Why am I supposed to care about Chemical Weapons in Syria?

[ClosedCaption]

US troops are in Syria. We don't know how many because the liar in chief has decided to make it a secret.

The same people saying we shouldn't be there will now say they should be there because Trump does it.

I personally think we should withdraw, and wished that the previous Administration would have handled things differently when they had the chance.

See? He went from we shouldnt be there full stop to now going "I wish things were different but hey"

 

[The Original Tree]

US troops are in Syria. We don't know how many because the liar in chief has decided to make it a secret.

The same people saying we shouldn't be there will now say they should be there because Trump does it.

I personally think we should withdraw, and wished that the previous Administration would have handled things differently when they had the chance.

See? He went from we shouldnt be there full stop to now going "I wish things were different but hey"

Exactly what are we as a nation going to do if this erupts in to WWIII?

The time to do something was when Obama had the power to do something about it.

Now it's a cluster fuck.

Which is what I am trying to tell you.

We now have gotten sucked in to this, and if I had my way, things would die down peacefully, issues that spun out of control get resolved, and we can extricate ourselves.

But Obama's Foreign Policy was a disaster, and now we will end up trying to be some kind of buffer between terrorists, Assad, Russia, Turkey, ISIS, Al Nusra, and The Kurds, The PLO, Hamas, and the few moderates left alive in Syria.

I don't care if you hate President Trump.

You must at least have the intelligence to realize how serious this is getting over there, especially since we are looking at Nuclear Weapons and Chemical Weapons thrown in the mix.

What if Israel & Turkey get involved? And China has allies in this region as well.

You understand the severity of this, don't you?

 

[SavannahMann]

I don't think you're far in studies of second world war. It's curious how Americans always think it was all about them, Stalin and Hitler. Yes, that is all there was to it. Job well done. Thank God we don't have to do that again.. We'll see about that.

Because it is a war crime and America is supporting the side committing the war crimes; Assad and Russia. It is true that there is a rumour ISIS might have the recourses to make some of them, but not all of them. Plenty of observers have seen the planes and nearly all suspicion falls on Assad.

I thought it was sad when I read a story some woman told about them hiding children into the ground and coming back for them and they were dead from the chemicals with no sign of injury. There's something ghost like about it. And it takes time to die of it.

Still, if you have no shame you don't have to care. Ignore it. I don't know why you want to brag about it though.

A diary from Germany told the story of firebombing the cities during World War II. A young girl asked her Mother if they were going to be dead now? In Leningrad a girl wrote when her family died from starvation. The survivors ate the dead trying to continue to live. In Stalingrad the Soviet Soldiers found three children in bed together. The first soldier said more dead bodies. One of the children spoke up and said we aren't dead yet.

War is pain, suffering, and death. Soldiers on the German and Russian side both wrote that pain is universal.

If we get more directly involved we will spread even more pain. If we win, then the dictatorial thug who takes over will be just as bad as Assad, and probably much worse.

There aren't any good guys fighting in Syria. The best we can hope to accomplish is continuing the suffering, prolonging it. If we win we continue it even worse than it is now. We aren't supporting the forces of light and justice and democracy. We are supporting Islamic jihadist nutters who if they became a little more civilized might qualify as barbarians.



Why do I want them to win again? So the Islamic nutters can keep girls uneducated and mutilated? So men are free to beat women?

Assad is bad. None of those fighting him are any better. Most are worse, much worse.

So why are you so heartless that you want women to be mutilated and beaten and killed? Why are you so cruel that you want homosexuals murdered for being gay, tortured to death I should say.

Well at least you claim to care, about what I have no idea.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Turkey has been the big provocateur of the Syrian war AND the big obstacle to the end of the Syrian war. If Turkey were willing to invade Syria we could support them with massive missile strikes.

Sending U.S. troops to Syria would be a disaster, but Turkish troops could be successful.

 

[Fiero425]

What a collection of idiots in DC! For years, Trump and other numbnuts thought to stay out of Syria, but they keep invoking Obama's "red line" on Asaad! Even though Obama wanted to do something 5 years ago, Republicans didn't want anything done! Now after this "gas" attack on his own people in Syria, Trump wants to totally put this all on Obama! Makes sense to crazy people I guess! How ya'll enjoying the first 100 days?

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm not reading the whole tirade but chemical wmd should be a concern of everybody. The world decided on it in WW1 after so many suffered so horribly. It only leads to even greater chemical, then biological. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where that's going.

As far as the Nazis. They were after world domination and should have been stopped much sooner. We learned that in WW2. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Assad can't do anything about world domination. Using your World War II issue, the Soviets were bent on World Donination too. They had spies all over the world. So our friend who isn't bent on world domination is better than our enemy bent on world domination.

Assad is no threat to us. He never was.

You missed the main point. No wonder you believe what you do.

I missed the point? You didn't read the OP and claim I missed the point. You are an unequaled jackass. I may put that in my wig line. Iceweasel is an unequaled jackass. I've told you that many times.

You responded to my post and ignored or missed the main point I made. You are a dumbass so that's WHY you believe what you do.

"I'm not reading the whole tirade but chemical wmd should be a concern of everybody. The world decided on it in WW1 after so many suffered so horribly. It only leads to even greater chemical, then biological. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where that's going."

 

[ClosedCaption]

US troops are in Syria. We don't know how many because the liar in chief has decided to make it a secret.

The same people saying we shouldn't be there will now say they should be there because Trump does it.

I personally think we should withdraw, and wished that the previous Administration would have handled things differently when they had the chance.

See? He went from we shouldnt be there full stop to now going "I wish things were different but hey"

Exactly what are we as a nation going to do if this erupts in to WWIII?

The time to do something was when Obama had the power to do something about it.

Now it's a cluster fuck.

Which is what I am trying to tell you.

We now have gotten sucked in to this, and if I had my way, things would die down peacefully, issues that spun out of control get resolved, and we can extricate ourselves.

But Obama's Foreign Policy was a disaster, and now we will end up trying to be some kind of buffer between terrorists, Assad, Russia, Turkey, ISIS, Al Nusra, and The Kurds, The PLO, Hamas, and the few moderates left alive in Syria.

I don't care if you hate President Trump.

You must at least have the intelligence to realize how serious this is getting over there, especially since we are looking at Nuclear Weapons and Chemical Weapons thrown in the mix.

What if Israel & Turkey get involved? And China has allies in this region as well.

You understand the severity of this, don't you?

Obama asked congress for authorization and when he did they all ran to their hiding spaces. Once it went to shit then they blamed Obama for not doing anything.

But like I said, you went from saying we shouldn't be there to making excuses to why it's OK that we are there.

 

[The Original Tree]

US troops are in Syria. We don't know how many because the liar in chief has decided to make it a secret.

The same people saying we shouldn't be there will now say they should be there because Trump does it.

I personally think we should withdraw, and wished that the previous Administration would have handled things differently when they had the chance.

See? He went from we shouldnt be there full stop to now going "I wish things were different but hey"

Exactly what are we as a nation going to do if this erupts in to WWIII?

The time to do something was when Obama had the power to do something about it.

Now it's a cluster fuck.

Which is what I am trying to tell you.

We now have gotten sucked in to this, and if I had my way, things would die down peacefully, issues that spun out of control get resolved, and we can extricate ourselves.

But Obama's Foreign Policy was a disaster, and now we will end up trying to be some kind of buffer between terrorists, Assad, Russia, Turkey, ISIS, Al Nusra, and The Kurds, The PLO, Hamas, and the few moderates left alive in Syria.

I don't care if you hate President Trump.

You must at least have the intelligence to realize how serious this is getting over there, especially since we are looking at Nuclear Weapons and Chemical Weapons thrown in the mix.

What if Israel & Turkey get involved? And China has allies in this region as well.

You understand the severity of this, don't you?

Obama asked congress for authorization and when he did they all ran to their hiding spaces. Once it went to shit then they blamed Obama for not doing anything.

But like I said, you went from saying we shouldn't be there to making excuses to why it's OK that we are there.

No it's not ok at all. And Obama said "No Troops On The Ground" and then proceeded to launch air strikes, killing Civilians.
So exactly how did Congress stop Obama from doing anything he wanted to do?

They didn't.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The same people saying we shouldn't be there will now say they should be there because Trump does it.

I personally think we should withdraw, and wished that the previous Administration would have handled things differently when they had the chance.

See? He went from we shouldnt be there full stop to now going "I wish things were different but hey"

Exactly what are we as a nation going to do if this erupts in to WWIII?

The time to do something was when Obama had the power to do something about it.

Now it's a cluster fuck.

Which is what I am trying to tell you.

We now have gotten sucked in to this, and if I had my way, things would die down peacefully, issues that spun out of control get resolved, and we can extricate ourselves.

But Obama's Foreign Policy was a disaster, and now we will end up trying to be some kind of buffer between terrorists, Assad, Russia, Turkey, ISIS, Al Nusra, and The Kurds, The PLO, Hamas, and the few moderates left alive in Syria.

I don't care if you hate President Trump.

You must at least have the intelligence to realize how serious this is getting over there, especially since we are looking at Nuclear Weapons and Chemical Weapons thrown in the mix.

What if Israel & Turkey get involved? And China has allies in this region as well.

You understand the severity of this, don't you?

Obama asked congress for authorization and when he did they all ran to their hiding spaces. Once it went to shit then they blamed Obama for not doing anything.

But like I said, you went from saying we shouldn't be there to making excuses to why it's OK that we are there.

No it's not ok at all. And Obama said "No Troops On The Ground" and then proceeded to launch air strikes, killing Civilians.
So exactly how did Congress stop Obama from doing anything he wanted to do?

They didn't.

Listen closely. Obama asked congress for authorization. The Republican congress hid and didn't want to put their stamp on it. Then after doing nothing they say it was all Obama's fault nothing was done.

When they had the opportunity to put their money where their mouths were they ran away only to emerge later talking tough.

 

[Lewdog]

Because Obama was a COWARD. He said there were no chemical weapons in Syria and he made sure there weren't. He then drew his Yellow Line In the Sand, and then tucked tail in the Middle East and Ran turning his backs on people America promised to help. The end result was the slaughter of 500,000 people.

Can you show that he said there were no chemical weapons in Syria? Because that is a flat out lie.

Phuck off. You are the liar. All Liberals are Liars.
And Liars Burn In Hell.
Remember that.
Repent....

And BTW, quit using Google & Bing if you want to really know anything. They are flitering and censoring articles. So now we have FAKE SEARCH ENGINES also helping Liberal Scum Propagandize The American People.

WASHINGTON — The United States said Monday that it had completed the destruction of the deadliest chemical weapons in Syria’s arsenal, a rare foreign policy achievement for President Obama at a time when the Middle East is embroiled in violence and political turmoil.

On Monday, Mr. Obama said that the destruction of the weapons, several weeks ahead of schedule, “advances our collective goal to ensure that the Assad regime cannot use its chemical arsenal against the Syrian people and sends a clear message that the use of these abhorrent weapons has consequences and will not be tolerated by the international community.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/...chemical-arsenal-fully-destroyed-us-says.html

Obama: 'I Didn't Set a Red Line' on Syria

Let me give you some examples of how Obama Bin Spying is a Lying Son Of A Bitch.
Read between the lines on some of his official public statements.
Don't bother reading any of this if you are a Liberal.
We know you are too damn dumb to understand such complicated things.
Just throw darts at your President Donald Trump dart board, and feel good about yourself.

If, you want the dumbed down version then don't read further than this paragraph I am writing here.

Obama drew a 'red line in the sand'. He then claimed 'foreign policy success' with the Chemical Weapons Removal Deal made with Russia & Syria.
It was verified that Russia was carrying out it's obligations to help remove Chemical Weapons from Syria. The Obama Administration declared that all The Chemical Weapons had been removed.

Chemical weapons attacks occurred after the Administration declared victory in removing chemical weapons from Syria. Now, here is the question, did Syria do it, or ISIS, or Al Nusra? And if there were never any Chemical Weapons in Iraq, how did ISIS get them? And exactly why would Obama actually fund Al Nusra, The Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Queda Affiliates to carry out actions in The ME for him?

And why did Obama deny 555,000 FOIA requests asking to see what the origins of The Chemical Weapons The Obama Administration claimed were all destroyed?
Are they being illegally manufactured in THE US?

And lastly, two people that you cannot trust as an American is John Brennan, and Jake Clapper. These are Polticos, and Professional Liars.

The good people under them, burdened by their leadership want to do their jobs but they are not allowed to. They were continually compromised by a Scandolous, and Unscrupulous Obama Regime.

Obama is probably the most artful and clever liar that ever inhabited The White House.

I realize No one wants to do research. It's boring. It's hard work. And you have to be willing to topple your own idols if you value Truth, more than you value ideologies and people.

I had to do this with some of my own personal heroes. Now you must do it to, if you value Truth.

Obama's Bumbling Foreign Policy Diminishes America's Global Position - College Republican National Committee

March 3, 2014

The disastrous state of American foreign policy is one of the least talked about legacies of the Obama Administration. But that doesn’t mean that Americans aren’t paying attention. Indeed, a new Gallup poll finds that for the first time in his presidency, a majority of Americans believe that President Obama is not respected by world leaders.

From a foreign policy perspective, President Obama's shifting red-lines, has shown a lack of resolve and a weakening of America's position of leadership in the world ... That view seemed to be confirmed when an ad-libbed line by Kerry about the Assad regime turning over all its chemical weapons turned out to be false.


BREAKING: The Obama administration promised there were no more chemical weapons in Syria. Today, Syrian children are dying, attacked without warning. Here’s what we know.

Obama, Kerry Caught With Pants Down On Chemical Weapons In Syria

Syria turns over its last declared stocks of chemical weapons to UN inspectors

Almost All of Syria's Chemical Weapons Have Now Been Removed

Removal of Chemical Weapons From Syria Is Completed

Remarks by the President to the 113th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars

How Is Syria Still Using Chemical Weapons?

In Opinion: Obama's failure in Syria clouds his foreign policy legacy

Syrian chemical weapons destroyed, but concerns continue, Obama says

Obama Bin Lying's Address to the 113th Congress

So, four years ago, I made you a promise. I pledged to take the fight to our enemies, and renew our leadership in the world. As President, that’s what I’ve done. (Applause.) And as you reflect on recent years, as we look ahead to the challenges we face as a nation and the leadership that’s required, you don’t just have my words, you have my deeds. You have my track record. You have the promises I’ve made and the promises that I’ve kept.

I pledged to end the war in Iraq honorably, and that’s what we’ve done. (Applause.) After I took office, we removed nearly 150,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. And some said that bringing our troops home last year was a mistake.

We’re not just ending these wars; we’re doing it in a way that achieves our objectives. Moreover, it’s allowed us to broaden our vision and begin a new era of American leadership. We’re leading from Europe to the Asia Pacific, with alliances that have never been stronger. We’re leading the fight against nuclear dangers. We’ve applied the strongest sanctions ever on Iran and North Korea -- nations that cannot be allowed to threaten the world with nuclear weapons. (Applause.) We’re leading on behalf of freedom -- standing with people in the Middle East and North Africa as they demand their rights; protecting the Libyan people as they rid the world of Muammar Qaddafi.

Today, we’re also working for a transition so the Syrian people can have a better future, free of the Assad regime. And given the regime’s stockpiles of chemical weapons, we will continue to make it clear to Assad and those around him that the world is watching, and that they will be held accountable by the international community and the United States, should they make the tragic mistake of using those weapons. (Applause.) And we will continue to work with our friends and our allies and the Syrian opposition on behalf of the day when the Syrian people have a government that respects their basic rights to live in peace and freedom and dignity.

Because we’re leading around the world, people have a new attitude toward America. There’s more confidence in our leadership. We see it everywhere we go. We saw it as grateful Libyans waved American flags.

Remarks by the President to the 113th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars

And then there is this statement

Obama Bin Crying's Address To The UN

After I took office, I made clear that one of the principal achievements of this body -- the nuclear non-proliferation regime -- was endangered by Iran’s violation of the NPT. On that basis, the Security Council tightened sanctions on the Iranian government, and many nations joined us to enforce them. Together, we showed that laws and agreements mean something.

But we also understood that the goal of sanctions was not simply to punish Iran. Our objective was to test whether Iran could change course, accept constraints, and allow the world to verify that its nuclear program will be peaceful. For two years, the United States and our partners -- including Russia, including China -- stuck together in complex negotiations. The result is a lasting, comprehensive deal that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, while allowing it to access peaceful energy. And if this deal is fully implemented, the prohibition on nuclear weapons is strengthened, a potential war is averted, our world is safer. That is the strength of the international system when it works the way it should.

The Iranian people have a proud history, and are filled with extraordinary potential. But chanting “Death to America” does not create jobs, or make Iran more secure. If Iran chose a different path, that would be good for the security of the region, good for the Iranian people, and good for the world.

We will help any legitimate Libyan government as it works to bring the country together. But we also have to recognize that we must work more effectively in the future, as an international community, to build capacity for states that are in distress, before they collapse.

Nowhere is our commitment to international order more tested than in Syria. When a dictator slaughters tens of thousands of his own people, that is not just a matter of one nation’s internal affairs -- it breeds human suffering on an order of magnitude that affects us all. Likewise, when a terrorist group beheads captives, slaughters the innocent and enslaves women, that’s not a single nation’s national security problem -- that is an assault on all humanity.

I’ve said before and I will repeat: There is no room for accommodating an apocalyptic cult like ISIL, and the United States makes no apologies for using our military, as part of a broad coalition, to go after them. We do so with a determination to ensure that there will never be a safe haven for terrorists who carry out these crimes. And we have demonstrated over more than a decade of relentless pursuit of al Qaeda, we will not be outlasted by extremists.

But while military power is necessary, it is not sufficient to resolve the situation in Syria. Lasting stability can only take hold when the people of Syria forge an agreement to live together peacefully. The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo.


Can You Really Trust Obama Bin Lying and How He Uses and Disseminates Classified Intel?

Hersh On Obama's Lies About Syrian Chemical Weapons

A month ago Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, wrote about CIA analysts who threatened to resign over the Obama administration allegations about the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Syrian government:

With all evidence considered, the intelligence community found itself with numerous skeptics in the ranks, leading to sharp exchanges with the Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

A number of analysts threatened to resign as a group if their strong dissent was not noted in any report released to the public, forcing both Brennan and Clapper to back down.

Now Seymour Hersh writes about the case and finds that the CIA knew that Jabhat al-Nusra, a fundamentalist gang fighting the Syrian government, was capable of producing Sarin, the toxic chemical weapon that was used in a suburb of Damascus:

In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.
...
In recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’.

The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening.
MoA has maintained since the very first reports of the chemical weapon use that this attack was likely a false flag event. We also criticized allegations by the New York Times and Human Rights Watch about the origin of the rocket debris found after the attack. The new Hersh report now completely debunks those allegations.

One piece in Hersh's case about al-Nusra's capabilities to produce Sarin comes from a somewhat mysterious cable:

On 20 June a four-page top secret cable summarising what had been learned about al-Nusra’s nerve gas capabilities was forwarded to David R. Shedd, deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. ‘What Shedd was briefed on was extensive and comprehensive,’ the [senior intelligence] consultant said. ‘It was not a bunch of “we believes”.’ He told me that the cable made no assessment as to whether the rebels or the Syrian army had initiated the attacks in March and April, but it did confirm previous reports that al-Nusra had the ability to acquire and use sarin.
...
Spokesmen for the DIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence said they were not aware of the report to Shedd and, when provided with specific cable markings for the document, said they were unable to find it. Shawn Turner, head of public affairs for the ODNI, said that no American intelligence agency, including the DIA, ‘assesses that the al-Nusra Front has succeeded in developing a capacity to manufacture sarin’.

MoA - Hersh On Obama's Lies About Syrian Chemical Weapons

Now We Start Getting Down To It

US-Russia Strike Deal on Syrian Chemical Weapons: What’s Next? - National Security Network

“The first step of the U.S.-Russian framework agreement requires President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to submit to the United Nations ‘a comprehensive listing, including names, types, and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities.’ Press reports say Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed in private talks in Geneva last week that Syria possessed about 1,000 metric tons of chemical agents, including nerve gas and blistering agents. But the devil is in the details.

After the first submission from Syria, the U.S.-Russia plan says an initial round of inspections is supposed to be complete by the end of November, and Syria’s chemical stocks should be destroyed by the middle of 2014. To get a sense of how ambitious that stipulation is, consider what the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, told a conference for intelligence community contractors in Washington on Thursday: ‘Today I asked a few of our folks from our own chemical system, ‘How long did it take for us to kind of get rid of everything?’… It took us about seven years, so it’s going to take a while.’” [Daily Beast, 9/16/13]

“The Russia-U.S. agreement on a Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons is certainly a breakthrough with respect to chemical weapons, if it is implemented with anything like the thoroughness and timeliness specified. John Kerry has delivered on paper what President Obama has wanted: an end not just to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but destruction of Syria’s capability to make them and use them by the middle of 2014. But the agreement, even fully implemented, does nothing to solve three other problems: Bashar al Assad’s continued hold on power and attacks on Syria’s civilian population, radicalization of his opposition and his supporters, and destabilization of the region.” [Washington Post, 9/15/13. Associated Press, 9/16/13. Dan Serwer, 9/16/13]



Well, Not So Much

President Obama Has Played His Hand Perfectly When it Comes to Syria - Forward Progressives

Obama does have the power to use our military, without Congressional approval, for a very limited number of days. He didn’t need Republican support to stage a short bombing campaign in Syria. And even had he said he was going to “go it alone,” he still could have pushed the issue how he has, allowing enough time for Russia to come up with a response.

Instead, he decided to turn this around on Republicans. And by doing so, he’s gotten what I believe he originally wanted — an agreement to remove chemical weapons from Syria — and he’s made many Republicans look like fools trying to scramble to come up with answers to his public request for Congressional approval for any involvement in Syria.

Without a missile fired, bomb dropped or troop deployed, President Obama has managed to embarrass Republicans and get a possible deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria.

Well played, Mr. President. Well played indeed.

OH REALLY?

The Defense Department said last month that Syria gave up the last of its stockpiles in June and that a team of experts aboard the Cape Ray was busy neutralizing stocks of methylphosphonyl difluoride, which is used to make sarin, and sulfur mustard in the eastern Mediterranean. The toxic chemicals were rendered inert during a 60-day process in a titanium reactor aboard the Cape Ray.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/...chemical-arsenal-fully-destroyed-us-says.html

Obama administration blocks Washington Times FOIA request on Syria chemical weapons

The Obama administration is blocking The Washington Times from obtaining detailed information about Syria’s extensive chemical weapons arsenal, which was used to kill thousands of innocents and changed the course of the country’s savage 4-year-old civil war.

Critics within advocacy groups, and within the journalism establishment, have lambasted the administration for its slow, or lack of, responses to Freedom of Information Act requests. Yet in 2009, President Obama pledged to run the most transparent administration in U.S. history and told FOIA administrators to err on the side of releasing data.

The Times has been turned down in its requests under FOIA with the Defense Department’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency. The agency led the Obama administration’s mission, along with international groups, to remove and destroy Syria’s stocks of ricin, sarin, mustard gas, hydrochloric acid and other components in 2014. It compiled extensive intelligence on what was one of the world’s largest stockpiles.

The Times first asked the Pentagon to provide detailed information on what components were removed. The Pentagon referred questions to the U.N.-supported Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which launched a joint mission to oversee the Syria operation.

The Times asked the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for information about the history of the arsenal. A spokesman replied that as a matter of practice it does not provide such details. The organization did post on its website a series of “progress reports” as the removal proceeded.

The Times’ first FOIA request to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency asked for any and all information it possessed stemming from its removal work. The request was denied as being too general.

The Times first said it was “requesting all documents related to the Defense Department’s collection and disposal of Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons. The Times is interested in an inventory of each component and its origins. A list of each component, the size or number, and from where they came, either domestically produced inside Syria or imported from another country, if from another country.”

After being told the request was too broad, The Times narrowed it to this: “The Washington Times is asking the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to provide any reports — created by DTRA’s team in charge of disposing of Syria’s chemical weapons components and submitted to DTRA headquarters — that contain information on the components handled and their origin, be it Syria or from a third party or country to Syria. I assume DTRA’s team must have filed reports on its mission, to include the types and amounts of chemical weapons components removed from Syria.”

The agency again responded with a denial. But this time, it acknowledged it had some applicable information. It cited a U.S. law that allows it to withhold “certain sensitive information of foreign governments and international organizations.”

“The responsive record is exempt from mandatory public disclosure, and is being withheld in full accordance with” U.S. law, said the agency’s Oct. 9 “final” denial letter.

The Times appealed, saying the Defense Threat Reduction Agency can redact the reports and then release them, as is done with many other classified documents. That appeal is pending.

‘Lack of transparency’

The law cited by DTRA has three prongs, any of which is justification for denial.

One is that a foreign government or organization requests in writing that data be withheld. The second is that the information is supplied on the condition that it not be released. The third is that a release would make it difficult for the U.S. to obtain similar information in the future.

David A. Schulz is a FOIA warrior. He co-directs Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, which goes to court to challenge government denials.

Mr. Schulz, a First Amendment specialist who has represented a number of news media outlets, told The Times that he has never seen the government invoke this law before in a FOIA denial.

“On the face of it, it seems that their position on the statute is not crazy,” Mr. Schulz said. “The other angle to it is, it’s a discretionary authorization so it is not mandatory. If they wanted to, they could still disclose even if it fell squarely within this. It’s another example of the lack of transparency there. They are hiding beyond this statute, but they are not required to keep it secret and it goes against their claim of being transparent.”

Tom Fitton runs Judicial Watch, a conservative nonprofit that has gone to court to force the Obama administration to provide documents, such as Hillary Clinton’s stash of private emails while secretary of state.

“On classified material, it is tough to overcome the withholdings,” Mr. Fitton said. “Of course, they can always declassify material. In my experience, typically material like this is withheld because it is not helpful, as opposed to it would harm the nation’s security or harm foreign relations. If this material were helpful, if the administration is Democrat or Republican, they will often release it.

“My view is, where is the harm in getting the type of information you want?” he said. “What weapons Syria had and where they might have come from, I think, is relevant to the current debate.”

Karen Kaiser, the Associated Press’ general counsel, told the Senate Judiciary Committee in May of maddeningly long delays by this administration in trying to obtain basic information.

“Obtaining documents through FOIA remains a slow and difficult process, and one which unfortunately is becoming increasingly arduous to use,” she said. “Despite promises of greater transparency at the outset of this administration, most agencies are not abiding by their obligations of openness under the law. We are witnessing a breakdown in the system — both on the procedural front, in the form of continual delays and agency nonresponsiveness, and on the substantive front, with the vast overuse of exemptions and redactions.”

Ms. Kaiser said the Obama administration cited national security and privacy (the issue faced in The Washington Times case) a record 555,000 times last year.

“This administration started in 2009 with a promise to be the most transparent administration ever,” she said. “Yet these statistics speak to the opposite result.”

Dumb ass, I linked the story to you straight from the archives on the White House. You truly are brain dead.

 

[Darkwind]

The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.

The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.

In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.

If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.

I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.

So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.

Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.

Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?

I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.

So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.

Do you know what cancer is?

Do you think that it is better to stop cancer when discovered rather than try to stop it when it has metastasized?

All of this could have been avoided at the beginning of this, but now it has metastasized.

Right now, it is only in humanities colon. Why should you care, since you live in the liver, right?

 

[Meane]

I don't think you're far in studies of second world war. It's curious how Americans always think it was all about them, Stalin and Hitler. Yes, that is all there was to it. Job well done. Thank God we don't have to do that again.. We'll see about that.

Because it is a war crime and America is supporting the side committing the war crimes; Assad and Russia. It is true that there is a rumour ISIS might have the recourses to make some of them, but not all of them. Plenty of observers have seen the planes and nearly all suspicion falls on Assad.

I thought it was sad when I read a story some woman told about them hiding children into the ground and coming back for them and they were dead from the chemicals with no sign of injury. There's something ghost like about it. And it takes time to die of it.

Still, if you have no shame you don't have to care. Ignore it. I don't know why you want to brag about it though.

A diary from Germany told the story of firebombing the cities during World War II. A young girl asked her Mother if they were going to be dead now? In Leningrad a girl wrote when her family died from starvation. The survivors ate the dead trying to continue to live. In Stalingrad the Soviet Soldiers found three children in bed together. The first soldier said more dead bodies. One of the children spoke up and said we aren't dead yet.

War is pain, suffering, and death. Soldiers on the German and Russian side both wrote that pain is universal.

If we get more directly involved we will spread even more pain. If we win, then the dictatorial thug who takes over will be just as bad as Assad, and probably much worse.

There aren't any good guys fighting in Syria. The best we can hope to accomplish is continuing the suffering, prolonging it. If we win we continue it even worse than it is now. We aren't supporting the forces of light and justice and democracy. We are supporting Islamic jihadist nutters who if they became a little more civilized might qualify as barbarians.



Why do I want them to win again? So the Islamic nutters can keep girls uneducated and mutilated? So men are free to beat women?

Assad is bad. None of those fighting him are any better. Most are worse, much worse.

So why are you so heartless that you want women to be mutilated and beaten and killed? Why are you so cruel that you want homosexuals murdered for being gay, tortured to death I should say.

Well at least you claim to care, about what I have no idea.

"There is no good guy". Why not you then?

But I believe the point was why do you have to care about chemical weapons being used.. you pulled the line a little a are off the point. I don't think you know anything about war, the second world or or the Syrian war.

 

[The Original Tree]

Because Obama was a COWARD. He said there were no chemical weapons in Syria and he made sure there weren't. He then drew his Yellow Line In the Sand, and then tucked tail in the Middle East and Ran turning his backs on people America promised to help. The end result was the slaughter of 500,000 people.

Can you show that he said there were no chemical weapons in Syria? Because that is a flat out lie.

Phuck off. You are the liar. All Liberals are Liars.
And Liars Burn In Hell.
Remember that.
Repent....

And BTW, quit using Google & Bing if you want to really know anything. They are flitering and censoring articles. So now we have FAKE SEARCH ENGINES also helping Liberal Scum Propagandize The American People.

WASHINGTON — The United States said Monday that it had completed the destruction of the deadliest chemical weapons in Syria’s arsenal, a rare foreign policy achievement for President Obama at a time when the Middle East is embroiled in violence and political turmoil.

On Monday, Mr. Obama said that the destruction of the weapons, several weeks ahead of schedule, “advances our collective goal to ensure that the Assad regime cannot use its chemical arsenal against the Syrian people and sends a clear message that the use of these abhorrent weapons has consequences and will not be tolerated by the international community.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/...chemical-arsenal-fully-destroyed-us-says.html

Obama: 'I Didn't Set a Red Line' on Syria

Let me give you some examples of how Obama Bin Spying is a Lying Son Of A Bitch.
Read between the lines on some of his official public statements.
Don't bother reading any of this if you are a Liberal.
We know you are too damn dumb to understand such complicated things.
Just throw darts at your President Donald Trump dart board, and feel good about yourself.

If, you want the dumbed down version then don't read further than this paragraph I am writing here.

Obama drew a 'red line in the sand'. He then claimed 'foreign policy success' with the Chemical Weapons Removal Deal made with Russia & Syria.
It was verified that Russia was carrying out it's obligations to help remove Chemical Weapons from Syria. The Obama Administration declared that all The Chemical Weapons had been removed.

Chemical weapons attacks occurred after the Administration declared victory in removing chemical weapons from Syria. Now, here is the question, did Syria do it, or ISIS, or Al Nusra? And if there were never any Chemical Weapons in Iraq, how did ISIS get them? And exactly why would Obama actually fund Al Nusra, The Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Queda Affiliates to carry out actions in The ME for him?

And why did Obama deny 555,000 FOIA requests asking to see what the origins of The Chemical Weapons The Obama Administration claimed were all destroyed?
Are they being illegally manufactured in THE US?

And lastly, two people that you cannot trust as an American is John Brennan, and Jake Clapper. These are Polticos, and Professional Liars.

The good people under them, burdened by their leadership want to do their jobs but they are not allowed to. They were continually compromised by a Scandolous, and Unscrupulous Obama Regime.

Obama is probably the most artful and clever liar that ever inhabited The White House.

I realize No one wants to do research. It's boring. It's hard work. And you have to be willing to topple your own idols if you value Truth, more than you value ideologies and people.

I had to do this with some of my own personal heroes. Now you must do it to, if you value Truth.

Obama's Bumbling Foreign Policy Diminishes America's Global Position - College Republican National Committee

March 3, 2014

The disastrous state of American foreign policy is one of the least talked about legacies of the Obama Administration. But that doesn’t mean that Americans aren’t paying attention. Indeed, a new Gallup poll finds that for the first time in his presidency, a majority of Americans believe that President Obama is not respected by world leaders.

From a foreign policy perspective, President Obama's shifting red-lines, has shown a lack of resolve and a weakening of America's position of leadership in the world ... That view seemed to be confirmed when an ad-libbed line by Kerry about the Assad regime turning over all its chemical weapons turned out to be false.


BREAKING: The Obama administration promised there were no more chemical weapons in Syria. Today, Syrian children are dying, attacked without warning. Here’s what we know.

Obama, Kerry Caught With Pants Down On Chemical Weapons In Syria

Syria turns over its last declared stocks of chemical weapons to UN inspectors

Almost All of Syria's Chemical Weapons Have Now Been Removed

Removal of Chemical Weapons From Syria Is Completed

Remarks by the President to the 113th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars

How Is Syria Still Using Chemical Weapons?

In Opinion: Obama's failure in Syria clouds his foreign policy legacy

Syrian chemical weapons destroyed, but concerns continue, Obama says

Obama Bin Lying's Address to the 113th Congress

So, four years ago, I made you a promise. I pledged to take the fight to our enemies, and renew our leadership in the world. As President, that’s what I’ve done. (Applause.) And as you reflect on recent years, as we look ahead to the challenges we face as a nation and the leadership that’s required, you don’t just have my words, you have my deeds. You have my track record. You have the promises I’ve made and the promises that I’ve kept.

I pledged to end the war in Iraq honorably, and that’s what we’ve done. (Applause.) After I took office, we removed nearly 150,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. And some said that bringing our troops home last year was a mistake.

We’re not just ending these wars; we’re doing it in a way that achieves our objectives. Moreover, it’s allowed us to broaden our vision and begin a new era of American leadership. We’re leading from Europe to the Asia Pacific, with alliances that have never been stronger. We’re leading the fight against nuclear dangers. We’ve applied the strongest sanctions ever on Iran and North Korea -- nations that cannot be allowed to threaten the world with nuclear weapons. (Applause.) We’re leading on behalf of freedom -- standing with people in the Middle East and North Africa as they demand their rights; protecting the Libyan people as they rid the world of Muammar Qaddafi.

Today, we’re also working for a transition so the Syrian people can have a better future, free of the Assad regime. And given the regime’s stockpiles of chemical weapons, we will continue to make it clear to Assad and those around him that the world is watching, and that they will be held accountable by the international community and the United States, should they make the tragic mistake of using those weapons. (Applause.) And we will continue to work with our friends and our allies and the Syrian opposition on behalf of the day when the Syrian people have a government that respects their basic rights to live in peace and freedom and dignity.

Because we’re leading around the world, people have a new attitude toward America. There’s more confidence in our leadership. We see it everywhere we go. We saw it as grateful Libyans waved American flags.

Remarks by the President to the 113th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars

And then there is this statement

Obama Bin Crying's Address To The UN

After I took office, I made clear that one of the principal achievements of this body -- the nuclear non-proliferation regime -- was endangered by Iran’s violation of the NPT. On that basis, the Security Council tightened sanctions on the Iranian government, and many nations joined us to enforce them. Together, we showed that laws and agreements mean something.

But we also understood that the goal of sanctions was not simply to punish Iran. Our objective was to test whether Iran could change course, accept constraints, and allow the world to verify that its nuclear program will be peaceful. For two years, the United States and our partners -- including Russia, including China -- stuck together in complex negotiations. The result is a lasting, comprehensive deal that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, while allowing it to access peaceful energy. And if this deal is fully implemented, the prohibition on nuclear weapons is strengthened, a potential war is averted, our world is safer. That is the strength of the international system when it works the way it should.

The Iranian people have a proud history, and are filled with extraordinary potential. But chanting “Death to America” does not create jobs, or make Iran more secure. If Iran chose a different path, that would be good for the security of the region, good for the Iranian people, and good for the world.

We will help any legitimate Libyan government as it works to bring the country together. But we also have to recognize that we must work more effectively in the future, as an international community, to build capacity for states that are in distress, before they collapse.

Nowhere is our commitment to international order more tested than in Syria. When a dictator slaughters tens of thousands of his own people, that is not just a matter of one nation’s internal affairs -- it breeds human suffering on an order of magnitude that affects us all. Likewise, when a terrorist group beheads captives, slaughters the innocent and enslaves women, that’s not a single nation’s national security problem -- that is an assault on all humanity.

I’ve said before and I will repeat: There is no room for accommodating an apocalyptic cult like ISIL, and the United States makes no apologies for using our military, as part of a broad coalition, to go after them. We do so with a determination to ensure that there will never be a safe haven for terrorists who carry out these crimes. And we have demonstrated over more than a decade of relentless pursuit of al Qaeda, we will not be outlasted by extremists.

But while military power is necessary, it is not sufficient to resolve the situation in Syria. Lasting stability can only take hold when the people of Syria forge an agreement to live together peacefully. The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo.


Can You Really Trust Obama Bin Lying and How He Uses and Disseminates Classified Intel?

Hersh On Obama's Lies About Syrian Chemical Weapons

A month ago Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, wrote about CIA analysts who threatened to resign over the Obama administration allegations about the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Syrian government:

With all evidence considered, the intelligence community found itself with numerous skeptics in the ranks, leading to sharp exchanges with the Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

A number of analysts threatened to resign as a group if their strong dissent was not noted in any report released to the public, forcing both Brennan and Clapper to back down.

Now Seymour Hersh writes about the case and finds that the CIA knew that Jabhat al-Nusra, a fundamentalist gang fighting the Syrian government, was capable of producing Sarin, the toxic chemical weapon that was used in a suburb of Damascus:

In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.
...
In recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’.

The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening.
MoA has maintained since the very first reports of the chemical weapon use that this attack was likely a false flag event. We also criticized allegations by the New York Times and Human Rights Watch about the origin of the rocket debris found after the attack. The new Hersh report now completely debunks those allegations.

One piece in Hersh's case about al-Nusra's capabilities to produce Sarin comes from a somewhat mysterious cable:

On 20 June a four-page top secret cable summarising what had been learned about al-Nusra’s nerve gas capabilities was forwarded to David R. Shedd, deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. ‘What Shedd was briefed on was extensive and comprehensive,’ the [senior intelligence] consultant said. ‘It was not a bunch of “we believes”.’ He told me that the cable made no assessment as to whether the rebels or the Syrian army had initiated the attacks in March and April, but it did confirm previous reports that al-Nusra had the ability to acquire and use sarin.
...
Spokesmen for the DIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence said they were not aware of the report to Shedd and, when provided with specific cable markings for the document, said they were unable to find it. Shawn Turner, head of public affairs for the ODNI, said that no American intelligence agency, including the DIA, ‘assesses that the al-Nusra Front has succeeded in developing a capacity to manufacture sarin’.

MoA - Hersh On Obama's Lies About Syrian Chemical Weapons

Now We Start Getting Down To It

US-Russia Strike Deal on Syrian Chemical Weapons: What’s Next? - National Security Network

“The first step of the U.S.-Russian framework agreement requires President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to submit to the United Nations ‘a comprehensive listing, including names, types, and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities.’ Press reports say Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed in private talks in Geneva last week that Syria possessed about 1,000 metric tons of chemical agents, including nerve gas and blistering agents. But the devil is in the details.

After the first submission from Syria, the U.S.-Russia plan says an initial round of inspections is supposed to be complete by the end of November, and Syria’s chemical stocks should be destroyed by the middle of 2014. To get a sense of how ambitious that stipulation is, consider what the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, told a conference for intelligence community contractors in Washington on Thursday: ‘Today I asked a few of our folks from our own chemical system, ‘How long did it take for us to kind of get rid of everything?’… It took us about seven years, so it’s going to take a while.’” [Daily Beast, 9/16/13]

“The Russia-U.S. agreement on a Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons is certainly a breakthrough with respect to chemical weapons, if it is implemented with anything like the thoroughness and timeliness specified. John Kerry has delivered on paper what President Obama has wanted: an end not just to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but destruction of Syria’s capability to make them and use them by the middle of 2014. But the agreement, even fully implemented, does nothing to solve three other problems: Bashar al Assad’s continued hold on power and attacks on Syria’s civilian population, radicalization of his opposition and his supporters, and destabilization of the region.” [Washington Post, 9/15/13. Associated Press, 9/16/13. Dan Serwer, 9/16/13]



Well, Not So Much

President Obama Has Played His Hand Perfectly When it Comes to Syria - Forward Progressives

Obama does have the power to use our military, without Congressional approval, for a very limited number of days. He didn’t need Republican support to stage a short bombing campaign in Syria. And even had he said he was going to “go it alone,” he still could have pushed the issue how he has, allowing enough time for Russia to come up with a response.

Instead, he decided to turn this around on Republicans. And by doing so, he’s gotten what I believe he originally wanted — an agreement to remove chemical weapons from Syria — and he’s made many Republicans look like fools trying to scramble to come up with answers to his public request for Congressional approval for any involvement in Syria.

Without a missile fired, bomb dropped or troop deployed, President Obama has managed to embarrass Republicans and get a possible deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria.

Well played, Mr. President. Well played indeed.

OH REALLY?

The Defense Department said last month that Syria gave up the last of its stockpiles in June and that a team of experts aboard the Cape Ray was busy neutralizing stocks of methylphosphonyl difluoride, which is used to make sarin, and sulfur mustard in the eastern Mediterranean. The toxic chemicals were rendered inert during a 60-day process in a titanium reactor aboard the Cape Ray.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/...chemical-arsenal-fully-destroyed-us-says.html

Obama administration blocks Washington Times FOIA request on Syria chemical weapons

The Obama administration is blocking The Washington Times from obtaining detailed information about Syria’s extensive chemical weapons arsenal, which was used to kill thousands of innocents and changed the course of the country’s savage 4-year-old civil war.

Critics within advocacy groups, and within the journalism establishment, have lambasted the administration for its slow, or lack of, responses to Freedom of Information Act requests. Yet in 2009, President Obama pledged to run the most transparent administration in U.S. history and told FOIA administrators to err on the side of releasing data.

The Times has been turned down in its requests under FOIA with the Defense Department’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency. The agency led the Obama administration’s mission, along with international groups, to remove and destroy Syria’s stocks of ricin, sarin, mustard gas, hydrochloric acid and other components in 2014. It compiled extensive intelligence on what was one of the world’s largest stockpiles.

The Times first asked the Pentagon to provide detailed information on what components were removed. The Pentagon referred questions to the U.N.-supported Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which launched a joint mission to oversee the Syria operation.

The Times asked the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for information about the history of the arsenal. A spokesman replied that as a matter of practice it does not provide such details. The organization did post on its website a series of “progress reports” as the removal proceeded.

The Times’ first FOIA request to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency asked for any and all information it possessed stemming from its removal work. The request was denied as being too general.

The Times first said it was “requesting all documents related to the Defense Department’s collection and disposal of Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons. The Times is interested in an inventory of each component and its origins. A list of each component, the size or number, and from where they came, either domestically produced inside Syria or imported from another country, if from another country.”

After being told the request was too broad, The Times narrowed it to this: “The Washington Times is asking the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to provide any reports — created by DTRA’s team in charge of disposing of Syria’s chemical weapons components and submitted to DTRA headquarters — that contain information on the components handled and their origin, be it Syria or from a third party or country to Syria. I assume DTRA’s team must have filed reports on its mission, to include the types and amounts of chemical weapons components removed from Syria.”

The agency again responded with a denial. But this time, it acknowledged it had some applicable information. It cited a U.S. law that allows it to withhold “certain sensitive information of foreign governments and international organizations.”

“The responsive record is exempt from mandatory public disclosure, and is being withheld in full accordance with” U.S. law, said the agency’s Oct. 9 “final” denial letter.

The Times appealed, saying the Defense Threat Reduction Agency can redact the reports and then release them, as is done with many other classified documents. That appeal is pending.

‘Lack of transparency’

The law cited by DTRA has three prongs, any of which is justification for denial.

One is that a foreign government or organization requests in writing that data be withheld. The second is that the information is supplied on the condition that it not be released. The third is that a release would make it difficult for the U.S. to obtain similar information in the future.

David A. Schulz is a FOIA warrior. He co-directs Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, which goes to court to challenge government denials.

Mr. Schulz, a First Amendment specialist who has represented a number of news media outlets, told The Times that he has never seen the government invoke this law before in a FOIA denial.

“On the face of it, it seems that their position on the statute is not crazy,” Mr. Schulz said. “The other angle to it is, it’s a discretionary authorization so it is not mandatory. If they wanted to, they could still disclose even if it fell squarely within this. It’s another example of the lack of transparency there. They are hiding beyond this statute, but they are not required to keep it secret and it goes against their claim of being transparent.”

Tom Fitton runs Judicial Watch, a conservative nonprofit that has gone to court to force the Obama administration to provide documents, such as Hillary Clinton’s stash of private emails while secretary of state.

“On classified material, it is tough to overcome the withholdings,” Mr. Fitton said. “Of course, they can always declassify material. In my experience, typically material like this is withheld because it is not helpful, as opposed to it would harm the nation’s security or harm foreign relations. If this material were helpful, if the administration is Democrat or Republican, they will often release it.

“My view is, where is the harm in getting the type of information you want?” he said. “What weapons Syria had and where they might have come from, I think, is relevant to the current debate.”

Karen Kaiser, the Associated Press’ general counsel, told the Senate Judiciary Committee in May of maddeningly long delays by this administration in trying to obtain basic information.

“Obtaining documents through FOIA remains a slow and difficult process, and one which unfortunately is becoming increasingly arduous to use,” she said. “Despite promises of greater transparency at the outset of this administration, most agencies are not abiding by their obligations of openness under the law. We are witnessing a breakdown in the system — both on the procedural front, in the form of continual delays and agency nonresponsiveness, and on the substantive front, with the vast overuse of exemptions and redactions.”

Ms. Kaiser said the Obama administration cited national security and privacy (the issue faced in The Washington Times case) a record 555,000 times last year.

“This administration started in 2009 with a promise to be the most transparent administration ever,” she said. “Yet these statistics speak to the opposite result.”

Dumb ass, I linked the story to you straight from the archives on the White House. You truly are brain dead.

And I replied with a detailed report that you were unable to refute even one point of.

Who is brain dead, dummy?

Obama has set the stage for WWIII and that will be his legacy.

 

[Lewdog]

Because Obama was a COWARD. He said there were no chemical weapons in Syria and he made sure there weren't. He then drew his Yellow Line In the Sand, and then tucked tail in the Middle East and Ran turning his backs on people America promised to help. The end result was the slaughter of 500,000 people.

Can you show that he said there were no chemical weapons in Syria? Because that is a flat out lie.

Phuck off. You are the liar. All Liberals are Liars.
And Liars Burn In Hell.
Remember that.
Repent....

And BTW, quit using Google & Bing if you want to really know anything. They are flitering and censoring articles. So now we have FAKE SEARCH ENGINES also helping Liberal Scum Propagandize The American People.

WASHINGTON — The United States said Monday that it had completed the destruction of the deadliest chemical weapons in Syria’s arsenal, a rare foreign policy achievement for President Obama at a time when the Middle East is embroiled in violence and political turmoil.

On Monday, Mr. Obama said that the destruction of the weapons, several weeks ahead of schedule, “advances our collective goal to ensure that the Assad regime cannot use its chemical arsenal against the Syrian people and sends a clear message that the use of these abhorrent weapons has consequences and will not be tolerated by the international community.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/...chemical-arsenal-fully-destroyed-us-says.html

Obama: 'I Didn't Set a Red Line' on Syria

Let me give you some examples of how Obama Bin Spying is a Lying Son Of A Bitch.
Read between the lines on some of his official public statements.
Don't bother reading any of this if you are a Liberal.
We know you are too damn dumb to understand such complicated things.
Just throw darts at your President Donald Trump dart board, and feel good about yourself.

If, you want the dumbed down version then don't read further than this paragraph I am writing here.

Obama drew a 'red line in the sand'. He then claimed 'foreign policy success' with the Chemical Weapons Removal Deal made with Russia & Syria.
It was verified that Russia was carrying out it's obligations to help remove Chemical Weapons from Syria. The Obama Administration declared that all The Chemical Weapons had been removed.

Chemical weapons attacks occurred after the Administration declared victory in removing chemical weapons from Syria. Now, here is the question, did Syria do it, or ISIS, or Al Nusra? And if there were never any Chemical Weapons in Iraq, how did ISIS get them? And exactly why would Obama actually fund Al Nusra, The Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Queda Affiliates to carry out actions in The ME for him?

And why did Obama deny 555,000 FOIA requests asking to see what the origins of The Chemical Weapons The Obama Administration claimed were all destroyed?
Are they being illegally manufactured in THE US?

And lastly, two people that you cannot trust as an American is John Brennan, and Jake Clapper. These are Polticos, and Professional Liars.

The good people under them, burdened by their leadership want to do their jobs but they are not allowed to. They were continually compromised by a Scandolous, and Unscrupulous Obama Regime.

Obama is probably the most artful and clever liar that ever inhabited The White House.

I realize No one wants to do research. It's boring. It's hard work. And you have to be willing to topple your own idols if you value Truth, more than you value ideologies and people.

I had to do this with some of my own personal heroes. Now you must do it to, if you value Truth.

Obama's Bumbling Foreign Policy Diminishes America's Global Position - College Republican National Committee

March 3, 2014

The disastrous state of American foreign policy is one of the least talked about legacies of the Obama Administration. But that doesn’t mean that Americans aren’t paying attention. Indeed, a new Gallup poll finds that for the first time in his presidency, a majority of Americans believe that President Obama is not respected by world leaders.

From a foreign policy perspective, President Obama's shifting red-lines, has shown a lack of resolve and a weakening of America's position of leadership in the world ... That view seemed to be confirmed when an ad-libbed line by Kerry about the Assad regime turning over all its chemical weapons turned out to be false.


BREAKING: The Obama administration promised there were no more chemical weapons in Syria. Today, Syrian children are dying, attacked without warning. Here’s what we know.

Obama, Kerry Caught With Pants Down On Chemical Weapons In Syria

Syria turns over its last declared stocks of chemical weapons to UN inspectors

Almost All of Syria's Chemical Weapons Have Now Been Removed

Removal of Chemical Weapons From Syria Is Completed

Remarks by the President to the 113th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars

How Is Syria Still Using Chemical Weapons?

In Opinion: Obama's failure in Syria clouds his foreign policy legacy

Syrian chemical weapons destroyed, but concerns continue, Obama says

Obama Bin Lying's Address to the 113th Congress

So, four years ago, I made you a promise. I pledged to take the fight to our enemies, and renew our leadership in the world. As President, that’s what I’ve done. (Applause.) And as you reflect on recent years, as we look ahead to the challenges we face as a nation and the leadership that’s required, you don’t just have my words, you have my deeds. You have my track record. You have the promises I’ve made and the promises that I’ve kept.

I pledged to end the war in Iraq honorably, and that’s what we’ve done. (Applause.) After I took office, we removed nearly 150,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. And some said that bringing our troops home last year was a mistake.

We’re not just ending these wars; we’re doing it in a way that achieves our objectives. Moreover, it’s allowed us to broaden our vision and begin a new era of American leadership. We’re leading from Europe to the Asia Pacific, with alliances that have never been stronger. We’re leading the fight against nuclear dangers. We’ve applied the strongest sanctions ever on Iran and North Korea -- nations that cannot be allowed to threaten the world with nuclear weapons. (Applause.) We’re leading on behalf of freedom -- standing with people in the Middle East and North Africa as they demand their rights; protecting the Libyan people as they rid the world of Muammar Qaddafi.

Today, we’re also working for a transition so the Syrian people can have a better future, free of the Assad regime. And given the regime’s stockpiles of chemical weapons, we will continue to make it clear to Assad and those around him that the world is watching, and that they will be held accountable by the international community and the United States, should they make the tragic mistake of using those weapons. (Applause.) And we will continue to work with our friends and our allies and the Syrian opposition on behalf of the day when the Syrian people have a government that respects their basic rights to live in peace and freedom and dignity.

Because we’re leading around the world, people have a new attitude toward America. There’s more confidence in our leadership. We see it everywhere we go. We saw it as grateful Libyans waved American flags.

Remarks by the President to the 113th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars

And then there is this statement

Obama Bin Crying's Address To The UN

After I took office, I made clear that one of the principal achievements of this body -- the nuclear non-proliferation regime -- was endangered by Iran’s violation of the NPT. On that basis, the Security Council tightened sanctions on the Iranian government, and many nations joined us to enforce them. Together, we showed that laws and agreements mean something.

But we also understood that the goal of sanctions was not simply to punish Iran. Our objective was to test whether Iran could change course, accept constraints, and allow the world to verify that its nuclear program will be peaceful. For two years, the United States and our partners -- including Russia, including China -- stuck together in complex negotiations. The result is a lasting, comprehensive deal that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, while allowing it to access peaceful energy. And if this deal is fully implemented, the prohibition on nuclear weapons is strengthened, a potential war is averted, our world is safer. That is the strength of the international system when it works the way it should.

The Iranian people have a proud history, and are filled with extraordinary potential. But chanting “Death to America” does not create jobs, or make Iran more secure. If Iran chose a different path, that would be good for the security of the region, good for the Iranian people, and good for the world.

We will help any legitimate Libyan government as it works to bring the country together. But we also have to recognize that we must work more effectively in the future, as an international community, to build capacity for states that are in distress, before they collapse.

Nowhere is our commitment to international order more tested than in Syria. When a dictator slaughters tens of thousands of his own people, that is not just a matter of one nation’s internal affairs -- it breeds human suffering on an order of magnitude that affects us all. Likewise, when a terrorist group beheads captives, slaughters the innocent and enslaves women, that’s not a single nation’s national security problem -- that is an assault on all humanity.

I’ve said before and I will repeat: There is no room for accommodating an apocalyptic cult like ISIL, and the United States makes no apologies for using our military, as part of a broad coalition, to go after them. We do so with a determination to ensure that there will never be a safe haven for terrorists who carry out these crimes. And we have demonstrated over more than a decade of relentless pursuit of al Qaeda, we will not be outlasted by extremists.

But while military power is necessary, it is not sufficient to resolve the situation in Syria. Lasting stability can only take hold when the people of Syria forge an agreement to live together peacefully. The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo.


Can You Really Trust Obama Bin Lying and How He Uses and Disseminates Classified Intel?

Hersh On Obama's Lies About Syrian Chemical Weapons

A month ago Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, wrote about CIA analysts who threatened to resign over the Obama administration allegations about the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Syrian government:

With all evidence considered, the intelligence community found itself with numerous skeptics in the ranks, leading to sharp exchanges with the Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

A number of analysts threatened to resign as a group if their strong dissent was not noted in any report released to the public, forcing both Brennan and Clapper to back down.

Now Seymour Hersh writes about the case and finds that the CIA knew that Jabhat al-Nusra, a fundamentalist gang fighting the Syrian government, was capable of producing Sarin, the toxic chemical weapon that was used in a suburb of Damascus:

In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.
...
In recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’.

The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening.
MoA has maintained since the very first reports of the chemical weapon use that this attack was likely a false flag event. We also criticized allegations by the New York Times and Human Rights Watch about the origin of the rocket debris found after the attack. The new Hersh report now completely debunks those allegations.

One piece in Hersh's case about al-Nusra's capabilities to produce Sarin comes from a somewhat mysterious cable:

On 20 June a four-page top secret cable summarising what had been learned about al-Nusra’s nerve gas capabilities was forwarded to David R. Shedd, deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. ‘What Shedd was briefed on was extensive and comprehensive,’ the [senior intelligence] consultant said. ‘It was not a bunch of “we believes”.’ He told me that the cable made no assessment as to whether the rebels or the Syrian army had initiated the attacks in March and April, but it did confirm previous reports that al-Nusra had the ability to acquire and use sarin.
...
Spokesmen for the DIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence said they were not aware of the report to Shedd and, when provided with specific cable markings for the document, said they were unable to find it. Shawn Turner, head of public affairs for the ODNI, said that no American intelligence agency, including the DIA, ‘assesses that the al-Nusra Front has succeeded in developing a capacity to manufacture sarin’.

MoA - Hersh On Obama's Lies About Syrian Chemical Weapons

Now We Start Getting Down To It

US-Russia Strike Deal on Syrian Chemical Weapons: What’s Next? - National Security Network

“The first step of the U.S.-Russian framework agreement requires President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to submit to the United Nations ‘a comprehensive listing, including names, types, and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities.’ Press reports say Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed in private talks in Geneva last week that Syria possessed about 1,000 metric tons of chemical agents, including nerve gas and blistering agents. But the devil is in the details.

After the first submission from Syria, the U.S.-Russia plan says an initial round of inspections is supposed to be complete by the end of November, and Syria’s chemical stocks should be destroyed by the middle of 2014. To get a sense of how ambitious that stipulation is, consider what the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, told a conference for intelligence community contractors in Washington on Thursday: ‘Today I asked a few of our folks from our own chemical system, ‘How long did it take for us to kind of get rid of everything?’… It took us about seven years, so it’s going to take a while.’” [Daily Beast, 9/16/13]

“The Russia-U.S. agreement on a Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons is certainly a breakthrough with respect to chemical weapons, if it is implemented with anything like the thoroughness and timeliness specified. John Kerry has delivered on paper what President Obama has wanted: an end not just to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but destruction of Syria’s capability to make them and use them by the middle of 2014. But the agreement, even fully implemented, does nothing to solve three other problems: Bashar al Assad’s continued hold on power and attacks on Syria’s civilian population, radicalization of his opposition and his supporters, and destabilization of the region.” [Washington Post, 9/15/13. Associated Press, 9/16/13. Dan Serwer, 9/16/13]



Well, Not So Much

President Obama Has Played His Hand Perfectly When it Comes to Syria - Forward Progressives

Obama does have the power to use our military, without Congressional approval, for a very limited number of days. He didn’t need Republican support to stage a short bombing campaign in Syria. And even had he said he was going to “go it alone,” he still could have pushed the issue how he has, allowing enough time for Russia to come up with a response.

Instead, he decided to turn this around on Republicans. And by doing so, he’s gotten what I believe he originally wanted — an agreement to remove chemical weapons from Syria — and he’s made many Republicans look like fools trying to scramble to come up with answers to his public request for Congressional approval for any involvement in Syria.

Without a missile fired, bomb dropped or troop deployed, President Obama has managed to embarrass Republicans and get a possible deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria.

Well played, Mr. President. Well played indeed.

OH REALLY?

The Defense Department said last month that Syria gave up the last of its stockpiles in June and that a team of experts aboard the Cape Ray was busy neutralizing stocks of methylphosphonyl difluoride, which is used to make sarin, and sulfur mustard in the eastern Mediterranean. The toxic chemicals were rendered inert during a 60-day process in a titanium reactor aboard the Cape Ray.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/...chemical-arsenal-fully-destroyed-us-says.html

Obama administration blocks Washington Times FOIA request on Syria chemical weapons

The Obama administration is blocking The Washington Times from obtaining detailed information about Syria’s extensive chemical weapons arsenal, which was used to kill thousands of innocents and changed the course of the country’s savage 4-year-old civil war.

Critics within advocacy groups, and within the journalism establishment, have lambasted the administration for its slow, or lack of, responses to Freedom of Information Act requests. Yet in 2009, President Obama pledged to run the most transparent administration in U.S. history and told FOIA administrators to err on the side of releasing data.

The Times has been turned down in its requests under FOIA with the Defense Department’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency. The agency led the Obama administration’s mission, along with international groups, to remove and destroy Syria’s stocks of ricin, sarin, mustard gas, hydrochloric acid and other components in 2014. It compiled extensive intelligence on what was one of the world’s largest stockpiles.

The Times first asked the Pentagon to provide detailed information on what components were removed. The Pentagon referred questions to the U.N.-supported Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which launched a joint mission to oversee the Syria operation.

The Times asked the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for information about the history of the arsenal. A spokesman replied that as a matter of practice it does not provide such details. The organization did post on its website a series of “progress reports” as the removal proceeded.

The Times’ first FOIA request to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency asked for any and all information it possessed stemming from its removal work. The request was denied as being too general.

The Times first said it was “requesting all documents related to the Defense Department’s collection and disposal of Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons. The Times is interested in an inventory of each component and its origins. A list of each component, the size or number, and from where they came, either domestically produced inside Syria or imported from another country, if from another country.”

After being told the request was too broad, The Times narrowed it to this: “The Washington Times is asking the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to provide any reports — created by DTRA’s team in charge of disposing of Syria’s chemical weapons components and submitted to DTRA headquarters — that contain information on the components handled and their origin, be it Syria or from a third party or country to Syria. I assume DTRA’s team must have filed reports on its mission, to include the types and amounts of chemical weapons components removed from Syria.”

The agency again responded with a denial. But this time, it acknowledged it had some applicable information. It cited a U.S. law that allows it to withhold “certain sensitive information of foreign governments and international organizations.”

“The responsive record is exempt from mandatory public disclosure, and is being withheld in full accordance with” U.S. law, said the agency’s Oct. 9 “final” denial letter.

The Times appealed, saying the Defense Threat Reduction Agency can redact the reports and then release them, as is done with many other classified documents. That appeal is pending.

‘Lack of transparency’

The law cited by DTRA has three prongs, any of which is justification for denial.

One is that a foreign government or organization requests in writing that data be withheld. The second is that the information is supplied on the condition that it not be released. The third is that a release would make it difficult for the U.S. to obtain similar information in the future.

David A. Schulz is a FOIA warrior. He co-directs Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, which goes to court to challenge government denials.

Mr. Schulz, a First Amendment specialist who has represented a number of news media outlets, told The Times that he has never seen the government invoke this law before in a FOIA denial.

“On the face of it, it seems that their position on the statute is not crazy,” Mr. Schulz said. “The other angle to it is, it’s a discretionary authorization so it is not mandatory. If they wanted to, they could still disclose even if it fell squarely within this. It’s another example of the lack of transparency there. They are hiding beyond this statute, but they are not required to keep it secret and it goes against their claim of being transparent.”

Tom Fitton runs Judicial Watch, a conservative nonprofit that has gone to court to force the Obama administration to provide documents, such as Hillary Clinton’s stash of private emails while secretary of state.

“On classified material, it is tough to overcome the withholdings,” Mr. Fitton said. “Of course, they can always declassify material. In my experience, typically material like this is withheld because it is not helpful, as opposed to it would harm the nation’s security or harm foreign relations. If this material were helpful, if the administration is Democrat or Republican, they will often release it.

“My view is, where is the harm in getting the type of information you want?” he said. “What weapons Syria had and where they might have come from, I think, is relevant to the current debate.”

Karen Kaiser, the Associated Press’ general counsel, told the Senate Judiciary Committee in May of maddeningly long delays by this administration in trying to obtain basic information.

“Obtaining documents through FOIA remains a slow and difficult process, and one which unfortunately is becoming increasingly arduous to use,” she said. “Despite promises of greater transparency at the outset of this administration, most agencies are not abiding by their obligations of openness under the law. We are witnessing a breakdown in the system — both on the procedural front, in the form of continual delays and agency nonresponsiveness, and on the substantive front, with the vast overuse of exemptions and redactions.”

Ms. Kaiser said the Obama administration cited national security and privacy (the issue faced in The Washington Times case) a record 555,000 times last year.

“This administration started in 2009 with a promise to be the most transparent administration ever,” she said. “Yet these statistics speak to the opposite result.”

Dumb ass, I linked the story to you straight from the archives on the White House. You truly are brain dead.

And I replied with a detailed report that you were unable to refute even one point of.

Who is brain dead, dummy?

Obama has set the stage for WWIII and that will be his legacy.

Do you think I read all your dribble? I posted a speech from Obama straight from the White House archives where he said there is NO DOUBT chemical weapons were used in Syria. You said he denied it. You're a liar and I proved you wrong.

I don't care how big of font you use or how much shit you post, you will still be wrong.

 

[The Original Tree]

Because Obama was a COWARD. He said there were no chemical weapons in Syria and he made sure there weren't. He then drew his Yellow Line In the Sand, and then tucked tail in the Middle East and Ran turning his backs on people America promised to help. The end result was the slaughter of 500,000 people.

Can you show that he said there were no chemical weapons in Syria? Because that is a flat out lie.

Phuck off. You are the liar. All Liberals are Liars.
And Liars Burn In Hell.
Remember that.
Repent....

And BTW, quit using Google & Bing if you want to really know anything. They are flitering and censoring articles. So now we have FAKE SEARCH ENGINES also helping Liberal Scum Propagandize The American People.

WASHINGTON — The United States said Monday that it had completed the destruction of the deadliest chemical weapons in Syria’s arsenal, a rare foreign policy achievement for President Obama at a time when the Middle East is embroiled in violence and political turmoil.

On Monday, Mr. Obama said that the destruction of the weapons, several weeks ahead of schedule, “advances our collective goal to ensure that the Assad regime cannot use its chemical arsenal against the Syrian people and sends a clear message that the use of these abhorrent weapons has consequences and will not be tolerated by the international community.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/...chemical-arsenal-fully-destroyed-us-says.html

Obama: 'I Didn't Set a Red Line' on Syria

Let me give you some examples of how Obama Bin Spying is a Lying Son Of A Bitch.
Read between the lines on some of his official public statements.
Don't bother reading any of this if you are a Liberal.
We know you are too damn dumb to understand such complicated things.
Just throw darts at your President Donald Trump dart board, and feel good about yourself.

If, you want the dumbed down version then don't read further than this paragraph I am writing here.

Obama drew a 'red line in the sand'. He then claimed 'foreign policy success' with the Chemical Weapons Removal Deal made with Russia & Syria.
It was verified that Russia was carrying out it's obligations to help remove Chemical Weapons from Syria. The Obama Administration declared that all The Chemical Weapons had been removed.

Chemical weapons attacks occurred after the Administration declared victory in removing chemical weapons from Syria. Now, here is the question, did Syria do it, or ISIS, or Al Nusra? And if there were never any Chemical Weapons in Iraq, how did ISIS get them? And exactly why would Obama actually fund Al Nusra, The Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Queda Affiliates to carry out actions in The ME for him?

And why did Obama deny 555,000 FOIA requests asking to see what the origins of The Chemical Weapons The Obama Administration claimed were all destroyed?
Are they being illegally manufactured in THE US?

And lastly, two people that you cannot trust as an American is John Brennan, and Jake Clapper. These are Polticos, and Professional Liars.

The good people under them, burdened by their leadership want to do their jobs but they are not allowed to. They were continually compromised by a Scandolous, and Unscrupulous Obama Regime.

Obama is probably the most artful and clever liar that ever inhabited The White House.

I realize No one wants to do research. It's boring. It's hard work. And you have to be willing to topple your own idols if you value Truth, more than you value ideologies and people.

I had to do this with some of my own personal heroes. Now you must do it to, if you value Truth.

Obama's Bumbling Foreign Policy Diminishes America's Global Position - College Republican National Committee

March 3, 2014

The disastrous state of American foreign policy is one of the least talked about legacies of the Obama Administration. But that doesn’t mean that Americans aren’t paying attention. Indeed, a new Gallup poll finds that for the first time in his presidency, a majority of Americans believe that President Obama is not respected by world leaders.

From a foreign policy perspective, President Obama's shifting red-lines, has shown a lack of resolve and a weakening of America's position of leadership in the world ... That view seemed to be confirmed when an ad-libbed line by Kerry about the Assad regime turning over all its chemical weapons turned out to be false.


BREAKING: The Obama administration promised there were no more chemical weapons in Syria. Today, Syrian children are dying, attacked without warning. Here’s what we know.

Obama, Kerry Caught With Pants Down On Chemical Weapons In Syria

Syria turns over its last declared stocks of chemical weapons to UN inspectors

Almost All of Syria's Chemical Weapons Have Now Been Removed

Removal of Chemical Weapons From Syria Is Completed

Remarks by the President to the 113th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars

How Is Syria Still Using Chemical Weapons?

In Opinion: Obama's failure in Syria clouds his foreign policy legacy

Syrian chemical weapons destroyed, but concerns continue, Obama says

Obama Bin Lying's Address to the 113th Congress

So, four years ago, I made you a promise. I pledged to take the fight to our enemies, and renew our leadership in the world. As President, that’s what I’ve done. (Applause.) And as you reflect on recent years, as we look ahead to the challenges we face as a nation and the leadership that’s required, you don’t just have my words, you have my deeds. You have my track record. You have the promises I’ve made and the promises that I’ve kept.

I pledged to end the war in Iraq honorably, and that’s what we’ve done. (Applause.) After I took office, we removed nearly 150,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. And some said that bringing our troops home last year was a mistake.

We’re not just ending these wars; we’re doing it in a way that achieves our objectives. Moreover, it’s allowed us to broaden our vision and begin a new era of American leadership. We’re leading from Europe to the Asia Pacific, with alliances that have never been stronger. We’re leading the fight against nuclear dangers. We’ve applied the strongest sanctions ever on Iran and North Korea -- nations that cannot be allowed to threaten the world with nuclear weapons. (Applause.) We’re leading on behalf of freedom -- standing with people in the Middle East and North Africa as they demand their rights; protecting the Libyan people as they rid the world of Muammar Qaddafi.

Today, we’re also working for a transition so the Syrian people can have a better future, free of the Assad regime. And given the regime’s stockpiles of chemical weapons, we will continue to make it clear to Assad and those around him that the world is watching, and that they will be held accountable by the international community and the United States, should they make the tragic mistake of using those weapons. (Applause.) And we will continue to work with our friends and our allies and the Syrian opposition on behalf of the day when the Syrian people have a government that respects their basic rights to live in peace and freedom and dignity.

Because we’re leading around the world, people have a new attitude toward America. There’s more confidence in our leadership. We see it everywhere we go. We saw it as grateful Libyans waved American flags.

Remarks by the President to the 113th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars

And then there is this statement

Obama Bin Crying's Address To The UN

After I took office, I made clear that one of the principal achievements of this body -- the nuclear non-proliferation regime -- was endangered by Iran’s violation of the NPT. On that basis, the Security Council tightened sanctions on the Iranian government, and many nations joined us to enforce them. Together, we showed that laws and agreements mean something.

But we also understood that the goal of sanctions was not simply to punish Iran. Our objective was to test whether Iran could change course, accept constraints, and allow the world to verify that its nuclear program will be peaceful. For two years, the United States and our partners -- including Russia, including China -- stuck together in complex negotiations. The result is a lasting, comprehensive deal that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, while allowing it to access peaceful energy. And if this deal is fully implemented, the prohibition on nuclear weapons is strengthened, a potential war is averted, our world is safer. That is the strength of the international system when it works the way it should.

The Iranian people have a proud history, and are filled with extraordinary potential. But chanting “Death to America” does not create jobs, or make Iran more secure. If Iran chose a different path, that would be good for the security of the region, good for the Iranian people, and good for the world.

We will help any legitimate Libyan government as it works to bring the country together. But we also have to recognize that we must work more effectively in the future, as an international community, to build capacity for states that are in distress, before they collapse.

Nowhere is our commitment to international order more tested than in Syria. When a dictator slaughters tens of thousands of his own people, that is not just a matter of one nation’s internal affairs -- it breeds human suffering on an order of magnitude that affects us all. Likewise, when a terrorist group beheads captives, slaughters the innocent and enslaves women, that’s not a single nation’s national security problem -- that is an assault on all humanity.

I’ve said before and I will repeat: There is no room for accommodating an apocalyptic cult like ISIL, and the United States makes no apologies for using our military, as part of a broad coalition, to go after them. We do so with a determination to ensure that there will never be a safe haven for terrorists who carry out these crimes. And we have demonstrated over more than a decade of relentless pursuit of al Qaeda, we will not be outlasted by extremists.

But while military power is necessary, it is not sufficient to resolve the situation in Syria. Lasting stability can only take hold when the people of Syria forge an agreement to live together peacefully. The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo.


Can You Really Trust Obama Bin Lying and How He Uses and Disseminates Classified Intel?

Hersh On Obama's Lies About Syrian Chemical Weapons

A month ago Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, wrote about CIA analysts who threatened to resign over the Obama administration allegations about the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Syrian government:

With all evidence considered, the intelligence community found itself with numerous skeptics in the ranks, leading to sharp exchanges with the Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

A number of analysts threatened to resign as a group if their strong dissent was not noted in any report released to the public, forcing both Brennan and Clapper to back down.

Now Seymour Hersh writes about the case and finds that the CIA knew that Jabhat al-Nusra, a fundamentalist gang fighting the Syrian government, was capable of producing Sarin, the toxic chemical weapon that was used in a suburb of Damascus:

In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.
...
In recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’.

The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening.
MoA has maintained since the very first reports of the chemical weapon use that this attack was likely a false flag event. We also criticized allegations by the New York Times and Human Rights Watch about the origin of the rocket debris found after the attack. The new Hersh report now completely debunks those allegations.

One piece in Hersh's case about al-Nusra's capabilities to produce Sarin comes from a somewhat mysterious cable:

On 20 June a four-page top secret cable summarising what had been learned about al-Nusra’s nerve gas capabilities was forwarded to David R. Shedd, deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. ‘What Shedd was briefed on was extensive and comprehensive,’ the [senior intelligence] consultant said. ‘It was not a bunch of “we believes”.’ He told me that the cable made no assessment as to whether the rebels or the Syrian army had initiated the attacks in March and April, but it did confirm previous reports that al-Nusra had the ability to acquire and use sarin.
...
Spokesmen for the DIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence said they were not aware of the report to Shedd and, when provided with specific cable markings for the document, said they were unable to find it. Shawn Turner, head of public affairs for the ODNI, said that no American intelligence agency, including the DIA, ‘assesses that the al-Nusra Front has succeeded in developing a capacity to manufacture sarin’.

MoA - Hersh On Obama's Lies About Syrian Chemical Weapons

Now We Start Getting Down To It

US-Russia Strike Deal on Syrian Chemical Weapons: What’s Next? - National Security Network

“The first step of the U.S.-Russian framework agreement requires President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to submit to the United Nations ‘a comprehensive listing, including names, types, and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities.’ Press reports say Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed in private talks in Geneva last week that Syria possessed about 1,000 metric tons of chemical agents, including nerve gas and blistering agents. But the devil is in the details.

After the first submission from Syria, the U.S.-Russia plan says an initial round of inspections is supposed to be complete by the end of November, and Syria’s chemical stocks should be destroyed by the middle of 2014. To get a sense of how ambitious that stipulation is, consider what the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, told a conference for intelligence community contractors in Washington on Thursday: ‘Today I asked a few of our folks from our own chemical system, ‘How long did it take for us to kind of get rid of everything?’… It took us about seven years, so it’s going to take a while.’” [Daily Beast, 9/16/13]

“The Russia-U.S. agreement on a Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons is certainly a breakthrough with respect to chemical weapons, if it is implemented with anything like the thoroughness and timeliness specified. John Kerry has delivered on paper what President Obama has wanted: an end not just to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but destruction of Syria’s capability to make them and use them by the middle of 2014. But the agreement, even fully implemented, does nothing to solve three other problems: Bashar al Assad’s continued hold on power and attacks on Syria’s civilian population, radicalization of his opposition and his supporters, and destabilization of the region.” [Washington Post, 9/15/13. Associated Press, 9/16/13. Dan Serwer, 9/16/13]



Well, Not So Much

President Obama Has Played His Hand Perfectly When it Comes to Syria - Forward Progressives

Obama does have the power to use our military, without Congressional approval, for a very limited number of days. He didn’t need Republican support to stage a short bombing campaign in Syria. And even had he said he was going to “go it alone,” he still could have pushed the issue how he has, allowing enough time for Russia to come up with a response.

Instead, he decided to turn this around on Republicans. And by doing so, he’s gotten what I believe he originally wanted — an agreement to remove chemical weapons from Syria — and he’s made many Republicans look like fools trying to scramble to come up with answers to his public request for Congressional approval for any involvement in Syria.

Without a missile fired, bomb dropped or troop deployed, President Obama has managed to embarrass Republicans and get a possible deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria.

Well played, Mr. President. Well played indeed.

OH REALLY?

The Defense Department said last month that Syria gave up the last of its stockpiles in June and that a team of experts aboard the Cape Ray was busy neutralizing stocks of methylphosphonyl difluoride, which is used to make sarin, and sulfur mustard in the eastern Mediterranean. The toxic chemicals were rendered inert during a 60-day process in a titanium reactor aboard the Cape Ray.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/...chemical-arsenal-fully-destroyed-us-says.html

Obama administration blocks Washington Times FOIA request on Syria chemical weapons

The Obama administration is blocking The Washington Times from obtaining detailed information about Syria’s extensive chemical weapons arsenal, which was used to kill thousands of innocents and changed the course of the country’s savage 4-year-old civil war.

Critics within advocacy groups, and within the journalism establishment, have lambasted the administration for its slow, or lack of, responses to Freedom of Information Act requests. Yet in 2009, President Obama pledged to run the most transparent administration in U.S. history and told FOIA administrators to err on the side of releasing data.

The Times has been turned down in its requests under FOIA with the Defense Department’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency. The agency led the Obama administration’s mission, along with international groups, to remove and destroy Syria’s stocks of ricin, sarin, mustard gas, hydrochloric acid and other components in 2014. It compiled extensive intelligence on what was one of the world’s largest stockpiles.

The Times first asked the Pentagon to provide detailed information on what components were removed. The Pentagon referred questions to the U.N.-supported Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which launched a joint mission to oversee the Syria operation.

The Times asked the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for information about the history of the arsenal. A spokesman replied that as a matter of practice it does not provide such details. The organization did post on its website a series of “progress reports” as the removal proceeded.

The Times’ first FOIA request to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency asked for any and all information it possessed stemming from its removal work. The request was denied as being too general.

The Times first said it was “requesting all documents related to the Defense Department’s collection and disposal of Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons. The Times is interested in an inventory of each component and its origins. A list of each component, the size or number, and from where they came, either domestically produced inside Syria or imported from another country, if from another country.”

After being told the request was too broad, The Times narrowed it to this: “The Washington Times is asking the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to provide any reports — created by DTRA’s team in charge of disposing of Syria’s chemical weapons components and submitted to DTRA headquarters — that contain information on the components handled and their origin, be it Syria or from a third party or country to Syria. I assume DTRA’s team must have filed reports on its mission, to include the types and amounts of chemical weapons components removed from Syria.”

The agency again responded with a denial. But this time, it acknowledged it had some applicable information. It cited a U.S. law that allows it to withhold “certain sensitive information of foreign governments and international organizations.”

“The responsive record is exempt from mandatory public disclosure, and is being withheld in full accordance with” U.S. law, said the agency’s Oct. 9 “final” denial letter.

The Times appealed, saying the Defense Threat Reduction Agency can redact the reports and then release them, as is done with many other classified documents. That appeal is pending.

‘Lack of transparency’

The law cited by DTRA has three prongs, any of which is justification for denial.

One is that a foreign government or organization requests in writing that data be withheld. The second is that the information is supplied on the condition that it not be released. The third is that a release would make it difficult for the U.S. to obtain similar information in the future.

David A. Schulz is a FOIA warrior. He co-directs Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, which goes to court to challenge government denials.

Mr. Schulz, a First Amendment specialist who has represented a number of news media outlets, told The Times that he has never seen the government invoke this law before in a FOIA denial.

“On the face of it, it seems that their position on the statute is not crazy,” Mr. Schulz said. “The other angle to it is, it’s a discretionary authorization so it is not mandatory. If they wanted to, they could still disclose even if it fell squarely within this. It’s another example of the lack of transparency there. They are hiding beyond this statute, but they are not required to keep it secret and it goes against their claim of being transparent.”

Tom Fitton runs Judicial Watch, a conservative nonprofit that has gone to court to force the Obama administration to provide documents, such as Hillary Clinton’s stash of private emails while secretary of state.

“On classified material, it is tough to overcome the withholdings,” Mr. Fitton said. “Of course, they can always declassify material. In my experience, typically material like this is withheld because it is not helpful, as opposed to it would harm the nation’s security or harm foreign relations. If this material were helpful, if the administration is Democrat or Republican, they will often release it.

“My view is, where is the harm in getting the type of information you want?” he said. “What weapons Syria had and where they might have come from, I think, is relevant to the current debate.”

Karen Kaiser, the Associated Press’ general counsel, told the Senate Judiciary Committee in May of maddeningly long delays by this administration in trying to obtain basic information.

“Obtaining documents through FOIA remains a slow and difficult process, and one which unfortunately is becoming increasingly arduous to use,” she said. “Despite promises of greater transparency at the outset of this administration, most agencies are not abiding by their obligations of openness under the law. We are witnessing a breakdown in the system — both on the procedural front, in the form of continual delays and agency nonresponsiveness, and on the substantive front, with the vast overuse of exemptions and redactions.”

Ms. Kaiser said the Obama administration cited national security and privacy (the issue faced in The Washington Times case) a record 555,000 times last year.

“This administration started in 2009 with a promise to be the most transparent administration ever,” she said. “Yet these statistics speak to the opposite result.”

Dumb ass, I linked the story to you straight from the archives on the White House. You truly are brain dead.

And I replied with a detailed report that you were unable to refute even one point of.

Who is brain dead, dummy?

Obama has set the stage for WWIII and that will be his legacy.

Do you think I read all your dribble? I posted a speech from Obama straight from the White House archives where he said there is NO DOUBT chemical weapons were used in Syria. You said he denied it. You're a liar and I proved you wrong.

I don't care how big of font you use or how much shit you post, you will still be wrong.

I cited multiple sources that showed the Obama Admin stated that there were no longer chemical weapons in Syria and that the issue was considered one of his foreign policy successes.

But, if you don't read my replies to you, when you ask me specific questions and I blow your theories out of the water, then we are not having a discussion.

Furthermore, since your USMB Rating is an F - at just 54% you really are too phucking dumb for me to talk to, since I rate 135%.

I can see then the reason for your not being able to comprehend what I am writing, so much so, that you won't even attempt to try.

Therefore, in the interest of my own self preservation, and to preserve my own intellect, wit and charm, I will no longer read or see your drivel.

 

[Lewdog]

Can you show that he said there were no chemical weapons in Syria? Because that is a flat out lie.

Phuck off. You are the liar. All Liberals are Liars.
And Liars Burn In Hell.
Remember that.
Repent....

And BTW, quit using Google & Bing if you want to really know anything. They are flitering and censoring articles. So now we have FAKE SEARCH ENGINES also helping Liberal Scum Propagandize The American People.

WASHINGTON — The United States said Monday that it had completed the destruction of the deadliest chemical weapons in Syria’s arsenal, a rare foreign policy achievement for President Obama at a time when the Middle East is embroiled in violence and political turmoil.

On Monday, Mr. Obama said that the destruction of the weapons, several weeks ahead of schedule, “advances our collective goal to ensure that the Assad regime cannot use its chemical arsenal against the Syrian people and sends a clear message that the use of these abhorrent weapons has consequences and will not be tolerated by the international community.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/...chemical-arsenal-fully-destroyed-us-says.html

Obama: 'I Didn't Set a Red Line' on Syria

Let me give you some examples of how Obama Bin Spying is a Lying Son Of A Bitch.
Read between the lines on some of his official public statements.
Don't bother reading any of this if you are a Liberal.
We know you are too damn dumb to understand such complicated things.
Just throw darts at your President Donald Trump dart board, and feel good about yourself.

If, you want the dumbed down version then don't read further than this paragraph I am writing here.

Obama drew a 'red line in the sand'. He then claimed 'foreign policy success' with the Chemical Weapons Removal Deal made with Russia & Syria.
It was verified that Russia was carrying out it's obligations to help remove Chemical Weapons from Syria. The Obama Administration declared that all The Chemical Weapons had been removed.

Chemical weapons attacks occurred after the Administration declared victory in removing chemical weapons from Syria. Now, here is the question, did Syria do it, or ISIS, or Al Nusra? And if there were never any Chemical Weapons in Iraq, how did ISIS get them? And exactly why would Obama actually fund Al Nusra, The Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Queda Affiliates to carry out actions in The ME for him?

And why did Obama deny 555,000 FOIA requests asking to see what the origins of The Chemical Weapons The Obama Administration claimed were all destroyed?
Are they being illegally manufactured in THE US?

And lastly, two people that you cannot trust as an American is John Brennan, and Jake Clapper. These are Polticos, and Professional Liars.

The good people under them, burdened by their leadership want to do their jobs but they are not allowed to. They were continually compromised by a Scandolous, and Unscrupulous Obama Regime.

Obama is probably the most artful and clever liar that ever inhabited The White House.

I realize No one wants to do research. It's boring. It's hard work. And you have to be willing to topple your own idols if you value Truth, more than you value ideologies and people.

I had to do this with some of my own personal heroes. Now you must do it to, if you value Truth.

Obama's Bumbling Foreign Policy Diminishes America's Global Position - College Republican National Committee

March 3, 2014

The disastrous state of American foreign policy is one of the least talked about legacies of the Obama Administration. But that doesn’t mean that Americans aren’t paying attention. Indeed, a new Gallup poll finds that for the first time in his presidency, a majority of Americans believe that President Obama is not respected by world leaders.

From a foreign policy perspective, President Obama's shifting red-lines, has shown a lack of resolve and a weakening of America's position of leadership in the world ... That view seemed to be confirmed when an ad-libbed line by Kerry about the Assad regime turning over all its chemical weapons turned out to be false.


BREAKING: The Obama administration promised there were no more chemical weapons in Syria. Today, Syrian children are dying, attacked without warning. Here’s what we know.

Obama, Kerry Caught With Pants Down On Chemical Weapons In Syria

Syria turns over its last declared stocks of chemical weapons to UN inspectors

Almost All of Syria's Chemical Weapons Have Now Been Removed

Removal of Chemical Weapons From Syria Is Completed

Remarks by the President to the 113th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars

How Is Syria Still Using Chemical Weapons?

In Opinion: Obama's failure in Syria clouds his foreign policy legacy

Syrian chemical weapons destroyed, but concerns continue, Obama says

Obama Bin Lying's Address to the 113th Congress

So, four years ago, I made you a promise. I pledged to take the fight to our enemies, and renew our leadership in the world. As President, that’s what I’ve done. (Applause.) And as you reflect on recent years, as we look ahead to the challenges we face as a nation and the leadership that’s required, you don’t just have my words, you have my deeds. You have my track record. You have the promises I’ve made and the promises that I’ve kept.

I pledged to end the war in Iraq honorably, and that’s what we’ve done. (Applause.) After I took office, we removed nearly 150,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. And some said that bringing our troops home last year was a mistake.

We’re not just ending these wars; we’re doing it in a way that achieves our objectives. Moreover, it’s allowed us to broaden our vision and begin a new era of American leadership. We’re leading from Europe to the Asia Pacific, with alliances that have never been stronger. We’re leading the fight against nuclear dangers. We’ve applied the strongest sanctions ever on Iran and North Korea -- nations that cannot be allowed to threaten the world with nuclear weapons. (Applause.) We’re leading on behalf of freedom -- standing with people in the Middle East and North Africa as they demand their rights; protecting the Libyan people as they rid the world of Muammar Qaddafi.

Today, we’re also working for a transition so the Syrian people can have a better future, free of the Assad regime. And given the regime’s stockpiles of chemical weapons, we will continue to make it clear to Assad and those around him that the world is watching, and that they will be held accountable by the international community and the United States, should they make the tragic mistake of using those weapons. (Applause.) And we will continue to work with our friends and our allies and the Syrian opposition on behalf of the day when the Syrian people have a government that respects their basic rights to live in peace and freedom and dignity.

Because we’re leading around the world, people have a new attitude toward America. There’s more confidence in our leadership. We see it everywhere we go. We saw it as grateful Libyans waved American flags.

Remarks by the President to the 113th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars

And then there is this statement

Obama Bin Crying's Address To The UN

After I took office, I made clear that one of the principal achievements of this body -- the nuclear non-proliferation regime -- was endangered by Iran’s violation of the NPT. On that basis, the Security Council tightened sanctions on the Iranian government, and many nations joined us to enforce them. Together, we showed that laws and agreements mean something.

But we also understood that the goal of sanctions was not simply to punish Iran. Our objective was to test whether Iran could change course, accept constraints, and allow the world to verify that its nuclear program will be peaceful. For two years, the United States and our partners -- including Russia, including China -- stuck together in complex negotiations. The result is a lasting, comprehensive deal that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, while allowing it to access peaceful energy. And if this deal is fully implemented, the prohibition on nuclear weapons is strengthened, a potential war is averted, our world is safer. That is the strength of the international system when it works the way it should.

The Iranian people have a proud history, and are filled with extraordinary potential. But chanting “Death to America” does not create jobs, or make Iran more secure. If Iran chose a different path, that would be good for the security of the region, good for the Iranian people, and good for the world.

We will help any legitimate Libyan government as it works to bring the country together. But we also have to recognize that we must work more effectively in the future, as an international community, to build capacity for states that are in distress, before they collapse.

Nowhere is our commitment to international order more tested than in Syria. When a dictator slaughters tens of thousands of his own people, that is not just a matter of one nation’s internal affairs -- it breeds human suffering on an order of magnitude that affects us all. Likewise, when a terrorist group beheads captives, slaughters the innocent and enslaves women, that’s not a single nation’s national security problem -- that is an assault on all humanity.

I’ve said before and I will repeat: There is no room for accommodating an apocalyptic cult like ISIL, and the United States makes no apologies for using our military, as part of a broad coalition, to go after them. We do so with a determination to ensure that there will never be a safe haven for terrorists who carry out these crimes. And we have demonstrated over more than a decade of relentless pursuit of al Qaeda, we will not be outlasted by extremists.

But while military power is necessary, it is not sufficient to resolve the situation in Syria. Lasting stability can only take hold when the people of Syria forge an agreement to live together peacefully. The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo.


Can You Really Trust Obama Bin Lying and How He Uses and Disseminates Classified Intel?

Hersh On Obama's Lies About Syrian Chemical Weapons

A month ago Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, wrote about CIA analysts who threatened to resign over the Obama administration allegations about the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Syrian government:

With all evidence considered, the intelligence community found itself with numerous skeptics in the ranks, leading to sharp exchanges with the Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

A number of analysts threatened to resign as a group if their strong dissent was not noted in any report released to the public, forcing both Brennan and Clapper to back down.

Now Seymour Hersh writes about the case and finds that the CIA knew that Jabhat al-Nusra, a fundamentalist gang fighting the Syrian government, was capable of producing Sarin, the toxic chemical weapon that was used in a suburb of Damascus:

In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.
...
In recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’.

The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening.
MoA has maintained since the very first reports of the chemical weapon use that this attack was likely a false flag event. We also criticized allegations by the New York Times and Human Rights Watch about the origin of the rocket debris found after the attack. The new Hersh report now completely debunks those allegations.

One piece in Hersh's case about al-Nusra's capabilities to produce Sarin comes from a somewhat mysterious cable:

On 20 June a four-page top secret cable summarising what had been learned about al-Nusra’s nerve gas capabilities was forwarded to David R. Shedd, deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. ‘What Shedd was briefed on was extensive and comprehensive,’ the [senior intelligence] consultant said. ‘It was not a bunch of “we believes”.’ He told me that the cable made no assessment as to whether the rebels or the Syrian army had initiated the attacks in March and April, but it did confirm previous reports that al-Nusra had the ability to acquire and use sarin.
...
Spokesmen for the DIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence said they were not aware of the report to Shedd and, when provided with specific cable markings for the document, said they were unable to find it. Shawn Turner, head of public affairs for the ODNI, said that no American intelligence agency, including the DIA, ‘assesses that the al-Nusra Front has succeeded in developing a capacity to manufacture sarin’.

