Wednesday, September 04, 2013

Lying President and A Different Take On the Syrian Debacle (What If Assad Didn't Gas His Won People?)

The Weekly Standard reported Obama's lies regarding the red line and Syria:


"First of all, I didn't set a red line," said Obama. "The world set a red line.




"A red line for us, we start seeing, a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized."

Obama over a year ago on the same red line issue:



The Weekly Standard also showed the White House's own background on the red line that Obama drew back in the Spring. Here it is from the White House itself.

From the White House website itself on April 25, 2013

Excerpts:

We go on to reaffirm that the President has set a clear red line as it relates to the United States that the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups is a red line that is not acceptable to us, nor should it be to the international community.  

On your red line question, it is absolutely the case that the President's red line is the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups. 
And the people in Syria and the Assad regime should know that the President means what he says when he set that red line.  And keep in mind, he is the one who laid down that marker.  He's the one who directed that we provide this information to the public.  And he's the one who directed that we do everything we can to further investigate this information so that we can establish in credible, corroborated, factual basis what exactly took place.

End quote.

Obama did in fact take a "brave" stance on creating a red line and making himself look decisive and courageous. Then when someone in Syria used chemical weapons and killed hundreds, and while there's NO support for either the UK or US to go marching into Syria and bomb them, Obama suddenly says he made no such red line. He's a liar. I'd call him a coward, but I suspect there's more at play here. 

Consider this:

There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.

Several Syrian leaders, many of whom are not Bashar al-Assad supporters and are even his sworn enemies, are now convinced that the Syrian opposition is responsible for the August 21, 2013, chemical attack in the Damascus area in order to provoke the US and the allies into bombing Assad’s Syria. Most explicit and eloquent is Saleh Muslim, the head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) which has been fighting the Syrian Government. Muslim doubts Assad would have used chemical weapons when he was winning the civil war.

Yossef Bodansky, Senior Editor, GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs


Same senario happened in 1995 with the Bosnian Muslims. 

To consider all of this in laymen's terms go here. But I wanted to put up the links to the actual articles for anyone to read and consider.

By the way, who is Bodansky?

Yossef Bodansky (born in Israel) is an Israeli-American political scientist who served as Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives from 1988 to 2004. He is also Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association and has been a visiting scholar at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). In the 1980s, he served as a senior consultant for the Department of Defense and the Department of State.
He is also a senior editor for the Defense and Foreign Affairs group of publications and a contributor to the International Military and Defense Encyclopedia and is on the Advisory Council of The Intelligence Summit. Bodansky's numerous articles have been published in Global Affairs,Jane's Defense WeeklyDefense and Foreign Affairs: Strategic Policy and other periodicals.

No comments: