Monday, September 9, 2013

Hillary Clinton plans to address (lie about) Syria at the White House Monday!

Washington Post ^ | 9-9-13 | Philip Rucker 

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former secretary of state and potential 2016 presidential candidate, is planning to make remarks about the intensifying situation in Syria during a visit to the White House on Monday.

Clinton has not personally addressed the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack that U.S. officials say was carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime or how she believes the United States should respond. Although an aide issued a statement last Tuesday saying she supports President Obama’s effort to seek authorization from Congress for a retaliatory strike.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Kindred Souls


Wobbling the saber!




This is horrible!




T-BALL Obama


Send in the CLOWN




Bear Hype


Chrissee Mathews




Now you've done it!


The Question




Explain This


That Red Line!


Stop Me!




Liberal Logic


Hey Media, Liberals and Democrats: You Built That!, ^ | September 9, 2013 | John Ransom

Obama wants you to know that he didn’t build that “red line” in Syria.

You built it.

The roads and bridges and firefighters and the soldiers, sailors and airmen that you pay with your taxes, they built that red line.

The seas that have risen unabated thanks to global warming, the despair caused by the War on Women in the Arab world- you know the one where the Catholic Church in the United States objects to paying for abortions and birth control?- these are things the world community contributed to building that red line in Syria.

Thus, the world, helped build that red line too.

It’s their red line. And your red line.

But Obama did not build that line.

He didn’t build it. Nor does he own it. He didn’t build the economy or the healthcare system or the rescue of Detroit either.

Not. Obama.

In fact, he told me he was playing cards during all that stuff.

Secretary of State John Kerry wants you to know that while the invasion of Iraq didn’t pass his or the world community’s “global smell test,” that the Syria thing is an entirely different matter, even if the world disagrees with him.

When pressed for details on how the Syrian intervention passes the “global smell test,” the White House offered up the latest technology: the “common sense test.”

From the Associated Press:

The White House asserted Sunday that a "common-sense test" dictates the Syrian government is responsible for a chemical weapons attack that President Barack Obama says demands a U.S. military response. But Obama's top aide says the administration lacks "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" that skeptical Americans, including lawmakers who will start voting on military action this week, are seeking.

"This is not a court of law. And intelligence does not work that way," White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said, part of a five-network public relations blitz Sunday to build support for limited strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad.

"The common-sense test says he is responsible for this. He should be held to account," McDonough said of the Syrian leader who for two years has resisted calls from inside and outside his country to step down. 

White House Chief of Staff McDonough knows A LOT about how intelligence works too, if not common sense…or, you know, the actual science of sarin gas detection.

McDonough handled strategic communications and chief of staff duties for the National Security Council during the lock-down, no leak, worldwide Obama-killed-Osama-with-His-Bare-Hands tour that later was made into several TV movies.

You remember them? The films made after the White House turned over all the classified documents on the bin Laden killing to those top-secret keepers in Hollywood who write stories for a living?

McDonough apparently handled the ultra scientific part of intelligence for the National Security Council where stuff was “fabricated,”... to use the intell lingo that he’s familiar with.

Because while the data from Syria that government forces under Assad used sarin gas on civilians may pass the White House’s “common sense test,” we all know that that bar is pretty low.

Two words: Joe Biden.

Someone may have used sarin gas in Syria, but it's just as likely Obama's rebel allies did it as the Assad regime did. 

As our contributor from NightWatch has pointed out, the White House common sense test would go down better with cookies and warm milk than it would as intelligence (also known as G2):

“With this Russian document,” writes NightWatch, “there are four national reports about the use of gas in Syria; one each from the US, France, the UK and Russia. The three Western reports provide circumstantial evidence at best. They are not intelligence appraisals because they fail to address contradictory and contrarian evidence that is at least as strong as that which they present in support of their case. They are advocacy, not intelligence.”

NightWatch is not alone in their criticism of the White House G2.

Differences regarding intelligence on the composition, strength and leadership of the rebels also plagues the executive branch.

“US Secretary of State John Kerry's public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence appear to be at odds with estimates by US and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts,” writes the Jerusalem Post, “who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements."

Perhaps that’s the reason why the White House wants to shut down debate on Syrian intelligence, just as they have on every issue of importance from global warming to alternative energy to job creation to Obamacare.

(Hint: The White House has been very, very-- even historically-- wrong on some of these issues of “settled” science that they no longer want to debate.)

“White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said ‘nobody now debates’ U.S. intelligence showing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is responsible for a deadly chemical attack near Damascus last month,” reported

Uh, no one in the White House debates it. The rest of us still have our doubts

“He is responsible for this and should be held accountable,” McDonough said several times while tapping his ruby slippers together.

So now all we can do is wait for Al Gore to make a cameo appearance with his Nobel Prize and a new movie, WMD’s II: The Inconvenient Spoof.

“Bush did some things every president should do in embarking on any major military venture,” explains the Chicago Tribune. “He stated a clear mission (removing Saddam), explained his reasons to the American people over and over, and took concrete measures to achieve his objective. Those are areas where Barack Obama might have learned from Bush. If he had, the task of confronting Syria's Bashar Assad would be a lot easier.”

Using Bush's communication strategy regarding the war in Iraq as a communication template for the Obama administration just tells you how far gone this administration is on Syria.

Out of touch? Ha! Out of excuses is more like it.

Obama should listen to his hometown paper's indictment of John Kerry's would-be "war of choice" in Syria. It won't just be a bumper sticker. Real people will die.

Because if Obama wanted to make the case that there was a “right” way to go to war, a "right" way to build a consensus or a "right" way to build coalition, there is one thing he proved for sure:  He didn’t build any of it.

But here’s a finger wag to the Tribunes of the world, the ones that endorsed Obama-for-president twice, and the liberals and the peaceniks and Occupiers and racist deniers who thought Obama brought us peace in our time.

Psalm 55:21... ahem:

The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart.

YOU built that part.

And now you know how the rest of us feel.

You can un-build this any time now.

Global Warming Tour Cut Off By--Wait for It-- Too Much Ice! ^ | September 9, 2013 | Michael Schaus

In an effort to highlight the impacts of global warming, four fun loving environmentalists decided to row the Northwest Passage in Canada, which used to be cut off by ice accumulation. Unfortunately, their trek was cut short by seasonally cold temperatures and – you guessed it – ice.

“After learning that ice choked much of the route ahead, the group decided to end their trip at Cambridge Bay, about halfway to Pond Inlet,” reported CBC.

Apparently there is just not enough global warming happening right now. (Maybe the group should have driven around town in a Hummer a few times before attempting their publicity stunt.)

According to a report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been a 60 percent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year. The finding indicates that there is clearly a shortage of global warming in this down economy. To put the figure into context, that’s roughly a million square miles of new ice in one year. In fact, the ice has even forced ships to reroute cargo as the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year long.

World scientists meeting at the IPCC, seem confounded by the fact that the world is set to see a 15 year downtrend in world temperatures. Some are calling this a “pause” of the anthropogenic global warming trend we’ve seen for the last decade. Other experts are saying temps could fall as low as they did in the 1960’s and 1970’s – when other experts were warning that the world was headed toward an Ice Age. The change in climate trends seems to be making the IPCC’s ability to sell global warming initiatives a bit more difficult.

Despite the fact that light trucks such as the F-150 and Toyota Tacoma continue to lead automotive sales, our climb on the global temperature gauge seems to be slowing. In the last 100 years we, as mankind, have only managed to increase the world temperature by .8 degrees Celsius. Try as we might, the Amazon rainforest is still around, and we have yet to see California erode into the Pacific Ocean. C’mon people. . . This is America. We can do better. I suggest we launch a full fledged campaign to help push California into the Pacific.

Of course, part of the problem could be that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is a flawed concept. My apologies to Al Gore for writing such sacrilege; but excuse me for not having a terrible amount of faith in a scientific community that has been astoundingly wrong over the past 50 years. Aside from the fact that alarmists such as Gore have yet to make a correct prediction on global climate trends, they have also numbed me to their cause through their propagandistic use of cute fuzzy animals like the Arctic’s dominant killing machine: The polar bear.

Nothing epitomizes the environmentalist cause like the picture of the polar bear stranded on a melting iceberg. However, the phrase “It’s to save the polar bears!” loses a little luster when you read that Polar Bears can swim up to 200 miles. . . If a polar bear gets stranded on a piece of ice (that floats around 1mph) further than 200 miles from land – well – that’s not climate change. That’s Darwinism.

The bad news is that despite the obvious confusion among the scientific community regarding the cause and effect of climate change, political believers of anthropogenic global warming will not relent their war on industrialization and affluence. The good news, however, is that despite the propaganda, egotism, and outright lies (AHEM* East Anglia*AHEM) among political believers in global warming, much of America seems to be growing skeptical. After all, what is Al Gore going to say: Global Warming is leading to more sea ice?

Another piece of good news: Because of this year’s record amount of arctic ice, those fuzzy little polar bears will have plenty more solid ice upon which they can slaughter baby seals. That should warm the hearts of those four Canadian environmentalists.

Sen. Ted Cruz: 'A Military Attack Is a Mistake'

Cybercast News Service ^ | 9/9/2013 | Susan Jones

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "is a brutal murderer" who deserves worldwide condemnation, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said on Sunday. Nevertheless, "I think a military attack is a mistake," Cruz told George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC's "This Week."
Cruz gave two reasons why a U.S. attack on Syria would be a mistake:
"One, because I think the administration is proceeding with the wrong objective; and, two, because they have no viable plan for success. They're beginning from the wrong objective because this attack is not based on defending U.S. national security. It is not based on defending Americans or our allies, rather it is explicitly framed by President Obama, by Secretary Kerry, as a defense of what they call 'international norms.' And I don't think that's the job of our military, to be defending amorphous international norms. There are many other steps we can do to express strong disapproval to Assad's murderous conduct," Cruz said.
Cruz said he believes the U.S. should cut off the $500 million in aid it sends to Iraq unless Iraq stops letting Iran fly over its territory to resupply Assad. And he said the U.S. should "force a vote in the U.N. Security Council condemning Assad's use of chemical weapons to murder his own citizens."
Cruz agreed that Russia and China would veto such a resolution. "But we should make them veto it on the world stage," he said.
"And if they do veto it, we should respond by, with respect to Russia, we should reinstate the anti-ballistic missile station in Eastern Europe that was canceled at the beginning of the Obama administration to appease Russia. And with respect to China, we should go through with selling the new F-16s to Taiwan that again this administration put the kibosh on."
Cruz mentioned some of the unintended consequences of U.S. involvement in Syria's civil war.
"[J]ust because Assad is a murderous tyrant doesn't mean his opponents are any better." Cruz pointed to U.S. intelligence showing that of the nine major rebel groups in Syria, at lease seven appear to have significant ties to al Qaeda.
"And the problem with this strike is, one of two things is possible. Either the strike is really significant, it weakens Assad and the result is the rebels are able to succeed. And if what happens there is al-Qaida taking over or al-Nusra taking over and extremist terrorists getting access to those chemical weapons, that hurts U.S. national security."
Cruz said he's traveled across Texas for the past two weeks, and "it has been unanimous" with "Texans saying, 'Don't put us in the middle of a sectarian civil war,  particularly when doing so would help al-Qaida terrorists.'"
If President Obama strikes Syria without congressional authority, "It would be contrary to the Constitution," Cruz said.
"And, listen, this is not the time for politics," he continued. "This is a grave and serious moment. I would like to support our commander in chief. I would like to see our commander in chief focused on protecting U.S. national security.
"One of the problems with all of this focus on Syria is it's missing the ball from what we should be focused on, which is the grave threat from radical Islamic terrorism. I mean, just this week is the one-year anniversary of the attack on Benghazi. In Benghazi, four Americans were killed, including the first ambassador since 1979. When it happened, the president promised to hunt down the wrongdoers. And yet, a few months later, the issue has disappeared. You don't hear the president mention Benghazi. Now it's a phony scandal. We ought to be defending U.S. national security and going after radical Islamic terror."

Under Obama's constitution, Arab League outvotes Congress

Washington Examiner ^ | 9/9/2013 | Conn Carroll

President Obama famously sold himself to the American people as a scholar of the U.S. Constitution, but he also conveniently left out the fact that under his interpretation of the founding document, the Arab League has more rights than you do.
At a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing Sept. 5, Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, asked Secretary of State John Kerry: “President Obama did not come to Congress seeking a resolution on the use of force in Libya. What's the difference between Libya and Syria when it comes to seeking congressional authorization?”
Kerry responded, “The difference is that in the case of Libya, you had already passed a U.N. Security Council resolution and an Arab League resolution and a Gulf States Cooperation resolution, and you had a man who we knew was prone to follow through on his word promising that he was going to kill like dogs all the people in Benghazi. … So I think under those circumstances, the president felt the urgency, the emergency of protecting life and a capacity that had already been granted through the international community.”
In other words, if the Arab League gives its permission first, then Obama thinks that gives him the constitutional authority to launch a seven-month war against Libya. Congress need not be consulted at all.
But if the Arab League is silent, then Obama can seek approval from Congress for a limited strike. And even then, if he does not get it, he can completely ignore Congress if he so chooses.
Is Obama’s view of the president’s war powers consistent with the Constitution? Nope. Not even close.
Article I of the United States Constitution unequivocally grants Congress, not the president, the power “to declare war.”
This does not mean that Congress must officially declare war every time the president uses military force (Congress has only declared war five times in the history of the country).
But it does mean that the president must seek approval from Congress for the use of force at the earliest possible date.
This is what President Bush did when he secured an “Authorization for the Use of Force” before he invaded Iraq in 2003.
And Article II of the U.S. Constitution identifies the president as “the commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” This,the Supreme Court has held, empowers the president to use force if the U.S. has been attacked or faces imminent attack.
But that is not what happened in Libya. Neither Kerry, nor Obama has ever claimed that the United States was attacked, or faced imminent attack, from Libya.
What Obama has argued is that some penumbra of constitutional authority emanated from the nexus between foreign civilians being in danger and the blessing of the international community, thereby justifying Obama’s use of the United States military without constitutional approval.
But the Constitution does not say the president can attack another country just because “the international community” says it is OK. There is no “Arab League” clause in the Constitution empowering it to authorize the president to use military force.
The Constitution allows the president to use military force in just three situations: 1) with congressional approval; 2) after the U.S. has been attacked; 3) when the U.S. faces imminent attack.
By attacking Libya without consulting Congress, Obama violated his oath of office. His nakedly political decision to seek congressional approval for his unpopular plan to bomb Syria only highlights this hypocrisy.

The Warmongering President ^ | September 9, 2013 | Rachel Alexander,

Who would have guessed that liberal Democrat Barack Obama would end up being one of the biggest warmongering presidents in history. It is suspected by many that his decision to militarily intervene in Syria is being done to deflect the public’s attention away from Obamacare, the IRS targeting of conservatives and the NSA surveillance scandal. Intervening on behalf of the Syrian rebels is unpopular because it is not clear that the rebels, who have been infiltrated by al Qaeda affiliates and Iranian-backed militias, are any better than President Bashar al-Assad's Shiite-controlled government, and toppling the regime may lead to instability to the detriment of Israel.

A Gallup poll found that going into Syria is more unpopular than any similar conflict since the airstrikes on Kosovo under President Bill Clinton 15 years ago. Only 36 percent of Americans support the intervention, compared to 51 percent who oppose it. Pope Francis is so opposed to military intervention, he led Catholics around the world in a day of fasting for peace in Syria. British voters are overwhelminglyagainst military action, with 47 percent opposing it and only 19 percent in favor. Seventy conservative Tories in British Parliament refusedto vote for military action last week, and the legislation failed.

Obama claims that 10 countries who signed a vague statement about military action at the G-20 summit last week means they back his plans to invade Syria. However, Britain clearly opposes it, and Russia asserts that only four of those countries support the invasion. If Congress does not approve military action in a vote shortly, Obama appears ready to go ahead with the strikes anyway. This is even more disturbing since Russian president Vladimir Putin announced that his country will provide assistance to the Syrian government if the U.S. militarily intervenes on behalf of the rebels, reviving a dangerous U.S.-Russian rivalry.

Obama’s plans to invade Syria have been muddled, vague, and impossible to follow. John Kass of TheChicago Tribune described it best,

The problem is, Obama's war plans keep changing, and they're rather ambiguous. Axelrod says the dog has caught the car, but there's no telling when the car will take off again, twisting and turning and leaving that poor dog dizzy. Obama's plan for Syria is almost like Obamacare: We're not supposed to know what we're getting until after he gets the votes.

Obama has increased military action in many ways to levels far beyond George W. Bush. One senior military official told The Washington Post that the Obama administration has given the green light for "things that the previous administration did not."

In 2010, Obama increased the presence of Special Forces from 60 countries to 75 countries, mostly done in secret. There are now 4,000 Americans in the Special Forces in foreign countries. Each year, he asks for billion dollar increases to the Special Operations budget.

His military expansion has gone far beyond Afghanistan and Iraq, where the goal has expanded from regime change to nation building. Under Obama, troop levels in Afghanistan were increased to 17,000 in 2009. The verdict is still out on whether that was a wise intervention.

Drone strikes, controversial due to civilian casualties and eliminating low-level militants that could provide valuable information, have massively increased under Obama, especially in Pakistan. In 2009, Obama started covert drone strikes in Yemen. In 2011, although a U.S. strike successfully killed radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, it also took out three U.S. citizens.

Drone strikes began in Somalia in June of 2011, escalating the proxy war. In April of this year, the Obama administration announced that it would be sending military aid directly to Somalia. This has many worried, considering what happened to U.S. troops there in the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident, where 18 U.S. troops were killed after militia fighters shot down their two helicopters. The administration has already been sending millions of dollars to six African countries to combat terrorism in Somalia.

Obama ordered U.S. military strikes on Libya in 2011 that took out dictator Muammar Qadhafi’s regime. Many questioned this move, since Qadhafi had retreated from the despotic days of the Lockerbie bombing. He denounced the 9-11 attacks and was removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism in 2006. Removing him from power has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the country. Many members of Congress objected to the strikes on the basis that Obama did not have constitutional authority. The 1973 War Powers Act, which was passed in response to the Vietnam War, requires a president to obtain congressional approval within 90 days of sending the military into a conflict.

In 2009, Obama signed an agreement to station U.S. personnel at seven military bases in Columbia, ostensibly to combat terrorism and narcotraffickers. About the only military action Obama has taken that most can agree upon was the U.S. military operation by Navy SEALs that ultimately killed Osama bin Laden.

Obama’s domestic policy related to the terrorism has been equally aggressive, if not questionable. He supports the NSA spying program. He encouraged federal employees to spy on each other and report suspicious behavior under the Insider Threat Program. He defended intrusive body scans and pat downs at airports. He never shut down Guantanamo as he promised to do during his first year as president.

It is not that all of these efforts are wrong. Most of the public does not have enough information to make a fully informed assessment about each of these scenarios. But what we have learned from incidents like the IRS targeting of conservatives is that Obama cannot be trusted. Obama’s military strikes, particularly his proposed invasion of Syria, are reminiscent of President Clinton’s two-week bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs in 1995. Since both the Serbs and the Albanians had committed atrocities against each other going back hundreds of years, it was a bit arbitrary to choose one side over the other. Ultimately, the NATO-led campaign has been a dubious success, as feuding between the Serbs and Albanians continued after the interim government was set up in 1999.

Clinton very likely ordered the strikes on Kosovo in order to distract the public from his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Right before the affair became public, the movie Wag the Dog was released, about a president who constructs a fake war with Albania in order to divert attention from his sex scandal.

Immediately after the Lewinsky affair became public, Clinton ordered the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. According to The New York Times, “American officials have acknowledged over the years that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980's.”

The U.S. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research issued a report in 1999 critical of the attack and the link to bin Laden. Werner Daum, the German ambassador to Sudan from 1996 to 2000, speculates that the destruction of the factory caused “several tens of thousands of deaths of Sudanese."

Obama claims that military intervention against Syria is justified, since the government used chemical weapons against its own people. Yet that was precisely the reason George W. Bush received so much criticism for the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds, killing far more Iraqi people than the 1,400 that have been killed from chemical weapons in Syria. The left tried very hard to make George W. Bush appear to be a warmongering president. Don’t hold your breath for them to do that with Obama.

Al Qaeda then and now