Al Qaeda’s strength with Syrian rebels now being downplayed

Well now we have Michelle Bachman in Egypt telling everyone that it wasn't Al Qaeda that caused 9/11, but rather the Muslim Brotherhood. *eyeroll*

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) suggested the Muslim Brotherhood was behind the 9/11 attacks during a press conference in Egypt on Saturday. "We have seen the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood has posed here for the people in Egypt. We have seen the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood has posed around the world," Bachmann said. "We stand against this great evil. We are not for them. We remember who caused 9/11 in America. We remember who it was that killed 3,000 brave Americans. We have not forgotten.” The Muslim Brotherhood denounced the attacks shortly after they occurred, with several leaders saying they were "horrified by the events" of September 11.

Link

So, according to the Tea Party types, it's OK to support Al Qaeda rebels in Syria, because they weren't responsible for 9/11? Is that what I am hearing?

What is going on with the world today?

Indigo5

beezzer

Indigo5

beezzer
reply to post by wrabbit2000

 

I just want to know how Obama is going to blame Bush, the Tea Party, and House republicans for this.

*shocked face*
(until we get new emoticons.)
*tongue sticking out*

edit on 10-9-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Don't know about Bush, but isn't the Syria call actually in the hands of House Republicans and the Tea Party? Just like they demanded?

Intervene..or don't intervene ...seems to be a debate being had by a divided GOP? McCain/Mainstream vs. TP/Rand crowd?

I am not a fan of assigning blame where it doesn't belong...but you seem to be claiming that the TP and GOP aren't the ones deciding? Should they not have accountability as well? For either action or inaction?

The last time I checked, Obama was president.

I thought he got to make the final decision.

Hmmm....I think he suggested the same thing and your crowd was shouting about Congress having the sole power to wage war...calling him a tyrant yada..yada..

So when he hands the decision to congress...suddenly it's not their job?

This logic makes my 3 year old more responsible then the GOP you are defending.

So when the president asks congress for authorization to go to war, it becomes the responsibility of congress and not the president?

Put your 3 year old on! He'll make more sense than you!

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Sometimes it's impossible to tell whether our politicians are just feckless and ignorant, or completely disingenuous. Is she repeating something someone told her? And she believed it? Is this some irrational conclusion that she came to on her own? Did she see it in a dream?

Is it propaganda to help soften the image of al Qaeda for the next time we want to attack Syria and some wag says that we're "al Qaeda's Air Force"?

beezzer

Indigo5

beezzer

Indigo5

beezzer
reply to post by wrabbit2000

 

I just want to know how Obama is going to blame Bush, the Tea Party, and House republicans for this.

*shocked face*
(until we get new emoticons.)
*tongue sticking out*

edit on 10-9-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Don't know about Bush, but isn't the Syria call actually in the hands of House Republicans and the Tea Party? Just like they demanded?

Intervene..or don't intervene ...seems to be a debate being had by a divided GOP? McCain/Mainstream vs. TP/Rand crowd?

I am not a fan of assigning blame where it doesn't belong...but you seem to be claiming that the TP and GOP aren't the ones deciding? Should they not have accountability as well? For either action or inaction?

The last time I checked, Obama was president.

I thought he got to make the final decision.

Hmmm....I think he suggested the same thing and your crowd was shouting about Congress having the sole power to wage war...calling him a tyrant yada..yada..

So when he hands the decision to congress...suddenly it's not their job?

This logic makes my 3 year old more responsible then the GOP you are defending.

So when the president asks congress for authorization to go to war, it becomes the responsibility of congress and not the president?

Put your 3 year old on! He'll make more sense than you!

Um..Yes? Congress is responsible for approving or denying the Military action? Is it your contention that they are not? That however they vote...not their problem?

They demanded this authority and were granted it...but are not responsible for it?

Honestly? That is the argument you are making?

Yes, It's the President's proposal, but Congress is deciding it...just weird that you don't see any responsibility associated with that authority and decision making power?

