatantly un-constitutional…

        Quit “Wagging the Dog” and start getting our own house in order – 17gigabuck debt, unbalanced budget, DOJ and Whistleblowers, IRS and their hundreds of infractions, some oversight independent of the Administration and Democrats on the NSA, and last but yet foremost: Benghazi and “Standing Down” to run guns, fake a kidnapping, and get four Americans killed because of hairbrained irresponsible failed plots.
        Three more years of this crap – he will win and turn us into a 2nd rate, bankrupt nation!!! .

  12. Enjoy the margueritas and remember, although it does not possess a standing military, Costa Rica does have extensive security forces meant to tackle internal issues of law and order. With a population of around 4.5 million, the country has a police force of approximately 10,000 officers, as well as a Civil Guard consisting of 4,500 troops. Puerto Rico is a commonwealth territory of the United States, uses the American dollar and has a strong extradition treaty with the US.
    Happy wintering.

    • Tes Trueheart — LOL
      .
      Before posting your patented sciolisms, learn Geography.

      Than, you may not sound as silly as you usually do when shilling for Obama — Costa Rica and Puerto Rico are not the same.

      Glad to know you googled your “knowledge” again: “Puerto Rico is a commonwealth territory of the United States, uses the American dollar and has a strong extradition treaty with the US.”

      So, if impeached Obama runs to Puerto Rico to escape justice — we can expect him to get extradited to face a trial here… good to know that…LOL!

    • Tess: OK, I give up. Are you saying YOU will be wintering in Costa Rica, or was your comment in response to somoene?

  13. This is damned exciting.

    Thanks to their hatred for Obama, Congress is finally growing a backbone–and finally pointing out that the constitution gives THEM the sole role of declaring war.

    This could not be a better development. If Obama is able to hold off the French and British AND the McCains and Grahams long enough, maybe The War Powers act and the rest of that war crap could be repealed. Woohoo!

    • The War Powers Act has ambiguities and should be rewritten with simple language and specify EXACTLY what the POTUS / CinC can and cannot do without approval of the Legislature.

      • Sam: I think the War Powers Act should be flat-out repealed. In the day of Twitter, there is NO reason why the Congress could not be informed and vote within minutes of any crisis. And we shouldn’t send troops ANYWHERE without Congressional authorization. I suppose there might be times when the military might be used short of a full declaration of war (although we’ve gone a LONG way down that slippery slope, so that we have been in an almost constant state of war since the last declaration of war, more than SEVENTY years ago.

        • I agree. However the Constitution-Article 1, Section 8 only says “acts of war” and is poorly defined. Like you say, don’t send troops (or Arms!!) anywhere into another nation without Congressional authorization. I don’t know how to say,”Keep our nose out of other nation’s business and ideologies.” And yet have intelligence assets sufficient to keep another 9-11 or a EMP from happening.

          • Sam: I am ambivalent about spying. I don’t like being spied on, but like everyone else, I like that we haven’t seen a major attack.

            But I think that’s completely different from the McCain/Graham attitude that we should tell every country in the world how to run its business, and PUNISH them if they don’t obey us.

            I am very pleased that Congress is finally asserting itself in this area. I think they are doing so only in order to be obstinate, but the end result is the same. If Obama delays action in Syria, it’s somewhat possible that the executive branch caprice to send in troops will be curtailed. And the world will breathe easier.

            • Goethe – Actually the best thing that could happen – BO takes it to Congress and they say no and then BO can save face and say i wanted to discipline Syria but Democracy, Congress, and the people wouldn’t let me. Someone else is going to have to step up and do the deed.

            • Sam: I think there’s even a better solution, as noted below. Congress ought to have HEARINGS on the whole issue and dictate to the administration what will and will NOT be allowed in the way of military action. If Congress would grow some. . .um. . .”backbone” just once, then it would set a precedent.

              As things stand, they’re just crying about it, underlining the fact that they have abdicated their responsibility and have been self-castrated.

  14. Once again, the British are teaching us a lesson in Democracy. First of all, the Prime Miniser had to go to Parlaiment to ask for permission to take the entire nation to war. What a concept!

    But wait! There’s more! Parliament said NO. Imagine that!

    That’s not all! So NOW, Parliament is having its own hearings on the subject, to decide whether to AUTHORIZE action.

    Compare that to the US of A. Yes, Congress is whining about War Powers. Whining and whimpering. “If you take us to war, we’re gonna tell Mom!!”

    If our Congress were honest and sincere, they wouldn’t be sobbing and moaning. THEY WOULD HAVE HEARINGS. Find out the truth, and if merited, TELL the President to act.

    But of course, they won’t, because it is hard to be responsible. It’s more fun to whine and whimper and sob and moan. And, of course, they know that if they actually force the President to follow the Constitution that when THEY get the White House, THEIR President will also have to follow the Constitution. Can’t have that!!

    Hypocrites.

  15. BREAKING NEWS Thursday, August 29, 2013 6:04 PM EDT

    Britain’s Parliament Votes Against Military Action in Syria

    Prime Minister David Cameron said that Britain would NOT participate militarily in any strike against Syria after he lost a parliamentary vote on Thursday on an anodyne motion urging an international response by 13 votes.

    It was a stunning defeat for a government that had seemed days away from joining the United States and France in a short, punitive cruise-missile attack on the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons against civilians.

    =========

    Now it’s time for OUR Congress to take a stand.

    • Goethe Behr — OUR Congress…?!

      Try Uncle Netanyahu’s Congress — the Congress approved by AIPAC…the creatures that ONLY care to get reelected… 99% pond scum leeches…98% US Constitution Destroyers… 90% complacent Obama shills… 65% with the IQ smaller than the size of my shoe….

      Is that the Congress you are talking about…the one that has less than 9% approval rating —meaning it is HATED by 91% of the American people for what it has done to us…?!

      LOL — good one!

      • Dude: A third-grader would understand that I was contrasting “their” Parliament with “our” Congress.

        Are you this obnoxious in person, or do you just save up your hostility for blogs? You can’t even be civil when you’re agreeing with someone, half the time.

        • Goethe Behr — you misunderstood.

          I was not attacking YOU, but “OUR” Congress…for their majority are nothing but a bunch of AIPAC electives, thus un-American (so cannot be TERMED as OUR Congress…the closest accurate description would be: *Israel’s Selects*)…LOL!

  16. I still think Obama is purposely dragging his feet regarding Syria, hoping the hawks will wear out. The public is almost unanimously against military action in Syria. The British Parliament has defeated a motion to take action. And now, the UN Security Council has vetoed action.

    The resolution was proposed by Britain, but I’m sure they wouldn’t do so without Obama’s consent.

    Everyone knew a UN resolution wouldn’t pass. It occurs to me that proposing it was a way to show that action is NOT warranted.

  17. Pleasantly surprised.

    Obama’s speech started off saying we WILL take military action, and I said, Oh, crap.

    But then, he came back and said he will present it to Congress. Brilliant stroke. Since this was not a timely issue, there is NO reason Congress should not be consulted, but he went further. He put it in their laps to authorize it.

    This has the potential to be a game-changer in many ways, foreign and domestic. The American public hates Congress because they don’t seem to do anything. Why pay them to just sit and take corporate donations? But NOW, they will be forced to discuss AND decide.

    It’s also the precedent we have wanted for 70 years. Congress was too wussy to demand hearings, but they wanted to chalk up cheap political points on both sides–McCain and the hawks were complaining, and Rand and the doves were complaining on the other side. Now, it’s time for them to put their “ideals” where their mouth is.

    If they vote for action, the American public wins–because Congress has been forced to put on its big-boy pants. And if they vote against action, the American public wins twice. Then it would be up to Obama to deal with that rejection. And with any luck, he’ll say what Prime Ministerr Cameron said in Britain–that it’s clear that the Parliament does’t want military action AND the British public does not want military action. AND–

    –After the vote Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear Parliament did not want action and “the government will act accordingly.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

    In Britain, at least, “the government” (that is, the executive branch) acts according to the wishes of the people and their elected representatives. Hurrah.

    • Goethe Behr —

      A key statement to pay attention is at the very end of this article:

      “Syria… will continue eliminating terrorism, which is utilised by Israel and Western countries to serve their interests in fragmenting the region.”

      THAT IS SPOT ON! The few dozen active terrorists still ALIVE are USED by Israel, and their owned Western nations’ governments (including the US) to WAR on HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS …in order to protect Israel…and no-one else!

      What possible IDIOT could possibly conceive the IDIOCY that some Muslim Terrorists could create the Military Might NEEDED, out of thin air, to CROSS Oceans and Invade US, or Europe en force…?!

      Therefore, an attack on Syria is not one that will prevent a row-boat Navy of Muslim Argonauts from invading our shores…but one that will again cause the loss of life of Americans to protect a foreign nation — Israel.

      Here is our War Policy in a nutshell:

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/24/how-politicians-play-military-personnel-for-fools/dead-uncle-sam-i-want-you-to-die-for-israel/

  18. I just got an idea. I always try to figure out WHY political leaders do what they do.

    It just struck me that Obama’s plan to force Congress to take responsibility has other advantages.

    While people are complaining about the delay, there are two major benefits of this path. First, it keeps us from illegally attacking another country. Second, it protects our troops from dying for nothing. Third, it avoids the retribution that might occur.

    But there are also very direct, concrete benefits. While Congress is debating attack, you can be SURE that Assad will not invite attack by using gas again. That means people over there will be safe from that danger, at least until after Congress speaks.

