Because, you know, a certain Nobel Peace Prize winner isn\'t involved in enough wars already.

And what is United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power doing about this crisis? Well, it's hard to tell, because she\'s on a personal trip in Ireland.

This is not going to end well.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Why is it our politicians are chomping at the bit to get involved in that barbaric clusterfuck over there. Exactly what do we have to gain from getting involved?

As long as those barbarians are busy killing one another, they're leaving us alone.

You got me. I don't even know who the good guys and the bad guys are over there. In a just world, anyone who takes out a mass murderer should get some good karma out of it. The problem is, there's mass murderers on both sides over there, and Hezbollah and Iran are just waiting to pick up the pieces.

I've said this before, but there is just no way this is going to end well.

Onward and upward,
airforce

We only need to look around right here at home. We are in need of a distraction. Our focus needs to be placed elsewhere. To much going on right here and time to deflect to Syria. Next will be the call for patriotism and for more war in the middle east.

Military action could begin within the week , according to the Telegraph, probably beginning with a series of cruise missile attacks, much the way the Libyan adventure began.

Onward and upward,
airforce

These wars are not about freeing a people or even oil for that matter...Maybe they were under Bush, maybe...But today the whole purpose is to completely bankrupt the US and collapse it..So Obama can have his Banana Republic...The very thing we did to the USSR, the Communist is using on us...Look he has to go and the only battle that Americans need to be in is the one for our own freedom...

I understand some saying it's a distraction from his scandals at home...But it is more then that..He might use cruise missiles to distract in a single strike..But an on going costly war, another one, has only one purpose...Add to the collapse of the USA..

IMHO

Greywolf

Most Americans oppose intervention in Syria. And it isn't even close:

Or maybe, Americans are fairly intelligent and realize that, whoever wins in Syria, Americans lose.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Chuck Hagel says strikes against Syria will only happen with "international support."

Um, what about Congress? Well, I suppose they really don't matter.

Onward and upward,
airforce

The Psalm 83 war is about to kick off.

So the lion, eagle, bear are in places, who shall be the Jaguar. Wars and rumors of wars now exist. FEMA and Agenda 21 are moving forward with facilities according to many. Now I say we have seen the signs, soon I would expect Revelations to unfold in full, I will be glad to see my Lord when he comes. May I be worthy of Him. May the beast be thrown down and trampled.

The US is the Eagle, the Russians are Bear, who is supposed to be the Lion or Jaguar?

england is represented by the lion, the jaguar we haven't figured out

iran maybe?

Assad: Syria Is A Sovereign Country Fighting al-Qaeda


Syrian president says that the recent American wars have only destabilized the Middle East and other parts of the world.

Kit Daniels
Prison Planet.com
August 27, 2013

In a recent interview with the Russian newspaper Izvestia, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has stressed that Syria is not a puppet state and that the majority of rebels his government is fighting are connected to al-Qaeda.

When asked what parts of Syria remain under rebel control, Assad said that his government has been dealing with an “influx of large amounts of terrorists from other countries – estimated in the tens of thousands at the very least.”

“The majority of those we are fighting are Takfiris, who adopt the al-Qaeda doctrine,” he said.

Assad further emphasized that American politicians should listen to the American people rather than try to install “puppet leaders” across the world to satisfy their own political objectives.

“Today there are many Western politicians, but very few statesmen,” he said. “Some of these politicians do not read history or even learn from it, whilst others do not even remember recent events.”

“Have these politicians learned any lessons from the past 50 years at least?”

Assad further stated that the U.S. has waged many wars since Vietnam but has failed to achieve its political objectives from any of them.

“Have they not learned that they have gained nothing from these wars but the destruction of the countries they fought, which has had a destabilizing effect on the Middle East and other parts of the world?” he asked. “Have they not comprehended that all of these wars have not made people in the region appreciate them or believe in their policies?”

His statements aren’t surprising considering the comprehensive documentation that support his claims, including admissions by U.S. government officials.

Last December, Paul Joseph Watson reported that at least 29 different Syrian rebel groups are pledging allegiance to the Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda affiliate group responsible for killing American troops in Iraq.

“Syrian rebels have been responsible for a plethora of atrocities, from terrorist attacks and massacres, to forcing people to become suicide bombers, to attacks on Christian churches and making children carry out grisly beheadings of unarmed prisoners,” Watson wrote.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has even admitted to BBC that these Syrian rebels on the same side as the U.S. in Syria are terrorist groups.

“We have a very dangerous set of actors in the region, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and those who are on our terrorist list, to be sure, supporting – claiming to support the opposition in Syria,” she said.

President Obama has been openly supporting the Syrian rebels since at least June when he said he would provide military aid to them.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-early-as-thursday-us-officials-say?lite

Syria strike due in days, West tells opposition - sources
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-syria-crisis-strike-timing-idUSBRE97Q0GY20130827

Syria crisis: Russia and China step up warning over strike
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800

Syria, Iran issue first explicit warning to Israel if US attacks
‘We have strategic weapons and we’re capable of responding,’ says official in Damscus;

http://www.timesofisrael.com/syria-iran-issue-explicit-warning-to-israel-if-us-attacks/


Assad may hit back at Israel for US strike,
http://www.debka.com/article/23226/Assad-may-hit-back-at-Israel-for-US-strike-trusting-Obama-to-tie-Israel%E2%80%99s-hands-against-major-reprisal

http://www.infowars.com/syria-well-strike-israel-if-us-attacks/

Members of Congress are calling on President Obama to get congressional approval http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...ike-in-syria-sparks-concern-in-congress/

"Image this scenario:

A small nuclear conflict erupts in the Middle East destroying several countries and much of the world's oil supply. Airbursts knock out more than half of the world's satellite communications systems. Due to favorable weather conditions and plain dumb luck, fall-out over the United States is not life threatening -- as it is in part of Europe, Japan and the Far East -- and the EMP damage to our electronic systems is minimal. However life as we know it is disrupted as fuel prices reach $10 and then $20 per gallon.

Fruits and vegetables grown in Florida and California can't reach markets in other states. Corn and wheat crops are abundant, but farmers don't have the fuel to run harvesters. And those that do, fill their silos, but the grain can't reach the market. Store shelves are emptied in two days of panicked buying that sees a five-pound bag of flour go from $1.69 to $8.99.

The economy goes into a tailspin, and inflation reaches 300 percent in the first two weeks. You're lucky you still have a job, but you wonder how on earth you'll get there without the car.

The president tries to regain control of the country, by releasing stocks of food and oil, but it's just a drop in the bucket. In a measure of how bad things have become, he declares marshal law and nationalizes all oil, refineries and oil reserves. Suddenly, Uncle Sam is the only gas station on the block, and they're not pumping for anybody, no matter how much silver you cross their palms with. Riots break out in seventeen major cities and the national guard has to be called out. LA burns (again) as does Philadelphia. There's a national curfew and trouble makers are hauled off to camps. 60 Minutes runs a story on these concentration camps, which nobody ever admitted were in existence, but they experience technical difficulties and the broadcast is cut off in the middle of the story. FEMA becomes a four letter word.

Suddenly, the two weeks of food in your larder looks frighteningly small. You wish you had more room on your credit card, but then, smart merchants are only accepting cash. You can't wait for the few tomato plants and cucumbers you have growing in the back yard to bear. But you know it won't be enough. Winter is coming, and the papers say the utilities can't guarantee there will be enough gas or electric to heat peoples' homes. "

Everyone should watch the movie - Countdown to looking glass – it is very interesting considering the situation in Syria.

The movie is available on YouTube

There is another Scenario possible if Obama attacks Syria.

It could cause Obama to be Impeached or Congress could order that Obama be investigated as to his status as a Natural Born Citizen or if he is even Citizen at all and is in fact an illegal alien.

John McCain wants us to stop talking about air strikes on Syria. Because it's "crazy," or something.

You know, Sen. McCain manages to do something that is almost impossible -- make President Obama look good.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Russia sending warships to the Mediterranean. This can't be good.

Onward and upward,
airforce

The British Parliament is doing something our own government won't be able to do -- they\'re debating whether Britain should be involved in military strikes on Syria .

And at least 116 members of Congress, including 18 Democrats, would also like to debate it, as required by the U.S. Contitution .

Follow the link for a list of lawmakers signing on to that letter.

Onward and upward,
airforce

The British Parliament has voted against involvement in Syria. The vote is non-binding, so it's unclear just what effect this will have.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Before It\'s News[/b] is also reporting the story :

See this 3-minute video also. I'm not familiar enough with chemical weapons to know if that really is one.

I have a couple reservations about the story. Mr. Gavlak is identified as an AP reporter, and has indeed written for the AP, but the AP has not picked up this story. Instead, he was apparently reporting for [b]Mint Press News, which I'm unabe to connect to. It could be their website is too busy. Here is their Twitter feed.

And it seems awfully convenient that the "rebels" would claim the weapons came from U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. I'm not saying it isn't true, but I've sort of learned to distrust these sorts of unverifiable claims. And there's no real proof these "rebels" really are who they say they are.

Mint press News has been around for a little over a year and a half. It's run by 25-year-old Mnar Muhawesh, with headquarters in Minneapolis. She will not identify the "retired business people" who invested in the news organization, which raises a few more question marks.

In short, I honestly don't know what to make of this story.

UPDATE: Mint Press News is back up - or was, anyway. Here is the link to their website.

Onward and upward,
airforce

President Obama says he is considering a "limited, narrow act" against the Syrian regime. And a pointless one too, apparently.

Really? How?

Secretary of State John Kerry says ...ed 1,429 people, including 426 children. He didn't say how many others were killed by bombing, artillery, or trusty old AK-47's. (That number is currently estimated at 100,000, half of them children.)

Due to incomplete or faulty intelligence, any bombing campaign in Syria could end up releasing deadly nerve agents , likely killing scores of nearby civilians.

Susan Rice, President Obama's new national security adviser, is quietly working behind the scenes to drum up support in Congress for a Syrian campaign. (So is John McCain, who is worried the Syrian campaign won't go far enough.)

And Russia is continuing to sell weapons to the Syrian government .

Yeah, this is going to end well.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Ron Paul: Syria Chemical Attack A ‘False Flag’

by Mikael Thalen
August 30th, 2013


During an interview on Fox Business’ Cavuto Wednesday, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) commented on the unfolding situation in Syria, specifically calling the recent chemical attack a ‘false flag’ likely carried out by the US backed Al Qaeda filled rebels.

“I think it’s a false flag…” said Paul. “Why don’t we ask about the Al Qaeda? Why are we on the side of the Al Qaeda right now?”

Despite the Obama administration’s attempt to immediately blame Assad’s forces for the chemical attack, multiple U.S. officials have said that the administration’s evidence is “not a slam dunk.” Officials also mentioned that the administration had no “smoking gun.” In fact, the rebels have now even claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Even with Syrian Deputy Foreign Fayssal Mekdad presenting evidence to the UN that strongly points to a rebel led chemical attack, the Obama administration has continued to ignore any evidence that can’t be used to justify military action against Assad, including multiple YouTube videos showing rebels launching chemical weapons on civilian targets.

Paul’s statements are given even more validity in light of the January Yahoo article that details a potential chemical attack on Syria on behalf of the United States. The emails revealed a plan, supported by the Obama administration, to have a chemical weapons attack blamed on Assad in order to gain international support for military action.

Paul also exposed the history of lies and propaganda used by the US government to justify military intervention, pointing specifically to the Iraq war.

“Look at how many lies were told to us about Saddam Hussein prior to that buildup, war propaganda. It’s endless, it happens all the time,” said Paul, also pointing to Donald Rumsfeld’s role in supplying chemical weapons to Saddam in the 1980′s.

Mounting evidence forced out by the alternative media has destroyed the government’s credibility, with now only 9 percent of Americans supporting military intervention in Syria. The international backlash also caused UK Prime Minister David Cameron to momentarily back down after the British parliament voted against authorizing military action. Cameron later decided to send Military jets to Cyprus, claiming the move was purely “defensive.”

Despite having no congressional authority or support from NATO, the UN or the Arab League, the Obama administration has brazenly threatened to carry out strikes regardless, openly flouting the Constitution. Now, 140 members of the House of Representatives have signed a letter demanding that President Obama get authorization from Congress if he wants to carry out any strikes against Syria.

“The American people right now by a very large majority are opposed to this war. The Constitution can’t support this war and morally we can’t support this war,” Paul said in closing.

Update: Last April during a speech in Austin, Texas, Paul warned of the system’s increasing war propaganda and predicted that a false flag incident would likely accelerate the US deeper into the Middle Eastern conflict.

I am old enough to remember

Hell No We Won't Go

What we need now is

Fight in Syria Hell No

or how about

Keep Us Out of Sy-ri-a

And this should be chanted by 100,000 Anti-War Protesters in front of the White House and there should also be large Anti-War Protests in every city.

What happened in the Sixties and early Seventies needs to happen today, except instead of mostly Students and other young people doing the protesting this time it needs to include the Adults.

And if peaceful protesting is not enough then the people need to do as some people did during the Vietnam War and take the protesting up a notch or two.

Maybe the Anti-Syria-War protesters should do as the SDS and their Weathermen Faction did to protest the Vietnam War.

I just saw on Inside Washington that 80% of the People believe Obama should have Congressional Approval before attacking Syria

What surprised me is the general tone of the show seemed to be against our involvement in Syria and World War One was even mentioned, and the possibility that any attack on Syria could esculate into a World War.

I never expected this from any PBS program.

The best argument for the false flag theory I've heard, is that Assad really had no reason to resort to chemical weapons. He is already winning the war. He would have to be an idiot to use them and risk international retaliation. And Bashar Assad, for all of his bloodthirsty faults, is no idiot.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Who Benefits From A War Between The United States And Syria?


Michael Snyder
The Economic Collapse
August 31, 2013

Someone wants to get the United States into a war with Syria very, very badly. Cui bono is an old Latin phrase that is still commonly used, and it roughly means “to whose benefit?” The key to figuring out who is really behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war.

If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah. The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won’t even be doing any of the fighting. They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime. Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card – the U.S. military. If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each other – the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other. In such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the happier the Sunnis will be.

There would be other winners from a U.S. war with Syria as well. For example, it is well-known that Qatar wants to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf, through Syria and into Europe. That is why Qatar has also been pouring billions of dollars into the civil war in Syria.

So if it is really Saudi Arabia and Qatar that want to overthrow the Assad regime, why does the United States have to do the fighting?

Someone should ask Barack Obama why it is necessary for the U.S. military to do the dirty work of his Sunni Muslim friends.

Obama is promising that the upcoming attack will only be a “limited military strike” and that we will not be getting into a full-blown war with Syria.

The only way that will work is if Syria, Hezbollah and Iran all sit on their hands and do nothing to respond to the upcoming U.S. attack.

Could that happen?

Maybe.

Let’s hope so.

But if there is a response, and a U.S. naval vessel gets hit, or American blood is spilled, or rockets start raining down on Tel Aviv, the U.S. will then be engaged in a full-blown war.

That is about the last thing that we need right now.

The vast majority of Americans do not want to get embroiled in another war in the Middle East, and even a lot of top military officials are expressing “serious reservations” about attacking Syria according to the Washington Post…

The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

For the United States, there really is no good outcome in Syria.

If we attack and Assad stays in power, that is a bad outcome for the United States.

If we help overthrow the Assad regime, the rebels take control. But they would be even worse than Assad. They have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda, and they are rabidly anti-American, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western.

So why in the world should the United States get involved?

This war would not be good for Israel either. I have seen a number of supposedly pro-Israel websites out there getting very excited about the prospect of war with Syria, but that is a huge mistake.

Syria has already threatened to attack Israeli cities if the U.S. attacks Syria. If Syrian missiles start landing in the heart of Tel Aviv, Israel willrespond.

And if any of those missiles have unconventional warheads, Israel will respond by absolutely destroying Damascus.

And of course a missile exchange between Syria and Israel will almost certainly draw Hezbollah into the conflict. And right now Hezbollah has70,000 rockets aimed at Israel.

If Hezbollah starts launching those rockets, thousands upon thousands of innocent Jewish citizens will be killed.

So all of those “pro-Israel” websites out there that are getting excited about war with Syria should think twice. If you really are “pro-Israel”, you should not want this war. It would not be good for Israel.

If you want to stand with Israel, then stand for peace. This war would not achieve any positive outcomes for Israel. Even if Assad is overthrown, the rebel government that would replace him would be even more anti-Israel than Assad was.

War is hell. Ask anyone that has been in the middle of one. Why would anyone want to see American blood spilled, Israeli blood spilled or Syrian blood spilled?

If the Saudis want this war so badly, they should go and fight it. Everyone knows that the Saudis have been bankrolling the rebels. At this point, even CNN is openly admitting this…

It is an open secret that Saudi Arabia is using Jordan to smuggle weapons into Syria for the rebels. Jordan says it is doing all it can to prevent that and does not want to inflame the situation in Syria.

And Assad certainly knows who is behind the civil war in his country. The following is an excerpt from a recent interview with Assad…

Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own interests.

Ideologically, these countries mobilize them through direct or indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond. Financially, those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is synergized when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.

And shortly after the British Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria, Saudi Arabia raised their level of “defense readiness” from “five” to “two” in a clear sign that they fully expect a war to happen…

Saudi Arabia, a supporter of rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, has raised its level of military alertness in anticipation of a possible Western strike in Syria, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.

The United States has been calling for punitive action against Assad’s government for a suspected poison gas attack on a Damascus suburb on August 21 that killed hundreds of people.

Saudi Arabia’s defense readiness has been raised to “two” from “five”, a Saudi military source who declined to be named told Reuters. “One” is the highest level of alert.

And guess who has been supplying the rebels in Syria with chemical weapons?

According to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has been the Saudis…

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak.

And this is a guy that isn’t just fresh out of journalism school. As Paul Joseph Watson noted, “Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.”

The Voice of Russia has also been reporting on Gavlak’s bombshell findings…

The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

As Gavlak reports, Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels died in a weapons storage tunnel. The father stated the weapons were provided to rebel forces by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K’. “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

Gavlak also refers to an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks stating that Prince Bandar threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if Russia doesn’t agree to change its stance on Syria.

“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” the article stated.

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Saudi Prince allegedly told Vladimir Putin.

Yes, the Saudis were so desperate to get the Russians to stand down and allow an attack on Syria that they actually threatened them. Zero Hedge published some additional details on the meeting between Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Russian President Vladimir Putin…

Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. … As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

It is good of the Saudis to admit they control a terrorist organization that “threatens the security” of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games, and that house of Saud uses “in the face of the Syrian regime.” Perhaps the next time there is a bombing in Boston by some Chechen-related terrorists, someone can inquire Saudi Arabia what, if anything, they knew about that.

But the piece de resistance is what happened at the end of the dialogue between the two leaders. It was, in not so many words, a threat by Saudi Arabia aimed squarely at Russia:

As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt’s future.

The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”

At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.

Are you starting to get the picture?

The Saudis are absolutely determined to make this war happen, and they expect us to do the fighting.

And Barack Obama plans to go ahead and attack Syria without the support of the American people or the approval of Congress.

According to a new NBC News poll that was just released, nearly 80 percent of all Americans want Congress to approve a strike on Syria before it happens.

And according to Politico, more than 150 members of Congress have already signed letters demanding that Obama get approval from them before attacking Syria…

Already Thursday, more than 150 members of Congress have signaled their opposition to airstrikes on Syria without a congressional vote. House members circulated two separate letters circulated that were sent to the White House demanding a congressional role before military action takes place. One, authored by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), has more than 150 signatures from Democrats and Republicans. Another, started by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), is signed by 53 Democrats, though many of them also signed Rigell’s letter.

But Obama has already made it perfectly clear that he has no intention of putting this before Congress.

He is absolutely determined to attack Syria, and he is not going to let the U.S. Congress or the American people stop him.

Let’s just hope that he doesn’t start World War III in the process.

President Obama will seek congressional approval for a Syrian strike.

It's not hard to see why he's doing this - according to a recent poll, 80% of Americans want to see congressional approval for this Syrian adventure. But I'm not real sure what he's going to do if the vote goes against him. If he says a strike against Syria is "necessary" and "doesn't require congressional approval," he'll look like an idiot if he calls off the strike as a result of a vote in Congress.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Never give a monkey a hand grenade.

Here is the text of the Obama admin...rization to use military force in Syria. Here is the most important part:

The proposal is narrow in one sense, but quite broad in another. The purpose of the military action is limited to dealing with chemical weapons and other WMD's. it does not appear to authorize and other purpose, such as the overthrow of the Assad regime. However, it's broad enough to permit military action against the Syrian rebels if Obama determines they have WMD's, or are likely to acquire them. We could end up fighting both sides of the Syrian civil war.

Of course, Congress doesn't have to accept the administrations wording. They can always authorize a narrower or broader authorization. (In practice though, it would be next to impossible to enforce restrictions on the use of military force once the bullets start flying. The main effect of congressional restrictions will be political, rather than legal.)

Onward and upward,
airforce

and Congress to refuse to authorize and Impeach him when he goes anyway...

He is still arguing that he doesn't need congressional approval, under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. He is consulting Congress only as a matter of courtesy.

Of course, that's what David Cameron said when he "consulted" with Parliament, and he embarrassingly lost by 17 votes. Oops.

I'm actually glad that Obama is taking it to Congress. That does sort of put the brakes on the President's war powers, which is a good thing. On the other hand, the President of the United States of America, the most powerful nation on the face of the earth, is showing that he really is an amateur in the field of diplomacy. And so is Secretary of State john Kerry, who seems to have finally given up on his inconsistent brand of pacifism.

Really, there just isn't any way for President Obama to come out looking good from all of this. If he loses the vote in Congress and calls off the strikes, no one will have any confidence in his "red lines" anymore. Iran and Hezbollah, among others, will be emboldened. And if he loses the vote and attacks anyway, he loses politically.

The best thing that could happen for him, is that he wins in Congress, which he may well do. But the opposition to the war will be bipartisan, so he won't be able to point fingers at the GOP.

Speaking of diplomacy, has anyone heard from the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, lately? She's being strangely quiet about all of this, don't you think?

Onward and upward,
airforce

Time to clean house is long overdue. We need to start from scratch with a few new warnings to would be politicians. Abide by the Constitution or hang!

Nuff said.

The U.S. Military Does Not Want To Fight For Al-Qaeda Christian Killers In Syria


Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
Sept 2, 2013

Why is the Obama administration so determined to have the U.S. military help al-Qaeda win the civil war in Syria? Why are we being told that the U.S. has “no choice” but to help rabid jihadist terrorists that are slaughtering entire Christian villages, brutally raping Christian women and joyfully beheading Christian prisoners? If you are a Christian, you should not want anything to do with these genocidal lunatics. Jabhat al-Nusra is a radical Sunni terror organization affiliated with al-Qaeda that is leading the fight against the Assad regime. If they win, life will be absolute hell for the approximately two million Christians in Syria and other religious minorities. According to Wikipedia, Jabhat al-Nusra intends “to create a Pan-Islamic state under sharia law and aims to reinstate the Islamic Caliphate.” As you will see below, many members of the U.S. military understand this, and they absolutely do not want to fight on the side of al-Qaeda.

Not that we should be supporting Assad either. Assad is horrible. He should be rotting in prison somewhere. But just because a country has a bad leader does not mean that we have justification to attack them.

The U.S. military should only be put into action when there is a compelling national interest at stake. And getting involved in a bloody civil war between Assad and al-Qaeda does not qualify.

For the moment, we have a little bit of time to educate the American people about this because the Obama administration has decided to try to get the approval of Congress before striking Syria. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

Unfortunately, some members of the U.S. Congress are actually trying to push Obama into even stronger action. In fact, some Senators are now saying that they will not support military intervention in Syria unless it is a part of an “overall strategy” to remove Assad from power.

If the U.S. does try to remove Assad, it will unleash hell in the Middle East. Syria has already threatened to attack Israel if the U.S. tries to remove Assad and so has Hezbollah.

As I mentioned the other day, right now there are 70,000 Hezbollah rockets aimed at Israel.

When Hezbollah and Syria start sending rockets into the heart of Tel Aviv, Israel will respond with even greater force.

And if a single one of those rockets that land in Tel Aviv have an unconventional warhead, Israel will respond by absolutely flattening Damascus.

When I say that, what I mean is that a city of 1.7 million people will be gone permanently.

Do our politicians have any idea of the hell that they are about to unleash?

Do our leaders actually want Israel to be attacked?

Do our leaders actually want major cities in the Middle East to be completely wiped out?

Do our leaders actually want millions of precious people to die?

As I mentioned above, those serving in the U.S. military understand these things better than most people, and right now many of them are expressing a very strong desire to stay out of this conflict.

According to a tweet from U.S. Representative Justin Amash, he has heard from numerous members of the U.S. military that are urging him to vote against an attack on Syria…

“I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces. The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against #Syria.”

Journalist Paul Szoldra says that he has also heard from a lot of service members that want nothing to do with this conflict…

I’ve reached out to my own sources who are either veterans or currently on active duty in the military, and asked them to share their thoughts on whether we should, or should not, intervene in the two-year-old Syrian civil war. Most have responded with a resounding no.

The following is what a Marine Corps infantry veteran with three deployments to Iraq named Jack Mandaville wrote to Szoldra…

The worst part about this Syria debacle, among many things, is how closely it resembles Iraq. Those Vietnam veterans who warned us about disastrous results in Iraq were doing so based off their experience in a war that, contrary to popular belief, was vastly different from our war and was separated by at least two decades. Many veterans of Iraq are still in their twenties and have a firsthand understanding of Arab political issues. The complicated things we faced with Syria’s next door neighbors is freshly ingrained in our memories. How quickly the American people and our political leaders forget.

Our involvement in Syria is so dangerous on so many levels, and the 21st century American vet is more keen to this than anybody. It boggles my mind that we are being ignored. My anger over this issue has actually made me seriously comment on our foreign policy for the first time since 2006 when I was honorably discharged after three stints in Iraq and subsequently watched it continue for nearly another six years. I’m sickened that we’re putting ourselves in a position for another prolonged war where the American people will quickly forget about the people fighting it.

And even an establishment mouthpiece like the Washington Post is admitting that top U.S. military officials are expressing “serious reservations” about a war with Syria…

The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

One officer even told the Post that he “can’t believe” that Obama is even considering a conflict with Syria…

“I can’t believe the president is even considering it,” said [one] officer, who like most officers interviewed for this story agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because military personnel are reluctant to criticize policymakers while military campaigns are being planned.

What Obama wants to do is utter insanity.

Why would we want to enter a war on the side of Christian killers?

In areas of Syria that are controlled by the rebels, Christians are being treated brutally. The following is from eyewitness testimony from a Christian missionary who recently visited the region…

“The Christian residents were offered four choices: 1. renounce the ‘idolatry’ of Christianity and convert to Islam; 2. pay a heavy tribute to the Muslims for the privilege of keeping their heads and their Christian faith (this tribute is known as jizya); 3. be killed; 4. flee for their lives, leaving all their belongings behind.”

How would you like to be faced with those choices?

In other instances, Christians are not even given any choices. Instead, they are being summarily executed for their faith.

For example, the following is one incident that made news back in December…

Syrian rebels beheaded a Christian man and fed his body to dogs, according to a nun who says the West is ignoring atrocities committed by Islamic extremists.

The nun said taxi driver Andrei Arbashe, 38, was kidnapped after his brother was heard complaining that fighters against the ruling regime behaved like bandits.

She said his headless corpse was found by the side of the road, surrounded by hungry dogs. He had recently married and was soon to be a father.

How would you feel if a member of your family was beheaded and fed to the dogs?

And the rebels have continued to slaughter Christians even though they know the world is watching. The following is from an NBC News report on August 18th…

Syrian rebels killed at least 11 people, including civilians, in an attack on a checkpoint west of the city of Homs on Saturday that official state media described as a massacre.

Most of those killed were Christians, activists and residents said.

Sometimes these psychotic Syrian rebels actually round up Christian women and children and gun them down. The following is from a report about what the rebels did to the Christian village of al-Duvair when they took control…

Images obtained exclusively by Infowars show the aftermath of an alleged massacre of a Christian village in Syria during which men, women and children were slaughtered and churches desecrated by Obama-backed FSA rebels.

The photos, which were provided by a source inside the village of al-Duvair in Syria’s Western province of Homs, show ruined homes, ransacked churches as well as the burned remains of what looks like an infant.

According to the Assyrian International News Agency (AINA) on May 29, “The armed rebels affiliated to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) raided the Christian-populated al-Duvair village in Reef (outskirts of) Homs near the border with Lebanon….and massacred all its civilian residents, including women and children.”

But sometimes women are not killed by the rebels. If they are young and lovely, they are often systematically raped. What happened to one 15-year-old Christian girl from Qusair named Mariam is a total abomination…

The commander of the battalion “Jabhat al-Nusra” in Qusair took Mariam, married and raped her. Then he repudiated her. The next day the young woman was forced to marry another Islamic militant. He also raped her and then repudiated her. The same trend was repeated for 15 days, and Mariam was raped by 15 different men. This psychologically destabilized her and made her insane. Mariam, became mentally unstable and was eventually killed.

This is who Obama wants to help?

We are going to shed American blood to help those monsters take over Syria?

Are we insane?

Of course one of the most prominent examples of rebel brutality was even reported on by CNN…

The ghastly video shows how barbaric the Syrian civil war can be.

A man, said to be a well-known rebel fighter, carves into the body of a government soldier and cuts out his heart and liver.

“I swear to God we will eat your hearts out, you soldiers of Bashar. You dogs. God is greater!” the man says. “Heroes of Baba Amr … we will take out their hearts to eat them.”

He then puts the heart in his mouth and takes a bite.

After reading that, can anyone out there possibly justify helping the Syrian rebels?

But the Obama administration insists that we “must” attack Syria because Assad supposedly used chemical weapons against his own people.

Secretary of State John Kerry says that samples taken by UN inspectors have tested positive for the nerve agent sarin, and therefore what we must do is clear.

But is it really?

According to Reuters, the UN has had evidence that Syrian rebels have been using sarin gas against Assad forces since May…

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.

And as I discussed the other day, Syrian rebels have admitted to an Associated Press reporter that they were the ones that used sarin gas during the incident that the Obama administration is so concerned about.

The chemical weapons were supplied to the rebels by Saudi Arabia, but the Obama administration will never, ever admit this. If the U.S. called the Saudis out on this, it would potentially endanger the status of the petrodollar.

Instead, the U.S. government is going to end up doing exactly what the Saudis want, which is to attack Syria.

But people all around the world are seeing through this charade. For example, the following is a statement that Pat Buchanan made during a recent interview with Newsmax…

“I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence of which might be that he would be at war with the United States. So this reeks of a false flag operation.”

Sadly, it doesn’t really seem to matter what any of us think. According to James Rosen of Fox News, the Obama administration has apparently made the decision to go ahead with an attack on Syria no matter what Congress decides…

A senior State Department official tells Fox News the president’s decision to take military action in Syria still stands, and will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes next week to approve the use of such force.

The official said that every major player on the National Security Council – including the commander-in-chief – was in accord last night on the need for military action, and that the president’s decision to seek a congressional debate and vote was a surprise to most if not all of them. However, the aide insisted the request for Congress to vote did not supplant the president’s earlier decision to use force in Syria, only delayed its implementation.

“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the source told me, adding that that was why the president, in his rose Garden remarks, was careful to establish that he believes he has the authority to launch such strikes even without congressional authorization.

Very soon, the U.S. military will be embroiled in a vicious civil war between a brutal dictator and absolutely psychotic Christian-killing jihadists.

Should American blood be spilled in such a conflict?

Of course not.

Is it worth potentially starting World War III just to teach Assad a “lesson”?

Of course not.

Hopefully this war will not happen, because if it does I fear that it is going to be very, very bloody.

Obama Will Ignore Congress And Attack Syria Anyway


White House signals next week’s vote has no relevance whatsoever

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
September 2, 2013

The Obama administration has made it clear that it will ignore Congress even if lawmakers vote no to military intervention in Syria and launch the attack anyway.


While Obama’s surprise decision to seek Congressional authorization for the attack has prompted speculation that he is creating a clever exit strategy after painting himself into a corner with a year of unsustainable “red line” rhetoric, administration officials have signaled that next week’s scheduled vote will make little difference to a decision that has already been made.

Fox News’ James Rosen was told by a senior State Department official that, “the president’s decision to take military action in Syria still stands, and will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes next week to approve the use of such force.”

Although Obama’s announcement that he would put the issue to Congress came as a surprise, the official said it had no impact on the fact that Obama has already decided to green light the attack no matter which way lawmakers vote.

“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the aide told Rosen.

In addition, Secretary of State John Kerry asserted that Obama has the right to strike Syria regardless of how Congress votes.

“We don’t contemplate that the Congress is going to vote no,” said Kerry, adding that Obama has the right to order attacks “no matter what Congress does”.

Indeed, Obama himself alluded to the notion that the outcome of a Congressional vote had little significance during his speech on Saturday when he stated, “Our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive,” adding, “It will be effective tomorrow or next week or one month from now, and I am prepared to give that order.”

The Congressional vote seems less about getting the nod for a “limited” military strike and more about expanding the scope of the intervention and possibly greasing the skids for open ended war and regime change, with the White House’s draft proposal giving Obama “the authority to do way more” than surgical strikes, reports MSNBC.

According to Rand Paul, it’s 50/50 on whether Congress will give Obama the green light to launch an attack which is being opposed by an increasing number of both top brass and regular service members within the US military.

However, with the administration already acknowledging that the vote will merely be ceremonial, and with more US warships moving towards Syria, it seems that the attempt to secure congressional approval is merely window dressing in anticipation of an attack that has already been decided upon.

Hmm, they need to vote no, then repeal the war powers act in one sitting... then if he follows through with his threat to authorize it without congressional approval, impeach him... It would be to brazen for even this congress I would hope.

It's obvious to me that nothing will get him impeached. He has the goods on all of them. All they can do is try and hang on until all hell breaks lose with the economy and then go underground.

Mr. Obama..The people have decided you need to be tarred and feathered and run out of the country, But in an effort to show that the Constitution matters, we will give Congress a chance to impeach you and remove you from office...Of course we don't need their permission, we are basically just consulting them...Whether they impeach or not.. you are leaving...it is going to happen...Didn't like that Obama?

Well that's what you sound like..You tyrant...

Congressional Danse Macabre Has Begun


Daniel McAdams
Ron Paul Institute
September 3, 2013

The first draft of the White House’s war authorization legislation was leaked today, signaling the opening round of the danse macabre, in which the bargaining and maneuvering over what Congress and the president both want — war on Syria — begins its public journey from conception to law.

As according to past practice, the first draft is considered “too broad” for some Members and Senators. Senator Patrick Leahy opened the bidding, emerging from a closed-door classified intelligence briefing (the kind where the doctored intercepts and phony satellite photos are spread out before Members to better help them make the “right” decision) stating that the first draft of the war authorization was “too open-ended,” but that he is certain it will be amended in the Senate.

Similarly, Republican Senator Pat Roberts felt the first draft was too open-ended but was given assurances that the White House would work with Congress to reach an acceptable version.

There will be fighting and sharp words along the way. Members will be coy and make impassioned speeches. It is all for show.

It is important to make this clear to readers: The fight is not between whether the House and Senate will pass or reject the president’s request for authorization to attack, but rather what kind of force authorization will ultimately be brought to the Floor for passage.

Republicans like the warmongering Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington and Scott Rigell of Virginia are torn between their concern over giving Obama too much war authorization — because a greatly broadened war could go badly and cause political blowback for them — and their concern that the president was not aiming high enough in his war aspirations. They are not to be satisfied with a short punishing volley of Tomahawks.

Some, like the authoritarian Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers (R-MI) are furious that the president is wasting time consulting with and seeking authorization from Congress at all. The bombs should have long ago flown, believes Rogers. Why bother asking Congress for authorization?

The administration’s first draft looks a lot like the disastrously broad authorization passed after the attacks on 9/11 that Bush and then Obama have used for years to conduct global warfare. There is no reason to doubt that the draft as written would give the president all the authority he needs to attack Iran the minute the ink is dry. It has no sunset and is not restricted to the “shot across the bow” that Obama has stated he intends.

In fact, probably the most significant read on this first draft is that it is a barely disguised full-out war declaration on Hezbollah, which has provided limited assistance to the Syrian government in fighting the insurgents.

This first draft will be finessed and cosmetically fine-tuned to give the appearance of restricting Congressional war permission. After a few rounds of back and forth the compromise version will be presented to both bodies of Congress with the full expectation of passage. At that point it will be very difficult for any critical mass of Congressmembers or Senators to oppose the legislation — after all, it is a compromise. There will be heroes, like RPI Advisors Reps. Duncan and Jones, and others, to be sure. But the outcome of such a numbers game cannot be shaped by a few good men.

Unless dramatic new information breaks through the mainstream media’s stranglehold on the current narrative — they have thus far shown no appetite to explore other very interesting alternative explanations for what happened on August 21 nor have they shown the slightest bit of curiosity over the enormous discrepancy between Kerry’s claimed death toll and the claims of organizations on the ground as well as the British government — this authorization will pass and the president will begin bombing.

We have been through this before. It is a bit more crude this time, but it is all falling into place.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/msm-claims-military-revolt-against-obama-a-hoax.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/point-by-point-rebuttal-of-u-s-case-for-war-in-syria.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshe...s-water-supply-and-sold-at-wal-mart.html