Obambi goes to war

By Ann Coulter 

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.

September 5, 2013 | 73 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 73 Comments

  1. honeybee Said:

    Hearts and Minds or Hearts and livers?

    A bit of trivia:

    The significance of the “heart” in the Scriptural context

    In ancient Hebrew culture—and, hence, in the Scriptures—the heart was not seen as the seat of the emotions… it was seen as the seat of wisdom and the intellect. There are many verses that demonstrate this; here are just a few—

    “…speak to every wise-hearted man…” (Sh’mot 28:3)
    “…Adonai never gave you a heart to know, eyes to see or ears to hear until today…” (D’varim 29:3)
    “…please grant to Your servant an understanding heart so I can judge Your people and distinguish right from wrong…” (M’lachim Alef 3:9)
    By contrast, in ancient Hebrew culture—and, hence, in the Scriptures—the seat of the emotions was considered to be the liver. This is evidenced by the prophet Yirmyahu’s tragic poems lamenting the calamitous events that occurred when the Babylonian armies over-ran Y’rushalayim in 587/586BCE—

    “…my eyes are blocked with tears and my stomach churns—my liver is poured out onto the ground—because of the rape of my people’s daughter; because children and suckling-babes are dying of hunger in the city’s streets…” (Eichah 2:11)
    So christians who claim Scripture has to be read “with the heart” are completely missing the point: in the Scriptures, the expression “the heart” doesn’t mean “the emotions”, rather it means using your brain—your intellect—in other words, thinking and reasoning rationally and logically. What they need to do is what God commanded Israelto do in D’varim 10:16—”circumcise” their “hearts’ foreskins”. To “circumcise” means to cut away something that is unwanted or undesirable, and the “heart’s foreskin” is the unwanted and undesirable part of their mind.

  3. yamit82 Said:

    but too tired to see the whole game.

    You have sounding tried and tired lately, take care of yousself, Darlin,and I do mean Darlin. No teasin.

  4. yamit82 Said:

    Payton is heads and shoulder a better quarterback and tougher.

    Tex says true

    yamit82 Said:

    Dallas looked mediocre

    Tex says true

    yamit82 Said:

    I think the NYG will have a very bad year

    Tex says they lost many good players, but he says Eli ain’t that bad.

  6. @ honeybee:

    Saw the end of the game but too tired to see the whole game. I don’t like Manning. He is as good as his protection and seldom adds that extra element seen by the games best quarterbacks. I don’t like his play calling or his inability to add that extra dimension like Brady and Ryan, he seems very contact wary, more so than most NFL quarterbacks. While his completion record is high so is his interception record. Payton is heads and shoulder a better quarterback and tougher.

    Dallas looked mediocre and should not be judged by the Giants performance. I think the NYG will have a very bad year and the last for the head coach and maybe even Manning with the Giants.

  7. Shy Guy Said:

    Have you ever bothered checking out what that site you linked to claims really happens all the time when it comes to Israel?

    Try not linking to crackpots.

    I always try to check out sources and the veracity of the content. Unlike you I don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Even on questionable sites one cn pick up useful information and facts. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with conclusions.

    Try this from Live leak: Many many links substantiating what I have posted in several links which by the way incudes links to the congressional record and extracts on others.

    From Live Leak:

    Russia, Afghanistan, the Taliban, Enron, Bush’s Oil Team, & UNOCAL’s pipeline, is not about fighti….

    Connecting the Dots……December 1997, Mullah Omar the Taliban visited the Bush administration, Enron, and UNOCAL’s Houston refinery operations.

    The Enron Corporation gave the Taliban millions of dollars in a no-holds-barred bid to strike a deal for an energy pipeline in Afghanistan — wile the Taliban were already sheltering terror kingpin Osama Bin Laden!

    Enron executives even met with Taliban officials in Texas, where they were given the red-carpet treatment and promised a fortune if the deal went through.

    Read more

  8. yamit82 Said:

    IT’S ALL ABOUT OIL!

    Have you ever bothered checking out what that site you linked to claims really happens all the time when it comes to Israel?

    Try not linking to crackpots.

  9. yamit82 Said:

    IT’S ALL ABOUT OIL!

    Yawl, just figured it out!!!!!!!!!! Hey, the Cowboys ate the Giants lunch last night!!!!!!! Eli Manning threw the winning touchdown for the Cowboys. Tex was dissapointed,hey only show the cheerleaders from waist up.

  10. @ bernard ross:

    Reports are that Putin turned the Saudis down cold.

    We know that Qatar doesn’t give diddley about Syrians and neither do the Saudis.

    It always comes down to oil and Gas hegemony and religion.

    Read: all my comments
    https://www.israpundit.org/2008/?p=17265&cpage=1#comment-61525

    IT’S ALL ABOUT OIL!

    Enron Bosses gave millions to Bin Laden and Taliban hoping to cut deal on oil pipeline.

    But, confronted with Taliban’s refusal to accept US conditions, “this rationale of energy security changed into a military one”, the authors claim.

    “At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, ‘either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,


    27 December 2002: Afghanistan Pipeline Deal signed
    An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan.

    The building of the trans-Afghanistan pipeline has been under discussion for some years but plans have been held up by Afghanistan’s unstable political situation. Read all here

  11. yamit82 Said:

    I view it as a temporary expedient and will not last past any immediate benefit or circumstances.

    I agree this is certainly a pitfall. I think israel has to be very cautious playing with these wolves. I expect that if there are any promises or offers that israel remembers that the US consistently breaks its promises to everyone including Israel. Israel must get before giving and watch out for being the fall guy. A smart player will have a plan B. The current degrading of hezbullah and Syria plus the leashing of Hamas is of value if Israel can get some permanent advantage, especially with Hezbullah. Israel might decide that an opportunity arises to deliver a death blow to Hezbullah. After all, legally speaking the cease fire terms regarding disarming and transfer of arms has been violated and if Israel moved on Hezbullah I doubt there would be much argument against it. In fact moving against hezbullah in Lebanon might avoid initiating confrontation with Assad while taking the opportunity agianst Hezbulllah.

  12. @ bernard ross:

    Hamas can still beat Fatah in an election on the West Bank, Gaza is a given. With the new Rapprochement between Hamas in Gaza and Iran it’s doubtful Egypt can destroy Hamas as since Assad is wobbly and not a certainty Iran will double up Support in Gaza. So far the Bedouins are making chumps of the Egyptian Army in Sinai. Egypt has committed a division for a few thousand Bedouins and Jihadist fighters in Sinai. Think Iraq and Afghanistan.

    It bothers me that BB has allowed a major militarization of the Sinai, the only major condition of the camp David accords was the now defunct demilitarization of the Sinai. Egypt has been seeking to reverse that benefit and only remnant of the accords in Israels favor from the day they signed it. That’s why Sadat was assassinated. The Egyptian Military is quite happy to have those terrorists in Sinai. They can still bother Israel give the Egyptian army some practice and use them as the excuse to incrementally add more and more units into the Sinai. Israel has been aware of huge underground bunker Egypt built clandestinely in the Sinai illegally, that can accommodate a whole division.

    While I agree there is a lot of maneuvering of all the players in and out of the ME and while some might seem more accommodating to Israel I view it as a temporary expedient and will not last past any immediate benefit or circumstances.

  16. yamit82 Said:

    Where or what is the payoff for Clinton, Bush and Obama? Nobody in politics does anything for nothing.

    personally and individually the carrots are wealth, power or influence, legacies to perpetuate the lie. The stick is that, surely, they all have greater scandals than those of which we are already aware and those scandals are protected by media control. NOn team players find their dirty linen released and possible jail time plus disgrace for the heirs. They committed to the game a long time ago, for them there is no question of what they must do. Obama’s known scandals at the tip of the iceberg are so large that one can only imagine what would happen if those and others were released by an unfriendly media and unfriendly judges. Probably the same media and judges who were friendly before.
    yamit82 Said:

    I see no American interest here.

    I think that their tribe is unrelated to politics but motivated by self interest. In such circles personal advancement, national interest, humanitarian goals, western interests,etc all become conveniently intertwined.
    IMHO there are now certain givens: first tier participants of GCC/EU/US/Nato/western commercial interests are heavily involved in Syria Iraq and Iran and this investment of arms and mercenaries has been going on at least 2 years. Coinciding with that time-frame Turkey/Israel/Egypt/Jordan/Kurds/PA, IMHO there have been agreements and understandings evolving for this 2nd tier of participants which relate to the primary drama of the first tier participants. At the 3rd tier are Hamas, MB, AQ, Jihadis, salafis who have been leashed, manipulated and bought as useful idiots and tools.
    The first question which should be asked is what interests do the GCC, EU and US have in Syria. Is it for pipelines,etc or is it to defang Syria and hezbullah on the road to Iran or perhaps both? A fragmented Syria and Iraq can deliver pipelines and GCC oil to EU via med. or turkey pipelines. A degraded Syria and hezbulah can weaken iran for war or the negotiating table. Each of the 2nd tier players have their own interests and prices for playing along with the drama: Turkey gets respite from Kurdish terror and clients for their proposed pipeline,PA gets 4 billion and prisoners for playing along, Israel gets gaza cease fire,hamas leashing, degrading of hezbullah and syria, possible promise of green light for Iran attack or defanging proxies and Nato/GCC attack in return for delaying Iran attack while allowing Obama plan time to evolve(9 mos). Possible GCC cooperation in PA negotiations in return for staying out or for doing the dirty work. In a defragmented Syria I would expect no more talk of a return of the golan, perhaps this is apart of a deal.
    All the affected areas border on the med for delivery of ME and african resources to europe or for exploitation of offshore gas.(tunisia, libya, egypt, gaza, israel, lebanon, syria, turkey , greece.)

  19. “I know that sooner or later we will have to deal with the threats from the north and I would prefer to have less to attack and destroy than more.”

    Good point, Yamit. Everyone (myself included) seems to forget the view from Israel and how these Muslim wars will affect the Jewish people there. Thank you for the back-hander.

  22. Lost a very long post because of an incorrect CAPTCHA response.

    🙁

    Whatever happened to this text being retained when pressing the BACK button?!

    🙁

  24. Shy Guy Said:

    Already explained to you last week. Assumed global threat versus internal threat

    Didn’t know that Iraq and Afghanistan were global threats assumed or otherwise?

    There is no sufficient reason for the US to bomb Syria.

    Few wars or military actions can be justified with good reasons, that’s why they all lie and spin the lack of sufficient reasons. They can’t say hey, we want to get their oil and gas or build pipelines, not to mention what would happen if the industrial military complex had to cut their production and workforce say by half or less. If broccoli were the major export of Iraq and Afghanistan would Bush have attacked and invaded?

    There are almost no good guys in Syria

    .

    There are no good guys anywhere. What are you looking for guys in white hats?

    Use some common sense, people.

    If Obama does not degrade Assad’s military potential including the missiles and launchers, the chemical warfare production facilities and the chemical weapons then there is little military or strategic reasons for bombing but maybe it’s in the plans but he can’t say so at this time?

    Maybe his plans are to illicit a retaliation against Israel forcing the IDF to do the dirty work?

    Any action that relieves the threat to Israel from Lebanon and Syria I am for and don’t care about the partisan political debate in the States.

    I know that sooner or later we will have to deal with the threats from the north and I would prefer to have less to attack and destroy than more.

    Don’t forget that the Americans and Brits started the whole thing against Assad and Obama owes them some concrete support other that what has been supplied to date.

  25. yamit82 Said:

    or would either of you two?

    Irrelevant. I do not follow Palin. I hear about her once in a while, as in every few weeks maybe.

    I was for the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions before I was against them. That was based on what every western intelligence agency was insisting about Saddam and WMDs until the Coalition forces came up empty handed and before I understood the the US military really meant it when they thought they could “change hearts and minds.”

  27. yamit82 Said:

    Palin? 😉 As I recall she was a major supporter of Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and now against one with Syria.

    Laura, have you hijacked Yamit’s account?

  28. Shy Guy Said:

    Great minds, Ted.

    🙂

    Palin? 😉 As I recall she was a major supporter of Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and now against one with Syria. I wonder if Obama were a Republican and a conservative idiot if she would still be against or would either of you two?

  33. @ bernard ross:
    Can’t believe Clinton (Maybe Bush is) and Obama are that stupid? Has to be some very dirty stuff going on that transcends parties and politics. I see no American interest here.

    Where or what is the payoff for Clinton, Bush and Obama? Nobody in politics does anything for nothing. Ms Palin has also been silent on the issue and shirley must know about it, and she can see Russia from her kitchen window? Maybe it’s because she is as dirty as the rest of them? 😛

  34. Laura Said:

    Why was it imperative to invade Iraq over WMD’s but wrong in Syria?

    Already explained to you last week. Assumed global threat versus internal threat. Not hard to figure out.

    There’s so much fog here. Sources quoting sources quoting sources. This is junk, panic reporting.

    There is no sufficient reason for the US to bomb Syria. There are almost no good guys in Syria.

    Use some common sense, people.

    Mark Steyn: An Accidental War

  39. M Devolin Said:

    Ann Coulter is an idiot.

    No not an idiot just stupid and offensive.

    She provides the Left with all kinds of examples of her stupidity and her ignorance, which in turn make the Right sound like a bunch of lab-apes before they even open their mouths to speak.

    Sells books and VIP speeches, all providing her 7 figure income. The more stupid she portrays herself and the more controversial the more money.

  40. Ann Coulter is an idiot. She provides the Left with all kinds of examples of her stupidity and her ignorance, which in turn make the Right sound like a bunch of lab-apes before they even open their mouths to speak.

  41. You know the President is a disaster when you get large segments of the population who are rooting for Putin over him. And this coming from people who know what a nasty guy Vlad can be.

  42. @ Laura:
    Destroying Syrian chemical weapons would be a worthwhile goal.
    Unfortunately Obongo’s strike is not going to accomplish that.
    Most other points in the article are valid.

  43. It is MHO that O has two reasons for going to war. The first one is internal related to the umpteen scandals he has on his hand and has no willingness to solve: Obamacare, IRS, NSA, you name it. The other reason is a combination of internal and external factors: his Egypt fiasco with the MB and the push from the various islamic organizations those are twisting his hand to take sides. Not going against Iran is probably not for those people’s like, so he can stay tall with his support for the Brothers. Either option is catastrophic for the country. The Republicans are afraid and equate the support for the country with the support for Obama.

  44. @ Laura:

    The two wars and the two situations are different. It would’ve been more appropriate to make the Iraqi war shorter to end it before trying to “transform” the country in a so-called democracy. All the war did in fact was to push the Iranian border closer to the West. In Syria there is a civil war waged between the two main branches of islam, the Sunni Islam and the Shia Islam. What business the US has to get involved? No Ann Coulter and not many others won’t recognize that. As for her “love” for Christie, that was laughable anyway and has nothing to do with the present topic. All these so called expert pundits like Ann Coulter are just plain and shamefully ignorant regarding Islam.

  45. @ monostor:
    Actually Coulter is also a hypocrite on this issue. Why was it imperative to invade Iraq over WMD’s but wrong in Syria? What is the difference between saddam with WMD’s and assad? What do the numbers killed matter? An atrocity is an atrocity.

    I haven’t attacked Coulter over petty reasons. I attacked her over a legitimate reason regarding her support for Christie who is no different than Obama when it comes to muslims.

  46. You people make me laugh. You attack Ann Coulter out of petty personal reasons but don’t refute what she says. On the other hand you cannot admit that you agree with her assessment. BTW the only exaggeration her article contains is the re to Iraq as true democracy, Other than that I don’t like her too much myself but i admit that she is sometimes right.