White House lies

I am closely following the new road-map to war that President Obama claims is a slap on the wrist of the Syrian government regime. I am disappointed that no one appears to pick up on the discrepancies in his White House statements.

As you know, Mr. Obama drew a red-line saying that if Bashar al-Assad, president dictator of Syria used chemical weapons, we would attack and punish him. Although the “evidence” is secret, it has become conventional wisdom that he did it.

Mr. Obama has withdrawn his red-line comment, now claiming that the world had drawn the line and not him. That’s not true, they haven’t. Mr. Obama is deflecting the blame of the upcoming disaster onto the rest of the world, and Congress. Congress seems to buying this hook, line and sinker.

Watch the first video and then the second.

President Obama has made many comments about how al-Assad was breaking the 1993 chemical weapons treaty. Unfortunately, no one in the White House had read it, and found that Syria was one of a handful of countries that didn’t sign the document so wasn’t bound to it.

So the breaking of the treaty morphed into “… international norms.” The last iteration of these ever changing stories is that as finally Syria signed the 1925 Geneva Protocol in 1968, they should be held to it as no nation has violated or advocated using chemical weapons since.

Mr. Obama clearly doesn’t read his history books. During the Iraq-Iran War, 1980-1988, when Saddam Hussein was our friend and Iran was our enemy, after the Iran hostage crisis, we helped him use his chemical weapons against the Iranians. If you read the article linked to the war, you’ll see that the United States and Germany also sold him the chemical ingredients. So much for Mr. Obama’s truthfulness.

Fortunately for him, the U.S. media appears to only report the stories and doesn’t do any fact checking. Why not? Because if they call him out, they won’t get another interview or invitation to the White House.

Although Mr. Obama was publicly threatening a slap on the wrist, he is now pushing for a far more extensive authorization for punishing al-Assad for his alleged chemical weapons use. Why? Probably because his advisers suggested starting with a slap on the wrist, and then incrementally increasing the response.

By doing this, the public would quickly lose interest and allow him to do whatever he wants. He will. On the other hand, I don’t think that Secretary of State, John F. Kerry knew of the last minute change of plans to seek congressional approval, and was thrown under the bus. Perhaps he didn’t get the informal memo to resign, in favor of Susan Rice and is hanging on to avoid embarrassment.

The United States is about to go to war again. President Obama’s unexpected  request to Congress is open-ended. The Senate committee that studied the request has agreed to any military action, excluding military “boots on the ground” for sixty days, which can be extended for an additional thirty days. After ninety days we’ll be in so deep, that we’ll be stuck.

The CIA will be busy, as they aren’t classified as “boots on the ground” so can work with the rebels, and our enemies, to defeat al-Assad. The pin-prick punishment will actually become an all out attack to remove al-Assad from power. That will help the rebels, including al-Qaeda win. When did al-Qaeda become our ally?

For some reason Congress is acting like the bobble-head dogs you used to see in vehicles’ rear windows, and nodding to almost every request. They don’t realize that they’ll be blamed later for approving it. I can understand Senator’s John McCain and Lindsey Graham being excited as they haven’t met a war they didn’t like (as long as other people did the fighting), but the other senators? What’s wrong with them?

They could easily block the president’s misuse of any congressional authorization by cutting off the money, either by allocating a certain amount or by forbidding its use for purposes other than strictly approved. It’s called the power of the purse. Will they? No. Why? Because they are weak and leaderless.

It isn’t clear what will happen if the Senate approves the attacks, but the House doesn’t. I imagine that Mr. Obama will claim that it’s enough and even with a total defeat, the bloodshed will begin. When it becomes a mess Congress will be blamed if they approve, and also blamed for voting no as Mr. Obama will say that he was forced to change tactics.

I can only hope for a negative vote from both chambers. That will precipitate a constitutional crisis (after the attack), so it will become clearer what the presidential and congressional powers really are. At this time, I don’t think that anyone really knows as the Constitution has been interpreted any way that creates an advantage to the ruling party.

As the Russians will not tolerate this attack, expect a very bloody outcome.

The New York Times published a photograph from this video today. It shows an example of the “moderate” rebels that President Obama supports. I don’t want to see videos of what the more extreme rebels and al-Qaeda elements do.

May I suggest that the Swedish Nobel committee ask for their Nobel Peace Prize and the $1.4 million dollar award back? I don’t see a “…new climate” in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world”

Does “reaching out”  refer to Tomahawk missiles as his way of “reaching out?”