By
Lynn Stuter
September 10, 2013
NewsWithViews.com
Today Barack Obama intends to take his case for striking Syria to the American people.
Let's go back, in time, to the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. The year was 2002. Here is Barack Obama (D-IL), speaking at the Federal Plaza in Chicago.
Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars
I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
On Saddam Hussein
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.
Bear in mind that it was Saddam Hussein who, in the 1987-89 timeframe, authorized the Halabja chemical attack and the Al-Anfal Campaign against the Kurds in northern Iraq. Estimates of the number of Kurds killed reached as high as 180,000; birth defects still plague the survivors of the chemical attack.
Understand that I did not support Bush invading Iraq any more than I support Obama invading or lobbing missiles into Syria.
On August 20, 2012, Barack Obama made the following statement,
"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."
But on September 4, 2013 (as reported September 5, 2013), in Sweden, Barack Obama made the following statement concerning that "red line" he was, heretofore, quite proud of,
"That's not something I just made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. … I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of world population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent."
Translation – hey, don't blame me, I didn't do it; blame everyone but me. Not only did Obama try to blame the American people, but the people of every other nation, as well; which was not lost on anyone. Spoken like a true narcissist.
Senator Saxby Chambliss, Georgia, had this response to Obama's comments on September 4, 2013,
"He [Obama] needs to go back and read his quote. On Aug. 20, 2012, Obama said, 'We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.'"
House Foreign Relations Committee Chair, Ed Royce, was none too pleased by Obama's sudden back-pedaling either. On September 4, 2013, in his opening statement before the House Foreign Relations Committee hearing regarding Obama's request for a military strike on Syria, Royce said,
"The Administration’s Syria policy doesn’t build confidence. For over two years, U.S. policy has been adrift. Initially, the Obama Administration saw Assad as 'a reformer.' Once the revolt started, it backed U.N. diplomacy, and then bet on Moscow to play a constructive role. Predictably, this hasn’t worked. Over a year ago, President Obama drew a 'red-line' – yet only last week did the Administration begin to consult with Congress on what that means."
It is very apparent, from these comments, that being the consummate politician, forever on the campaign trail, Obama did not consider the ramifications of his "red line" comment; not an uncommon trait in a narcissist. Yet we are to believe he has the best interests of America, and the American people, in mind?
During the House Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Representative Jeff Duncan (R-SC) referenced the credibility of Obama and company in questioning the massacre at Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. Secretary of State John Kerry responded,
"We're talking about people being killed by gas, and you want to go talk about Benghazi."
Let's turn back the hands of time to just five days prior, to August 30, 2013, and a press release that appeared on the White House website. In part, that press release states,
"A large body of independent sources indicates that a chemical weapons attack took place in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. In addition to U.S. intelligence information, there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly credible nongovernmental organizations."
Where is all this information with regard to the Benghazi massacre on September 11, 2012 that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyronne Woods? I believe the answer is that we are still waiting for that answer!
But this is the same guy who accused Bashar el-Assad of being responsible for the chemical weapons attack on the same day it happened, with no proof. And he expects us to believe him?
Quite obviously, Obama expected that his cover-up with regard to what has become the Benghazi scandal – as well as the Fast and Furious scandal, the IRS scandal, the DOJ reporter telephone records scandal, and the NSA scandal – should have no bearing on his claims about Syria.
Anyone, who trusts the self-serving behavior of a narcissist, does so at their own peril!
As Representative Jeff Duncan stated, after the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing,
“There’s a huge credibility issue here. Somebody needs to be held accountable. I told him I’m very sympathetic about the children and others that were gassed in Syria, but we have four dead Americans here as well, two of which were Navy SEALs and one of which was an ambassador.”
With the call for impeachment proceedings gaining momentum, with all these scandals still unanswered, Obama's vehemence to strike Syria does serve one purpose that certainly stands in his favor – diversion from all of the scandals that remain unanswered.
So, true to Obama's 2002 speech, let's talk about …
•
a war based on passion, politics and an ideological agenda!
• how Obama's striking Syria will serve to strengthen
the recruitment arm of al Qaeda – a terrorist organization known
to be involved with the Syrian rebels and known to have been involved
in the Benghazi massacre!
• the absence of a clear rationale and
the nonexistent of international support!
All those things that so concerned Senator Barack Obama back in 2002, but don't seem to concern him all that much now!
Returning to Obama's comments in 2002, this stands out particularly,
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
What has Obama done for this nation, besides destroy it? With companies now refusing to insure dependents, dropping older workers from coverage, with the costs to insure those older workers and dependents on the health care exchanges beyond the means of most families, what has Obama done to help the American family or the middle class? Not one thing. The adverse effect of more uninsured on the health care system will be catastrophic!
In addition, Obamacare has increased the number of government workers while decreasing the number of people working in the American economy. Increasing the number of government workers requires an increasing number of people working on the American economy to pay the taxes to support those government worker salaries. Yet the exact opposite is occurring. As a result, poverty is on the rise.
What has Obama done to raise median income? Nothing. Median income has been and continues to fall. The result is more people losing their homes, jobs, ability to support a family resulting in more men deserting their families and more women on welfare. In addition, over 40,000,000 illegal aliens reside in this country. Obama's policies, regarding these illegal invaders, has served to further stress the American family, not only in lost jobs but also in the loss of social services that should exist, exclusively, for the benefit of the American people, but that have been decimated by access given to illegal aliens.
What has Obama done about all the scandals resulting from his occupation of the Oval Office? Nothing. He has covered them up; digressed; created one crisis after the next to divert attention away from them.
What has Obama done to further better race relations? Not one thing. From the onset of his occupation of the Oval Office, his clear agenda has been to further the cause of a race war. To that end, he really and truly believes, if he had a son, he would look just like Trayvon Martin. Obama's list of "sons" who look just like Trayvon Martin is growing daily, and includes the likes of James Edwards, Chauncey Luna, Kenan Adams-Kinard and Demetrius Glenn – all "good" black sons who believed killing whites was somehow justified!
When Obama took office, the national debt was $10.6 trillion. Today, that debt stands at a whopping $16.7 trillion. In four years, eight months, Obama has spent $6.1 trillion. It took 233 years to rack up the first $10.6 trillion!
Are the American people better off today than they were ten years ago? Not by a long shot
Rahm Emanuel, Obama chief of staff, February 9, 2009,
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
And if one isn't available to serve the purposes, create one, like claiming that striking Syria is the humanitarian thing to do. As Obama claimed, in 2002, Bashar el-Assad "poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors."
But now Obama thinks it imperative that the U.S. strike Syria; but that imperative is not based on what he can prove because that evidence has yet to be provided. In the absence of that proof, and in light of the Obama scandals, and in light of his failure to lead this country in the right direction, it becomes apparent that a diversion is in order – the bigger the better.
| Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
That's what narcissists do; and that is what appears to be the real reason behind Obama's imperative to strike Syria.
And in the fashion of the true narcissist, Obama doesn't care that the missiles he wants to launch into Syria will kill more innocent men, women and children; nor does he care that his striking Syria will unleash an attack on America that, because of Obama's policies that have weakened America's borders, defenses and economy, will not be stopped or deterred.
If Congress approves Obama's request for a strike on Syria, God help the American people; and God help the foolish people who really and truly believed that voting for Barack Obama would result in their financial betterment! If Congress approves Obama's request, it will be over for America.
Obama would like nothing better!
Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.
� 2013 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved
Share
This ArticleActivist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned about the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.
Web site: www.learn-usa.com
E-Mail: lmstuter@learn-usa.com�
