So, people (liberals) want to argue semantics during this time of Obama’s self-imposed painting-himself-in-the-corner over Syria (pretty bad when you lose Charlie), and not the reality that this administration is not serious in its would-be projecting of strength, power and sincerity to the world. It also does not have a serious plan or strategy. And just as they did with the Benghazi, Libya attack of nearly a year ago, this administration has jumped on every little bit of vague information and spin that might gin up its argument for taking any level of military action on Assad and Syria. Although, as we saw with Benghazi, no action was taken … before or after. The fact is, this administration over the last five years has, on more than one occasion, admitted to leaning on the news media for information of events around the world. This has not built any confidence for the Obama administration from the American people, our allies around the world, Assad/Syria (of course), or apparently our military (who know exactly who the players are within the Syrian “rebels”)…
If these photos are authentic this would be considered sedition/mutiny under a Barack Obama CinC. But under a Bush or republican administration it was considered “conscientious objection” and they would be considered heroes. Anyhow, nice to see the NSA is on top of things.
A year ago it was then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joining Obama and others in the administration blaming the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and the deaths of four Americans, on a spontaneous protest turned riot because of some obscure anti-Muslim Youtube video. Immediately the claim fell flat as it was obvious the attack was well planned, and the U.S. Ambassador had warned the administration for weeks/months it was a growing threat. As it did a year ago with Benghazi, it looks as if the Obama administration is still leaning on media reports, and Youtube videos for its information on what happened in order to make major decisions on whether or not to strike Syria.
For years now this administration (in unison with the sycophant, Obama agenda-driven MSM) has pigeonholed itself into doing nothing more than controlling the message they want the public/world to consume, and how it is to be consumed. It is part of Barack Obama and his administration being in 24/7/365 non-stop campaign mode, instead of governing they way they are supposed to be governing. (In addition to the post-Benghazi attack manic spinning by the administration, another example of this is to listen to Joe Biden and other democrats use colorful graphic imagery pitch to push for more and bigger gun control, post Sandy Hook school shooting, by describing little bullet-riddled children blown to pieces.) Return to Sec. of State John Kerry’s highly praised description of the gassing of the Syrian civilians (to which the numbers are in question as is the source of the weapons and who exactly used them). As always with the liberal democrats when lacking facts and common sense always pull at the heart-strings and go for the feelings and emotions to sell the public, as well as leery and RINO lawmakers, on how you want things perceived and reacted to so they support whatever you choose to do. Not so oddly this would not have been acceptable (nor was it) coming from, say, the prior Bush administration, or any other republican for that matter.
And while we are talking about emotion and feelings influencing foreign policy or military intervention, “Outrage is not a strategy”. Independent war journalist Michael Yon writes…
[…] The casualty count of 1,429 is important. If President Obama plays fast and furious with casualties, it is fair to wonder whether he is playing sloppy with alleged communications intercepts.
In our current nightmare, we find it easier to believe that the NSA is reading our emails than effectively eavesdropping on Syria. The White House should lay its casualty counts on the table, face-up. Its credibility is on the line.
Importantly, by saying we have “proof” of war crimes committed by Assad, we are saying we have proof that Assad is a war criminal. Assad knows the likely scenarios from here:
1) Fight to stay in power and prevail.
2) Fight and lose, and be killed on the streets like Gaddafi, hanged like Saddam, or life in prison.
President Obama has ipso facto called President Assad a war criminal. Assad does not need a powerful calculator to figure his odds if he fails to maintain power.
Last week, while UK and US leaders were rallying to smash Syria in the mouth, I contacted Member of Parliament Adam Holloway for his thoughts. Adam responded within the hour:
“Outrage is not a strategy. I thought military action always had to have a purpose behind it – so what is the endstate here? Hit, and then hope?
“I am not sure in what way even limited strikes help the people living in my constituency: how does this further Britain’s or America’s national security?
“There cannot be a sane person in Britain who would not think it a good thing for us to get involved in the war in Syria if by doing so it would ease the horrors faced by the Syrian people – and dire risks to people in neighbouring countries.
“We must be guided not by our alliance to America, but by our duty to understand that military force should only be used in support of a clear purpose and with a clear objective in mind -in support of our national interest. I am yet to be convinced that there is a strong and clear-cut case that military action will deter the Syrian government from using chemical weapons – nor am I convinced that in 20 years time some other tyrant thinking of using chemical weapons will turn around and say to his or herself “Whoops, better not do that: remember what Obama, Cameron and Hollande did back in the summer of 2013”.
“The use of chemical weapons was indeed a crime against all of humanity. But by firing one missile we are involving ourselves in a civil war on the side of a fractured opposition which includes people with proud links to Al Qaeda. By striking now, without clear cause and purpose, we risk consequences that we have not even thought of: this is a case of hit – and then hope.”
MP Adam Holloway’s erudite words are published with permission.
Adam then emailed that he was going to vote, and of course the rest is history. Adam voted NO, and indeed the British Parliament voted against action in Syria, leaving President Obama absent our most steadfast ally. […]
It is pretty safe to conclude a few things from these last couple weeks with the Obama administration, including their unsettling lack of strategy and convincing solid evidence to back their insistence to carry out a military strike on Asasad in Syria. Mostly it looks to the Congress, the American people, and the world (as well as Syria) that the plan here and now is not retalliation for a WMD attack on Syrian civilians, but to save Obama face…
JustOneMinute: “Afraid To Lead – The Man Who Would Be … Present”
PJ Media: “What The Hell Is Going On?”
Politico: “How not to run a foreign policy”
Watched Senators McCain and Graham’s press conference after their meeting with President Obama on the subject of Syria. It seems the tagline to be used is ‘degrade Assad and upgrade the resistance.’ I hate to be the one to ruin the party, but this administration did exactly that in Libya and never considered the unintended consequences. Now in Libya we have a proliferation of Islamist forces who are training terrorist insurgents to head to Syria, supported by the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, as well as a consulate attack resulting in the death of four Americans, one being an Ambassador. In Egypt we ‘deposed’ Mubarak and enabled the Muslim Brotherhood and the unintended consequences are a civil war in Egypt and increased persecution of the Coptic Christians. So here we go again with the Obama administration, and useful tools from Congress, embarking America on a nebulous endeavor in the Middle East without consideration of the untended consequences. The opposition in Syria are Islamists supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Obama administration has not supported the Free Syrian Army under COL Riad. NO, to any US military action in Syria. The Obama administration has a confused Middle East policy and has shown ineptness in understanding the second and third order effects.
So, what’s been going on in Afghanistan and/or Iraq? Or Egypt and Libya, for that matter???