Skip to comments.FACT CHECK: Obama's Syria case still lacks proof
Posted on 09/11/2013 4:03:37 AM PDT by don-o
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama voiced his conviction Tuesday night that Syrian President Bashar Assad was to blame for deadly chemical attacks against civilians, but again he offered no proof.
A look at his remarks to the nation, seeking support for a military strike against Syria, and how they compare with the facts as publicly known:
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
First time I have seen the Obama buttlicking media speak the TRUTH that he hasn’t proven his case.
Follow the Money
Sunni Muslims have been at war with Alawite and Shiite Muslims for over a thousand years and no one ever paid any attention to their killing each other, so why all of a sudden has our President taken sides in this Muslim domestic disturbance? One thing Ive learned over the years is that when youre trying to identify a motive in a criminal investigation, all you have to do is follow the money and itll usually come into focus.
The first clue came when we saw our President publicly bow and grovel before the King of Saudi Arabia (a Sunni Muslim). Could it have been because the King of Saudi Arabia financed Obamas campaign? Remember, there are still large sums of money in Obamas campaign coffers that havent been adequately explained.
If the King of Saudi Arabia now owns our President, it could explain why Obama has sided with the Kings Sunni Muslim Al-Qaeda rebels in this Civil War against Syrias Alawite/Shiite government. It could also explain why Obama has prevented the development of U.S. oil resources and has effectively killed coal in the U.S. in order to keep our country dependent on foreign oil.
Its evident that U.S national security isnt threatened by this Syrian Civil War and the only reason weve entered into this fracas is because President Obama is bought and paid for by the Saudis. Now, were learning just how many in our Congress, from Boehner to McCain, are also on the Saudi payroll.
Our Secretary of State, John Kerry, just revealed that the Saudi King has offered to reimburse the U.S. for the cost of U.S. strikes in Syria. If President Obama sells the services of our U.S. Military to an Islamic Sultan, as hes about to do, our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen will then become historic parallels to Ottoman Janissaries. Americans will then go to war shoulder to shoulder with their Al-Qaeda allies making Osama bin Laden so proud.
Other sources have reported that the Saudis attempted to pay the Russians to stop supporting Assads Syrian Government, but the Russians refused to be bought, and why would the Russians refuse to be bought by the Saudis? Again, just Follow the Money. The only reason the Russians would refuse to be bought by the Saudis is because they see more monetary gain for themselves if this disturbance in Syria escalates and hostilities spread throughout the Middle East.
If the U.S. strikes Syria, it will in all likelihood trigger a war that will quickly spread throughout the Middle East from Israel through Saudi Arabia to Iran. When this happens, nukes could start popping, Middle East oil fields could become highly radioactive, and Saudi oil could become unobtainable on the world market.
As Russia has developed its oil resources equal to or possibly past the Saudis and are now considered the #2 oil producer in the world behind Saudi Arabia, the elimination of Saudi oil would make Russia #1 in the world. Russia could then name their own price for oil, and the world would have to pay. You have to hand it to the Russians, chess players that they are and looking at least five moves ahead, as they will have eliminated their competition and tricked their competition into paying for it.
Dont look for a motive in this war for the Saudi Sunnis, the Syrian Alawites, and the Iranian Shiites, as theyre primitive religious fanatics and dont need a motive beyond their own insanity.
I ask you; just how insane do we have to be to enter into a war among the insane?
I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.
This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the peoples representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.
obomber is the only president in the last decade not to go to congress for use of force(libya). Bush got congress' approval for the afghan and iraq wars.
Sorry. An AP fact Check isn’t worth do-do.
This is probably a CYA story that will be used to refute future allegations that the MSM is in the tank on Syria. I have no doubt that this story will be drowned out by a deluge of stories praising the President and his brilliant Secretary of State for their deft and statemanlike handling of Syria. The MSM is that craven. It will start with stories of how Obama planned the Russian diplomatic solution from the outset. Bam and Company brilliantly manipulated Putin to do what he did to avert the conflict. Before the MSM spin is complete, the American public will believe that Obama/Kerry made peace in the Middle East, disabled Assad’s most dangerous weapons, sent a message to other tyrants about WMD, protected Israel, brought hope of democracy to Syria, etc., etc. Just wait ...
You’re probably right. By temperament, I am a “glass half empty” guy. As I grow older, I am consciously trying to change that.
“I ask you; just how insane do we have to be to enter into a war among the insane?”
If I were POTUS, I would draw a red line: Any WMD use will be met with a swift, powerful response. Any WMD use on non-Muslim countries, that is.
If you’re really going to follow the money, you ought to consider the international reserve status of the US$, the quality of the US$ as a store of value, and the current US$ holdings of KSA and other OPEC nations. Fact is that the US government is utterly dependent upon OPEC and China to finance its deficits, but the quality of the US$ has significantly deteriorated. Consider what would happen if KSA persuaded OPEC to price crude oil in gold instead of US$. This prospect makes our friends, the Saudis, very persuasive in such matters. And, like everything, the current crop of politicians will even make the US military available for a price.
My opinion. It was a workplace accident. By the “rebels”.
I am of an age to remember the sour joke that went around after 1965 as LBJ ramped up Vietnam; “The Democrats were right in 1964, they said that if I voted for Goldwater we would go and bomb the hell out of the Vietnamese. Well, I voted for Goldwater and sure enough we went and bombed the hell out of the Vietnamese.” While I wasn’t old enough to vote, I do remember that ever so effective crapopulous TV Ad with the little girl and countdown that was constantly played as ‘news’.
Now we have another, even worse liberal, social engineer in the White House that finds out, far too late, his fond assumptions and preconceptions are no match to the real world! I just PRAY that we can “FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM BACK” America after this demonstrated incompetent, bowing idiot leaves office!
It really gets under my skin to keep hearing the Democrats call our nation a democracy. We're a republic - a democratic republic, but a republic nonetheless. The guy that was ousted in Colorado called us a democracy too.
Follow the possibility of a collapsed US economy followed by a collapsed US Government. The most powerful military in the world would then be temporarily leaderless. The closest parallel to this would be a "monkey with a hand grenade" loose in the world. If you don't think that possibility doesn't scare the crap out of the Saudis, you're wrong.
Goldwater in '64
Hot water in '65
Bread and water in '66
"In your heart, you know he's right." That resonated with a 13 year old me.
I recently saw a clip of Ronald Reagan calling the US a democracy. I agree with you. The story I heard was Ben Franklin, after the meeting of the continental congress where the Constitution was approved was asked, “what kind of government did you decide?” Franklin reportedly said, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
How bout this one, "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
All valid observations, to which the money analysis should included Russia’s monopoly on natural gas supply to the EU which is does not want to give up with a regime change in Syria to a French/US consortium or some other, pipeline from Turkey through Syria. This is well- discussed everywhere except the MSM.
In any case the muzzzie in chief is owned by the Saudis as was Jimmah Cahtah, who still is. Shariah continues to weasel its way into our society with the protectors of Mecca funding it and swaying the lickspittle “elite” of harvaaaard and the the NE aristos of bygone days.
No question this ALL started with G Bush senior unravelling all that Ronald Reagan put together.
The Progressives are fully vested in the NWO and Saudi plans and have been all along, for their “investment” portfolio. Bush to Clinton,to Bush to.... obamaumao.
The problem is that obamaumao is also a marxist.
This is also ALL smokescreen for the march of obamaumaocare which RINOs are supporting. That and the ridiculous arguments about “shutting down the govt.” charade.
“I ask you; just how insane do we have to be to enter into a war among the insane?”
Insanity makes a great smoke screen for the Ruling Class agenda. They want to suck the oxygen out of defunding Obama-Care, and maybe even sneak in a midnight amnesty plan. I wish Speaker Bone-head would just start the Obama Party and try to split the democrat ticket. Then he’d be part of the solution.
At the same time, O-bomb-a gets to help Al Quaeda and put secularists and Christians at risk. Just like Egypt, siding against Coptic Christians. And just like Clntion’s support of the KLA islamo-terrorists in Kosovo.
If Obama really cared about innocent lives, he’d be cracking down on Fast and Furious and lashing out against crimes by blacks on blacks and blacks on whites. He would also be opposed to killing abortion survivors.
What a creep. Why should I think he gives a fig about humanity when his brother still lives in a hut and could really use $20?
A clear message is being sent today to the obama crowd! We will not fight for moslems!
Welcome to Free Republic.
There is a separate thread on what you posted. We do try to somewhat stay on topic per the original thread.
Thanks for posting this.
I just read this article on the internet, and the writer sounds like many freepers who feel the same way.
Obozo the liar is now irrelevant outside the Beltway.
I figured it out and posted as its own thread. Thanks.
0bama’s ‘rebels’ in Syria will launch another chemical attack in Syria. Mark my words. 0bama’s Arab handlers will not allow him to get away with NOT ousting Assad!
Obama’s case doesn’t “lack proof”. It was a premeditated lie from the very beginning, concocted in concert with our enemies. This is an act that demands impeachment.
OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE ANNA G. ESHOO (CA-18)That Anna Eshoo felt the latitude to go this far in the face of this administration should be taken as a serious repudiation of the Obama Administration's foreign policy, one that has advanced the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of both freedom and religious tolerance. It is a development that we should welcome. Needless to say, she had evidence; as it would take a complete idiot not to recognize the parallels between Libya and Syria. Nobody having any compassion for the Syrian people would want to go that route again.
For Immediate Release
September 11, 2013 http://eshoo.house.gov Contact: Charles Stewart (202) 225-8104 email@example.com
ESHOO STATEMENT ON SYRIA
WASHINGTON, D.C.Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) released the following statement on the issue of Syria:
I welcome President Obamas announcement and commend him for pursuing the Russian diplomatic proposal to disarm and destroy Syrias arsenal of chemical weapons. This diplomatic path holds out hope for the world that the situation can be addressed in a way that has always been one of Americas great strengthsleading with integrity to avert war.
Our most solemn responsibility as Members of Congress is to use our best judgment to protect the national security of our nation. A decision to use military force therefore requires we be able to answer the following questions:
There is no question that striking Syria is an act of war. It would be preemptive, unilateral, and contrary to how the U.S. has conducted its foreign policy for decades.
- Is this in the national security interests of the U.S.?
- Will this action make us safer?
- Will it make the Syrian people safer?
- Does Syria pose an imminent threat to the United States?
I am not naïve about the very real dangers our nation faces, but these dangers cannot be removed by military action alone. In fact, the distinguished Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, made this clear in his recent testimony to Congress:
Militarily, I can state that we can achieve the goal of deterring and degrading. Take note that I didnt say we can prevent.
What is more determinative is the power of our ideas, rather than the power of our military. There is a place for military action, but Syria is not that place.
When the U.S. strayed from its historical moorings, we learned painful and costly lessons that might alone does not get the job done. Instead of diplomacy, containment and coalitions, our military interventions, invasions and surges have left countries in turmoil and emboldened jihadists, making the world more dangerous. We must learn from the lessons of recent history, or we will repeat the failures.
I believe a preemptive and unilateral strike against Syria is wrong.
I believe it will make the world more dangerous, not safer.
I believe it will not reverse the tide on the ground in Syria.
I believe that using force for the sake of force is not in the interest of our national security and will be counterproductive.
I believe, as do thousands of my constituents, that going to war against Syriaregardless of how targeted or limited the strikeswill implicate the U.S. in a civil war, cause possible retaliations in the region destabilizing it even more, and add to the ill will against our country.
I will cast a no vote to the Presidents request for authorization to strike Syria should it be taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives.
“The administration has cited satellite imagery and communications intercepts, backed by social media and intelligence reports from sources in Syria, as the basis for blaming the Assad government.”
Social media? Are they kidding? Not good enough. Sources from Syria: names? Affiliation? Could have been from anyone (I’m thinking rebels) including a fabrication from the CIA.
“But the only evidence the administration has made public is a collection of videos it has verified of the victims. The videos do not demonstrate who launched the attacks.”
Or when, or where.
Time for Barky and Lurch to pack it up and go home before they inflict more damage to the US. They have already made us the global joke. Thanks to His Incompetence, our national security is now REALLY at risk - we’re probably a prime target right now. Damned A$$-hat.
You got that right.
So why are some Republicans joining Obama’s Syria action????
Anyone who thinks we should get involved in Middle East conflicts should read this simplified overview of ShiaSunni relations (Wikipedia)
From what I can parse out:
Sunni = Wahhabis(Salafiyya), ethnic groups = Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen, military/political groups = Muslim Brotherhood/Al-Qaeda/Taliban/Ansar al-Islam/Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad/Jeish al-Taiifa al-Mansoura/Jeish Muhammad/Black Banner Organization
Shia = Alawites/Fivers/Twelvers, military/political group = Hizbullah/Iranian Qods Force (their special ops)/Mahdi Army (Muqtada al Sadr's group)/League of the Righteous/The Promised Day Brigade
[Note: Baathists = Baath Arab Socialist Party, founded in 1947 by Michel Aflaq (a Christian), Salah al-Din al-Bitar (a Sunni muslim) and the followers of Zaki al-Arsuzi (a Shia Alawite).]
Sunni majority states:
- Saudi Arabia (birthplace of Islam, under Sharia law, but 15% are Shia)
- Pakistan (80% Sunni)
- Jordan (95% Sunni)
- Afghanistan (90-95% Sunni)
- Syria (approximately 3/4 Sunni, but 15% are Shia Baathist rulers)
- Yemen (54% Sunni)
Shia majority states:
- Iran (92% Shia)
- Iraq (65% Shia, but 32% are Shia who were Baathist rulers)
- Lebanon (Hizbullah)
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
Not a bad list to use as a framework before initiating war (unprovoked attack).
