(via JBS HQ)
(via JBS HQ)
This is not good at all:
Al Qaeda-aligned militants operating in Syria could already have access to “biological pathogens or weaponized agents,” according to terrorism and biological warfare experts studying the region.
The possible acquisition by al Qaeda of these highly dangerous toxins has prompted bio-warfare experts to label the threat a “clear and present danger.”
Extremist militants and other fighters tied to the terror group al Qaeda have continued to gain a foothold in key sections of Syria as the country’s civil war rages on.
Lawlessness has taken hold in many areas that are home to Syria’s biological weapons research hubs and mounting evidence indicates that al Qaeda fighters have capitalized on this security gap by looting the facilities.
“The Syrian civil war has left sections of the bio-pharmaceutical infrastructure destroyed and looting of labs has been observed, which could indicate that Assad is losing command and control over one of the most dangerous classes of weapons remaining in his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arsenal,” bio warfare and terrorism experts Jill Bellamy van Aalst and Olivier Guitta conclude in a new report.
My question is, does John Kerry know about this one?
Rod Dreher is quite happy that we have supposedly avoided a war with Syria. I guess he trusts a leader of a Nation that has lied to the United States many times before.
He writes the following:
I’m sure Sen. John McCain is on the verge of spontaneously combusting this morning over the news from Geneva. We are going to hear from the GOP’s superhawk wing that Obama has gone wobbly, has caved, has revealed himself to be a squish. It is up to what I hope is a newly emerging Paulite (Rand) wing of the GOP to stand up to the usual hawkish Republican claque. I do not believe that every Republican, at least at the grassroots, opposed Obama’s proposed war on Syria simply because it was Obama’s idea. Those Republicans who did allow themselves to be driven not by principle, but by uncut partisanship, in opposing the president’s plan must be made to consider the principles at issue in this episode, so that when a future Republican president starts up with the same belligerent nonsense, they will resist it just as strongly.
HA! Good luck with that one! As long as those who were directly involved with the rigged trial of the Lord Jesus Christ are running the Republican Party, this will never change, ever. Last time I checked the Podhoretz and Kristol families were not hurting for cash and still had a good amount of influence within the Republican Party.
Nice thought, but no, that will never change. Everyone that has resisted the hawks on the right has been beaten in an election. Perfect example? Romney. Kristol did everything he could to keep Romney from getting elected. Kristol also recently pronounced Palin is not having a future in politics. Furthermore, Kristol was one who basically got Glenn Beck taken off Fox News. Because Glenn dared to call Kristol to the carpet on Iraq.
It’s nothing more than soviet communism:
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Again, Putin is trying and it seems to making a mockery of Obama, and quite honestly, it is quite deserved. You simply do not draw a line in the sand and then try to erase it, because it makes you look weak.
I never thought I would ever see the say, when an American President was made sport of, by a soviet-era crypto-communist. It is a sad thing to behold.
Others: Yahoo! News, protein wisdom, CNN, Firedoglake, The Hill, The Daily Caller, National Review, BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Washington Monthly, Erik Wemple, Post Politics, Associated Press, Mediaite, Ed Driscoll, AMERICAblog News, Washington Free Beacon, ABC News, Politico,Religion News Service, Questions and Observations, CBS News, Business Insider, RT, First Read,Wonkblog, TheBlaze.com, emptywheel, RIA Novosti, Roll Call, Weekly Standard, Gawker, Reuters,Washington Examiner, Vox Popoli, American Spectator, CFR.org, The Huffington Post, Booman Tribune, Hot Air, Duck of Minerva, Sense of Events, The Dish, World News, msnbc.com, Hullabaloo,Weasel Zippers, Daily Kos, Twitchy, Alan Colmes’ Liberaland, WorldViews, The Week, NO QUARTER USA NET, Roger L. Simon, Connecting.the.Dots, Washington Wire, CBS New York,Capitol Report, No More Mister Nice Blog, Taylor Marsh, The Hinterland Gazette, The Moderate Voice, Power Line, The Raw Story, The Verge, Prairie Weather, Poynter, Althouse, The Gateway Pundit, Fox News Insider, Jihad Watch, The Lonely Conservative, The Reaction, American Power,ABC News and The Other McCain, more at Mediagazer »
This is quite interesting:
Israel President Shimon Peres said at a Wednesday graduation ceremony for naval recruits that he trusts President Obama and President Putin, when it comes to forging a deal to bring a peaceful solution to Syria’s chemical weapon dilemma.
“I know both President Obama and President Putin, and I am convinced that if an agreement is reached it will be reliable, explicit and significant,” he said, The Times of Israel reported.
Just two days earlier, he was touting a different line, however.
Hours after Russia’s foreign minister announced the forged deal with Syria for President Bashar Assad to turn his chemical weapons cache over to the international community’s control, Mr. Peres said “the Syrians are not trustworthy,” and the supposed agreement meant very little. On Wednesday, the Israeli leader still spoke with skepticism about Mr. Assad, but said that Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin could overcome.
Makes one wonder what was said behind the scenes. Maybe Obama said “support me or else?”
An about face like that from Israel is rare.
Ron is right:
Was anybody’s mind changed by that speech? I can’t imagine it. It wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t convincing either. It’s about the best attempt one could imagine to sell an incoherent, bad policy.
Early in the speech, the president talked about how we know for a fact that Assad’s military carried out the gas attack. Sorry, but I don’t believe the US government. If I were a betting man, I would lay money on the likelihood that the Assad government did this thing. But after Iraq, I don’t believe what our government says about such things. ABC’s Terry Moran, reporting from Beirut after the speech tonight, said that people in the Middle East simply do not take America at its word when it makes these claims, not after the Iraq debacle. All credit to the prudent judgment of the people of the Middle East.
I was not overly sold on Obama’s speech either. He sounded like a college kid trying to sell marketing plan really. Plus too, after Iraq; I simply do not trust this Government to tell the truth.
I am, of course, referring to the idiotic op-ed piece by Bill Keller over at the NYT.
Here is the best part:
The truth is that America’s role in the world will not be significantly altered by refusing to attack Syria, and its truly vital interests will not be harmed. It is possible that the attack on Syria could end up being just as “unbelievably small” as John Kerry says it will be, but if there’s one thing Americans ought to have learned over the last decade it is that official promises that military action will be “limited” and of “short duration” are unreliable. This is partly because administration officials consistently underestimate the difficulty and risk of what they propose to do, and partly because launching attacks on other countries inevitably has effects and consequences that they fail to foresee. Instead of reassuring the public of their limited goals, administration efforts to downplay the significance of the attack they are proposing tells us that they may be oblivious to the risks of military action.
So very true; and seeing how our men came back from Iraq, do we really want to do that again?
The absolute arrogance of this White House is astounding:
The White House on Monday shrugged off Syrian President Bashar Assad’s thinly veiled threat of retaliation if the United States goes ahead with military strikes against his country.
Assad told CBS news that there will be “repercussions” for any American attack, ominously warning “you should expect everything.”
Asked about those comments, Deputy U.S. National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told Yahoo News “it’s not in his interest to escalate with the United States, because that only invites greater risk to him.”
But what about the 1988 Lockerbie bombing? Agents of Libyan strongman Moamer Kadhafi were convicted of that attack, which came not quite three years after American warplanes struck Tripoli. And Syria has been a regular on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1979. Is that a concern?
“We’re prepared for every contingency,” Rhodes replied, before repeating: “It’s not in his interest to escalate. That would only invite greater risk for him.”
I seem to remember when President Bush was in the White House, that he too had the same sort of arrogance; as if to say, “we’re going to do what we damned well please and we don’t give a flying flip what anyone thinks about it.” The sick part is, that Obama White House is doing the same very thing. This is not what the Democratic Party voted in, this is not what all those Obama supporters voted for; they voted for change and this President is playing the “Business as usual” game.
