Thread: Michael Savage smells a rat in Obama speech

Michael Savage smells a rat in Obama speech

Talk-radio giant Michael Savage has a stunning theory about who's pulling the strings in the U.S. plan to attack Syria.

And what he has to say about the elaborate "ruse" just might shock you ...

WND EXCLUSIVE

SAVAGE: ISRAEL'S HAND IN OBAMA SPEECH

Defends claim president being pushed to attack Syria

Published: 14 hours ago
DREW ZAHN

Video at the Page Link:

In an interview Sunday, radio giant Michael Savage defended his claim that Israel has been pushing U.S. President Barack Obama to attack Syria.

Speaking on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio, Savage also said he isn’t ready to accept alleged evidence the chemical weapons attack cited by Obama came from jihadist rebels rather than the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“There’s no reason to say it isn’t Syria [regime forces] for sure,” Savage said. “He’s a pretty crazy guy, Assad.”

Host Aaron Klein gave Savage the opportunity to “clear the air” over allegations Savage said in his show last week that Israel was “wagging the dog” in pushing the U.S. to attack Syria.

Savage responded, however: “I said exactly that. I believe it’s true. I believe the evidence points to the fact that Israel was looking to have big brother do her bidding, and I think that it backfired on Israel, and I think that the whole thing about Obama hating Israel is a ruse.”

Savage continued, “Where did I get my evidence from? It’s one man analyzing what I read. And when I see that the day after Obama decided to pause – not Saturday, but during the week, Thursday – the Times of Israel, the lead editorial was calling him every name under the sun, saying now Israel has to go it alone.”

Savage also suggested Israel fears Syria’s air force and would rather have the rag-tag rebels on its northern border than Assad’s regime.

“The Syrian air force [is] the teeth of the Syrian military,” Savage explained. “I think Israel would like to have those teeth pulled out so that it becomes a paper tiger. They’d certainly rather face al-Qaida, Hezbollah and a few of the other … elements in the opposition because they have no heavy weapons. That was my analysis.”

The full interview can be heard below:

Video at the Page Link:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/savage-is...-obama-speech/

WND RELATED STORIES

Iran's ex-prez: Assad was the gasser, or not
Syria still prepping for 'surprise' Obama strike
Biblical doom of Damascus 'right before our eyes'
Senator Obama would impeach President Obama
Video: Obama authorizes military strike on Syria
Syria attack: 'If it comes, it comes tonight'
Al-Qaida to storm into Syria if U.S. strikes?
Controversial military doctrine has 'constitutional problems'
Imminent attack on Assad feels like déjà vu
War in Syria impeachable, unconstitutional?
Israel, Jordan under Syrian missile threat
Lawmakers warn Obama to consult on Syria
Iran, N. Korea run operations room in Syria
Syrian leadership expects attack from U.S.
Evidence: Syria gas attack work of U.S. allies
Greatest threat to U.S.: These 6,000 jihadists
Islamists decide to back Syrian uprising
Syria 'used Chinese intel to bomb' U.S. arms shipment
Exposed: Syria's backroom deal with Russia
VIDEO: Syrian 'rebels' behead man, execute 2 women
N. Korea rebuilding damaged Syrian missiles
Iran commander warns Obama on Syria
Syrian forces training to storm Israel's border
Syrian rebels to Christians: Flee or die!
Turkey unrest 'payback' for fueling Syria insurgency?
Syria: Game-changing missiles already deployed
'Big mistake' for Israel to downplay missiles to Syria
Assad: We already have S-300 missiles
McCain's rebel host in Syria leads al-Qaida-allied council
Syrian civil war spills into Lebanon
Claim: More game-changing missiles reach Syria
Syria helped by Israeli bombing?
Syria 'to open borders' for flood of terror
Shock claim: Israeli strike timed with Syria rebels
Iran, Syria prep retaliation for Israeli airstrikes
Obama, Hamas helping same side?
Obama OK with American joining al-Qaida?
Syrian rebels to hold unusual, immediate meeting
Report: U.S. training Syrian rebels
U.S. to instigate insurgency in Lebanon?
Obama to change course on Syria?


http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/savage-is...-obama-speech/

STATE OF MIND

WHEN STATISTS LOVE WAR

Exclusive: Dr. Gina Loudon reveals 'best move for Obama' in Syria disaster

Published: 20 hours ago
GINA LOUDON

People want one thing out of their elected officials – they want them to stand for what they said they were going to stand for when they were elected. Syria has illuminated just how far statist presidents have deviated from that fundamental concept.

They are confusing Americans. They are confusing the world. They need to state an honest position and stick with it.

It is axiomatic that anytime there is a discussion about balanced budgets, the statists propose no cuts to welfare spending and all cuts to military. The anti-war movement largely resides in the Democrat base, at least at election time. That’s fine, but if you want to slash military spending and apply deep sequester cuts that limit our arms purchases and training for our soldiers, then you have an extra duty not to expend those limited resources wastefully.

Candidate Obama campaigned on a clear position that we should not be involved in foreign wars, and we should not be nation building. When the Arab Spring broke across North Africa, President Obama found a new appreciation for his ability to launch missiles into the middle of sovereign nations with a single phone call. He did not seek approval of Congress, but decided on his own what he would do with taxpayers’ resources and soldiers’ lives.

His unilateral decision had disastrous consequences. The Muslim Brotherhood took over three countries, and is on the verge of dismantling the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Accord, which had been the one stabilizing force in an otherwise tragically unstable part of the world.

Now the U.S. is in Syria and President Obama has declared a new foreign policy position: If a president of a sovereign nation uses chemical weapons, a U.S. military response is appropriate.
Of course, the fact that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons repeatedly on his people made no difference to Barack Obama’s resolve that his predecessor, George Bush’s actions in Iraq were wholly unjustified.

Order Gina Loudon’s book “Ladies and Gentlemen: Why the Survival of Our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor” – how atheism, liberalism and radical feminism have harmed the nation.

Any time there is a foreign conflict, the world looks to U.S. leadership. Once the U.S. has staked a position, other countries decide whether to join or not. When George Bush determined that Saddam Hussein had crossed a “red line” in Iraq, he went to Congress and received support. He also went to NATO and the U.N. and received support. Agree or don’t with Bush, that is the proper constitutional procedure, plus. That is a demonstration of a government that is accountable to others and the people who elected it.

Candidate Obama campaigned on a promise to stop the “endless wars” and to “invest in people” and not the “military industrial complex.” He said he would “close Gitmo.” The message was clear, and he won the most powerful seat in the world on these clear positions.

Barack Obama now has declared a red line of his own, but he has support of almost no one except France and John McCain. It is almost sad to watch the Nobel Peace Prize-winning president who was the toast of the world when he was elected, suddenly find that he really has zero effectiveness in foreign policy. Where is the love?

The reason Obama has no support for his foreign policy includes the fact that he has no clear foreign policy. What is the Obama doctrine? He was against nation building, but if creating no fly zones in sovereign nations and shooting Tomahawk missiles off of U.S. warships into foreign lands is not nation building, what is it?

Obama has chosen sides three times and built three nations with disastrous consequences. Now he has taken a clear side in a fourth. Additionally, famously Islamic yet secular Turkey is poised to become the newest Shariah law nation. Is this because of Obama’s clear policy or despite him? Either way, this quagmire is now his legacy.

The groups perhaps most betrayed are the “peace movement people” who thought he was their guy. They hated Bush because he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. At least when Bush used the military, it was a surprise to no one who voted for him. Republicans, by and large, support the military and a more aggressive foreign policy. There is a deep vein in the Republican Party of people who love American ideals and whose hearts bleed for people suffering under tyranny. When they see Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong Il, they see modern Hitlers and say “never again.”

Constitutionalists believe in the right to life not just for Americans, but for people suffering around the world regardless of race or religion. So when a tyrant uses chemical weapons on his people, liberty-minded people often chomp at the bit to engage. At least John McCain is consistent while his former Senate colleague is totally inconsistent.

Perhaps the biggest black mark on this inconsistency is the Clinton legacy in Rwanda. Clinton declared that his red line was genocide. Fair enough. He certainly was critical of Bush 41, but he did not campaign as a peacenik. So when Clinton chose sides in the former Yugoslavia conflicts he found broad support from Republicans for stopping apparent genocide by the Serbians against their Islamic countrymen. These hostilities were complex. People groups with atrocities on both sides had been in conflict for generations. They were in conflict again, now that the yoke of Soviet control had been removed. The predominantly Christian Serbians had the upper hand, and they wanted their Islamic neighbors to move. Whether the goal was total extermination is subject to broad debate. There was another genocide that was similarly complex but far simpler.

While thousands, even tens of thousands, died in Croatia, Rwanda reached a level not seen since Hitler. The Hutus decided they better slaughter the Tutsis before the Tutsis slaughtered them. There is no dispute whatsoever that the policy of the Hutus was total genocide. The weapon of choice was the machete. The typical attack was to invade a village or refugee camp and hack the children to death in front of their parents, then the wives and husbands last. There terror was hard to imagine. Before they were done, somewhere between 500,000 and a staggering 1 million Tutsis were dead.

President Clinton, the “first black president” did nothing. While only Clinton can know that his inaction in the face of the Hutus spitting on his red line was due to the skin color of the victims, the religion of the victims, the lack of large oil reserves or other U.S. strategic interest, the world learned the U.S. red lines, at least with Democrat presidents, are not trigger switches at all.

While Obama stews in the soup of his making, the world waits for leadership. The peaceniks who voted for him have every right to expect more. The best move for Obama is to cease any idea of military sanctions in Syria, if for no other reason than to honor his campaign promises.

Personal war making is despotism. For the leader of the free world to personally launch missiles into foreign lands without the consent of Congress or any international body for anything other than a direct attack on the U.S. is wrong, especially after that president campaigned against that precise behavior.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/when-statists-love-war/

DEFENDING THE WEST

CHAOS: OBAMA'S MIDDLE EAST MISADVENTURE

Exclusive: Pamela Geller declares, 'President Citizen of the World hasn't ally in the world'

Published: 22 hours ago
PAMELA GELLER

On Friday, in a speech the president of the United States should have given, underling John Kerry made a fierce, passionate case for taking military action in Syria. The weak and feckless Obama was unwilling to employ his endless flapping tongue to explain to the American people why he was going alone to back up al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood forces in Syria.

The president wants to send America into yet another unauthorized war, and he couldn’t make the case himself. He sent a suit in to tell the American people. Obama couldn’t get behind his own war plan. Has any president ever sent in an underling to tell the American people we were going to war?

The New York Times reported: “Jabbing his finger at the lectern, his voice forceful, his words brimming with indignation, John Kerry laid out the case like the prosecutor he once was, making a closing argument to a skeptical jury. Again and again, some 24 times in all, he used the phrase ‘we know’ as he described the intelligence that Syria’s government massacred more than 1,400 people with chemical weapons. And then, while saying no decision had been made, he left no doubt that the United States would respond with military power.”

But less than a day later, in a stunning failure of leadership, Obama reversed his position and said he would seek congressional approval. And as urgent as the matter was just 24 hours prior, it wasn’t pressing enough to summon Congress back for a vote. No, Obama insisted they enjoy their vacation (something he does know a thing or two about) and return at their regular scheduled time – Sept. 9. Astounding.

Pamela Geller’s commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books — featured at the WND Superstore

Iran and Syria are calling this “the start of the historic American retreat.” Actually, it began years ago under Obama: the turnover of political power to the Taliban, the complete pullout from Iraq, the decimation of our military.

But this latest piece of theater of the absurd will do incalculable damage to America’s credibility and standing in the world. Is Obama a master at dismantling American hegemony and destroying America’s standing in the world, or an incompetent idiot? Diabolical or stupid?

One thing is certain: Iran will not worry about any American response to their nuclear weapons program from a toothless Obama.

And meanwhile, all of the tyrants and barbarians Obama sucked up and deferred to these past six years are showing him their appreciation by kicking him to the curb. Obama’s anti-freedom foreign policy has changed the dynamic of the whole world.

President Citizen of the World hasn’t an ally in the world. President Nobel Peace Prize Winner is going to war alone. George W. Bush went to the U.N. Bush got the vote. George W. Bush assembled 30 countries that backed him – the “Coalition of the Willing.” But Obama can’t even get our closest ally, the U.K., to stand with him.

How’s returning the Winston Churchill statue working out for you, Mr. President?

Obama can’t turn to our reliable allies in Eastern Europe. He abandoned Eastern Europe when he scrapped our anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, in submission to Putin’s wishes. Can’t ask them for support now, can you, Mr. President? Obama brought the missile defense shield program in Eastern Europe to an end. He deserted our Eastern European allies in an “appalling appeasement of Russian aggression and a willingness to sacrifice American allies on the altar of political expediency.” He left our best friends defenseless in the face of an increasingly aggressive Vladimir Putin. And what did Obama get for this? The shirtless horseman treats him with scorn.

Obama can pretend that he has a friend in the feckless, faithless French. Yes, they support America going into Syria (wink, wink), but not with any actual military support or action. Words are cheap, and the French are plenty cheap.

No U.N. No Congress. No allies. No “Coalition of the Willing.” No objective, except the assurance that there is no objective – Obama has said that regime change is not the goal, picking a winner is not the goal. So what’s the goal? War games to make him look less ineffectual and weak? He’ll need a hydrogen bomb for that.

And who will bear the brunt of miscalculation and mistakes? Our one true friend in the Middle East, Israel, which he has treated most abominably. Israel will be on the receiving end of the enmity of Syria and Iran. The Israelis are waiting in lines for hours for gas masks. A Syrian army force warns that a U.S. attack on Syria would justify retaliation against Israel. And the New York Times reports that Iran is warning that a U.S. strike on Syria would lead to retaliation on Israel, fanned by “the flames of outrage.” The commander of Iran‘s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warns that such a strike on Syria “will result in the imminent destruction of the Zionist regime of Israel.”

So it is the Jews, whom Obama has betrayed and routed at every turn, who will suffer the catastrophic consequences of Obama’s Middle East pro-jihadic follies.

What is Obama’s goal in interfering in a war between an Iranian vassal state and an al-Qaida/Muslim Brotherhood militia? None. It’s the humanitarian thing to do.

If Obama wanted to do something humanitarian, he would work with the Christians and religious minorities in Syria. No one in his Administration has met with their leadership. We should be siding with the Christians in Syria, and working with their leaders. That is our side. Not Assad, and not al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood, with which Obama is about to side (again).

If there is one thing you can be sure of, it is that you can’t be sure of anything. There is no way of knowing what the unintended consequences will be of Obama’s folly of launching cruise missiles against Syria.

The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregory III Laham, who lives in Damascus, said that U.S. intervention in Syria “would be a tragedy, a tragedy, a tragedy – for the whole country and the whole Middle East. Enough with the intervention. It is fueling hatred, fueling criminality, fueling inhumanity, fueling fundamentalism, terrorism – all these things are the fruit of intervention.

Enough! Surely, it will spread like a world war.”


http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/chaos-oba...-misadventure/