What does Joe Biden say?

Here is the photo:

Joe Biden At WindowWhat are Joe Biden’s comments, as you can make them?

This a meme throughout the internet.  Your chance to create some words here.

My submission:

“Glass.  How do it know to keep us cool in the summer and warm in the winter?”

Please leave a comment and make Joe Biden speak for you.

BZ

 

Assad tells Obama to stop arming rebels, or no deal

Cartoonist Gary Varvel: Obama, Putin and the Nobel Peace PrizeFirst, Vladimir Putin is dictating American foreign policy to Mr Obama, after having publicly pantsed, spanked and ______ Mr Obama in the global press.  This what should happen:

Now, Syrian President Assad is dictating terms to Mr Obama.  From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

By JOEL GEHRKE | SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 AT 5:24 PM

President Obama must promise not to arm rebel forces or Syrian dictator Bashar Assad will not hand over his chemical weapons, the embattled leader told a Russian state media outlet today while demanding that Israel also surrender its nuclear arsenal.

“When we see that the U.S. genuinely stands for stability in our region, stops threatening us with military intervention and stops supplying terrorists with weapons, then we will consider it possible to finalize all necessary procedures and they will become legitimate and acceptable for Syria,” Assad told RIA News.

Is there no end to the incompetence and shameful behavior?

BZ

 

Obama’s horribly-convincing speech:

Obama, The Only Allies You Can FindAssad has 1,000 tons of incapacitating nerve agents.

Anyone want to handle those sites?

Mr Obama’s transcript:

My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria, why it matters and where we go from here. Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over a hundred thousand people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition and to shape a political settlement.

But I have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening, men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath, a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off limits, a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war.

This was not always the case. In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 government that represent 98 percent of humanity.

On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity.

No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cellphone pictures and social media accounts from the attack. And humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.

Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area they where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.

Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack. And the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.

When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other day until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied.

The question now is what the United States of America and the international community is prepared to do about it, because what happened to those people, to those children, is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security.

Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.

As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield, and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and to use them to attack civilians.

If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path.

This is not a world we should accept. This is what’s at stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. That’s my judgment as commander in chief.

But I’m also the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possessed the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of Congress, and I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.

This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.

Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular. After all, I’ve spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them. Our troops are out of Iraq, our troops are coming home from Afghanistan, and I know Americans want all of us in Washington, especially me, to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home, putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class. It’s no wonder, then, that you’re asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I’ve heard from members of Congress and that I’ve read in letters that you’ve sent to me.

First, many of you have asked: Won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are still recovering from our involvement in Iraq. A veteran put it more bluntly: This nation is sick and tired of war.

My answer is simple. I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad’s capabilities.

Others have asked whether it’s worth acting if we don’t take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there’s no point in simply doing a pinprick strike in Syria.

Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.

Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force. We learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make Assad or any other dictator think twice before using chemical weapons.

Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other — any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally Israel can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakable support of the United States of America.

Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that’s so complicated and where, as one person wrote to me, those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights? It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But al-Qaida will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people and the Syrian opposition we work with just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.

Finally, many of you have asked, why not leave this to other countries or seek solutions short of force?

And several people wrote to me, we should not be the world’s policeman. I agree. And I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warnings and negotiations. But chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.

However, over the last few days we’ve seen some encouraging signs in part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons and even said they’d join the chemical weapons convention, which prohibits their use.

It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments, but this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.

I have therefore asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin.

I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies — France and the United Kingdom — and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control.

We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st, and we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas, from Asia to the Middle East, who agree on the need for action.

Meanwhile, I’ve ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight I give thanks, again, to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.

My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world’s a better place because we have borne them.

And so to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with the failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.

To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor, for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.
 Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress and those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos of the attack, and then ask, what kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way?

Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideas and principles that we have cherished are challenged.”

Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.

America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong, but when with modest effort and risk we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act.

