Thursday, September 5, 2013

Ted Cruz: U.S. not "Al Qaeda’s air force"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

One voice of sanity on Capitol Hill. "Ted Cruz: U.S. not 'Al Qaeda’s air force,’" by Tal Kopan for Politico, September 4:
Sen. Ted Cruz called President Barack Obama’s efforts to authorize military intervention in Syria a public relations move, saying the U.S. military shouldn’t be “Al Qaeda’s air force.” 
The Texas Republican said Tuesday on TheBlaze that while he’s glad the president listened to calls from him and others to bring the issue to Congress, America shouldn’t get involved and risk helping terrorists in the rebel forces.
“We certainly don’t have a dog in the fight,” Cruz said, calling it a civil war in Syria. “We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda’s air force.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told reporters that Cruz sounded “totally uninformed” in his comments and that there is “overwhelming” evidence that the Free Syrian Army is still the dominant opposition force on the battlefield, not terrorists. McCain met with the army’s leader, Gen. Salim Idriss, in June.
“This is based on this assumption that they’re all extremists,” McCain said. “That’s just false, totally false. That’s someone that’s totally uninformed.”
Instead of being focused on securing chemical weapons in Syria, Cruz said, the president is too focused on “international norms” and his own public image.
“It appears what the president is pressing for is essentially protecting his public relations because he drew a red line, and, essentially, the bluff was called,” Cruz said.
Cruz said of nine major groups of rebels fighting in Syria, at least seven had ties to Al Qaeda, and a strategy from Obama that would arm those groups “makes no sense whatsoever.”
“I’ll give you one of the simplest principles of foreign policy that we ought to be following: Don’t give weapons to people who hate you. Don’t give weapons to people who want to kill you,” Cruz said.
 Click below to ee and hear video:

Oh, how I long for the days when liberals wailed that "the rest of the world" hated America, rather than now, when the rest of the world laughs at us.

With the vast majority of Americans opposing a strike against Syria, President Obama has requested that Congress vote on his powers as commander in chief under the Constitution. The president doesn't need congressional approval to shoot a few missiles into Syria, nor -- amazingly -- has he said he'll abide by such a vote, anyway.

Why is Congress even having a vote? This is nothing but a fig leaf to cover Obama's own idiotic "red line" ultimatum to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria on chemical weapons. The Nobel Peace Prize winner needs to get Congress on the record so that whatever happens, the media can blame Republicans.

No Republican who thinks seriously about America's national security interests -- by which I mean to exclude John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- can support Obama's "plan" to shoot blindly into this hornet's nest.

It would be completely different if we knew with absolute certainty that Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on his own people. (I'm still waiting to see if it was a Syrian upset about a YouTube video.)

It would be different if instead of killing a few hundred civilians, Assad had killed 5,000 civilians with poison gas in a single day, as well as tens of thousands more with chemical weapons in the past few decades.

It would be different if Assad were known to torture his own people, administer summary executions, rapes, burnings and electric shocks, often in front of the victim's wife or children.

It would be different if Assad had acted aggressively toward the United States itself, perhaps attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president or giving shelter to terrorists who had struck within the U.S. -- someone like Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist.

It would be different if Assad were stirring up trouble in the entire Middle East by, for example, paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers in other countries.

It would also be different if we could be sure that intervention in Syria would not lead to a multi-nation conflagration.

It would be different if we knew that any action against Syria would not put al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in power, but rather would result in a functioning, peaceful democracy.

And it would be different if an attack on Syria would so terrify other dictators in the region that they would instantly give up their WMDs -- say, Iran abandoning its nuclear program.

If all of that were true, this would be a military intervention worth supporting!

All of that was true about Iraq, but the Democrats hysterically opposed that war. They opposed it even after all this was known to be true -- indeed, especially after it was known to be true! The loudest opponent was Barack Obama.

President Saddam Hussein of Iraq had attempted to assassinate former president George H.W. Bush. He gave shelter to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

Soon after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi was so terrified of an attack on his own country, he voluntarily relinquished his WMDs -- which turned out to be far more extensive than previously imagined.

Al-Qaida not only did not take over Iraq, but got its butt handed to it in Iraq, where the U.S. and its allies killed thousands of al-Qaida fighters, including the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Iraq became the first genuine Arab democracy, holding several elections and presiding over a trial of Saddam Hussein.

Does anyone imagine that any of this would result from an Obama-led operation in Syria? How did his interventions work out in Egypt and Libya?

As for chemical weapons -- the casus belli for the current drums of war -- in a matter of hours on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein slaughtered roughly 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja with mustard, sarin and VX gas. The victims blistered, vomited or laughed hysterically before dropping dead. Thousands more would die later from the after-effects of these poisons.

Saddam launched nearly two dozen more chemical attacks on the Kurds, resulting in at least 50,000 deaths, perhaps three times that many. That's to say nothing of the tens of thousands of Iranians Saddam killed with poison gas. Indeed, in making the case against Assad recently, Secretary of State John Kerry said his use of chemical weapons put him in the same league as "Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein."

Not even close -- but may we ask why Kerry sneered at the war that removed such a monster as Hussein?

There were endless United Nations reports and resolutions both establishing that Saddam had used chemical weapons and calling on him to give them up. (For the eighth billionth time, we did find chemical weapons in Iraq, just no "stockpiles." Those had been moved before the war, according to Saddam's own general, Georges Sada -- to Syria.)

On far less evidence, our current president accuses Assad of using chemical weapons against a fraction of the civilians provably murdered with poison gas by Saddam Hussein. So why did Obama angrily denounce the military operation that removed Hussein? Why did he call that a "war of choice"?

Obama says Assad -- unlike that great statesman Saddam Hussein -- has posed "a challenge to the world." But the world disagrees. Even our usual ally, Britain, disagrees. So Obama demands the United States act alone to stop a dictator, who -- compared to Saddam -- is a piker.

At this point, Assad is at least 49,000 dead bodies short of the good cause the Iraq War was, even if chemical weapons had been the only reason to take out Saddam Hussein.
Night Watch

North Korea: The first meeting of the North-South joint committee for the Kaesong Industrial Zone took place in the zone on Monday, 2 September.

According to a press release, the agreement on the formation and operation of the joint committee established the composition, function and role and the mode and methods of operation of the joint committee and the panel committees. It also decided to hold technical discussions through the operation of the panel committees.

The members agreed to hold the second meeting of the joint committee on 10 September to further discuss the operation of the panel committees and the issue of the operation of the zone.

Comment: Thus far the North has adhered to its undertakings to resume operations at Kaesong. 

However, its rejection of an official US delegation to seek the release of Kenneth Bae, who is in North Korean custody, shows that the North's charm offensive is selective in its application.

The North used the Bae situation as the occasion to register its hostility to US-South Korean military exercises that ended Friday. A foreign ministry statement said the North had approved the US official visit to obtain Bae's release until B-52 bombers joined the exercise. The North called the B-52 flights nuclear blackmail and canceled the visit.

North Korea had not criticized the Allied exercise before that and almost certainly was looking for an excuse to swipe at the US.

Pakistan: Karachi is in a law and order crisis. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Tuesday vowed not to politicize a planned solution to restore peace to Karachi and hoped others would cooperate with the federal government in doing so.

Sharif arrived in Karachi on Tuesday morning. On Wednesday he is scheduled to preside over a special federal cabinet session on the deteriorating law and order situation. The cabinet is expected to decide on a planned targeted operation against criminal gangs and armed militias of political groups, whose turf war has ruined law and order in Karachi.

Comment: Last week politicians debated a proposal to place Karachi under military control for a large scale clean-up operation. The senior police officer for Karachi, however, claimed today that the police have the situation under control, but that is beiong understood as an effort to protect his authority.

Karachi is generally ungovernable. The federal government intervenes when criminal activity and armed political activity, which often are connected, reduce the revenue from trade and port operations. Federal clean-up operations have come and gone without affecting the foundation of graft and violence. They serve to reduce violent crime to a more tolerable level so that economic activity can occur with some predictability.

Putin Says John Kerry 'Is Lying. It's Sad'

Washington and Russia remained publicly at odds over Syria on Wednedsay with President Vladimir Putin accusing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry of lying by playing down the role of al-Qaida with rebel forces.

"He is lying and knows he is lying. It's sad."

Kerry played down concerns that any U.S. military strike over chemical weapons might provoke a clash with Russia.

"Foreign Minister (Sergei) Lavrov has made it clear ... Russia does not intend to fight a war over Syria," Kerry told a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Obama said he would continue to try to persuade Putin of the need for punitive strikes on Assad for using chemical weapons when the two meet in St. Petersburg.

Putin again questioned Western evidence on a chemical weapons attack by Syrian President Bashar Assad, but said in an interview with The Associated Press that he could not absolutely "rule out" Russia supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution to punish Assad - if it could be proved he had used poison gas. 

Briefing members of Congress in Washington, Kerry said those comments were "hopeful" and "there may be a road forward where Russia would consider not blocking action."

A senior Western official said that while Moscow was unlikely to say so in public, there were signs Russian officials believe Assad was responsible for the deaths on Aug. 21 and that it had strained Russian support for him - providing an opening for a new, concerted drive to end the conflict. 

However, Putin's characteristically blunt tone towards the U.S. position appeared to limit prospects for a breakthrough in a stalemate that has prevented international action to rein in a conflict that has killed more than 100,000 Syrians and left millions homeless but which neither side has been able to win.
Wishing all my blog followers of the Jewish faith a very 
Happy New Year.

שנה טובה ... בשנה הבאה בירושלים!

The countdown to war has begun
By: Diane Sori  

With yesterday’s 10 to 7 vote by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Barack HUSSEIN Obama is now one step closer to involving the United States in a sovereign country’s civil war.

And thanks to RINO extraordinaire and now ‘fallen from grace’ war hero Senator John McCain adding a last minute amendment to the resolution that said the aim of the US taking military action against al-Assad was to change the momentum in the war in favor of the rebels…thus the actual goal of regime change could NOT be spelled out any more clearly.

And with Obama using the argument that stopping the use of chemical weapons is in the national interest of this country, and while still ignoring the fact that both Great Britain and The Arab League will NOT support his true intentions of trying to initiate said regime change in Syria…make NO mistake about it…regime change is Obama’s ultimate goal…regime change where his brethren in the Muslim Brotherhood become the titular head of the once mostly secular Syria, and John McCain just helped him do it.

NOT only is Obama bucking the wishes of ‘We the People’ who are tired of sending our brave young men and women in uniform (men and women who come home broken, missing limbs, or worse) into muslim countries that don’t want us there to begin with…muslim countries that stab us in the back every chance they get…even international law says what Obama is preparing to do does NOT meet international guidelines…guidelines which condone the use of pre-emptive force only as a means of self-defense. In fact, the UN charter states nations may defend themselves only once they are attacked…and in NO way has Syria now or ever attacked the United what is Obama defending us from …NOTHING … absolutely NOTHING at all.

And with Obama calculatingly planning to violate international law by 'selectively' targeting and bombing chemical weapons stashes in Damascus (which we all know have been moved to different locals by now because Obama loves giving away our military's plans), Obama has also declared the recent events that unfolded in Syria to be a ‘humanitarian crisis’, and basing that solely upon the photos of 426 ‘dead’ children. Photos of ‘dead’ children…most of which were either staged or were rerun from those taken in Iraq when Saddam gassed the Kurds…ignoring the 100,000+ deaths in the previous two and a half years of the conflict…deaths at the hand of both sides.

100,000 deaths vs. a ‘supposed’ but unconfirmed 426 deaths…you tell me which is the true ‘humanitarian crisis’.

Yet NEVER a word from Obama was said about those deaths…but pulling on the heartstrings of many with photos of ‘supposedly’ al-Assad caused ‘dead’ children was said in a voice loud and clear for all to hear. Only a weasel like Obama would use children … whether dead or alive…to push his personal agenda…his personal agenda once again being regime change.

And at the center of all Obama’s subterfuge and political jockeying…being played for maximum impact…is the ‘supposed’ use of sarin gas that’s been the kindling igniting his sudden desire to send our country to war yet again.

Remember, after World War I the Geneva Conventions outlawed the use of chemical weapons during warfare, saying that irrefutable evidence that a chemical attack occurred must be presented along with a convincing argument that there is NO peaceful means to stop their use in order for the UN Security Council to authorize force against a sovereign nation. And NO definitive irrefutable proof has yet to be presented that al-Assad gassed his own people. In fact, many have claimed that it was the al-Qaeda backed rebels…the Free Syrian Army…that did the gassing.  Yet Obama has taken it upon himself to be al-Assad's judge and jury, and to declare him the one who gassed the children.  And to punish him Obama has decided that military action must be undertaken, and that it's in America’s national interest to do so.

Please pray tell how it’s in our country’s national interest to punish someone thousands of miles and continents away.

And while the War Powers Clause does allow Obama the right to deploy troops when there’s a ‘national emergency’ caused by an attack on this country or on our possessions, if Syria attacked us I must have been asleep, because I missed it.

So as Obama publicly claims that a US attack on Syria is NOT about his credibility or about the ‘red line’ comment he made last year, what is important for everyone to remember is that a military strike by the US against al-Assad will serve only one purpose…that is to strengthen the hand of those trying to turn Syria into an islamic state. And also remember that if al-Assad loses this war, Syria will become the first country ruled by either al-Qaeda or another jihadist group. And if that happens, neighboring Jordan will almost certainly fall to the same jihadists or to the Muslim Brotherhood itself.

And if Jordan falls the surrounding of Israel will be complete…and if Israel is attacked in any way World War III will be at hand.

And maybe just maybe that has been Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s plan all along.