I can tell you this; if Obama does go ahead with a strike, and it explodes into an all out war, that it will be the end of the Democratic Party for a very long time. This sort of using the Military as a pawn in a chess game, does not sit well with the American people at all. Especially seeing that we just came out of eight long years of war in Iraq. Especially when you have members of the MIlitary suffering from the after effects of war. It is insane to do what Obama is doing; especially seeing that this rebels have the backing of Al-Qaeda.
I believe that President Obama is making a terrible mistake and that the Al-Qaeda terrorists have laid for him a trap and he is walking right into it. The problem is that he is taking America itself, over half of which do not support this horrific action, right into the trap as well.
I usually hold this sort of reports in high suspicion. But, knowing this white house; anything is possible.
There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.
The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.
On August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major and irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US Intelligence [“Mukhabarat Amriki”] took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. Very senior opposition commanders who had arrived from Istanbul briefed the regional commanders of an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development” which would, in turn, lead to a US-led bombing of Syria.
The opposition forces had to quickly prepare their forces for exploiting the US-led bombing in order to march on Damascus and topple the Bashar al-Assad Government, the senior commanders explained. The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive.
Indeed, unprecedented weapons distribution started in all opposition camps in Hatay Province on August 21-23, 2013. In the Reyhanli area alone, opposition forces received well in excess of 400 tons of weapons, mainly anti-aircraft weaponry from shoulder-fired missiles to ammunition for light-guns and machineguns. The weapons were distributed from store-houses controlled by Qatari and Turkish Intelligence under the tight supervision of US Intelligence.
These weapons were loaded on more than 20 trailer-trucks which crossed into northern Syria and distributed the weapons to several depots. Follow-up weapon shipments, also several hundred tons, took place over the weekend of August 24-25, 2013, and included mainly sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles and rockets. Opposition officials in Hatay said that these weapon shipments were “the biggest” they had received “since the beginning of the turmoil more than two years ago”. The deliveries from Hatay went to all the rebel forces operating in the Idlib-to-Aleppo area, including the al-Qaida affiliated jihadists (who constitute the largest rebel forces in the area).
Several senior officials from both the Syrian opposition and sponsoring Arab states stressed that these weapon deliveries were specifically in anticipation for exploiting the impact of imminent bombing of Syria by the US and the Western allies. The latest strategy formulation and coordination meetings took place on August 26, 2013. The political coordination meeting took place in Istanbul and was attended by US Amb. Robert Ford.
More important were the military and operational coordination meetings at the Antakya garrison. Senior Turkish, Qatari, and US Intelligence officials attended in addition to the Syrian senior (opposition) commanders. The Syrians were informed that bombing would start in a few days.
“The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days,” a Syrian participant in the meeting said. Another Syrian participant said that he was convinced US bombing was scheduled to begin on Thursday, August 29, 2013. Several participants — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that the assurances of forthcoming bombing were most explicit even as formally Obama is still undecided.
The descriptions of these meetings raise the question of the extent of foreknowledge of US Intelligence, and therefore, the Obama White House. All the sources consulted — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that officials of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” actively participated in the meetings and briefings in Turkey. Therefore, at the very least, they should have known that the opposition leaders were anticipating “a war-changing development”: that is, a dramatic event which would provoke a US-led military intervention.
The mere fact that weapon storage sites under the tight supervision of US Intelligence were opened up and about a thousand tons of high-quality weapons were distributed to the opposition indicates that US Intelligence anticipated such a provocation and the opportunity for the Syrian opposition to exploit the impact of the ensuing US and allied bombing. Hence, even if the Obama White House did not know in advance of the chemical provocation, they should have concluded, or at the very least suspected, that the chemical attack was most likely the “war-changing development” anticipated by the opposition leaders as provocation of US-led bombing. Under such circumstances, the Obama White House should have refrained from rushing head-on to accuse Assad’s Damascus and threaten retaliation, thus making the Obama White House at the very least complicit after the act.
