Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts

Sunday, September 08, 2013

PATIENTLY AWAITING THE APOLOGY FROM THE MEDIA: Syria's WMDs Came From Saddam Hussein's Iraq

Guest post by Investors Business Daily


War On Terror: As the regime of Bashar Assad disintegrates, the security of his chemical arsenal is in jeopardy. The No. 2 general in Saddam Hussein's air force says they were the WMDs we didn't find in Iraq.

King Abdullah of neighboring Jordan warned that a disintegrating Syria on the verge of civil war puts Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons at risk of falling into the hands of al-Qaida.

"One of the worst-case scenarios as we are obviously trying to look for a political solution would be if some of those chemical stockpiles were to fall into unfriendly hands," he said.

The irony here is that the chemical weapons stockpile of Syrian thug Assad may in large part be the legacy of weapons moved from Hussein's Iraq into Syria before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

If so, this may be the reason not much was found in the way of WMD by victorious U.S. forces in 2003.

In 2006, former Iraqi general Georges Sada, second in command of the Iraqi Air Force who served under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a comprehensive book, "Saddam's Secrets."

It details how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria in advance of the U.S.-led action to eliminate Hussein's WMD threat.

Lindsey Graham: Either we kill some camels in Syria or Charleston could get nuked by Iran!

The adjectives for this level of idiocy escape me.

South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham says he’s convinced that Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons on his own people...

He says if there is no U.S. response, Iran will not believe America’s resolve to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons [and] those nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists could result in a bomb coming to Charleston Harbor.

He says he’s working to convince South Carolinians weary of war that the situations in Syria and Iran are linked. Graham says Syria could destabilize the entire Middle East...

So, Lindsey, firing a "shot across the bow" -- in Obama's words -- will somehow deter a nuclear Iran?

So, Lindsey, launching an attack "just muscular enough not to get mocked" will subdue Iran?

You're a joke, Senator Graham. You're a joke and a disgrace. And you need to go. My hope for 2014 is that a primary challenger will emerge and defeat you.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Friday, September 06, 2013

Anti-War Leftist Michael Tomasky Makes Startling and Courageous Transformation to Pro-War Chickenhawk

Ed Driscoll calls this "speaking truth to Journolist", referring to a single comment that fillets the ludicrous excuse for a journalist named "Michael Tomasky" (if that is his real name):

Do you think the vast majority of American’s that do not want to get involved with Syria. Do you think it can be a lack of confidence in this Administration?

It is not like this administration has not lied before. Look at the job report today. We have been lied to and spind around on the economy for 5 years. (yes I know Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about Fast & furious (I know Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about Benghazi (I know Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about the IRS (I know it was Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about Obamacare (I know it is Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about the NSA (I know Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about Immigration (I know Bush’s fault). We have seen the level of incompetence on the Gulf Oil Spill, Boston (terror)…Bush’s fault. We have seen the level of incompetence when it comes to Egypt ( Muslim Brotherhood) Lybia (Extremists / Anarchy), hell the whole middle east….not to mention Iran is that much closer to being nuclear.

I know it is all Bush’s fault.

But with this track record, why should we trust them this time? Obviously Bush will screw this one up also, no?


Fail-clown Ezra Klein hardest hit.


John Ekdahl sounds the alarm: highly principled, anti-war Hollywood celebrities are missing and we fear the worst

Writing at BuzzFeed, John Ekdhal is worried about our anti-war celebrities, but fortunately has not yet begun to panic. Won't you please help us locate the missing?

Our government is yet again marching us towards a war of choice in the Middle East and our non-partisan, peace-loving celebrities have gone missing since late 2008. We fear the worst.


The only explanation for their continued silence must be a large, organized kidnapping. To whoever is responsible for their disappearance, please post pictures of them holding a recent newspaper so we know they’re okay.

Hackneyed, but true: read the whole thing.

Prepare to have your Hypocrisy-Meter shattered.


RESET OR BLUE-SCREEN? USA Today Headline: "Putin calls Kerry a liar on Syria"                  

Methinks Hillary got out while the gettin' was good:

Things aren't exactly warming up between the Obama administration and Vladimir Putin, even as President Obama arrived in St. Petersburg for the G-20 summit.

Putin called Obama Secretary of State John Kerry a liar over Kerry's testimony this week before Congress.

The question may be al-Qaeda's influence on the Syrian rebels, an issue Kerry has downplayed.

Speaking to his human rights council Wednesday, Putin said, "This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them (the Americans), and we assume they are decent people, but he is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad."

Putin has criticized Obama administration claims that Bashar Assad's government attacked the rebels with chemical weapons.

Last month, Obama canceled a summit meeting with Putin after a series of U.S.-Russian disputes, including Russia's decision to grant asylum to National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden.

Word has it that President Obama plans to issue a sternly worded memo to express his dissatisfaction with Putin's remarks.

Got Cold War?


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Thursday, September 05, 2013

KRAUTHAMMER: Left Mocked Bush For Going Into Iraq With 50 Allies But "Obama Can't Even Get One And A Half"

Consistency? From progressives? Surely you jest, Charles.

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer blasts the liberal establishment for mocking the Bush administration at the time that the United States intervened in Iraq. He compared actions in that conflict to the Obama administration's inability to unite America's allies in the present Syria situation:

"I don't think it is a sudden embrace of the separation of powers or a renewed interest in constitutional action in which he brings in the Congress.

On domestic issues, he hasn't shown any interest in that, and all of a sudden he develops religion on the eve of the supposed strike. The reason is, he was alone and naked in the world.

He didn't have Russia, he didn't have the U.N., didn't have the Security Council, he didn't have the Arabs who, yes, very much oppose but won't lift a finger and didn't even approve in the resolution of the Arab League support for unilateral or any kind of action against them, military action against Syria, and he lost our closest ally in Britain.

He had nobody. Here are Obama and the Democrats who mocked the Bush administration for unilateral intervention In Iraq where we had a coalition of almost 50 countries and he can't get one and a half. So he had to have the Congress, that's the reason he did that switch in the end. He knew how alone he was and how he needed cover."

Anti-war progressives Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Harry Reid -- to name but a few -- all now support war in Syria. This gang of chickenhawks (always a favorite term during the Bush era) are banging the drums of war even though we have no idea whether anyone actually used chemical weapons and, if they were used, who used them; or who we're fighting for; or what the goal is; or whether a regional or global conflict will result; or how blowing up some camels helps U.S. national security interests.

All of those factors don't matter. This is about saving face for Barack Obama and keeping the attention off the litany of scandals -- Benghazi, IRS, NSA, James Rosen and AP wiretaps, Fast and Furious, and dozens more -- engulfing the administration.

These Democrat hacks are the worst of the worst. In fact, if the field of politics didn't exist, I find it difficult to imagine how they would earn honest livings.

Which reminds me of Mark Twain's famous missive: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

INFURIATING: Senate to Vote on Air Support for Al Qaeda on 9/11

I cribbed most of that headline from Pamela Geller, who calls it a "perverse horror":

President Obama cleared his first hurdle on Wednesday in his push for a military strike in Syria, as a key Senate panel voted to authorize the use of force... The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-7, with one senator voting present, to approve a military strike in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack last month.

The Senate now plans to return early from recess and meet Friday to file the resolution, setting up a key test vote in the full chamber as early as next Wednesday [9/11].

Josh Rogin reports that Harry Reid and Democrats in the Senate are violating the rules to cover for Obama's embarrassing 'red line' gaffe.

Senate Democratic leadership tossed aside the rules for moving legislation with regard to the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Syria, angering some Republicans and creating confusion on Capitol Hill in the run-up to the war vote ... some GOP Senate offices are upset with what they see as a rush by Democratic leadership to pass the war authorization outside the rules that govern how legislation goes through the committee process.

This is a rush to war behind closed doors,” one senior GOP Senate aide said. “We were told there was a need to have a thoughtful and public debate about how this nation goes to war, but this seems to be about simply getting a resolution done to cover the president.”

A rush to war to "cover [for] the president"?

A rush to war to support Al Qaeda on, of all dates, 9/11?

And what are John Boehner and Eric Cantor doing? Well, like clockwork they continue to ignore the will of the people -- who oppose Syrian intervention by overwhelming margins -- to help cover for a failed president.

Meanwhile, where does the House stand with the NSA Scandal, the Benghazi investigation, the IRS Scandal, the investigation into DOJ wiretapping of reporters and their families?

Meanwhile, where does the House stand with defunding Obamacare, the Continuing Resolution, or the Debt Ceiling debacles that face us in mere weeks?

Meanwhile, what was Boehner's priority prior to the Syrian diversion? Amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Michael Walsh is right: we have a "partisan fusion party."

And no one in Washington represents "we, the people" any longer.


Hat tip: BadBlue News. Artwork: MattrosArt

Egyptian Newspaper Depicts President Obama as the Devil

I'm guessing that Bush gets the blame for this, too.

Popular and widely read Egyptian newspaper Al Wafd published the above picture today portraying U.S. President Barrack Hussein Obama as Satan himself. The unflattering picture has been making the rounds on Facebook in the Middle East and, according to Al Wafd, is representative of the hatred growing numbers of people in the region have for the American president, thanks to his staunch and unwavering support for Islamists and jihadiis — whether in Nigeria, Libya, Egypt, or Syria — even as they terrorize, murder, rape, and burn down Christian churches, that is, even as they engage in diabolical activities.

Remember when President Obama was going to repair the image of the United States in the Muslim world while bringing peace to the Middle East?

Good times. Good times.

Now we appear to be only a couple of prophecies away from the apocalypse.


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

Wednesday, September 04, 2013

Obama: I Didn't Build That Red Line, World Government Did!

All that talk about red lines? It ain't President Obama's fault:

President Barack Obama repeatedly denied Wednesday that he ever set a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and he insisted that the “world community” and Congress created the so-called red line, and should enforce the line.

I didn’t set a red line,” he insisted to reporters at a press conference in Sweden Wednesday morning.

“The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a [1993] treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war,” he said.

“Congress set a red line when it indicated that — in a piece of legislation [in 2003] titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for,” he said.

MOTUS offers the following perspective (via Thomas Lifson):

This new tact is no doubt the work of his old trusted team of really big brains: the Axelrod, Gibbs, Plouffe and Favreau Brain Squad (BS) team was called into an emergency session yesterday to "coordinate the administration's message strategy on Syria," as it continued to spin totally out of control, i.e., Big Guy's favorability polls are dropping like rockets. Because everyone knows that what we need now, more than a strategy, is a messagestrategy.

Maybe the BS would be better utilized going to work for General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who's still unable to tell Congress exactly what the U.S. is seeking to accomplish in Syria. (snip)

This turn of tables is clearly the result of having called in the Brain Squad (BS) whose sole strategy in the past has been to blame stuff on everybody else.  BO then criticized the do-nothing Congress for dithering on the authorization of his "Syria Accountability Act" or, as ACE calls it, "Operation Enduring Hesitation."  And while the BS team likes that turn of phrase, they've softened it to "Operation Enduring Dithering."


Wut, wut?



Suddenly Pro-War Pacifist Howard Dean Helps Feed Every Loopy Syria Conspiracy Theory Imaginable

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but the following events certainly raise some questions:

...just a month after [Obama] drew his (blurry) 'red line' on chemical weapons in Syria...


...Who knows if who, what, or anything threatened the ... Daily Mail, but the now-scrubbed story (Jan 29, 2013) sure didn't fit the Obama-supporting narrative so prevalent on our side of the pond...

In fact, the United Nations says the rebels were using chemical weapons, not the Assad regime.

...According to UN diplomat Carla del Ponte, however, it appears that the recent chemical weapons attack, in April, was carried out by the Syrian rebels and not the regime, as it had been widely assumed. Speaking to a Swiss television channel, del Ponte said that there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels had carried out the attack. She also said UN investigators had seen no evidence of the Syrian army using chemical weapons, but that further investigation was needed...

The Daily Mail is not the only source of the reported false flag operation. No Quarter USA recently described the latest media-driven frenzy part of a PSYOPS campaign:

...It is highly unlikely that the Syrian Government authorized and ordered a chemical attack using the nerve agent Sarin against rebel strongholds in Damascus on the 21st of August. It appears that this incident was carried out, at a minimum, with the complicity of the United States and Great Britain.

An old friend who is well plugged into the area shared with me today that he learned of a meeting that took place on 15 August on Turkey’s border with Syria. It was between a Senior Turkish intelligence officer and a rebel aligned with the Free Syrian Army. A CIA officer also was attending but not “participating.” The rebel rep pressed for an urgent supply of weapons and announced, “there will shortly be an event that will lead the United States to strike inside Syria.”

Oh, and just like clockwork, the anti-war, Leftist nut Howard ("YEEEEEEHAHHHAHHHHAHHHAHAHHHAHHHHHH") Dean has transformed himself into Generalissimo Chickenhawk Dean and is now banging the drums of war.

These Leftist crackpots are the lowest of the low.


Community Organizing Nobel Peace Prize Winner Goes to War

Ann Coulter absolutely shreds the duplicitous treachery of the Left:

No Republican who thinks seriously about America's national security interests -- by which I mean to exclude John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- can support Obama's "plan" to shoot blindly into this hornet's nest.

It would be completely different if we knew with absolute certainty that Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on his own people. (I'm still waiting to see if it was a Syrian upset about a YouTube video.)

It would be different if instead of killing a few hundred civilians, Assad had killed 5,000 civilians with poison gas in a single day, as well as tens of thousands more with chemical weapons in the past few decades.

It would be different if Assad were known to torture his own people, administer summary executions, rapes, burnings and electric shocks, often in front of the victim's wife or children.

It would be different if Assad had acted aggressively toward the United States itself, perhaps attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president or giving shelter to terrorists who had struck within the U.S. -- someone like Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist.

It would be different if Assad were stirring up trouble in the entire Middle East by, for example, paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers in other countries.

It would also be different if we could be sure that intervention in Syria would not lead to a multi-nation conflagration.

It would be different if we knew that any action against Syria would not put al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in power, but rather would result in a functioning, peaceful democracy.

And it would be different if an attack on Syria would so terrify other dictators in the region that they would instantly give up their WMDs -- say, Iran abandoning its nuclear program.

If all of that were true, this would be a military intervention worth supporting!

All of that was true about Iraq, but the Democrats hysterically opposed that war...

Led by none other than Barack Obama.

Read the whole thing. And memorize it.

Hey, Leftists: you gonna put some ice on that?


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Tuesday, September 03, 2013

You know how Alaskans have dozens of words for "snow"? We conservatives need a similar variety for "hypocrite"

I've heard that Alaskans have dozens of words that mean snow, from light frost to full-bore blizzard.

We need a similar level of variety for the word hypocrite, ranging from Holden Caulfield to Nancy Pelosi:


In tabular form:


Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds reports that at Buzzfeed, memes were running 10-to-1 against Obama's rush to war. And notes one meme that Buzzfeed missed.


These Democrat and Republican establishment types are the lowest of the low.


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

What do John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Karl Rove and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Have in Common?

They all support war in Syria, even though we have no idea whether anyone actually used chemical weapons and, if they were used, who used them; or who we're fighting for; or what the goal is; or whether a regional or global conflict will result; or how blowing up some camels helps U.S. national security interests. Aside from those issues, the case for action is rock solid.

• "Nancy Pelosi to Congressional Democrats: Use of Force in Syria 'Is In our National Interest'"

• "Of course: John Boehner supports Obama's call for military action against Syria"

• "Wasserman-Schultz says ‘dozens of countries’ will fight with us, but she can’t name them"

• "Karl Rove siding with Muslim Brotherhood in Syria"

I know why anti-war moonbats Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are now angrily banging the drums of war: because they put politics over principle every hour of every day.

But I have no earthly idea why John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Karl Rove would support this bumbling, feckless administration when there is no concrete proof that: (a) chemical weapons were used; and (b) who used them if they were indeed employed.

Writing at World Tribune, Yossef Bodansky reports that there is evidence a "Aug. 21 chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a premeditated provocation by the Syrian opposition."


Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.

Monday, September 02, 2013

German Media: Obama Reversed Course on Syrian Attack Due to "Mutiny" in the Ranks

Reports from around the world paint a picture of a military that has no interest in an attack on Syria. If these accounts can be believed, the military has effectively rejected Obama's meandering "red line".

U.S. military mutiny forced Obama to retreat (German Economic News - via Google Translate):

The surprising over by U.S. President Barack Obama of his plans Syria is apparently due to a massive mutiny in the U.S. Army... So far, the U.S. military has always publicly silent and obey the orders of the military-political leadership. The basis for most applications, it was the president managed to convince the soldiers believe that the particular use of "national security" serve.

Even in the case of Syria, Obama tried this term... But his own soldiers did not believe him...

So said the retired Lieutenant General Gregory S. Newbold post: "The politicians are naive about the obligations that exist in foreign policy. Many are woefully ignorant about what can achieve a military operation. "Newbold was the leading cadres in the Iraq war. He said that many of his colleagues share his active serious concerns.

An officer who declined to comment anonymously, said: "I can not believe that the president ever takes this step into consideration. In the past 10 years we have been fighting against insurgents. Syria has advanced weapons systems. We would have to fight in a conventional war. "

Already in the past week had Gen. Martin Dempsey, the head of the commander in chief, pointed to the heedlessness of the Obama administration. He said the station ABC : "The simple use of weapons, without a precise strategy, such as the use is completed, probably never leads to the conclusion that we imagine."

General James Mattis said: "If the Americans actually perform such an operation, then that is a brutal, very, very serious war."

Another active officer said: "What political end state we want to achieve? Ch I do not know what it is. We say it should not be a regime change. If there is to be punishment - there are other ways to punish someone. "

Obama's War on Syria: Dissent in the Ranks (Stephen Lendman, IndyMedia):

The Pentagon goes all out to avoid dissent in the ranks. It surfaced in Vietnam... Army officials admitted they couldn't account for over 1,400 officer and noncom deaths. Perhaps as many as one-fourth occurred at the hands of subordinates.

America was at war with itself. Everyone was the enemy. Officers at times fragged troops they suspected of planning to target them... Congressional hearings in 1973 estimated around 3% of officer and NCO deaths from fragging...

...America's heading for more war. Servicemen wonder when they'll all end. They bear the brunt of war's harshness.


The Washington Post headlined "US military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a US strike on Syria," saying:

Many in America's military have "serious reservations." They're "coping with the scars of two lengthy wars." They're uneasy now.

According to "interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general," they've had enough... They fear "potential unintended consequences of launching cruise missiles against Syria."

...Marine Lt. Colonel Gordon Miller warned about "potentially devastating consequences, including a fresh round of weapons attacks and a military response by Israel."

Military skepticism grows. Obama's rushing headlong into the breach. He's heading where angels fear to tread. He's mindless of potential fallout. Hindsight won't save thousands of lost lives.

In fact, World Tribune reports that "the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as many in the U.S. military command have opposed Obama’s directive to prepare for imminent air strikes on the regime of President Bashar Assad."

It would seem the U.S. military is exhibiting all the respect for the president that he has earned.


Hat tip: BB.

Inside the Muslim Recruiting Station on Lackland Air Force Base, TX

Guest post by Dave Gaubatz


A couple of months ago I had the opportunity to visit the Islamic Center of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX. The research findings were typical of most Sunni mosques around America. This is a Salafist (Wahabi) mosque. Inside were the typical violent materials such as Fiqh Us Sunnan, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Riyadh Al Salheen, and more.

The research findings were not a surprise since I have seen this type mosque hundreds of times during my research. What was interesting is the Islamic Center is near Lackland AFB. This is one of the U.S. Military largest training bases. All USAF personnel must conduct their initial training on this base. Here is what I discovered:

1. The Imam is Yousef Said, Ph D. Most of the worshippers are from Pakistan/Sunni-Salafist.

2. They had all the materials that identify them as supporting Al Qaeda, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

3. Very strict Sharia adherence. Many of the young girls were completely veiled.

4. The Center has a strong security team on the grounds 24 hours a day.

5. I met several men, the Imam, custodians, and their head of security.

6. The Islamic Center is closely linked to Masjid Beit El Magdes, 7627 Culebra Rd., San Antonio. They are also behind the Mosque on Lackland AFB. A Brother Jeffrey is the Imam at the Lackland mosque. I was informed the new USAF recruits at Lackland must study Islam and attend the mosque on base. Brother Jeffrey has a goal of recruiting/converting at least 3 Airmen per week. Thus far they have had no problem doing this.

7. There were brochures of Imam Siraj Wahhaj coming to San Antonio on 8 June 2013. Remember I have always said Wahhaj is America’s most dangerous Islamic leader. The meeting is open for all and will be held at the Crossroads Mall Wonderland of America, 4522 Fredericksburg Rd, San Antonio, TX 7pm – 10pm.

8. A former U.S. military member Terry Holdbrooks assigned to GITMO was converted by three GITMO prisoners. Holdbrooks now speaks at mosques. He was in San Antonio on 24 May 2013.

9. The Islamic Center has close ties with CAIR National.

Sunday, September 01, 2013

Obama Agitates for Syrian Intervention Even While Ignoring a Nuclear Iran                                    

Guest post by Anne Bayefsky


President Obama has turned to Congress to save him from staggering political isolation on the global stage. It is an isolation that is the inverse of the promise of a passionate and reciprocal multilateral embrace that carried him into office.

Asking Republicans to rescue him from a foreign policy catastrophe entirely of his own making is not a neat political trick. It dramatically cheapens the office of commander-in-chief. Contrary to the President’s devious portrayal, therefore, the coming vote is so much more than a response to “this attack” or “the massacre” in Syria.

The President had the audacity to ask Congress about the message “we” will send if he does not go forward with his highly circumscribed attack on the Syrian regime. The real question is, what is the message he has already sent by his deed and his words, his paralysis and his verbal scam?

First and foremost, the President cast the rationale for an attack on Syria as a “danger to our national security.” And yet, what is the single greatest threat to the national security of the United States – not tomorrow, but today? There is only one incontrovertible answer, and it is Iran. Not once in his rare appeal to Congress and the American people to use force, however, did President Obama use the word “Iran.”

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Wherein I go nuclear on the mentally defective, traitorous Leftists who have now become pro-war hawks for reasons of principle, not politics

After reading today's headline story on Larwyn's Linx -- illustrating the stunning transformation of long-time anti-war Democrat Nancy Pelosi into a pro-war hawk vis a vis Syria -- I turned to Twitter to express my, eh, concerns.



















This is Not the War We've Been Waiting For

Guest post by Dan from New York


Remember "the mother of all battles?" It's easy to dismiss the primitive war cries coming from Iran, Hezbollah and Syria as the same schoolyard hyperbole we get every time the USA and the West take aim at the Islamic world. We've become inured to the empty threats, but listen up. This time will be different.

It won't be 1991 when Bush The Elder successfully blocked the Israelis from responding to Saddam's hapless Scud missiles. Today's Israel - even one led by Obama's cat's-paw, Benjamin Netanyahu – is in no mood for that. If the Islamics insist on hitting Israel with reprisal attacks, Israel will likely respond with disproportional force, and a furious multi-front exchange of unknown duration would ensue.

We certainly don't hear that grim possibility reported or "analyzed" by the Obama-controlled media. But folks, look around the room. That's the war we should all be worried about.

The Daily Star (Lebanon), 8/31/13

Israel faces retaliation if U.S. attacks Syria: Iran military


BEIRUT: Israel will face retaliation if the United States launches a military strike against Syria, a senior Iranian military official warned, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency reported Saturday.

“Israel will be hit by retaliatory attacks if the United States launches an offensive on Syria since it [the Jewish state] is the first instigator in attacking [Syria],” Iranian Army Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi said.

Iran staunchly backs the regime in Damascus and is Hezbollah’s leading supporter in the region.

Firouzabadi accused Israel of spearheading efforts to drag Washington into a war with the government in Damascus.

The U.S. has stepped up its war rhetoric against Damascus after accusing President Bashar Assad’s regime of using chemical weapons earlier this month against opposition strongholds outside Damascus.

Editor's note: I've placed an All Points Bulletin for the oft-used term of yesteryear: chickenhawk:


Friday, August 30, 2013

The Great Destabilizer

Interesting comment by JVictor vis a vis Daniel Greenfield's article entitled "Liberal Hypocrisy in Iraq and Syria."

[A] so-called change of heart with members of the Obama administration is not a change at all.

Every time there has been a destabilizing force that poses a greater threat to Israel, the Obama administration has supported that force. Cases in point:

• whether people liked him or not, Mubarak was a stabilizing force in Egypt--he was thrown under the bus in favor of the destabilizing Muslim Brotherhood revolution;

• whether people liked him or not, Qadafi had become a stabilizing force in Libya--he was ousted by radicals supported by this administration;

• when the Arab Spring fever tried to take hold in Iran to overthrow [Iran's] Ahmadinijad, this administration sat by silently while the revolution was quelled;

• Assad has been a stabilizing force in Syria--now this administration is talking about taking him out;

• now that the people of Egypt have spoken out against the abuses of power by Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, this administration has been silent and absent in its support for the people;

• Saddam was a destabilizing force in his own right.

It is clear that the Obama administration is working diligently, either actively or by apparent inaction, to destabilize the Middle East and northern Africa while alienating Israel at the same time.

The question is, why?

I encourage commenters to offer conjecture. I have my suspicions, but then again, I'm a right-wing, Consitutional, conservative Hobbit Visigoth and all.


Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

RED LINES, INDEED: Obama to provide air support for Al Qaeda and Ambassador Chris Stevens' killers in Syria?

Guest post by Investors Business Daily


Mideast: The same al-Qaida-linked Ansar al-Sharia that killed four Americans in Benghazi is now training foreign jihadists to fight with Syria's Islamist rebels. Are we about to provide them air support?

On Sept. 11, 2012, U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was crouched in a safe room waiting for help as the al-Qaida terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia was taking credit for the attack, according to emails reaching the White House and the State Department.

Ambassador Stevens did not survive, nor did Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Ty Woods, all killed by the terrorists of Ansar al-Sharia and other groups whose training camps surrounded Benghazi and were ignored by an oblivious Obama administration that now calls the scandal "phony."

Well, phony scandals do not produce body bags.

President Obama promised to bring the Benghazi attackers to justice, which he has not. Ansar al-Sharia roams free. Ali Ani al-Harzi, a leading suspect in the attack and a member of Ansar al-Sharia who was taken into custody after fleeing Libya for Turkey and then sent to Tunisia, is also free.

"Make no mistake," President Obama told reporters the morning after the attack, "we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people."

Well, not exactly. Fellow suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala was tracked down by the New York Times and found to be peacefully enjoying a strawberry frappe at a luxury Tunisian hotel.