George W. Obama Threatens War over Syrian WMD’s

Obama’s big anti-war moment that won him the backing of the left.

Where are those WMD’s, the left clamored for 9 years. Well they might just be about to find out.

U.S. and allied intelligence have detected Syrian movement of chemical weapons components in recent days, a senior U.S. defence official said Monday, as the Obama administration again warned the Assad regime against using them.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in Prague for meetings with Czech officials, reiterated President Barack Obama’s declaration that Syrian action on chemical weapons was a “red line” for the United States that would prompt action.

“We have made our views very clear: This is a red line for the United States,” Clinton told reporters. “I’m not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the Assad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people. But suffice it to say, we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur.”

Can you spot what’s missing from the story that was and is present in every news story on Iraqi or Iranian WMDs?

1. No “experts” stepping forward to question the “intelligence” about the presence of WMD.

2. No news reports on anti-war protesters gathering to protest against a war on Syria, even though they exist.

3. No questions about whether we should route this through the United Nations

When Democrats want to go to war, it’s very simple. They announce that they’re going to war. Or they go to war, then say three days later that there is no war, just a No Fly Zone, as Obama did during his disastrous Libyan expedition.

President Barack Obama, in a speech at the National Defense University on Monday, pointedly warned Syrian President Bashar Assad not to use his arsenal.

“Today I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command: The world is watching,” Obama said. “The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable.”

Meanwhile Obama’s Islamist buddies in Turkey have used chemical weapons against the Kurds without being held accountable for it. The Sudanese butcher Bashir has carried out genocide in Sudan and Obama has made it clear that he will not use force there.

But Obama only intervenes for regime change on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood’s territorial ambitions.

Exit question. How much of Bashar’s WMDs stocks come from the Iraqi WMDs that Obama and his left-wing buddies insisted don’t exist?

  • EarlyBird

    We can be certain there will be skeptics regarding Syria's WMDs. There should be skepticism, considering how disastrous US intelligence has been since its inception. The CIA has gotten big things so very wrong as to be laughable, from their absolute certainty the USSR was not going to invade Afghanistan up to the very day before they did, to their absolute certainty that Saddam was not going to invade Kuwait up until the moment he did, to its absolute certainty that Saddam had WMDs…until they didn't.

    The US has never had a competent intelligence gathering apparatus.

    It isn't a left wing opinion that Saddam didn't have WMDs. It is a fact that he was never found to have them, nor was any proof ever existent that he did. Right wingers don't get to have an opinion about Saddam's WMDs. Nobody does.

    • pagegl

      Wrong. Even Wikipedia has info about Saddam's chemical weapons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_a… and his biological program, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_biological_wea… and, if you continue to search a little you will find that he had yellow cake which is used to make nuclear weapons. Geez, even PBS documented this stuff, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gun….

      • EarlyBird

        Nobody doubts Saddam had WMD during his reign: he used them. That he may have shipped them to Syria prior to the invasion of Iraq is possible. Or he may very well have shut down the program well before the invasion and was bluffing in the lead-up to the war. Without any proof it's all conjecture.

        So, for Greenfield to assign to the America-hating left anyone willing to deal with the fact that no evidence of recent WMD stockpiles could be found post-invasion is absurd. (But hey, bomb throwers get more hits to their page!)

        I was who one believed Saddam had WMD at the time of the invasion and was surprised they couldn't be found. I finally realized that WMD were an excuse to attempt to remake the Middle East post-9/11 in America's image. Not a bad fantasy, however wildly hubristic and terribly implemented it was by GWB.

        Note that W was very clear on his desire to spark a wider, grass roots "Spring" in the ME. Now it's here, and because they are not all quoting Jefferson it's Obama's fault. Duh.

        Obama has killed far more of his "Islamist buddies" than W. ever did. Greenfield is disgraceful.

        • LibertarianToo

          "I finally realized that WMD were an excuse to attempt to remake the Middle East post-9/11 in America's image. Not a bad fantasy, however wildly hubristic and terribly implemented it was by GWB."

          You mean Bill Clinton. When he bombed Iraq in 1998 he said it was because Saddam had WMD. If you concede that Saddam had WMD "during his reign", then you are acknowleging that Bush's intelligence was correct -since Saddam was deposed by American military action in Iraq. You cannot have it both ways: Either the intelligence was right, or the intelligence was wrong. Either Bill and George were right, or Bill and George were wrong, Take a few deep breaths and get back to us.

          • EarlyBird

            This is not complicated, Lib. Try to keep up:

            The world knows that Saddam had, over some period of his rule, WMD; in fact, he used them in the '80s. The question in 2003 was whether or not he STILL had WMD.

            Our intelligence services, as they have since Truman, told Bush what he wanted to hear.

            The intelligence was wrong. The entire official pre-text for the invasion was wrong. How do we know?

            Because we invaded and couldn't find WMD, or any evidence that a program had recently existed. Investigators who desperately wanted to find hard proof that WMD were there or recently there could not come up with a scrap of hard evidence.

            Follow?

            To his credit, George W. Bush, not Clinton, wanted to remake the Middle East. He needed WMD as his foot in the door and pressed the NSA and CIA for the "evidence" of WMD he needed.

            I was very sympathetic to W's dreams, but they were dreams made up in neo-con think tanks, not the real world, and executed like something out of the Keystone Kops. Imagine ithe screeching on this board had Obama had failed so miserably.

    • Mary Sue

      Sorry, no worm for you.

      Satellite images showed convoys of trucks going across the Iraq/Syria border prior to the Iraq invasion. Guess what was on those trucks.

      • EarlyBird

        So W was incompetent, but still a hero to the die hard right wing. Imagine if Obama had let those get across the border, and what people would be saying about Obama on this website, as just one example.

        • Mary Sue

          No, none of that indicates that W was incompetent. It indicates the reporters and media were not interested in following up on a legitimate story; they were too busy going "Nawwww…"

          He couldn't stop them as they were going because the armed forces were not there yet.

          • EarlyBird

            Mary Sue, as conservatives we should not be surprised when government turns out to be incompetent and dishonest, even when "our" guys are running it. The media didn't fail in regard to Bush's intelligence on Iraq's WMD. Bush and his intelligence services did.

    • MAD&MADDER

      It seems as though the Egyptian debacle blew up in the face of our supposed "democratic" parlay
      of players with Hillary Clinton Leading the BAND! It is so evident that the support for the Muslim
      Brotherhood is full of deceit, lies and stabs in the back that the U.S. just doesnt know how the
      Muslims operate, Its,lie, cheat and steal as their modus operantum. WAKE UP, AMERICA, WE
      TAXPAYERS ARE BEING SCREWED TO THE WALL!! Now, its Syria's turn since Eqypt is turning its back on the U.S.!! LIES, LIES, AND MORE LIES! GOOD JOB, EARLY BIRD!

  • BLJ

    The MSM will back Obama in any direction that he wishes. I would not be surprised one bit if Syria has WMD's that they got from Saddam. Saddam was a lowlife and so is everyone else (except Israel) in that part of the world.

  • riverboatbill

    Who cares,right? The nerve gas can't get us here in America,right? Well….it ain't necessarily so. Remember that jihast terrorist dude telling his followers to "cross through the tunnels on the Mexican border with suitcases"? Maybe he wasn't talking about bringing in a change of cloths. If Assad, or his designated hitter, uses germ warfare agents; then he can release them anywhere and they can go everywhere.Germs are contagious,and people move around the world. Sounds like a job for a few good special teams. .

  • JacksonPearson

    Thanks Daniel for another good article…add;
    Obama was stopped in Syria because of a threat of impeachment if he failed to request congressional "War Powers Act" approval. Presently, as he did in Libya, he's dying to somehow get NATO involved in overthrowing the Assad regime. Obama's ultimate goal is, the re establishing of the Middle East Caliphate, being fed from the bottom up, by the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • Flowerknife_us

    Where O where will the WMD be. O where O where will they Be?

    Obama- the man who yells "Charge from the back of the line will do what exactly? If Obama was worried about tne WMD's then they should have been destroyed in their storage bunkers some time ago. Not some "threat" to act some time after they have been deployed and used.

    We are expected to make Carrier strikes over Syria running a gauntlet of some 20,000 portable SAM systems from Libya? Obama wasn't all that concerned. with those weapons when they were in their storage bunkers either.

    Americans died and Obama lied. Pretty much sums it all up.

  • atthebeach

    Obama’s threatening words for Syria sound a more than hollow; as they are too often offered; to NO end. Will he wait until a 'genocide' occurs? Might; or ‘must’ there be a wiping out of an entire village/State/religious faction; by chemical; before he acts? If there is a behavior ; threats and history that does not contain itself in moral 'Rules of Engagement' what might one reasonably expect/fear? Same goes for Iran, of course. And for Iraq; when Bush was called to decide. Can add here ‘for anywhere’ in the world; where terror and death equate with personal power; and is so exercised by a will to subjugate another to a belief; or a ‘god politic’. And should there be religious/political resistance; death follows.

    The Left must be feeling schizophrenic by now; given their 'issues' with Bush; .and now; to hear Obama. . . Certainly, Obama plays a dual – hypocritical – role. He speaks with more than one mind; he wears more than one mask and in the end; he signifies NOTHING. Do not think Obama is convincing anyone – who can hear – that he is prepared for Authentic Leadership. He has yet to exhibit ANY as President. And for that matter; there are no 'accounts’ of any prior sightings, either.

    • EarlyBird

      If the left is feeling schizophrenic due to Obama's massive ratcheting up of the war against Al Queda, killing Bin Laden, surging in Afghanistan, helping to kill off the Qaddaffi regime, and now his saber rattling against Syria, it's because the left wasn't listening to what candidate Obama was saying in 2008, or what the average mainstream Democratic leader had been saying since 9/11. Their rhetoric has never been that of doves, but of smart hawks, rather than stupid, Bush-style neo-con hawks.

      Funny that this article calls Obama "George W. Obama" due to his new aggressive posture towards Syria. And throughout this chat board and across this entire FP Mag site, you'll see accusations of Obama being both a gutless mushball in league with is "fellow" Islamists, AND a war monger fighting the same wars against Islamists that Bush fought. Talk about schizophrenia!

  • Forrelli

    In reaction to this article's headline: Proof positive that our Presidents are 'selected' not elected.

  • TaterSalad

    Was Barack Obama involved in more than running weapons/missiles from Benghazi to Syria?

    Syrian troops have now found a tunnel containing chemical weapons that
    were being used by the rebels: State TV…………………..

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130824?feedType=RSS