• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On August - 29 - 2013

obama_1318962c

There are many complications and worries of unknown blowback connected to the threat of the U.S. attacking Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons. In this post-Iraq War era, there is very justified suspicion in the U.S. about a rush to military action against a Middle East nation. President Obama has shown that he wants to take action swiftly and along with Secretary of State John Kerry, has been making the case as to why it should happen.

Pres. Obama’s arguments have seemed sensible, that the use of chemical weapons can’t be condoned by inaction or their usage will no longer be taboo and will spread around the world. However, after going through the Bush stampede to go to war with Iraq without the case being made honestly to the public, with lies and deceptions and no documented facts from third party sources, many seem to have learned from their mistakes and are now saying, “Show us the facts and convince us.” Even so, media has been repeating the Obama Administration meme that they are ready to attack as of today.

Apparently, the Obama Admin is preparing materials to release to the public to help make their case. Still, since there is a U.N. inspection underway in Syria that can at least shed some more light on what happened, it would seem most sensible that this third party’s evidence be known first by the public before any action is taken.

Pres. Obama may have top secret information that proves to any reasonable person that Syria launched a chemical attack. From a preponderance of all we’ve seen that is public knowledge, it sure seems probable that it is exactly what happened. The issue here though is just as much about exorcising the Bush-lying-us-into-war concern as it is about punishing regimes that use chemical weapons to kill their own men, women and children. Due to that, it would seem best for the nation and the world that Pres. Obama go through the steps Bush refused to go through so that the public can have confidence in their government if action is to be taken. Even though Pres. Obama may know Syria did this, that’s not enough at this point in time and he needs to recognize that.

This is why I cringed yesterday and today after hearing Pres. Obama say in an interview that one reason for taking military action against Syria is because these chemical weapons could be used against us. I am a big supporter of Pres. Obama but this is Bush fear mongering talk and should be jettisoned immediately.

We were played by the “smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud”, Colin Powell holding up a faux vial of anthrax at the U.N., yellow cake uranium lies, instilling fear in the American public of an imminent threat is what war mongering Republicans do, that should not be a path Democrats take.

The truth is, the American people would be no more at risk of being attacked by Syria or others with chemical weapons then they are now. Nor would it make it more likely that anyone who wouldn’t have used chemical weapons on U.S. troops, will be more likely to use them. I mean, if our troops were attacked with chemical weapons, would the perpetrators expect our wrath against them would be less than it would have been?

So though I think the case can be made for other reasons, Pres. Obama is making a huge mistake if he follows through at all on instilling fear in Americans to get their support on attacking Syria. If inaction brought about greater proliferation in the Middle East of chemical weapons, then that would pose a greater threat to many more people but not primarily Americans. As we’re seeing in Syria, it is the innocent people in a tyrannical nation that would probably have the most to fear.

Just the threat of U.S. retaliation is making Assad pay a price for likely using chemical weapons. He’s had to clear out his military installations and command centers, move materials and weapons, scatter troops, this is not exactly making him think that using chemical weapons is something that doesn’t have a big cost. So if this stressful uncertainty and fear is extended for Assad to have to go through while more evidence is gathered, is that unacceptable?

We don’t need to stampede towards an attack because if an attack came in a few weeks, wouldn’t it deliver just as powerful a statement? We certainly don’t expect in the midst of all of this that Assad will launch another chemical attack so taking the time to have all the available facts out in the open doesn’t appear to undermine anything.

And keeping an eye towards the next Republican President sometime in the future, it would be a good precedent to re-establish for Pres. Obama to meet with Congress to consult them and have a debate on launching an attack. Republicans need to be on the record on this, we know that no matter what happens, if they don’t have their thumbprints on military action as well, they will use any negatives that come from it as a cause for attacking and even rallying for the impeachment of Obama.

The Bush Doctrine of tossing aside the Constitution and whipping up fear to support Presidential power to launch military attacks must be flushed down the toilet for good and all. As terrible as the Repubs in The House are, we either have a system of government dictated by the Constitution or we don’t. If the evidence proves Syria used chemical weapons and the Repubs stonewall any military response, then they will be held responsible for what follows.

Bush’s legacy is on full display right now. The improper overgrowth of power of the Presidency, the distrust of the Presidency on unilaterally launching military action, sensitivity to being rushed and manipulated into supporting military action and concern over unexpected and severe blowback from taking military action.

This may be the most difficult time for Pres. Obama in his entire Presidency. A war weary public initially elected him especially because of his opposition to the Iraq War. Meanwhile, a tyrant in the Middle East appears to be murdering his own people with chemical weapons, seemingly unconcerned about the U.S. or any other nation stepping in to stop his crimes against humanity. And add to this the complications of Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Turkey, Russia and China all being intertwined in Syria.

As he moves forward, Pres. Obama has difficult conflicts and very weighty decisions ahead but he will need other nations and the American public behind him so that come what may, he has a base of support to fall back on. This can only be earned by honest discussion of the facts and legitimate arguments as to why action should be taken.

In this post-Bush era, we have to reject the unjustified use of fear and imaginary threats to the American public as acceptable reasons to take such a serious action as bombing other nations. We should insist solely on facts, reason and principle as the tools to win an argument for war and never again allow ourselves to be victimized by the cynical strategy of playing on our worst fears.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

78 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. goleafsgo says:

    Hi Adlib,
    I haven’t posted here for some time, but felt I would like to comment on your article since I tend to disagree with your assessment of the President’s tactic of the “unjustified use of fear and threats to the American people.” And that he is “tossing aside the Constitution.”

    In going over his speech given yesterday from the Rose Garden, I did not get the feeling that he was hoping people would be frightened and therefore fall in line to his way of thinking…going to war again.
    I think he was very forthright in stating “Make no mistake--this has implications beyond chemical warfare.” Noting also a “serious danger to our national security.” I think this dispels the false assumption, that we held during WW11, and today, that the war was far away across the pond and we are safe on this continent. Because, we are no longer isolated from the rest of the world and safe from the bad guys who are murdering in a horrendous manner, their very own people.

    I really do not think that “instilling fear to get support” is being practiced here by the President. Anyone with a limited knowledge of world affairs recognizes there is much to fear out there. The media shows us daily vivid images of children lying dead in a row, of crying babies, burned by bombs dropped on their school. It is hard to escape reality. If they do not instill fear….if one is not fearful of this continuing, of spreading, as it provides more control for Assad and thus, embolden him and his allies, Russia, Iran, North Korea…
    then…as the President said: “..then we must acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.” Is that fear-mongering? Or is that stating the facts.

    Chemical warfare, nuclear warfare, terrorists with biological warfare advantages because they can. Is that fear-mongering? Or is that stating the facts?

    President Obama has always looked at the bigger picture. I think he sees clearly, more than any of us can, what the world will look like if America, the only nation capable to lead on this, does nothing. He said “I will deliver a message to the world.” The G 20 summit in Russia will give us a better idea of where the rest of the leading countries stand after meeting with President Obama…will they be fearful of the Big Bullies who say: Mind your own business? Or will they provide support to do something to stop this kind of monster and any future atrocities?

    AdLib, I do not compare President Obama’s warning with the Bush fear-mongering. I believe he is extremely cognizant of how Americans feel about war, and how his actions could be politically disastrous for him. But he is putting his case forward, and now the Congress will finally have to do some work. Now that is something to be afraid of.

    Hope I didn’t ramble on too much. ; )

    • AdLib says:

      Hey goleafsgo, great seeing you!

      What I was referring to in my post was a statement Obama made days before the speech you mention, in which he said that one important reason for taking military action against Syria was that if we didn’t punish them for using chemical weapons, they could use them against us.

      Today, Kerry expressed that sentiment repeatedly, that Iran would feel freer in nuking Americans or Israel, North Korea would feel freer to use chemical weapons on South Korea and our military people there, etc.

      I can’t say categorically that these things absolutely wouldn’t happen but I do feel that using such speculative fears to justify military force detract from valid reasons.

