Tag Archives: Bashar al Assad

Uncategorized

Obama must stand strong against monsters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXQ-D7GD92o

Barack Obama likely never envisioned dealing with the monstrous behavior he and the rest of America have witnessed in recent days.

No, he took office as the nation was mired in a financial meltdown. The nation was at war with terrorists and had made progress in that effort. Osama bin Laden was still on the loose, but that crack SEAL team killed him in May 2011.

The president made another statement today about the death of a journalist in Syria at the hands of ISIL, the terrorists seeking to overthrow the Iraqi government while also fighting the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. Can there be any more complicated relationship here, with the United States despises the terrorists fighting a government we support in Iraq while fighting a government we oppose in Syria?

These monsters took the life of an American journalist, James Foley. They’re demanding we stop the air strikes against them, or else they’ll kill others held hostage.

Plus, the world learned today that this summer, the United States launched an attempt to rescue Foley and others from ISIL, but couldn’t locate him or his captors.

The president today vowed to keep up the fight against the killers. He held Foley up as a courageous journalist, while calling ISIL a band of cowards.

He used strong language, as the video attached to this post will attest. Words, though, fail to persuade terrorists bent on destroying their enemies.

The president’s response to the terrorists’ demands was to step up the air attacks against targets in Iraq.

They must continue. Let us take caution, though, to avoid that slippery slope. This nation has plenty of air power assets to deploy against the monsters. Let us use them with maximum force and prejudice.

Uncategorized

Strike won’t start a new ‘war’

President Obama’s speech on Syria is worth reading over and over.

Of particular note should be the president’s assertion that a strike against Syrian military targets will not thrust the United States into another ground war.

He said it Tuesday night. He’s been saying it time and again since declaring his intent to hit the Syrians for gassing civilians on Aug. 21. The declaration has fallen on deaf ears. But read it here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/10/full_speech_president_obama_addresses_the_nation_on_syria.html

Obama said it once again in a nationally televised speech to the nation. Will it persuade the doubters? I’m not taking that one to the bank. I have not been a doubter on that fundamental point, which is that the United States will not commit to a war with no end.

The president made it as clear as he could. Any military strike — if it comes — will have a specific set of goals. It will be brief, it will be intense and it will be intended to deter Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad from using the chemical weapons again.

The speech, of course, came during a period of intense diplomatic activity. Russia entered the picture with a plan to persuade Syria to surrender the chemical weapons and turn it over to international inspectors.

Again, the speech is worth reading. It’s attached to this blog post. Pay careful attention to the pledge that a strike — if the diplomatic initiative fails — will be a limited engagement.

I do not see a war on the horizon.

Uncategorized

Assad to surrender weapons he doesn’t have?

Syrian dictator Bashar as-Assad virtually denied on Charlie Rose’s show last night that he possessed chemical weapons, which President Obama says he used in August on civilians in Syria.

Now he has agreed to get rid of the weapons. Reports say he’ll surrender the weapons to international inspectors, who then will dispose of them. He’s trying to avoid being hit by the United States, which President Obama has threatened to do as punishment for using the weapons.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2365076639/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=charlierose

Which is it, Mr. Dictator? Do you have the weapons or don’t you? Did you gas civilians, including women and children, or didn’t you?

Assad dodged Rose’s questions fairly deftly Monday night regarding whether he used the weapons. He was even less convincing about whether his military establishment possesses them.

Take a look here at the interview.

Seems we have a strongman talking out of both sides of his mouth. Big surprise, eh?

Uncategorized

Waiting on Mac Thornberry to weigh in on Syria

Has anyone seen or heard from U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry lately?

I know that’s a rhetorical question. Some folks have seen and/or heard him as he travels through the vast 13th Congressional District of the Texas Panhandle, which he has represented since 1995.

But here’s the deal: The nation is roiling at this moment over whether President Obama should order missile strikes against Syrian military forces in retaliation for their use of chemical weapons, but Mac Thornberry, a senior Republican member of the House Armed Services and Permanent Select Intelligence committees, has been all but silent on the matter.

http://thornberry.house.gov/

I spent some time this morning perusing Thornberry’s website. I looked for press releases, issues statements, “white papers” on national security. Nothing in there about Syria.

I’m waiting for Thornberry to offer some wisdom on this matter, given that so many members of Congress have weighed in already.

I am acutely aware that much of the public commentary on Syria has come from the usual cadre of Democratic and Republican legislative blowhards. Thornberry isn’t one of them. He’s been a quiet and fairly studious member of Congress since winning the House seat in that landmark 1994 election.

However, he’s also had a ringside seat on some difficult national security issues. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Thornberry has been required to study diligently issues relating to the use of our massive military might. What’s more, as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he has had access to some of the most sensitive national security material imaginable. The late U.S. Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Lufkin — who also served on that panel — once told me that committee members saw virtually everything the president saw. I’m quite certain Thornberry has access to a lot of information about Syria and its possession of deadly nerve agents.

The nation has entered the most serious national security debate since President George W. Bush sought authorization to go to war with Iraq, citing dictator Saddam Hussein’s supposed cache of chemical weapons — which we learned later did not exist.

President Obama’s national security team has presented what appears to be compelling proof that Syria has used the gas on civilians and it has more of it stashed away. He wants to hit those stockpiles in a series of air strikes. The military says it’s ready to go.

Mac Thornberry, our elected representative, has had time to digest the information.

I’m waiting to hear whether he supports striking at a seriously evil dictator.

Talk to us, Mac.

Uncategorized

POTUS faces key moment if Congress says ‘no’

Secretary of State John Kerry says President Obama can bomb Syria even if Congress votes against authorizing him to do so.

Not so fast, Mr. President.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/john-kerry-congress-syria_n_3881200.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Kerry makes the point in an interview with the Huffington Post that the president, as commander in chief, retains the authority to authorize military strikes even if he doesn’t have the backing of the legislative branch of government. Yes he does, but …

There is a huge political calculation at home the president must consider, which the Huff Post notes. It is that the Republican-led House of Representatives seems almost certain to push ahead with impeachment proceedings against President Obama. That, in my mind, would be a grotesque overreaction. It is, however, part of today’s political reality in Washington. Those who oppose the president really detest him and his policies.

I happen to believe the United States must strike at Syria to punish the government there for using Sarin gas on civilians. Obama has threatened to strike at Syrian military targets; the military has drawn up plans; Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says the military machine is ready to strike when it gets the order.

The strikes must be surgical, effective and must get the job done in short order. There must be a commitment that U.S. troops won’t storm into Damascus once the bombing stops.

However, the president is having a tough time selling this strike to reluctant lawmakers.

Should he act on his own, without their authorization? No. As the president himself said, in addition to being commander in chief, he also is the leader of the world’s largest representative democracy.

Uncategorized

No regime change? Yeah … right

White House press secretary Jay Carney says “regime change” would not be a goal if the United States were to launch a military strike against Bashar al Assad’s forces in Syria.

But if it happens, do you think the White House high command would mope over the outcome? Not for a minute.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/318989-white-house-were-not-after-regime-change-in-syria

The Obama administration is clearly outraged over Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its people in the bloody civil war that has killed more than 100,000 people. Secretary of State John Kerry calls it a moral outrage. President Obama says use of the weapons crosses a “bright line” that separates diplomacy from military action.

The administration is consulting with congressional leaders now to assure them of its plans. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said today the military is ready to go if and when the order comes from the commander in chief.

Syria needs to be punished badly for this vicious attack on its own citizens, including children. The videos of Syrian children writhing in agony is almost too difficult to watch.

But if a military response is strong enough to bring about Assad’s downfall, then so be it.

Then comes an even more dire concern: Who will replace him?