Obama’s “Intelligence” On Syria Is The Muslim Brotherhood

When Sec. of State John (Lurch) Kerry made the case for an attack on Syria, the sources guiding his judgement were that of the Arab League, the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), and Turkey. All Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers or affiliates.

In Sec. of State John Kerry’s statement . . .

The world is speaking out. And many friends stand ready to respond. The Arab League pledged, quote, “to hold the Syrian regime fully responsible for this crime.” The Organization for Islamic Cooperation condemned the regime and said we needed, quote, “to hold the Syrian government legally and morally accountable for this heinous crime. Turkey said there is no doubt that the regime is responsible.

Right, those friends.

So it should come as no surprise why the President has lost his coalition, and why the President is still talking about a military action in Syria.

When asked if the Arab League is advocating military action in Syria, Arab League Secretary General Nabil el-Arabi told the BBC that they aren’t advocating it openly, but . . .

“Maybe it is in our minds that someone would do that but we would like the Security Council to take charge,” Mr el-Arabi said.

What they considered might happen “would be something of a limited scope”, he told the BBC’s Bethany Bell, in Cairo.

Using the rest of the same talking points as President Obama and Sec. of State Kerry, el-Arabi also said the strike would “hopefully” prevent future use of chemical weapons, and punish those who used them.

So who do you suppose that “someone” would be? The United States of course. The President is the only one on the planet talking about military action against Syria. He helped the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, sacrificed our Ambassador and three other Americans in Lybia to alQaeda, and still doing the bidding, or wanting to, of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

That chemical weapons were used is no longer a question. But watch el-Arabi squirm when asked what evidence the Arab League has that the Assad regime was the party that used them. Secretary of State Kerry says unequivocally that it was the Syrian government that used the WMD outside Damascus. OK, but look at the way President Obama said it, wordsmith that he is, when interviewed by PBS . . .

“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out,” Obama said during an interview with PBS’ NewsHour. “And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences.”

So what’s the “And if that’s so” all about? Nevermind that even if Syria did do it, it wasn’t upon the U.S.. It was on their own people. And sorry as that is, it does not raise to the level of harming our national interest in any way, shape, or form. Again, we’re not the world’s policeman and civil-war-country custodian.

For The White House to still, after all that’s happened in Egypt, be listening and catering to the Muslim Brotherhood says volumes on how naive and dangerous President Obama is to our national security interests.

President Fails To Make His Case On Syria

After weeks of saber-rattling and ego boosting, and statements on Syria from everyone but the Commander-in-Chief himself, President Obama finally speaks to the question everyone is asking. What is our national security interest that necessitates attacking Syria?

And to that question, the President fails to make the case. He said . . .

This kind of attack threatens our national security interests by violating well-established international norms against the use of chemical weapons by further threatening friends and allies of ours in the region, like Israel and Turkey and Jordan, and it increases the risk that chemical weapons will be used in the future and fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us.

Might use them against us? There are no national interests of ours where Syria is concerned. They haven’t attacked us. They have telegraphed what they’d do to Israel if they were attacked by the U.S. But predicated on the United States attacking them first. To pin our national security interests on what might or could happen means there are no boundaries or limits to a trigger happy President. President Obama also failed to explain the end-game to his limited “smack in the face” attack on Syria.

The Syrian government is doing bad things, but it is doing them to their own people. Not to the United States. They are involved in a civil war now, and most of Assad’s opposition is coming from the alQaeda and Muslim Brotherhood types. Launching any kind of attack will only improve the chances that alQaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood will take over.

Syria needs to fight their own civil war. It’s as if nothing has been learned from the last 60 years of history in the Middle East. Let’s not repeat history. No one interfered with our civil war. And after it was over, we had a unified country. Their civil war needs to play out to its conclusion. Then, and only then, will the world know what kind of country remains. Friendly to the west, or not. At least, it will be a known entity. Not a mess like the rest of the Middle East.

Bottom line, we’re not the world’s policeman nor are we a civil-war-country’s custodian.