Sunday, September 1, 2013

President Obama on Syria and Congress

as we say:  follow the pronouns.

Pronouns are instinctive and reliable and do not lie.


Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.
Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see — hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children — young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.
This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.
Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I'm confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.
Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I'm prepared to give that order.

Over the last several days, we've heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they've agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.
But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that's why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.
In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America's national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.
I'm confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I'm comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.
Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.
A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we just acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.
Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?
Make no mistake — this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?
We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.
So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world. While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.
I don't expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made. Privately we've heard many expressions of support from our friends. But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.
And finally, let me say this to the American people: I know well that we are weary of war. We've ended one war in Iraq. We're ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that's why we're not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else's war.
Instead, we'll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.
But we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus. Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning. And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations. We aren't perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.
So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to the debate. And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.
Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it's about who we are as a country. I believe that the people's representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments. We do what we say. And we lead with the belief that right makes might — not the other way around.
We all know there are no easy options. But I wasn't elected to avoid hard decisions. And neither were the members of the House and the Senate. I've told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people's representatives stand together.
I'm ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.
Thanks very much.

107 comments:

Bonnie Blue said...

But wait, Peter, isn't the President assigned a person who writes speeches for him? I do not know if the writers are used all the time. I am wondering out loud.

Jen said...

So basically big mouth talked himself into a corner and now he wants a way out.

By taking it to congress for a vote he wins either way...if it is voted down (which hopefully it will be) he can blame them (namely Republicans) and say..'I wanted to do it, but THEY wouldn't approve it'. On the other hand if Congress votes to approve it (God forbid), he gets to share the blame with them when it turns into the inevitable disaster that it will.

I wonder how all of his pollyana supporters will try to justify this one...Nobel Peace Prize...ring any bells?

elf said...

I think the whole issue ought to be put to a vote and the American People should decide.

Big Russian said...

Yesterday, for the first time, I contacted all of my Congressmen, via email, and my message was simple: Vote NO.
I encourage all of you to do the same.

michelle obama STINKS said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter Hyatt said...

Bonnie Blue:


We are not analyzing the President, but the speech.

(Actually, I didn't analyze anything!)

:)

Remember what Mr. Sapir teaches:

"The subject is dead; the statement is alive."

Anonymous said...

Some of you might not see it this way if we were gassed with the deadly sarin gas by our own people, huh? I think you'd appreciate some other country coming to your rescue!

I wonder how some of you even thrive in your little world when you have no compassion or empathy for others trapped in their unfortunate circumstances.

In sadness, sakes head.

Anonymous said...

I agree Anon @ 9:53. I posted something on facebook about how we have an obligation to intervene because Assad has been slaughtering kids with bombs bullets and now poison gas. ONLY ONE OR TWO PEOPLE CRAWLED OUT OF THE WOODWORK TO AGREE WITH ME!!! But there were some very vocal naysayers outraged that I would suggest it!!!
I look back at being raised as a Christian and wonder how they can be so cold. But it was interesting to see that within minutes, they were all right back to their meaningless self-centered lives. "They just checked in at the mall."
"Their little one has a baseball game and here are a million pictures of it." Yet kids being gassed in another country does not matter to them.
Honestly, it makes me think, I don't have much money, don't go on any vacations, not very successful in life, but after seeing how people reacted to my post about intervening in Syria, I realize wow I am not anywhere near as empty as these people. And that must be worth something. I think a whole lot more than money. What is left of a person when they will be wanting attention from 200 people on facebook when their big screen TV dies and they need a new one. But the sight of kids being gassed to death does not bring outrage or any emotion. Not one person even expressed concern for them!

Anonymous said...

Oh also, Peter within your analysis with the underlining, do you feel Obama has already made the decision to go and would override congress?

anonymously said...

the current president has always seen himself as knowing what is best for others, he sees himself as the parent, and sure enough, he wants to punish the misbehaving naughty child. But he's using manipulation to get the job done.

And, lucky for him, the "will he, won't he" attention will keep him on stage where he loves his time in the limelight. (In fact, to him, that is the entire presidential job description.)

the current president already knows exactly what he plans to do about Syria, he wants to blame others for it.

And, re the nerve gas intervention comment, you might be assuming the the imperial "I" person giving the speech we are analyzing actually knows what is helpful retaliation.

What I hear is a lawyer using polysyllabic rhetoric to support his perceived parental responsibility while allowing Congress to do his right thing and give him an okay for whatever.

Anonymous said...

Wow, anonymous @ 10:27, it's amazing that you can write that in light of former President Bush and the Iraqi war. Or did you write this years ago when Bush was claiming there were weapons of mass destruction? Is so, then THAT would make sense.

anonymously said...


...the best defense is a good offense...or is it the best offense is a good defense?
Whatever, I rest my case.....
Save the distractions for your election campaign....

Anonymous said...

