"The president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that doesn't involve stopping an actual or imminent attack on the nation"~Liberal Democratic Senator Barack Obama of Illinois , 2002
Why is it that a US President who has forcefully and repeatedly argued against placing US Troops needlessly into harm's way, now pines almost sentimentally for the opportunity to conflagrate America into yet another Mideast war? Granted the President has ceased his momentum for an admittedly lackadaisical attack so that Congress can offer a votified precedent, but only after his handlers could see the rather dangerous change in the winds of public opinion, no matter what one may read in the media to the otherwise.
Nor does Obama have the backing of his Liberal base, either, not to mention the Conservative who are forcefully against such a move as well, in fact, only the Progressives of both Parties prayerfully muddled at the center seem to want to punish Syria with extreme prejudice, but for what? America's citizens, the Brits and even the French governments now have ultimately left Obama somewhat alone at the altar of loosing the poodles of war on Syria.
But does Obama's fervor for Syria's attack truly stem from the killing of Syrian innocents as stated?
As a nation, the US kills well over a million infants every year, so how could "the killing of innocents" suddenly be of paramount importance, especially to a President who championed partial-birth abortion as if it were the Jiffy peanut butter equivalent of sublime Civil-Rights nirvana?
The plot thickens measurably when we repeatedly note that the US holds neither interests nor security concerns within the region in question. The counter-argument from the White House holds that this particular attacking of another diminutive Mideast country is not an act of war, but rather a military counter-offensive of the mere category.
But what if the conflagration of a Mideast embroiled in war needed only the suggestion of a spark to trigger the entire Arab world, and its proxies, into taking measurable part in both sides of the conflict? Odyssey Dawn somehow avoided that eventuality, and that was with the tacit approval of the world, but what if the Sunni and Shiite sectarians finally find their touchstone of needful things for the entire Mideast to eventually tip over into war and from a domino effect of unlikely happenstance?
Unlike the Libyan conflict, Syria is a proxy nation of both Russia and Iran with tentative ties to even China, meaning other significant powers hold interests within Syria, which might be sauce for the US gander, were not Israel in such an unenviable position nestled snugly in the eye of the storm. The antics of both Russia and China against the US have been increasing almost on a weekly basis, but the US would not seem to be finding itself in a position of righteous fury in this particular case, based upon its track record of fighting against terrorism for over a decade before chaotically falling in with the terrorists now.
So, is the nation of Syria strategically worth the overall risks of a widening proxy war involving US and Israel?
If we think oil prices are high now, as both US and Eurozone economies continue to struggle along under the relativistic mass of Progressively burdensome regulations, how will they fare under fuel at $7 dollars per gallon or certainly double that in Europe if a participled war were to some way ensue? Nor is it a granted that Barack 'I have a Drone' Obama has the surety of certain Syrian duplicity in gassing its own people.
On the contrary, there have been numerous reports that it was the rebels who launched toxic gas strikes against Syrian citizens. Journalist James Rosen, however, has reported that the Israelis actually intercepted a message from Syria's Foreign Minister to a high-ranking Syrian official asking the question "What in the hell did you just do?" Ostensibly the question being asked was about a recent gas strike.
But then other reports have outlined the fact that a high-ranking Saudi had actually placed rudimentary gas weapons into the hands of rebel fighters who knew little about what type of weapons they were using when they launched a gas strike against citizens loyal to Syria, point being that only the Obama Regime's intelligence apparatus seems to have the answers to all the questions, notwithstanding the question of whether or not US intelligence is due copious amounts of unquestioning trust at this point.
Adding insult to injury, there was one particular slip of a story further which ran across our purview from Reuters and then slid largely off the media's radar, however, the portent of the story spoke volumes. Indeed, with regard to this particular story, most of us know all too well that very few things escape into the general media from the Islamist Dictatorship that is Iran, unless of course Iran wishes the story to be known. Which is why the article in question should lead the Obama Regime and Congress into wondering why, exactly, the strongest of Syrian government supporters, that being Iran, seems to want the US to attack Syria. The short blip of a story appeared in Reuters and had to leave many scratching their heads in confusion.
According to the Reuters post, a highly-placed former politician in the Iranian government seems to be admitting that the Syrian government did indeed gas its own people; even after numerous UN Officials have indicated that Al Qaeda rebels were the culprit.
Below is the Reuters story:
(Reuters) -Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said the Syrian government, a strong ally of Tehran, had carried out chemical weapons attacks against its own people, the semi-official Iranian Labour News Agency reported on Sunday.
"The people have been the target of chemical attacks by their own government and now they must also wait for an attack by foreigners," Rafsanjani said, according to ILNA.
"The people of Syria have seen much damage in these two years." (Reporting By Yeganeh Torbati, Editing by William Maclean and Andrew Heavens)
Now, if Iran, a serial liar on the world stage, truly wishes for the US to stay out of the Syrian civil war conflict, which is predicated on whether or not the Syrian government gassed thousands of its civilians, why would an Iranian politico come out and confirm that the Syrian government did, in fact, gas its own people?
This, in truth, should tell the Obama Regime and Congress everything else it needed to know about whether or not it might be wise to stand down in Syria.
Iran knows that any sort of US attack would further alienate the already embattled Obama Regime and US, while pushing the Mideast that much closer to an all-out conflagration. It's as if Iran is begging for the US to attack, which puts the US in nothing if not a "Rook and Pawn" position should it choose to carry out such a uselessly impotent offensive.
Remember, too, Iranian fundamentalists both await and believe that a legendary prophetic Islamist war leader, the 12th Imam, will only return when the world is in full chaos, and this could be the preceding keystone event that sparks the eventual chaos. One other thing: News articles reporting a seeming oddity, which are less than 100 words long, typically stink of a government propaganda event, this one originating within the Iranian Government, notwithstanding and then there was something else which caught our eye...
The following article originates from the Friends of Syria Group
The rather surprising article essentially tells us that certain mainstream media outlets, in this case CNN, are duplicitous in manufacturing various news stories in order to gain public affirmation in support of sometimes dubious seeming US Government aims.
But is the story legitimate?
The website is a Wordpress site, which is sponsored by an international collective of countries dedicated to the premise that Syria, while a dictatorship, is being overrun by America's even worse terrorist enemies. The site goes on to maintain that, while America has fought an all-out war against terrorists over the past decade, under Obama's leadership, America has effectively pursued the act of joining in with those same Islamic terrorists in certain more recent cases, those being under Obama's purview.
According to information available, the Friends of Syria collective was actually started by none other than French Right-Wing Ex-President Nicholas Sarkozy. Sarkozy felt the need to combat US Mainstream media attempts to co-opt US public opinion into support of Obama's often Pro-Islamic stances on the Mideast.
The Group holds meetings internationally and is currently made up of the following countries:
- Saudi Arabia
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
The simple fact is that the US Conservative media has indeed documented hundreds of thousands of attempts by the US Liberal media to support Obama's Leftist (frequently pro-Islamist) agenda. The US mainstream media's past stances on Obama's policies would suggest a definite culpability in avoiding certain truths in sublimation to the powers that be both on domestic and foreign policy fronts.
However, even if the pro-Syrian site were affirmed as being sponsored by Assad directly--the numerous sites sponsored by the Obama Regime and operating on an international basis probably also engender certain questions that bear asking.
So, what would be the difference? A Syrian government leadership sponsored propaganda site versus an Obama Regime sponsored propaganda site? There truly is none ladies and gentlemen, which would seem to be one of the major points, in this story.
The most interesting argument which seems to defy conventional logic is the fact the Assad had the rebel forces pretty much under tentative control at the time of the alleged gas attacks. So, with that being that case, why would the Syrian Army turn around and suddenly launch a toxic gas attack on the remaining rebels who had already been defeated? Only the most extreme of foolish leaders would seek to rile up world opinion with a WMD, but then, look at the other side of the argument.
What if the rebels initiated a false-flag WMD attack in a last ditch effort to garner support from the world, and what better way to achieve that end?
Point ultimately being, we now live in a world quickly becoming so politically complex and ideologically polarized that it becomes difficult to understand which identity some other country or group is wearing at what particular time. It would seem, that under those circumstances, decisions being made that seem to go against the grain of our former actions might be the anvil on which America's steel is shattered, bringing in the venerable medieval label explaining unexplored or perilous territory as Here Be Dragons, and dragons indeed seem to be pestilently infiltrative of America-- from both within and from without these days.
As heard on the Rush Limbaugh Show of Tuesday 9/3/2013:
Below is the CNN referencing article, which is ranging heavily throughout the world--which is our reason for bringing it to the US in the first place from the Friends of Syria organization; you be the judge:
Friends of Syria
The primary “witness” that the mainstream media is using as a source in Syria has been caught staging fake news segments. Recent video evidence proves that “Syria Danny”, the supposed activist who has been begging for military intervention on CNN, is really just a paid actor and a liar.
Continue Reading Friends of Syria article: