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

The Hill's Syria Whip List: Tough work for Obama to win votes for strike

By The Hill Staff - 09/03/13

The White House faces a tough task in convincing a majority in the House and Senate to approve authorization for a military strike against Syria.

The administration is pulling out all the stops to convince lawmakers, but Democrats and Republicans alike are seeking more answers from the White House on the U.S. mission in Syria.

Some on the right and the left have already staked out firm opposition.

The White House has found two key GOP allies: Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.). House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could also play a significant role in helping the White House round up votes on the left.

The measure is expected to pass the Senate, but its prospects in the House are dimmer. Most House Republicans who have taken a stance are vowing to vote no, or are leaning no.

The following is the The Hill's whip list on Syria.

Recent updates: Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Rep. Steve Sourtherland (R-Fla.), Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

—Last updated on Sept. 3 at 10:29 p.m.


YES/LEANING YES

Senate (17)

Richard Burr (R-N.C.) — Supports resolution, according to the newsobserver.com.

Ben Cardin (D-Md.) — Leaning yes.

Bob Casey (D-Pa.) — Said Saturday that it's in the U.S. interest to respond to most recent chemical attack.

Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) — Said Saturday a red line was crossed a long time ago and the U.S. "must respond."

Chris Coons (D-Del.) — Said on MSNBC he's "inclined" to support the president, but made clear that he is not a firm yes.

Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) — Remarks suggest he will vote yes.

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — Said before Obama's request for congressional authorization that the world could not let such a heinous attack pass without meaningful response.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — Working closely with the White House on Syria.

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) — Said chemical attack requires "a strong response that will prevent this from happening again."

Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) — Said he supports military action.

Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) — On Facebook, said he'd support "a narrow authorization for a missile strike targeting those responsible for using chemical weapons."

Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — Judiciary Committee chairman voted against the war in Iraq.

John McCain (R-Ariz.) — Said it would be “catastrophic” if Congress were to reject legislation.

Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) — Foreign Relations panel chairman is working on the measure.

Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) — Has called on the president to act before Congress votes.

Harry Reid (D-Nev.) — Senate majority leader backs the president.

Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) — The third-ranking Democrat in the Senate said he could support a limited strike.


YES/LEANING YES

House (15)

John Boehner (R-Ohio) — Speaker to support military action in big boost for Obama.

Eric Cantor (R-Va.) — Boehner's second in command also backs strike.

Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) — Tweeted Monday that the evidence of a chemical attack is strong. He is working with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) on a resolution.

Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) — Said on Twitter that he stands behind Obama's call for a "targeted and limited response."

Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) — The top Dem on the Foreign Affairs Committee backs the president.

Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) — Second-ranking House Dem tweeted Friday that he agreed with the White House that the use of chemical weapons by Syria was unacceptable.

Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) — Backs limited strike.

Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) — Has publicly backed the president.

Luke Messer (R-Ind.) — Before attending a classified briefing on Sunday, Messer said on MSNBC, "I could support a strike on Syria."

Jim Moran (D-Va.) — In a release, Moran said, "Now it is up to one of the most divisive, least productive Congresses in history to authorize an intervention and protect the credibility and viability of a U.S. response to Assad's horrific crimes against humanity."

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — House minority leader will be a key player on resolution.

Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) — Intelligence panel chairman predicts resolution will pass Congress.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) — Democratic National Committee chairwoman said on CNN that the "world cannot let such a heinous attack pass without a meaningful response."

Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) — Has floated a new resolution that is much narrower than Obama's.

Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) — Supports the president.


NO/LEANING NO

Senate (6)

John Boozman (R-Ark.) — Leaning no.

James Inhofe (R-Okla.) — Ranking member of the Armed Services Committee disagrees with McCain, says he cannot support action because of budget cuts.

Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) — Said U.S. "cannot afford another conflict that taxes our resources without achieving goals that advance American interests." Moran heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — 2016 possible White House candidate has been a critic of military intervention in Syria.

Jim Risch (R-Idaho) — "I'm extremely reluctant."

Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) — Former Intelligence panel chairman issues scathing rebuke of Obama, says the president has no exit plan.


NO/LEANING NO

House (44)

Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) — Told 48 News he needs to be convinced there is a direct threat to the U.S., adding he doesn't believe that now.

Justin Amash (R-Mich.) — Firm no.

Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) — Tweeted that she's "adamantly opposed" to military action.

Michael Burgess (R-Texas) — Burgess says U.S. action in Syria would be very risky.

Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) — Chaffetz is opposed, according to ksl.com.

Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) — On Sept. 1, he told 41 Action News he would vote no if the vote took place that day.

Tom Cole (R-Okla.) — House deputy whip is leaning no.

Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) — Tweeted Saturday it was impreative that Obama explore alternatives.

Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) — Said on MSNBC he is leaning no.

Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) — Iraq war veteran is against military action in Syria.

John Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) — Firm no. He says, "I simply do not want to see any young Americans killed in Syria." Duncan was one of the few Republicans who voted against the Iraq war.

Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.) — "I cannot support military action against Syria at this time."

Sam Farr (D-Calif.) — Recent remarks suggest he is leaning no.

John Fleming (R-La.) — "As the situation now stands, I will vote against U.S. military action on Syria."

Randy Forbes (R-Va.) — Said on Fox News on Sunday that taking military action is not in nation's best interests.

Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) — Opposed.

Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) — Says the president has not yet convinced the public.

Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) — Iraq war veteran said on Facebook he urges a no vote.

Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) — Grayson is rallying support against the measure.

Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) — Leaning no.

Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.) — A solid no: "It is not the time for Americans to be subjected to the potential of yet another unwinnable overseas war."

Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) — Said on Facebook that he agrees with constituents and sees no evidence of U.S. interests in Syrian war.

Sam Johnson (R-Texas) — Decorated combat veteran has a slew of questions on the mission and appears to be leaning no.

Walter Jones (R-N.C.) — Critic of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a firm no.

Peter King (R-N.Y.) — Said on Fox News Sunday he is leaning no; he didn't believe Congress needed to vote on Syria.

Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) — Senate candidate told WSAV-TV he is leaning no.

Tom Marino (R-Pa.) — Is "absolutely opposed to any intervention in Syria at this time."

Jim Matheson (D-Utah) — Matheson is opposed, according to ksl.com.

Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) — Wants answers to many questions.

Candice Miller (R-Mich.) — Says the "case has not been made" for action.

Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) — Is strongly opposed to a military strike.

Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) — Sent letter to Obama on Friday opposing military intervention.

Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) — Reiterated his view that the military draft must be reinstated before an attack on Syria.

Scott Rigell (R-Va.) — Leaning no.

Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) — Said U.S. shouldn't try to police Syria.

Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) — After attending Sunday's briefing, said in a statement he doesn't support military force at this time.

Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) — Told WSAV-TV he is in the "no" column.

José Serrano (D-N.Y.) — Citing Iraq and other reasons, Serrano says that "we must not get our country involved in another war."

Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) — "After attending classified and unclassified briefings on Syria and speaking with people across New Hampshire, at this point, I oppose the United States taking military action against the Assad regime in Syria," she said.

John Shimkus (R-Ill.) — Said "I am not convinced that a limited strike against Syria at this time is warranted."

Steve Southerland (R-Fla.) — Southerland says an overwhelming number of his constituents are opposed.

Michael Turner (R-Ohio) — He says he's a no until sequestration is lifted.

Frank Wolf (R-Va.) — Leaning no. In a letter to the president, Wolf states he has deep reservations about military intervention

Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) — Said on Facebook an attack is "not warranted at this time."


UNDECIDED/NOT CLEAR

Senate (13)

Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)

John Cornyn (R-Texas) — The No. 2-ranking Senate Republican has called on President Obama to address the nation on Syria.

Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) — Has called evidence "circumstantial."

Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) — Undecided.

Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) — Says there are "so many unanswered questions" during Sept. 3 CNBC interview. But also says if U.S. doesn't lead, the world becomes a more dangerous place.

Angus King (I-Maine)

Carl Levin (D-Mich.) — Armed Services Committee chairman said President Obama made "strong case," but hasn't endorsed plan for military action.

Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — Actively seeking advice from West Virginia residents.

Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — Wants more information on what needs to be done and what can be accomplished in Syria.

Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)


UNDECIDED/NOT CLEAR

House (31)

Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) — Told ABC5 News: "I'm waiting for the president to make the case on the possible use of force and the aftermath."

David Cicilline (D-R.I.) — Said on MSNBC he is "skeptical."

Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) — No.3-ranking House Democrat: "Issues of war and peace rquire thoughtful consideration. I reserve judgment on Syria until a resolution and more details are forthcoming."

Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) — Has not made up his mind but told WKRN-TV he is "extremely leery."

Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)

Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.)

Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.)

Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) — Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus is undecided.

Jim Himes (D-Conn.)

Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) — Believes that the international community must some take type of action against Syria. Her statement indicates she's more likely a yes than a no.

Bill Johnson (R-Ohio)

Dale Kildee (D-Mich.)

Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — A spokesman for the House majority whip said McCarthy is weighing “the information and intelligence presented to him by the president and his national security team.”

Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) — Armed Services panel chairman is undecided.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) — Fourth-ranked GOP leader says she is skeptical.

Richard Neal (D-Mass.) — Noted in his statement that he voted against the Iraq War.

Bill Owens (D-N.Y.) — Wants details on what the mission will be.

Joe Pitts (R-Pa.)

Mike Quigley (D-Ill.)

Trey Radel (R-Fla.)

Tom Reed (R-N.Y.)

Martha Roby (R-Ala.)

Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — "The president has some work to do to recover from his grave missteps in Syria. He needs to clearly demonstrate that the use of military force would strengthen America's security."

Tim Ryan (D-Ohio)

Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)

Bobby Scott (D-Va.) — Expressed concern about precedent the U.S. would be setting by approving an attack.

Chris Stewart (R-Utah)

Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.)

David Valadao (R-Calif.)

Randy Weber (R-Texas)

Brad Wenstrup (R-Okla.)

Here is Sen. Rand Paul\'s amendment to the senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution.

He actually quotes Barack Obama when, as a Senator in 2007, he told the Boston Globe that “the President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

In his two-page amendment, Paul provides the constitutional backing for the President's words, and further declares that “it is the sense of Congress that if this authorization fails to pass Congress, the President would be in violation of the Constitution if he were to use military force against the Government of Syria."

Onward and upward,
airforce

Here is Rand Paul's article in Time, "Why I\'m voting NO on Syria." Here's the takeaway:

Read the whole thing.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Russia Says Its Sending Warships To Med For Evacuations From Syria


Flagship of the Baltic Fleet on its way toward Syria

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Sept 5, 2013

Following several reports of Russia sending warships to the Mediterranean Sea over the past week, The Kremlin’s chief of staff has officially told reporters that the intention is to prepare to evacuate Russian citizens from Syria.

AP reports that Russian news agencies on Thursday quoted senior official Sergei Ivanov as saying that Russia is upping a naval presence in the region to “primarily” be prepared to rescue Russians should a US military bombardment take place.

Yesterday it was reported that Russia is sending three more ships to the eastern Mediterranean to bolster its fleet. The additional deployments include two destroyers, one of which is the flagship of the Baltic Fleet, as well as another missile cruiser.

The information came via a Interfax report that cited an unidentified Russian Navy official, who also admitted that the ships would improve Russian surveillance capability over U.S. ships and submarines deployed in the area.

Last week Russia, Syria’s staunch ally, was reported to have deployed an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the area, in order to back up the Russian military facility in Syria at the port of Tartus.

As we reported, the Russian Navy denied that the dispatch of the warships was linked to western military action against Syria, despite Interfax quoting a source in the armed forces’ general staff who said the deployment was in response to the “well-known situation”.

A Russian Naval spokesperson told RIA Novosti that the maneuvers were part of planned rotation and not linked to the worsening situation in Syria.

Now, however, the Russians have admitted that the deployments are linked to Syria, albeit with a humanitarian mission, rather than a battle mission.

The revelations, along with reports of China also sending warships to the Syrian coast, are sure to stoke fears of a larger international conflict, should the US strike Syria.

Both Russia and China have warned that a military attack on Syria would have “catastrophic consequences” for the region and are vehemently opposed to US military action.

The nations are clearly responding to that fact that five U.S. destroyers and an amphibious ship are currently positioned in the eastern Mediterranean awaiting strike orders. The USS Nimitz and three other warships are also stationed in the nearby Red Sea.

According to Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at the US think tank the Heritage Foundation, a western attack on Syria would prompt Russia to “deploy a permanent naval squadron in the Mediterranean and accelerate the search for naval bases and anchorages, such as Tartus and Latakiyeh in Syria.”

The Mediterranean is getting a little crowded, ain't it?

Onward and upward,
airforce

Last week there was a report that Syrian rebels admitted they were responsible for the chemical attack in Damascus. Now, there\'s a video purportedly showing a rebel not only admitting it, but bragging about it.

No way to verify it, of course, but it's funny the mainstream press hasn't picked up on the story at all.

Onward and upward,
airforce

President Obama will address the nation from the White House on Tuesday , trying to drum up support for war in Syria. He still will not rule out military action if he loses in Congress.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Obama to Congress: Don\'t pay attention to those pesky voters. Listen to me! Congress should approve military action in Syria whether the public approves or not.

Onward and upward,
airforce

China sending warships to Syria coast. And the Global Times, a Chinese government "news agency," published an angry editorial condemning U.S. involvement in the civil war.

This must be some more of that "smart diplomacy" we used to hear so much about.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Remember when Obama said he'd "side with the Muslims"?
He has a chance to further Islam, eliminate some non-Muslim allies, and finish taking the US into an economic collapse, ready for the taking.

President Obama's security adviser, Susan Rice, says a strike on Syria is necessary, and will change nothing . Seriously. You can't make this stuff up.

And that, folks, is what passes for strategic thinking in the Obama administration.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Here is a video montage of the Obama Administration\'s statements on Syria. Are these guys inept, or what?

And here is senator Rand Paul's response to the President\'s speech .

Onward and upward,
airforce

The CIA has begun arming Syrian rebels. I suppose if you use others to do your killing for you, it really doesn't count.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Analytic Guidance: The Syria Crisis
Analysis

September 12, 2013
Analysis

Editor's note: Periodically, Stratfor publishes guidance produced for its analysis team and shares it with readers. This guidance sets the parameters used in our own ongoing examination and assessment of events surrounding Syria's use of chemical weapons as the crisis evolves into a confrontation between the United States and Russia. Given the importance we ascribe to this fast-evolving standoff, we believe it important that readers have access to this additional insight.

In the wake of President Barack Obama's change of tack from a strike on Syria, the threat of war has not dissolved. It has, however, been pushed off beyond this round of negotiations.

The president's minimalist claims are in place, but they are under serious debate. There is no chance of an attack on chemical weapons stockpiles. Therefore, the attack, if any, will be on command and control and political targets. Obama has options on the table and there will be force in place for any contingency he selects. Nothing is locked in despite public statements and rhetoric in Washington, London, Paris or Moscow.

Remember that all public statements now are meant to obscure real plans and intentions. They are intended to shape the environment. Read them, but do not look at them as anything more than tactics.

The issue has morphed into a U.S.-Russian confrontation. Russia's goal is to be seen as an equal of the United States. It wins if it can be seen as a protagonist of the United States. If it can appear that Washington has refrained from an attack because of Russian maneuvers, Moscow's weight increases dramatically. This is particularly the case along Russia's periphery, where doubts of American power abound and concern over Russian power abides.

This is not merely appearance. After all that has been said, if the United States buys into some Russian framework, it will not be seen as a triumph of diplomacy; it will be seen as the United States lacking the will to act and being pushed away out of concern for the Russians.

The Russian ploy on weapons controls was followed by the brilliant move of abandoning strike options. Obama's speech the night of Sept. 10 was addressed to the U.S. public and Obama's highly fractured base; some of his support base opposes and some -- a particular audience -- demands action.

He cannot let Syria become the focus of his presidency, and he must be careful that the Russians do not lay a trap for him. He is not sure what that trap might look like, and that's what is unnerving him as it would any president. Consequently, he has bought time, using the current American distaste for military action in the Middle East. But he is aware that this week's dislike of war can turn into next week's contempt on charges of weakness. Obama is an outstanding politician and he knows he is in quicksand.

The Russians have now launched a diplomatic offensive that emphasizes to both the Arabs in the Persian Gulf opposing Bashar al Assad and the Iranians supporting him that a solution is available through them. It requires only that they ask the Americans to abandon plans for action. The message is that Russia will solve the chemical weapons problem, and implicitly, collaborate with them to negotiate a settlement.

Obama's speech on Sept. 10, constrained by domestic opinion, came across as unwilling to confront the Russians or al Assad. The Russians are hoping this has unnerved al Assad's opponents sufficiently to cause them to use the Russians as their interlocutors. If this fails the Russians have lost nothing. They can say they were statesmen. If it succeeds, they can actually nudge the regional balance of power.

The weakness of the Russian position is that it has no real weight. The limit on American military action is purely domestic politics. If the United States chooses to hit Syria, Russia can do nothing about it and will be made to look weak, the tables thus turned on them.

At this point, all signs indicate that the domestic considerations dominate U.S. decision-making. If the Russian initiative begins to work, however, Obama will be forced to consider the consequences and will likely act. The Arabs suspect this and therefore will encourage the Russians, hoping to force the U.S. into action.

The idea that this imbroglio will somehow disappear is certainly one that Obama is considering. But the Russians will not want that to happen. They do not want to let Obama off the hook and their view is that he will not act. Against this backdrop, they can appear to be the nemesis of the United States, its equal in power and its superior in cunning and diplomacy.

This is the game to watch. It is not ending but still very much evolving.

War Is Coming: 10 Reasons Why A Diplomatic Solution To The Syria Crisis Is Extremely Unlikely


Michael Snyder
The American Dream
September 13, 2013

Over the past few days, there has been a tremendous wave of optimism that it may be possible for war with Syria to be averted. Unfortunately, it appears that a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria is extremely unlikely. Assad is certainly willing to give up his chemical weapons, but he wants the U.S. to accept a bunch of concessions that it will never agree to. And it certainly sounds like the Obama administration has already decided that “diplomacy” is going to fail, and they continue to position military assets for the upcoming conflict with Syria. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are all going to continue to heavily pressure the Obama administration. They have invested a huge amount of time and resources into the conflict in Syria, and they desperately want the U.S. military to intervene. Fortunately, overwhelming domestic and global opposition to an attack on Syria has slowed down the march toward war for the moment, but unfortunately that probably will not be enough to stop it completely. The following are ten reasons why war is almost certainly coming…

#1 Assad wants a guarantee that he will not be attacked by the United States or by anyone else before he will give up his chemical weapons.

That is extremely unlikely to happen.

#2 Assad is not going to agree to any chemical weapons deal unless the U.S. stops giving weapons to al-Qaeda terrorists and other jihadist rebels that are fighting against the Syrian government.

That is extremely unlikely to happen.

In fact, according to the Washington Post, the U.S. has been ramping up the delivery of weapons to jihadist rebels in Syria…

The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.

#3 Assad is suggesting that the Israelis should give up their weapons of mass destruction.

That is extremely unlikely to happen.

#4 The Syrian “rebels” desperately want the U.S. military to intervene in the war in Syria. In fact, that was the entire reason for the false flag chemical weapon attack in the first place.

The “top rebel commander” is now declaring that the Free Syrian Army “categorically rejects the Russian initiative”, and he is calling on the United States to strike the Assad regime immediately.

#5 Saudi Arabia desperately wants the U.S. military to intervene in Syria. The Saudis have spent billions of dollars to support the rebels in Syria, and they have been lobbying very hard for an attack.

#6 Qatar desperately wants the U.S. military to intervene in Syria. Qatar has also spent billions of dollars to support the rebels in Syria, and it has been reported that “Arab countries” have even offered to pay for all of the costs of a U.S. military operation that would remove Assad.

#7 Turkey has wanted a war which would remove Assad for a very long time. And CNN is reporting that Turkey has moved troops to the border with Syria in anticipation of an upcoming attack.

#8 Many members of the U.S. Congress want this war. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are virtually foaming at the mouth, and Robert Menendez, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that he “almost wanted to vomit” after reading Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plea for peace in the New York Times.

#9 Obama does not want to look weak, and he seems absolutely obsessed with starting a war with Syria. For the moment, he has been backed into a corner diplomatically by Russia, but the Obama administration is already laying the groundwork for making it look like “diplomacy has failed”. According to CNN, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is already talking about the “consequences” that will happen when the Syria deal falls apart…

Any agreement reached must be “comprehensive,” “verifiable,” “credible” and “able to be implemented in a timely fashion,” Kerry said, adding that “there ought to be consequences if it doesn’t take place.”

#10 There have been reports that U.S. soldiers are now receiving orders to deploy to Syria. For example, the following is from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson…

Venture capitalist Dan Bubalo claims he was told by a source close to Ft. Hood that US troops have been ordered to deploy to Syria.

Writing for conservative columnist Mychal Massie’s website, Bubalo cites a “close and verifiable source” who told him that a friend at Ft. Hood had received news that he was to be sent to Egypt for the next nine months.

“This particular soldier said that while he was not really thrilled about the assignment to Egypt, it was better than the soldiers that remained at the military base BECAUSE THEY HAD JUST RECEIVED THEIR DEPLOYMENT ORDERS TO GO TO SYRIA,” writes Bubalo.

If you want to read the original report, you can find it right here.

For the moment, Obama and Kerry will dance around and make it look like they are considering peace. They will try to get Congress to authorize a strike “if diplomacy fails”.

But they already know that diplomacy is going to fail. Once they are ready, Obama will declare that the conditions for war set forth in the congressional authorization have been fulfilled and then he will start raining cruise missiles down on Syria.

When that happens, will Obama have your support? The video posted below is one of the funniest that I have seen in a long time…

And when Obama does strike Syria, he will officially be allying the United States with al-Qaeda and other radical jihadist groups.

Middle Eastern expert Jonathan Spyer has spent a lot of time on the ground among the Syrian rebels recently. The following is what he has to say about who they are…

“Undoubtedly outside of Syria, and in the Syrian opposition structures, there are civilian political activists and leaders who are opposed to al-Qaida and opposed to Islamism,” Spyer explained to TheDC in an email interview. “There are also civilian activists and structures within the country which are opposed to al-Qaida and Islamism. But when one looks at the armed rebel groups, one finds an obvious vast majority there who are adherents of Islamism of one kind or another — stretching from Muslim Brotherhood-type formations all the way across to groups openly aligned with al-Qaida central and with al-Zawahiri.”

“The ‘moderate’ force which we are told about supposedly consists of those rebel brigades aligned with the Supreme Military Command, of Major-General Salim Edriss,” he continued. ”Most of the units aligned with the SMC actually come from a 20-unit strong bloc called the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front. This includes some powerful brigades, such as Liwa al-Islam in the Damascus area, Liwa al Farouq and Liwa al Tawhid. These and the overwhelming majority of the units aligned with the SMC are Islamist formations, who adhere to a Muslim Brotherhood-type outlook.”

And as NBC News recently pointed out, a high percentage of these “rebels” have come in from outside Syria…

Abu Abdul Rahman, a 22-year-old from Tunisia, sat in a safe house earlier this week in Antakya — a southern Turkey town that’s fast becoming a smugglers transit route. He was waiting for a smuggler to take him across the border to fight in Syria.

“Almighty Allah has made Jihad a duty on us. When our Muslim brethren are oppressed, it is a duty to support them wherever they are, because Muslims are not separated by countries,” he said.

Abdul Rahman is one of thousands of al-Qaeda volunteers who are flocking to Syria to join what they see as a battle to defend Muslims no one is bothering to help.

“This was a dream for me, to wage jihad for Allah’s sake, because this is one of the greatest deeds in Islam, to lift aggression off my brothers, to bleed for Allah and no other,” he said.

Is this really who Obama intends for us to become “allies” with?

Is he insane?

In article after article, I have documented how Obama’s Syrian rebels have been ruthlessly murdering Christians, using chemical weapons and dismembering little girls.

Today, I found an account from a Time Magazine reporter that chillingly describes the brutality of these fanatics…

I don’t know how old the victim was but he was young. He was forced to his knees. The rebels around him read out his crimes from a sheet of paper. They stood around him. The young man was on his knees on the ground, his hands tied. He seemed frozen.

Two rebels whispered something into his ear and the young man replied in an innocent and sad manner, but I couldn’t understand what he said because I don’t speak Arabic.

At the moment of execution the rebels grasped his throat. The young man put up a struggle. Three or four rebels pinned him down. The man tried to protect his throat with his hands, which were still tied together. He tried to resist but they were stronger than he was and they cut his throat. They raised his head into the air. People waved their guns and cheered. Everyone was happy that the execution had gone ahead.

Should the U.S. military be used to help those jihadist thugs take control of Syria?

If Obama gets us into this war, it has the potential to spin totally out of control very rapidly.

Let us hope and pray that it does not happen. Because if we do go to war in Syria, it could ultimately lead us down the road to World War III.