Syria

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I think this is true. Personally I am happy he is looking for an out.

As am I, other than he has shown the world that he's a pussy who talks of "red lines" yet back downs when Putin calls his bluff. Even Cameron basically abandoned him now, to the point John Kerry had to go to France, yet Obama even backstabs Kerry!!

It it wasn't so serious, I'd actually think this was funny. Since there are real world results involved, I hope somebody talks to this clown into being a leader at some point. He's all words, and no actions.
 
Last edited:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-to-make-1-15-p-m--statement-on-syria-161723103.html

In a legacy-defining gamble, President Barack Obama announced Saturday that he has decided to launch military strikes against Syria — but wants the Congress to authorize them.

“In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted,” Obama declared in the Rose Garden 10 days after Bashar Assad’s forces allegedly massacred 1,400 civilians with chemical weapons.

“After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” he said, describing himself as “prepared to give that order.”

The president’s hastily arranged remarks — demonstrators protesting outside the White House gates could be heard from the West Wing only minutes before he spoke — sucked the urgency out of what had looked like a imminent military strike.

Instead, cruise missile-carrying warships off Syria’s coast will have to wait until the week of Sept. 9. That’s when Congress returns from a month-long vacation to take up a measure, drafted by the White House, giving Obama the green-light.

“I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy," Obama said. "I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress."

The president ignored a reporter who shouted the obvious question: What happens if Congress says no?

But senior administration officials briefing reporters at the White House later said that Obama still believes he has the legal authority to act without congressional support — meaning that a “no” vote would not necessarily handcuff his foreign policy. And they disputed that Obama risked setting a precedent that could limit the power of future occupants of the Oval Office.
View gallery."
Obama meets with national security advisers on Syr …
President Barack Obama meets in the Situation Room with his national security advisers to discuss st …

The same officials also sidestepped repeated questions about what happens if Assad responds by stepping up chemical attacks against rebels looking to oust him.

The president himself said there was no sell-by-date for action. “Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now,” he said.

Obama’s decision came amid public opinion polls showing four out of five Americans wanted the president to seek lawmakers’ approval, and with more than 100 congressional signatures on a pair of letters delivering the same message.

Obama has acknowledged repeatedly that Americans are “war-weary” after a decade of conflict — and worried about standing on the threshold of another escalating entanglement in the Middle East.

“This would not be an open-ended intervention, we would not put boots on the ground,” he promised Saturday. “Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.”

The president said he had spoken by telephone with Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and that they agreed with the timetable.

It also followed a series of diplomatic setbacks: Russian opposition blocked a path through the United Nations Security Council, and Britain’s parliament shocked the world Thursday by voting against military action. France signed on, but its parliament planned to debate the issue next week.

Denied both clear international legal legitimacy and a robust “coalition of the willing,” facing clear public resistance as well as a surprisingly assertive Congress, and trapped by his own declaration that Syria had crossed a “red line,” Obama went from saying he would “consult” Capitol Hill to actively courting its support.
View gallery."
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks next to Vice President …
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks next to Vice President Joe Biden (L) at the Rose Garden of the Wh …

The senior aides briefing reporters after Obama’s remarks suggested that he had largely settled on a course of action in an Aug. 24 National Security Council meeting, but did not make a final decision about using force until Friday.

No one — not Obama, not senior aides, not congressional leaders — had suggested securing congressional approval.

And then, sometime around 6 p.m. ET, Obama went for a 45-minute stroll around the South Lawn of the White House with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the aides said. During that walk, the president said that he wanted to go to Congress.

A two-hour meeting, from about 7 p to 9 p.m., followed with senior aides during which Obama to shared the same message. Some aides argued against that course-correction, the officials told reporters.

But by the time a National Security Council meeting wrapped up on Saturday, they were all on board, the aides said.

And they detailed the coming campaign to get Congress on board:

- Hammer home the potential threat to staunch ally Israel’s security

- Provide detailed intelligence about the alleged attack

- Underline that the United States ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, and make a case that American legitimacy — not just his own — is at stake.

- Make the argument that failure to act could lead, one day, to terrorists acquiring chemical weapons from regimes like Assad’s — and turning them on America.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-to-make-1-15-p-m--statement-on-syria-161723103.html

In a legacy-defining gamble, President Barack Obama announced Saturday that he has decided to launch military strikes against Syria — but wants the Congress to authorize them.

“In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted,” Obama declared in the Rose Garden 10 days after Bashar Assad’s forces allegedly massacred 1,400 civilians with chemical weapons.

“After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” he said, describing himself as “prepared to give that order.”

The president’s hastily arranged remarks — demonstrators protesting outside the White House gates could be heard from the West Wing only minutes before he spoke — sucked the urgency out of what had looked like a imminent military strike.

Instead, cruise missile-carrying warships off Syria’s coast will have to wait until the week of Sept. 9. That’s when Congress returns from a month-long vacation to take up a measure, drafted by the White House, giving Obama the green-light.

“I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy," Obama said. "I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress."

The president ignored a reporter who shouted the obvious question: What happens if Congress says no?

But senior administration officials briefing reporters at the White House later said that Obama still believes he has the legal authority to act without congressional support — meaning that a “no” vote would not necessarily handcuff his foreign policy. And they disputed that Obama risked setting a precedent that could limit the power of future occupants of the Oval Office.
View gallery."
Obama meets with national security advisers on Syr …
President Barack Obama meets in the Situation Room with his national security advisers to discuss st …

The same officials also sidestepped repeated questions about what happens if Assad responds by stepping up chemical attacks against rebels looking to oust him.

The president himself said there was no sell-by-date for action. “Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now,” he said.

Obama’s decision came amid public opinion polls showing four out of five Americans wanted the president to seek lawmakers’ approval, and with more than 100 congressional signatures on a pair of letters delivering the same message.

Obama has acknowledged repeatedly that Americans are “war-weary” after a decade of conflict — and worried about standing on the threshold of another escalating entanglement in the Middle East.

“This would not be an open-ended intervention, we would not put boots on the ground,” he promised Saturday. “Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.”

The president said he had spoken by telephone with Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and that they agreed with the timetable.

It also followed a series of diplomatic setbacks: Russian opposition blocked a path through the United Nations Security Council, and Britain’s parliament shocked the world Thursday by voting against military action. France signed on, but its parliament planned to debate the issue next week.

Denied both clear international legal legitimacy and a robust “coalition of the willing,” facing clear public resistance as well as a surprisingly assertive Congress, and trapped by his own declaration that Syria had crossed a “red line,” Obama went from saying he would “consult” Capitol Hill to actively courting its support.
View gallery."
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks next to Vice President …
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks next to Vice President Joe Biden (L) at the Rose Garden of the Wh …

The senior aides briefing reporters after Obama’s remarks suggested that he had largely settled on a course of action in an Aug. 24 National Security Council meeting, but did not make a final decision about using force until Friday.

No one — not Obama, not senior aides, not congressional leaders — had suggested securing congressional approval.

And then, sometime around 6 p.m. ET, Obama went for a 45-minute stroll around the South Lawn of the White House with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the aides said. During that walk, the president said that he wanted to go to Congress.

A two-hour meeting, from about 7 p to 9 p.m., followed with senior aides during which Obama to shared the same message. Some aides argued against that course-correction, the officials told reporters.

But by the time a National Security Council meeting wrapped up on Saturday, they were all on board, the aides said.

And they detailed the coming campaign to get Congress on board:

- Hammer home the potential threat to staunch ally Israel’s security

- Provide detailed intelligence about the alleged attack

- Underline that the United States ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, and make a case that American legitimacy — not just his own — is at stake.

- Make the argument that failure to act could lead, one day, to terrorists acquiring chemical weapons from regimes like Assad’s — and turning them on America.

"I'm going to be tough and bomb you ... but only if congress says I should, even after I drew a red line and said I'd go it alone."

What a spineless clown. Time to hit the links!
 
What a spineless clown. Time to hit the links!

economy.png
 
Syria hails 'historic American retreat' as Obama hesitates

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130901

(Reuters) - Syria hailed an "historic American retreat" on Sunday, mockingly accusing President Barack Obama of hesitation and confusion after he delayed a military strike to consult Congress.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said tests had shown sarin nerve gas was fired on rebel-held areas near Damascus, and expressed confidence that lawmakers would do "what is right" in responding to last month's attack.

Washington says more than 1,400 people, many of them children, were killed in the attack.

Obama's decision on Saturday to seek congressional authorization for punitive military action against Syria is likely to delay any strike for at least nine days.

However, the United Nations said his announcement could be seen as part of an effort to forge a global consensus on responding to the use of chemical arms anywhere.

