Posts Tagged ‘Bashar al-Assad’

A Trip Down Memory Lane Reveals What A Complete Moral Fool Obama’s Current State Department Stooge John Kerry Truly Is

September 2, 2013

Let’s see what John Kerry called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – stuff like “moral obscenity” and “a thug and a murderer.”

But like all things that emanate out of the demon-possessed soul of the Obama regime, that was then and this is now.  And what was fascist when Bush did it is the only reasonable course now.  And of course we needed UN approval then but we don’t now; and of course we needed congressional approval then but we don’t now; and of course Bush should have been impeached then for what Obama wanted to do now; and so one and so on.

Obama said Syria would be crossing a “red line” if it used chemical weapons.  Syria crossed that “red line” FOURTEEN TIMES and pretty much assured Iran that Obama would do NOTHING as they raced toward having nuclear weapons.  But what’s American credibility worth these days?  Pretty much nothing under the president who pissed away our friends while he emboldened all our enemies.

Democrats shrilly screeched that Bush had somehow undermined America’s prestige.  But consider that Bush had the “prestige” to lead 48 nations to put BOOTS ON THE GROUND against Iraq.  And Obama has so completely forfeited any and all trust from our allies that he can’t even get ONE ally to help us shoot some missiles from a ship far out to sea.

Let’s consider the comparison between John Kerry when he condemned Syria recently along with what that same traitor said when he demonized America back in 1971:

I mean, if you want to know just how incredibly evil and vile John Kerry thinks Syria is now, it’s so evil and vile that it’s ALMOST as evil and vile as Great Satan AMERICA is.  And that’s really, REALLY evil and vile.

But let’s recall that Syria wasn’t always almost as evil as Great Satan America in John Kerry’s diseased soul.  Let’s remember that John Kerry used to think – until very, VERY recently, that Syria was pretty wonderful and that Bashar al-Assad was his “dear friend.”

Let’s take a look at the abject moral idiot that Obama made his Stooge of State:

It wasn’t so long ago that Kerry made repeated pilgrimage to Syria, meeting with Assad five times between 2009 and 2011. Last year, he famously used the adjective “generous” to describe Assad, as the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens recalled in a column this past summer:

On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been “very generous with me.” He added that under Assad “Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States.” This is the man who might be our next secretary of state.

As Michael Rubin recently wrote in Commentary Magazine, Kerry’s staffers described “their collective cringe when, after a motorcycle ride with Bashar al-Assad, he returned to Washington referring to Bashar as ‘my dear friend.’”

Jim Geraghty of the National Review reports that “as recently as February 2010, Kerry was telling Middle Eastern leaders that he believed Israel should return the Golan Heights to Syria.” Imagine the situation Israel would be facing today if it had heeded the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman’s advice. The strategic plateau overlooking all of northern Israel might today be on the verge of falling into the hands of Syrian homegrown terrorists and imported Al-Qaeda members.

Kerry clearly believed Assad was honest and a force for stability. The National Review quoted a WikiLeaks document which revealed Kerry had told the emir of Qatar in November 2010, “Assad is a man who ‘wants to change’ and that Israel should cede the Golan Heights to the Syrians ‘at some point.’”

The National Review detailed more about Kerry’s positive impression of Assad:

After a “long and comprehensive” meeting with Assad in April of that year, Kerry described it as “a very positive discussion.” A month later, Kerry was back in Syria. His spokesman, insisting that “Syria can play a critical role in bringing peace and stability if it makes the strategic decision to do so,” asserted that Kerry had “emerged as one of the primary American interlocutors with the Syrian government.” Despite the senator’s interlocutions, Assad, it appears, has made the wrong “strategic decision.”

Before Kerry took the stage at the Democratic National Convention in September, the Washington Free Beacon in an article titled “An Affair to Remember: John Kerry Hearts Bashar al-Assad” called Kerry the Syrian dictator’s “highest-ranking apologist in American politics”:

Yet for all his admiration—his numerous trips to Damascus, his many public words of praise for Assad, his insistence over many years that the butcher of Damascus is a man of peace who seeks rapprochement with Israel and the United States—Assad has never repaid Kerry’s generosity with reforms.

Kerry thwarted efforts during the Bush administration to diplomatically isolate Syria after the administration’s own efforts to engage the regime ended in failure in 2003. Kerry served as the Obama administration’s envoy to Assad, leading a delegation to Syria just days after Obama’s inauguration. There he listened to Bashar Assad lecture him that Washington must “move away from a policy based on dictating decisions.”

The Beacon pointed out that even the Washington Post referred to Kerry as one of Assad’s “prominent admirers” in the United States. This, despite the fact that Assad has been a key backer of the terrorist group Hezbollah and that his regime possesses one of the world’s largest stocks of chemical weapons, including the nerve agents sarin and VX.

The liberal Washington Post once pointed this factoid out:

Assad’s Western habits and seemingly moderate views had initially inspired optimism among Western acquaintances and Syria watchers about his leadership of the strategically vital country of 20 million. Assad’s pledges to implement political and economic reform once won him prominent admirers in the United States, including Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

John Kerry’s views on Syria’s Assad possessed all the moral “wisdom” of Charles Manson not too long ago:

Kerry thwarted efforts during the Bush administration to diplomatically isolate Syria after the administration’s own efforts to engage the regime ended in failure in 2003. Kerry served as the Obama administration’s envoy to Assad, leading a delegation to Syria just days after Obama’s inauguration. There he listened to Bashar Assad lecture him that Washington must “move away from a policy based on dictating decisions.”

Kerry agreed, condemning the previous U.S. president while on the soil of a dictator who had spent the previous years assisting in the killing of American troops in Iraq. “Unlike the Bush administration that believed you could simply tell people what to do and walk away and wait for them to do it, we believe you have to engage in a discussion,” Kerry said.

A year later Kerry was reiterating his praise for Assad’s tyranny. “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,” Kerry said about the prominent state sponsor of terrorism and host of jihadist groups. “All of us have to work together in order to seize real opportunities.”

And let’s not forget that Obama’s recent pick for Stooge of State once was a clear signal of weakness, WEAKNESS, WEAKNESS:

And in 2011, when Kerry again wanted to go to Syria, his visit was blocked–by the Obama administration. “The Obama administration and France reportedly nixed a visit by U.S. Sen. John Kerry to Syria. Kerry (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has cultivated a relationship with the Syrian regime otherwise treated as a pariah in the West in the hope of drawing it away from Iranian influence. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that Kerry had planned a visit last month, but the governments of the United States and of French President Nicolas Sarkozy blocked the visit out of concern that it would signal ‘Western weakness’ as pro-Iranian and pro-Western forces jockeyed for influence in Syria’s neighbor, Lebanon,” reported the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in March 2011.

Consider that THIS is the man Obama wanted to head the State Department.  EVERYTHING about the Obama presidency heralds “Western weakness.”

Obama has ALWAYS been a weakling and a coward and a lying demagogue without shame, without honor and without any integrity whatsoever.  And so has his Secretary of State.

I mean, yes, of COURSE Bashar Assad is a “moral obscenity” as well as “a thug and a murderer.”  But he’s a “generous” “dear friend” of a moral obscenity whom Kerry “prominently admires” because of all Assad has done to bring about “peace and stability.”  You know, by murdering at least 120,000 of his own people just so far…

Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY who has anything whatsoever to do with Obama is a liar and a fool.

That’s why we get headlines like this one even from the incredibly liberal New York Times:

NYT: “Confusion, Anger and Mockery As Obama Delays Plan

That NYT article points out what an object of mockery America is for being stupid enough and pathetic enough to elect an Obama:

Syria’s government on Sunday mocked Mr. Obama’s decision, saying it was a sign of weakness. A state-run newspaper, Al Thawra, called it “the start of the historic American retreat,” and said Mr. Obama had hesitated because of a “sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies,” along with fears that an intervention could become “an open war.”

Syria’s deputy foreign minister, Faisal Mekdad, told reporters in Damascus that “it is clear there was a sense of hesitation and disappointment in what was said by President Barack Obama yesterday. And it is also clear there was a sense of confusion, as well.”

And of course Obama is now mocked by pretty damn much EVERYBODY over there now:

“Dictatorships like Iran and North Korea are watching closely to see how the free world responds to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people,” the opposition coalition said in a statement issued in Istanbul.

Still, some rebel leaders were angry. A member of Syria’s opposition National Coalition, Samir Nachar, called Mr. Obama a “weak president who cannot make the right decision when it comes to such an urgent crisis.”

“We were expecting things to be quicker,” Mr. Nachar told reporters, “that a strike would be imminent.”

That’s why we’re in the mess we’re in now in this God Damn America.

Advertisements

Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama’s Sixty Days To Get Congress To Approve Of Libya Adventure Now Past

May 23, 2011

Senator Obama, taking a cheap shot at then-President Bush:

Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Do you remember being attacked by Libya?  Did the Libyans invade us?  I mean, maybe I was just asleep when it happened or something.  Otherwise, Barack Obama ought to be impeached, and the single witness against him should be … Barack Obama.  Barack Obama trampled all over the Constitution according to none other than … that’s right, Barack Obama.

George Bush got Congress’ approval before both his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

And not only did Obama’s adventure in Libya NOT have the approval of Congress, but it also has less approval than ANY US military action in the last four decades going back to Vietnam.

And just what in the hell made our Idiot-in-Chief decide to be the first president in the sorry history of Gaddafi’s forty-plus years of abusing his own people to shake hands with the monster?

Do you see what a meandering idiot this guy is?

Do you remember how the left unrelentingly mocked and attacked Bush for “looking into Putin’s eyes” and thinking he saw someone he could work with?  I don’t know about you, but I see an awful lot of eye contact going on between Obama and Gaddafi.  But the mainstream media would never DREAM hold Obama accountable to the same unrelentingly negative standard they attacked George Bush with.

I always laugh how nobody is more blatantly unfair than the same left that constantly self-righteously lectures the right about “fairness.”

And the Obama administration is advancing the same meandering gibberish throughout the rest of the Middle East (and the world) as well, of course.  Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called brutal Syrian thug Bashar al-Assad a “reformer” because these liberals are naive clueless idiots.  John Kerry – who thought he was just so much smarter than George Bush – was unsurprisingly every iota as stupid as Obama and Clinton.  But at least after watching Assad murder at least 850 of his own people, even Kerry could “discover” that Assad was certainly “no reformer.”

So what about the president who said that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack” until he himself unilaterally authorized a military attack without even bothering to talk to Congress about said unilateral military attack?

Well, we find that our Fascist-in-Chief is basically above the law:

Congress Presses Obama On Libya, As 60-Day War Powers Deadline Arrives
by Eyder Peralta

Today marks the 60th day since President Barack Obama formally told Congress about the U.S. intervention in Libya. It matters, because Congress hasn’t authorized the action and the 1973 War Powers Act states that if a president doesn’t attain that authorization 60 days after the start of military action, the president must halt it within 30 days.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told Fox News that the House was working on a resolution for Monday that “would either get Congress to sign off on intervention in Libya or cut off the operation.”

And on Wednesday, Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jim DeMint (S.C.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Tom Coburn (Okla.) and John Cornyn (Texas) sent a letter to Obama asking whether he intended to comply with Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

“As recently as last week your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely,” they wrote in the letter. “Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the
requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response.”

Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that the Obama administration was committed to complying with the War Powers Act, but that it was also looking for ways to lawfully continue the military intervention without asking Congress to authorize it:

One concept being discussed is for the United States to halt the use of its Predator drones in attacking targets in Libya, and restrict them solely to a role gathering surveillance over targets.

Over recent weeks, the Predators have been the only American weapon actually firing on ground targets, although many aircraft are assisting in refueling, intelligence gathering and electronic jamming.

By ending all strike missions for American forces, the argument then could be made that the United States was no longer directly engaged in hostilities in Libya, but only providing support to NATO allies.

Another option, reports the Times, is to order a complete stop to military efforts and restart them shortly, which lawyers say would buy them 60 more days.

In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway, professors of law and political science at Yale, argue that Obama is charting new territory here:

Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors. George W. Bush gained congressional approval for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton acted unilaterally when he committed American forces to NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo, but he persuaded Congress to approve special funding for his initiative within 60 days. And the entire operation ended on its 78th day.

In contrast, Congress has not granted special funds for Libya since the bombing began, and the campaign is likely to continue beyond the 30-day limit set for termination of all operations

Do you see how fundamentally and profoundly fascist our Führer is?  Do you not see how this creep is constantly trying to wiggle out of constitutional responsibilities and wriggle out of his responsibilities to Congress after  he personally, repeatedly and  hypocritically demonized George Bush for doing far, far LESS?

I think of Obama demonizing Bush over the debt ceiling only to now say, “Please say ‘Ja wohl, mein Führer!’  After all, am I not your Messiah?” Because, after all –

Can I get a Ja wohl I mean an Amen, from you liberals???

Libya is a mess.  But don’t expect the mainstream media to put their beloved Führer to the task and hold him accountable to the questions they should have held him accountable to months ago.  Becuse the only thing worse than having a führer for a president is having a führer for a president along with a bunch of little Reich Ministers of Propaganda for “journalists.”