Bush would have done well to have made an honest effort at items 3 & 5.
- Iraq (65% Shia, but 32% are Sunni who were Baathist rulers)
2014 Election cycle???
What is the cost of doing nothing? “No Doctrine”
But who are their base since most don’t agree with attacking Syria according to the polls.
In which case? You're going to have to do better with a baiting rhetorical question to get me to bother with an answer. That means make a case. Else, I'll decide you're too lazy to bother.
To understand Muslims, one must know what’s in the Koran and this book will provide that knowledge:
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran
An audio copy can be found at:
High Cost of Doing Nothing: Quantifying impacts of American Imperialism needs to be our bottom line. The American leadership standpoint should ensure its people with the day-to-day security to the International stage. By taking no action is often the most casutic option of all.
When the question was both rhetorical and lazy, that is what one calls it. Oh, and please learn some English grammar; "dialogue" is a noun. The quality of your prose reflects very badly on the validity of whatever rationale you think you are communicating that in fact you are not. Sic:
Quantifying impacts of American Imperialism needs to be our bottom line.
Kindly propose a metric for "quantifying" an outcome with both multiple and intangible variables.
The American leadership standpoint should ensure its people with the day-to-day security to the International stage.
This is a nonsensical statement. You are so addled as to be unworthy of debate. Really.
This wretched religion started a world-wide cult to satisfy the passions of sexually starved bandits. Die, and ample breasted woman will surround you; pure and sweet; and immortal youths too, to enjoy until the end of time, and fine wine that will not intoxicate your head. On perfumed couches you can gorge yourself silly on fresh lamb, surrounded by dancing girls.
For forteen hundred years his cult has forced the bowels of history to extrete idiocy in all directions, like an angry toilet, to become the basis of a fierce personality cult. This cult is the serious nihilism that toubles our planet today. Islam latches onto those who cannot get girls and it's goons show a remarkable contempt for death, and an ignorance to inspire them to bloody wars and the most extensive conquests since Alexander; this is the nihilistic tide, and it is heading our way. Nietzsche said nihilism was the strangest of strange guests knocking at our door. He did not have islam in mind.
The nihilistic will-O-wisp forbade drink in this life, but promised fine wine in the afterlife. Women were limited in this life; only to be freely given in heaven. In this episode we find the happiest and richest form of nihilism. Arthur Schopenhauer, who himself was no stranger to gloom and sexual depravity, said that much is lost in translation, but he could not discover in koran one single idea of value (apart from the sex, presumably).
Marxists say this isn't so bad, that we shouldn't worry about the inevitable de-flowering of Europe. They assure us that our dying world will be passed over painlessly and unnoticed and that the last European revolution happened when Rome fell to Christianity and nobody got too upset; all those years ago. So we can welcome the inevitable tides as we welcome the inevitable changing of the seasons; with cheering women, and ecstatic youths. The grindstones of history turn slowly they say, but grind exceedingly fine. History will repeat itself and so say sunshine, rise with our fellow barbarians, hurry up, it's inevitable so cheer up!
It is true that the fall of Rome was never witnessed because it took generations of people grinding away to make the difference and before that, the handover from paganism to Christianity was never embodied in a lifetime, thus history moves in generations and you won't notice; and hey, let's not fret about the morrow because its not gonna happen today. No imam is gonna kick down your front door and cut off your willy skin just yet! You will be long dead when that starts happening. So we need not worry to much about the coming nihilistic spring. So cometh the day cometh the men. According to today's demographers, in a few generations, Europe will be an islamic paradise, because muslim men bread vigorously you see; and, to paraphrase Edward Gibbon, 'more so to mend our puny white breed'. Muslims will one day write about the inevitability of the homecoming of the truth and that shining Europe was a mere hitch in the onward march of Saudi'al'England'ali Europabia (like the Neandethal's before us; an extinct historical anomaly). Jesus Christ, according to those who hate, was no God, but a minor islamic prophet, and on the day of judgment Jesus will come down and he will break all the crosses and smash christianity on the hard pillars of islamic. Muslims see Christianity as merely a hiccup towards the real revelation of Allah. Well not on our watch! We will fight.
Wow. I thought it would take raping a grade school son of a MSM journalist to turn one against him.
Your anal musing lacks content validity. Your issues, although precipitous are more qualitative in scope, mere post positivism flailing. Your disquisition enshrines ambiguous, infinitely complexities, variables and is open to interpretation only by you.
So shrug off, and loom into your own wallowing.
I would have been willing to engage in an exchange had you been willing to do so. You neither respected my initial request for clarification of your position nor presented an argument on your own beyond banal assertion, as expected.
Your sentence is to vaporize. You are a waste of time.