Meanwhile, additional data from Damascus about the actual chemical attack increases the doubts about Washington’s version of events. Immediately after the attack, three hospitals of Doctors Without Borders (MSF: médecins sans frontières) in the greater Damascus area treated more than 3,600 Syrians affected by the chemical attack, and 355 of them died. MSF performed tests on the vast majority of those treated.
MSF director of operations Bart Janssens summed up the findings: “MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack. However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the 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 — strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.” Simply put, even after testing some 3,600 patients, MSF failed to confirm that sarin was the cause of the injuries. According to MSF, the cause could have been nerve agents like sarin, concentrated riot control gas, or even high-concentration pesticides. Moreover, opposition reports that there was distinct stench during the attack suggest that it could have come from the “kitchen sarin” used by jihadist groups (as distinct from the odorless military-type sarin) or improvised agents like pesticides.
Some of the evidence touted by the Obama White House is questionable at best.
A small incident in Beirut raises big questions. A day after the chemical attack, Lebanese fixers working for the “Mukhabarat Amriki” succeeded to convince a Syrian male who claimed to have been injured in the chemical attack to seek medical aid in Beirut in return for a hefty sum that would effectively settle him for life. The man was put into an ambulance and transferred overnight to the Farhat Hospital in Jib Janine, Beirut. The Obama White House immediately leaked friendly media that “the Lebanese Red Cross announced that test results found traces of sarin gas in his blood.” However, this was news to Lebanese intelligence and Red Cross officials.
According to senior intelligence officials, “Red Cross Operations Director George Kettaneh told [them] that the injured Syrian fled the hospital before doctors were able to test for traces of toxic gas in his blood.” Apparently, the patient declared that he had recovered from his nausea and no longer needed medical treatment. The Lebanese security forces are still searching for the Syrian patient and his honorarium.
On August 24, 2013, Syrian Commando forces acted on intelligence about the possible perpetrators of the chemical attack and raided a cluster of rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar. Canisters of toxic material were hit in the fierce fire-fight as several Syrian soldiers suffered from suffocation and “some of the injured are in a critical condition”.
The Commando eventually seized an opposition warehouse containing barrels full of chemicals required for mixing “kitchen sarin”, laboratory equipment, as well as a large number of protective masks. The Syrian Commando also captured several improvised explosive devices, RPG rounds, and mortar shells. The same day, at least four HizbAllah fighters operating in Damascus near Ghouta were hit by chemical agents at the very same time the Syrian Commando unit was hit while searching a group of rebel tunnels in Jobar. Both the Syrian and the HizbAllah forces were acting on intelligence information about the real perpetrators of the chemical attack. Damascus told Moscow the Syrian troops were hit by some form of a nerve agent and sent samples (blood, tissues, and soil) and captured equipment to Russia.
Several Syrian leaders, many of whom are not Bashar al-Assad supporters and are even his sworn enemies, are now convinced that the Syrian opposition is responsible for the August 21, 2013, chemical attack in the Damascus area in order to provoke the US and the allies into bombing Assad’s Syria. Most explicit and eloquent is Saleh Muslim, the head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) which has been fighting the Syrian Government. Muslim doubts Assad would have used chemical weapons when he was winning the civil war.
“The regime in Syria … has chemical weapons, but they wouldn’t use them around Damascus, five km from the [UN] committee which is investigating chemical weapons. Of course they are not so stupid as to do so,” Muslim told Reuters on August 27, 2013. He believes the attack was “aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction”. Muslim is convinced that “some other sides who want to blame the Syrian regime, who want to show them as guilty and then see action” is responsible for the chemical attack. The US was exploiting the attack to further its own anti-Assad policies and should the UN inspectors find evidence that the rebels were behind the attack, then “everybody would forget it”, Muslim shrugged. “Who is the side who would be punished? Are they are going to punish the Emir of Qatar or the King of Saudi Arabia, or Mr Erdo?an of Turkey?”
And there remain the questions: Given the extent of the involvement of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” in opposition activities, how is that US Intelligence did not know in advance about the opposition’s planned use of chemical weapons in Damascus?
It is a colossal failure.
And if they did know and warned the Obama White House, why then the sanctimonious rush to blame the Assad Administration?
Moreover, how can the Obama Administration continue to support and seek to empower the opposition which had just intentionally killed some 1,300 innocent civilians in order to provoke a US military intervention?
Yossef Bodansky, Senior Editor, GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs
There are a good number of things that I could write here; but, seeing this White House’s track record under Obama, I think all of you know what I want to say. Basically, it is this; I rule nothing out under this President at all.
Oh and also, This is not about race at all. This is about wanting to prevent the United States of America from going into another war that is simply unneeded. I think that all people and bloggers of all political stripes can appreciate that.
This does make sense:
The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obama’s much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that it’s not about Syria at all. It’s about Iran—and Israel. And it has been from the start.
By “the start,” I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Iran’s. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obama’s Syria policy.
Not coincidentally, the White House plans to scare members of Congress into supporting the ill-conceived war plan by waving the Iranian flag in their faces. Even liberal Democrats, some of whom are opposing or questioning war with Syria, blanch at the prospect of opposing Obama and the Israel lobby over Iran.
It should not surprise anyone that the Neoconservatives, lead by AIPAC have supported and advocating for this sort of a conflict. Which will cause another war in the region. Hopefully, the GOP and the Democrats will have the sense to tell AIPAC to please piss off and find someone else to fight their wars for them.
What gets me is that the establishment left is against this whole thing and yet, Obama is dead set on doing this; what an idiot! I mean, Obama must be bound and determined to ruin his party’s chances of being reelected in 2014 and 2016.
This is a good thing:
Sen. John McCain, President Obama’s biggest cheerleader on Capitol Hill for a strike in Syria, said Wednesday that he would not support a Senate panel’s draft resolution authorizing the use of force.
“There are a number of people who are unhappy,” McCain told reporters on Capitol Hill. Asked if he supported the measure, McCain said, “In its current form, I do not.”
The decision is a setback for the administration’s effort to win swift support from Congress for an attack.
McCain, who has long favored stepped-up U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, said he opposes the resolution crafted by fellow Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Bob Corker of Tennessee. The resolution puts a 90-day limit on action and says no American troops can be sent to Syria.
McCain reportedly wants more than cruise missile strikes and “limited” action; he wants to tilt the direction of the civil war. He has, though, said he doesn’t want combat troops on the ground in Syria.
John McCain is no fool, he knows where the majority of the Republicans stand on this, and he is not going to go against his party. Syria is a “No-Win” situation and the best that the United States can do is stay out of it.
I hate to say it, but, Larison is right:
This is one of the problems with an attack on Syria that I mentioned yesterday. When the U.S. was declaring its intention to arm the Syrian opposition, it seemed that this could derail any attempt to reduce tensions with Iran. A direct attack on Syria would make it virtually impossible for Rouhani to pursue a more conciliatory course, which in turn makes conflict with Iran more likely in the coming years. Iran might not respond militarily to an attack on its ally, but if hard-liners in Tehran are as blinkered as our own “credibility”-obsessed politicians they very well might feel that they have to respond or risk being perceived as weak. Whether Iran retaliates or not, Rouhani will be in no position to offer concessions, and Iran hawks here will use this to justify their own demands for even more sanctions and more aggressive measures against Iran’s nuclear program.
One of the more curious things about arguments for intervention in Syria is that most of them have focused on Iran’s support for Assad as a reason to enter the war, but they never consider the possibility that Iran could strike against U.S. interests or clients in response. Most Syria hawks think that using force against Assad will prove to Tehran that the U.S. is serious when it makes threats against other governments, but they assume that hard-liners in Tehran will react to an attack on their ally by becoming more accommodating, which is the exact opposite of what they themselves would do if a U.S. ally were attacked. Most Syria hawks have tried selling war in Syria as a way to avoid war with Iran, but with each step towards direct military intervention in Syria war between the U.S. and Iran is becoming more likely.
