Tuesday, August 27, 2013

US Intervention In Syria: Obama's "Dumb War"

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war." -- Richard Milhous Obama, October 2002
Wow, how the times change!

One year after the terrorist act of war on 9/11, when it was unsure whether or not Saddam Hussein was training terrorists or building weapons of mass destruction (as the Slick Willie Clinton administration had also accused him of), the Democrat Party wanted to change the subject from defending America from threats abroad to the economic recession after 9/11 that was nothing, compared to the Obama Depression. They wanted to change the subject to anything that could help them defeat a President they thought was illegitimate.

Now, 11 years later, Obama and all those back in 2003-2004 who accused the Bush Administration of manufacturing lies to go to war in Iraq, are beating the war drums and beating their chests over the allegations of use of weapons of mass destruction by the Assad regime in Syria.

Now Obama, the peacenik who won the hearts of the hippie 1960s freaks and the commie skanks in Code Pinko, wants to rush off to war with a military he has weakened and shown nothing but disrespect for (NBC, via Legal Insurrection)
The United States could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday, in an attack meant more to send a message to the Syrian regime than to cripple its military, senior U.S. officials told NBC News.

The disclosure added to a growing drumbeat around the world for military action against Syria, believed to have used chemical weapons in recent days against scores of civilians and rebels who have been fighting the government for two years.

In three days of strikes, the Pentagon could assess the effectiveness of the first wave and target what was missed in further rounds, the senior officials said.
Now, while these atrocities are horrible, maybe Obama shouldn't get too rash and trigger happy. There's a lot of conflicting information on whether or not it was Assad's forces, or the Syrian rebels, who used WMDs. Walid Shoebat, a former PLO operative who turned away from terrorism, says there's proof the Syrian rebels used WMDs.
In fact, even before Assad’s forces gained the momentum, a UN official reportedly found evidence of rebels using chemical weapons but no evidence Assad’s regime did. This, from a Washington Times article by Shaun Waterman dated May 6, 2013:
Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.
Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.
But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed. {emphasis ours}
Today, while the rebels are more desperate than they were at the time of that article, evidence of rebels using chemical weapons is available; evidence Assad’s regime has used them is not.
Waterman wrote…
Rebel Free Syrian Army spokesman Louay Almokdad denied that rebels had use chemical weapons.
That doesn’t square with a video uploaded on August 23, 2013, in which Free Syrian operatives threatened to launch chemical weapons:

...In this video, two Syrian rebels (Muslim Brotherhood gang) can be heard coordinating an attack on a nearby building. As smoke billows a short distance from the building, a rebel on the ground can be heard directing someone – presumably at the source of the launch – to change his direction. At that point, the rebel from the launch point can be heard talking about using sarin gas next:

Now, I don't know if they get USAToday at the White House, but if they did, I wonder if they either missed this story or ignored it, about the Syrian Rebels whom Obama, Hanoi John Kerry and RINOs like John McLame want to help.
A Syrian rebel group's April pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda's replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group's influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The pledge of allegiance by Syrian Jabhat al Nusra Front chief Abou Mohamad al-Joulani to al-Qaeda leader Sheik Ayman al-Zawahri was coupled with an announcement by the al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq, that it would work with al Nusra as well.

Lebanese Sheik Omar Bakri, a Salafist who says states must be governed by Muslim religious law, says al-Qaeda has assisted al Nusra for some time.

"They provided them early on with technical, military and financial support , especially when it came to setting up networks of foreign jihadis who were brought into Syria," Bakri says. "There will certainly be greater coordination between the two groups."

Wonderful! Obama not only wants to send arms to, but also launch US cruise missiles, to help an al-Queda affiliated group.  So let me guess...Obama, John Kerry and the Democrats are opposed to wars against al-Queda, but are willing to support the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Queda overthrow nations in Africa and now Syria?  How did Obama's aid to the al-Queda insurgents in Libya help us out? They attacked our embassy on 9/11/2012 and killed four Americans while Obama slept.

As much as a bad guy as Assad is (and he is a bad guy), do we want to risk American lives to help al-Queda have a stronghold in the Middle East, near Israel, by overthrowing Assad?  Does Obama want to risk straining relations with Russia and other nations?  Is he going to violate the War Powers Act by refusing to go to Congress to seek authorization for war?  Will Joe Bite Me call for Obama's impeachment, just as he threatened Bush in 2007, if Congress is bypassed?

It looks like what we have here is Obama's "dumb war. A rash war" to "distract" from the one year anniversary of the Benghazi terror attack and Obama's "lie after lie" about what caused it. It's a distraction as well from other scandals from his Regime and their Stalinist-style manner of using the government to silence political opposition while shoving their ideology down our throats.

Maybe Obama should just load his teleprompter with his 2002 speech and read it to himself, because he's doing what he accused others of.

No comments: