Obama’s Syrian Bombing Scam

toles cartoon on syria bs tt140924

Obama loves to preen as if he is spreading peace, freedom, and democracy with his bombs.  But there is no reason to presume that bombing Syria is not as idiotic as it appears.

Thus far, the Establishment media is largely playing a lapdog role. A Washington Post headline today proclaims: “Obama the reluctant warrior, cautiously selling a new fight.”  So we’re supposed to think the president is a victim of cruel necessity, or what?

A New York Times headline today announces: “In Airstrikes, U.S. Targets Militant Cell Said to Plot an Attack Against the West.”  “Said to” is the perfect term –  perhaps sufficient to alert non-braindead readers that something may be missing (i.e., evidence).

The Tom Toles cartoon to the left explains Obama’s policy far better than anything that has yet come out of the White House.

As usual, Congress has thus far utterly disgraced itself on this carnage.  Even though the vast majority of members have (unjustifiably) safe seats, they left town for vacations and maybe a little vote hustling.

When will Americans learn the actual rationales that drove Obama’s decision to bomb Syria?  Lord knows we have not yet learned many of the sordid details behind George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. And the Obama folks are as good at coverups as the Bush team. Unfortunately, the largely toothless Freedom of Information Act poses no threat to expose the war cabal. Leaks from inside sources are the best bet for the truth outing.  But even if that occurs, it may be far too late to curb the damage.

More at www.jimbovard.com    On Twitter @jimbovard

22 thoughts on “Obama’s Syrian Bombing Scam”

  1. Barack Hussein Obama politics is based on manipulation/manipulating everyone, which is the reason for him to fool antiwar movement to vote for him. To back up his manipulative politics he started with obamacare, which was a very radical, socialist move, that's when everyone thought and talked about Obama being socialist. In theoretical terms he might, just might be socialist but when it comes to practical terms he is as capitalist as Uncle Sam is.

    His foreign policy is just the same as George W. Bush, following the very same trend where Bill Clinton left off for George W. Bush to follow and for Obama to continue.

    Iraq war was not ended because of Obama but rather Zionism idea in regime change from Syria, Iraq then Iran had to face the Iranian military if they wanted to continue with Israel/AIPAC idea in regime change. By following the AIPAC/Paul Wolfowitz and those whom are nothing but warmongers within US Democratic Party, feeding themselves like vultures, Obama continues the idea in regime change, but such policy has hit the stone wall creating yet another manipulative politics played by Barack Hussein Obama, this time in Ukraine costing the American working people $5 billion dollars.

    USA doesn't need any oil or any other natural resources, America is full of natural resources, America can feed the world with its produce, USA technology is over and beyond any other if is used for American and not warmachiney, yet USG hunger for dominating the world is the fabric of all the problems in Middle East and elsewhere.

    1. Your last paragraph, Guest, is not credible. The US will never have enough oil to support its wasteful "happy motoring" culture. This shale oil (fracking) revolution will turn out to be a short term mirage and possible environmental catastrophe. And the US has no capability whatsoever to "feed the world with its produce." At six billion plus people, the world is severely overpopulated. The western US, for example, has been suffering from drought for several years and is running out of water.

      1. I'd argue that the US can easily manufacture as much oil as it needs from its domestic coal and gas resources. The South Africans produce about 50% of their hydrocarbon fuels from coal and gas, most from low grade coal. If you're worried about global warming (I'm not) you could support building nukes to generate the electricity that is now produced by burning gas and coal. More nukes could also be built to produce the hydrogen and generate the power needed to produce the synthetic fuel. (About half of the coal is used to produce the hydrogen and power needed to manufacture synthetic fuel. In an oil refinery, about one quarter of the oil would be used for this purpose, though, of course, in the US, the power would come from the grid and the hydrogen from steam reforming of natural gas.) Where could you get the money? Well, I understand that one months spectacular bout of quantitative easing printed $80 000 000 000. If this money was used to build synfuel plants and nukes instead of ending up in the pockets of the financiers who caused the problem in the first place, you'd soon solve your problems. The money wasted on the wars in the Middle East could also be another source of funds. A fine example of this sort of thing is the French nuclear program. The French government printed the money, and France now gets about 75% of its electricity from nukes. (I believe the EU objected to printing the money, so the French had to take out foreign loans. Since foreign currency couldn't be spent in France, the French government had to print money to create counterpart funds for domestic use. Thus the value of the savings of the French people was reduced anyway, and they also had to earn huge sums of foreign money to pay the principal and the interest on the loans. The principles of finance plainly haven't changed in forty years.) The French did have to devalue the franc (this was before joining the euro) but this was mainly caused by the expense of the Indochinese and Algerian wars. In any case, the obvious point is that the wars were complete failures, whereas the nuclear program was an outstanding success. One might also note that the South African synfuel program increased the local production of fuel from zero to 50%, without the loss of a man or a cent in the Middle East. I imagine they'd have gone on to produce 100%, but Iraq invaded Iran, and both parties were happy to ignore the sanctions against white-ruled South Africa and swap oil for the products of its military industrial complex.

      2. I don't agree, although there are millions upon millions homeless people all over USA and millions upon millions don't have enough feeding their family and children is shows the fact USG is not in business taking care of it's people, while the missmanagement of local, state and federal income is about wars and nothing less then war.

        The hidden natural resources in America is enough for USA to feed himself ten times over, solar technology, wind technology, dams, gas and etc are right in front of everyone eyes., but by USG being a corrupt economical and political institution they rather waste then be able to create opportunities, 8-12% of pentagon budget is wasted! that alone could create many source of natural energy, feed the hunger and USA education system to be a free of charge.

  2. Actually the US federal government’s military is the 4th largest oil consumer in the world. The world would be better off if all militaries quit wasting resources and all that energy killing people was spent improving our food, environment, and quality of life. The Earth has been supporting life for sometime now. It likely will be fine. The solution isn’t to support militarism and kill off a bunch of humanity. Who gets to decide who lives and dies? You? lol

  3. I'm no knee-jerk liberal, though I was no Bush-lover either, but I have to tell you, if Stalin was president in 2014, I'd feel for him. This is no easy world to be living on any level, let alone as president of the new Roman Empire. Obama knows that's true, and yes, he's been reluctant to unleash the American war dogs, but the world demands they be unleashed, and when he acquiesces to that demand, he is truly damned by doing or not doing. He can't win. Bush wouldn't be able to win, and like I say, a resurrected Stalin wouldn't be able to win either. There IS no winning in 2014 America/the world. There are only crazed murderers and what to do about them.

    Were the ugly reality of American involvement via Iraq war not in the mix, I'd say this is very much like Rwanda, which the world watched – ONLY watched – horrified and powerless. America, however, via the Iraq war, created this unholy shit storm, so comparisons to Rwanda are tainted in that regard. However, butchery is butchery, savagery is savagery, and what do you do? Today, I read the bastards tortured and murdered an Iraqi woman who was part of a humanitarian organization. ISIS is a huge problem, and that problem is just about impossible to solve with any tools, period. Bombs? Those are hellacious tools – and no, they probably won't work. But…

    …I'm a liberal, i was thoroughly against the Afghanistan bombing in 2002 and the Iraq war in 2003 and I'm pretty much against every war, no matter what you got, because wars are indiscriminate and many die and their horrendous repercussions can last for generations. We know all of that. But this is the ONLY time I've been for something like this – reluctantly, but for it. What else can be done? These people are anti-life, period, and life must fight back.

    I imagine Obama as very, very sad it's come to this. I imagine a non-cartoon Obama torn to shreds because of this. Were I president, I would be – and I would've sanctioned the bombing too. It's a hard, hard call, and ain't no way everybody's gonna love you for it. But armchair warriors, they always know better.

    1. Sorry liberal. I'm not buyin' it. Read Jeremy Scahill's "Dirty Wars" and see if you still think that President Obama has "been reluctant to unleash the American war dogs." The world does not "demand they be unleashed." He's bombed more countries than Bush. Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Iraq (again), and now Syria (I may has missed a few). All have been/are illegal actions per our Constitution.

      The problem with RTP liberals/neo-cons like Obama, Hillary, Rice, Powers, etc. is that they truly believe that the US is the "exceptional nation" and that the world would self-destruct without the mighty USG to lead it. ISIS is the blowback that US war policy created. If the US had stayed out, and left it up to those ME countries to take care of ISIS, they have more than enough fire power to do so without our "help." ISIS wanted the US to attack them, that's why they did the gruesome public beheadings. Apparently they are not afraid to die for their sick cause. The more US bombs kill, the more jihadists it creates.

    2. Oh boy have you bought the farm.
      Spend a little time on the site here, take a look around. You might learn a few things.

    3. As other replies here also note, the "reluctant warrior" meme being peddled by the pro Obama media lapdogs isn't credible. And the public won't buy it.
      As one good quip put it, "in six years in office Obama has bombed 7 Muslim countries. If this is a "reluctant" Obama, I'd hate to see what a determined warrior Obama looks like…"
      This meme is a total fraud.
      What would our liberal statist friends say about our current sorry state of affairs if it was Bush who was "reluctantly" dropping bombs everywhere. Or demanded we train and arm supposed rebels whose loyalty is indeterminate. How many billions were wasted by Obama "training" Afghan and Iraqi troops. I hear they are pretty good at the 100 meter dash from the fighting.
      Obama gets excuses and forgiveness because he can do no wrong, in the words of his staunch defenders. Pathetic.

  4. “but the world demands” This is profound ignorance. The world demands what it is told to demand. Edward Bernays is the father of modern American democracy.

    Sob Sob. They took the babies out of the incubators. Sob sob. And left them on the cold floor to die. Sob sob. She is a far better actress than any of the surgically modified female forms in Hollywood. lmao

  5. “ISIS is a huge problem” I was talking to my Chinese, Chilean, Brazilian, German, Swiss, and Swiss friends about this issue. All of us had to avoid hoards of ISIS bandits shopping last Saturday. It was unreal. UNFREAKING REAL. I complete agree with you. “Something” has to be done about ISIS. It is a HUGE problem.

  6. Have you ever noticed how the Chinese and Russians don't waste their economic, military and political resources in the Middle East yet still manage to reap the benefits of the oil flow? Russian's don't even need it but still benefit from the bankrupting of the USA. We are a laughing stock and deserve that title.

  7. It is rather telling that we know so much about ancient civilizations- you can fill libraries on the long-past empires of Rome, China, Aztecs and the like- yet we can't get a straight answer on events that happened just yesterday or last week in our own nation's government! How much more refreshing would it be if the President would have the guts to address the nation and tell us straight up that we're going to stab Nation X in the back so we can attack Nation Y and get a favorable oil deal with Nation Z? Instead, we get subterfuge and obfuscation and any other 5-dollar words that describe how opaque this 'most transparent of administrations' has behaved. SICK TO DEATH OF IT doesn't even begin to describe my feelings toward the entire rotten Washington Establishment.

  8. The Gospel,Matthew26:52,Jesus says,All who take the sword perish with the sword,and ALL means ALL. Christians are supposed to spread this Gospel,not the one the Media spreads-in others words Jesus is antiwar,not prowar. Jesus is the Prince of peace,not peace through war,but peace through his Cross and Gospel.

  9. "Barack Hussein Obama politics is based on manipulation/manipulating everyone, which is the reason for him to fool antiwar movement to vote for him. To back up his manipulative politics he started with obamacare, which was a very radical, socialist move, that's when everyone thought and talked about Obama being socialist. In theoretical terms he might, just might be socialist but when it comes to practical terms he is as capitalist as Uncle Sam is."

    Suscribe that.

  10. Find Covers for your vehicles just isn't very difficult, there are shops of auto elements shops like WalMart and the Internet. Electric vehicles have stolen the automotive spotlight, and http://beautycoloncleanse.com/ car producers at the moment are racing to be the first to hone the most recent technology to make proudly owning an electric automobile a reality for American families. After all, you will get a automobile for free.

  11. In response to a survey, it was discovered that nine out of ten automobiles have been by a Japanese maker, whereas just one was from the US manufacturer 'Ford'. Surprisingly, in current research finished in March 2010, it was discovered that consumers favor US vehicles over international ones, contemplating some exceptions. http://www.lepillinois.com/

  12. Sometimes the purchaser might find yourself spending more cash on the upkeep of the used automotive than he would have spent on a model new automobile. When shopping http://www.wiigamerz.com/ for a used automobile, the purchaser needs to be very knowledgeable concerning the automobile itself.

  13. ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ?????????? ??????? ????? ?????,????? ?????,????? ????? ???????,????? ????? ???????,?????,?????,?????,??????,????,??? ???,??? ?????,??? ??,??? ????,??? ????? ..
    ???? ??
    ????? ?????
    ????? ?????

Comments are closed.