President Obama to Address the Nation on Syria

www.documentcloud.org...

this is a copy of the resolution to be sent to congress from the white house.

sounds like a declaration of war to me.

I really hope they vote this monster down!

reply to post by Jakes51


I agree with you but he sure is convincing on wanting this. Either he does want it or he is a good actor who wants to appear as if his stance has not changed. I get the sense he was short sided and is now realizing this but has a hard time shifting thinking (stubborn). I for sure believe he doesn't want all of the responsibility with so much opposition at this point, and this would indeed be an easy way out for that. The earliest we will know is still 2-4 weeks away since congress won't be back from recess for awhile. If nothing else happens I see this dying down. If more of these attacks happen it makes it harder to predict.

In response to Obama's speech there were some comments from those who it would affect the most:

Copy/paste from: www.chicagotribune.com...

In rebel-held areas of Syria, there was a sense of frustration and disappointment.

"God curse everything," said an activist in the rebel-held territory of Idlib, Ahmad Kaddour. "We've become just a game to people. I think this is going to make the situation worse for those of us living here."

A Reuters reporter visited a group of fighters and activists sitting in a home in Aleppo city. They had not watched Obama's speech, and when told of the president's decision, they all agreed it meant there would be no U.S. strike.

"This is the same old hesitancy that the United States have tortured us with since the beginning of the revolution," one said.

end quote from reference

reply to post by NotAnAspie


this guy thinks congress will vote against
this will be followed by a false flag

Think about what this represents according to the OFFICIAL NARRATIVE-

- Assad regime uses chemical weapons against their own citizens.

- West sticks to their 'democratic' values and puts military intervention down to a vote. Both the UK and US vote no.

- Further down the timeline, the west is then 'punished' for their 'inaction' or 'appeasment' of an evil dictator who supports terrorism.

Do you follow me? Do you see how this could lead to a much larger military operation down the line?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If I remember correctly, in the 1990s after it was discovered that Saddam tried to assasinate George Bush I, when he was in Kuwait, the Clinton ordered few strikes on Saddam's intelligence assets like buildings etc.

Was US still at the state of war with Iraq at that time? Under what premise did Clinton order those strikes? May be a hostile attempt by Iraq to kill its former commander in chief. So that was the direct attack or planned attack on the US and its interests.

However Assad using CW against his own people.........under what premise does Obama think he can order an attack without going through the congress?

Obama has been wise to wait and seek the approval from congress.

HOWEVER, it is very worrying that if Congress votes against the attack, then it will become a insulation for psychopaths in power to use WMDs against their own people atleast.

Also, even if congress approves of some strikes, Obama still will be at fault with UN. I doubt Russia will allow anything to go through the UN vote that would be even near to military action against Assad and his regime.

If US still goes ahead with strikes, it will become a reason for Russia and China to pump weapons like S-300s and more Buk and Tor systems into the Syrian arsenal and make it difficult for west to consider anything adventurous.

Originally posted by Tardacus
This would have been done deal and the bombs would be falling right now except for one thing....
no WMD`s were found in Iraq...

Who ever made the decision to lie about WMD`s in Iraq messed it up for all future presidents who want to jump into conflicts based on evidence that doesn`t go above and beyond certainty.

TPTB can make mistakes is what I get from that observation. They are not without faults. They can be out manuevered but only with a collective effort. To the point:

I found it interesting that John Kerry gave a speech the day before President Obama.

Here goes a wild idea that came to me: With the inevitable backlash that is created by the topic of war by a president to the people, they choose to lead with a political figure that everyone would recognize as the last alternative to President Obama. Meaning, even if you don't follow politics one would stop to see a live news broadcast of the former Presidental contender if they had leaned towards that particular canidate, biased towards a white leader, etc. The key is he was the last person to challenge the President publicly. Now, we have a rival in support of rival. Republican supporting Democrat: must be serious the sheeple will say. The backdrop of the speech was eerily similar to the one used when Obama announced Bin Laden's death (again attention grabbing for the sheeple; looks like a breaking news type of thing). Kerry announces (with conviction) the monumental evidence that Syrians were attacked with chemical weapons and they should have all the evidence they needed after the WMD snafu in Iraq.

Having learned from Iraq and the WMD mishap, an actual attack occured rather than fabricated. Those who may of voted for Kerry and haven't followed politics since the election will see "their guy" backing this war. The sheeple that are too busy with life (debt) to delve deeper but in passing and talking over social media will pass along the misinformation fed to them. Support will snowball.

It won't be immediate but watch the media outlets spin this into something that is essential for human rights. It will be pounded over and over again until it's the only course that makes sense. Given enough time, effort, talk, spin, rumor, myth, gray area, misinformation mixed with the signal the mind can't decipher what side to take a stand. So they follow what everyone else believe's. Most will believe what they're told, if told long enough and those telling are the one's that decide what is being told. So in the end the masses are confused into following along.


10 Years America. 10 years since Iraq, and along the way other nations in the Middle East are in chaos Egypt, Afganistan, Libya. It is becoming more and more obvious that this country is in trouble. We were fooled into believing we were right in invading Iraq, maybe we were, maybe not. Regardless, 10 years later, the world is watching our actions America. Not our Government's action anymore, but the people who sit behind their walls of security, suffering from societital Stokholm syndrome.

We voluntarilly take on ridiculous amounts of debt sold to us as "The American Dream". College education and home ownership. We have been programmed into hating people across the world we have never interacted with. Brainwashed into believing that the greatest country in the world can only do right, regardless of the people's feelings of those native lands. We are America and we know better than everyone, we know right from wrong, we support preemptive war but only if it's at the house not in ours. It's pathetic and disgusting that no one cares in our country to talk openly about this perversion of rights and violation of privacy; everyone wants someone else to do it for them.

Everyone says "What can ya do though?" Something other than nothing is a great start. I signed up today, I began to participate after 5 years of observation. More importantly, I'm another like mind that is not going to stand by in silence out of fear of what the consequences for speaking out against may bring. It's not much, but it's more than yesterday.



_Manufactured Dissent_

Obama to seek congressional approval? Doesn't sound like he will care if he can't get the votes required.......in his own words. "Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization."

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

I am no obama lover

but that was a very impressive speech

If you are taken in by his saying "this is a national threat", then we just lost, because that exempts him from having to get congressional approval.
So if everyone says, "great speech", then he will just go ahead and launch the attack with no warning.

and btw: when he says "intelligence tells us", he does not mean "our" intelligence, he means Israeli intelligence.

reply to post by truthseeker1984


Me three.....its even worse when you're one of the pawns in the game.

Originally posted by bigyin
Sounds like delaying tactics to me. maybe gonna be another false flag that will bring more allies onboard and then it's good to go.

I agree. Wait a few days / weeks and then blame Syria for an attack on direct US assets. "Sheep, see what you ave done! I waited like you bleated and it just got hundreds of servicemen and women killed. Well, now I will strike."

Waiting for the false flag in 5,4,3,2,1. Thunderbirds are go.

Of course Syria could play it smart right now. If the world is waiting for a false flag, well, we can manufacture one.

P

reply to post by xuenchen


If congress says no Obama will still go. Hes just hoping congress will side with him and share some blame and decieve the worls into thinking almost 90 percent of polled Americans aren't against this war. He is going in regardless mark my words.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Definitely. He is going regardless, but he's hoping he can spread the blame a bit.

Originally posted by whyamIhere
I give the President a big thumbs up...

Enjoy the puppet show while it lasts...

Don't forget what always comes AFTER the show...

Curtains!

Remember those pulling the strings always hide BEHIND a facade (the curtain).



Wars are always orchestrated by the "elite" using puppets and lies.

This has been demonstrated over and over all throughout history.

"We cannot understand the world until we appreciate that most leaders are traitors and that mankind is victim of a diabolical conspiracy on an unspeakable scale. It's time we stopped fighting each other and addressed the real enemy." ~ Henry Makow

My working hypothesis is that most wars/conflicts are orchestrated by this satanic cult. The same people secretly manipulate events on both sides to undermine "all collective forces except our own" and establish world government tyranny (a.k.a. "globalization.") In other words, an Occult Elite is waging war on humanity and we don't even know it. Their goal is: "To wear everyone out by dissension, animosities, feuds, famine, inoculation of diseases, want, until the Gentiles sees no other way of escape except by appeal to our money and our power." [And] "... enable us to absorb without disturbance all the governmental forces of the world and thus form a super-government." How They Control the World

One group and one group alone is responsible for virtually all wars and bloodshed on the face of this planet The Synagogue of Satan

Most wars are engineered by the Illuminati to weaken civilization and create a global police state, the "New World Order." Does a Satanic Cult Rule the World?

Bizarre and incredible as it sounds, humanity has been colonized by a satanic cult called the Illuminati. For over 200 years, they have used Jewish groups and Freemasons to foment war in order to advance their world government tyranny. Their Jewish agents admit it." Source

War is the major way for the EVIL, sinister, insane Illuminati to control humanity. Source

“...this Cabal of Evil has engineered all major conflicts to further their agenda for the total and absolute subjugation of humanity. Source

"Phoenicians were and still are the greatest merchants in the world, but their main cash crop is WAR! The other is HEROIN!" THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN

“HISTORY IS A LIE! ALL WARS ARE STARTED ON PURPOSE! HISTORY IS A LIE

thank you presiden Obama for going to congress as you should?? I should thank you for giving congress/us a say on the matter?? wow thanks a bunch

...so is he going to congress so it can get turned down and he could say.. yeah syria i was going to let you guys have it but you are lucky congress stopped me.

or he doesnj't want to start another unpopular war so he wants congress to push it then reluctantly agree but only because the people want to so it is not his fault.

either way this is a mess. He shouldn't have put aline in the sand with syria.. now he is going to move bakc and draw another one for them to cross

Originally posted by pheonix358

Originally posted by bigyin
Sounds like delaying tactics to me. maybe gonna be another false flag that will bring more allies onboard and then it's good to go.

I agree. Wait a few days / weeks and then blame Syria for an attack on direct US assets. "Sheep, see what you ave done! I waited like you bleated and it just got hundreds of servicemen and women killed. Well, now I will strike."

Waiting for the false flag in 5,4,3,2,1. Thunderbirds are go.

Of course Syria could play it smart right now. If the world is waiting for a false flag, well, we can manufacture one.

P

9/11 Congress will vote around the Sept 9 or 10

Originally posted by votan
thank you presiden Obama for going to congress as you should?? I should thank you for giving congress/us a say on the matter?? wow thanks a bunch

...so is he going to congress so it can get turned down and he could say.. yeah syria i was going to let you guys have it but you are lucky congress stopped me.

or he doesnj't want to start another unpopular war so he wants congress to push it then reluctantly agree but only because the people want to so it is not his fault.

either way this is a mess. He shouldn't have put aline in the sand with syria.. now he is going to move bakc and draw another one for them to cross

At the end of hes speach did anyone Catch what the reporter asked?

The reporter asked: Would you attack Syria if congress vote against a Syrian attack? Obama just turned around and left.
Keep in mind this is Obamas last shift as presiden. Obama have nothing to loos by bypassing congress and giving the order by him self. Obama has even said he has the right to give the attack order without the support of the congress. I bet he will do so as soon as they have figured out how to gather the herd.

If the Chemical attack is staged With the support of Our governments, what would keep them from staging something different to gather support?

reply to post by spy66


well he can but why would he?? Does he really want to be teh one to start another unpopular war?? I don't think so. This war would have his name all over it

Originally posted by snapperski
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

that was a very impressive speech

Really ?

I though it was anything but impressive.

He was forced into a congressional debate by the American people, thankfully.

Obama painted himself into a corner.
This is his way out.
If he starts something in Syria now, it is as much Congress' fault as his.

reply to post by butcherguy


So would you rather he didn't go to Congress and just started bombing Syria last night?

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by butcherguy

 

So would you rather he didn't go to Congress and just started bombing Syria last night?

No, I think he should have went to Congress first.... if he wanted to avoid looking like he had painted himself into a corner.
I say stay out of Syria altogether at this point.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by butcherguy

 

So would you rather he didn't go to Congress and just started bombing Syria last night?

No, I think he should have went to Congress first.... if he wanted to avoid looking like he had painted himself into a corner.
I say stay out of Syria altogether at this point.

so if he doesn't do anything.....how many people could Assad kill with gas that would be acceptable to you?....1,000 more?, 10,000 more? how about 100,000 people? would you say that it isn't our problem, it's their's