A suicide bomber blew himself up in central Damascus Tuesday and killed four people, the state media said, while a Syrian mother superior accused opposition fighters of abducting 12 nuns from a predominantly Christian village near the capital.
Tag Archives: War On Terror
Wanted al-Qaida Leader Captured In Libya
A Delta Force operation in the streets of the Libyan capital resulted in the capture of Abu Anas al-Libi, a Libyan al-Qaida leader. The Libyan government bristled at 
the raid, asking Washington to explain the “kidnapping.” He Libya! I got your explanation right here!
You first Libya. First you explain how this douche bag was living freely in Tripoli while on an FBI wanted list for the last 15 years?
Link: Libya bristles at US raid that captured militant – Yahoo News.
Million Muslim March A Bust
Not counting the seven speakers, the turnout was about evenly split between media there to cover the event and attendees. About 30 (THIRTY) people total, half of which were media. Aside from the turnout being almost nill, the event organizers of the Million Muslim March asked for a permit for up to 1,000 attendees.
Link: ‘Million Muslim March’ 2013 has low turnout, lost in sea of motorcyclists | Sea of motorcyclists
Unbelievably Small, Hillary Clinton
It’s been one year since former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began lying about the attack on our Consulate in Benghazi, where our Ambassador and three other Americans fought to their death. And since that time, Mrs. Clinton has still not put her hand on the bible to talk about it.
No one has been ‘brought to justice’ for it. It’s like it never happened. Try to convince the families of the victims that it never happened. Try to give the American people amnesia so they will forget that it happened. Because Hillary said, at this point, what difference does it make?
Run for president Hillary, and you’ll find out.
In another unbelievably small action from another unbelievably small politician, is Hillary’s successor. John Kerry (who served in Vietnam), must have Syria’s Assad shaking in his boots. As further evidence that the U.S. military does not deserved to be commanded by Democrats of today, Secretary of State Kerry said that a military attack on Syria would be unbelievably small. What?
Here’s the military strategy as executed by Democrats. Never make the case that America’s national security (as opposed to America’s interest) is at stake. Then, publicize that an attack is coming weeks if not months ahead of time. Then, publish the intended targets in the newspaper. Give several weeks, if not months, for the enemy to move their munitions. Then, tell them, hey, it’s no big deal. We’re barely going to hurt you. Unbelievably small! Then, after it is clear the president has no public support, use Congress as someone to blame, or to save his butt. Accept no responsibility yourself.
Yeah, that’s who I’ll entrust the life of my son or daughter to. As a soldier, I’d feel even less confident.
Community/Country Organizing Coming To TV
Just want to prepare you for the circus-like smoke and mirrors we will see Tuesday night as President Obama tries to convince you that you’re all wrong on Syria and should back him for bombing.
We’ll see pictures of men, women, and children dying from nerve gas. We’ll hear him say how the world condemned the use of WMD’s long ago. The president will reiterate the lie that it wasn’t his ‘red line,’ it was the world’s red line. He will use the guilt-trip on you for not feeling compelled to wage war on Syria, in support of his flippant remark about a red line last year.
You won’t hear him say how other countries have committed to use their military to attack Syria. Because no other country has. Not Russia or China, not one Arab country, no European country. France supports using our military, not theirs. No North or South American country. No Asian country. No country in the South Pacific.
The Constitution authorizes the president to use the military as needed when national security (not national interest) is under imminent threat. He will not make the case that our national security is directly or indirectly threatened. Instead, his emphasis will be ‘America’s interest’ which, fails the constitutional test for use of military force.
The president won’t tell you that telegraphing targets weeks ahead of time didn’t cause the Assad regime to move their WMD stockpiles somewhere else. And he won’t tell you that his intelligence sources are the Muslim Brotherhood. He will tell us ‘there will be no boots on the ground.’ He won’t tell you that he won’t send in troops to keep WMD’s from getting into the hands of alQaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood after the bombing stops. And of course, he won’t tell you that the only ones to gain by us bombing Syria is the Muslim Brotherhood and alQaeda.
In the end, President Obama will try to shame you into inserting the United States in Syria’s civil war. You only need to remember two things. There is no constitutional authorization for it. And, our sons and daughters in the military don’t wear the uniform to die for flippant remarks made by their Commander-in-Chief.
A Year After Benghazi, US orders diplomats out of Lebanon
The State Department ordered all nonessential U.S. personnel Friday to leave Lebanon, and suggest U.S. citizens do the same.
So when can we know who was responsible for what happened, and what didn’t happen, in Benghazi nearly a year ago? If there’s nothing to hide, why are witnesses, from Secretary Clinton on down, still prevented from talking?