That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Thank you, sir.  For being an incompetent empty suit and endangering our nation.

Literally incoherent.

BZ

 

 

Conundrum for Mr Obama

Obama, The Only Allies You Can FindPoor Mr Obama.

Perhaps a bit more truth is called for:

So with all this hate-mongering and stupidity proffered by Mr Obama — wait for it — wasn’t Mr Obama awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work at nothing, less than one year into his first term?  Let’s be refreshed below:

Obama-Nobel-Peace-Prize

Why yes.  The peaceful, prize-winning Mr Barack Hussein Obama.

BZ

 

 

Senate-crafted Syria resolution riddled with loopholes for Obama

Obama, Syria, GunsSo there you go.  The Warhawks line up to submit to Mr Obama’s incompetence.

From the WashingtonTimes.com:

Senators on Wednesday tried to write a tight resolution authorizing President Obama to strike Syria under very specific circumstances, but analysts and lawmakers said the language still has plenty of holes the White House could use to expand military action well beyond what Congress appears to intend.

Further, from TheDailyBeast.com:

Senate Breaks Own Rules in Rush to Vote on Syria War

Senate Democratic leadership tossed aside the rules for moving legislation with regard to the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Syria, angering some Republicans and creating confusion on Capitol Hill in the run-up to the war vote.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee narrowly approved a modified war resolution Wednesday afternoon by vote of 10–7 with one member, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), voting present. The committee’s action allows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to bring the measure to the floor as early as Monday, following a break for the Jewish holidays. That would allow a vote by the full Senate as soon as Wednesday, giving the Senate a chance to pass a war resolution before the House has a chance to craft and pass a resolution of its own.

Republican Speaker John Boehner also supports Obama.  Obama, “shaken,” let a bit of sphincter dribble course down his leg at the news.  Having flipped, John McCain now does not support Mr Obama.

What?

Mr Obama says: “my credibility is not on the line.”

Really?

The absolute and unbridled arrogance of Mr Obama is simply off the charts.

From RealClearPolitics.com:

STEVE HOLLAND, REUTERS: Have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved? Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines? And were you able to enlist the support of the prime minister here for support in Syria?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That’s point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

Obama Red LineMr Obama disavows: “I didn’t set a red line.  The world set a red line.  Congress set a red line.”  And more pointedly: “my credibility is not on the line.  The international community’s credibility is on the line.”

Meaning: it wasn’t me, I wasn’t there, I was asleep in my bunk at the time, I am not responsible, I am not accountable, I am above that, and you can’t hold me to my quotes.

Staggering arrogance and incompetence.

But let’s go back to the “start” for a moment; just who is responsible for the gas attacks and what do we know for certain because, I would hope, we predicate our response on some assured modicum of certainty.  Or at least we should.

With that in mind, what do you make of this from Global Research in Canada:

And from RT.com:

A statement released by the (Russian) ministry on Wednesday particularly drew attention to the “massive stove-piping of various information aimed at placing the responsibility for the alleged  chemical weapons use in Syria on Damascus, even though the  results of the UN investigation have not yet been  revealed.” 

That is the part catching my attention: the UN report results have not yet been revealed.

Further:

The key points of the report have been given as follows: 

• the shell used in the incident “does not belong to the standard ammunition of the Syrian army and was crudely according to type and parameters of the rocket-propelled unguided missiles manufactured in the north of Syria by the so-called Bashair al-Nasr brigade”;

• RDX, which is also known as hexogen or cyclonite, was used as the bursting charge for the shell, and it is “not used in standard chemical munitions”;

• soil and shell samples contain “the non-industrially synthesized nerve agent sarin and  diisopropylfluorophosphate,” which was “used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.”  

Submission: I hear and read much more specificity on the Russian side than I do on the US side.  Check this also.

Putin called Secretary Of State John Kerry a “liar.”  Frankly, I concur.

MOSCOW –  Russian President Vladimir Putin has called U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry a liar for denying that al-Qaida was fighting with the Syrian opposition in that country’s civil war.

John Friggin’ Kerry first vehemently denied there would be “boots on the ground” in Syria (with apologies to James Lileks):

“Mr. Chairman, it would be preferable not to, not because there is any intention or any plan or any desire whatsoever to have boots on the ground,” Kerry replied. “And I think the president will give you every assurance in the world, as am I, as has the secretary of defense and the chairman.”

Yep.  No boots on the ground.  John Friggin’ Kerry then doubles down:

“I’m absolutely confident, Mr. Chairman, that it is easy — not that complicated — to work out language that will satisfy the Congress and the American people that there’s no door open here through which someone can march in ways that the Congress doesn’t want it to, while still protecting the national-security interests of the country,” Kerry unspooled his answer. “I’m confident that can be worked out. The bottom line is, the president has no intention and will not, and we do not want to, put American troops on the ground to fight this — or be involved in the fighting of this civil war, period.”

Period.

Until SOS John Friggin’ Kerry vaccilated:

Secretary of State John Kerry opened the door Tuesday to sending American troops into Syria if Bashar Assad’s regime collapses and al-Qaida-linked extremist groups stand to get their hands on his chemical weapons.

No boots until there are.

No damage until there is.

No propagandist advantage to Syria until there is.

No US soldier deaths wasted and pissed away until there are.

Hugh Hewitt, whom I customarily set as a compass to the stars, has set his astrolabe or sextant — in my opinion — to the incorrect position regarding Syria.  This is the first time I have heard or understood his emotions to over-ride his sense of rationality, proportion, common sense or logic in favor of acts that he clearly labels as predicated but upon Obama’s clusterfuckery.

He’s thinking with his heart on his sleeve, and not with history or reality in mind.  He’s thinking about “what if” and not “what is.”

Some base points and questions:

- These gas attacks killed, as far as we know, 355 to perhaps 500 people;
- Obama has said he does not favor “regime change” via President Assad;
- Obama favors a “limited military action”;
- A minimum of 9 countries have expressed “support” for a US incursion into Syria but have not committed actual resources or soldiers;
- That clear and honest support does not yet include the United States of America;
- Assad indicates rebel troops utilized gas weapons; there is no clear evidence yet revealed without fault that Assad clearly and incontrovertibly used gas against Syrian civilians — and, to what point?  What end?
- Obama painted himself into this corner and cannot wait to slough responsibility onto other persons, agencies, entities or political groups;
- Obama, vacillating, wants as many fingerprints on the Syrian knife as possible;
- Obama, having no credibility, must now trade “blood for ego”;
- Now, three weeks after the fact, much of any response is now ineffective, meaningless, laggardly and impoverished;
- Iran is still the issue; Syria is but a brief sideshow;
- No one seems to consider being drawn into another endless foreign civil war;
- Throwing some missiles is a haphazard and standoffish manner of accomplishing nothing of substance in Syria;
- It’s not about Syria; it’s about Assad.  And the US has vetoed regime change;
- Then: remove Assad?  What gets sucked into that vacuum?
- Jihadi extremists and barbaric Bedouin nomadic tribal elements replace that air with an equally-violent replacement sect;
- As America, the axiom goes: “if we break a country, we feel obligated to re-assemble it once more, and then some.”
- First, if we were serious, we dithered too damned long;
- But: what is the long-term strategy?
- Are we committed to removing Assad?
- Are we willing to commit to the breakage of shit and the outright killing of those we deem “bad”?

Just a few questions.

Questions posed here, but no evidentiary questions posed by the AMM.

In the ME Muslim world, there are shadows within shadows, plans and plots within plans and plots, Bedouin and nomadic and tribal instincts set against brothers and cousins and sisters and blood relatives and clans and tribes and — all — set against whatever or whomever is perceived as infidel.

Answers or solutions, anyone?

There is only one reason I can submit for an excursion into Syria: practice.

BZ