Posts Tagged ‘chemical weapons’

First ISIS, Now Syria…Another Obama Mess Left For Trump to Clean Up

April 14, 2018

trump-syria3-gty-hb-18041_hpMain_16x9_992

FoxNews.com reports that

President Trump on Friday night announced that he approved U.S. military strikes to be carried out in Syria against the country’s leader, Bashar al-Assad.

The news came after a suspected chemical attack last weekend from the regime on the rebel-held town, Douma.

At least 40 people died in the attack, located about 10 miles east of Damascus, and more than 500 people, mostly women and children, were injured and brought to medical centers. The attack occurred amid a resumed offensive by Syrian government forces after the collapse of a truce. Syrian activists, rescuers and medics said families suffocated in their homes.

Immediately following Trump’s address to the nation, loud explosions and thick smoke were reported in the capital city.

The president said Assad’s actions were not those “of a man” but rather “the crimes of a monster instead.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah tweeted a statement saying “The President’s decision to retaliate with air strikes as part of a broader military response reflect his seriousness in addressing the scale and depravity of Assad’s actions.”

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie tweeted, “I haven’t read France’s or Britain’s ‘Constitution,’ but I’ve read ours and no where in it is Presidential authority to strike Syria.”

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan in a tweet called the strikes “unconstitutional, illegal, and reckless.”

Georgia Sen. David Perdue issued a statement saying, “Chemical attacks against innocent children and civilians are horrific and totally unacceptable. Assad must know his inhumane actions will not be tolerated. I’ve met some of the Syrian families who fled Assad’s terror and are living in a refugee camp at the Turkish border. For too long, the world has been asking: when will Assad stop? It is time for action. President Trump is engaged and led our allies in measured response to hold Assad accountable.

In August 2012, President Barack Obama announced that if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were to use chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war, he would be crossing a “red line” that would likely trigger a military response by the United States. But exactly a year later — on August 21, 2013 — Assad did in fact breach that “red line” when he launched a massive chemical-weapons attack that killed more than 1,300 people and injured several thousand others.

By mid-morning on September 15th, Russian President Putin had taken Petulant President Pantywaist up on his magnanimous offer:

Russia and Syria embraced Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s suggestion Monday that the Syrian government could avert a U.S. attack by placing its chemical weapons under international control, upending the Obama administration’s efforts to sharpen its case for military action.

U.S. officials said Kerry’s comment, made in response to a question at a news conference in London, was not intended to be a diplomatic opening. But Kerry’s Russian and Syrian counterparts quickly followed up, and the idea drew immediate interest internationally and from top Democrats in Washington.

By the end of the day, President Obama conceded that the idea of monitoring and ultimately destroying Syria’s arsenal “could potentially be a significant breakthrough.” The Senate postponed a vote scheduled for Wednesday on whether to back a proposed punitive strike.

“I think you have to take it with a grain of salt, initially,” Obama said in an interview with NBC that was among several he gave Monday in pursuit of public backing for a military strike in response to an alleged Aug. 21 gas attack on Syrian civilians.

“We are going to run this to ground,” Obama said. “We’re going to make sure that we see how serious these proposals are.”

The President of these United States made the rounds of the news programs all that day, as if he was running for another term in office, desperately trying to drum up support for getting America involved in the Syrian Civil War, on the side of al Qaeda. Here is an excerpt from an interview with Scott Pelley, Anchor of the CBS Evening News:

…I’m not looking for an excuse to engage in military action.

And I understand deeply how the American people, after a decade of war, are not interested in any kind of military action that they don’t believe involves our direct national security interests. I– I get that. And members of Congress I think understand that. But in this situation where there’s clear evidence that nobody credible around the world disputes that chemical weapons were used, that over a thousand people were killed, that the way that these weapons were delivered makes it almost certain that Assad’s forces used them, when even Iran has acknowledged that chemical weapons were used inside of Syria.

In that situation, I think the issue is not the evidence — most people around the world are not questioning that chemical weapons were used. I think the question now is what– how does the– how does the international community respond. And I think it is important for us to run to ground every diplomatic channel that we can. There’s a reason why I went to Congress in part to allow further deliberation, not just here domestically but also internationally.

But I think it’s very important for us to make sure that we understand this is important. And if the American people– are not prepared to stand up for what is a really important international norm, then I think a lot of people around the world will take that signal — that this norm is not important.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah, well, not yet. And I, as I said, I understand that. So I’ll have a chance to talk to the American people directly tomorrow. I don’t expect that it’s gonna suddenly swing the polls wildly in the direction of another military engagement. If you ask the average person — including my household — “Do we need another military engagement?” I think the answer generally is gonna be no.

But what I’m gonna try to propose is, is that we have a very specific objective, a very narrow military option, and one that will not lead into some large-scale invasion of Syria or involvement or boots on the ground, nothing like that. This isn’t like Iraq, it’s not like Afghanistan, it’s not even like Libya. Then hopefully people will recognize why I think this is so important.

And that we should all be haunted by those images of those children that were killed. But more importantly, we should understand that when we start saying it’s okay to — or at least that there’s no response to the gassing of children, that’s the kind of slippery slope that leads eventually to these chemical weapons being used more broadly around the world. That’s not the kind of world that we want to leave to our children.

All of Obama’s actions at that time were nothing but a bunch of “sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

Obama’s “drawing of a red line in the sand” meant nothing at all to al-Asaad as he knew that Obama did not have the intestinal fortitude to back up his bluster.

Obama’s ineffectiveness as an American President lead to the birth of al-Qaeda and the continued tyranny of the Syrian Dictator, leaving President Trump to clean up both “messes”.

What President Donald J. Trump did by coordinating last night’s US/UK/France Air Strike against strategic targets in Syria was to send a firm message to Bashar al-Assad.

As the President said, after witnessing the horrors of chemical weapons in World War I, the civilized nations of the world vowed never to let them be used again.

Unfortunately, the Syrian Dictator is NOT a civilized man and had to be dealt with appropriately by sending a message which he and his benefactors in Iran, including Putin, would understand.

Last night, a clear and concise message was sent to Syrian Dictator Bashar al-Assad.

No Red Lines needed.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

Advertisements

The Syria Situation: Time to Put “The Maverick” Out to Pasture

September 4, 2013

McCainObamaJohn McCain, the Republican Party’s ill-advised 2008 Presidential Candidate, has become the Poster Boy for Senility.

As America stands on the precipice of Word War III, “Maverick” is prancing around like a show pony, for President Barack Hussein Obama, and an all-too-willing dhimmi for the Muslim Brotherhood and their off-shoot, al Qaeda.

Yesterday morning, Senator McCain made the suggestion that Fox and Friend’s Brian Kilmeade was Islamophobic. Kilmeade had informed McCain that Radical Islamists had shouted “Allahu Akbar” as their rockets hit government offices in Syria.

“I have a problem helping those people screaming that after a hit,” Kilmeade said. McCain responded: “Would you have a problem with an American or Christians saying ‘thank God? Thank God?’” He added, “That’s what they’re saying. Come on! Of course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.” McCain provided no evidence to suggest that Syrian opposition groups are moderate, as opposed to the wide swath of evidence suggesting that the opposition is heavily infested with al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda…Moderates? Are you kiddin’ .me?

Per pjmedia.com…

One of the English translators of the great 14th century Muslim jurist (d. 1350) Ibn Qayyim’s “The Way to Patience and Gratitude” opts for “Allah is Greater” as the specific translation of Allahu Akbar. On page 463, the following explanation is provided:

…I preferred using “the Greater” to “the Greatest”… Allahu Akbar literally means, “Allah is Greater” with the comparative mode. Yet, this does not mean that He (Glory be to Him) is not the Greatest, nor does it mean that there is anything that is put in comparison with Him. This is because when the Muslim says it, he means He is “Greater” than anything else, which, consequently, means He is the Greatest. This use gives more influence. This may be why it is used in Arabic this way, otherwise it should have been used as “Allahu al-Akbar”, in the superlative mode. Surely, Allah Knows best.

“Allahu Akbar” is heard every time a Muslim Terrorist commits an act of violence.

After 9/11, the FBI released a letter reportedly handwritten by the hijackers and found in three separate copies on 9/11—at Dulles, at the Pennsylvania crash site, and in Mohamed Atta’s suitcase. It included a checklist of final reminders for the 9/11 hijackers. An excerpt reads: “When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”

When in March 2002 Maryam Mohammad Yousif Farhat of Hamas, popularized as “Umm Nidal” (and subsequently elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council) learned that her 17-year-old son had been killed on a suicide mission in which he killed five teenagers, she celebrated by proclaiming “Allahu Akbar!” and giving out boxes of halva and chocolates. In 2003, when Imam Samudra became the second Bali bomber from a violent Islamist group to be sentenced to death for his role in the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people, Samudra greeted his sentence with chants of “Allahu Akbar”.

In 2004, in an execution video of Nick Berg being beheaded in Iraq, as one man sawed off Berg’s head the other captors shouted: “Allahu Akbar!”. And in the 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, a group of radical Islamists who were convicted of plotting an attack on the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey had videotaped themselves shooting weapons and shouting Allahu Akbar. In 2008, Aafia Siddiqui yelled “Allah Akbar” as she allegedly fired at U.S. interrogators.

During the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, witnesses reported that gunman Nidal Malik Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others. And Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad smiled and said “Allahu Akbar” after receiving a life sentence in 2010 for his attempted bombing.

During the incident aboard American Airlines Flight 1561, the person attempting to bash his way into the cockpit was heard shouting “Allahu Akbar”. Mohammed Merah recorded himself shouting Allahu Akbar as he killed three French paratroopers in the 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings.

Senator, you sure don’t hear Christians running around screaming “Thank God!” as they are blowing themselves up and killing people, do you?

I know that you had a long day yesterday, Maverick, but shouldn’t you have been paying attention to the Senate Hearings concerning  going to war, err. I mean having a “limited engagement” with Syria? I mean, after all, that’s your job, isn’t it?

Senility is a horrible thing.

Why on earth are you supporting intervening in Syria, on behalf of a bunch of Muslim Terrorists, John?

Perhaps…you are just repaying them for their support.

Back in 2008, the BBC reported that

Supporters of al-Qaeda have said they would prefer Republican candidate John McCain to win the US election because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a message broadcast on the password-protected al-Hesbah site, the group said they would also welcome a pre-election terror attack on the US because that would make a McCain win more likely.

In an endorsement that will not be welcomed by Mr McCain’s flagging campaign, the group said that if al-Qaeda wants to exhaust the US, militarily and economically, the “impetuous” Republican presidential candidate is the better choice.

“This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier,” the message said.

“Then, al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush.”

“If al-Qaeda carries out a big operation against American interests,” it said, “this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it.”

Mark Salter, a senior McCain adviser, had no immediate comment.

As an official “Wacko Bird”, i.e., Conservative, I would like to say that Progressive Republicans, like John McCain, and his pet dog, Lindsey Graham, are one of the reasons that Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) is the President of these United States.

Not only are Progressive Republicans, like “The Sunshine Boys”, and Obama’s golfing buddy, Cryin’ John Boehner, weak and ineffectual, if they had any tes…err…intestinal fortitude whatsoever, that would be jumping on America’s scandal-ridden Administration with both feet. Instead, they’re acting like the wussified Country Club Elite that they are…whether they are reaching across the aisle to intervene on behalf of these Syrian [al Qaeda] Rebels or trying to pass “Immigration Reform”, which will do nothing but add new Democratic Voters to the rolls.

It’s getting more and more difficult to tell the Republican Leadership from the Democratic Leadership.

Straight talk, from Conservative American Leaders like Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, and Lt. Col. Allen West, is what America needs to hear, not rhetoric about “America’s responsibility to bomb Assad”, “sharing the wealth” or “social justice”. And, we especially do not need for Vichy Republicans like Juan McAmnesty to continue sucking up to our enemies, foreign and domestic.

The resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC is doing more than enough of that, all by himself.

Until He Comes,

KJ

America On the Brink of War: Will Syria Be Obama’s Vietnam?

August 26, 2013

Obama-Shrinks-2I’m getting the feeling of Deja Vu…all over again.

News Outlets are trumpeting the warning that, within the next few days, Obama and his Administration are about the plunge the United States into the middle of a Civil War, happening within the Middle Eastern Country of Syria.

According to abcnews.go.com,

The White House says there is “very little doubt” that the Assad regime is responsible for the alleged chemical attack in Syria that is said to have taken place earlier this week.

“Based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts, and other facts,” a senior administration official tells ABC News, “There is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident. We are continuing to assess the facts so the President can make an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons.”

White House officials also point out the attack was on rebel-held territory and apparently done using rockets that the rebels do not possess.

After reports that Syria’s regime will allow UN inspectors to access the site of the attack, the senior administration official suggested the move may be too late, after “the regime’s persistent shelling” has “significantly corrupted” evidence in the area.

“If the Syrian government had nothing to hide and wanted to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons in this incident, it would have ceased its attacks on the area and granted immediate access to the UN–five days ago. At this juncture, the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the UN team is too late to be credible,” the official said.

The president has ordered his national security team to draw up possible strike options on Syria, but there is a divide in the White House on how forcefully to respond, although another official told ABC News if there is a strike, it must be “timely” — done soon enough to prevent another chemical attack.

However, the White House does not want to act alone. U.S. officials are back channeling through the United Nations to see if Russia could be convinced to agree to a resolution.

If there is no UN authorization, the United States would lead any possible strike, but, a senior official told ABC News “we do not want to do anything on our own.” U.S. allies must commit both “resources” and “political will” the official said.

Didn’t Vietnam start out as a “U.N. Action”?

Obama is determined to put us right in the middle of another country’s Civil War.  And the problem with this one is…there are no “Good Guys”.

BBC.co.uk reported the following on April 10th…

The leader of the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist group fighting in Syria, has pledged allegiance to the leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani said the group’s behaviour in Syria would not change as a result.

Al-Nusra claims to have carried out many suicide bombings and guerrilla attacks against state targets.

On Tuesday, al-Qaeda in Iraq announced a merger with al-Nusra, but Mr Jawlani said he had not been consulted on this.

Al-Nusra has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the US.

Debates among Western leaders over whether to arm Syria’s rebels have often raised the concern of weapons ending up in the hands of groups such as al-Nusra.

“The sons of al-Nusra Front pledge allegiance to Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri,” Mr Jawlani said in a recording released on Wednesday.

But Mr Jawlani said al-Nusra had not been consulted on the merger with al-Qaeda in Iraq and insisted his group would not change its stance in Syria.

The al-Nusra statement assured Syrians that the “good behaviour” they had experienced from the front on the ground would continue unchanged, the BBC’s Jim Muir reports from neighbouring Lebanon.

Mr Jawlani said that the oath of allegiance to Zawahiri “will not change anything in its policies”, our correspondent adds.

But, hey, no worries. We have the mighty, mighty, Secretary of State John F. “I served in Vietnam” Kerry on our side. Lord knows, Sec. Heinz…err…I mean Kerry, will take a hard stand with both sides of the conflict in Syria and straighten things out.

And, if you believe that, I have a scholarship available for you at the Meghan McCain School of Political Punditry.

You see, David Horowitz’s discoverthenewworks.org  reports that Sec. Kerry and Syrian President Assad go way back…

Since the early 2000s, Kerry has been the federal government’s highest-ranking apologist for Syrian President Bashar Assad. Indeed it was Kerry who made numerous efforts to undermine the Bush administration’s attempt to isolate the Syrian dictator after its courtship of him ended in failure in 2003; after Bush repeatedly accused Syria of supporting terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere; and after the United States withdrew its ambassador to Syria following the 2005 assassination of Lebanon’s former premier Rafiq Hariri in a car bombing most likely orchestrated by the Assad regime.

In January 2009, just days after Barack Obama’s inauguration, Kerry was sent to Syria as part of a policy review by an Obama administration looking to establish new relationships with countries the Bush administration had considered hostile. (This was the first of five trips Kerry would make to Syria between 2009 and 2011.)

During the January 2009 trip, Kerry listened to Bashar Assad advise him that Washington must “move away from a policy based on dictating decisions,” and that future relations between the U.S. and Syria should be based on a “proper understanding” by Washington of Middle East issues and interests. In return, Kerry used the occasion to bash the former administration. “Unlike the Bush administration that believed you could simply tell people what to do and walk away and wait for them to do it, we believe you have to engage in a discussion,” he said.

A year later, Kerry, as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sat down once again with Assad. “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,” he said in April 2010. “Both the United States and Syria have a very deep interest … in having a very frank exchange on any differences [and] agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region.” And once again, he called on Syria to stop supplying weapons to Hezbollah.

And now, Kerry’s boss, President Barack Hussein Obama, is ready to go to war with the very Middle Eastern president whom Kerry and his fellow Dems lauded during the Bush Administration.

I guess Obama and Kerry like their new, more radical, Muslim Brotherhood Buddies even more.

Why is the United States of America going to war on the side of radical Muslims, who want to kill all of us “Infidels”?

Is it naiveté, ignorance, or something more malevolent?

Or, is this foreign policy action meant to serve as a distraction from domestic presidential malfeasance?

Until He Comes,

KJ