Consensus, then about-face from Obama on Syria

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama was ready to order a military strike against Syria, with or without Congress' blessing. But on Friday night, he suddenly changed his mind.

The ensuing flurry of activity culminated Saturday afternoon in the White House Rose Garden when Obama stood under a sweltering sun, his vice president at his side, and told the American public the U.S. should launch a military strike to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad for a chemical weapons attack the U.S. says killed more than 1,400 people last week.

But first, he said, he'll ask permission from Congress.

"I'm ready to act in the face of this outrage," Obama said. "Today I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation."

Then Obama and Biden left the White House by motorcade to play a round of golf.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-world/20130831/US--Obama-Syria.Decision/

[Ban Hammer 13,399]

Then Obama and Biden left the White House by motorcade to play a round of golf.

the american taxpayer - and syria - saved by golf.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Probably the smartest decision he made in his entire presidency.

[Pooky 3,807]

Probably the smartest decision he made in his entire presidency.

What, playing golf?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What, playing golf?

Pulling a Cameron. If you don't want to do something, call for a vote.

[Pooky 3,807]

Pulling a Cameron. If you don't want to do something, call for a vote.

The British Prime Minister can't engage in military action without the backing of Parliament. The US President needs Congress to declare war, but can end-around that problem for more "limited" military action.

Seems like Predident Obama wants the cross-party legitimacy for any action that would be afforded by supporting votes in both Conress and the Senate.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama was ready to order a military strike against Syria, with or without Congress' blessing. But on Friday night, he suddenly changed his mind.

The ensuing flurry of activity culminated Saturday afternoon in the White House Rose Garden when Obama stood under a sweltering sun, his vice president at his side, and told the American public the U.S. should launch a military strike to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad for a chemical weapons attack the U.S. says killed more than 1,400 people last week.

But first, he said, he'll ask permission from Congress.

"I'm ready to act in the face of this outrage," Obama said. "Today I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation."

Then Obama and Biden left the White House by motorcade to play a round of golf.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-world/20130831/US--Obama-Syria.Decision/

The whole thing is a class a goat rope. Who gives their enemy 3 weeks to hide. Surprise we will bomb you as an ineffective gesture in three weeks.

Bottom line. Obama gave Syria a line in the sand not to cross. They gave Obama the finger because they know he is weak and has to act to save face. Typical Obama. Pass the ball to congress. If they vote it down. Oh well he tries. If they agree oh well America it's the fault of congress

Obama the balless wonder with no international respect

Edited September 1, 2013 by The conciliator

[Ban Hammer 13,399]

Probably the smartest decision he made in his entire presidency.

[Karee 4,190]

Obama the balless wonder with no international respect

He won a Nobel Peace Prize.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Dozens of members attended the two-hour classified briefing Sunday in the Capitol, though many emerged saying they needed to see more details of Obama's plan and more facts about the alleged chemical weapons attack. Many feared giving Obama overly broad authority for military action.

On selling the strategy to Congress, Rep. Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, the senior Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said, "They have a ways to go."

"They also have work to do with respect to shoring up the facts of what happened," Thompson said.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee plans a meeting Tuesday, according to its chairman, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J. The Senate Armed Service Committee will gather a day later, said Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, the top Republican on the panel.

Kerry confidently predicted that lawmakers would back limited military strikes.

"The stakes are just really too high here," he said.

Kerry was asked repeatedly in the broadcast interviews what Obama would do if Congress didn't give its consent. He said he believed lawmakers would recognize the grave implications for letting a chemical weapons attack go unchecked and what that might mean for U.S. efforts to force North Korea to get rid of its nuclear weapons and prevent Iran from acquiring such capability.

"We are not going to lose this vote," Kerry said. "The credibility of the United States is on the line."

"It can't just be, in my view, pinprick cruise missiles," McCain told CBS' "Face the Nation."

In an interview with an Israeli television network, McCain said Obama has "encouraged our enemies" by effectively punting his decision to Congress. He and fellow Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have threatened to vote against Obama's authorization if it is too limited.

On the other end of the spectrum, an unusual coalition of foreign policy isolationists, fiscal conservatives and anti-interventionists in both parties opposes even limited action for fear that might draw the United States into another costly and even bloody confrontation.

The White House request to Congress late Saturday speaks only of force to "deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade" the Assad regime's ability to use chemical weapons.

"I think it's a mistake to get involved in the Syrian civil war," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

Echoing that sentiment, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., questioned, "Does a U.S. attack make the situation better for the Syrian people or worse?"

Paul expected the Senate to "rubber-stamp" Obama's plan, while he said it was "at least 50/50 whether the House will vote down involvement in the Syrian war." Inhofe predicted defeat for the president.

Despite the intense gridlock in Congress over debt reduction, health care, immigration and other issues, some lawmakers were more optimistic about the chances of consensus when it came to a question of national security.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who criticized Obama for not proceeding immediately against Assad, said he'd vote "yes" and believed the president should be able to build a House majority over the next several days.

"At the end of the day, Congress will rise to the occasion," added Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. "This isn't about Barack Obama versus the Congress. This isn't about Republicans versus Democrats. This has a very important worldwide reach."

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said Congress and the American people would support action once Obama finishes making his case. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said if Obama doesn't do that, he won't get his authorization.

"He's got to come out and really be in-depth with respect to the intelligence that we know is out there," said Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "He's got to be in-depth with respect to what type of military action is going to be taken and what is our current strategy."

At the Capitol, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Obama's proposed resolution needed tightening. "I don't think Congress is going to accept it as it is," he said.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-world/20130901/US-United-States-Syria/

It appears Kerry is nothing but delusional.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It also appears McCain is completely insane.

[Darnell 8,478]

Wait - wait - wait. If there was all the rejoicing in the Islamic World, when The Kenyan became POTUS, why in the world aren't they simply doing his bidding? If they were all so slap-happy about the man coming into power, surely 'just a phone call' to cease and desist would be all that's required.

#######? Seriously.

[sure, my premise might be considered satire by some... but only some...]

It also appears McCain is completely insane.

Thanks for noticing.

IMO (and others) he's been in a spiraling downward slope since about September 2012. I used to like the fella, but he's been loopy since Sept 2012.

I don't follow loopy fellas. You shouldn't, either.

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Wait - wait - wait. If there was all the rejoicing in the Islamic World, when The Kenyan became POTUS, why in the world aren't they simply doing his bidding? If they were all so slap-happy about the man coming into power, surely 'just a phone call' to cease and desist would be all that's required.

#######? Seriously.

[sure, my premise might be considered satire by some... but only some...]

Thanks for noticing.

IMO (and others) he's been in a spiraling downward slope since about September 2012. I used to like the fella, but he's been loopy since Sept 2012.

I don't follow loopy fellas. You shouldn't, either.

It's just common sense isn't it.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Crashed~N2~Me

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

It appears Kerry is nothing but delusional.

Kerry suffers delusions from having his wazoo tapped by too many Sheiks. The man's ####### smacks when he walks & his azz is covered in various Sheiks name tattoos.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Crashed~N2~Me

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Dubious Intelligence and Iran Blackmail: How Israel is driving the US to war in Syria

President Barack Obama’s August 31 announcement that he would seek congressional authorization to strike Syria has complicated an aggressive Israeli campaign to render a US attack inevitable. While the Israelis are far from the only force in bringing the US to the brink of war – obviously Assad’s own actions are the driving factor – their dubious intelligence assessments have proven pivotal.

On April 25, the head of the Israeli army’s Military Intelligence research and analysis division, Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, delivered a high profile lecture at the military-linked Institute for National Security Studies. “To the best of our professional understanding, the [syrian] regime has used lethal chemical weapons,” Brun declared, referring to March 19 attacks near Damascus and Aleppo.

“The very fact that they have used chemical weapons without any appropriate reaction,” Brun said, “is a very worrying development, because it might signal that this is legitimate.”

The stunning statement by the Israeli army’s top intelligence analyst was significantly stronger than suspicions expressed days before by the UK and France about the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons. It was clearly aimed at Obama, who had declared in the summer of 2012 that chemical weapons attacks on civilian targets would transgress a “red line” and trigger US military action. But the White House pushed back against the Israeli ploy, dispatching Secretary of State John Kerry to demand Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supply more conclusive evidence.

“I don’t know yet what the facts are,” Kerry said after a phone call with Netanyahu, “I don’t think anybody knows what they are.”

Specious intelligence brightens the red line

Flash forward to the August 21 Ghouta massacre, where over 1000 Syrian civilians died without any sign of external wounds in a series of attacks. As in April, Israel has come forward with intelligence supposedly proving that the victims of the attacks died from nerve gas deployed by units from Assad’s Syrian Arab Army (SAA).

On August 24, Israel’s Channel 2 broadcast a report claiming that the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of Assad’s SAA fired the nerve gas shells on Ghouta. Channel 2 added that Israel was relaying its concerns to Washington, suggesting an urgent demand for US action. The report was echoed by an August 30 article in Germany’s Focus magazine claiming that Israeli army’s Unit 8200 — a cyber-warfare division that functions much like the American NSA — had intercepted communications of top Syrian officials ordering the chemical attack.

Oddly, neither outlet was able to reproduce audio or any quotes of the conversation between the Syrian officials. Channel 2 did not appear to cite any source at all – it referred only to “the assessment in Israel” – while Focus relied on an unnamed former Mossad official for its supposed bombshell. The definitive nature of the Israeli intelligence on Ghouta stood in stark contrast to the kind introduced by other US allies, which was entirely circumstantial in nature. At the same time, it relied on murky sources and consisted of vague assertions.

The Assad regime may indeed by responsible for the Ghouta massacre, but Israel’s military-intelligence apparatus does not exactly have a reputation for trustworthiness. (Consider, for example, the Israeli army’s shameless attempt to link the Gaza Freedom Flotilla to Al Qaeda by plastering Israeli media with crude and easily discredited propaganda, always sourced to anonymous national security officials.) Yet in his determined to see the US attack the country he recently referred to as “Iran’s testing ground,” Netanyahu appeared to be succeeding in his campaign to bring Obama’s red line back into focus.

The rush to war, interrupted

On August 26, an Israeli delegation containing Netanyahu’s National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror and a collection of Shin Bet and top army officials arrived in Washington for a series of meetings coordinated by US National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The agenda was to plan for the aftermath of a US strike on Syria that was already inevitable, at least from the perspective of the meeting’s participants.

The following day, Vice President Joseph Biden became the highest level US official to blame Assad for Ghouta, declaring, “There is no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: The Syrian regime.” The Obama administration supported Biden’s claim by citing classified communications intercepted from Syrian officials – intelligence that appeared to have been supplied by the Israelis.

Giora Inbar, a former Israeli intelligence officer, told Channel 2 that the US was not only “aware of” Israel’s intelligence gathering efforts in Syria, it “relies upon it.”

With Kerry and Rice joining Biden in the spotlight to make the case for bombing Syria, the White House released an intelligence report “assess[ing] with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21.”

The content of the report was extremely general in nature, containing a caveat that some intelligence had been omitted “to protect sources and methods.” One of the report’s strongest passages referred to “intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence.” Though no source was named, the language tracks almost exactly with the Israeli intelligence leaked to Channel 2 and Focus magazine.

It was August 30 when the report appeared. By this point, the question was not whether the US would bomb Syria, but how soon.

And then Obama blinked.

Iran blackmail, the coming campaign

Now that Obama has turned to Congress to authorize force against Syria, he is under relentless attack in Israel, with a chorus of pundits and politicians hammering him for his act of betrayal and cowardice in the face of evil. Amidst the din of condemnation, a talking point has emerged that will likely figure at the heart of Israel’s case to Congress and the American public this week.

The message was neatly summarized in the headline of a piece by the Likud-friendly correspondent Herb Keinon in the Jerusalem Post: “Weak world response on Syria boosts chance of strong Israeli action on Iran.” Referring to Obama’s decision and the British’ parliament’s vote against participating in a strike on Syria, Keinon wrote, “That kind of international dallying is not the type of behavior that will instill confidence in Israeli leaders that they can count on the world when it comes to Iran.”

At Haaretz, Amos Harel reinforced the talking point in a piece of analysis that claimed “Arabs perceive Obama as weak” – but which cited absolutely zero Arabs. Running through a litany of examples of supposed American weakness, Harel concluded, “it’s no wonder that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly persuaded that no one will come to his aid if Iran suddenly announces that it is beginning to enrich uranium to 90 percent.”

The threat of a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran if the US does not act on Syria is slowly seeping into American media, and will almost certainly grow more pronounced this week as pro-Israel pundits and members of the Obama administration unite on their message. AIPAC may also join the push for congressional authorization, a move the night flower-style lobby managed to avoid during the run-up to invading Iraq. If the Israel lobby is forced into the open, it could hold the prospect of an attack on Iran like a gun to the heads of members of Congress, warning them that the price of inaction is a regional conflagration.

Though Congress will be under unrelenting pressure from powerful forces to authorize force, the vote provides an unprecedented opportunity for opponents of US military intervention in the Middle East to mobilize. Anti-war forces may not be able to match the financial muscle or public relations power of pro-war elements, but they have opinion firmly on their side.

And a direct conflict with the American public may be the one fight Netanyahu does not want to pick.

http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/dubious-intelligence-and-iran-blackmail-how-israel-is-driving-the-us-to-war-in-syria.html