10 Questions Obama Won’t Answer In His Libya Speech

March 28, 2011

1. How is your Libya policy not more “Bush-ish” and hawkish than George W. Bush’s with your unprecedented standard of intervening in the Middle East whenever non-American lives are threatened?  How is this not “humanitarian imperialism” and far worse than anything Bush did given the undefined and open-ended nature of it?

“By almost every metric you can use in terms of being a muscular executive – acting alone without congressional authority, extending the Bush policies overseas, particularly in the War on Terror and Afghanistan and Iraq – he’s been more hawkish than George Bush,” Halperin remarked.

2. Why are we in Libya when even your own Secretary of Defense clearly states that it is not in the United States’ vital national interests to do so?

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”

“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States. but it was an interest.”

3. Why are we in the middle of Libya’s civil war, given that the man leading the rebels actually fought against American troops in Afghanistan and his fighters have al Qaeda links?

… Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but added that the “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”. […]

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against “the foreign invasion” in Afghanistan, before being “captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan”. He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008…

4. Why shouldn’t you be impeached using your own or now Vice President Biden’s standard that you used to demonize George W. Bush when you were both Senators?

Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

Joe Biden: “This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of Constitutional scholars together and write a piece I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate in pointing out the president has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. If he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that – but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that – I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly.”

5. Will we get involved in other wars as dictators dictate?  What about Syria and the Sudan and so many other regions where leaders routinely brutalize their own people?  Will some dictator carefully reading over your speech understand what your policy is?  Will such a dictator realize he’d better not do “x” because he will have to deal with the power of the United States?

6.  How will the mission in Libya not be a complete failure and embarassment to the United States given your announcement that “Gaddafi must go“?  And is it or is it not our policy for Gaddafi to be forced out of power?

7. When exactly – and I mean when exactly – are you planning to leave Libya?

WASHINGTON (AP) – U.S.-led military action in Libya has bolstered rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, but the international operation could continue for months, the Obama administration says.

NATO’s top decision-making body was to meet Sunday to expand its enforcement of the no-fly zone to include air strikes against Libyan ground targets.

The military progress follows deep criticism against Obama from lawmakers upset that the administration hadn’t sought greater congressional input on Libya.

8.  Just when did U.S. intelligence say that Libyan tanks and trucks aquired the capacity of flight, such that they are being annhilated by the dozens in your no-fly zone?  Should the inability of American M1-Abrams tanks to fly not be seen as a crisis given this development?  If our vehicles could fly like Gaddafi’s apparently can, wouldn’t that help us with global warming?  And if Gaddafi’s tanks and trucks AREN’T flying, just how does this not exceed the stated U.N. mandate?

9. Why did your Secretary of State just call a clear dictator in Syria who is gunning down his own people in the streets for protesting a “reformer”?  And just why have you personally refused to give the oppressed protestors and people of Syria so much as a single nod of verbal support?  Why is your administration literally supporting a violent terrorist dictator over the oppressed Syrian people?

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad as a “reformer” this weekend, despite Assad’s atrocious human rights record and the regime’s violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators, which has resulted in over 60 deaths in the past week alone. According to Clinton:

”There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer,” she said.

10. Will you personally apologize to George W. Bush, given that you endlessly demonized him, only to then turn around and go further than he did?  How about your criticism of Bush’s acting unconstitutionally when Bush had far more constitutional support (such as Congress’ authorization) than you did?  how about your criticism of Bush for Gitmo when you haven’t bothered to close it?  Etc.?

[From the Washington Times]: Mr. Obama has less legal and moral justification for his Libyan campaign than Mr. Bush did in Iraq. Mr. Bush received congressional authorization for the use of force; Mr. Obama has not. Mr. Bush forged a broad coalition of nearly three-dozen countries to topple Saddam Hussein; Mr. Obama’s coalition is much narrower, with fewer countries. Mr. Bush’s goal was regime change; Mr. Obama’s is to protect some civilians from Col. Gadhafi’s airplanes but not from his tanks or artillery – which makes no sense.

Here’s another set of questions that Obama undoubtedly will not even bother to try to answer in his speech tonight.

There’s a reason Obama’s Libya war has less American approval than any military act in the last four decades.

I know this is actually an 11th question, but it would also be nice if Obama delivered his speech under a giant blow-up of this photo and explained just WTF made him damn fool enough to be the first U.S. president in history to shake hands with Muammar Gaddafi?!?!?