wmd (5)

     4064324969?profile=original                          SUSAN RICE LIED ABOUT SYRIA CHEMICAL WEAPONS


                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

  The chemical weapon attack by the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad on the rebel-held town Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib Province on April 4 once again underscores what a foreign policy failure President Obama was and what a serial liar Susan Rice is.

On January 16, 2017, Rice, who served as U.N. Ambassador during Obama’s first term and was rewarded for her Benghazi lies with the post of National Security Advisor, where she could be compelled to testify before Congress, 

Gave what amounted to an exit interview with NPR. During the interview she crowed about the Obama administration’s success in eliminating the threat of Syrian chemical weapons:

We were able to find a solution that didn't necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished. Our aim in contemplating the use of force following the use of chemical weapons in August of 2013 was not to intervene in the civil war, not to become involved in the combat between Assad and the opposition, but to deal with the threat of chemical weapons by virtue of the diplomacy that we did with Russia and with the Security Council. We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.

Tell that, Ms. Rice, to the children of Khan Sheikoun who succumbed to the horrible effects of the sarin gas dropped on them by Syrian forces with the support of their Russian allies. You and your boss colluded with the Russians to keep Assad in power and give Russia a free hand in Syria. Your claim of having removed the threat of Syrian chemical weapons was a lie, as phony as the statement President Onama made after the tragedy of Aleppo. As  CNBC reported the statement President Obama made as he washed his hands of all guilt and responsibility:

"With respect to Syria of what I have consistently done is taken the best course that I can to end the civil war and having also taken into account of the long-term national security interest of the United States," he said….

"Unless we were all in and willing to take over Syria, we were going to have problems," Obama said in the news conference, noting that it would have required "putting large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground, uninvited, without any international law mandate."…

"Responsibility for this brutality lies in one place alone: with the Assad regime and its allies Russia and Iran. And this blood and these atrocities are on their hands," Obama said.

No, sir the responsibility for this horror lies with you, and the blood of Aleppo and Khan Sheikoun is on your and Susan Rice’s hands. It is you who drew the red lines in Syria and there would be consequences if they were crossed. It is you who said Assad must go. There were no consequences and Assad, protected by Russia, is still there.

As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized on Obama’s disappearing red lines in Syria:

Syria's chemical weapons are on the move, their precursor chemicals having been mixed, a crossing of a line drawn by President Obama Aug. 20 when he said "a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." So our resolute president decides to draw another line — that if Syria's Bashar al-Assad makes use of those weapons, presumably against his own people or neighbors, he will face "consequences." …Obama's appeasement has come home to roost. Assad remembers how Clinton, appearing on CBS' "Face The Nation," dismissed the idea of U.S. military action or regime change in Syria, claiming that unlike Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, Assad was considered to be a "reformer" by "many of the members of Congress."

Yep, your Secretary of State and defeated presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called Assad a reformer:

Apparently neither Mrs. Clinton nor Defense Secretary Robert Gates sees Syria as an outlaw nation. Both said Sunday that Syria was different from Libya and that we would not be lobbing cruise missiles into Damascus in another "humanitarian" effort.

"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," Clinton said without disputing the assessment. She also drew a distinction between Libya's use of tanks and aircraft against its protesters and "police actions, which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see."

Obama and Clinton intervened in Libta to prevent the slaughter of civilians, turning Libya into a failed state and an incubator of terrorism. Yet both did nothing to prevent the slaughter in Syria when they could have easily. We sacrificed four brave Americans at Benghazi in pursuance of this failed policy.

Why did we do nothing in Syria? Perhaps for the same reason we did nothing to prevent Russia’s invasion of Ukraine  - the Iran deal. Obama, who once  promised Russian President Medvedev more “flexibility” after Obama’s reelection, didn’t want to offend Putin. He needed Russia’s help in securing the Iran deal. Taking out Assad would have offended Tehran. So Obama and Clinton sacrificed both Ukraine and Syria to get the Iran deal and put $150 billion in the hands of Iran, a state ponsor of terror and a mass murderer of U.S. troops in both Lebanon and Iraq.