The only thing I have to add to the above is this here; once the genie is out of the bottle, it is out and there is no putting back in the bottle at all. If the United States and Great Britain attack Syria, then the wheels for there being a World War III will be put into motion in short order; and Israel and Russia will be involved, as well as Iran. Biblical prophecy will begin to be fulfilled in short order.
This why I believe Obama really needs to think this through in a big way; and really ask himself, “Do I really want to be the President that puts the United States in this sort of place?” Also too, Patrick J. Buchanan is absolutely right, there needs to be a debate and Congress, not the President; should be the ones to decide if we should go into another protracted Military conflict.
Because frankly, there are no short wars at all. Period, End of story. Anyone who believe that this would be short battle ought to remember Iraq and how we thought that little foreign policy blunder was going to be a short war.
My friends, I was very, very wrong and for that, I am terribly sorry.
However, there are many things that have come up since then, which I simply cannot defend.
My friends, the “Giving the benefit of the doubt” of the President and his Administration by this writer and blogger are over. There is no doubt in my mind that the Obama administration; much like the Administration of George W. Bush, became consumed with a lust for power and abused and exploited the office of President of the United States and the instruments of Governmental office for political purposes.
I leave you with two videos:
Update: Better clip via The American Spectator:
The Democrats have screwed themselves out of ever winning an election; for like oh, maybe the next 2 major election cycles. This is the sad part, Obama and his Administration promised Americans that he would be a clean break from the policies and practices of President George W. Bush and his Administration and sadly, it turns out that Obama and his Administration are just as bad; if not even worse. As I wrote before, it is sad ending to a Presidency that offered so much to give; but ended up delivering little or nothing at all, in the realm of change.
It is going to be a long, hot, nasty, political summer for America, Americans, Black Liberal Americans and for Washington D.C.. I just hope that cool heads prevail. But, I really do fear the worst in yet to come.
Blogger Round Up #1: (via) Yahoo! News, JustOneMinute, Michelle Malkin, New York Times, Sunlight Foundation Blog, BBC, Wall Street Journal, Right Turn, waysandmeans.house.gov, Hot Air, The Week, The Daily Caller, The Hill, Daily Kos, First Read, The Maddow Blog, PostPartisan, The Fix, White House Dossier, The Other McCain, Betsy’s Page, Da Tech Guy On DaRadio Blog, Scared Monkeys,msnbc.com, Obsidian Wings, Weasel Zippers, Jammie Wearing Fools, Twitchy, National Review,The Lonely Conservative, Power Line, Conservatives4Palin and CBS DC
Blogger Round Up #2: (via) Yahoo! News, Washington Monthly, BuzzFeed, The Week, Associated Press, Hit & Run,News Desk, Fox News, Open Channel, msnbc.com, emptywheel, Guardian, WorldViews, Patterico’s Pontifications, The Huffington Post, No More Mister Nice Blog, USA Today, The Hill, Weekly Standard, Poynter, The Daily Caller, The Volokh Conspiracy, Erik Wemple, ThinkProgress, Right Wing News, Taylor Marsh, Scared Monkeys, Addicting Info, americanthinker.com, CNN,CANNONFIRE, The BLT, PJ Media, NO QUARTER USA NET, The Moderate Voice, The Hinterland Gazette, NationalJournal.com, Hot Air, Washington Free Beacon, Washington Examiner, Wired,Politico, Weasel Zippers, Gawker, THE DEFINITIVE SOURCE, Hullabaloo, Ed Driscoll, The Verge,The Gateway Pundit, SPJ News, The PJ Tatler, National Review, National Republican …, Philly.com,Mother Jones, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Sister Toldjah, Outside the Beltway, Wonkette, TalkLeft andLawfare, more at Mediagazer »
Update #1: Franklin Graham says they were targeted. Those rat bastards have no shame at all.
Update #3: I am just going to say this and get it off my chest:
This also comes via HotAir.com and yes, via Ed Morrissey: (I only link to this one, because like Ed, My jaw went “CLANK!” when I saw this…)
BOB SCHIEFFER, “FACE THE NATION”: Do either of you at this point think there’s a chance that we would have to put U.S. troops in there or that we would want to?
SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D-MISSOURI): I don’t think you want to ever rule it out because I think this is, kind of, as — as Saxby said, this thing has really deteriorated, and it’s not really at a tipping point. So I don’t think you ever want to say absolutely not. Obviously, we don’t want to do that unless it’s absolutely necessary.
Do either of these two ding-a-lings have any idea what kind of troop commitment that would take? I mean, Syria is a huge Country and we would be fighting all sorts of people. (You know, kind of like….um, Iraq?)
Ed Morrissey sums it up:
We might be able to prevent that with a large-scale invasion and an equally large-scale occupation that lasts a decade or more, if we can get enough NATO members to come along with us and sell it to a Congress that has been acting as though Iraq was a huge mistake. That would include having to quell any insurgencies from Jabhat al-Nusra or related groups, along with fighting Hezbollah again. Anyone up for that kind of commitment? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Funny how the same Democrats who were all like, “The War lost and we need to come home!” during Presidency of George W. Bush are the same ones who are now all, “A yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!” when it comes to Syria and Obama. I think that some voices of sanity on the left really need to speak up right about now and tell these people, “Um, Folks? We tried that in Iraq and our butts are still sore and we lost like a bunch of people. Lets not do that, okay?”
This also proves a few things that I always did suspect; that the Anti-War movement, among the beltway Democrats; unlike the real grassroots Progressive anti-war movement —- was nothing more than an Anti-Bush partisan pet cause. Which quickly dried up once Obama was in office. I am thinking that Bush knew this and this is why he would not cave to their demands, despite the fact that there was no WMD’s.
To be fair, I have always suspected that Libya was a partisan pet cause among the Republicans; which explains why it never gained in traction in Congress at all. I mean, there were obviously some mistakes made; but the way the Republicans have drummed that story up, and yes, I do mean via Fox News —- makes me think it falls among partisan lines. True, many Military people and grassroots Conservatives are concerned about it and rightly so. The Republicans simply made it their pet cause and will in 2014 and 2016; you watch. This is until it starts to generate backlash and they quickly drop it; like when they are elected. Again, watch what happens. I know the game, I have been around it long enough.
I happen to be checking out one of my many blogs that I read on a daily basis here, and I happen to see the following:
From a strictly strategic point of view, why not let Hezbollah fight al-Qaeda affiliates and let them drain each other of strength? That has to be a better outcome than victory for Assad or for the Nusrah Front and its AQ allies. An American intervention that tips the scales towards AQ would be absurd, and yet that seems to be exactly what Republicans and Democrats in Washington want from the Obama administration.
If we are going to intervene, it should be with a heavy footprint that ends the Nusrah Front’s control of wide swaths of Syria. That will take years, hundreds of thousands of troops, and probably trillions of dollars — but it’s the only way to intervene and keep Islamist terrorists from taking over large parts of Syria like they did in Libya, after a 30,000-foot intervention by Obama and NATO. If we don’t want to pay that kind of price for intervention, then let’s stay the hell out of Syria in the first place.
Now, who would make such a statement? Lew Rockwell? Ron Paul? Rand Paul? The Editors at The American Conservative? Patrick J. Buchanan?
It was none other than Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com.
For what it is truly worth, Ed has a good point. This whole neocon idea of controlling the entire arab world is absurd and would come back to bite us anyhow. We lost a good deal of American treasure in Iraq and for what? Some bad intelligence that no one could be bothered to verify? As Ed basically said here; lets not make that same mistake twice. We cannot afford it anyhow, and I just happen to believe that America is war-weary anyhow, any sort of military action would a disaster for the Democrats and for America in general.
So, hats off to Ed Morrissey for speaking a truth, that might not be that popular in his own circles. Being a truth-teller in politics, especially in Conservative circles is a really hard thing at times. I am sure that he took it on the chin to speak that truth on that blog. My thoughts are with him, because, as I well know; speaking from the heart and shooting from the hip is not easy sometimes.