      They violated the international laws and Geneva convention, even though they’re not signatories but global policy has been that any nation using weapons of mass destruction needs to be harshly sanctioned by the world.

      Bush’s trumped up campaign for war in Iraq was wholly based on lies and whipping up fear. The situation with Syria is very different, the chemical weapons are not fictional, they’ve killed over 1,000 Syrians including hundreds of innocent children. And this isn’t the first time Assad has used chemical weapons.

      So, agreed, this is not identical to Bush and Iraq. However, after that nightmare, I think the people deserve reasoned and logical arguments as to why there should be military force and in this post-Bush/Iraq era, arguments using fear, even those that are valid, should be given little focus.

  2. Nirek says:

    Ad, “w” said he would back the President if he took action.

    That , to me is all the reason I need to not do it.

    Syria is in a civil war within their borders. We need to stay out of it!

    • AdLib says:

      And ain’t in interesting how George Bush was unable to attend the March on Washington celebration because of his heart stint procedure weeks ago but two days later is on the golf course?

      What a lying POS.

      So of course, his opinion on Syria should be discarded like a moldy orange.

      • SallyT says:

        Okay, you know I do not like W but in defense of him just a wee little bit, he said that he couldn’t attend because his father is seriously ill and he needs to remain close. I think their house butts up to the golf course?????? 😉
        You may want to mark this because I am pretty sure that this will be the only time I will ever defend W! But, I didn’t want you, AdLib, to have to pull an O’Reilly! :)

        Only FOX would care what W thinks!

        • AdLib says:

          BTW, in mid July, George was in Africa. It’s on Bush’s Facebook page. Um…that seems to be a bit farther away from his dad than DC.

          • SallyT says:

            Now did I say anything about justifying his claim? Did I say I believed him? Wait! I don’t think I was really defending him but giving his excuse for not being there. Shwwch! My record is saved!

            • AdLib says:

              Sally, you absolutely didn’t, you just corrected the record, appreciate that. Just venting at Bush being such a coward and a liar, I’ll take every opportunity that comes my way!

        • AdLib says:

          George Bush is a proven liar, so my motto when it comes to him is consider the source.

          He could have flown out to DC, spoke and flew back if his BS about “needing” to stay close to his father was true. It wasn’t, ALL Republicans came up with lies to avoid attending…not one Republican attended and the main Repubs all lied about the necessities forcing them to miss it.

          And George isn’t spending every single day of his life at his dad’s house anyway, that’s just ridiculous but no surprise Bush would be such a coward to hide behind his ailing father.

          But thanks for watching my back, I absolutely wouldn’t want to have anything in common with Bill O’Reilly!

          • SallyT says:

            AdLib, you know something that got me was that smug face W had when they asked his opinion on Syria and the President. Who cares about his opinion. He never had one based on facts, why would he now?

            • AdLib says:

              Sally, maybe Georgie was just so excited about someone asking his opinion on a major issue, he couldn’t hold back the smile?

              Then again, that obnoxious smirk could have meant, “Oh goodie, Obama could screw up like I did, then I won’t look so bad! Haw-haw!”

    • AdLib says:

      Kalima, thanks for posting the scoop! I posted the full text of the assessment thanks to your heads up!

    • SallyT says:

      I have to say that Secretary Kerry made a very complaining argument for our involvement. But, I still agree with AdLib, you, and others that we need to continue approaching this in the correct way. President Bush and the Iraq War has made everyone suspicious of our intelligence. I hope and remain pretty sure that President Obama will handle it correctly and restore faith in US again. He ain’t no rodeo clown. That was the guy before in the cowboy boots.

      • Kalima says:

        I didn’t catch Kerry’s speech Sally, but I’m really glad we could compare it to the Bysh years and feel more confident that the information stated is not a bunch of lies. We know that the President is nothing like Bush, so I believe there will be more discussion and he will not rush into it. I trust him to make the right decision, he hasn’t lied yet, so why would he do so now.

  3. Nirek says:

    Ad, I understand why we as a nation feel we should do something about the use of chemical weapons.
    I wonder why killing with guns, bombs, or any other weapon is okay ?

    It is a civil war and we need to stay out of it. That is my opinion.

    • AdLib says:

      Nirek, that is inescapable logic, if a mass killing of people with chemical weapons should be against international law, why isn’t doing the same using weapons other than chemical ones?

      The bottom line of course is that there is no difference. I think it’s all about having a globally agreed-upon red line, arbitrary as it is, that when killing rises up to using chemical weapons, that’s where the line can be drawn.

      What it should be is more basic, once any mass killing of one’s own innocent citizens is committed, that should be crossing the line.

      • SallyT says:

        I can make a reason, whether it flies of not (no pun intended). Chemical Weapons are distributed into the atmosphere. They can not be corralled. Nations/countries adjoining or near become at risk without being part of any uprising in the other. Their innocent citizens maybe harmed. That is why the use of these weapons are a red line that should not be crossed.

        Now I can make an argument, too, that there is danger in Nuclear Plants, GMO’s in the food, and poisoning water with corporate run off. I say there are weapons there that should be looked at with red.

    • AdLib says:

      Kalima, it is difficult for Pres. Obama to focus on what he wants to do with the ME and Republicans derailing him constantly. As the candidate who ran in opposition to unnecessary wars in the ME, this is the last thing he would want his presidency tied down by.

  4. agrippa says:

    What is to be done?
    I think that is the issue.
    There is little that the USA can do.

    • AdLib says:

      It is hard to see what the US can do on its own to drastically change the situation in Syria…other than becoming involved in a long term bombing campaign but that comes with many ramifications as well.

      Such actions need the support of the nation and the world and though bombing is one option, I would hope the world could come together with an alternative action to punish and weaken Assad that’s smarter than just using brute force.

  5. jjgravitas says:

    Adlib, a perfect argument. I don’t want us involved in Syria’s civil war. If Obama wants to get involved, he should make his case to the United Nations. It’s time we stopped fighting other people’s wars for them. Are we really such a useless society that the only way we can help the world is to blow it up? Or is it really the rest of the world that is so stupid and useless that the only way we can get our point across is if we bash them over the head with it? It’s really disappointing — it’s why people become isolationists. I consider my self an Obama supporter but I don’t support him in this. Are we really coming to the end of our second war by getting involved in a third one?

    • AdLib says:

      jjgravitas, I don’t think that deep down, Obama wants us to be militarily involved in Syria either but the use of weapons of mass destruction has made him feel we have to.

      I do believe in the cliche, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Because the US has the greatest military power on the planet, I think there is a responsibility that comes with that to try and stop horrific things from happening when we can. But that has to be balanced with taking action that creates more horrific things and greater violence and death. Not to mention, destabilizing part of the world or most of it.

      Such decisions are usually very complicated and knock down dominoes that weren’t even seen originally.

      Wars rarely make for less deaths and a better world but in some cases. they have.

      So if we are to get engaged in military actions that are not necessary for our security, we should thoroughly explore that proposition, debate it fully, get all the info possible and have our entire federal government, Congress and the President, agree that this is the thing to do.

      I think the UK’s vote to prevent their coming on board with a military attack on Syria will have a big impact on Obama slowing this all down and getting national and international support IF he can. And if he can’t, I’d expect some covert actions which may be the only way to accomplish a weakening of Assad without having a US thumbprint on it and without drawing our nation into another war.

  6. kesmarn says:

    And then — sadly — there’s the dark side. The little group that is totally okay with almost any war anywhere. Here’s a look at Raytheon’s stock price over the last few weeks:

    [img]?6[/img]

  7. I don’t like Russia’s involvement in this whole mess. The cold war may be long over, but with Putin in office, hostile emotions remain. This whole situation reminds me of the Cuban Missile Crisis, without the missiles. (maybe not without the missiles)

    I have to ask, how many more innocents would be slaughtered if we do carry out strikes against Syria? How many more, if we don’t?

    Would the War Powers Act apply here and if so, would it be constitutional? The constitutionality of the WPA is still being debated, since enacted in 1973.

    While I do have great sympathy for the victims of this (alleged) attack, I have serious concerns as to how our actions would be perceived on the world stage.

    Another concern I have is just who are the Syrian rebels? What types of individuals make up this rebel army? Surely there are Islamic extremists among their ranks.

    I sure don’t envy Obama’s job in this matter. Not in the least. I do believe that war should always be a last resort.

    • AdLib says:

      KT, my opinion (FWIW) is that The War Powers Act absolutely applies in this case because the U.S. is not imminently threatened now nor would any action by the US be retaliatory for having been attacked itself.

      As painful as it is to say with Obama in the WH, this would be a military action of choice, we could do it or not do it and if we didn’t, we would not suffer any immediate danger because of that.

      However, not responding would definitely embolden Assad, Iran, Russia and Al Qaeda because the U.S. would (wrongly) be seen as weak and toothless. So I do think there is a long term danger to doing nothing but that isn’t allowed under the WPA as a justification for a President to unilaterally launch military attacks.

      The Syrian rebels include Al Qaeda, extremist Muslims, a variety of types who, if not engaged in this war might be working with those who want to launch terrorist attacks on the US. There are individual rebels who are not terrorists but from what I understand, there is no formal grouping of them nor a leader. So if we helped them, would we just be helping a new Bin Laden be born?

      It is a terrible situation where there are bad guys on both sides and innocent civilians caught in the middle. If either side prevailed, it would be terrible thus Obama’s declaration that he wouldn’t seek regime change if he launched an attack.

      I don’t have all the info Obama does on this but even if I did, I don’t know that I could be confident about making a decision.

    • kesmarn says:

      KT, in today’s local paper there was an article on Syria. They interviewed a local Muslim leader and asked him what his thoughts were on the situation. (He’s from Lebanon.) He’s really a sweet guy. I know him personally. But what he said was: “The President should go to Russia and ask the Russians to apply pressure on Assad to stop these atrocities.” I thought — dear God, does this good man have any idea what the current state of relations between the President and Putin actually is? Especially after the Snowden affair?

      It just struck me as almost pathetically naive, although coming from a guy who is very smart and decent. So sad.

  8. SallyT says:

    On AJA they just had a former UN Weapon Inspector and he said that those in Syria are scheduled to leave on Saturday. It will take 4 to 5 days to test, study and report on their findings. But, they are only checking to see if Chemical Weapons have been used, not who used them. According to him and those he is in contact with, the UN’s inspections have been very limited in Syria by both sides.

    • AdLib says:

      Sally, I have a feeling that the documentation they provide could forensically help identify if the Assad military really is behind it. The rockets that delivered it (if that’s how it was delivered), the type of chemical and the availability or unavailability of it. Maybe it won’t provide conclusive evidence but it could help to strengthen or weaken suspicions as to who did this.

      • SallyT says:

        I read somewhere that they thought that they were thermobaric weapons. Those can be in bomb form. I guess that is why we should wait and see the inspection report from the UN.

        • AdLib says:

          Very interesting, Sally. Determining if they were rockets or bombs could make a huge difference. Just heard the UN inspectors will be done and out by tomorrow so that report will be out by next week. A must read indeed!

    • Hey Sally! I wonder if the rebels actually had chemical weapons. They may have been able to get their hands on some, but would they use them against civilians? So many questions here without real answers.

      • SallyT says:

        Hello KT! I don’t know if the rebel have access to Chemical Weapons but I don’t know for sure who the rebels are. I don’t know who all they have working with them and the access to anything they have.

        I hope our involvement can be avoided. War is never good no matter which side you are on. But, if nothing is done does that lead to other countries doing something similar because they have nothing to fear in repercussions? It isn’t like there isn’t a lot going on all over the place in the Mideast. Who are the good guys? And, those good guys turn bad later sometimes.

  9. kesmarn says:

    AdLib, it’s hard to recall another president who’s had as much to deal with on so many fronts simultaneously as President Obama — Lincoln and FDR come to mind. And this Syria issue is one of the worst situations yet.

    Your point about Dubya’s horrible legacy is well taken. His path of total F-5 destruction during his administration was bad enough, but I think that virtually every thinking person could see that it would take years — decades even — after he was gone to restore anything like normality to American life. In so many areas.

    Trust in government itself — in its ability to regulate private entities honestly and work on behalf of the average citizen rather than the wealthy — was demolished. Trust in the financial system — shot. Trust in the nation’s intelligence gathering departments — in their ability to supply accurate, unbiased info, and to respect citizen’s privacy — annihilated. Across the board there was cynicism and weariness.

    So now — as you so eloquently say — the President has had to work within a framework of restoring the rule of law, and restoring trust as well as getting any given task done. This involves resisting the temptation to use executive orders, signing statements and the like to force his will on the country. He and the Dems have to some extent tolerated the misuse of the filibuster because dismantling or radically altering the filibuster process itself affects the way Congress works in the future too. Everything has to be done with an eye to the long game.

    This is something Dubya never did — obviously. For him and his cronies it was slash, burn and pillage. And leave the clean up to the next guy. Both at home and abroad. He sowed the wind and we get to reap the whirlwind. Lucky us.

    To me the President’s Syria dilemma looks a lot like the situation Dietrich Bonhoeffer faced when there was an opportunity to attempt an assassination attempt on Hitler. Anyone could understand why that would be a very tempting option. But Hitler survived. And it didn’t end well for Bonhoeffer.

    If the President moves forward, as you say, it really needs to be after extensive consultation with Congress and with a very broad and genuinely committed international coalition.

    • AdLib says:

      Very well said, Kes! I think there are parallels with Obama Presidency and Lincolns and FDR’s. A nation divided North and South with racism deep at the heart of the division, a Great Recession, international wars, on and on.

      Obama was handed a nightmare on the day he took office and it’s been one major crisis after another thanks in part to the Republicans. On top of everything else, there was the BP oil spill, killer hurricanes wiping out smaller cities such as Joplin and major cities such as NYC, the Arab Spring revolutions including the Libya conflict, the BP oil spill poisoning the Gulf, Al Qaeda planning and executing terror attacks, mass shootings in movie theaters and elementary schools, legalized murder of black teens, modern day Jim Crow legislation in Southern states to oppress black and Latino people and rob them of the right to run for office and vote, corporations and the wealthy given the financial keys to our democracy, Occupy Wall Street protests in major cities…on and on and on.

      What other President other than FDR and Lincoln had to preside over such non-stop madness?

      And what President other than those two brought the country through all of it successfully?

      President Obama has for the most part been a fireman who has rescued the American people and knocked down fires.

      Bush and his cronies were arsonists who set all those fires.

      The path for Obama to unilaterally and without support of our closest allies to launch a military strike on Syria is very perilous. Going it alone is too much of a gamble, one that could endanger far too much including his entire second term and any good he could do for this country during it. And Constitutionally, he should know as a scholar that it’s not the legal thing to do.

      Get the UN report, bring Congress and our allies together and backing him and if that doesn’t all come together, he should not take action.

      This kind of situation is why you can watch Presidents aging their job. This is an intense decision which could have enormous consequences. He may think he knows what the right thing is to do but without the country behind him, even if it was to turn out to be the right thing to do, the damage to our institution of government and trust in it could be massively damaged.

    • SueInCa says:

      I would agree with you on most points but I still say what makes a Syrian life worth more than a Sudanese life, a Kosovo life? I just cannot seem to get past that thought. It may make me seem one sided but like you say I am tired of war and there are no guarantees that this would be a two day war. Iraq was supposed to be 6 months….we all know how that went. No one knows what could spark a third world war either. The Chinese do not seem to be afraid of us and Russia is flexing their muscle as well, North Korea could be thrown into the mix. As we learned from WWII war makes for strange bedfellows.

      I am hoping with world support dwindling, this will not go forth, no matter what the warmongers want to happen. I say hand them a gun, god knows McCain knows how to wreck a 50 million dollar plane. Let him crash into Assad’s compound.

      • Hey Sue, I share those same concerns. I do not believe we should act alone, without UN approval. That’s what Bush did and it really damaged our standing in the world.

        I also have to wonder, about the difference between killing people with bombs and bullets, or killing them with chemical weapons. Death is the result in either case. I know the individual suffering with chemical weapons is supposed to be worse, but when the end is death, how much does that matter? I surely don’t have the answer to that horrible question.

        • SueInCa says:

          Nor do I KT and it makes me so very sad. There is just no explaining the evil humans can do to each other, none. I am surprised the Republicans do not get it, being all pro lifey like they are…..not.

          • I know that gramps McCain is in favor of arming the rebels, and I just can’t fathom such a war monger who is willing to supply our enemies with weapons. I don’t believe the Syrian rebels are big supporters of America and our foreign policy. Supposedly there are elements of al Qaida among the ranks of the rebels.

            • Nirek says:

              KT, do you think Gramps McCain has ties to the industry that benefits most from WAR?
              I do.

            • SallyT says:

              And Grandpa McCain has to take sister Palin with him up in the wide blue yonder!

            • SueInCa says:

              Grandpa McCain, hanging out with terrorists. He has never shown good judgment. I say send the ones who cry war the loudest. Just stop and ask, are you signing up to go? It would put a stop to war really fast.

  10. Kalima says:

    Just in:

    Cameron loses vote on Syria

    British MPs vote against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

    • AdLib says:

      Kalima, wow! That’s huge news and pretty remarkable! It should have a big impact on Obama’s push for an attack. Surely he doesn’t want to go on a mission with a “Coalition of the Willing” like another President did.

      Action needs to be taken but neither Brits nor Americans seem to want it to be military.

      • Kalima says:

        Pushing for military action seems to be France and Saudi Arabia, and I’m not sure if Cameron will take “No” for a final answer.

        It puts your President in a much more difficult position than ever. Like you said in your article, they should wait for the UN inspectors to finish their investigation and have stated their results. .

        • AdLib says:

          Kalima, this is actually a very good thing for Obama because it now gives a third party reason for slowing things down. He can use this to deflect criticisms that he is neglecting his “crossing a red line” threat by saying, “I’m ready to do this but I need my allies with me to make it work.”

          As I mentioned in my post, Obama needs to be the anti-Bush on this, not rushing to military action but waiting to get all the facts first. No one could reasonably fault him for doing so (except the Repubs who would fault him for anything he does).

          Looking forward to Obama’s reaction to this.

          • Kalima says:

            Yes you have a good point and I hope that at least the U.N. inspectors who should be finished by Saturday, can finish their work. I believe that your President will make the right decision. It took quite some time before he agreed to join NATO in Libya.

            • Kalima says:

              I agree, we’ve done nothing but implement sanctions that didn’t work while over 100,000 people were murdered, so yes we can wait another week.

            • AdLib says:

              Kalima, I think they said it will take the UN a week to issue a report once the mission is complete. We certainly can wait that long and I hope that letting cool heads prevail would yield a 21st century solution to this horrible situation.

  11. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    World Net Daily was the first to say it….so it’s trash right?

    Well then Info Wars said it…..even more trash.

    But then NPR suggested the possibility, and so did Reuters…today there were conversations on Al Jazeera and on MSNBC….

    Is it possible that the gas attack was a false flag situation -- gas taken by rebels and used to emulate an Assad government attack in order to trigger just the kind of response that Obama and our allies are considering?

    • SueInCa says:

      I don’t think anyone really knows what the whole truth is here but the rebels with gas I think is highly unlikely. It does not surprise me that news networks started parroting each other as well, they are mostly good for nothing anyway. For me, the jury is still out on AJA but of them all,. I would trust them the most. The rest are just parrots. CNN lead in story the other day was Miley Cyrus, hardly what I want from a credible news network. E! fills that bill. I also find it rather incredible that anyone would put their trust in World Net Daily. Michelle Bachman gets all her “credible info” from that site.

    • Kalima says:

      That the bad rebels have access to sarin gas is just pure speculation and something the Assad and Russian propaganda machine put out there to stop this kind of attack from the West in the first place. Russia needs a place to park their ships and that is all they care about apart from the profit of supplying arms to Assad. Are we going to take the word of a lying madman who is responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 citizens, more than 7,000 being innocent children?

      • AdLib says:

        Kalima, the MO of villains like Assad is to always blame the crime on the victims first. Zimmerman did it, the Repubs do it all the time, the bad guys are bad guys so they act like it and commit the evil act of blaming their victims after they commit terrible acts.

        • Kalima says:

          They showed a few grainy pictures on their suspect tv station, and said the chemical weapons there belonged to the rebels. Right, and that’s all the proof they had and some people actually believe that? Amazing after these two years of mass murder.

          If in fact the rebels had those weapons, don’t you think it would have been all over Assad’s propaganda news media? The last time they accused the rebels was after the chemical attacks before this. They’re not very bright are they?

          • AdLib says:

            So Assad’s people just pointing a finger at the rebels and saying, “We didn’t do it, they did it!” is supposed to be “proof”? Right…

            • Kalima says:

              Right. :roll: Some in the West pretend to believe it because they want everyone else to believe that every rebel there is a terrorist. Pleeeze.

    • AdLib says:

      Murph, considering the initial sources, I am skeptical of such a claim. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible but considering the Assad regime has used chemical weapons previously, I would start from a position of assuming that Assad was likely the perp but want to get as much evidence as possible to be sure.

      The claims were that there were rockets that hit and delivered the gas. I’ve heard it discussed that the rebels don’t have the technology to do that. Also, would they really kill up to 1,000 of their own people, including children? And why did Assad bomb that same area with rockets for days after while refusing UN inspectors the ability to go there and confirm their innocence? Based on all that circumstantial evidence, I find it highly unlikely that the rebels are behind this but I remain open to evidence that proves otherwise.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        My point: the info accumulated by the Obama crew is not a slam dunk….

        Yes the first several sources are crap but when other non-crap sources start putting forth alternatives, time to slow down the train.

        • SallyT says:

          Murph, I have seen those, too, plus a video on YouTube. I don’t know who is telling the truth but since we have been mislead before, I am with you on slowing this train down and checking all the stops and who gets on and off.

          Where’s Don Cornelius when we need him!

        • AdLib says:

          Right with you on that. While I expect all subsequent evidence to further support Assad being the mass murderer via chemical weapons, we do need to slow things down and make sure of what really happened.

          It’s one thing to strongly believe something, it’s another to be certain enough to be fully justified in bombing another country.

  12. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    OBAMA ON MILITARY ACTION…

    “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” candidate Obama told The Boston Globe in late 2007. He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.”

    “It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action,” Obama continued.

    President Obama did not seek congressional approval for his military strikes against Libya in 2011. That bombing campaign led to longtime dictator Muammar Gadhafi’s ouster.

    Vice President Joe Biden, who voted for the Iraq War, agreed with Obama.

    “The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war… unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” Biden said in 2007.

    • AdLib says:

      Murph, we’ve ridiculed the ignorant Baggers who have been recently clamoring to impeach Obama, would this not give them real ammunition to fully pursue it?

      Obama seems to be looking high and low for an international law that allows him to take action unilaterally but it’s would still conflict with our Constitution. Even though his intentions may be the best and even though an attack might turn out to be the best thing to have done, we don’t need another President ignoring The Cnstitution and separation of powers.

      Like the Obama of the past, I do not see how The Constitution allows the President to engage the military in an attack, when there is no imminent threat to the U.S., without Congress agreeing to it. We can’t further enhance an Imperial Presidency, it almost destroyed our nation when Bush had that power. Whether Obama uses it well or not is beside the point, there will be a Repub President one day in the future and we don’t want another war mongering Admin to have that power.


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features