This reformer moved his chemical weapons and you did nothing. He used his chemical weapons and you did nothing. Seeing no resistance Russia moved in to protect Assad and safeguard its access to the Syrian port of Tarus on th Mediterranean.

You could have done a lot, and it did not involve ground troops. You could have parked an aircraft carrier, 90,000 tons of American diplomacy, off the Syrian coast. You could have ordered aur strikes and destroyed the Syrian air force in 24 hours. Then you could have established a no-fly zone protecting a safe haven in Syria. You could have prevented the slaughter in Aleppo, as well as the flood of refugees into Europe. But you didn’t.

The rise of ISIS, which Obama calls ISIL so he can omit the “S” that stands for Syria, is a direct result of the vacuum he created In Iraq by his precipitous withdrawal after victory had been won.

President Bush left a stable Iraq, one where Shiite and Sunnis had learned to coexist and resist a common al-Qaida enemy. There were free and fair elections and we all remember the pictures of Iraqi women holding up their purple fingers indicating they had proudly voted in those elections. Now we have the mass graves of ISIS, beheadings and  what can only be called the ethnic cleansing of Christians.

It is a myth, as the White House now claims, that President Obama inherited an Iraqi mess from President Bush and had no choice but to withdraw U.S. troops in the absence of a status of forces agreement. The problem was not that Iraq and Prime Minister Maliki wanted the U.S. to leave, but that the force Obama wanted to leave was just too small. As Patrick Brennan has written in National Review:

These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more. Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.

Obama destroyed Libya for no god reason, and sacrificed Syria so that he could pursue the dangerous and flawed Iran deal. He created the vacuum ISIS filled in Iraq and Syria. The blood of Aleppo is on nobody’s hands but his, Hillaty Clinton’s and yours, Susan Rice.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.             

Read more…

I copied this stunning selection below, from a larger post on AR-15.com; and I want to give full credit and attribution to the website and their writers. It boggles my mind, that highly experienced former elected officials and bureaucrats, who are currently running for President and Vice-President of the United States, can allow themselves to be so ignorant and clueless regarding one of their TOP AGENDA ISSUES ... Guns, Gun Control and Gun Confiscation. On occasion "Ignorance is Bliss"; BUT NOT HERE, NOT NOW gentlemen. Here YOUR IGNORANCE MEANS THE DEATH OF OUR NATION!

"August 2016

Another month closer to the presidential election, and the circus continues.

If we can set aside the media bias, the ever-increasing proof of lies and criminal activity that Hillary Clinton, the State Department, and the Clinton Foundation has been engaged in (and which has been ignored by the DOJ), and the rest of the racial and political issues that continue to surface every day for a minute, and enjoy this jewel.

A few days ago, Bill Weld (former Republican governor of Massachusetts and now Gary Johnson's running mate on the Libertarian ticket) summarized the anti-gun sentiment about as well as any of his peers could have:

“The five-shot rifle, that’s a standard military rifle; the problem is if you attach a clip to it so it can fire more shells and if you remove the pin so that it becomes an automatic weapon, and those are independent criminal offenses,” Weld said. “That is when they become, essentially, a weapon of mass destruction. The problem with handguns probably is even worse than the problem of the AR-15.”obiwan.jpg

WTF?!?! Once again, the anti-gun "experts" publicly show the world a level of ignorance about a topic they want to pass laws against that is downright embarrassing.

We're not talking about Joe Blow on the street- these are career politicians who are looking to run the country! Weld was a U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, then headed the Justice Department’s criminal division under the Reagan administration, and later served two terms as governor in Massachusetts! Now he's running for Vice President of the United States.