Link: BEIRUT: US orders diplomats out of Lebanon amid fears – World Wires – MiamiHerald.com.
“In America’s Interest” Is Not Enough
Listening to “the case” that the president and the ‘bomb Syria’ crowd is making is an answer to the wrong question. The only question to ask when it comes to using military force on another country is this, are we under direct threat of attack or under attack? Is our national security being compromised or about to be compromised? That’s all our constitution calls for when it comes to a standing military as commanded by the president.
Listening to my favorite financial guy Stewart Varney say how it is in America’s interest to strike Syria almost made me physically ill. Citing the death and destruction going on there. Citing that because we have the power to intervene, then we should.
Not picking on Varney, he has a lot of company in this kind of thinking. Where does this thinking come from? It comes from the belief that we should be the policeman of the world. That we should interfere in another country’s civil war by waging war on them. Not only is life not that simple, but more importantly, someone else’s civil war does not constitute an immediate threat to our national security. Nor does it mean we have to step in and get involved. They need to fight their civil war to its conclusion. Just like, without foreign intervention, we fought our own civil war.
Would it be in America’s interest if the fighting would stop? Not necessarily. Especially if alQaeda were to be the ones filling the vacuum created by our military strike.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume it to be true that it would be in America’s interest for us to use military force in Syria. Let’s also assume that Iran and Syria would not attack Israel like they said they would. I can think of other situations where it would be in America’s interest to deal with problems in another country. Wouldn’t it be in America’s interest to put an end to the Mexican drug cartels that are invading our country and killing our citizens? Aided in many ways by the corrupt politicians in Mexico. The same politicians, their president included, that facilitate illegal immigration across our southern border. Let’s bomb them. Let’s send in some drones to wipe out the drug kingpin’s homes. Take out Mexico’s command and control. Because it’s in America’s interest. Then there’s Venezuela, hosting terrorist training camps. Nationalizing the oil industry, confiscating Exxon, an American company. Well, it’s in America’s interest to stop that. Bomb them.
See the difference between “national security” and “America’s interest?” When the U.S. uses its military for what is in America’s interest, instead of for protecting its national security, it’s not hard to see why the terrorists and the axis of evil refer to the U.S. as war mongering imperialists. To their lame brain followers, those kind of actions make a compelling case.
Further, the people who want to go to war for “America’s interest,” label those who only want to go to war for “national security” as “isolationists.” As opposed to what, war mongering imperialists?
Having a president that couldn’t take a stand and be responsible for anything is bad enough where our reputation around the world is concerned. When, merely adhering to our constitution, instead of our national ego, would so more to regain the respect in the world that the bomb Syria crowd says bombing Syria would get. It’s their answer to the wrong question.
No To Syria ‘Save Face’ / Ego War
You know what’s coming when the two French Republicans (as Mark Levin affectionately calls them), Sens. John McCain and Lindsay Graham, are summoned to The White House for a little back-scratching session. Ostensibly for President Obama to make his case for a military attack on Syria.
And what they came up with is no reason to use our military in Syria’s civil war.
A vote against strikes to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for alleged use of chemical weapons, officials argue, could undermine Obama’s standing in the Middle East as his administration seeks to deter Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians and stabilize a region already in turmoil.
“A rejection of this resolution would be catastrophic, not just for him but for the institution of the presidency and the credibility of the United States,” Senator John McCain said after meeting with Obama at the White House on Monday.
I’m not seeing any direct threat to the security of the United States, the only reason to use the military in a foreign country. That is, if you take your oath of office seriously. Besides, it’s already too late to save our standing and credibility around the world. The proper response is to suck it up and deal with it. Learn your lesson the hard way. It’s what happens when an amateur and ideologue is also Commander-in-Cheif. Aside from there being no national security threat, by their own admission now, our military men and women don’t wear the uniform to die for flippant remarks made by their Commander-in-Chief.
The United States military is not to be used as a U.N. replacement, world policeman, or custodian for countries involved in a civil war. Like I’ve said many times before, it’s their civil war. And the only way it will end is if one side wins and the other side loses. Only then will we know what kind of State we’re dealing with.
McCain and Graham must have allowed themselves to either be hypnotized by Obama, or they are among those Republicans that reflexively cave under fear of the demagoguery to come if they buck the President. I’ll go with the latter. Demagoguery that is coming to the party no matter what they say.
It’s yet another example of caving for the sake of the party of being liked, and for appearing bi-partisan with the most partisan president in history. The Constitution be damned. A foolish behavior that never advances the interests of Republicans and, a lesson never learned.
Link: Analysis: Obama lobbies personally for Syria vote
[polldaddy poll=7366481]
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.
http://youtu.be/9RVEngLwSNQ
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.