Syrian rebel leader calls Israel an enemy country
In one of my previous posts on Syria I brought up the fact that Barack Obama has supported the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Eqypt and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and in both of these cases he did so knowing it was quite likely that al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood would come into power. And they did, at least for a short while; it goes without saying that both of these organizations are hostile to Israel. I then pointed out the fact that the Syrian rebels were also members of al-Qaeda and that if they come to power Israel would be surrounded by people more willing to attack that nation than the dictators who were removed from power.
Seeing a pattern here, I then asked the question; why is Barack Obama supporting rebels in these nations which are hostile to Israel? And I questioned what the president’s endgame really was. I was taken to task by one person who commented who found it absurd that I would allude to the fact the United States was preparing to take over Israel, even though I never said that. I do however question Barack Obama’s motives for I do not think he is a friend to Israel, and he does seem sympathetic to these groups.
The Pentagon estimates it will take 75,000 “boots on the ground” in Syria to secure the chemical weapons
Regardless of what Barack Obama is saying he, and not the world or humanity, drew a red line in the sand regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Now that either the Syrian government, or the al-Qaeda rebels we are about to support, used chemical weapons Barack Obama is seeking authorization from the Congress to conduct military operations in the war-torn country.
The president is assuring the Congress, and the American people, that this will be a limited strike and will include no boots on the ground in Syria, however when John Kerry was pressed on this he hedged his bets:
It would be preferable not to, not because there is any intention or any plan or any desire whatsoever to have boots on the ground,” Kerry said.
“But, in the event that Syria imploded, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of” someone who should not have chemical weapons, “then clearly in the interest of our allies … to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements,” Kerry said later. “I don’t want to take that off the table an option that might or might not be available to the president of the United States
When pressed even further John Kerry stated that “there will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war.” That statement does leave the issue open-ended, doesn’t it? While the United States will not put boots on the ground to interfere with the Syrian civil war it leaves the possibility open that we would actually put boots on the ground for some other issue related to Syria, but for what purpose would that be?
We may now know the answer to that question.
Obamacare: Richard Trumka admits the law is causing employers to cut hours, calls for changes
During the Obamacare debate the Democrats carved out an exemption for big labor in order to win support of the labor unions, leaving one to wonder why, if Obamacare was so great, would the unions not want their employees to fall under the law the rest of American (with the exception of federal employees of course) are now saddled with.
With their members exempted from the law the unions signed on to Obamacare and the Democrats no longer had to fear the repercussions of upsetting one of their largest special interest groups.
Now that the law is in place the unions are learning that they will not be excempted from the tax on “cadillac” healthcare plans and they are not happy. With the news that the ACL-CIO is losing 40,0000 members due in large part to Obamacare Richard Trumka was forced to speak out against the law.
John Kerry refuses to rule out putting boots on the ground in Syria
While trying to lobby for support for attacking Syria Barack Obama has assured the American people, and the Congress, that his plan calls for a limited air strike and will not include putting boots on the ground in Syria.
Secretary of State John Kerry has echoed these sentiments, going so far as to claim that lobbing missiles into a foreign sovereign nation would not be an act of war, claiming that war would necessarily include boots on the ground, of which the United States has no intention of doing. Firing missiles into a sovereign nation is not an act of war? Okay…..would he feel the same way if another nation lobbed missiles into the United States?
Today the Senate Committee on Foreign relations met to discuss Barack Obama’s plan to attack Syria. One of the people who has been most vocal on attacking Syria, besides Barack Obama, has been John McCain. In fact the only problem John McCain has with Barack Obama’s proposal is that it does not go far enough. He apparently wants to deeply involve the United States in yet another war.
John McCain is so passionate about this issue that during the meeting he was seen playing poker on his iPhone:
While it is true that his mind is made up and he is not going to change it, what kind of message does this send to the American people while such an important issue is being debated? The least that he could do is to at least appear as if he is interested in what is being discussed. After all, it is we the people who are paying his salary and I am pretty sure we are not paying him to play video games as he prepares to commit to attacking a foreign nation.
Isn’t it wonderful to see that John McCain has his priorities in order?
John Boehner and Eric Cantor support taking action in Syria
The elitist ruling class Republicans are all beginning to side with Barack Obama on the issue of attacking Syria. First came, to nobody’s surprise, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and now John Boehner and Eric Cantor have announced they support the bombing of Syria because somebody might have used chemical weapons in that civil war. We still do not know for sure which side used the chemical weapons and I contend the rebels did in order to draw the United States into the conflict on their side.
So now in addition to top Democrats the top Republicans are joining the fray and will support the al-Qaeda rebels in Syria. Lest you forget it was al-Qaeda who attacked the United States on September 11th of 2001 and 2012. And these rebels are actually being trained by the same branch of al-Qaeda which led the attack on the consulate in Benghazi which left Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods dead. I never thought I would live to see the day when the United States would support the group which attacked us on September 11th, but that day is fast approaching.
John McCain and Lindsey Graham meet with Barack Obama, support regime change in Syria
As the Congress prepares to debate Barack Obama’s use of force in Syria the president is looking to gain allies in the Congress and naturally those allies would include John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
Because of this the newly minted war monger, Barack Obama, held a private meeting with the two old school war mongers and, predictably, as it turns out John McCain and Lindsey Graham only oppose the president because they do not feel his policy goes far enough. They do not oppose taking action on Syria, they just want him to take it to the next level–they want regime change in Syria.
McCain and Graham want Obama to go much further, however. In a statement released Saturday they said, “[W]e cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of 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, which is a growing threat to our national security interests.”
So these two want a full blown war in Syria resulting in the removal of Bashar Assad from power and therefore they do not “in good conscience” support a limited military action. To what end do Graham and McCain support the removal of Assad and how many American lives must be lost to achieve this goal? And once Bashar Assad is removed from power how much safer will the American people be, and for whatever minimal, if any, safety we might have gained will it have been worth the blood spilled?
Neither of these two seem to be asking the most logical question: who will replace Bashar Assad once he is gone considering the rebels are al-Qaeda. More on that later…..
America's Watchtower 