With Obama drawing back from the brink, President Bashar al-Assad's government reacted defiantly to the threat of Western retaliation for the August 21 chemical attack, which it says was staged by the rebels.

Assad said Syria was capable of confronting any external strike, but left the most withering comments to his official media and a junior minister.

"Obama announced yesterday, directly or through implication, the beginning of the historic American retreat," Syria's official al-Thawra newspaper said in a front-page editorial.

Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad accused Obama of indecision. "It is clear there was a sense of hesitation and disappointment in what was said by President Barack Obama yesterday. And it is also clear there was a sense of confusion as well," he told reporters in Damascus.

Before Obama put on the brakes, the path had been cleared for a U.S. assault. Navy ships were in place and awaiting orders to launch missiles, and U.N. inspectors had left Syria after gathering evidence on the use of chemical weapons.

Kerry urged skeptical U.S. lawmakers to back a strike on Assad's forces. "This is squarely now in the hands of Congress," he told CNN, saying he had confidence "they will do what is right because they understand the stakes."

WEARY AMERICANS

Last month's attack was the deadliest incident of the Syrian civil war and the world's worst use of chemical arms since Iraq's Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds in 1988.

However, opinion polls show strong opposition to a punitive strike among Americans weary of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

U.S. lawmakers for the most part welcomed Obama's decision but have not cut short their summer recess, which ends September 9. Many Democrats and Republicans are uneasy about intervening in a distant civil war in which 100,000 people have been killed over the past 2-1/2 years.

Lawmakers were to be briefed by Obama's national security team on the case for military action. Kerry said he had more evidence backing accusations against the Syrian government.

"I can share with you today that blood and hair samples that have come to us through an appropriate chain of custody, from east Damascus, from first responders, it has tested positive for signatures of sarin," Kerry told CNN's "State of the Union."

The U.N. weapons inspectors collected their own samples and diplomats say Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has told the five permanent Security Council members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - that it would take up to two weeks before the final report is ready.

Ban views Obama's decision "as one aspect of an effort to achieve a broad-based international consensus on measures in response to any use of chemical weapons," U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky said.

In Damascus, Syrians reacted with a mixture of relief, disappointment and scorn to Obama's decision. "I have to admit this morning was the first time I felt I could sleep in," said Nawal, who works as a housekeeper in the Syrian capital.

Bread had returned to the bakeries and members of the state security forces appeared relaxed, drinking tea and chatting at their posts outside government buildings.

"We always knew there wouldn't be a strike. It's not going to happen. Anyway, we were never nervous about it. We were just worried for the civilians. But we're confident it's not going to happen," one of them said.

FRANCE CANNOT GO IT ALONE

The United States had originally been expected to lead a strike relatively quickly, backed up by its NATO allies Britain and France. However, British lawmakers voted last Thursday against any involvement and France said on Sunday it would await the U.S. Congress's decision.

"France cannot go it alone," Interior Minister Manuel Valls told Europe 1 radio. "We need a coalition."

French President Francois Hollande, whose country ruled Syria for more than two decades until the 1940s, has come under increasing pressure to put the intervention to parliament.

A BVA poll on Saturday showed most French people do not approve of military action against Syria and most do not trust Hollande to conduct such an operation.

Jean-Marc Ayrault, his prime minister, was to meet the heads of both houses of parliament and the conservative opposition on Monday before lawmakers debate Syria on Wednesday.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said Riyadh would back a U.S. strike on Syria if the Syrian people did. He was speaking at a meeting in Cairo of the Arab League, which has blamed Syria for the chemical attack but has so far stopped short of explicitly endorsing Western military strikes.

Syria and its main ally, Russia, say rebels carried out the gas attack as a ploy to draw in foreign military intervention. Moscow has repeatedly used its U.N. Security Council veto to block action against Syria and says any attack would be illegal and only inflame the civil war there.

Obama's credibility had already been called into question for not punishing Assad over earlier alleged gas attacks, and he is under pressure to act now that he believes Damascus has crossed what he once described as a "red line".

Failure to punish Assad, some analysts say, could mean his ally Iran would feel free to press on with a nuclear program the West believes is aimed at developing an atomic bomb but which Tehran says has only civilian goals. That might encourage Israel to take matters into its own hands, analysts say.

"If Obama is hesitating on the matter of Syria, then clearly on the question of attacking Iran - a move that is expected to be far more complicated - Obama will hesitate much more, and thus the chances Israel will have to act alone have increased," Israeli Army Radio quoted an unnamed government official as saying.

Pope Francis called for a negotiated solution to the conflict in Syria and announced he would lead a worldwide day of prayer for peace in the country on Saturday.

(Additional reporting by Yeganeh Torbati in Dubai, Louis Charbonneau and Edith Honan at the United Nations, Nick Tattersall in Istanbul, Dan Williams in Jerusalem, Philip Pullella in Rome, and Ismael Khader in Antakya, Turkey; Writing by David Stamp; Editing by Jon Boyle)
 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130901

Bush: I quit golf over Iraq war

(AFP) – May 13, 2008

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush said in an interview out Tuesday that he quit playing golf in 2003 out of respect for the families of US soldiers killed in the conflict in Iraq, now in its sixth year.

"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal," he said in an interview for Yahoo! News and Politico magazine.

"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf," he said. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them."

The US president traced his decision to the August 19, 2003 bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad, which killed the world body's top official in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.

"I remember when de Mello, who was at the UN, got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf -- I think I was in central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it anymore to do," said Bush.

Bush's last round of golf as president dates back to October 13, 2003, according to meticulous records kept by CBS news.

On the day of the bombing two months earlier, he had cut short his golf game at the 12th hole and returned to his ranch in tiny Crawford, Texas.
 
I remember GHW Bush went out on his cigar boat all the time while the first Gulf War was going on. But I do think it was to send a message. Like, "we get all this awesome freedom, to go out on cigar boats and the like, while Saddam is hiding in a bunker."

I would prefer Obama played golf 365 days a year. He can take congress with him.
 
Sorry, Nik, I'm just trying to make some sense of this.

The Sunni govt. is suppressing Shia, like in Iraq. So the Shia fight on the government side and the government fires rockets into Sunni towns.

If the Shia were so oppressed, wouldn't they be on the rebellion side?

Ah see it's not so simple as Sunni vs. Shia. The Ba'athists are actually Alawites a sect of shia Islam the conservative Sunnis (like the Muslim Brotherhood et. al.) consider heretical, but other shia with different ethnic backgrounds haven't fared especially well under the Assad Alawis... in short, Syria is a gigantic clusterfuck of religious and ethnic groups that was perhaps intentionally put together by the Sykes-Picot agreement to help French and British colonial interests (like British Petroleum) keep the locals at each other's throats so they could exploit the area's mineral resources without having to face a unified opposition.

This is precisely why we should stay the fuck out and let these people sort it out themselves. If we intervene and tip the scales, or create a stalemate, the conflict isn't going to go away, it's just going to fester and simmer for another hundred years and erupt again when we finally extricate ourselves. There is no end-game and no winning condition for a war here.
 
I should admit that I'm against attacking Syria. Regardless of that position, I think President Obama's strategy so far seems ill-planned and off the cuff. He has regularly insulted the Brits, and now they've turned their backs on us. President Bush was mocked for bringing in "only" 50+ countries, yet we're going alone.

In a foreign relation crisis, what a President must project is certainty, steadiness and fortitude. Sadly, this President has demonstrated none of those qualities. What we are seeing is the consequences of "leading from behind". In case anyone wondered what a world looked like with an America in retreat, we're getting a good look.
 
What should the world look like if we projected our power because of our own unilateral values?

Banana republics. Iran under the Shah.

I'm not seeing the reason to intervene in most places, if not all.
 
image003_0.jpg


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...r-syrian-dictator-bashar-al-assad_690885.html

Kerry praised Assad later in 2011 as being a "very generous" man. "Well, I personally believe that -- I mean, this is my belief, okay? But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to -- the last several trips to Syria -- I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward," said Kerry at a think tank.
 
I should admit that I'm against attacking Syria. Regardless of that position, I think President Obama's strategy so far seems ill-planned and off the cuff. He has regularly insulted the Brits, and now they've turned their backs on us. President Bush was mocked for bringing in "only" 50+ countries, yet we're going alone.

In a foreign relation crisis, what a President must project is certainty, steadiness and fortitude. Sadly, this President has demonstrated none of those qualities. What we are seeing is the consequences of "leading from behind". In case anyone wondered what a world looked like with an America in retreat, we're getting a good look.

That might be relevant if the issue were Obama. Since he won't be running for any more elections, the issue is Syria alone.
 
A nice article taking the fourth estate to task over it's unabashed bias in this debate over whether or not to go to war ... and no, I don't think this is a liberal media bias, it's more of a bias toward emotionalism and speaks to just how far we're removed from the days of Kronkite and Murrow.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...a-debate-neither-neutral-nor-balanced/279256/

Syria coverage in America's newspapers is the latest example of purportedly neutral, "objective" press coverage that's bursting with contestable assumptions, often without the reporters and editors involved quite realizing their biases. The core news: President Obama asked Congress to vote on intervening in Syria. The way it's being framed in accounts billed as straight news?

The New York Times casts it as a roll of the dice:

In one of the riskiest gambles of his presidency, Mr. Obama effectively dared lawmakers to either stand by him or, as he put it, allow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to get away with murdering children with unconventional weapons.

But Obama is a lame duck, few Americans care about Syria, no one is going to take to the streets if the U.S. doesn't intervene, and striking Syria's regime without Congress while flouting public opinion was a far bigger gamble. In fact, you could easily write that Obama averted one of the riskiest gambles of his presidency by postponing a strike and consulting the Congress.

If you're someone who personalizes politics, fetishizes disagreement, and intends to treat a Congressional rejection of a strike on Syria as a "humiliation" for Obama, the Times frame makes some sense, but make no mistake: Its assessment of the Syria debate's impact is self-fulfilling prophecy from an insular, status-obsessed elite. Obama's approach is "a gamble" because and only because other insiders imagine that a president being denied by Congress -- gasp! -- is embarrassing, rather than a healthy manifestation of Madisonian checks.

The executive is more prone to war than the legislature or the people. This was foreseen.

And come January 2017, when Obama leaves office, it'll be hard to find an American outside D.C. who'd treat failure to intervene in Syria as a defining moment. The economy, health care, the end of the war in Iraq: Those are his legacies, for better or worse. The average citizen would urge America's leaders to focus on the problems for which they're responsible rather than faraway atrocities, if the question were put to them that way. It won't be by establishment pollsters.

Here's the Washington Post casually asserting as fact one side of a highly contentious debate:

Some members of Congress applauded Obama’s move, a strikingly unusual one in presidential history, particularly for a leader who has been criticized for dodging congressional oversight. The president does not need congressional approval for limited military interventions, and the executive branch has not sought it in the past.

Many Americans emphatically believe that the president does need Congressional approval for a limited military intervention, presuming that it isn't an act defending America from an actual or imminent attack -- and that isn't a fringe view. The plain text of the Constitution supports it. So does the text of the War Powers Resolution. Multiple members of Congress are asserting the legislature's proper role right now. And even President Obama and Joe Biden insisted that Congressional approval was a lawful imperative as recently as 2007. Biden even threatened impeachment if George W. Bush acted otherwise!

[...]
 
I still see it as Obama failed to build a coalition of anyone but France and the only "out" is to get Congress to vote against it.

He can puff out his chest and make warmonger sounds for appearances' sake, and in the end say that at least he tried.

He's left former Democratic Party presidential nominee John Kerry twisting in the wind, though. If only we had elected him in 2004, we'd have won Iraq and Afghanistan a long time ago!

When Hillary pounded the war drum for action in Libya, there was no talk of getting a congressional vote. She said, "the humanity! We're obligated to stop genocide!" And those were the reasons we went. 100,000 deaths in Syria, with or without the use of gas, was humanitarian reason enough. If Libya is any sort of precedent, we should have been in Syria a long time ago.

And those excerpts from the Post and Times are so incredibly biased. He's not doing anything risky or daring congress to do anything but call his bluff.
 
What should the world look like if we projected our power because of our own unilateral values?

Banana republics. Iran under the Shah.

I'm not seeing the reason to intervene in most places, if not all.

One doesn't have to intervene to project power. In fact, intervention is a demonstration of the failure to properly project power.
 
I still see it as Obama failed to build a coalition of anyone but France and the only "out" is to get Congress to vote against it.

He can puff out his chest and make warmonger sounds for appearances' sake, and in the end say that at least he tried.

He's left former Democratic Party presidential nominee John Kerry twisting in the wind, though. If only we had elected him in 2004, we'd have won Iraq and Afghanistan a long time ago!

When Hillary pounded the war drum for action in Libya, there was no talk of getting a congressional vote. She said, "the humanity! We're obligated to stop genocide!" And those were the reasons we went. 100,000 deaths in Syria, with or without the use of gas, was humanitarian reason enough. If Libya is any sort of precedent, we should have been in Syria a long time ago.

And those excerpts from the Post and Times are so incredibly biased. He's not doing anything risky or daring congress to do anything but call his bluff.

Are you saying this isn't a "gutsy call"? What a ridiculous meme that one was.
 
I still see it as Obama failed to build a coalition of anyone but France and the only "out" is to get Congress to vote against it.

He can puff out his chest and make warmonger sounds for appearances' sake, and in the end say that at least he tried.

He's left former Democratic Party presidential nominee John Kerry twisting in the wind, though. If only we had elected him in 2004, we'd have won Iraq and Afghanistan a long time ago!

When Hillary pounded the war drum for action in Libya, there was no talk of getting a congressional vote. She said, "the humanity! We're obligated to stop genocide!" And those were the reasons we went. 100,000 deaths in Syria, with or without the use of gas, was humanitarian reason enough. If Libya is any sort of precedent, we should have been in Syria a long time ago.

And those excerpts from the Post and Times are so incredibly biased. He's not doing anything risky or daring congress to do anything but call his bluff.

Yeah, that's sort of why I posted those excerpts. I was trying to demonstrate just how much of a lapdog the press has become for the D.C. elites (on both sides of the aisle). This is why you get David Gregory indignantly asking Glen Greenwald if he should be charged with a felony for releasing the Snowden material.
 
Are you saying this isn't a "gutsy call"? What a ridiculous meme that one was.

Going to congress where he hopes it gets voted down is not a gutsy call.

It's politically smart. He gets his cake and eats it too.
 
Going to congress where he hopes it gets voted down is not a gutsy call.

It's politically smart. He gets his cake and eats it too.

Our current President is nothing but politically smart, no matter how much damage to the country those "smarts" inflict.
 
Slightly OT. It's Libya, but it's looking at the future in Syria if we intervene.

Hillary '16

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...as-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html

Special report: We all thought Libya had moved on – it has, but into lawlessness and ruin

Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi

A little under two years ago, Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, urged British businessmen to begin “packing their suitcases” and to fly to Libya to share in the reconstruction of the country and exploit an anticipated boom in natural resources.

Yet now Libya has almost entirely stopped producing oil as the government loses control of much of the country to militia fighters.

Mutinying security men have taken over oil ports on the Mediterranean and are seeking to sell crude oil on the black market. Ali Zeidan, Libya’s Prime Minister, has threatened to “bomb from the air and the sea” any oil tanker trying to pick up the illicit oil from the oil terminal guards, who are mostly former rebels who overthrew Muammar Gaddafi and have been on strike over low pay and alleged government corruption since July.

As world attention focused on the coup in Egypt and the poison gas attack in Syria over the past two months, Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi two years ago. Government authority is disintegrating in all parts of the country putting in doubt claims by American, British and French politicians that Nato’s military action in Libya in 2011 was an outstanding example of a successful foreign military intervention which should be repeated in Syria.
 
Obama says he didn't set red line on Syria. He also says it's not his credibility on the line, but Amurrrica's, Congress', and the world's.

How can anybody believe a word this guy utters?

No red line

[video=youtube;n6ePJXR216c]

Red line in 2012

[video=youtube;avQKLRGRhPU]

President Barack Obama drew a new line on his “red line” Wednesday, urging the world to see him as the guardian of high moral principle rather than just personal credibility.
“First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line,” Obama said, despite his statement a year ago that President Bashar Assad would cross a “red line” with him if chemical weapons were deployed in Syria’s civil war.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/obama-red-line-syria-96287.html#ixzz2dz3vjF5o
 
More on Obama's bald-faced lie today. This is just baffling. Does he think that people aren't going to call him on his bullshit? What a coward of a man. He's now putting this on everybody else except his dumb ass.

And here's a background call in April 2013 with “a White House official” that left no doubt about what President Obama's own officials thought about where the red line came from:

We go on to reaffirm that the President has set a clear red line as it relates to the United States that the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups is a red line that is not acceptable to us, nor should it be to the international community. It's precisely because we take this red line so seriously that we believe there is an obligation to fully investigate any and all evidence of chemical weapons use within Syria.
...it is absolutely the case that the President's red line is the use of chemical weapons...


And this one is especially devastating:


And the people in Syria and the Assad regime should know that the President means what he says when he set that red line. And keep in mind, he is the one who laid down that marker. He's the one who directed that we provide this information to the public. And he's the one who directed that we do everything we can to further investigate this information so that we can establish in credible, corroborated, factual basis what exactly took place.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top