    And, of course, the current debate is the REAL “line in the sand.” So if Assad were to use chemical weapons again, there would be no more doubt, and the attack on Syria could be as devastating as world opinion would allow. And IF Assad attacks, not only will there be no real objection, but many countries may join in. You can be sure that our attempts to get allies is continuing.

    OK, so that’s the tactical read. I am not in favor of attacking Syria. So from my perspective, Obama’s decision has put Assad in a position where he will not use the weapons–and that will make it hard for our warmongers to push the war.

    So the best outcome would be a Congressional resolution to condemn previous use of gas and declare that any future use (if proven) would result in military action.

      • Sam: Yes, that’s a concern.

        But I am optimistic as a general rule. We should have steered clear of Syria, since both sides hate us. And, as you said, we have no national interest there. They don’t even have much oil!

        I’m amazed that Congress isn’t even bothering to cut their vacation short over it. My guess is that they weren’t expecting Obama to call their bluff, and now they’ll need time to spin it. Should be very entertaining. And the farther we get from the alleged gas attack, the harder it will be to rationalize unilateral action–without even British cover!

        Anyway, nice to be on the same side on one issue, my friend.

    • Goethe Behr — re: your post September 1, 2013 at 4:27 pm :

      This is flawed reasoning on your part (the excuse of being an optimist has some ameliorating effect for your faux pas, but not much).

      Obama’s claim that he was ready to attack Syria ASAP IN ORDER TO SAVE Syrian Lives NOW — changed to ZERO Concern to save such possible life loss, once faced that such an Act of War may get him in trouble, and possible impeachment proceeding could be levied against him, for bypassing Congress.

      That is the ONLY logical reason WHY Obama is now willing to take “A day, a week or months (his words)” — while in the meantime he’ll accept the IMMEDIATE DEATH (according to him) of Chemical Life Loss that HE CLAIMED WAS THE ABSOLUTE REASON TO ATTACK.

      Now Obama will WAIT FOR A LONG TIME…”a day, a week or months” — in order to see which way the political wind blows….before he decides what’s best for him: Save his political career, or “save” Syrian lives.

      Such a lowlife needs to be IMPEACHED NOW!

      • Surfisher: Such nonsense. If Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush escaped war trials, Obama is home free. And he knows that.

        Everyone claims war is to save lives. It’s the only way to justify killing people.

        Anyway, Obama is trying desperately to extricate us from the Middle East, so he can go play in China’s backyard. It is Israel and their backers who are pushing intervention there (while they claim the opposite). The Israeli method is to stir up trouble in the Arab world, so that they will kill each other, instead of dealing with Israel.

  19. Today’s news is that Russia is sending leaders of their Duma (legislature) to argue the case against an attack on Syria–in front of OUR Congress! What fun. People who are still fighting the Cold War will crap in their seats. How will our Congress respond? Will they get pissed at being lectured by Russians? Or will they consider the argument as part of the evidence? It will be fun to watch.

    Meanwhile, Putin is trying to make political points, by trying to sound as if their Duma has power. He may find that the Russian people may wake up to that idea, especially after they see the American Congress at work. I’m sure they will broadcast the hearings, hoping to make us look like ditherers. But THAT is what Democracy is, and they might like the look of it.

    http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/

    13:29 GMT: President Vladimir Putin has supported a proposal from Russian MPs to send a parliamentary delegation to the US Congress in an effort to resolve the Syrian crisis.

    “We should more actively involve the parliaments of our countries,” Federation Council chairwoman Valentina Matviyenko said. “We would like to address senators and members of the House of Representatives in Congress, to have a dialogue with our partners.”

    Russia will also welcome members of the US Congress in Moscow, Matviyenko said.

    “I think if we manage to establish a dialogue with our partners in the U.S. Congress … we could possibly better understand each other, and we hope that the U.S. Congress will occupy a balanced position in the end and, without strong arguments in place … will not support the proposal on use of force in Syria,” Valentina Matviyenko said.

  20. While Russia talks, another Russian navy reconnaissance vessel is headed toward the Syrian coast to assist a group of five boats already based in the Mediterranean Sea. “Russia is stepping up our navy presence in the area but we will not fight for Assad in this conflict,” Igor Korotchenko, editor in chief of the journal National Defense, said in an interview. “Moscow is just trying to prevent negative global consequences of this strike and primarily for U.S.-Russian relations, which are already at their worst in years.”

    Russian lawmakers say they intended to apply pressure on their U.S. counterparts before Congress votes on a strike against Syria. The speaker of the Russian parliament’s lower house, Sergei Naryshkin, told Putin that “Russian lawmakers are asking U.S. lawmakers to take a balanced stand in their approach. Last week we addressed lawmakers of other countries and it turned out useful as parliaments of a number of European countries are taking a very balanced and sound position. So I think this special kind of work with U.S. congressmen could be of use.”

