Never Forget !

               America - September 11, 2001

 

 

Benghazi - September 11, 2012

 

 

17 Reasons Going to War with Syria is a Mistake

Suppose the Congress declares war, what are the reasons that would be a mistake?

1. The United States has not been attacked.
2. The security of the United States is not at issue, and war should always be a response of last resort to a threat to our security.
3. No international body has determined that a human rights violation did in fact occur.
   1. Committing to war solely on the basis of our intelligence, which may or may not be accurate, without the benefit of a neutral adjudicator and without giving the accused an opportunity to defend, is lawless.
   2. It is like sending the captured bank robber to jail without a trial.
4. Going to war risks escalation into nuclear conflict.
5. Our striking forces of the Syrian government would support Al Qaeda.
   1. Putin's intelligence is that the rebels have incorporated strong elements of Al Qaeda, which is consistent with common sense and the rebels' killing of Christians.
   2. Obama has incorporated members of the Muslim Brotherhood into highly placed jobs in our own government.
   3. This raises questions about why Obama wants to attack the forces who are fighting Al Qaeda.
6. No nation or nations have come forward to partner with the United States to punish this alleged human rights violation.
   1. Neither the United Nations, nor Arab states in the region, nor European allies, nor the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have come forward.
   2. In the first Gulf war, some 50 nations supported the United States
7. Going to war would be based on the erroneous notion that we have authority to intervene in the affairs of another nation.
   1. Thinking that we are the world's policeman is an arrogance we in which we should not indulge.
   2. Even if we were the world's policeman, there have been many human rights violations in Syria and other nations to which we have not responded.
8. The motives for such a war are questionable.
   1. Obama has said it is a shot across the bow.
   2. Kerry has said it is a signal that atrocities will not be tolerated.
   3. Boehner has said "enemies around the world need to understand that we're not going to tolerate this type of behavior."
9. None of these motives is justification for war.
   1. Shooting across the bow is an irresponsible act that risks much and accomplishes nothing.
   2. We are not the policeman of the world and have no authority to say what will be tolerated in another country.
   3. If enemies do not fear us, going to war will not help (see 10 and 11 below), and beyond that, who would fear the United States when Obama is president, regardless of what response we make in Syria?
10. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on August 4, 2013 that he had no idea what we were seeking to accomplish by the proposed military action.
    1. If the chairman of the joint chiefs doesn't know what the proposed military strike will accomplish, it's unlikely that Obama or Kerry know.
    2. Voting to approve of this military strike would be like voting for Obamacare to find out what's in it.
11. Dempsey's testimony reveals that there is no military or strategic benefit to Obama's proposal.
    1. A military strike that has no clear strategic objective is an exercise in pointlessness.
12. Many supporters of this war are closely aligned to the military-industrial complex.
13. The nation is war-weary and likely to vote against anyone who votes for war with Syria.
14. Any war will drive the national debt beyond its current 84 trillion dollars (entitlements included).
15. Obama on September 4, 2013 announced that he did not draw a red line in the sand. Congress, the world and the American people did that.
    1. If Obama is referring to the Geneva Protocol and the CWC, banning the use of chemical weapons, both signed by the United States, he forgot to add that while these agreements ban the use of chemical weapons, they do not require the United States to act alone as investigator, adjudicator and executioner.
    2. The embarrassment of having a president who will not accept responsibility for what he has done is a stain on our honor that no war can erase.
16. It is likely that one of Obama's motives in dragging out this deadly game is that in doing so he will redirect attention away from Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA, and the AP scandals as well as the evolving catastrophes that are Obamacare and the budget deliberations.
17. Insofar as Congress is motivated to save the reputation of the president and the United States, going to war cannot do that.
    1. Obama has revealed himself as a community organizer who was elected president. A military strike will not change that.
    2. The reputation of the United States as a responsible world power can be saved only by the impeachment or voluntary resignation of this incompetent president.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/09/17-reasons-going-war-syria-mistake-even-congress-declares-war/#ixzz2e4nVw3mG

Attack on Syria? Three Reasons Why Congress May Not Approve

 

Obama has challenged Congress to approve an attack on Syria for the release of Chemical Weapons on its people, however Congress may not want to approve the action based on the three reasons listed below:

Weak House: The House tried and failed several times to get war authorization through on Libya. They gave up trying when U.S. military action there ended. And Libya had the backing of the United Nations, NATO and the UK. Getting something through the House on Syria will be even harder than passing approval on Libya. With Libya, there was only moderate public interest in the Congressional machinations, since the authorization was retroactive given that President Obama had already approved U.S. involvement. This time around, all eyes will be on the House and the pressure will be intense. There’s a reason House Speaker John Boehner didn’t call on Obama to seek a vote of approval for action in Syria: This was one nightmare he was keen to avoid.

Splits both parties: Remember the 2004 election when President George W. Bush went around scaring folks about how Democrats were weak on defense? The days where Iraq and Afghanistan were partisan issues have gone. Washington has reverted to a foreign policy more akin to President Clinton’s days where both parties split on intervention. Now, as it was in the 1990′s, you have Democratic doves aligning with isolationist Libertarians. They face off against Republican Hawks and Democratic bleeding hearts. This makes whipping votes complicated, to say the least. It also makes Syria less of a partisan issue, which is the way going to war used to be. By throwing this to Congress, Obama is basically challenging all the backbenchers who have been vociferous in their criticism in the last 10 days—Liberals fearing another Iraq, Hawks saying we need to go farther on regime change—to stand up, be heard and unite behind a military action. It will likely be chaotic. Already two Republican Senate hawks, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, have announced they will not vote to authorize force in Syria unless Obama commits to an “an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the President’s stated goal of Assad’s removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict.” The White House has previously argued that there is no acceptable military solution for the civil war in Syria.

Unpopular: Polls show most Americans don’t want to see any kind of intervention in Syria, so if Congress votes to support this, they will be going against their constituents’ wishes, which is never easy especially for those up for reelection. Members are going to have to defend the intelligence and make the case to their supporters why it’s important to do this. To that end, a limited engagement is better, as they can make the argument that this isn’t the beginning of another decade of war.


Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/31/three-reasons-congress-may-not-approve-war-in-syria/#ixzz2dkxx368C

Unclassified Report: U.S. Assessment on Syria’s Use of Chemical Weapons

Text of the unclassified report released by the Obama Administration on the chemical weapons attack in Syria:

The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack. These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting.Our classified assessments have been shared with the U.S. Congress and key international partners. To protect sources and methods, we cannot publicly release all available intelligence – but what follows is an unclassified summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s analysis of what took place.

Syrian Government Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21
A large body of independent sources indicates that a chemical weapons attack took place in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. In addition to U.S. intelligence information, there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly credible nongovernmental organizations.
A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children, though this assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information.

We assess with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition. Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation. We will continue to seek additional information to close gaps in our understanding of what took place.

 

Background:
The Syrian regime maintains a stockpile of numerous chemical agents, including mustard, sarin, and VX and has thousands of munitions that can be used to deliver chemical warfare agents.
Syrian President Bashar al-Asad is the ultimate decision maker for the chemical weapons program and members of the program are carefully vetted to ensure security and loyalty. The Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC) – which is subordinate to the Syrian Ministry of Defense – manages Syria’s chemical weapons program.
We assess with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus suburbs. This assessment is based on multiple streams of information including reporting of Syrian officials planning and executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin. We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons.

The Syrian regime has the types of munitions that we assess were used to carry out the attack on August 21, and has the ability to strike simultaneously in multiple locations. We have seen no indication that the opposition has carried out a large-scale, coordinated rocket and artillery attack like the one that occurred on August 21.

We assess that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons over the last year primarily to gain the upper hand or break a stalemate in areas where it has struggled to seize and hold strategically valuable territory. In this regard, we continue to judge that the Syrian regime views chemical weapons as one of many tools in its arsenal, including air power and ballistic missiles, which they indiscriminately use against the opposition.

The Syrian regime has initiated an effort to rid the Damascus suburbs of opposition forces using the area as a base to stage attacks against regime targets in the capital. The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus neighborhoods of opposition elements, including neighborhoods targeted on August 21, despite employing nearly all of its conventional weapons systems. We assess that the regime’s frustration with its inability to secure large portions of Damascus may have contributed to its decision to use chemical weapons on August 21.

Preparation:
We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC – were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.

Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons.

The Attack:
Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack.

Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21. Within the next four hours there were thousands of social media reports on this attack from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described chemical-filled rockets impacting opposition-controlled areas.

