Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Barack Obama - #4571 - Yossef Bodansky: Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack? - PJ Media (2) Minority Turnout Increased Dramatically After Georgia Voter ID Law - Hot Air (3) VIDEO: Cuccinelli Unveils the Best Campaign Ad of 2013 - (4,159 views) Bearing Drift (4) Rush Limbaugh: Obama is Replacing Oil Price-Stabilizing Dictators with Militant Islamist Dictators

Yossef Bodansky: Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack? - PJ Media - The question posed in the headline is obviously an explosive one, pardon the pun. And I’m not endorsing a “yes” answer in highlighting Bodansky’s article. I have wondered about something, though.On August 20, 2012, President Obama issued his now famous “red line” comment regarding Syria and the use of chemical weapons. Use of such weapons, Obama said at the time, would be a “game changer.” Exactly a year later, Syrian government forces allegedly use chemical weapons — sarin gas — to kill nearly 1,500 Syrian civilians. Now America, we’re told, must respond. Why would Assad do this? From a strategic point of view, why would he take action that invites — almost demands — Obama to take military action against him when he is in the middle of a violent civil war? Assad has widely been believed to be winning the war against the rebels. Why take any action that could invite a rain of American Tomahawk missiles and maybe targeted B2 strikes on your forces and positions, and even specifically on you, personally? What did Assad have to gain from this? Why would a dictator who is fighting for his life decide to stick his thumb in America’s eye, in a strategically meaningless attack?  Read more........

Related: Direct Links:
(1) Original article: Yossef Bodansky: Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack - Global Research.
(2) Rush Limbaugh: Bodansky: What if Bashar Didn't do it? 


(2) Minority Turnout Increased Dramatically After Georgia Voter-ID Law - Hot Air - Politico’s Mike Allen called this “the most surprising story of the day” [see update!], which really only applies to the hysterics and the demagogues who oppose measures to combat ballot fraud. After Georgia passed a voter-ID requirement in time for the 2008 election cycle, critics claimed that it would suppress black and Hispanic votes and lead to a new era of Jim Crow. Instead, as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution discovered, it’s led to a new era of eating crow (via The Corner): When Georgia became one of the first states in the nation to demand a photo ID at the ballot box, both sides served up dire predictions. Opponents labeled it a Jim Crow-era tactic that would suppress the minority vote. Supporters insisted it was needed to combat fraud that imperiled the integrity of the elections process. But both claims were overblown, according to a review of by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of statewide voting patterns in the five years since the law took effect. Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period. Read more......

 (3) Ken Cuccinelli Unveils the Best Campaign Ad of 2013 - Bearing Drift - (4,159 views) On Friday, I wrote that my first hint of how the campaigns intended to shake off the pre-season dust and get focused for the real political season would come from my Tuesday morning emails. Like clockwork, the Cuccinelli campaign had a note waiting at 7 AM. And it contained a link to this new ad: This is the best ad I’ve seen from either side in the race so far, humanizing Cuccinelli, and even showing that, yes, he can get choked up over something. In this case, it’s getting justice for a wrongly accused man. And then giving him a job. More of this, please.

Related - Direct Link:
Richmond School Board Member, and Lifelong Democrat, Embraces Cuccinelli Education Plan - Bearing Drift...........

(4) Obama is Replacing Oil Price-Stabilizing Dictators with Militant Islamist Dictators - Rush Limbaugh - .........Iraq, Bush policy tried to change that, but our number one interest in the Middle East is oil, free flow, market prices. So if stable dictators are the best way to maintain the free flow of oil at market prices, that's what we'll do, until the left gets in charge. They start talking about they don't like dictators, which is croc, they love 'em. But they do not think that a policy of free flow of oil at market prices is valid. To them that's immoral and unjust. Our foreign policy ought to be based on human rights and civil rights and all that nefarious stuff. So they want to get rid of the stabilizing dictators -- I'm using this term loosely, and instead ostensibly put people in power that are there the result of a democratic process. I give Egypt as an example, Tahrir Square. They hated Mubarak, despised Mubarak because of civil rights violations, human rights violations. Mubarak was good for us. They hated him. They loved the Muslim Brotherhood moving in. Ostensibly they were elected, although they weren't. So what is happening in the Middle East is that just like Jimmy Carter before him and just like other leftist dingbat presidents before him, Obama is changing the definition of US vital national interests and it's got nothing to do with oil. Human rights and civil rights, and I don't mean to impugn those, but they don't really believe in that, either. Those are just catchphrases designed to emotionally appeal to people, to make them support it.  Read more........

No comments:

Post a Comment