Skip to comments.FACT CHECK: Obama's Syria case still lacks proof
Posted on 09/11/2013 4:03:37 AM PDT by don-o
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama voiced his conviction Tuesday night that Syrian President Bashar Assad was to blame for deadly chemical attacks against civilians, but again he offered no proof.
A look at his remarks to the nation, seeking support for a military strike against Syria, and how they compare with the facts as publicly known:
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
A clear message is being sent today to the obama crowd! We will not fight for moslems!
Welcome to Free Republic.
There is a separate thread on what you posted. We do try to somewhat stay on topic per the original thread.
Thanks for posting this.
I just read this article on the internet, and the writer sounds like many freepers who feel the same way.
Obozo the liar is now irrelevant outside the Beltway.
I figured it out and posted as its own thread. Thanks.
0bama’s ‘rebels’ in Syria will launch another chemical attack in Syria. Mark my words. 0bama’s Arab handlers will not allow him to get away with NOT ousting Assad!
Obama’s case doesn’t “lack proof”. It was a premeditated lie from the very beginning, concocted in concert with our enemies. This is an act that demands impeachment.
OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE ANNA G. ESHOO (CA-18)That Anna Eshoo felt the latitude to go this far in the face of this administration should be taken as a serious repudiation of the Obama Administration's foreign policy, one that has advanced the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of both freedom and religious tolerance. It is a development that we should welcome. Needless to say, she had evidence; as it would take a complete idiot not to recognize the parallels between Libya and Syria. Nobody having any compassion for the Syrian people would want to go that route again.
For Immediate Release
September 11, 2013 http://eshoo.house.gov Contact: Charles Stewart (202) 225-8104 firstname.lastname@example.org
ESHOO STATEMENT ON SYRIA
WASHINGTON, D.C.Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) released the following statement on the issue of Syria:
I welcome President Obamas announcement and commend him for pursuing the Russian diplomatic proposal to disarm and destroy Syrias arsenal of chemical weapons. This diplomatic path holds out hope for the world that the situation can be addressed in a way that has always been one of Americas great strengthsleading with integrity to avert war.
Our most solemn responsibility as Members of Congress is to use our best judgment to protect the national security of our nation. A decision to use military force therefore requires we be able to answer the following questions:
There is no question that striking Syria is an act of war. It would be preemptive, unilateral, and contrary to how the U.S. has conducted its foreign policy for decades.
- Is this in the national security interests of the U.S.?
- Will this action make us safer?
- Will it make the Syrian people safer?
- Does Syria pose an imminent threat to the United States?
I am not naïve about the very real dangers our nation faces, but these dangers cannot be removed by military action alone. In fact, the distinguished Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, made this clear in his recent testimony to Congress:
Militarily, I can state that we can achieve the goal of deterring and degrading. Take note that I didnt say we can prevent.
What is more determinative is the power of our ideas, rather than the power of our military. There is a place for military action, but Syria is not that place.
When the U.S. strayed from its historical moorings, we learned painful and costly lessons that might alone does not get the job done. Instead of diplomacy, containment and coalitions, our military interventions, invasions and surges have left countries in turmoil and emboldened jihadists, making the world more dangerous. We must learn from the lessons of recent history, or we will repeat the failures.
I believe a preemptive and unilateral strike against Syria is wrong.
I believe it will make the world more dangerous, not safer.
I believe it will not reverse the tide on the ground in Syria.
I believe that using force for the sake of force is not in the interest of our national security and will be counterproductive.
I believe, as do thousands of my constituents, that going to war against Syriaregardless of how targeted or limited the strikeswill implicate the U.S. in a civil war, cause possible retaliations in the region destabilizing it even more, and add to the ill will against our country.
I will cast a no vote to the Presidents request for authorization to strike Syria should it be taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives.
“The administration has cited satellite imagery and communications intercepts, backed by social media and intelligence reports from sources in Syria, as the basis for blaming the Assad government.”
Social media? Are they kidding? Not good enough. Sources from Syria: names? Affiliation? Could have been from anyone (I’m thinking rebels) including a fabrication from the CIA.
“But the only evidence the administration has made public is a collection of videos it has verified of the victims. The videos do not demonstrate who launched the attacks.”
Or when, or where.
Time for Barky and Lurch to pack it up and go home before they inflict more damage to the US. They have already made us the global joke. Thanks to His Incompetence, our national security is now REALLY at risk - we’re probably a prime target right now. Damned A$$-hat.
You got that right.
So why are some Republicans joining Obama’s Syria action????
Anyone who thinks we should get involved in Middle East conflicts should read this simplified overview of ShiaSunni relations (Wikipedia)
From what I can parse out:
Sunni = Wahhabis(Salafiyya), ethnic groups = Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen, military/political groups = Muslim Brotherhood/Al-Qaeda/Taliban/Ansar al-Islam/Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad/Jeish al-Taiifa al-Mansoura/Jeish Muhammad/Black Banner Organization
Shia = Alawites/Fivers/Twelvers, military/political group = Hizbullah/Iranian Qods Force (their special ops)/Mahdi Army (Muqtada al Sadr's group)/League of the Righteous/The Promised Day Brigade
[Note: Baathists = Baath Arab Socialist Party, founded in 1947 by Michel Aflaq (a Christian), Salah al-Din al-Bitar (a Sunni muslim) and the followers of Zaki al-Arsuzi (a Shia Alawite).]
Sunni majority states:
- Saudi Arabia (birthplace of Islam, under Sharia law, but 15% are Shia)
- Pakistan (80% Sunni)
- Jordan (95% Sunni)
- Afghanistan (90-95% Sunni)
- Syria (approximately 3/4 Sunni, but 15% are Shia Baathist rulers)
- Yemen (54% Sunni)
Shia majority states:
- Iran (92% Shia)
- Iraq (65% Shia, but 32% are Shia who were Baathist rulers)
- Lebanon (Hizbullah)
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
Not a bad list to use as a framework before initiating war (unprovoked attack).
Bush would have done well to have made an honest effort at items 3 & 5.
- Iraq (65% Shia, but 32% are Sunni who were Baathist rulers)
2014 Election cycle???
What is the cost of doing nothing? “No Doctrine”
But who are their base since most don’t agree with attacking Syria according to the polls.
In which case? You're going to have to do better with a baiting rhetorical question to get me to bother with an answer. That means make a case. Else, I'll decide you're too lazy to bother.
To understand Muslims, one must know what’s in the Koran and this book will provide that knowledge:
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran
An audio copy can be found at: