Daily Archives: September 6, 2013

THE FRIDAY GRUDGE

I was ready to start posting yesterday when DW came into the mancave looking very shaken up.She said that the last two days she’d woken up with no feeling on the left side of her face.All she could think was that she’d had a stroke.I told her it looked like when my older cousin contracted Bells Palsy.We called our doctor,who was not in the office and they advised us to go to the hospital.After 5 hours and a lot of tests,the MD on call concurred with my diagnosis of Bells Palsy,along with an abraded cornea since she can’t close her eye completely.When I went to bed I gave thanks to my Redeemer that it wasn’t any worse than it was for my best friend and life partner.We went to get her medication this morning and the generic was $183 for 20 pills.We called the hospital and there is nothing cheaper.We’ll get by somehow….we always do.You just have to figure out what your priorities are.

54 Comments

Filed under Loose Pollen

Boots on the ground?

Transparency and the rule of law

You might think Obama and Kerry have no intention of sending American troops into harm’s way.

You’d be wrong. Read this statement from Obama very carefully:

TUESDAY Sept 3, 2013: President Obama, “So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by the joint chiefs and that I believe is appropriate is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq and this is not Afghanistan.”

He’s like a thief who bumps into you and apologizes so you don’t notice he’s picking your pocket. The very specific plan he’s referring to is limited and does not involve boots on the ground. And duh. We know this is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s Syria. He wants you to hear that sentence and conclude, without his actually saying so, that he has NO INTENTION OF EVER SENDING TROOPS IN ON THE GROUND. But that’s the lie. That’s the part where he’s stealing our trust from us to get what he wants, which is to be given the authority to send in tens of thousands of troops … ON THE GROUND.

Now carefully read this convoluted statement from Kerry:

TUESDAY Sept 3, 2013: SecState Kerry, “In the event Syria imploded, for instance, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies and all of us, the British, the French and others, to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements, I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country.”

He’s like a sheister who doesn’t want any provisions written into your contract that would make him legally liable for any of the dirty tricks he plans to pull on you after you’ve signed on the dotted line. He wants Congress to okay military intervention in Syria WITHOUT LIMITATIONS and just trust that they won’t order troops into harm’s way.

Now check out what Kerry says the very next day:

WEDNESDAY Sept 4, 2013: SecState Kerry, “There will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war.”

“With respect to the civil war” … please see Obama’s prevarication re: “the military plan that has been developed by the joint chiefs” etc.

Why can we be sure these two are lying liars lying out their liar holes?

BECAUSE the Pentagon told Obama 18 months ago that there was no way to take away Syria’s existing WMDs or shut down their ability to make more WITHOUT putting boots on the ground. A LOT OF BOOTS.

Early 2012: Department of Defense report says that securing Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles and the facilities that produce them would probably require 75,000 ground troops.

And what PRECISELY did Kerry say Obama was asking Congress to give permission for?

“Authorization to degrade and deter Bashar al-Assad’s capacity to use chemical weapons.”

Do the math. If they get authorization to take out Assad’s WMDs, they’ll put tens of thousands of boots on the ground. QED.

Remember when Obama and Friends marched around chanting, “Bush Lied. People Died.”? Good times. Good times.

situation room

Sources:

1 Comment

Filed under Armed Forces, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Syria

Community Organizer goes to war

Dennis Miller

EXCERPTS from Community Organizer goes to war by Ann Coulter – Sept 4, 2013

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?

Read the rest @ http://www.teaparty.org/coulter-community-organizer-goes-to-war-28123/

Not as easy as it looks, huh Barry

6 Comments

Filed under Al Qaeda, Ann Coulter, Barack Obama, Syria, U.S. Congress