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accuses Washington of applying a double standard in its approach to Syria and the Middle East, saying “It is a personal issue based on a personal dislike for some authoritarian dictator, whereas dictators for whom there is no dislike are not talked about because they are assistants and allies for our Western partners. Terrorists should not be divided into good and bad; it is absolutely unprofessional and shortsighted.”

    How will our congress respond? Is Russia offering a friendly overture or a line in the sand? I cannot venture a guess.

    • Tess: I think it’s a power play.. But the amazin thing about taking action is that you can’t be sure of the ultimate outcome. As I noted above, it could backfire in a number of ways. The most obvious is that aging American Cold Warriors will undoubtedly go absolutely NUTS. But also, if the Duma begins to have influence outside of Russia, it may decide that it deserves more influence INSIDE Russia.

      HERE’S A QUESTION FOR EVERYBODY:

      Is anyone else as uncomfortable with the use of the word “PUNISH”? Is it really appropriate for ANY country to claim the right or duty to “punish” another country? “Negotiating” is good. Even “convincing” would be ok. But if we are talking about “punishing” other countries, we become the “school marm” of the world, or worse, the child abuser.

      It’s no wonder that foreigners hate us. I feel indignant, and I’m on the INSIDE.

    • Ideally no one delivers a “punishment” THIS TIME. The middle east all kill each other if that is their desire. All the major nations agree with a resolution – screw The UN and NATO – that if any nation or group is caught developing ANY form of WMD or even worse the delivery of ANY WMD; that all the nations signing this resolution simultaneously take “punishment” action to remove the Regime or Group (including al Qaeda). Major countries consisting of at least Russia, China, Germany, G.B., France, and U.S. – there are others but each of these countries all have nuclear, chemical, biological, and EMP capabilities. Russia, China, and the U.S. are the only countries capable of delivering return annihilation if their homeland is destroyed.

      • Sam: I don’t see Russia or China submitting to us.

        Americans think we are always “right,” so we do a lot of “wrong” things with impunity–only because we have spent ourselves near bankruptcy on weapons. Someday, we won’t have such ridiculous superiority, and we’ll have to learn how to lay nice with others.

        Of course, our sense of “right” inevitably gets wrapped up with what is “good” for US, and we commit genocide and other crimes, thinking we are somehow justified.

        And, of course, we see the world through a neurotic, xenophobic prism, which makes every man, woman, and child in the world either “Pro-American” or “Anti-American,” as if they had no concerns of their own. Thus, we want to “punish” those who don’t do what we want, and we expect other countries to “fall in line.”

        In the case of Russia and China, it’s not about fighting us, except that we pick the fight. Their whole thing is what we used to believe in–self determination. The idea that we can just roll in to any country in the world and change their government would horrify our Founding Fathers. They didn’t believe in “foreign entanglements,” but now, we are “tangling” everyone in the world.

        And, I’m not sure China could deliver annihilation. At last count, they had only a few hundred warheads, and their delivery systems are not that sophisticated. They could probably win a conventional war, though, as they taught us in Korea. . .

        • Goethe – take off your “hate America” filters. I was actually suggesting that China, Russia, The U.S., et al, become a collation team of each having equal standing. G.B. and France and Germany, we are just being nice to and help generate a 100% agreement for numbers.

          Russia, China or the U.S. could drop devastating disaster on any Regime or Group, but all three simultaneously would scare the caca out of any Group, even al Qaeda. there damn sure would enough “virgins” to go around, male or female (no one said they had to be all female). No politics, no geo-political, no religion. I don’t think Russia wants issues with us, China only wants to financially control us. The big three working together to maintain peace and salvation from “end of the world”. My, my wouldn’t that be something.

          Unfortunately, it is a pipe dream because Trust really isn’t a solid principle among the three.

          • Sam: It ain’t “hating” to fessing up to the truth.

            I fully agree that if we were smart, we would find a way to get along with other nations. But you don’t “get along” by talking about “punishing” them. The trick is to find out what they want and need, and see if there is a way to make it work for both partners. Sort of like a marriage, y’know?

            Kissinger did that well. GHW Bush was an expert at reaching out to other nations. He made a PROFIT on the Gulf War, because he got full commitments before acting.

            And, of course, things were a lot more stable when we had the Cold War–not because we got along, but because we played the game. We divided up the world, and if any twit tried to act alone, we stomped on them. That’s why we didn’t have this kind of crazy “al Qaeda in the (whatever).” One or the other of the US or USSR would have put them out of business.

            I agree that we could do the same sort of thing, if we “partnered” with Russia and China. We could do it by carving up the world again. Or we could just agree to cooperate in spheres such as terrorism. But, of course, “partners” don’t think in terms of “punishing” others.

    • Here’s something else I think is REALLY stupid: they keep saying Assad used chemical weapons “against his own people,” as if that made it worse.

      First of all, I think it would be more of a crime if he used the weapons against people of another country. After all, these are HIS people, and if he attacks them, they will eventually throw him out. They are, after all, “his” people. While it is emotionally more incongruous for a leader to attack his own people, it is not an “international” crime, by definition.

      Second, they are not “his people.” They are locals who refuse to BE “his people,” plus foreigners who are going in there, al Qaeda, and probably mercenaries.

      I just think “against his own people” is a stupid and annoying distinction.

  21. Presidents have little control over world events, regardless of country. President George W Bush’s administration started wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the longest conflicts in the history of the United States. George Bush actually stressed restraint in world affairs during his 2000 election campaign. The world moves from crisis to crisis, and the United States gets involved in the majority. Syria may threaten President Obama’s legacy in much the same manner that Iraq put an indelible mark on President Bush. The present conflict will actually be determined by the United States Congress and I am anxious to know the vote of each member.

    • Tess – it is a matter of perspective, I guess. I just don’t have the energy to go get a bunch of URL’s to convince a Democrat of the shape we’re in when at least 60% of “we the people” are aware without blue “filters” on. Frank and the Democrats caused the mortgage debacle, The Dems had complete control of congress from 11/06 to 11/10 and in 2009.
      So regarding the wars – GOP only had control in Afghan from 2002 till 2006 and in Iraq from 2003 to 2006. Once Obama won the election in 2008, regardless of his oratories, he took over the Conn immediately, asked no one’s permission and maintained the same exact policies that Bush recommended in 2005. When we moved our brothers and sisters (actually sons and daughters) in early 2010, we didn’t bring ’em home we moved ’em (over 100,000 and 3,000,000 pieces of equipment – $$$) directly to Afghan and left 50,000 in Iraq. The injuries and casualties started going up dramatically in 2006-2007 and had almost doubled by 2010. the PTSD has gone over 100,000. This is the first time B.O. has ever asked permission for anything and because there is still so much unknown, you can count on something devious is in the plan that he can shrug out of responsibility for the action.

      Tess, i don’t know of anyone that wants to get involved or take any action, especially unilaterally.

      • by Ron Paul:

        “President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.

        Besides, the president made it clear that Congressional authorization is superfluous, asserting falsely that he has the authority to act on his own with or without Congress. That Congress allows itself to be treated as window dressing by the imperial president is just astonishing.

        The President on Saturday claimed that the alleged chemical attack in Syria on August 21 presented “a serious danger to our national security.” I disagree with the idea that every conflict, every dictator, and every insurgency everywhere in the world is somehow critical to our national security. That is the thinking of an empire, not a republic. It is the kind of thinking that this president shares with his predecessor and it is bankrupting us and destroying our liberties here at home.

        According to recent media reports, the military does not have enough money to attack Syria and would have to go to Congress for a supplemental appropriation to carry out the strikes. It seems our empire is at the end of its financial rope. The limited strikes that the president has called for in Syria would cost the US in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote to Congress last month that just the training of Syrian rebels and “limited” missile and air strikes would cost “in the billions” of dollars. We should clearly understand what another war will do to the US economy, not to mention the effects of additional unknown costs such as a spike in fuel costs as oil skyrockets.

        I agree that any chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of US bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by US allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the US allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria?

        For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama’s drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?

        In “The Sociology of Imperialism,” Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the Roman Empire’s suicidal interventionism:

        “There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome’s allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest – why, then it was the national honour that had been insulted.”

        Sadly, this sounds like a summary of Obama’s speech over the weekend. We are rapidly headed for the same collapse as the Roman Empire if we continue down the president’s war path. What we desperately need is an overwhelming Congressional rejection of the president’s war authorization. Even a favorable vote, however, cannot change the fact that this is a self-destructive and immoral policy.”

        • We should all remember that driving our country into bankruptcy is actually a goal of Obama and Liberals. Break the U.S. to nothing and then rebuild it as Socialist state. This is the ultimate goal of the Democrats party. Obama still hasn’t given up on creating chaos in the streets and then declaring martial law

  22. The BBC is reporting that Denmark has determined that soldiers with PTSD will get the same treatment as any other person with a workplace injury. That’s so sane. We dismiss our soldiers and pretend they no longer exist. If they had been injured on-the-job at any other job, they would be covered for their injuries.

  23. You don’t have to be a logician, to see what’s going on:

    Obama drew a “red line” to attack Syria because he thought it was a given (since English Prime Minister Cameron was all gung-ho to war on Syria on “evidence” that has NEVER been verified that dictator Assad used the chemical weapons … and not the rebels themselves). So, the wannabe US Dictator, Hussein Obama, felt sure his English counterpart was in line. And based his comments on that assurance.

    But then, the imaginable to Obama happened — the British Parliament had the guts to say NO to Lil’ Cameron’s warmongering!

    Thus, Lil’ Hussein found himself in a quandary — he had stated that he believes that he needs NO Congressional authority to attack Syria, but now he was left dry by his schooled British counterpart. And on top of that, polls showed that 90% of Americans don’t want another war started by this administration.

    So what does this US “president” do — who speaks and acts without thinking — but toss his miscalculation to the US Congress and Senate (a desperate move since Lil’ Hussein is now left with no other options).

    Now, his hope is that he, and his pet Kerry, and the rest of the sycophants that surround him, will be able to bully the House into submission…and give him the War he wanted in the first place!

    His attempt to bully both Houses is usage of disturbing videos of horrific images *shown only to a select group of senators in closed-door briefings* — meaning, Lil’ Hussein is gathering the leadership to be on board…and hoping they’ll advise their underlings how to vote!

    How despicable is such abusive propaganda, by what is supposed to be the US President!

    And then, he sicks his pet, Kerry, again, and Senate “Intelligence” Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (another Obama sycophant) to use THE UNVERIFIED chemical attacks by Assad (according to NBC: “NBC News has not been able to independently verify the authenticity of these videos”) as “proof” to START ANOTHER WAR that will bankrupt the USA to the point of no economical recovery possible!

    Read this article by NBC News: “White House showed gruesome videos to senators in case for Syria strike”

    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/07/20377556-white-house-showed-gruesome-videos-to-senators-in-case-for-syria-strike

    When will the American People finally wake up, and demand Obama’s Impeachment — how long must we suffer this Usurper of the White House that lords it over us!

  24. Putin checkmated Obama (and his barking-only dog Kerry)! WOW!!! That was such a simple finesse that any decent Chess Player would have foreseen — but, obviously not the mental defects that are Obama and Kerry.
    ——————————————————————————————–

    How did these two clowns (Obama and Kerry) embarrass our nation, making us the laughing stock of the world? Here is the chronological order of their stupidities:

    Obama draws a “red line” if Chem weapons are used — and states USA will bomb Syria to stop this.

    Chem weapons are used — Obama declares (without positive proof that it was Assad, and not the terrorists themselves), along with British Prime Minister Cameron’s acceding, that the World’s Opinion must be respected and the USA will start bombing Syria along with the “International Community”….

    Cameron is ready to bomb along with Obama, but then British Parliament says NO!

    Now Obama is IN SHOCK, and on his own — he still pushes for bombing Syria — but is afraid to do it on his own volition (for the obvious political backlash)! So, NOW Obama (who had previously declared that he does not need Congressional approval to start a ‘limited’ War) NOW BACKPEDALS AND asks Congress to approve his war desires, and sends Kerry to Europe to muster some support for his Bombing Syria right away!

    Kerry arrives and makes a fool of himself in France — when asked: “What would stop the US from bombing Syria” he answers: “Assad must turn over all his Chem Weapons”.

    The Russians pounce on it immediately and state they will assure this!

    Then, poor idiot Kerry says it was a “rhetorical answer” and not one he, and Obama, were willing to accept.

    Too late — Obama’s rep, Kerry-the-idiot, opened his mouth and played right into Putin’s hands.

    Now, Putin (the swine) won and Kerry and Obama look like the village idiots that they are!

    Obama, and his toothless barking dog Kerry, have achieved what no other Administration since Jimmy Carter has done — make US look weak and STUPID!

    p.s. forgot to add —

    Impeach Obama, and put Kerry next to Lil’ Hussein’s prison cell…so the two can play the simple game of Chinese Checkers… with each other…..

    • According t scuttlebutt, the US and Russia have been in talks for over a year about the Syrian issue. That being the case, I wondered why Putin seemed so pompous and Obama so quiet at their last public meeting. Seems to me, Obama probably asked Putin to make a joint statement on a chemical weapons deal.

      My guess is that Putin knew that Obama didn’t really want to get involved in Syria, so he didn’t want to turn on his ally. Then, unexpectedly, Obama started talking war. It was a bluff, but it apparently worked.

      Think about it. We don’t like Assad, but we don’t like the rebels, either, who are reported to be at least 50% jihadists. Meanwhile, Assad was claiming he didn’t even HAVE chemical weapons.

      Seems to me, we have the best possible outcome–for us. The civil war can go on. But Obama got what he really wanted–to secure the chemical weapons, so they don’t get into al Qaeda hands. (And I think Putin knows a non-chemical Syria will be more dependent on Russia than they are now.)

      Meanwhile, we have a new “understanding” between Obama and Putin, which could be turned into an ongoing method for handling other crises. Of course, that could be too optimistic. And we don’t know how this will work it’s way through. But right now, we are NOT involved militarily, and after a few more months, maybe both sides in Syria will see the senseless waste, and the US and Russia could work together to draw up a settlement of some kind.

      Assad seems satisfied with controlling 40% of the country. Hope we don’t end up with another Korea or Vietnam division.

