Syria attack likely

Syria attack likely

It’s looking more and more likely that President Obama will strike at Syria.  He’s now trying to figure out what kind of a wet noodle attack he can come up with to fulfill the promise he made during the 2012 presidential campaign that Assad would be stepping over the line and would cause him to take action if Assad used chemical weapons against his people; a kind of strike that would make good the promise and not generate a catastrophic kickback.  Little did he know what kind of a box he was going to put himself in when he made the promise during the campaign. At this stage of the game two devilish factions are duking it out in Syria – Assad’s forces and the rebelling forces that have been taken over by Al Qaeda.

It’s not the worst ignoble thing to do than to tell the American people that circumstances have come about in Syria that our best interests would be served by forgetting about that promise and keep a hands off approach to what’s going on there.  The President could tell the people that neither of the two warring factions is friendly to us and that the U. S. is the only country that wants to hold Assad accountable for flouting the rules of warfare laid out by the Geneva Convention.  It was there that it was determined that the use of chemical weapons would be considered a crime against humanity and perpetrators would be held accountable in the World Court.

When Senator Barbara Boxer was voicing her opinion as to whether action should be taken against Assad at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, she talked about the different military conflicts she supported and the ones she didn’t support.  While at it, she took a swipe at President Bush for attacking Iraq in 2003.  Liberals never pass an opportunity to criticize President Bush.  Like arch criminal Moriarity in the Sherlock Holmes stories, President Bush is responsible for every calamity that ever befell mankind back to the time of the great flood.  Senator Boxer knows that the average citizen is completely unaware, or totally forgetting, that when President Bush sent our forces in pursuit of the terrorists that were fleeing from Afghanistan into Iraq, following their attack on the World Trade Center in 9/11/2001, that he did it  with a coalition of over two dozen other nations.  President Bush spent a year building up that coalition and he had the backing of an overwhelming number of citizens including some of the most radical liberals including Hillary Clinton.  President Obama will be completely on his own with Syria and a weak attack just to fulfill a campaign promise could cause Assad and everyone else to feel free to do anything they want in the future.  This might be unique in the annals of military history where a nation goes tongue-in-cheek into an action against a country where they’re all but praying that they can do a hit-and-run that won’t result in dire consequences.   

           

Syria

CBS News Analyst Pamela Falk gave a very good explanation this morning of the difficulties the United States is facing regarding taking any kind of action against the Assad regime in Syria because of its use of chemical weapons.  She pointed out that there still are over a thousand United Nations personnel there and that any kind of an aerial attack would surely kill some innocent civilians.  Falk also said that Assad has the backing of Russia and Iran and that the forces arrayed against Assad are more and more coming under the control of Al Qaeda.

Yesterday, Former UN Ambassador John Bolton explained that when President GW Bush pursued the terrorist forces that thought they had a safe haven in Afghanistan into Iraq, after declaring war on us on 9/11/2001, he did it with the help of a coalition of over two dozen nations.  President Obama is not getting any support from any other nation to fulfill the promise he made over a year ago that he would take action against Assad if he used chemical weapons against his people. President Obama is somewhat in the same kind of a box King Herod put himself in when he promised the daughter of Herodias that he would give her anything she asked for, including half of his Kingdom, following the dance Salome performed that thrilled him.  Little did President Obama know the kind of impossible situation he would be in a year later to fulfill the promise he made when Assad would do exactly what he was warned not to do.

One of the questions I have is: Where was the same kind of revulsion being expressed when Saddam Hussein killed between 3000 and 5000 people in Kurdistan in 1988?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

I hope President Obama weighs very carefully the kind of consequences there might be if he takes action against Syria only because he feels he has to make good on a promise similar to the way Herod did when he gave Salome the head of John the Baptist to save face before a house full of dinner guests.  Assad has threatened to attack Tel Aviv as a reprisal if the United States takes action.  Who knows what might develop from that?      

Benghazi petition

Benghazi petition:

This is what I've been waiting for.  Below is an e-letter that I received saying that Congressman Steve Stockman is petitioning Congress to hold hearings on the travesty that occurred in Benghazi, Libya.  I'll do whatever small part I can do to see to it that this administration is not allowed to get away with thinking they'll just let time be used to allow the incident to die on the vine:

Dear Jack:

Four Americans were left to die in Benghazi, Libya.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama refused to send help.

And now the biggest cover–up imaginable is underway to protect Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency; a cover–up including obstruction, witness tampering, intimidation and an all–out campaign to hide the full truth from the American people.

You see, you won't hear this straight talk from most politicians in Washington, DC – but I'm different.

My name is Congressman Steve Stockman and I need your help. I won't stop until the American people and the families of those who died in Benghazi have been told the truth about this horrible tragedy – and those who are responsible are brought to justice.

And Jack, I'm starting with Hillary Clinton.

That's why I'm writing to you today. You see, I've joined with Stop Hillary PAC to gather millions of petition signatures to pressure Congress into holding full and open hearings on the Benghazi tragedy.

Jack, I've filed a discharge petition with the House of Representatives forcing an up or down vote on authorizing a full committee hearing.

If I can get 218 Congressional Republicans to back me (a majority of the House), we will break through the D.C. stonewall and there will finally be a vote on creating a Select Committee to investigate Benghazi.

Then FINALLY, we will know, on the record, just who is trying to obstruct the investigation into Obama, Hillary and their roles in Benghazi.

But I need your help.

Are you ready to stand up to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama today? If you're ready to hold Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama accountable, please sign our petition demanding Congress hold hearings and "Come Clean on Benghazi."

Some facts are now clear: When our diplomatic mission came under attack from an Al Qaeda–led mob of terrorists in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration shamefully chose to abandon our Ambassador and three other Americans– leaving them to die.

But other facts are still unclear: Why are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton trying to cover up the crimes in Benghazi? Why did Obama and Hillary refuse to send help? Why did Obama and Hillary apologize to the terrorists for offending them? And even worse, why are Democrats in Congress now intimidating the witnesses and obstructing an investigation?

The victim's families deserve answers.

Benghazi

Benghazi

Our illustrious former Secretary of State asked the question in a very defensive, belligerent way of a Congressional Inquiry Committee, “At this point in time, what difference does it make?”  That’s a little like a person driving drunk and killing someone asking the same question.  The victims of their negligence are all dead so what else is there to think about?      

The real scandal of Benghazi is not that the people that carried out the attack on our embassy in Libya were not taken into custody.  The scandal is that the State Department put the Ambassador and his aides into a completely indefensible position.  When someone is thrown into a shark infested sea and he/she is killed by them we don’t look for the sharks that killed the person.  We bring to account whoever it was that threw the person there. 

Ambassador Stevens made four urgent appeals to the State Department for security to be beefed up at the embassy according to Fox News Investigative Reporter Catherine Herridge.  The latest appeal was made just weeks before when Ambassador Stevens sent a dispatch that 10 different militia groups and an Al Qaeda training camp were active in the area and that the embassy could not sustain an organized attack.  And appeals that were made for assistance the night of the attack were totally ignored.  Air time from Tripoli to Benghazi, from which aid could have come, is 49 minutes.   The Navy Seals were killed by mortar fire seven hours after the attack began.  

The atmosphere in Benghazi was so hostile that Britain pulled its diplomatic personnel out.  The Red Cross evacuated their people too.  We didn’t because it would have exposed the false narrative, that the administration was trying to promote, that it successfully rendered Al Qaeda a nonthreatening force in the area.  That notion was to help President Obama’s reelection bid and caused the Presidential Election soon
to be held to be another element in the formula that brought about the demise of Ambassador Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith and Naval Seals Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.  The administration gambled with the lives of these people and lost.  I wonder if State Secretary Hillary Clinton would have asked her same question if Chelsea had been put in such an untenable position.