|

Adequate warning for Syria with Obama’s symbolic response to WMDs?

John Hayward, senior writer for Daily Events wrote the following, which appeared in today’s August 27, 2013 Daily Events.

It seems Obama has painted himself in a corner, a difficult task considering the planet is round, with his statements about chemical weapons, Syria and red lines. The comments display Obama’s obvious lack of foreign policy experience and/or the total symbolism of his preannounced attack on Syria ensuring a negligible effect on the Assad regime.

Excerpt:

The Obama Administration is quite intent on bombing Syria, unleashing a blizzard of statements and leaks that stopped just short of asking dictator Bashar Assad to RSVP for his scheduled punitive strikes.

The bombing could begin as early as Thursday, will last for three days, and will not be designed to either kill Assad or turn the tide of the Syrian civil war against him.

It will be a “message” bombing of carefully calibrated “signals” delivered by cruise missile. Assad will remain in power (and, by all indications, on track to win his long and bloody struggle against the insurgency, which is unfortunately mixed up with al-Qaeda.) But he’ll be chastised into thinking that using chemical weapons isn’t worth the hassle.

Of course, authorization from Congress will not be sought for any of this – don’t be silly! – but it looks like there won’t be a green light from the U.N. Security Council, either, which is something President Obama and his Secretary of State, 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, claimed to care deeply about, back when a Republican President was in office.

But this will be a bombing for the United Nations, as well as an effort to salvage President Obama’s credibility. The international order is heavily dependent upon the concept of “red lines” for weapons of mass destruction.

If Assad can ignore this one with impunity, his good friends and patrons in Iran will conclude they can ignore the red lines around their nuclear ambitions, too. This will be a bombing for peace, because if diplomats cannot declare certain actions unacceptable or unthinkable for rogue states, the entire system represented by the United Nations will be rendered transparently meaningless.

What is disheartening, however, is the hypocritical media and liberal reporters giving Obama a pass to respond to Assad’s attack on his own people with WMDs, while they attacked President Bush for doing the same thing in Iraq; but then they hated Bush!

Share:

44 Comments

  1. Syria’s WMDs came from Saddam?

    Syrian chemical weapons may shed light on Saddam’s missing WMDs

    The fact of Syrian use of chemical weapons should call the conventional wisdom about Iraq into question. The two countries were linked by their ruling Baathist parties and, as neighbors, engaged in trade, both legal and illegal, before the war. In 2006, Georges Sada, a former general of Saddam’s air force, detailed in his book, “Saddam’s Secrets,” how Saddam had secretly moved much of his WMD material to Syria before the U.S.-led invasion under the cover of providing relief to Syrian earthquake victims. Sada’s claims were detailed in Examiner in 2011. Sada’s claim was be supported by other sources as well. In 2004, a Syrian defector, Nizar Nayouf claimed that Iraqi WMDs had been hidden at three sites in Syria. Nayouf’s story appeared the Dutch paper Der Telegraaf and is summarized on WorldThreats.com. Satellite reconnaissance photos from 2010 published in Israel’s Haaretz show Syrian military facilities in the same areas that Nayouf fingered. The same sites were identified in the 2004 book “End Game” by General Thomas McInerney and Paul Vallely as well as another former Iraqi general, Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti. If the U.S. launches airstrikes against Syria, these facilities are likely to be targeted.

    Read more at: http://www.examiner.com/article/syrian-chemical-weapons-may-shed-light-on-saddam-s-missing-wmds

  2. CarolF964

    Really, that’s it Ted?
    Yawn.

  3. SNuss, that can’t be right, Cindy Sheenhan said there were no WMDs.

  4. 9/11/2001= React and destroy. Major future attacks were averted.

    8/27/13 Get involved with someone that DIDN’T provoke us? Flies in the face of the liberal geniuses of the last 10 years. Biggest mistake Republicans can do is approve military action.

  5. Brian Opsahl

    Talk about grasping for straws wow nuss.
    You will stop at nothing to defend bush will you..? and there’s alot you have to defend.

  6. Steverino

    Here goes Ted and company trying to blaze a trail for the Bush/Cheney oil war in Iraq while taking another cheap shot at the black president.

  7. Brian Opsahl

    What’s next, Fox telling it’s viewers that it was actully bush who ordered and had the seals trained to get Bin Ladin…?

  8. For a number of reasons, I say lets just NOT get involved.

    First, are we 100% sure it was Assad, and not the rebels themselves? There is some logic to the thought that some rebel commander did this to drag us into it.

    Second, Iraq is worse off now than under Hussein, and Afghanistan will fall to the Taliban within 12 months after we leave. Are we trying to add a third failure?

    Third, I do not trust Obama to lead a military intervention. When the going gets tough, Obama goes on vacation.

    Finally, if the rest of the world is so outraged, let them handle this!

  9. I heard a retired military officer voice a compelling reason NOT to intervene in Syria. His assessment:

    We have Hezbollah fighting alongside Assad’s military, and Al-Qaida is doing the same with the rebel forces. Our enemies are killing each other, so why stop them?

    I would tend to agree, except for the horrific amount of “collateral damage”, i.e., innocent civilians.

  10. Steverino sez: “taking another cheap shot at the black president.”

    Dropping the race card a little early, aren’t you?

    He Is only HALF-black, in case you forgot.

    His Leftist agenda would still stink if it was used by Hillary, Kerry, Gore, or any other socialist/Marxist Democrat. Pigmentation has nothing to do with it, except in the minds of Leftist race-baiters.

  11. Well, Brian, where is your proof that those WMDs DIDN’T come from Saddam? (cue the crickets, and the tumbleweeds).

    Remember Brian, Leftist talking points are not proof.

  12. Brian Opsahl

    Nuss…if WMDs we’re actully found…republican bush would himself be telling anyone who would listen ,but because it was used as a ruse to attack…yea,no…still nothing…chirp,chrip……….

    Also it would matter if they found them several years ago when they first lied about it …Right…?…not now ..

  13. Brian Opsahl

    Nuss…is hate ,your middle name…just askin..?

  14. No, Brian, I don’t share your middle name.

  15. “I would tend to agree, except for the horrific amount of “collateral damage”, i.e., innocent civilians.”

    Are you under the impression when we star firing our bombs that there will be less “collateral damage?”

  16. BTW, Brian, I already told you that Leftist talking points are no substitute for facts. I offered sources, you responded with Leftist blather, and personal attacks. Surprise, surprise.

    On an unrelated subject: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2d9qqer&s=5

  17. @ joe: There will probably be less “collateral damage”, than with the use of chemical weapons. There is no “clean” way to wage war, but staying within the confines of the Geneva accords is better than nothing. Ending the conflict sooner would also save lives. There is no good answer, only the lesser of two evils.

    BTW, I also find it disturbing that we would be assisting the same organization (Al-Qaida) that killed thousands of Americans on 9/11.

  18. Steverino

    Will I see the State Department once again provided Nuss with all the pertinent intelligence briefings.

  19. Ted: Your reference to “the hypocritical media and liberal reporters giving Obama a pass to respond to Assad’s attack on his own people with WMDs, while they attacked President Bush for doing the same thing in Iraq” is just wrong in at least one respect.

    In the weeks just prior to the Iraq War in 2003, the mainstream media widely and conspicuously reported that polls showed strong support among the American people for military action against Iraq. Moreover, a study conducted in 2003 by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) tracking the frequencies of pro-war and antiwar commentators on the major networks found that pro-war views were overwhelmingly more frequent.

    This contrasts sharply with current media coverage of a possible military strike against the Syrian regime. The mainstream media are now trumpeting the results of a new Reuters poll showing overwhelming opposition to U.S. military action in Syria. Then, too, so-called liberal media outlets are rife with comments and columns expressing misgivings, if not outright opposition, concerning U.S. military action in Syria.

    So much for your theory about the liberal media “giving Obama a pass.”

    Actually, neo-conservatives like Karl Rove and Bill Kristol are the ones who are most prominently calling for strikes against Syria. So, too, are Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

    • Ted Biondo

      Pat, a deft switch of focus from Obama’s incompetence in warning Syria that he plans to attack them for crossing HIS red line, which was a stupid challenge to Assad that now he, and America have to live up to, to keep HIS credibility viable, to one comment in the post about the media. What a dolt Obama is.

  20. Pat’s right, of course. The wingnuts need to keep the military/industrial complex humming, which helps fund the pensions of people like Ted and keeps stock prices high for the defense contractors and others who survive on waging war.

  21. Another brilliant observation from Steverino. Please, comment again, after your nap.

    Interesting… Pat is actually giving credibility to Pres. Bush’s Iraq invasion. Has Hell frozen over?

    Of course, Pat neglects to mention that “The Messiah” committed himself to this Syrian attack, with his “red line” , concerning WMDs. That now leaves Obama with two choices: Back up his words with military action [by assisting the same organization (Al-Qaida) that killed thousands of Americans on 9/11], or look (even more) like an incompetent weakling, by doing nothing, which helps Hezbollah. A foreign policy Hobson’s choice, if there ever was one.

  22. Steverino,

    When you have nothing (as you usually do) scream racism.

    BO,

    “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” – So was Bush lying or misinformed when he said this in 2002?

    PattiPoo often forgets to put events in context. PattiPoo forgets that after 9-11 there was bi-partisan called for national defense and WMDs was considered a very real threat by members of both parties (Actually before 9-11 since Clinton also clained that Iraq had WMDs. Iraq was more of a threat to our country than Syria is today. Radical Islam, and those that would support them, were the greatest threat to our country since the USSR. It must be very disturbing to PattiPoo that Obama appears to be in agreement with Rove, Kristol, Mccain, and Graham.

    Monkey,

    It must frost your panties also that Obama is keeping the defense contractors flush along with Ted’s pension

    • Ted Biondo

      Yeah Terry thanks for reminding me – Thanks Obama for that portion of my pension attributable to the military but don’t forget, monkey, more than 80% of my pension had nothing to do with the government but commercial aircraft and private products, but then, I hate to burst your bubble deriving pleasure thinking that my pension wasn’t earned because I spent 20% of my time helping to defend this country and your right to bitch about it!

  23. Is Monkey same the monkey running with the cup from Pat’s organ grinder cart?

  24. kevind1986

    Here’s a video of Hillary, Bill, Pelosi, Biden and Reid (among others) talking about the WMD’s that Sadaam has and our need to go in after him. Some of it BEFORE 9/11. Most of these “leaders” are hypocrites but they are all liars, counting on the short memory of their supporters. “Bush’s War” is a fallacy. Do you have the fortitude to watch the liberals make liars of their future selves?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

  25. kevind1986

    Monkey tries to carry PC’s water, but the cup has too many holes.

  26. Some examples of Leftist hypocrisy:

    “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.” Then-Sen. B. Hussein 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. (Re: Pres. Bush)

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/27/obama-and-his-team-contradict-past-statements-on-war-powers-syria/#ixzz2dMlVWWmb

    So, were they lying then, or are they lying now?

  27. CarolF964

    I note when Pa,t brings Ted, back into the real world, poor Ted, is shocked to discovered that anyone recalls the truth of the matter.
    I never felt Colin Powell was a liar when he made that speech before the United Nations and it all turned out to be based on misinformation. He did than what he felt was the correct thing and later said in public the information was inaccurate. Those who wanted war in Iraq who believed those same sources we also duped and their comments now have no credence. Those we should still mistrust and hold accountable are those still pushing the lies as having been a good reason for that War.
    It was true Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurdish people.
    Some things you just shouldn’t turn your back on which include mass murder of populations based on religoin or race, nor political thought.
    What the President does will be the correct thing in this matter. Some will like his choice and others not, but making a choice to say chemical weapons aren’t acceptable is, and always will be, how the President of the United States responds.
    Ted you need to look at the big picture past your political hatred of President Obama. I seriously doubt any commentor here wants to see chemical weapons used and this nation sit by and say nothing or attempt to punish those who do this awful thing to any group of human beings.
    I see Ted you really have nothing important to say except “crossing the red line” rather than what our nation needs to do when these kinds of weapons are used on either friend or foe as there should be no difference in our reaction. Topic too difficult for you, sir?

  28. CarolF964

    SNuss
    I care very little about what candidate Obama said in 2007.
    This is the second time chemical weapons have been used on civilian populations in this civil war.
    It won’t be “candidate Obama” who makes the choice as to what actions need to be taken. That will be President Obama who has grown a great deal with holding the office of President of the United States. Happens to all candidates who are elected to that office.
    Experience is a great teacher when candidates become Presidents.
    You may continue to cry your political garbage, but that won’t put you any nearer to a thoughtful choice concerning how our nation should best react when chemical weapons are being used by others in a world we all share.
    I personally vote, Assuad’s palace would be a heap of dirt. They listen when it becomes very personal to their survival. Too bad we have laws against doing that very thing.

    • Ted Biondo

      All it shows, CarolF964, is that Obama is a liar and a hypocrite. He has done it many times. This guy has no experience except as a community organizer, a couple of years in the Illinois General Assembly and he spent most of his time as a US Senator campaigning for president. He doesn’t know what the heck he is doing and that is obvious to all those who are not impressed that he knows how to deliver a speech someone else wrote for him displayed on a teleprompter.

  29. Carol:

    I care a great deal about what candidate Obama said in 2007. It goes to “credibility”, just like “the most transparent administration”, and dozens of other total falsehoods that he made, just to get elected.

    If it was un-Constitutional in 2007, what law changed since then, to make it acceptable?

  30. Carol,

    As President Obama has discovered, its a lot harder sitting in the big boy chair than being the junior senator from Illinois and reading the telepromptor. It’s the hypocrisy -not just Obama’s, but liberals in general.

    Below is a quote from President Bush regarding WMDs, do you think he lied or was he just misinformed about the existence of WMDs?

    “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”

  31. CarolF964

    Ted, SNuss, & Terry
    What all this clearly shows is you are unwilling to move from foolish politics to the serious topic of the use of chemical weapons by any nation against it’s own people or a neighboring nation.
    I don’t see myself as a hypocrite because I’m a liberal. Perhaps those who feel the need to label me in that way are being shortsighted and unable to hear what any Liberal says here? The odd thing about that to me is I have many Republican friends who don’t have the need to call me names when we see issues in a different light with solutions that don’t move in lockstep.
    If you want to use a former President as a good example in matters of truth and responsibility in nature, may I suggest that of Kennedy when he took full responsibility for the Bay of Pigs invasions that was unsuccessful. Or you might want to recall the famous sign on former President Truman’s desk that said “The buck stops here.”
    The personal attacks on this current President as being no more than a “community organizer” goes against all reasoning if you actually believe in the American Dream, which is you can go as far as you want in this nation with hard work. Ted is a person who should know from experience running for any public office isn’t a cake-walk even on a lower level such as he holds.
    Gentlemen, you seem to be unable to grasp the big picture when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. Could it be Liberals, whom you despise in your posts, are the ones who seem to see the big picture while you remain in the dark? Just a thought for you to mull over as to why non of you seemed upset by the use of those chemical weapons in Syria but sure had lots to say about President Obama.

  32. The new American dream, let government take you as far as “they” choose.
    “But that is not what he means. It is clear from all the new programs he proposed last night, and before, that Obama’s American Dream is mainly about what the government can do for people. It’s about government benefits and services. It’s not what people should be given a right and freedom to do for themselves.
    When the President says he wants to restore an American where “you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, no matter what you look like or who you love,” you can rest assured he doesn’t mean what most Americans are hearing. It sounds as if he’s raising a flag in defense of self-reliance and responsibility. But that’s not what he’s doing. From all the new government programs he has proposed it’s clear he means the exact opposite: doubling down on the welfare state and adding a crippling debt that mortgages our children’s future.
    When he talks about building “new ladders of opportunity into the middle class,” you can bet he doesn’t mean empowering individuals with the equality of opportunity. He doesn’t think of liberalizing the economy to get it growing again, which would help bring lower-income people into the middle class. Rather, he means using government programs for lower-income people, which traps them in poor and dangerous neighborhoods.
    When he calls for stronger families, you would think that he means reducing that welfare dependency that has accompanied the breakup of families in low-income neighborhoods. But in reality, he has only doubled down on the welfare state that has decimated these families.
    When he suggests encouraging “free enterprise,” you would think he means cutting regulations so businesses can start hiring again. But his support for the Dodd-Frank financial bill and other regulations imposed on the economy is moving the country in the opposite direction.”

    http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/13/obamas-hijacking-the-american-dream/

  33. CarolF964

    What exactly does your post have to do with Syria, Wilson?
    Didn’t Ted say last week he’d like posters to stick to topic?
    So how can a speech given at the celebration of the march 50 years ago on Washington, D.C., led by Dr. King, remotely add up to anything linking it to Syria’s use of chemical weapons and this President’s response to that use??????????????

  34. Well you mentioned the American Dream, I was just expanding on your post.
    I guess at the end (like the last sentence) I could have added something about liberals and how their positions change 180 degrees when they are in power and how they are hypocrites now with Syria.
    I’ll ignore the insulting premise that non of us (whoever none of us is) don’t care.
    The buck in this administration stops everywhere and virtually no one is held accountable, heck some even get promoted! I’ll end this by saying Syria has been a problem and if someone had acted during the Iranian uprising in 2009, I bet Assad would have taken notice and we wouldn’t be where we are.

  35. Carol,

    “What all this clearly shows is you are unwilling to move from foolish politics to the serious topic of the use of chemical weapons by any nation against it’s own people or a neighboring nation.”

    Curious what you stance was 11 years ago with Saddam? Saddam did kill his own people with WMDs and the death count was in the tens of thousands

    We do see the big picture Carol. Saddam and his chemical weapons were a much bigger threat to the U.S than Syria and their chemical weapons. That’s the big picture.

    Obama is going lob a few missles at Syria and claim victory just like Clinton did we bombed Iraq fior three days in Dec, 1998. It will have solved nothing, but he will have acted tough.

  36. Carol, as I posted earlier in this thread: “The Messiah” committed himself to this Syrian attack, with his “red line” , concerning WMDs. That now leaves Obama with two choices: Back up his words with military action [by assisting the same organization (Al-Qaida) that killed thousands of Americans on 9/11], or look (even more) like an incompetent weakling, by doing nothing, which helps Hezbollah. A foreign policy Hobson’s choice, if there ever was one.

    This is the result of electing an incompetent, arrogant, unqualified, Marxist/socialist “community organizer” to the U.S. presidency.

  37. CarolF964

    My question Terry, Ted, & SNuss, is what reaction are you suggesting when others use chemical weapons?
    All I’m hearing is the usual politics and name calling of the President. Not very helpful in the area of long range planning.
    I would like you three gentlemen to keep in mind that first you were unhappy it appeared the President might go ahead without the Congresses approval, reminding us all what Candidate Obama had said in 2007 about that very thing. Now he’s asking Congress for input and you are even more unhappy. No pleasing some of you who only play politics with every issue.
    As for myself, I have a feeling that old saying about being careful what you ask for because someone just might give it to you applies here. Seems like to quote SNuss, the incompetent, arrogant, unqualified, Marxist/Socialist “community organizer” is one up on you all. Maybe you need to put the term “incompetent” over on the Republicans side of the ledger.
    Noted McCain & Graham came away from the meeting at the White House looking far less combative. Why they could have been mistaken for for Senators who really were looking to do their jobs today. Wow, now there’s a real welcome make-over.

  38. Carol,

    “I would like you three gentlemen to keep in mind that first you were unhappy it appeared the President might go ahead without the Congresses approval,” – Care to show me where I said this?

    “Now he’s asking Congress for input and you are even more unhappy.” – care to show me where I am unhappy that he is asking Congressional input?

  39. Another reason to support the Obama regime’s agenda in Syria?

    Attempting to quell criticism of his proposal for a limited military mission in Syria, President Obama floated a more modest strategy today, saying that any U.S. action in Syria would have “no objective whatsoever.”

    “Let me be clear,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.”

    “I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal,” he said.

    Read more at: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/08/obama-promises-syria-strike-will-have-no-objective.html

    It is the Obama/Seinfeld military policy, an attack about nothing.

    If there has been any more idiotic reasoning, calling for the use our military, I can’t think of an example.

  40. Brian Opsahl

    I can site 2 ….Bush,Iraq…!!

  41. Where was there more an issue to our national security – Iraq or Syria?

    Also, Saddam killed many more of his own people with WMDs than Assad has.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>