Three hospitals in the Damascus area received approximately 3,600 patients displaying symptoms consistent with nerve agent exposure in less than three hours on the morning of August 21, according to a highly credible international humanitarian organization. The reported symptoms, and the epidemiological pattern of events – characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers – were consistent with mass exposure to a nerve agent. We also received reports from international and Syrian medical personnel on the ground.

We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure. The reported symptoms of victims included unconsciousness, foaming from the nose and mouth, constricted pupils, rapid heartbeat, and difficulty breathing. Several of the videos show what appear to be numerous fatalities with no visible injuries, which is consistent with death from chemical weapons, and inconsistent with death from small-arms, high-explosive munitions or blister agents. At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at the general times and locations described in the footage.

We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack.

We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21. We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence. On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations. At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacks occurred. In the 24 hour period after the attack, we detected indications of artillery and rocket fire at a rate approximately four times higher than the ten preceding days. We continued to see indications of sustained shelling in the neighborhoods up until the morning of August 26.

To conclude, there is a substantial body of information that implicates the Syrian government’s responsibility in the chemical weapons attack that took place on August 21. As indicated, there is additional intelligence that remains classified because of sources and methods concerns that is being provided to Congress and international partners.

Read More Here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/164273027/U-S-Government-Assessment-of-the-Syrian-Government%E2%80%99s-Use-of-Chemical-Weapons-on-August-21-2013

Bolton: Time to Understand Obama and U.S. Not the Same Thing !

 

Bolton appeared on Greta last night and was asked if he agreed with the New York Times saying that we would be ‘advertising our impotence’ if we just lobbed a few missiles and didn’t go for regime change by taking out Assad.


Bolton countered with:

“People say the president has put the American credibility on the line, therefore he has to strike. He has damaged our credibility – I acknowledge that. But mostly he’s shredded his own. And it’s about time for the rest of the world to understand that Barack Obama and the United States are not the same thing. We’ve got 1200 days of this left and it’s going to be very costly. But the United States should not be put in a worse position just to help out Barack Obama’s credibility.”

Asked if the U.S. should do something militarily simply for humanitarian reasons, Bolton said:

“My answer to that is ‘no’ and here’s the hard reality. It is entirely possible that there are humanitarian tragedies all around the world that tug at our hearts. But that doesn’t mean there’s an American interest, one way the other, in resolving the conflict. We’ve got huge interests at stake in the region as a whole, in Syria because of Iran in particular. But there are conflicts where there are no white hats and no American interests. People say we’re not the world’s policeman. That’s not the issue here. The issue here is that we should not use military force in pursuit of abstractions. We are not the world’s nanny.”

More Here: http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/video-amb-john-bolton-on-the-record-2/

Dems: "We're So Confused....."

The Washington Times reported Friday:

"For all the fanfare surrounding the announcement of the House Democrats' Iraq war plan, few members seem to understand the specifics in the bill or when it would actually bring troops home."

At one press conference, Rep. Maxine Waters, now serving her 9th term in the House of Representatives, declared that under the Out of Iraq Caucus's plan, the United States could remove U.S. troops from Iraq "by August of 1980".

Then, Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, reasoning that 1980 had already taken place, said the actual date was August 2008.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett suggested that Mr. Bush, "the misleader," was to blame for his colleagues' confusion.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, California Democrat, tried to explain the caucus plan, but stumbled over the chronology of the withdrawal, saying at one point that it would take place in the "20th century." She became flustered, then said:

"Actually, we want our troops home with their families by Christmas."

The caucus proposal is "confusing," said Mrs. Waters, noting the obvious as Capitol Hill reporters managed to stifle laughter.

Meanwhile, a rival press conference staged by Mrs. Pelosi and the House Democratic Leadership was if anything even more incoherent, as Mrs. Pelosi flailed away, trying to explain a convoluted series of benchmarks for "progress" in Iraq later this year.

After members of the Capitol Hill press corps giggled and said they were confused, an exasperated Mrs. Pelosi finally blurted out:

"No matter what, by March 2008, the redeployment begins."

Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, dazzled reporters with his incoherence, stating that:

"our troops must be out of a combat role by October -- I mean by August of 19 of 2007."

Mrs. Pelosi then reminded him that the correct date was actually 2008.

Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, and committee staffers were unable to say precisely how much money was in the Iraq supplemental bill the panel was considering.

"Can you just imagine if President Bush had made any of these misstatements, the Dems would have been all over him like a cheap suit."...J.R.