Something really odd just came on the radar. Let me begin by saying it’s probably nothing, just a mere coincidence – but odd nonetheless.
2 years ago a local library finished upgrading to computer based reference material. As a shot in the dark I called and asked if I could buy all the reference cards, along with the wonderful little wooden 3×5 drawers they were all in. They said yes, and so I did.
I use the blank back of the alphabetized cards to jot down new reference material. Names in the news, countries, events, places, etc
As I was putting one back from research into the La Belle nightclub bombing, something struck me as oddly connected. An hour later and I find myself sitting at a desk looking at 20 to 30 reference cards that all seem to associate. Again, it’s probably nothing, but…. (more…)
Tonight on CBS they put together a really good presentation about Syria. The construct of the broadcast was to put the Syrian issues to the viewer with three interviews.
The first interview with Bashir Assad, Syria’s President. The Second segment/interview with U.S. President Barack Obama. The last segment with recently retired CIA #2, and White House advisor, Mike Morell.
If you want a great construct, which was actually quite free of bias in presentation, I think you will enjoy it. Good, honest and factual airing of the surrounding issues. If you are not too familiar with the issues, the format will assist an understanding. If you are really familiar with the story, and up on current events – you’ll like the Morell interview.
Well done CBS.
After you watch please share your thoughts on current Syrian affairs.
From what can be gathered within a myriad of media reports is that Sec. Kerry / POTUS have agreed to leave “U.S. threat of force” out of U.N. resolution against Syria for non-compliance. Meaning if Assad does not comply with U.N. mandate to disarm himself of chemical weapons, the U.S. had conceded a strike by us will not be one of the consequences.
Instead, the “stick” per se’, to non-compliance from Syria, would be a return to the U.N. Security Council for a resolution allowing the “use of force”.
D’oh.. Russia can, by structural Security Council set-up, veto any such follow-up proposal.
[judo photo credit] (Via Politico) Journalists emerging from a closed-door briefing at the White House Friday afternoon were informed that President Barack Obama won’t insist that a U.N. resolution governing Syria’s surrender of chemical weapons include a threat of military force if President Bashar Assad doesn’t follow through. (more…)
(Via Fox News) Elizabeth O’Bagy, a pro-Syrian opposition analyst whose credibility has come under fire, might have even more explaining to do – as court documents show she once vouched for a rebel group whose website displayed extremist and anti-American images.
Among the pictures was one showing a burning U.S. Capitol.
O’Bagy was fired earlier this week by the Institute for the Study of War for allegedly lying about her academic credentials. Her writings had been used by U.S. officials to bolster their case for military action against the Assad regime.
O’Bagy discussed the rebel group in question in a June 19, 2013 signed affidavit filed in the case of American Eric Harroun, who was indicted for fighting alongside the terror group al-Nusra in Syria. (more…)
A few years ago, against the backdrop of Tunisia ablaze and a visible ember headed to Egypt, we hosted a discussion post about the Middle East.
It is one thing to understand the structural framework for the U.S. Rivkin Project, it is quite another thing to see it actually being implemented. The latter leads those who understand the globalists within the Obama administration to recognize we were about to bear witness to horror.
The formative discussion was based on the context of President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech where he stated his policy toward Islam in general, and the Middle East in particular.
Within the Obama speech, he proclaimed the approach outlined in the Rivkin Project. He denied the cries of the Iranian Green Party movement for freedom, and he advocated or an “unclenched fist” toward Iran. The Salafists saw the opening.
Those of us who have travelled in the Middle East, and those who have followed Mid-East events, knew immediately how this “open-handed” message would be received by Islamist Ideologues who conflate Political Islam toward Muslim considerations.
Those minority ideologues are the people who would advocate for Islam and Sharia Law implementation, the politicization of Islam, upon a religious Muslim majority.
Those ideologues view moderation as weakness, and they know how to use extremist views toward the West in their favor.
Obama’s weak appearances opened the door, allowing the Islamist ideologues to express years of anger and hatred toward the Zookeepers, Mubarek, Gaddaffi et al, who held a tenuous controlling grip on their behavior and radical intent.
As we discussed the predictable unintended consequences, Zurich Mike provided the exceptional analogy of: [President Obama] Opening the ‘Big Cat’ cages within the greater Zoo that was the Middle East. A more apt and encompassing analogy has never been written.
What has followed from that early 2010 prediction to today, is bearing out right now. We are all witness to the consequences from the “unclenched fist”. First with the crushing of the Iranian Green “Student” Party; Later with the rise of the Salafist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; Then the manipulation of the moderate cause in Eastern Libya turning to radical al-Qaeda fighters flooding back from Iraq and Afghanistan; And now to today in Syria.
The content you are about to read is GRAPHIC in the extreme, and I caution you to consider whether or not you want to Bear Witness. But this is, in its purest form, the visible outcome from an academic leftist Western approach exhibited by President Obama, Samantha Powers, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton.
Put this into perspective folks. This statement is from the White House to CNN’s Jake Tapper when questioned about Vladimir Putin’s Op-Ed and Syria Comments:
White House official said in response. “He [Putin] put this proposal forward and he’s now invested in it. That’s good. That’s the best possible reaction. He’s fully invested in Syria’s CW disarmament and that’s potentially better than a military strike – which would deter and degrade but wouldn’t get rid of all the chemical weapons. He now owns this. He has fully asserted ownership of it and he needs to deliver.” (link)
Honest question: Can the White House be any more stupid ? Ownership of the activity in Syria is EXACTLY what Putin wants. That allows Russia to dictate what will, and will not, be allowed and permitted. D’oh…. From Putin’s perspective THAT’S NOT A NEGATIVE.
This typical White House logic is unreal:
•POTUS uses an analogy reference to WWII, FDR and Europe when discussing the reason for dropping bombs on Syria. While completely forgetting it was Pearl friggin’ Harbor that took us to war in Europe.
•POTUS blames a Muslim mocking U-Tube video for creating Muslim anxiety in the Middle East that lead to Islamists in Benghazi. While simultaneously requesting permission fire Cruise Missiles into the Middle East which will somehow not lead to Islamists in Syria?
Since when have red lines mattered to this president? These certainly didn't. #tcot #benghazi #syria #uniteblue #p2 pic.twitter.com/R2ftGTMbEt
— Stig is posting his L's again (@HesNotTheStig) September 6, 2013
No longer willing to be a codependent enabler to stupid leadership decisions espoused on my behalf, and despite the structure around the pretext that failing to support them makes me unpatriotic, I’m furious with our President on this Syrian fiasco.
This is not a zero sum game, and I do not accept the presentation as such. I also hold a principle that history holds value.
A failure to support President Obama’s personal opinion is not equivalent to supporting Assad or Iran. The missing context is the application of freedom principles and history. It is not unpatriotic to support freedom – It WAS unpatriotic of President Obama to draw a “red line” in our national sand without seeking permission of forethought. (more…)
The vote from the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee to put Obama’s Syrian resolution before the full Senate is essentially meaningless. The subsequent vote amid the full Senate to support such a resolution is more politically valuable, but not terribly much.
The vote that counts, to authorize President Obama to use our military and attack Syria, will only come from the House of Representatives – The ‘People’s House’.
With that in mind a couple of recent tracking polls, ABC and Think Progress, are in alignment: (more…)
