Operation Cockamamie

[ScreamingEagle]

this is a pretty good summary thus far....you just can't make this stuff up.......

Looking over the week's crazy developments, I can see only one coherent strand in Obama's foreign policy. He wants to make sure that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton will never be elected president. After sacrificing Hillary's career on the blood-streaked walls of Benghazi he had Kerry appear before the Congress and take positions utterly at odds with those he's taken all his life, supplied him with information disputed by other members of the administration, and had him make indefensible statements without any evidentiary support at all.


By way of example, Kerry asserted that the chemical weapons case against Syria was "undeniable." At the same time, the administration offered up a contradictory assessment that "U.S. intelligence has concluded 'with some degree of varying confidence' that the Syrian government has twice used chemical weapons. He told Congress that the military strikes planned against Syria would not be "war," although he conceded that there might be "boots on the ground" called for. He raised eyebrows when he said Arab countries had offered to bankroll an invasion of Syria. How do you ask an American soldier to be the first to die to advance the interests of the Saudis?


When pressed, he backtracked and said, "There will not be boots on the ground" in connection with the Syrian civil war. He asserted that 34 countries supported this endeavor. Representative Salmon asked for the names of those countries, and Kerry was forced to respond, "Uh, I don't have the list with me." We still have not seen the list. We do know that the British Parliament, in a very rare move, refused, and France's response seems to be "Like, call me maybe."


Some have linked the nondisclosure about the slaughter in Libya in September to the administration's incoherence on Syria, indicating that the terrorists in Benghazi are tied to the very Islamist rebels Obama asks us to support in the Syrian civil war. That connection may well be true, but there is no reason to suggest that it is the only reason for this performance, a contradictory, incoherent clown show.


The other reason, of course, is that the entire notion was ill-considered and executed by not very smart people -- including a president who is in over his head and looking for cover to share the responsibility for his off the teleprompter remark that chemical weapons used by Assad would be a "red line" we would not let him cross without consequence. Add to that the late decision to go to Congress, the incoherent presentation, and the poor preparation of those advancing the incomprehensible plan for an attack, and it seems pathetic, really.


As Charles Krauthammer observed:


Read more: Articles: Operation Cockamamie: The Damascus Follies
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[PredFan]

Oh God I hope that this is true.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

this is a pretty good summary thus far....you just can't make this stuff up.......

Looking over the week's crazy developments, I can see only one coherent strand in Obama's foreign policy. He wants to make sure that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton will never be elected president. After sacrificing Hillary's career on the blood-streaked walls of Benghazi he had Kerry appear before the Congress and take positions utterly at odds with those he's taken all his life, supplied him with information disputed by other members of the administration, and had him make indefensible statements without any evidentiary support at all.


By way of example, Kerry asserted that the chemical weapons case against Syria was "undeniable." At the same time, the administration offered up a contradictory assessment that "U.S. intelligence has concluded 'with some degree of varying confidence' that the Syrian government has twice used chemical weapons. He told Congress that the military strikes planned against Syria would not be "war," although he conceded that there might be "boots on the ground" called for. He raised eyebrows when he said Arab countries had offered to bankroll an invasion of Syria. How do you ask an American soldier to be the first to die to advance the interests of the Saudis?


When pressed, he backtracked and said, "There will not be boots on the ground" in connection with the Syrian civil war. He asserted that 34 countries supported this endeavor. Representative Salmon asked for the names of those countries, and Kerry was forced to respond, "Uh, I don't have the list with me." We still have not seen the list. We do know that the British Parliament, in a very rare move, refused, and France's response seems to be "Like, call me maybe."


Some have linked the nondisclosure about the slaughter in Libya in September to the administration's incoherence on Syria, indicating that the terrorists in Benghazi are tied to the very Islamist rebels Obama asks us to support in the Syrian civil war. That connection may well be true, but there is no reason to suggest that it is the only reason for this performance, a contradictory, incoherent clown show.


The other reason, of course, is that the entire notion was ill-considered and executed by not very smart people -- including a president who is in over his head and looking for cover to share the responsibility for his off the teleprompter remark that chemical weapons used by Assad would be a "red line" we would not let him cross without consequence. Add to that the late decision to go to Congress, the incoherent presentation, and the poor preparation of those advancing the incomprehensible plan for an attack, and it seems pathetic, really.


As Charles Krauthammer observed:


Read more: Articles: Operation Cockamamie: The Damascus Follies
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

And?

A subjective opinion by a partisan rightwing hack preaching to the choir.

In fact, this is more fabrication than opinion, misrepresenting the Administration’s position, attempting to present lies as ‘fact.’

For example, Obama is not asking anyone to ‘support’ Islamist rebels ‘tied to Benghazi.’

Krauthammer and the OP are consequently liars, as are anyone who agrees with them.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

this is a pretty good summary thus far....you just can't make this stuff up.......

Looking over the week's crazy developments, I can see only one coherent strand in Obama's foreign policy. He wants to make sure that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton will never be elected president. After sacrificing Hillary's career on the blood-streaked walls of Benghazi he had Kerry appear before the Congress and take positions utterly at odds with those he's taken all his life, supplied him with information disputed by other members of the administration, and had him make indefensible statements without any evidentiary support at all.


By way of example, Kerry asserted that the chemical weapons case against Syria was "undeniable." At the same time, the administration offered up a contradictory assessment that "U.S. intelligence has concluded 'with some degree of varying confidence' that the Syrian government has twice used chemical weapons. He told Congress that the military strikes planned against Syria would not be "war," although he conceded that there might be "boots on the ground" called for. He raised eyebrows when he said Arab countries had offered to bankroll an invasion of Syria. How do you ask an American soldier to be the first to die to advance the interests of the Saudis?


When pressed, he backtracked and said, "There will not be boots on the ground" in connection with the Syrian civil war. He asserted that 34 countries supported this endeavor. Representative Salmon asked for the names of those countries, and Kerry was forced to respond, "Uh, I don't have the list with me." We still have not seen the list. We do know that the British Parliament, in a very rare move, refused, and France's response seems to be "Like, call me maybe."


Some have linked the nondisclosure about the slaughter in Libya in September to the administration's incoherence on Syria, indicating that the terrorists in Benghazi are tied to the very Islamist rebels Obama asks us to support in the Syrian civil war. That connection may well be true, but there is no reason to suggest that it is the only reason for this performance, a contradictory, incoherent clown show.


The other reason, of course, is that the entire notion was ill-considered and executed by not very smart people -- including a president who is in over his head and looking for cover to share the responsibility for his off the teleprompter remark that chemical weapons used by Assad would be a "red line" we would not let him cross without consequence. Add to that the late decision to go to Congress, the incoherent presentation, and the poor preparation of those advancing the incomprehensible plan for an attack, and it seems pathetic, really.


As Charles Krauthammer observed:


Read more: Articles: Operation Cockamamie: The Damascus Follies
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

And?

A subjective opinion by a partisan rightwing hack preaching to the choir.

In fact, this is more fabrication than opinion, misrepresenting the Administration’s position, attempting to present lies as ‘fact.’

For example, Obama is not asking anyone to ‘support’ Islamist rebels ‘tied to Benghazi.’

Krauthammer and the OP are consequently liars, as are anyone who agrees with them.

how are the Islamist terrorists in Syria any different from those in Libya...?