Dear Conservative Friend,
Even though the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on Wednesday to overwhelmingly back President Obama in his strike against Syria, there are serious questions that remain, including why would we even consider taking money from Arab-nations to pay for the military intervention in Syria??
You didn’t hear about that? If the United States says it just can’t afford a war, no worries, the Arab nations will pay for everything!! Our military men and women will be paid mercenaries!
Think this is a joke? Read on.
"With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the cost and to assist, the answer is profoundly yes, they have. That offer is on the table," Kerry said as he appeared before a House of Representatives panel. The offer was "quite significant," he added.
So, all we have to do is get involved in a war we have no business in and take out a regime we have no business interfering with, AND IT WILL BE PAID FOR by Arab countries?!
Kerry was appearing before the House Foreign Affairs committee on the second day of the administration's campaign on Capitol Hill to motivate lawmakers to approve limited military strikes. While anti-war demonstrators held up red-stained hands behind Kerry's head in a soundless disapproval during his testimony.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a three-hour, classified meeting trying to hash out a draft resolution after Republican veteran Senator John McCain appeared to balk at the plan because he felt it did not go far enough!
And where is our Fearless Leader? He’s in Sweden for a European visit before the G20 summit, where he said that HIS credibility wasn’t on the line - the credibility of the international community is on the line!??
Obama also professed the red line wasn’t his either because it had first been clearly drawn by a chemical weapons treaty ratified by countries around the world. “That wasn’t something I made up,” he said.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee already voted to authorize the use of force on Wednesday, the first in a series of votes as the president’s request makes its way through Senate and House committees before coming before the two chambers for a final vote.
The vote marked the first time lawmakers have voted to authorize military action since the October 2002 votes giving to President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq.
Now is the time to let your voice be heard on a resounding NO! Fax Congress and tell them NO!
How can the president think he controls Assad’s response to a “strike across the bow”!! That is an ACT OF WAR!
Meanwhile back in Russia, President Vladimir Putin warns the West against taking one-sided action in Syria yet also said Russia “doesn’t exclude” supporting a UN resolution on punitive military strikes if it is proved that Damascus used poison gas on its own people.
Does Putin know something we should know about who did what, to whom?
In Putin’s interview with The Associated Press and Russia’s state Channel 1 television, Putin said Moscow provided some components of the S-300 air defense missile system to Syria but has also frozen further shipments.
He then put forward Russia might sell the potent missile systems elsewhere if Western nations attack Syria without UN Security Council backing.
In SYRIA, The Al-Baath newspaper called U.S. senators and members of Congress who supported a draft resolution to authorize a Syria military strike “advocates of war and terrorism.”
The paper is of course, a puppet of Assad’s Baath party but at this point, does that matter. They went on to report that military action would generate “relentless resistance, regionally and internationally” in a way that “will not make the Americans themselves feel safe.”
Any military strike will have unforeseen consequences on the world.
If Congress ultimately votes against this attack, you know this is Obama’s next repeated line “Congress let these innocent children die of chemical weapons.”
And what happens if Congress says YES to an attack??
U.S. Senator John McCain is backing up the Obama administration saying that not following up on the chemical attack and Assad would be “catastrophic for the credibility of the United States around the world.”
However, noted columnist Pat Buchanan writes: “Are we really, as a nation, required to go to war to make good the simple-minded statements (“Red-line”) of an untutored president who had no constitutional authority to issue his impulsive ultimate?”
From an historical perspective, John Solomon, the Editor of the Washington Times, writes: “No matter where one stands on the crises in the Middle East, there's little argument right now on either side of the political aisle that the president's handling of Syria is no way to conduct American foreign policy. It has defied all the rules, conventions and wisdom accrued on the global stage since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman.
Notify Congress that they must vote NO to this Syrian strike!
Brain-washed GOP leaders, such as House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) indicated that he would go along-side with Barack Obama. His comment: “The use of these weapons has to be responded to, and only the United States has the capability. I’m going to support the president’s call for action and I believe my colleagues should support this call for action.”
But here is the bottom line: THIS IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES!
The Left continues using their same talking points: “We are doing this for humanitarian purposes and our national interest!” Really? Then why didn’t you do something when more than 100,000 people were being tortured and killed by Assad?
I tend to agree with black national columnist Thomas Sowell: “Why are we even talking about taking military action in Syria? What is that military action supposed to accomplish? And what is the probability that it will in fact accomplish whatever that unknown goal might be? That is not the way Barack Obama operates. Like so many people who are masters of lofty words, he does not pay nearly as much attention to mundane realities. Campaigning is his strong suit. Governing is not!
Regardless of what the headlines say, there are “boots on the ground” in Syria where there are “Advisors” who are meeting with the rebel forces against President Assad. RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT!!
How about an international consensus? Isn’t that the “norm” of crisis, for international situations?
According to John Kerry’s testimony on Tuesday, it will take another THREE WEEKS for the United Nations to produce the final report on chemical weapons’ usage in Syria. 3 weeks!
As far as the United Nations’ Security Council, both Russia and China oppose the use of firing missiles inside Syria. Russia wants to wait until they see the United Nations; report.
Many of the friends of the United States want a “wait-and-see” approach to Syria. Only 16% of the people in the United Kingdom want us to go forward in an attack against Syria.
The Daily Record broke news on Syria this week as well: “BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today. Export licenses for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began. The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as saran, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago. President Bashar Assad's forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.”
Leading the charge against this military onslaught is U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). He has even once again promised a FILIBUSTER ON SYRIA! In a heated exchange a couple of days ago with Secretary of State John Kerry, Senator Paul said that intervention in Syria would be “reckless and immoral.”
I agree. And I think you do also.
Join the Facebook conversation!
We have not even established 100% that the chemical weapons were delivered by President Assad. And the list of skeptics is growing.
Ideally, the White House wants to link the attack directly to Assad; and not some rogue element or rogue commander, acting without Assad’s approval. Obama wants to use military actions to send a “strong signal” to the Assad regime.
Let’s not put our military men and women in harm’s way for another countries civil war! And without a true, definitive exit strategy!
Our floundering “commander-in-chief” continues to use his inexperience to march America closer to war! Please, please fax every Congressman today!
Sincerely,
Conservative-Daily
No comments yet - make the first one!