Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Obama’s credibility is at stake? What credibility?

By DOUG THOMPSON - A Capitol Hill Blue commentary
September 1, 2013

A chastened President Barack Obama leaves a White House press conference with Vice president Joe Biden after saying he will wait for Congressional approval before attacking Syria (AP/Evan Vucci)

A chastened President Barack Obama leaves a White House press conference with Vice president Joe Biden after saying he will wait for Congressional approval before attacking Syria
(AP/Evan Vucci)

The conclusions this morning in an analysis piece written by Julie Pace of the Associated Press suggests President Barack Obama faces a credibility problem because he backed off his plans to immediately launch a strike against Syria and, instead, will actually ask Congress for permission to do something that goes against what used to be a standard policy for this nation — one that said we don’t attack a nation unless it attacks us first.

Syria is many things — a nation run by a despot, a country where freedom doesn’t exist and a nation that has on more than one occasion harbored our enemies — but the reason Obama wanted to use to launch a missile strike was retaliation for the nation using chemical weapons to gas its own people.

No American was harmed in the gassing of Syrians.   No American installation, ship or plane was assaulted.  While the wholesale slaughter of civilians within a nation’s on borders is despicable it is — and should remain — the business of that nation and not something that warrants military action by the United States — or any other country for that matter

That fact that Obama even is even seriously considering such an attack is reason enough to doubt his credibility.  His term in office is filled with many other flagrant examples to doubt his credibility — like his anti-Constitutional assault on rights through not only continuation of the invasion of American freedoms through use of the USA Patriot Act but his expansion of those abuses.

Those who pay attention to acts and consequences also note that whenever America decides to take some unilateral — and usually unwarranted action — against a country in the Middle East, it results in serious problems down the road.  The bombing of Pan Am flight 103 and even the 9/11 terrorist attacks against America can all be traced back to the unwarranted use of American military power against a nation like Syria.

The problem, of course, is that America seldom learns from past mistakes.  We made the same mistakes in Vietnam that cost the lives of American military personnel in Afghanistan.  It is a pattern that this nation, unfortunately, makes over and over.

We here at Capitol Hill Blue feel that Obama’s credibility isn’t at stake in the Syria decision because, in our opinion, he lacks credibility in the first place.   If he attacks Syria, it brings serious questions more on the credibility of America — a nation that repeatedly commits hypocritical acts through its too often dangerous actions.

The English parliament rejected its own prime minister this week by turning down any involvement by that nation in an attack on Syria.

Congress should do the same thing with Obama’s incredibly outrageous plan.

Such action by a body that is supposed to be occupied by elected representatives of the people won’t restore the damaged credibility of America — but it will at least be a step in the right direction.

___

Copyright  © 2013 Capitol Hill Blue

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

16 Responses to Obama’s credibility is at stake? What credibility?

  1. Jim Grandone

    September 1, 2013 at 9:24 am

    If we have an opportunity to prevent another Himmler from emerging in the Middle East and do not take it, in retrospect, history would condemn us for lacking resolve against murderers. If we could have prevented WWII, would we have?
    THe entire world condemns the use of chemical weapons in war. Is it not just as horrific to use it on one’s own people? Is this not the business of the international community and the United States as its superpower leader? What example does inaction provide to Iran and North Korea? “Go ahead and slaughter your people. That’s your business, not ours. We won’t do anything.” What was the point of intervening in the Balkans if not genocide?
    I know we are war weary as a nation. I opposed Iraq and Afghanistan because it did not make sense. I opposed Vietnam because it made no sense. This makes sense.
    It would be nice if the world would join us but I doubt they will. After our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, who would?
    I know the risks of deeper involvement and unintended consequences. But the lack of any punitive action on anyone’s part is wrong in the face of mass murder of children.
    If not us, who? If not now, when?

    • Bill Cravener

      September 1, 2013 at 11:29 am

      Well stated Jim and I’m in agreement with what you had to say. I’d point out though that if those babies, those women and men were Christians or Jews (who were gassed) rather then of the Muslim faith, we’d be over there quicker then one could spit!

  2. glennk

    September 1, 2013 at 1:09 pm

    If the Int’l community wants to act on this that’s one thing. If however, we are being asked to go in there on our own. Fougetaboutit! Its a Civil War which is the Int’l version of a domestic between a husband and a wife. Anyone with a brain knows you don’t get involved in such fights. STAY OUT!

  3. Wayne K Dolik

    September 1, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    The American People are entitled to know just a few lingering questions about the gasing report in Syria.
    1. Who did it?
    2. Who provided it.
    Just telling the American public that “somebody” used it is no longer acceptable as a reason to go to war.

  4. Pondering_It_All

    September 1, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    Kerry has already claimed we have intel that shows exactly where and when the nerve-gas rockets were fired. That was an area fully-controlled by Syrian Army troops. He also said we know exactly where they landed, and that was an area held by rebels.

    Unless this was some elaborate false-flag operation in enemy held territory, it is pretty clear who the war criminals are in this case.

    • David

      September 2, 2013 at 11:35 am

      Very clear indeed, considering Syrian rebels have admitted that it was they who used the weapons which they got from Saudi Arabia. They say they didn’t know what the weapons were and that resulted in disaster.

  5. frank verismo

    September 1, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    If I were Assad and was trying to dream up the stupidest thing I could possibly do, I’m pretty certain just about the dumbest would be to use chemical weapons on my own people. Unless, that is, I actually wanted the bombs of the West to rain down upon my head.
    If, however, I was involved in, say, Saudi intelligence and wished to demonize my enemy and provoke an airstrike or two such a story would be near-priceless.
    When asking who actually benefits from this scenario we need to take into account that there are no real ‘good guys’ in this story. But there are still lies and truth. Experience tells us that the liars are generally those who wish to rush us into action and that truth is sought by those with calmer heads . . . .

  6. Carl Nemo **==

    September 1, 2013 at 9:14 pm

    Well stated Mr. Thompson and I totally concur.

    This ill thought mission to ‘spank’ Assad’s regime is going to blow up in our collective faces.

    Seemingly the White House as well as the NSC (National Security Council) have the hubris to think they can stir up a nest of Islamic ‘killer bees’ and escape unharmed.

    Granted we have the “shock and awe” initial delivery tech, but we are sorely challenged when it comes to boots on the ground securing the same as proven in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    It’s a shame with $17 plus trillion dollars in public debt hanging over our heads with the military already somewhat suffering from the sequestration program that our leadership has the bucks to waste multi-million dollar cruise missiles on a nation that will still be fighting both within and withoutside their borders long after the U.S. has become a footnote of history.

    These are very old, contentious regions of the world with a multiplicity of hatreds from tribal to national levels. There is to be no solution or resolution from our interference in their civil war much less their politics.

    It’s time to stack arms and give up that which is seemingly a lost cause.

    As you so succinctly state, we seemingly never learn from our mistakes as a nation from Nam through our current failing mission in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Carl Nemo **==

  7. beachshoe

    September 2, 2013 at 9:13 am

    The US should stay out of this Mid East problem and let the Mid East handle it. Does the region have the backbone to stand up to the problem? That remains to be seen. I suspect that at least one country already has plans on the table to deal with it. Let us wait and see, gentlemen, let us wait and see. Why should American blood be spilled again for another unappreciative Middle Eastern country of tribes that refuse to get along?

  8. David Howard

    September 2, 2013 at 10:02 am

    Google “NSA Department Z”

  9. David Howard

    September 2, 2013 at 12:21 pm

  10. Keith

    September 3, 2013 at 8:53 am

    Just telling the American public that “somebody” used it is no longer acceptable as a reason to go to war.

    It never was….

    That was, of course, until just after the Cold War when the United States found itself with 15% of its Gross Domestic Product dedicated to war-making…and no “enemy”.

    So, when you don’t have a REAL enemy to bomb, what do you do?

    You invent one.

    Clearly, that’s what happened in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq…and is now happening with Iran and Syria.

    The truth that nobody in the US Government wants to seriously discuss is that NONE of these places in the Middle East posed (or pose) a strategic threat to the United States. Yet our government CONTINUES to beat the drum that a bunch of Bedouins with AK-47s pose EXACTLY the same strategic military threat as the former Soviet Union once did.

    As others here have (correctly) opined, this conflict (like most others in the Middle East) is tribal.

    But then there’s also the issue that, back after World War II, a brand new country (Israel) was carved out of (and then forced upon) the inhabitants of land that belonged to another nation (Palestine)….largely at the behest of the United States.

    And then we have the nerve to wonder why these same people continue to hate us so much.

    I also often wonder what else we could do with the TRILLIONS of dollars now wasted annually on high-tech weaponry (not to mention keeping 800+ thousand hod-carriers in the NSA and CIA (et al) busy noting in meticulous detail when one of these Bedouins heads to the loo).

    Our nation has now become a “police state” where ordinary citizens are assumed to pose a “terrorist” threat for no other reason than how they look. Our phone conversations are routinely tapped and we have to put bars on our windows and doors (and keep all manner of automatic weaponry “at the ready”) just to protect our homes and property.

    We also have a crumbling infrastructure and 10+ million illiterates who can’t even sign their name or write a bank check.

    Yet we CONTINUE to throw TRILLIONS of dollars down a rat-hole every year playing “policeman” to the world….bombing everything and everyone in sight (all in the name of “peace” or “protecting civilians”) who MIGHT pose even the slightest threat to some piece of (largely uninhabited) desert somewhere.

    Any way you cut it, that’s nuts.

    • Carl Nemo **==

      September 3, 2013 at 11:13 pm

      Well said Keith. As usual you’ve hit the ol’ nail on the head concerning our national predicament;I.E., being held captive to the MIC’s Congressionally enfranchised business interests rather than genuine and reasonable measures for a national defense as opposed to our current offensive practices for waging war anywhere everywhere planet earth.

      Seemingly this deadly nonsense won’t stop until the U.S. is forced to declare national bankruptpcy; I.E., sovereign default on its financial obligations.

      Carl Nemo **==

  11. David

    September 3, 2013 at 11:44 am

    I just learned the chemical weapon used is actually sodium fluoride, which is the exact same chemical many US municipalities put in the water supply.

    • Carl Nemo **==

      September 4, 2013 at 12:17 pm

      Hi David…

      I thought some additional commentary to support your post might be interesting to readers.

      Fluorine also known as the ‘wildcat’ element is highly reactive and is quite dangerous to work with when combined with other elements to create complex molecules.

      It’s utlized in rat poisons, herbicides and other pesticides as well as an alleged beneficial additive for the hardening of tooth enamel.

      What’s really frightening is its use in a goodly portion of antidepressants currently prescribed worldwide. A host of suicides are linked to the over prescription of antideressants. By last count 80 million Americans are on such drugs. German chemists discovered back in the 30’s that small amounts of fluorine based compounds had a dociling effect on humans. It makes one wonder as to why fluoridation of our drinking water supplies is pushed so intensely.

      So too it’s used in the nuclear fuel production process as uranium hexafluoride for producing fissile material.

      Fluorine as utilized in complex compounds cannot safely be used in humans or mammals regardless of ‘feelgood’ claims by the ADA (American Dental Association) et al. It’s extremly toxic and in extremely small doses over time could reach ‘critical mass’ within biological structures.

      Interestingly fluorine is the last element listed in the lengthy molecular description of the nerve gas “sarin”, seemingly the ultimate antidepressant; I.E., death! …/ : |

      Here’s a link that lays out confirmation concerning your post.

      http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/20177

      Carl Nemo **==

  12. Senegoid

    September 4, 2013 at 8:11 am

    “Who did it?”

    A bloody good question that has yet to be answered?

    al-Qa’ida and associated factions must be laughing their tits off in the knowledge that BO is coming to their rescue.

    Who did it?

    Who had the most to gain?

    Who did it?

    Who cares, let’s take a bad situation and turn it into a total disaster.