Flap Your Lips Friday
Posted by Michelle Moquin on August 30th, 2013
Good morning.
Like so many of you, Syria has been on my mind too. The alleged chemical attack (It appears that this was a chemical attack) on the people of Syria killed over 300 people, many of them young children, sadly, some unidentified. The stories I have seen and read are horrific. My heart goes out to the people of Syria and especially to those that have lost their loved ones.
Obama had planned, along with British Prime Minister David Cameron, to move forward with a limited military strike on Syria in spite of questions from Congress who won’t cut their summer break short to address this matter. However, Cameron’s appeal to Parliament to support military intervention in Syria was surprisedly and unexpectedly rejected by members of Parliament.
Will Obama go at it alone?
Here’s a write from The New York Times:
Obama Set for Limited Strike on Syria as British Vote No
A United Nations team on Thursday with a sample from one of the sites in the Damascus area where a chemical weapons attack is suspected. World leaders reacted to the heightened expectation of an attack, and Ban Ki-moon urged restraint.
By MARK LANDLER, DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON — President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria, administration officials said Thursday, despite a stinging rejection of such action by America’s stalwart ally Britain and mounting questions from Congress.
The negative vote in Britain’s Parliament was a heavy blow to Prime Minister David Cameron, who had pledged his support to Mr. Obama and called on lawmakers to endorse Britain’s involvement in a brief operation to punish the government of President Bashar al-Assad for apparently launching a deadly chemical weapons attack last week that killed hundreds.
The vote was also a setback for Mr. Obama, who, having given up hope of getting United Nations Security Council authorization for the strike, is struggling to assemble a coalition of allies against Syria.
But administration officials made clear that the eroding support would not deter Mr. Obama in deciding to go ahead with a strike. Pentagon officials said that the Navy had now moved a fifth destroyer into the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Each ship carries dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles that would probably be the centerpiece of any attack on Syria.
Even before the parliamentary vote, White House officials said, Mr. Obama decided there was no way he could overcome objections by Russia, Syria’s longtime backer, to any resolution in the Security Council.
Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision, all indications suggest that a strike could occur soon after United Nations investigators charged with scrutinizing the Aug. 21 attack leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus on Saturday.
The White House presented its case for military action to Congressional leaders on Thursday evening, trying to head off growing pressure from Democrats and Republicans to provide more information about the administration’s military planning and seek Congressional approval for any action.
In a conference call with Republicans and Democrats, top officials from the State Department, the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence agencies asserted that the evidence was clear that Mr. Assad’s forces had carried out the attack, according to officials who were briefed.
While the intelligence does not tie Mr. Assad directly to the attack, these officials said, the administration said the United States had both the evidence and legal justification to carry out a strike aimed at deterring the Syrian leader from using such weapons again.
A critical piece of the intelligence, officials said, is an intercepted telephone call between Syrian military officials, one of whom seems to suggest that the chemical weapons attack was more devastating than was intended. “It sounds like he thinks this was a small operation that got out of control,” one intelligence official said.
But Republican lawmakers said White House officials dismissed suggestions that the scale of the attack was a miscalculation, indicating that the officials believe Syria intended to inflict the widespread damage.
“I’m comfortable that the things the president told Assad not to do he did,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who took part with seven other Republican senators in a separate briefing by the White House chief of staff, Denis R. McDonough.
Among the officials on the conference call were Secretary of State John Kerry; Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel; the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr.; and the national security adviser, Susan E. Rice. It was unclassified, which means the administration gave lawmakers only limited details about the intelligence they assert bolsters the case for a military strike.
Before the call, however, some prominent lawmakers expressed anger that the White House was planning a strike without significant consultations with Congress. “When we take what is a very difficult decision, you have to have buy-in by members and buy-in by the public,” Representative Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Thursday on MSNBC. “I think both of those are critically important and, right now, none of that has happened.”
Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said after the telephone briefing that administration officials “had no doubt that chemical weapons were used by Assad and his people.
Mr. Engel said that among the evidence described to members of Congress was an intercepted communication “from a high-level Syrian official” discussing the attack. “There is more than enough evidence if the president chooses to act,” Mr. Engel said.
After the 90-minute conference call, some senior lawmakers were not persuaded that the Obama administration had made its case for military action in Syria. Representative Howard (Buck) McKeon, the California Republican who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Mr. Obama needed to make a forceful case to persuade both Congress and a “war weary” country.
“If he doesn’t, I think he could have a real problem with the Congress and the American public,” he said. “He’s got a big sell.”
Several officials said that the intelligence dossier about the attack also includes evidence of Syrian military units moving chemical munitions into place before the attack was carried out.
Mr. Obama, officials said, is basing his case for action both on safeguarding international standards against the use of chemical weapons and on the threat to America’s national interest.
That threat, they said, is both to allies in the region, like Turkey, Jordan and Israel, and to the United States itself, if Syria’s weapons were to fall into the wrong hands or if other leaders were to take American inaction as an invitation to use unconventional weapons.
Mr. Obama’s rationale for a strike creates a parallel dilemma to the one that President George W. Bush confronted 10 years ago, when he decided to enter into a far broader war with nearly 150,000 American troops in Iraq without seeking an authorizing resolution in the United Nations. The Obama administration says that case differs sharply from its objectives in Syria.
In Iraq Mr. Bush was explicitly seeking regime change. In this case, White House officials argue, Mr. Obama is trying to enforce an international ban on chemical weapons and seeking to prevent their use in Syria, or against American allies.
“We have been trying to get the U.N. Security Council to be more assertive on Syria even before this incident,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. “The problem is that the Russians won’t vote for any accountability.”
The decision to proceed without Britain is remarkable, however. Even in the Iraq war, Mr. Bush relied on what he called a “coalition of the willing,” led by Britain. Mr. Obama has made clear that this initiative would come from the United States, and that while he welcomed international participation, he was not depending on foreign forces for what would essentially be an operation conducted largely by the United States, from naval vessels off the Syrian coast.
Mr. Rhodes and other aides rejected comparisons between this case and that of Mr. Bush in 2003, and noted that Mr. Obama was still actively seeking allied participation. “There is no direct parallel with 2003, given that the United States at that time had to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction in a country where we were going to do a military intervention aimed at regime change,” Mr. Rhodes said.
Mr. Obama has referred, somewhat vaguely, to reinforcing “international norms,” or standards, against the use of chemical weapons, which are categorized as “weapons of mass destruction” even though they are far less powerful than nuclear or biological weapons.
In addition to the importance of upholding standards of international behavior, Mr. Obama this week has also highlighted America’s inherent right to self-defense. But some scholars warn that may be a difficult case for the United States to make.
“Under this principle, Turkey, Jordan, Israel, Iraq or Lebanon could respond directly to Syrian belligerent acts, as could their allies, such as NATO and the U.S.,” said Phillip Carter, an analyst with the Center for a New American Security in Washington. He cautioned that despite the spillover from the violence, there still was no just cause for war with Syria by its neighbors.
The United States has conducted unilateral bombing campaigns without seeking international endorsement before. But it made a direct case for self-defense.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan ordered an airstrike on Tripoli after concluding that Libya was behind the bombing of a Berlin disco that killed two American military personnel. In 1998, after deadly bombings of American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, President Bill Clinton authorized cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan.
*****
Readers: Will Obama move forward on his own when he lacks the support of America’s closet ally, the United Nations Security Council, the Arab League, and a significant percentage of the American public? Do you think he should? What is your opinion? It’s Friday…start flapping your lips. Blog me.
PEACE PLEASE.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012
“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
August 30th, 2013 at 10:36 am
Using the term ‘Limited strike’ unfortunately is like using the term ‘ a little bit pregnant’ you are either in or out, preggers or not preggers…if we go in using terms like that it’ll never work, bc it will never be ‘limited’ bc we all know that it will take whatever it takes, nothing less and nothing more.
Having said that, ‘limited striking’ is war-like action, and I have a hard time condoning this action ever, especially given the lack of participation by Brits/UN…but what will be done?
Russia has a few ships in the area and has made a valid point of stating that imposing Western wishes on Syria (or any other country) rarely works (referring to sitch in Iraq and Afghanistan I’m sure), Obama is really between a humanistic and political ‘rock and a hard place’ on this one. I wish him the depth and ability to tap into his own capabilities to discern the correct path. This is a tough decision on many levels.
Luv, Zen Lill
August 30th, 2013 at 10:57 am
by the fact that the previous Reagan, and then the two Bush administrations are guilty of moving chemical weaponry over the past twenty odd years into the region and arming Saddam Hussein with them, through the Reagan administration and then going through the motions of having Hussein hide them from inspectors into the current regions, then baby Bush went into Iraq, the remaining weapons that were in Iraq were smuggled out, and now Syria has these weapons.
The fact that Syria is using these weapons, which say United States on them, to kill their people, if the world begins to learn of this then it will be as if the U.S. armed Syria with them to kill their people.
The fact that Syria is doing the killing is an atrocity. The fact that they are doing so, with U.S. weapons is an atrocity. The fact that China, Russia and other countries know this, they are using this action to make a move on the U.S. to see what reaction might take place.
If Obama does NOT react and stop this, then the world will find out about the weaponry and find our how irresponsible the U.S. military is in their inventory, and also that Saddam Hussein actually did not have chemical weapons in Iraq when Bush said so (which is why investigators never found them) because they had been removed to other countries. Now, those countries are using those weapons.
The U.S. is responsible for those weapons being in the hands of Syria. Obama knows that if he does not act on this it will send a message to the world that the U.S. will not take on the responsibility of their inventory and when someone gets their hands on these weapons, the U.S. will look the other way. However, if Obama does NOT take action and the weapons get themselves into the wrong hands that can get some of these chemicals into the U.S., all it will take is a 12oz. plastic water bottle of some of these chemicals to be left in a park with the lid open and within a 24 hour period all humans will be contaminated and killed within a 100 mile radius. The fallout will go to as much as 300 miles of destruction and health related fallout for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.
He is in a tight spot due to the irresponsibility of the GOP and their war machine…
September 1st, 2013 at 8:14 am
Doug that was the most complete analysis of the situation I have ever heard by a layman. Too bad it will not be understood my most.
September 1st, 2013 at 8:53 am
My question is how does Doug know this? Most of what he said is not easily accessed. Yes, I know that it is true but unless he is ex military intelligence, where did he get it?
I suspect someone in the Obama administration of feeding him classified info so as to excuse Obama’s decision to use military force.
At the time of the Iran/Iraq war Reagan/Bush administrations helped to build the Iraq military into the power it became it was a necessity because the loss of the Shah created a vacuum which an alliance with Iraq was necessary to fill.
September 1st, 2013 at 9:51 am
Jerry, Doug was right to blame the Reagan because he made a deal with the Iranians to keep the Americans hostages until the election. The republicans gave information to the Iranians about the rescue attempt Carter set into place.
Members of the team that planned the rescue who were loyal to the republican party initiated this plan with the election crew for the republican party. Together they engineered the ambushed of the secret landing and the resulting debacle that caused Carter to lose face with the American people.
Reagan began playing politics with the lives of people long before he agreed to give chemical weapons to Saddam. Carter merely suggested that we look into the possibility of opening up the dialogue that had been lost with Iraq because of the 1967 Israeli Six-Day War.
September 1st, 2013 at 10:15 am
Reagan has classified the types of weaponry that he had transferred to Iraq. That criminal sent so much “dual use” technology to Iraq that if declassified the american people would certainly learn why Bush felt he could safely assert that Saddam was making weapons of mass destruction.
Most of that “duel use” stuff other “use” was chemical and nuclear warfare. What is known is that the Reagan and Bush administrations approved at least 80 direct exports to the Iraqi military.
September 1st, 2013 at 10:41 am
If anyone is in doubt about the criminality of the serial killer reagan, they should check their own records as Doug evidently did. A visit to the archives will show that when the Iraqi military turned its chemical weapons on the Kurds during the war, killing approximately 5,000 people in the town of Halabja and injuring thousands more, the Reagan administration actually sought to obscure Iraqi leadership culpability by suggesting, inaccurately, that the Iranians may have carried out the attack.
This was truly an evil man. Only white America would want to revere such a devil.
September 1st, 2013 at 11:14 am
Michelle, I couldn’t get in to give my two cents. After reading what you Ex wrote I have switched my position. I don’t see where Obama has any other option.
September 1st, 2013 at 11:21 am
This just shows how truly evil some of the leaders of the GREAT SATAN are. They gave the technology and weapons of mass destruction to Iraq and then they launch a devastating murdering attack upon Iraq because of those weapons.
Then their ineptitude allows those weapons to escape the country only to appear in Syria to kill Syrians like they killed Kurds.
God will aid us in killing enough of them to show the GREAT SATAN that evil of that magnitude will NOT go unpunished. Wait until you and your children are gasping for air as life leaves them in agony.
Ibithaj
September 1st, 2013 at 11:25 am
We in Israel are appalled to learn of the fact that America gave Chemical weapons to Iraq. They could have chosen to launch them against us as they did their own Kurdish people.
Qeren