Yeah, lets get involved in Syria, whats the worst that could happen? Just like everything Obama touches, it goes to hell.
As world attention focused on the coup in Egypt and the poison gas attack in Syria over the past two months, Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi two years ago. Government authority is disintegrating in all parts of the country putting in doubt claims by American, British and French politicians that Nato’s military action in Libya in 2011 was an outstanding example of a successful foreign military intervention which should be repeated in Syria.
Libyans are increasingly at the mercy of militias which act outside the law. Popular protests against militiamen have been met with gunfire; 31 demonstrators were shot dead and many others wounded as they protested outside the barracks of “the Libyan Shield Brigade” in the eastern capital Benghazi in June.
Read more:
There is a bunch of serious shit going on right now and the biggest blowhard pushing for Syrian intervention is playing games on his phone during congressional hearings? What the fucking fuck?
The fix is in kids, this is puppet theater, Obama is going in no matter what.
I am not for or against….yet. I don’t have the facts nor do I have the luxury of defense reports, but this is a huge issue facing the nation, and McCain is playing games? This isn’t a time share salesman, you are about to put lives in jeopardy, and this is the focus you give it?
Pathetic!!
Barack Hussein Obama rose to power by attacking—in a somewhat apocryphal 2002 speech—what he called George Walker Bush’s “dumb war” in Iraq. Let us compare Obama’s approach to Syria with Bush’s in Iraq.
1.Bush in Iraq: Attacked an evil regime isolated for over a decade by both Democrats and Republicans.
Obama in Syria: Wants to attack an evil regime coddled for six years by Democrats and the White House.
2.Bush in Iraq: Attacked after UN inspectors turned away, in violation of Security Council resolutions.
Obama in Syria: Announced plans to attack before any inspections, and in fact opposed UN inspections.
3.Bush in Iraq: Attacked after UN Security Council deadlocked on authorization for use of force.
Obama in Syria: Has not attempted to obtain UN Security Council authorization for use of force.
4.Bush in Iraq: Attacked after building multinational “coalition of the willing” with Britain.
Obama in Syria: Plans to attack without multinational coalition and after British rejection of war.
5.Bush in Iraq: Sought authorization from Congress first, before going to UN or planning any attack.
Obama in Syria: Opposed authorization from Congress until “red line” & attack were already announced.
6.Bush in Iraq: Attacked Iraq as part of War on Terror against Al Qaeda and affiliated groups.
Obama in Syria: Says “War on Terror” is over, is arming Islamist groups allied with Al Qaeda.
7.Bush in Iraq: Clear objectives, including regime change to replace dictatorship with democracy.
Obama in Syria: No clear objectives, formal opposition to any direct effort at regime change.
8.Bush in Iraq: Acted before Saddam Hussein could threaten neighbors or his own people.
Obama in Syria: Acting after Bashar al-Assad has slaughtered 100,000 Syrians, threatened neighbors.
9.Bush in Iraq: Attacked after moving strategic U.S. military assets to the region to protect U.S. allies.
Obama in Syria: Acting after “pivot to Asia,” after military sequester, and despite risks to allies.
10.Bush in Iraq: Gave up golf for the rest of his presidency while U.S. troops still in combat.
Obama in Syria: Went golfing (again) after announcing new Syria policy.
“No question about it.” – Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, in 2007 when asked if Iraq had moved the majority of its chemical weapons arsenal to Syria before the US invasion of Iraq.
Clapper was the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and was the director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency during 2007.
A shit hole mid eastern country is in disarray, the United States think they should be involved in the dispute one way or another. Yes, atrocities seem to have happened, but when was the last time in the last few weeks you heard about Benghazi or the NSA, how about the IRS scandal?
Smoke and mirrors people.
Obama and his minions are using executive privilege to bypass congress and do whatever the hell he wants, and it’s working.
And so with President Obama and federal courts’ rulings: they have no means of enforcing their rulings. As any intemperate two-year old knows, you can do anything you want until someone compels you to stop. And so Obama can order whatever he wishes until he is compelled to stop.
The courts lacks the means of such compulsion. That leaves the Congress to rein in the executive. (Please excuse me while I erupt in peals of derisive laughter.) Congress’s only authority to rein in a president consists of two things:
That’s it. (In 1834, the Congress voted to censure President Andrew Jackson. Jackson correctly declared that there was no Constitutional authority for it and basically told the Congress they could either impeach him or get stuffed, although he put it a little more pithily.)
Since those are the only two options available, and since the Congress is controlled by the Democrats (the Republican majority in the House meaning nothing here), neither loss of funding nor impeachment will ever be used to restrain this president.
The goal of the entire Democrat party is to be the permanent, sole political authority in the country. This is the actual transformation that Barack Obama promised to great applause in his 2008 campaign. And we are getting transformed good and hard:
Obama can do this not because the Constitution or law authorize it. Most definitely they actually prohibit it. He is getting away with it because there is no one who can stop him and almost no one who wants to stop him. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, in the Democrat party is in the slightest interested in reining in Obama’s expansion of executive diktat because they know what few of the rest of us are awakening to: the Democrats are never going to lose that executive authority again. Let me be clear, with a promise to elucidate another day: there is never going to be another Republican president.
Ever…
What Obama is doing overall is suspending the Constitution piecemeal and making statutes passed by Congress irrelevant. But it’s more than that. He’s making Congress itself irrelevant along with the courts, and hauling all meaningful power into his own hands. Found here
Secretary of State John Kerry referenced this photograph when making his speech today, trying to drive home how awful the Syrian chemical attack was as he tried to convince us why we should go to war. One problem. The picture isn’t even from Syria. It’s from Iraq in 2003. The photographer, Marco di Lauro, said he nearly “fell off his chair” when he saw it was being used to promote a war in Syria. It’s getting pretty disturbing to see how far our politicians, both Republican and Democrat, are willing to go to drum up support for a war nobody wants.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
By JG Vibes
Intellihub.com
August 30, 2013
The primary “witness” that the mainstream media is using as a source in Syria has been caught staging fake news segments. Recent video evidence proves that “Syria Danny”, the supposed activist who has been begging for military intervention on CNN, is really just a paid actor and a liar.
While Assad is definitely a tyrant like any head of state, a US invasion of the country is a worst case scenario for the people living there.
By pointing out that the mainstream media is orchestrating their entire coverage of this incident, we are not denying that there is a tremendous amount of death and violence in Syria right now. However, we are showing that the mainstream media version of events is scripted and staged propaganda.
The following video shows him contradicting himself while off air, and even asking crew members to “get the gunfire sounds ready” for his video conference with Anderson Cooper on CNN.
http://youtu.be/p-DCZxsrt9I
This is the definition of an idiot. She is not worried about your kid, she is worried about the collective, and I doubt she has kids, and oh by the way, the United States spends more per child for education than any other country in the world.
By Allison Benedikt| I have to give her the credit for being completely out of touch.
You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.
I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. (Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system: That shouldn’t be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.)
Read more if you have the stomach for it.
Any questions?