      • Goethe – i could only hope you are right!! i even mentioned a convoluted option on a different thread about something similar to this.
        however, i DO believe you are being overly optimistic. i don’/t believe:
        – anyone posed it a year, 6 mos, or even 1 month ago
        – no matter the start of the agreement, it will be dragged on for months and months
        – regardless of the commitments and threats Assad will still have his chemical / bio WPM’s and al Qaeda will get some of them as well
        It is more likely that cows will crap M&M’s than a successful treaty to meet U.S. / Russia / Syria’s needs!!.
        – We have already agreed by treaty to give Afghan back to the Taliban and be gone by end of 2014
        – We will have lost the Afghan war (so did USSR), de-stabilized Iraq & Libya but we will be out of the Middle-East (‘cept Israel) and will be able to add Saudi Arabia & Jordan to the countries that will hate us —- However, We the People want out of the M.E. and no Americans on the Ground wars unless attacked once again then just bomb the shit out of the countrie(s) or Group(s).
        – Maybe Putin does make us look bad but as KGB all he has to do is look at the files of his own NSA and realize we can destroy the entire world, including him if he wants to try to frack with us. (gotta watched Battlestar Galactica for that).

        Obama is piece by piece destroying our economy, our world leadership, and trying to take down our Military and grow his brown shirt civilian Army – the DHS.
        Not sure we will make it another 2.3 years. And there is still a chance that Benghazi won’t get the ‘ol Bitch and we still end up with a Socialist who want to re-create America

        • Sam: Today, they are reporting that Russia is trying to kill the military response part of the UN resolution. To tell you the truth, I don’t blame them. We have a record of running off and doing what we want, wherever we want. We’ve shown that we don’t need a UN resolution. No sense giving us permission.

          All they have to do is put a deadline on it. Then, the violence resolution can be decided then.

          But I think Russia WANTS to get rid of Syria’s chemical weapons. For one thing, it makes them more dependent on Russia for other arms (read BIG CASH in addition to political influence). For another, Russia has a history of being paranoid. I think they’re as afraid as we are that weapons could get into extremist hands–and end up in Chechnya.

          I actually think that Bashar wanted to change things for the better. As late as two years ago, we had high hopes for him–more than a decade into his reign. But then came the Arab Spring, and it was survival of the fittest. That put him in the debt of his military, and ended hopes for reforms.

          I think, in today’s world. armed uprisings just do not work. The modern state has the weapons and willingness to put down armed insurrection. The only way a modern state will be overthrown is if UNARMED citizens come together in such numbers that the state fears to kill and the military won’t fire on its own citizens (unless fired at).

          The other thing to remember is that people will usually be 20% for, 20% against, and 60% apathetic, afraid, or undecided. If you can get a large portion of that opposed 20% into the streets, you’ll probably topple the government, even though the majority doesn’t want that. In this case, Syria has 22 million population. If you could get four million people to protest, the government would back off.

          Instead, they have pockets of gunslingers, some perpetrating atrocities, alienating as many people as they are inspiring. And, of course, there are an equal number are jihadists, justifying reasonable opposition to the rebellion. So, again, continued civil war, leading to an eventual armistice, is probably the best outcome at this time.

      • Goethe – leaving a harsh response out of violation of the resolution puts no teeth or essence of time into the resolution. It needs to have “gates” and penalties for violation to keep everyone “honest”. outside of that i agree that Russia would like chem/bio WMD out of play as much as we do. Nor do they want WMD of any sort into Extremists hands.

        With this POTUS and We the People feelings, i don’t see the US doing anything rash for a few years. If this Resolution takes more than that to conclude – “there gonna be issues, yep, yep.”

        I agree, Russia, unlike US, is trying to make bucks, not give away the farm and break the country financially.

        I can’t really comment on the middle-east’s way of thinking, cause i honestly don’t understand it. I am rather glad it will become Russia’s problem and i don’t doubt their KGB Pres will get a lot more than he bargained for. Religious Wars have NO reasoning only following of various scriptures and the thoughts / power / politics of the leaders (IMAMs) in this case. Remember the Irish war of just a few years ago?? And i’m not sure the extremists (Sunni jihadists in this case) will give up their fight for World Domination for quite some time. The “world” at the time of the writings, 7th century, was Middle-East, Africa, and Eastern Europe.

        It is so strange that Religions live to fight for “my way or else”, instead of “my way is best”, but peacefully declare if you go your own way you’ll discover your mistake at the end. And Religions also let power and control guide them.

        Maybe now we will work on our own issues, but we have enough of our own “my way or the highway” that it may take decades to resolve all the divisiveness in America. And just not sure She’ll last long as a Democratic-Republic.

        • Sam: I agree again, and damn, it seems weird to keep saying so.

          But I don’t think Syria will become Russia’s problem, as you suspect. Putin is too smart, AND he doesn’t have to fight rabid media who are itching for the next war to up their ratings.

          And, ok, I guess I disagree that we need to threaten Syria. As you note, WE don’t want Syria to have chemical weapons, and RUSSIA doesn’t want them to have chemical weapons. So while Russia continues to shadow box about it,they’ll see that it gets done.

          Well, damn, there’s a third thing I disagree with you about:

          http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business

          We’ll continue to be the main murder peddlers for the foreseeable future. The chart at that site shows that the
          US supplies 44% of military sales, compared to 17% for Russia,
          8% for France,
          5% for GB,
          4% for China and Germany, each,
          3% for Italy,
          10% for all other European countries,
          and 5% for all other non-European countries.

          Ah, hell, let’s make it four disagreements, since none of them are significant:

          In my youth, there was reverence for the President. Trying to please my parents, I said something against the President at that time. I was roundly scolded, because the President deserves our respect. LBJ was truly hated by people who agreed with him on most issues. Likewise, Nixon, who ran on the slogan, “Bring us together again,” was hated to a lesser degree.

          The real divisiveness didn’t begin again until GHW Bush, increased under Clinton, increased under Bush, and increased again under Obama.

          I just don’t think the hatred can get much more intense, so I believe we will bumble our way out of this current caustic atmosphere. After all, if you and I can find areas of agreement, DC should be able to do it.

          • Goethe – i’m not sure Syria specifically will become a problem for Russia, “As long as they do what Russia says, heh, heh!!” However, i doubt Putin is as smart as you think and i think he will land up replacing us as the interventionist in the M.-E. – Power and control again – This will result in All Islam hating them as they now do us.

            When creating resolutions and solutions for something as serious as WMDs, rather it be disarmament or proliferation there needs to be consequences for not following the guidelines and China, Russia & the U.S. need to have a separate agreement to maintain peace among the big boys.

            I had never considered the Arms market. I’m curious tho, if we sell $440Giga/yr in arms – does the OEM (manufac) sell direct or does the OEM sell to the Gov and then they resell or give it away??? if the Gov is the reseller and distributor what happens to the money they collect from the recipient (or end user). And is that purchase by the Gov part of the Military budget?? and are we selling or giving Surplus to other countries?? it actually looks shaky to me and a twist on “free market”. I think we’re the leader not because we’re are murders but more supply and demand and “state of art”. the recipients are upgrading or spinning up and are determined to become violent or protect their butts. if they didn’t have good weaponry, they would still fight with clubs for power and control.

            I too, was expected and did respect the POTUS. After i joined the Navy in ’59, politics wasn’t really part of my bag, and only respect and obedience was given to the POTUS and CinC. — In the lower ranks of the Navy, all enlisted and O1 -> O6 there was virtually no divisiveness or race hate by even the early 60’s. and when i got off full time active duty and became part time Navy and full time civilian in the 70’s i detected very little divisiveness or race hate in the western half of the U.S. I grew up in a 33/33/33 % Euro, Black, & Mexican neighborhood and no hate just dislike and forced to get along. my six years in N. CA was 25% Asian, 27% Euro and Middle East, 25% Latino & 23% Black, No hate just make money.

            I have never disrespected a POTUS or CinC until this one. That includes Carter (a fellow Naval Officer), but i didn’t like Clinton very much cause i couldn’t understand the partisanship being created. and not until Bush did i begin to understand how big a part the media played in creating partisanship. The divisiveness, partisanship & race hate created by this POTUS AND CINC (mainly religious) is unlike anything i have ever encountered living in the Western United States (4 different states).

        • samreusser — your comment cited below is spot on, and MOST CRUCIAL (the rest of your very apt observations, and Geothe Behr’s optimistic fancy, are mostly irrelevant for what’s needed to preserve our Free Republic)!

          That’s enough reason to Impeach! Let us hope there are a few honest people left in both Houses to make that motion…or our nation will end not with a Bang, but with a Whimper… if Obama’s takeover of OUR Liberties is left unchecked!

          “Obama is piece by piece destroying our economy, our world leadership, and trying to take down our Military and grow his brown shirt civilian Army – the DHS.”

          Kudos for posting this WARNING!

          Hope both of you have seen this video — now OVER 1.7 million views:

          Déjà vu — Nazi Germany all over again….

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg

          • Surfisher – within a year DHS will have the authority, more so than police, to stop and search us without cause. Your “youtube” will get people apprehended and thrown in the slammer.

            Even with all of POTUS / CinC violations of our Constitution and Rights – with the media on his side and a split Congress we will never achieve an Impeachment. The only hope is a lot of slipups in the Benghazi debacle and the media will not be able to ignore it. The Media controls the U.S. and the Media and the Mainstream leans left and Democrats. As well as Academia.

            So hope we can survive 2.3 years without imploding.

Comments are closed.