President Obama's Rambling, Incoherent Address to the Nation on Syria - Video

President Obama's Rambling, Incoherent Address to the Nation on Syria as Narrated by IJReview

Video at the Page Link:

Kyle Becker | On 11, Sep 2013

Because… we have to attack Syria in the middle of a civil war to punish Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons to kill 1.5% of those killed by the war, potentially destabilizing the regime and spreading the power of a cohort of Sunni muslims, including al Qaeda, the Nusrah Front, the FSA rebels, and the Muslim Brotherhood… but this doesn’t matter because Bashar al-Assad needs to eat his Cheerios with a fork while suffering unbelievably small airstrikes that won’t be a “pinprick”?

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/09/7838...ated-ijreview/

5 hours ago by Darwin Rockantansky

Noxious Gas Billows from the White House – A Response to Obama's Syria Speech

Much against my better judgment and at great personal / emotional expense last night, I sat through the President's speech re: our potential involvement in Syria. When he left the podium I was experiencing flashbacks of a current TV commercial for one of the satellite based TV programming providers; the one where the young girl tells the salesman at the door: "Use your words." Whatever message the Dip-Stick-in-Charge (DSIC – Barack Obama) was trying to convey, it came across like the salesman in that commercial; what we in the communications business would call "garble." Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot, Over. For the record, my wife does not stay in the same room with me when I force myself to endure such self-abuse. Early on in his speech, the DSIC said that the people of Syria simply wanted "...to live in peace with dignity and freedom," at which point I shouted back at him: "And just what do you think We The People Want?" The following is addressed to the speaker. Peace? The last time this nation was so divided we called it the American Civil War - thanks to you Mr. Dip-Stick. Dignity? My ancestors would walk off into the wilderness to die at peace with Mother Nature rather than to be a burden on their families and their communities and my parents and my generation would rather starve to death than ask for assistance from anyone (much less the government) while YOU, Mr. Dip-Stick, have solicited and encouraged more people to depend on government welfare and food stamps than did The Great Depression of the 1930s. Freedom? Your regime has passed a reported THIRTY THOUSAND (30,000) new laws and regulations IN THIS TERM ALONE; strangling the very breath out of a once proud and free people. My grandmother, God rest her soul, would have charged the podium with a bar of soap to wash your mouth out for speaking such things in light of your record. In your speech, you stated, "Russia is willing to join the international community..." Really Mr. Dip-Stick? Vladimir Putin, whom I have suggested should run for President of this country, has never been "willing to join" anything or anyone. He is a leader, but then I don't expect you to recognize leadership since you have none and damned sure do not allow any such contamination to get near you. Furthermore, you then stated that you had "...asked Congress to delay taking a vote" in order to give diplomacy, led by Vladimir Putin, a chance to succeed. Really Mr. Dip-Stick? Even your own carefully bred Eloy are not buying that line of fertilizer. The almost instantaneous outbreak of bipartisanship made it clear that neither Congress nor We The People were going to stand for any hair-brained macho crap that has the real possibility of dragging what little military capability you have allowed to exist into a "No objective, no plan, no win" course of action that may well have been, and may yet be the first shot fired in the next world war. You stated that "...for more than seven decades the United States has been the defender of freedom..." Crap. My uncles served in WW-II when America had a clear objective: bring down the Third Reich. That is what they set out to do, and that is what We The People made a reality. My father served in Korea, which ended in a political standoff that continues to this day, because, at the time, we realized that we could not defeat China and that fact will never change. My father and I both served in Vietnam where no "end-game" was ever defined. And the ridiculous and disastrous forays into the Middle East have followed that pattern. Now I sincerely doubt that we have the military strength to defend our homeland against a flotilla of a dozen row boats thanks to your open disdain and distrust of our military. Is the sterling example of the Egyptian military unnerving you Mr. Dip-Stick? You stated that "...America is not the world's policeman," and in that I do agree. But our government has consistently chosen which "crimes" should be addressed and which should be ignored. You choose to use the "human rights" buzzword only when it is convenient. Otherwise, you would be attacking Saudi Arabia, China, and other nations on a daily basis. What is happening in Syria is most certainly a tragedy and a travesty, but is a drop in the bucket when compared on a scale to what is happening in parts of Africa. Since you left the podium last night, I have talked to many people, and there are two questions being asked by all: What did he say? And why did he bother? I have no answers, and neither do you. The greatest service that you can render to this country at this point, is to go quietly into the night and leave what is left of America to recover from her wounds inflicted upon her by your inept "leadership." Editor's Note: In case you missed the noxious gas coming from the White House (and no it was not Mrs. Obama breaking wind), you can view it below.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNPeT-IdgCo



Sickening person, he truly makes me sick.....I turn him off every time he comes on MY TV....but.... just in case you don't, here is the speech for all to behold!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathyet2

I have talked to many people, and there are two questions being asked by all: What did he say? And why did he bother?

---

IMO this is the same kind of speech that he's been making since he first started campaigning for the presidency: Cover all bases, even if doing so involves making contradictory statements. People will hear what they wanted to hear, and ignore or forget everything else. It's disgusting, but it works.
************************************************** ******
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Vladimir Putin Addresses America In NYT Op-Ed; Calls For Caution In Syria, Denounces "American Exceptionalism"

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/11/2013 20:45 -0400

Authored by Vladimir Putin, originally posted at The New York Times, highlights ours

A Plea For Caution From Russia

Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...-caution-syria