MoA - Hersh On Obama's Lies About Syrian Chemical Weapons

Now We Start Getting Down To It

US-Russia Strike Deal on Syrian Chemical Weapons: What’s Next? - National Security Network

“The first step of the U.S.-Russian framework agreement requires President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to submit to the United Nations ‘a comprehensive listing, including names, types, and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities.’ Press reports say Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed in private talks in Geneva last week that Syria possessed about 1,000 metric tons of chemical agents, including nerve gas and blistering agents. But the devil is in the details.

After the first submission from Syria, the U.S.-Russia plan says an initial round of inspections is supposed to be complete by the end of November, and Syria’s chemical stocks should be destroyed by the middle of 2014. To get a sense of how ambitious that stipulation is, consider what the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, told a conference for intelligence community contractors in Washington on Thursday: ‘Today I asked a few of our folks from our own chemical system, ‘How long did it take for us to kind of get rid of everything?’… It took us about seven years, so it’s going to take a while.’” [Daily Beast, 9/16/13]

“The Russia-U.S. agreement on a Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons is certainly a breakthrough with respect to chemical weapons, if it is implemented with anything like the thoroughness and timeliness specified. John Kerry has delivered on paper what President Obama has wanted: an end not just to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but destruction of Syria’s capability to make them and use them by the middle of 2014. But the agreement, even fully implemented, does nothing to solve three other problems: Bashar al Assad’s continued hold on power and attacks on Syria’s civilian population, radicalization of his opposition and his supporters, and destabilization of the region.” [Washington Post, 9/15/13. Associated Press, 9/16/13. Dan Serwer, 9/16/13]



Well, Not So Much

President Obama Has Played His Hand Perfectly When it Comes to Syria - Forward Progressives

Obama does have the power to use our military, without Congressional approval, for a very limited number of days. He didn’t need Republican support to stage a short bombing campaign in Syria. And even had he said he was going to “go it alone,” he still could have pushed the issue how he has, allowing enough time for Russia to come up with a response.

Instead, he decided to turn this around on Republicans. And by doing so, he’s gotten what I believe he originally wanted — an agreement to remove chemical weapons from Syria — and he’s made many Republicans look like fools trying to scramble to come up with answers to his public request for Congressional approval for any involvement in Syria.

Without a missile fired, bomb dropped or troop deployed, President Obama has managed to embarrass Republicans and get a possible deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria.

Well played, Mr. President. Well played indeed.

OH REALLY?

The Defense Department said last month that Syria gave up the last of its stockpiles in June and that a team of experts aboard the Cape Ray was busy neutralizing stocks of methylphosphonyl difluoride, which is used to make sarin, and sulfur mustard in the eastern Mediterranean. The toxic chemicals were rendered inert during a 60-day process in a titanium reactor aboard the Cape Ray.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/...chemical-arsenal-fully-destroyed-us-says.html

Obama administration blocks Washington Times FOIA request on Syria chemical weapons

The Obama administration is blocking The Washington Times from obtaining detailed information about Syria’s extensive chemical weapons arsenal, which was used to kill thousands of innocents and changed the course of the country’s savage 4-year-old civil war.

Critics within advocacy groups, and within the journalism establishment, have lambasted the administration for its slow, or lack of, responses to Freedom of Information Act requests. Yet in 2009, President Obama pledged to run the most transparent administration in U.S. history and told FOIA administrators to err on the side of releasing data.

The Times has been turned down in its requests under FOIA with the Defense Department’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency. The agency led the Obama administration’s mission, along with international groups, to remove and destroy Syria’s stocks of ricin, sarin, mustard gas, hydrochloric acid and other components in 2014. It compiled extensive intelligence on what was one of the world’s largest stockpiles.

The Times first asked the Pentagon to provide detailed information on what components were removed. The Pentagon referred questions to the U.N.-supported Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which launched a joint mission to oversee the Syria operation.

The Times asked the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for information about the history of the arsenal. A spokesman replied that as a matter of practice it does not provide such details. The organization did post on its website a series of “progress reports” as the removal proceeded.

The Times’ first FOIA request to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency asked for any and all information it possessed stemming from its removal work. The request was denied as being too general.

The Times first said it was “requesting all documents related to the Defense Department’s collection and disposal of Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons. The Times is interested in an inventory of each component and its origins. A list of each component, the size or number, and from where they came, either domestically produced inside Syria or imported from another country, if from another country.”

After being told the request was too broad, The Times narrowed it to this: “The Washington Times is asking the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to provide any reports — created by DTRA’s team in charge of disposing of Syria’s chemical weapons components and submitted to DTRA headquarters — that contain information on the components handled and their origin, be it Syria or from a third party or country to Syria. I assume DTRA’s team must have filed reports on its mission, to include the types and amounts of chemical weapons components removed from Syria.”

The agency again responded with a denial. But this time, it acknowledged it had some applicable information. It cited a U.S. law that allows it to withhold “certain sensitive information of foreign governments and international organizations.”

“The responsive record is exempt from mandatory public disclosure, and is being withheld in full accordance with” U.S. law, said the agency’s Oct. 9 “final” denial letter.

The Times appealed, saying the Defense Threat Reduction Agency can redact the reports and then release them, as is done with many other classified documents. That appeal is pending.

‘Lack of transparency’

The law cited by DTRA has three prongs, any of which is justification for denial.

One is that a foreign government or organization requests in writing that data be withheld. The second is that the information is supplied on the condition that it not be released. The third is that a release would make it difficult for the U.S. to obtain similar information in the future.

David A. Schulz is a FOIA warrior. He co-directs Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, which goes to court to challenge government denials.

Mr. Schulz, a First Amendment specialist who has represented a number of news media outlets, told The Times that he has never seen the government invoke this law before in a FOIA denial.

“On the face of it, it seems that their position on the statute is not crazy,” Mr. Schulz said. “The other angle to it is, it’s a discretionary authorization so it is not mandatory. If they wanted to, they could still disclose even if it fell squarely within this. It’s another example of the lack of transparency there. They are hiding beyond this statute, but they are not required to keep it secret and it goes against their claim of being transparent.”

Tom Fitton runs Judicial Watch, a conservative nonprofit that has gone to court to force the Obama administration to provide documents, such as Hillary Clinton’s stash of private emails while secretary of state.

“On classified material, it is tough to overcome the withholdings,” Mr. Fitton said. “Of course, they can always declassify material. In my experience, typically material like this is withheld because it is not helpful, as opposed to it would harm the nation’s security or harm foreign relations. If this material were helpful, if the administration is Democrat or Republican, they will often release it.

“My view is, where is the harm in getting the type of information you want?” he said. “What weapons Syria had and where they might have come from, I think, is relevant to the current debate.”

Karen Kaiser, the Associated Press’ general counsel, told the Senate Judiciary Committee in May of maddeningly long delays by this administration in trying to obtain basic information.

“Obtaining documents through FOIA remains a slow and difficult process, and one which unfortunately is becoming increasingly arduous to use,” she said. “Despite promises of greater transparency at the outset of this administration, most agencies are not abiding by their obligations of openness under the law. We are witnessing a breakdown in the system — both on the procedural front, in the form of continual delays and agency nonresponsiveness, and on the substantive front, with the vast overuse of exemptions and redactions.”

Ms. Kaiser said the Obama administration cited national security and privacy (the issue faced in The Washington Times case) a record 555,000 times last year.

“This administration started in 2009 with a promise to be the most transparent administration ever,” she said. “Yet these statistics speak to the opposite result.”

Dumb ass, I linked the story to you straight from the archives on the White House. You truly are brain dead.

And I replied with a detailed report that you were unable to refute even one point of.

Who is brain dead, dummy?

Obama has set the stage for WWIII and that will be his legacy.

Do you think I read all your dribble? I posted a speech from Obama straight from the White House archives where he said there is NO DOUBT chemical weapons were used in Syria. You said he denied it. You're a liar and I proved you wrong.

I don't care how big of font you use or how much shit you post, you will still be wrong.

Well, if you don't read my replies to you, when you ask me specific questions and I blow your theories out of the water, then we are not having a discussion.

Furthermore, since your USMB Rating is an F- at just 53% you really are too phucking dumb for me to talk to, since I rate 135%.

So I will no longer read or see your drivel.

You take "likes" as something worthwhile?

 

[SavannahMann]

I'm not reading the whole tirade but chemical wmd should be a concern of everybody. The world decided on it in WW1 after so many suffered so horribly. It only leads to even greater chemical, then biological. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where that's going.

As far as the Nazis. They were after world domination and should have been stopped much sooner. We learned that in WW2. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Assad can't do anything about world domination. Using your World War II issue, the Soviets were bent on World Donination too. They had spies all over the world. So our friend who isn't bent on world domination is better than our enemy bent on world domination.

Assad is no threat to us. He never was.

You missed the main point. No wonder you believe what you do.

I missed the point? You didn't read the OP and claim I missed the point. You are an unequaled jackass. I may put that in my wig line. Iceweasel is an unequaled jackass. I've told you that many times.

You responded to my post and ignored or missed the main point I made. You are a dumbass so that's WHY you believe what you do.

"I'm not reading the whole tirade but chemical wmd should be a concern of everybody. The world decided on it in WW1 after so many suffered so horribly. It only leads to even greater chemical, then biological. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where that's going."

Unequaled jackass.

 

[candycorn]

The reason I ask is the same one I had when President Obama was faced with this question. I honestly don't care. What happens in Syria doesn't have a damned thing to do with anyone in the US.

The truth about World War II was on the Eastern Front, there were no good guys. Hitler was a bad guy, and so was Stalin. Both were totalitarian dictators. Both were incredibly cruel to their own people, and those who were conquered. Both were brutal. And both sides committed atrocities. There were no good guys on the Eastern Front, there was only one difference. Hitler was our enemy, Stalin was our ally. Political happenstance just made it so the enemy of our enemy was to be our friend.

In Syria, there are no good guys. Assad is a bad guy, and the people fighting him are baddies too. The people in Eastern Europe couldn't tell you the difference between the brutalities and atrocities of the German Army compared to the brutalities and atrocities of the Russian Army. New management, same rules.

If you want to really slice the meat thin, you could argue that Hitler was a minuscule bit worse. But that meat would be nearly transparent to get to that level of thin. Even then it wouldn't be all that conclusive.

I don't think you can say that with Assad. No matter how bad he is, letting the Terrorists of ISIS or the FSA have control of Syria is even worse, if only marginally so.

So why should I care? Because people died? Is it far more moral to die from gunshots, concussion from explosives, shrapnel from bombs, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, or disease? Children died before the gas attack in the war. Children died since from reasons totally unrelated to chemical weapons.

Dan Carlin has a podcast. It's called Hardcore History. One of his episodes is called Logical Insanity. He asks the question about Japan in World War II. Was it more moral to firebomb the cities than it was to drop the Atomic Bomb? He reads diary excerpts about how bad the firebombing was. How heartbreaking the reactions of the people were.

Dan Carlin is right. At what point does the suffering reach the limit? When does it reach ten on the scale, or eleven if you are a Spinal Tap fan? At what point has the population in a war simply reached the limit of suffering where nothing else could possibly make them suffer anymore?

I didn't care about Syrian gas attacks when Obama was President, and I voted for Obama. Why should I care now? My opinion then, as now is the same. The Russians are never going to pull out of Syria. Their only Navy base in the entire Mediterranean Sea is there. It would be as if our Naval Base in Italy was threatened, or if the Naval base in Gibralter for the British. Great Britain just had their territory of Gibralter threatened by the EU, and in response promised all out war to defend it. A postage stamp of a territory. Worth fighting for regardless.

So you outraged folks, tell me why I should care. Tell me why dying from shrapnel from bombs is somehow way more preferable to gas. Tell me why dying from starvation is better. Tell me why we should care.

Love that podcast.

I couldn’t agree more. The only reason it matters so much to some is the political scorekeeping. Trump was supposed to show us how it was done.

Nothing in Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia (and I’m leaving out about 150 other countries) is worth one drop of American blood.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm not reading the whole tirade but chemical wmd should be a concern of everybody. The world decided on it in WW1 after so many suffered so horribly. It only leads to even greater chemical, then biological. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where that's going.

As far as the Nazis. They were after world domination and should have been stopped much sooner. We learned that in WW2. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Assad can't do anything about world domination. Using your World War II issue, the Soviets were bent on World Donination too. They had spies all over the world. So our friend who isn't bent on world domination is better than our enemy bent on world domination.

Assad is no threat to us. He never was.

You missed the main point. No wonder you believe what you do.

I missed the point? You didn't read the OP and claim I missed the point. You are an unequaled jackass. I may put that in my wig line. Iceweasel is an unequaled jackass. I've told you that many times.

You responded to my post and ignored or missed the main point I made. You are a dumbass so that's WHY you believe what you do.

"I'm not reading the whole tirade but chemical wmd should be a concern of everybody. The world decided on it in WW1 after so many suffered so horribly. It only leads to even greater chemical, then biological. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where that's going."

Unequaled jackass.

Yes you are. If you don't believe it you can't see it.

 

[Muhammed]

We don't know who used the chemical weapons.