I think this is just posturing, perhaps to reach Syria. But if it’s true, hello impeachment!
A senior State Department official tells Fox News the president’s decision to take military action in Syria still stands, and will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes next week to approve the use of such force.
The official said that every major player on the National Security Council – including the commander-in-chief – was in accord last night on the need for military action, and that the president’s decision to seek a congressional debate and vote was a surprise to most if not all of them. However, the aide insisted the request for Congress to vote did not supplant the president’s earlier decision to use force in Syria, only delayed its implementation.
“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the source told me, adding that that was why the president, in his rose Garden remarks, was careful to establish that he believes he has the authority to launch such strikes even without congressional authorization.
The Last Word on Syria
In this photo, night falls on a Syrian rebel-controlled area as destroyed buildings are seen on Sa’ar street after airstrikes targeted the area, killing dozens in Aleppo, Syria. (AP Photo/Narciso Contreras)
Well known Middle East expert Ken Timmerman has brought forth damning information about the intelligence being used to justify an attack on Syria. According to Ken’s sources, which include high level former military people from the U.S., Israel, Britain, France and Jordan, intercepted Syrian communications were doctored to present a completely misleading picture. This doctored intelligence is what the Obama administration claimed was the “smoking gun” evidence that Syria used chemical weapons. This doctored intelligence, Timmerman claims, “goes far beyond what critics charged the Bush administration of doing in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war.”
The intercepted intelligence concerned a conversation between a major in the Brigade of the 4th Armored Division rocket brigades, and an officer on Syria’s general staff. The original, undoctored communication shows that the general staff were very concerned that a chemical weapon had been fired without their authorization. The major denied having done so and invited the staff to visit his base and check the inventory. For any officer to take such a unilateral action would be almost unheard-of in a dictatorship like Syria. In this case he was interrogated for three days and all of his weapons were accounted for.
Timmerman’s report also speculates on the actual source of the gas attack:
An Egyptian intelligence report describes a meeting in Turkey between military intelligence officials from Turkey and Qatar and Syrian rebels. One of the participants states, “there will be a game changing event on August 21st” that will “bring the U.S. into a bombing campaign” against the Syrian regime.
The attack occurred on August 21st. The article concludes:
What appeared from [the UN] investigation was that it was used by the opponents, by the rebels,” said Carla DelPonte, a former Swiss Attorney General and prosecutor with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
“I was a little bit stupefied by the first indications we got … they were about the use of nerve gas by the opposition,” she added.
“Agents provacateurs are as old as warfare itself. What better than a false flag attack, staged by al Qaeda and its al Nusra front allies in Syria, to drag the United States into a war?”
Apparently, the 9 Iron Obama used to get bin Laden is still in the shop for repairs, that and the fact that he wouldn’t be able to put the blame on anyone else when the $hit hits the fan. So we can all breath a little for a few days, hopefully but hey, that’s just my opinion.
President Obama announced Saturday that he has concluded the United States should take military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime for using chemical weapons on civilians, but will first seek authorization from Congress.
“This menace must be confronted,” Obama said of the Assad regime’s alleged strike, speaking from the Rose Garden.
The announcement, though, sets up a timetable for debate that could drag on for weeks.
Obama said he would wait for Congress to return from recess; members are not scheduled to return until Sept. 9. Yet the president claimed any military response to Syria is “not time sensitive” and would be effective even one month from now.
The decision to seek congressional authorization is a departure from the administration’s decision to intervene in Libya in 2011. Though the president said he thinks he has the authority to order a military strike, he made clear he will ask Congress to vote on the issue.
We all know what’s going to happen in Syria. Barack Obama is attempting to do a little dance to talk about “being concerned” and “considering carefully” what to do, but in the end we all know what his decision will be, in spite of the fact that there is no international coalition to strike Syria, nor is their constitutional authority to do so. However, the only people who benefit from a U.S. strike in Syria are the Obama supported Syrian rebels, who are a part of al-Qaeda and directly tied to the very al-Qaeda jihadists (Ansar al-Sharia) that attacked the diplomatic mission and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, leaving 4 Americans dead and dozens wounded.
In an almost fifty-page study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, authors Don Kates and Gary Mauser, demonstrate again and again that strict gun control laws do not correlate with lower murder rates, neither in the United States nor Europe. In fact, just as is true in the U.S. where the highest murder rates occur in cities like Chicago, with the strictest gun control laws, the highest murder rate among developed countries is in Russia where gun ownership is highly restricted.
The study is a long but interesting read with several tables and lots of statistics and well worth your time. But for those not inclined to read it, here is the conclusion drawn by the authors:
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil — at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed strict gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.
