Thursday, August 29, 2013

So, Let Me Get This Straight...

Obama: Syrian govt carried out chemical attack
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Wednesday declared unequivocally that the United States has "concluded" that the Syrian government carried out a deadly chemical weapons attack on civilians. Yet U.S. intelligence officials say questions remain about whether the attack could be linked to Syrian President Bashar Assad or high officials in his government.

Obama did not present any direct evidence to back up his assertion that the Syrian government bears responsibility for the attack. U.S. officials were searching for additional intelligence to bolster the case for a strike against Assad's military infrastructure and rule out the possibility that a rogue element of the Syrian military could have used the weapons on its own authority.
Wasn't this the same President who, as a Senator, claimed that Bush didn't have the authority to launch strikes against a sovereign nation? Oh, yeah, he was:
“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,” Obama said in 2008.
There's also the inconvenient question of where Syria got those chemical weapons. Many believe they got them from Iraq, who moved them across the border in the run-up to the US-led resumption of hostilities after inspectors were repeatedly denied access.

So, to recap:

Barack Obama wants to unilaterally and without Congressional approval launch bombing raids in Syria over the Syrian government using chemical weapons they got from Iraq - that Obama and his left-wing allies claim never existed - even though Obama himself has stated the President does not have the power to launch an attack on a country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US. During this time of economic uncertainty, with DOD sequestration and other cutbacks, we are to believe that military action costing millions of dollars is necessary against a country that poses no threat to the US or even its own neighbors. And we're going to launch this attack because they're using chemical weapons that we said didn't exist. Oh, and we've argued against doing THIS EXACT THING when the other party was in power.

Remember, it's only confusing if you expect consistency or logic from the left. Or, you know, anything even remotely resembling journalism, either. All we have heard from the news from Syria is "ZOMG CHEMICAL WEAPONS". We are treated to headline after headline like "Obama: Strike Would Send 'Strong Message'" - compare and contrast that to the headlines from 2003, if you dare. I know it's too much to ask for consistency from the left. It would be just amazing, though, if anyone outside of Breitbart would point out the GLARING HYPOCRISY from the left all the way up to the President and Vice President.

And while I'm dreaming, I'd like ammo back to 2004 levels and prices...

That is all.

6 comments:

Cormac said...

The first time I heard about the weapons going across into Syria was a seemingly dubious claim...
A friend told me about a Ranger he'd met in Kuwait who told him a story about a hypothetical situation involving trucks that *surely wouldn't have been crossing the border, blacked-out, in the middle of the night...*

Later I heard it from a Petty Officer at Little Creek (I'm pretty sure he was a SEAL...he had that SEAL look in his eye that made me want to get back inside my pillow fort and cry...).
Then from a Ranger at the MCX gun counter (the day I bought my first gun), and from a Scout Sniper with MEU 22...

All that before I'd read General Sada's book.

I would love to know just what the hell is going on, that nobody in Washington could be bothered coming out with this information...normally they'll only act in their own self-interest.
This was absolutely in a lot of peoples' self interest.

Cormac said...

Also, if you haven't read General Sada's book "Saddam's Secrets", you should.

It's really an informative and entertaining book. Gives a lot of insight into what the hell was going on with that crazy bastard's inner circle.

Dave H said...

Other than a distraction, I don't see what the President gets out of pushing ahead with this. Who stands to gain from it?

Jay G said...

I think the Muslim Brotherhood might...

Bubblehead Les. said...

"Pay NO Attention to that Man behind the Curtain!"

We are getting into Syria because that Stupid Idiot Obama wrote a Check that his Ass can't Cash when he DARED the Syrians to "Cross the Red Line!"

And they called his Bluff.

So now (in spite of all the Budget Cut Backs to the Military), Barry, because someone "Diss'd Him," is going to throw a couple of Billion of Your Tax Dollars into Syria, killing off some more Innocent By-Standers who are stuck in that Hell-Hole.

Which will bring "Peace in Our Time."

Just like it did in Egypt and Libya.

Geodkyt said...

Dave H -- president Princess Pullup Pants gets to show any liberals who aren't raving peace-at-all-cost cowards that he's tough.

Of course, with no AUMF, no UN resolution, no violation of a US-imposed ceasefire after a war, no confirmation from the UN inspectors that the Syrian government is the one using gas, no US law stating that overthrowing Assad is official US policy, and only one apparent "coalition" partner, I wonder about thinking Democrat voters who stated Bush was "illegally going into Iraq unilaterally" when Bush had:

TWO AUMFs (one from 1990, still active since the war ended under a ceasfire and relations never normalized; and ANOTHER one from 2002)

Twelve years of ongoing ceasefire violations, documented by THREE different administrations (2/3rds of the time by a DEMOCRATIC Administration).

MULTIPLE UN resolutions directing UN member nations to enforce the 1990 ceasefire terms.

Millenia of international "Laws of War" concerning a nation responding to ceasefire violations that authorized the resumption of full active combat actions up to and including debellatio (complete destruction of statehood due to utter military defeat to the point any post-war government is considered a brand new entity with NO legal continuity with the past).

MULTIPLE UN reports confirming that they had physically verified Iraqi noncompliance with the ceacefire terms, including stores of WMDs that were left behind in Iraq and therefor were in Iraqi possession after Iraq expelled the UN inspectors.

A specific law (passed during the Clinton Administration with nearly unanimous support and signed by Clinton) that stated that Iraqi regime change was official US foreign policy.

And, oh yeah, 48 coalition partners. Meanwhile, Obama cannot even get the BRITISH to join us on cruise missile strikes from the sea.