How is it that these "experts" can come to a conclusion about a topic they know nothing about, and by nothing I mean not enough to put together a sentence, and feel they must force it down the throats of their citizens?

Wouldn't the first thing you do if you wanted to speak about a topic, especially one you know people have such strong feelings about, be to educate yourself as much as possible so you don't sound like a complete moron when you open your mouth?

Not for democrats who pander to people's emotions. The facts don't matter. Common sense doesn't matter. They talk to hear themselves talk and make everyone feel like they're doing something to help the world.

They don't need facts to back up their positions. They don't need tools, or even guns to help the world because in fact they don't ever accomplish anything. They just talk.

It is up to others to do the hard work. To fight the battles that actually make a difference in the world.

And once they do, these politicians sit back and take the credit while criticizing the manner in which the job was done.

So how is anyone supposed to take anything else Weld says seriously after showing such ignorance? You can't. Ignorance is easily written off and he will not be taken seriously. That's fine.

Back to Hillary though, and the lies upon lies she's told to the American people. The lies she's told Congress. The lies she's told to the families of fallen soldiers, and all in pursuit of money and power. That, unlike the moronic comments by Weld cannot be ignored. Those are not based on ignorance, but on downright selfishness and a lack of concern for the welfare of others.

I'm confident the FBI investigations into the Clinton Foundation will turn up a mountain of evidence of criminal activity like we've never seen before in our history.

The question is what will happen when it does? Will the DOJ ignore it? Will the Obama administration wipe the slate clean, or will justice finally prevail?

A chief aim of the Constitution as drafted by the Constitutional Convention was to create a government with enough power to act on a national level, but without so much power that fundamental rights would be at risk. It is quite obvious that limit has been overstepped, and electing Hillary would essentially re-create the same greedy, selfish, tyrannical government that the King of England and Parliament had back in the 18th century. Then she could begin dismantling the Constitution piece by piece.

I hope the FBI does their job, and that the DOJ does theirs. I hope that the evidence that was purposely deleted from the private email server makes its way to the American people, and that the establishment and its corrupt politics are eliminated. I still have hope that all is not lost in our federal government, but I have no confidence."

It is terrifying that these Libertarians want to pass restrictive gun laws to abolish the 2nd amendment and confiscate ALL weapons from civilian control. And the Hillary's Socialist Democrats are just more NWO talking-heads spewing the same mindless, fictional and treasonous 2a rhetoric.


Read more…

For all the Liberal "IDIOTS" out there that claim that G.W. Bush had no reason to attack Iraq, this disclosure about Chemical weapons in this article tells the real truth about these weapons of mass destruction that aren't supposed to exist. Now it seems that everyone knows about them. Except the Liberal "Wackos."

Read more…

The Future of America?

A few years back I heard a discussion on Bill Bennett's Morning in America between the host and a caller.  The topic of conversation combined two trends that the American Left (and frankly, too many on the Right) are allowing to occur, and, in fact encouraging.  The first is an open-borders policy which with every wave of illegals from south-of-the-border makes the United States more latinized everyday. The second is what author Andy McCarthy has described as the Grand Jihad,  the movement by Islamic radicals to spread Islam throughout the world and re-establish the Caliphate.  The theme of the exchange was that the United States would very likely be majority Latino by mid-century, and that Islam, another beneficiary of misguided immigration policies, would be making vast inroads into the American culture.  "I hope they will be able to oppose Islam when it becomes a powerful force." They is the Latinos who will be running the country.  What irony there was in that statement, I mused.  So I took that thought, and expanded it:

Imagine a United States dominated by a Latin-American controlled liberal political party; led by a beautiful and charismatic Latina from Texas whose administration has systematically stripped the rights of its citizens and its states for the purposes of consolidating federal power.  Her policies manage a slow collapse of the American economy, and a steady decline in American power around the world.  Then, toward the end of her second term, a coalition of Islamic nations attacks the United States, destroying several U.S. cities, invading and occupying San Francisco, and assassinating her, the President of the United States.

This is the opening theme to my book, House of War

House of War is a cautionary tale set in the near-future. A aforementioned political party is in control of the United States government.  Europe’s Muslim population has gained majorities within the European Union.  In response to Chinese wars of expansion, an alliance of Islamic nations has formed.  It strikes out at America in manners unimaginable – by invasion and mass-casualty attack on multiple American cities. Among the powerful members of the president’s cabinet is a fundamentalist Muslim infiltrator who is an enemy of the people. At the upper echelons of American government is ineptitude and lack of resolve. A grossly neglected United States military must cope.  What the attackers haven’t counted on are the tenacity of an accidental president, the courage and resourcefulness of Coast Guard units, and a citizen who has the grit to sow the seeds of revolution.

Please take a look at House of War, now available on Kindle e-books, and may God Save America.



Read more…

While the overall impact on National Security of having nearly 500,000 classified military documents (about the conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) exposed has to be rated an unequivocal disaster . . . some seemingly shocking but harmless (from America’s point of view) details about the conduct of the war in Iraq also came to light. These items were revealed in the latest (2nd ) Wiki leaks disclosures:
1) That, yes, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) were found in Iraq in 2004.
2) Incredible savagery between civil-warring tribal elements in Iraq threatened to blow the whole country apart.
3) Despite complaints and accusations to the contrary, it appears that the United States handled its trust in Iraq with remarkable fairness and long-range balance while striving to leave Iraq better for our presence.
4) And most importantly, the huge role played by Iran in arming, training, and transporting saboteurs and instructors (and then in providing logistic support for this shadow organization harmful to Iraq’s quest for peace is also very well-documented.
A. A few comments seem in order: the poison mustard agents found in two separate caches as well as the blister agents (more a personnel incapacitating agent then a WMD) discovered elsewhere can certainly be called “WMDs” . . . they weren’t the manufacturing facilities that the Bush administration was hoping for . . . but they were certainly WMDs. Why then wasn’t the public notified? Who knew about this? If President G.W. Bush knew and refused to reveal it for whatever purpose, it certainly shows a strong resolve considering the lambasting he received from anti-war groups over the next four and a half years.
B. The idea of Vice President Joe Biden to create three separate nations of Iraq for the Kurds, Sunni and Shiite populations is surely shortsighted – for example why not make it four different countries and include the Christians (there are more Christians (3%) than there are Kurds and there are also plenty of Jews, Mandaeans and Zoroastrianists as well)? However, it is fact that the tribal animosities especially those between the Sunni and Shiite peoples constituting the two major blocs and of Iraq’s Muslim population are part of Sadaam Hussein’s legacy but historically also go all the way back to the death of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Overall 94% of the Iraqi people are Muslims and Shia and Sunni Muslims constitute 98% of that 94% and they both call each other infidels. The Shaykhist Muslims are a tiny minority constantly striving to keep out of the other two sects’ gun sights at all times. Really we’re talking about tribes here. In Afghanistan the tribal nature of lifestyle there is quite evident, but despite Iraq’s seeming sophistication, tribal hatred is alive and well even today.
C. After reading some of the Wikileak releases, it’s easy to understand why so many Iraqis are so pessimistic about the future and why so many of them called for the United States to maintain a presence for up to ten years . . . we had our problems but generally dealt with matters in Iraq in a very even-handed manner.
D. Could the reason that the WMD discoveries in Iraq went unreported be that Iran’s interference in Iraq might be at least partially justified by fear of WMDs? Hard to say. Nevertheless, there are a good 640 items dealing with the Iranians among the Wikileaked communiqués . . . and their role cannot be called “benign.” Now what do we think about the Iranian nuclear program, in light of the state-sponsored terrorism Iran has been guilty of?
E. How does President Obama’s decision to pull out of Iraq so precipitously look in light of these Wikileak revelations?
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,
Read more…