In other words, as we gun advocates have long known, the observable facts simply will not support the emotional arguments of the gun grabbers regarding both violent crime and suicide. Interestingly, the study also relates a survey of incarcerated felons that confirms that a criminal’s greatest fear is that his victim may be armed. That certainly makes the case for a well-armed citizenry regardless of the definition of militia.
You should read the entire study and then make sure your elected representatives read it.
Fox News has a blockbuster report published tonight which sheds further light on why the Obama administration has been involved in a massive cover up surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attack.
New reports indicate that rebels allied with al-Qaida were being trained in Benghazi and then sent up to fight in the Syrian civil war against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. These include terrorist networks involved in the September 11th terrorist attack on our U.S. compound in Benghazi.
The Obama administration knows that if the American people were to learn that they were helping fund, train and transport al-Qaida terrorists to fight in Syria – some of whom were behind the Benghazi terrorist attack that killed 4 Americans and injured countless others, there would be a severe backlash from the American people.
Here’s the headline from Fox News and an excerpt from their report:
U.S. intelligence agencies earlier this month uncovered new evidence that al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Benghazi are training foreign jihadists to fight with Syria’s Islamist rebels, according to U.S. officials.
Ansar al-Sharia, the al Qaeda-affiliated militia that U.S. officials say orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound and a CIA facility in Benghazi, is running several training camps for jihadists in Benghazi and nearby Darnah, another port city further east, said officials who discussed some details of the camps on condition of anonymity.
The officials said the terror training camps have been in operation since at least May and are part of a network that funnels foreign fighters to Syrian rebel groups, including the Al-Nusra Front, the most organized of the Islamist rebel groups fighting the Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus.
The Obama administration is demonstrating once again that it is the most deceitful and manipulative presidential administrations in our nation’s history.
(Aug. 29, 2013) — Barack Hussein Obama is considering military action against the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons in the ongoing civil war with rebel forces.
|The image purported to be Obama’s long-form birth certificate has been found to be fraudulent, along with his Selective Service registration form|
Obama has supported the Syrian opposition with arms, although members of Al Qaeda and The Muslim Brotherhood are known to be fighting with them. Reports of atrocities committed by both sides have been reported in the two years in which the civil war has ensued. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, who Obama appointed for a second term in June, advised against arming the Syrian rebels based on concerns about the cost necessary “to preserve a functioning state” after providing assistance.
On Monday, Obama awarded the Medal of Honor, the highest military award, to Staff. Sgt. Ty Carter, who charged through a firefight with members of the Taliban in Afghanistan on October 3, 2009 to carry a gravely wounded soldier in an attempt to save his life.
Spc. Stephan L. Mace ultimately died of his injuries, and Carter was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), from which he told CBS News he has largely recovered.
Combat Outpost Keating, where Carter was stationed, was “surrounded” by Taliban with grenades and automatic rifles, resulting in the deaths of eight Americans with 53 wounded.
Carter described the outpost as “clearly undefendable” and “a dangerous place to be,” with Taliban able to shoot from behind the mountains. The Washington Post reported that “After the attack, U.S. and Afghan troops left the area, and American commanders tried a new approach to stablizing the fractious region: They began working with one of their former enemies.”
The U.S. Army website said of the award ceremony:
After telling the story of the ambush, which raged for 13 hours between 53 Soldiers and some 300 Taliban, and citing Carter’s complete disregard for his own safety, President Barack Obama draped the Medal of Honor around the 33-year-old Cavalry scout’s neck in the White House East Room, Aug. 26.
(CNSNews.com) – Louis Fisher, a scholar in residence at the Constitution Project who served for 40 years as a constitutional law expert at the Library of Congress, says Americans and members of Congress should understand that President Barack Obama committed a “very grave offense” against the Constitution in taking military action in Libya without congressional authorization.
Another installment of fatwa funnies.
Religious leaders at the Darul Uloom seminary, in Deoband, declared that viewing animations – even those featuring comedy characters – was against the tenets of Islam, reports the Bangalore-based Deccan Herald. It quotes senior cleric Mufti Arif Quasmi as saying: “[A] cartoon is a picture. Besides, it is not for the children. It should not be watched.” There are many interpretations of Islamic teachings on the depiction of animate objects, with the most strict banning it completely on the basis that it imitates Allah’s acts of creation. Other scholars, however, permit photography and video.
The Darul Uloom ruling was criticised by one member of the All India Personal Law Board for “making a mockery” of Islam. “I don’t think the muftis who issued the fatwa have any knowledge of the subject or have applied their mind to understanding the art of cartoons at all,” the senior Imam told Mumbai-based broadsheet DNA. It’s not the first ruling by the seminary to cause controversy. In the past, it’s reportedly declared it unlawful for women to use perfume containing alcohol, or to wear tattoos, jeans or “Western hairstyles”.