If my 5 year old asks my for the car keys so they can go for a drive...and I give the keys to the car and say go for it....I have no responsibility????

Yes..Congress has been given the authority they demanded...

Yes..they are squeeling like children trying to shirk that responsibility now that they have gotten it.

And yes...partisans will defend that shirking of responsibility as long as their is an (R) beside their name.

reply to post by Indigo5


To be realistic, Congress cannot go to war unless they issue a formal declaration of war. All this is doing is giving the President the legal option to pursue that, as he sees fit. He can use that authority from Congress or he can take it and then choose not to exercise it. That's how it's still 100% on Obama after Congress would say yes. They simply cannot order it done. Just approve it.

*To clarify, Congress couldn't go to war against the common cold, Declaration or not. However, I believe the Declaration would make it something they are telling the President to DO...where this resolution is like Afghan and Iraq. A permission slip. Little more. It sounds like it'll get nixed anyway.

Just throwing something out there...

I've been on the same side as, I assume, most ATSers, with the whole skepticism thing on Syria... But... Doesn't it seem TOO easy? I wouldn't be surprised if all this was some elaborate plan to appear like we, the people, have caused some war reform, only to be playing into some hidden powers' hands. Sure, for Iraq, I hadn't "woke up" yet, but maybe they're playing on our over-confidence this time around, and the yolk will be on our faces again.

I'm not saying this is how it actually is, but don't you guys feel like the 180 degree change in "popular opinion" has happened too easy?

wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5

 

That's how it's still 100% on Obama after Congress would say yes. They simply cannot order it done. Just approve it.

I get the technicalities of Congressional authority, but the President has made it clear that he has deferred to Congress for approval, just as they loudly demanded. Rand Paul went on a media blitz, wrote letters accusing the President of circumventing congress etc. Congress demanded this authority, they got it.

Again...If a child asks you for your car keys to go for a drive...You can either say No or Yes...but the argument that since the child could theoretically take those keys without your permission, that somehow your decision comes with no responsibility fails.

I understand the convenience for rhetorical purposes...for partisan purposes...of making the argument that Congress has no responsibility in the decision...but I am honestly shocked that someone as capable of objective and intelligent reasoning as I know you to be, would choose to sequester your logic centers and struggle to make the case that Congress has no responsibility in this decision, despite the fact that any action now resides with them.

The President has repeatedly and clearly delegated this to congress. In last night's speech he once again outlined the premise that Syria's use of Chemical Weapons poses "no imminent threat to national security"...but poses a significant "non-imminent threat" in terms of long term erosion of international norms on chemical weapons. In the absence of "imminent threat", then the responsibility reverts to congress for action. this is the Presidents public and clearly articulated position...and one with constitutional, legal implications now that he has declared that position. He no longer has the option to rescind congressional authority without legal consequences. He has abdicated that decision to congress, and frankly, given the lack of "imminent threat" he made the right constitutional call.

It is without question Congress's responsibility now...and I find it childish cowardice that the GOP Majority in congress is looking to avoid that responsibility that they, just weeks ago, demanded. They need to act like the leaders they pretend to be and make the difficult decisions.

reply to post by Indigo5


I think you misunderstand me a bit. I have said it's 100% on Obama because, ultimately it is a decision for just ONE man, under our system. Getting to that point of final decision may or may not be a group effort....but in the end, as it's always been for Chief Executives, it's all on the shoulders of one man. That man can punt to Congress to spread the blame or even attempt to shift it. Perhaps, that IS NOT what he's doing though, and really was following the will of the people. (I'm saying that for your benefit...I think you know I don't feel that way about any elected leaders, him least of all)

However, in terms of credit or blame, let's look at this another way. Congress did approve BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq. It was a joint and, to some degree, bi partisan vote. FAR more in the case of Afghanistan than Iraq, but it may surprise some to see the actual vote summary for Iraq, separated by house of Congress and party. It was by no means a party line vote.

Yet, we don't blame the Congress for Iraq and we don't blame Congress for Afghanistan. Why is that? Well, I'd say it's because they were a toll booth along the road a President follows to war.

It's his 100% and totally exclusive area to pursue and set foreign policy...so odds are? A situation came to be that bad at least, in part, because of the President. Whichever one we're talking about. After that, a President has a choice..and it IS a legitimate choice. They can go to Congress or they can attack without them. They can go either way....as long as they are confident hostilities won't pass beyond the WPA 60 day threshold.

So it is, we come around to where we started. Who is it that determines policy beyond our borders? Is it Congress? (shakes head)...nope.. It's not them. Republican or Democrat. Who determines if War is appropriate? Again...not Congress. They can grant power but they have NO command element or authority for initiative. The Constitution, before the WPA came along, insured that. Only ONE captain for our ship of state....with 500 backseat sailors and deckhands to help the captain slip and fall on his butt.

It's still his butt getting cracked though...because he's still the Captain of the ship. The buck REALLY DOES stop there, even if some to hold the office do everything in their power to send it on to someone else.

* Which means... GRUDGINGLY...and 100% earned by his OWN actions here or not...Obama gets credit for how this turns out, if it really does wind down without an American weapon killing a Syrian.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Dear you have been too nice with the Obama administration description, this the most corrupted administration this nation have encounter since the years before and after the Big Market crash last century.

Is incredible that with all the corruption in the nation Obama and his cohorts are still in power, it only shows how low our system of government have fallen.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I think you misunderstand me a bit. I have said it's 100% on Obama because, ultimately it is a decision for just ONE man, under our system. Getting to that point of final decision may or may not be a group effort....but in the end, as it's always been for Chief Executives, it's all on the shoulders of one man. That man can punt to Congress to spread the blame or even attempt to shift it. Perhaps, that IS NOT what he's doing though, and really was following the will of the people. (I'm saying that for your benefit...I think you know I don't feel that way about any elected leaders, him least of all)

Are you aware that he called a meeting with the Joint Chiefs and Chiefs of staff...and disregarded their advice to go-it-alone without Congressional approval? They wanted to just start bombing...Pres. Obama was the one that said the burden of "imminent threat" had not been met and therefore he would need to seek Congressional Approval.

Not everything in reality will always fit your narrative of dislike for the President. Discussions would be easier if we started from neutral positions.

The administration officials described a president overriding all his top national security advisers, who believed Obama had the authority to act on his own.

But these officials say the president spent much of the week wrestling with Congress' role in authorizing force and made the decision Friday night after a lengthy discussion with his chief of staff, Denis McDonough.

www.businessinsider.com...

Wrabbit2000
However, in terms of credit or blame, let's look at this another way. Congress did approve BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq. It was a joint and, to some degree, bi partisan vote. FAR more in the case of Afghanistan than Iraq, but it may surprise some to see the actual vote summary for Iraq, separated by house of Congress and party. It was by no means a party line vote.

Yet, we don't blame the Congress for Iraq and we don't blame Congress for Afghanistan. Why is that? Well, I'd say it's because they were a toll booth along the road a President follows to war.

Oh, I blame them for both? Why do you make that distinction? I also think Afghanistan was more just cause than Iraq. Afghanistan proudly harbored AQ and OBL and refused to turn them over...Iraq was just some guy looking at us sideways in a bar that we decided to pop. And Congress was given false intelligence on Iraq.

Wrabbit2000
It's his 100% and totally exclusive area to pursue and set foreign policy...so odds are? A situation came to be that bad at least, in part, because of the President. Whichever one we're talking about. After that, a President has a choice..and it IS a legitimate choice. They can go to Congress or they can attack without them. They can go either way....as long as they are confident hostilities won't pass beyond the WPA 60 day threshold.

Agreed, but it also must pose an imminent threat to national security, and the President disagreed with his security advisors about that qualification.

So it is, we come around to where we started. Who is it that determines policy beyond our borders? Is it Congress? (shakes head)...nope.. It's not them. Republican or Democrat. Who determines if War is appropriate? Again...not Congress. They can grant power but they have NO command element or authority for initiative. The Constitution, before the WPA came along, insured that. Only ONE captain for our ship of state....with 500 backseat sailors and deckhands to help the captain slip and fall on his butt.

First off...hell no am I looking to absolve the President of responsibility...but absolving congress of responsibility? WTF? It's their vote! Stop or go. You need to work in Congressional PR to be willing to make the case that they have no responsibility for the vote they demanded and got...Will Google Rand Paul's letter soon..

To further the analogy...So your 5 year old asks for the car keys...you say yes and hand them over...but not your problem because only the 5 year old is responsible for starting the car and crashing it, It is entirely in the 5 year olds hands whether they choose to drive the car after you give permission and how they drive it?

No...I honestly can't fathom the argument you are making.

It's still his butt getting cracked though...because he's still the Captain of the ship. The buck REALLY DOES stop there, even if some to hold the office do everything in their power to send it on to someone else.

Okeedokee then! No one should bring up the Syrian votes in the next congressional election then? Congress is not responsible for the authority they asked for, received and potentially voted on.

Lord Congressmen would love a guy like you on their staff!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


here you go..

Dear Mr. President,


We strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria. Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.


While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate – and the active engagement of Congress – prior to committing U.S. military assets. Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.


Mr. President, in the case of military operations in Libya you stated that authorization from Congress was not required because our military was not engaged in “hostilities.” In addition, an April 1, 2011, memorandum to you from your Office of Legal Counsel concluded:


“…President Obama could rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated military operations in Libya—which were limited in their nature, scope, and duration—without prior congressional authorization.”


We view the precedent this opinion sets, where “national interest” is enough to engage in hostilities without congressional authorization, as unconstitutional. If the use of 221 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 704 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and 42 Predator Hellfire missiles expended in Libya does not constitute “hostilities,” what does?


If you deem that military action in Syria is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request. We stand ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict.


Sincerely,

Signed by along list of GOP...but now they have the responsibility? uhh...Just kidding, we never thought you would listen to us

Just fricken cowardice...

www.politico.com...

reply to post by Indigo5


Indigo... They ALREADY have people worse than me on their staffs. It's why we hear some of the same people who voted *FOR* Afghanistan, Iraq OR both, bad mouthing the decision today. It's not remembered who voted for what or even cared about all that much. Oh, it SHOULD be..but we both know it isn't. The majority of people on street interviews cannot even name their Congressman or Senator...and I saw that play out in American Government for a class survey which brought truth to it, real close to home.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. Should Congress be blameless and never held to account? Nope...that's just how it'll happen, because it always has. No one got voted out that I heard about, over Iraq. Did you? Not in Congress, especially.

The problem here is a VERY basic one...and it's beyond all the details of any specific given situation. I do not make this about Obama, either. We'll have someone after him. It could be a Republican and that could be a man WORSE than Obama. I'm not about to get particular on this point.

The point is..... If you blame 500+ people then ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is to blame. That is not how our nation was designed to operate in matters of war and peace. It is, by all design, the decision of ONE...JUST ONE...man. The President. No one else. anywhere else. The War Powers act say he must get permission AFTER 60 DAYS. Prior to that? Well, I suppose if a President convinced them that he believed it wouldn't have taken so long, they could get us into just about anything ...legally and properly by the laws.

I absolutely won't spread blame over 500 people for the decision of one. I won't let him, Bush, or any other President off THAT easy. Congress could approve the war and Obama or another President could THEN still decline to pursue that course of action. They can use what Congress says...any way they see fit. (at least for 60 days they can)

I also will NEVER forget Obama, personally and by HIS OWN WORDS saying he didn't require Congress and could strike with or without them. It's true, as far as it goes...but you suggest somehow, he wasn't even thinking such things...when his own mouth formed the words and spoke them aloud, to millions, in official statements.

FAR MORE was said via his people..which directly represent HIM and I do hold him directly accountable for he words of. If they overstep, he can fire them. If he doesn't? They said what he was wanting..or close enough for him to live with.

You wouldn't really want to get into the screen caps of headlines and news sites from last week, would ya? I took a ton of them, with the hunch this may happen. The absolute statements of authority, ability to act without approval and intention to DO just that were so pervasive and SO over the top, I had to record all I could find....knowing, if it went the other way, NONE of them would EVER admit to having said a word of it while they gleefully say the opposite today.

We can play like it didn't happen that way...but the world sure saw it happen and what we think isn't what determines the future fortunes of our nation. The world's attitude and treatment regarding our nation is. I feel they just lost a ton of respect for us. Not for lack of action...but for lack of CLARITY to intention for days upon days. That isn't leadership...it's sitting in the middle of the road, playing frogger and waiting for the truck to come squash ya flat.

Wrabbit2000

The point is..... If you blame 500+ people then ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is to blame. That is not how our nation was designed to operate in matters of war and peace. It is, by all design, the decision of ONE...JUST ONE...man. The President. No one else. anywhere else.

(A) I am a fan of placing blame where it belongs and if it is shared blame, then shared blame it is. The GOP in Congress outright demanded to "share the burden" of these decisions...they have earned their share.

(B) I have no idea what government you are describing, but it is not American Democracy that is "by all design, the decision of ONE...JUST ONE...man. The President" What you describe is a dictatorship by design absent congress. We have balance of powers.

Wrabbit2000
I absolutely won't spread blame over 500 people for the decision of one. I won't let him, Bush, or any other President off THAT easy. Congress could approve the war and Obama or another President could THEN still decline to pursue that course of action. They can use what Congress says...any way they see fit. (at least for 60 days they can)

The war powers act is not a blank check...let's ask a constitutional professor

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama said.

His deferral to congress is in keeping with this interpretation. In Libya he skirted it because it was no boots on the ground and most importantly from a legal perspective, participating in a NATO action of enforcement.

No NATO here...he needs Congressional approval for a unilateral strike to a danger that is not an "imminent threat to the nation".

Wrabbit2000
I also will NEVER forget Obama, personally and by HIS OWN WORDS saying he didn't require Congress and could strike with or without them. It's true, as far as it goes...but you suggest somehow, he wasn't even thinking such things...when his own mouth formed the words and spoke them aloud, to millions, in official statements.

He said it...and his National Security Advisors agreed. He also changed his mind after reflection and despite urging by his staff and NS Advisors, decided that Congress needed to approve this kind of action.

Wrabbit2000
FAR MORE was said via his people..which directly represent HIM and I do hold him directly accountable for he words of. If they overstep, he can fire them. If he doesn't? They said what he was wanting..or close enough for him to live with.

See above...you can be angry, you can despise him...but he changed his mind, and for the better IMO. At least he wasn't a Pres. Bush, just nodding his head to everything his National Security Advisors told him was OK and what to do.

Wrabbit2000
You wouldn't really want to get into the screen caps of headlines and news sites from last week, would ya? I took a ton of them, with the hunch this may happen. The absolute statements of authority, ability to act without approval and intention to DO just that were so pervasive and SO over the top, I had to record all I could find....knowing, if it went the other way, NONE of them would EVER admit to having said a word of it while they gleefully say the opposite today.

What's the confusion? Everyone on staff in his bubble told him he was in constitutional bounds...they ran with it...then the POTUS actually thought about it, called a meeting and disagreed with everyone...and LIMITED HIS OWN POWER...

You can hate him for it, call him a flip-flopper...whatever...he did what he needed to do despite the public image of flip-flopping, despite it actually giving him less power, despite what his staff told him he could do...and hell, when was the last time a President did that? I won't give him Sh*& about doing the right thing, more so given how rare it is these days. Apparently Obama was the only one in the room who DIDN'T care how it would spin in the press, he just knew this didn't fall under war powers, even if his National Security team and Legal Council told him he could get away with it.

Have at it...absolve your congressman of this vote...I will lay this at the feet of anyone that signs off on it.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


I tell you this issue with Syria is making Obamacaca look dirtier than crap, first he support the Muslim brotherhood, as we know Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood supports US Syrian attack, then we know that tax payers money is financing the so call "Rebels" when we indeed have no clue who they are.

Then we most ignore the fact that Obamacaca has taken upon himself as a Muslim brotherhood stooge to plan and after Syrian take over with Turkey in which the Muslim brotherhood is favored

Then condemn a country's leader for chemical attacks that is actually no concrete prove if it was done under his command but we most rely on Intel from sources that are supporting US bound Syrian attack to take the government from power, then we have no clue who is the Terrorist group that will take over the country because that is what the so call Rebels are.

How deep is Obamacaca into the Muslim brotherhood, well this whole issue was already in the table and in the planning as early as 2011, when funding started to flow to support the coup of Assad government

"It would seem far more desirable to back the democratic influences -- the political organizations that require cultivation and support -- despite their relative weakness at this moment," the report, titled "U.S. Betrays Syria's Opposition," said. "It is these religious and secular groups that represent the real hope for the future and the counterweight to the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood."

London, president of Hudson until 2011, said the State Department has ignored non-Brotherhood opposition groups. In July, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton invited Brotherhood operatives and urged them to work with Turkey to help oust Assad.

"Missing from the invitations are Kurdish leaders, Sunni liberals, Assyrians and Christian spokesmen," the report said. "According to various reports the State Department made a deal with Turkey and Muslim Brotherhood representatives either to share power with Assad to stabilize the government, or replace him if this effort fails."

www.jihadwatch.org...

So for those that think all this Syrian attack mumbo jumbo started just this year, I got for you a big eye opening. A littler walk on memory lane helps understand that Syria has been in the of the warmongers mind for a while already.

Incredible.

reply to post by marg6043


Please Marg...not "jihadwatch"...they are to Muslims what KKK propaganda is to African Americans..

Please do some research before using that as a source for anything.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Al CIAaeda . Who is Responseable for this Bastard Child who Slays the Innocent in the Name of a God who is the Direct Opposite of those that say they Worship him ? The great Deceiver is , PURE EVIL .....


i297.photobucket.com...

FlyersFan
Here's the transparency people voted for. The hope and change for the future. (Sarcasm)

This is worse than anything I've seen. The scandals and lies and incompetency
that has been coming out of the Obama administration is worse and more insulting
than this country has ever had to endure previously.

Again the Obama bashing...you troll every thread like it's all about Obama and the Democrats. Get a grip.

This is what your administration has been doing long before Obama came in to office.

For the last 80 years, every president you had in the office, has been a "war president"

reply to post by Indigo5


Sorry my dear the truth is in the pudding regardless of who is providing the news, Obama is a piece of work, a muslim with ties to the muslim brotherhood and a butt kisser to terrorist groups in the middle east, his record speaks tons of how corrupted he is, while funding so call "Rebels" with tax payers dollars.


The allegations of Hilary deputy chief of staff ties to the Muslim brotherhood in Saudi Arabia can not be hidden even when the white house tried to downplay the allegations with sugar coating of harmless.


You believe what you want but the truth can not be denied.

But when you look at who is who within Obama administration the truth is in front of you eyes.

Arif Alikhan ,Deputy Executive Director for Homeland Security
Mohammed Elibiary, member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
Rashad Hussain, U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference
Salam al-Marayati, founder of Muslim Public Affairs Council
Imam Mohamed Magid, Obama’s ‘Sharia law czar.’ Imam Mohamed Magid also serves as the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
Eboo Patel, member of Obama’s inaugural Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships

What all this persons have in common, Ties to the Muslim brotherhood, as an American and any American in this nation should be outraged of the true nature of the person sitting in the highest seat in the white house we should all be feeling soo safe, now that the Terrorist are among us.

I guess the fight against terror was nothing but a joke.

Send congress representatives to fight their own wars !On the ground with the rebels!

Please let's end this once and for all by sending congress representatives to fight on the ground with the rebels that they support.

Please sign my petition:

petitions.whitehouse.gov...


P.S. If they have to the the dirty work, the war probably will not start in the first place!