Sadly, I agree with you Anon @ 10:23. How pitiful it is when hypothetically "good" people can so easily turn a cold shoulder to pathetic little children, women & men, including the helpless elderly, and pass right on by, finding an excuse not to help them; even turning it into a political battle.

Any excuse suits them just fine since it isn't their political pundit caught up in this evil melee, when it isn't about politics at all. It's about innocent human beings dying a gruesome and painful death at the hands of their own leaders gassing them to death when WMD's were banned, which they clearly do possess!

Doesn't anybody here other than you and me Anon @ 10:23, have a heart for God and the suffering of those helpless ones He told us not to turn a blind eye against? God help you when your own judgment comes up against you.

Oh yeah, how rich we are Anon! Like you, I don't envy a single one of them. I'm just thankful to be in the place of mind where I am. It's worth many treasures of gold.

ulla said...

Big Russian said...
Yesterday, for the first time, I contacted all of my Congressmen, via email, and my message was simple: Vote NO.
I encourage all of you to do the same.------------------------------------------I am with you, BR. A big NO, no more wars based on fabrication and manipulation!

no compassion said...

Don't worry, since OUR POTUS is hell bent on assisting his Muslim brotherhood (our enemies) in every way possible, whether it benefits US interests or not, we will likely get to see our own citizens and children gasses by the same animals 'we' are assisting right now.

I thrive in my life by showing love, compassion and support for MY family, friends, neighbors and community, something Obama should consider doing, (like worrying about our deficit, our unemployment, bringing our military members who are still dying everyday home, and this healthcare disaster our benevolent King O has bestowed upon us) before throwing OUR military behind a rebel uprising trying to overthrow their government...these 'people' have been fighting and murdering their own since the beginning of time...it's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.


BallroomBlitz said...

Anonymous @ 9:53, 10:23, 11:13 (Heh. Three 3's. Shame it wasn't three 6's - that's a winning hand to play) : I admire the posts written by all three of you and I agree. I'm also pleasantly surprised by them - you are the sort of Americans (I assume you are Americans - my apologies if this is not so) that I didn't believe existed, the ones that give a shit about the rest of the world and the people in it instead merely wanting to 'BOMB THE *&^% OUT' of another nation simply because they must have WMDs, regardless of what the UN said, right?

There are people - innocent people - dying. Being killed by their own leader. Americans feel that they should whine and cry and whimper if their leader says/does something that they don't agree with. Hmm, they should snarf down some 'freedom fries', get down on their knees and pray to their God that they CAN state something in the negative about their President without being killed or having their children be killed because of their word.

I hear that's a problem in other places in the world.

Anonymous said...

The anti-Obama bunch are too limited and caught up in their hatred to see the big picture.

michelle obama STINKS said...

Pongy obammmmma

anonymously said...


didn't syria, or was it iran?, threaten to harm America's ally Israel if the United States took action against them?

hmm, I wonder what the current president will do?

elisa said...

Anonymous said...
The anti-Obama bunch are too limited and caught up in their hatred to see the big picture.-------------------------------------------------------Could it be that it is you who are so caught up in your limited view that you think everyone has bipartisan blinders on? The "big picture" is that the R's and the D's are 2 sides of the same tarnished coin. Deception abounds on each "side".

Nic said...

@12:46

"big picture"

Funny you throw that onto the table.

Apathy is a disease until you find it happening in your own back yard. Open your eyes to your global community. It's not just about "you". Global community implies a responsibility to each other. Favours aren't just about money when your economy is drowning in debt. Favours are free flowing. As in give and take.

Anonymous said...

And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people's representatives stand together. ( Here is the perfect place, time for group prayer) I'm ready to act in the face of this outrage. (We need to stop preying on each other, and PRAY for one another!)

Anonymous said...

Peter, is "I wasn't elected" an embedded statement?

Anonymous said...

re: Bonnie comment on speech writer for the president. I agree, plus a speech is revised several times before its final version. I don't understand how something like that can be analyzed.

Anonymous said...

Slider??? Are you?

Anonymous said...

But many conservative bloggers and comments on social media websites — as well as the Fox News channel — have attempted to paint just about any other random account of violence against white people by black suspects as the counterbalance to the national furor over Martin.
Sorry; some of us aren't buying it.
Sharpton gave a succinct and reasonable answer to all those who wanted to know why he wasn't holding marches for justice for Lane.
"The system worked there."
What he meant was that all of the suspects in the deaths of Lane and Belton were promptly arrested and charged. In those cases, the justice system did its job, and, as a consequence, there's nothing to march about.
The crimes are still horrible, but the process has begun.
If the killers of Lane and Belton escape their punishment due to questionable circumstances, then perhaps people will have a reason to march for them as well.
Follow Eugene Kane on Twitter @eugene_kane.

Anonymous said...

You know? That statement "the subject is dead, the statement is alive" doesn't even make sense when you think about it.

It just doesn't. You can't even make it make sense no matter how hard you try.

Jen said...

I take offense to being called insensitive, cold and un-Christian because I do not support a US intervention in Syria. As far as the accusation that 'Obama haters' can't see the bigger picture...I pose this question.

Picture this:

An armed rebel force stages a violent uprising within our country, (the US) attempting to overthrow the government.

What measures would the US government employ to prevent that?

What casualties would result? Surely many innocent lives would be lost in the process.

So who's fault would it be when those lives were lost, the rebels who initiated the violence and challenged the government, or the government defending itself against the challenge? As you ponder this, remember that Obama wants to assist the REBELS in overthrowing their government.

AND THEN WHAT???

Will these rebel forces abandon the violent methods they used to gain control, settle in and start living peacefully? Or will they move on to the next government that they seek to control?

Big picture indeed!

Anonymous said...

I have not read the sa yet, but if we go into war against syria, it reminds me of the time that Johnson chose to take the USA into a war called Vietnam..the only difference is that Vietnam was communists vs non....We have no business in Syria (Muslims vs Christians)..... If they were any threat to us, we would have been there.

I am not cold hearted, I feel for all the people who are having chemical weapons, etc. used against them.

This also makes me think of USA Civil war..bleeding hearts need to think of our own civil war. Do you guys realize many times during the civil war that families fought one another? No outside help...kids as young as 12 fought against their own brothers who were 18, just to defend their sides. No one stepped in to (guarantee fairness).... why should we?

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous said...
You know? That statement "the subject is dead, the statement is alive" doesn't even make sense when you think about it.

It just doesn't. You can't even make it make sense no matter how hard you try.

September 2, 2013 at 7:20 PM

If you do not understand that then you should not read these boards.I think most of us can and do make sense out of that statement. It means not to focus on the person but focus on the words.

Sella35 said...

Sorry I am not sharing SA as it is very loud and clear: This president is an ego-puke.

He says "I" when it sounds important and he could get an ego boost from patting his own back..........Then he changes to WE, (sharing responsibility) when it sounds like everyone should be of concern.

He is the worst president of my lifetime..and I survived Johnson and Carter!

Anonymous said...

@anon 7:17pm, then your logic works for the martin/zimmerman case, Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY. Or is your logic only what you think is fair and not a jury?..I do not think Lane or Belton case has gone to a jury..so why speak in the assumption that it has?

Actually "the system" worked in the case that has gone to trial.

Plus the "system" or as most call it "statistics" show that more blacks kill blacks and whites than white people.

More serial killers are white....more homosexuals abuse sexually children...

I hated Casey Anthony's verdict. I hated OJ Simpson's verdict. Just because you do not agree with something does not mean you should try to change stats so others will follow you.

Do yourself a favor and go to www.newsbusters.org. Yes they do lean right, but they also publish lies the right tell..../arrggh

Anonymous said...

Jen--You really can't compare a violent dictatorship with a democracy. Why? In a democracy there is nothing to overthrow. In a violent dictatorship, there is lots to overthrow.
I am surprised because your posts are usually quite intelligent, but you seem to be, without irony, comparing apples to oranges. We live in a country "by the people" which is why there is no dictator running the country or shooting and gassing children.
Your impartial stance of "they are bad they are rebelling what would you have their poor dictator do" needs rethinking. Proposing that such a scenario could happen in the United States means either A) you are not being intellectually honest or B) you truly do not understand the dynamics through which dictators (and not presidents of democracies) maintain their power. Normally, it is through brutality of varying degrees.
Google "dictatorships". Also, it is interesting to read about totalitarian regimes like North Korea which are slightly different thsn dictatorships (worse if you can imagine).

Anonymous said...

@ anon 10:28 think in your mind and define democracy vs. republic. I get so upset when I hear that people change our republic to a democracy. The difference is a system Vs the form. We as the USA are a republic. Our founding fathers made sure we were able to sustain on our own merits

Anonymous said...

Anon @8:56--
Wow, another mind-twisting comparison.
Does your brain feel like a pretzel comparing Assad gassing his citizens to "brother fighting brother" in the American Civil War? I known mine does after reading what you wrote.
One thing I've noticed as a perhaps too astute observer of what people write is that there are a shocking number of people using arguments that are incredibly intellectually dishonest and that I can only call "pretzel-speak" when talking about whether we should intervene in Syria.
Also, I am just dumbfounded that people do not seem to understand what a dictatorship is.
Or regurgitating cliched arguments like "Well there's bad stuff going on in Africa and we're not getting involved there!" which are actually moot points on nonsequiturs.
Seriously, if people want to discuss Syria, THINK.
Saying something like "Well I didn't like the shoes I just bought yesterday and you don't see me getting mad" is UNRELATED. Saying "Well, bad things are happening in Africa" is a non sequitur.
Saying "Well I can't tell who started it" means you need to read up on dictatorships.
Saying "Well, I don't like the way the American Civil War played out and noone intervened" is a cognitive distortion.
Saying "Well, it's raining today and there's nothing I can do about it" is UNRELATED.
Saying "Well Saddam Hussein gassed his people too" is a useless statement reflecting emotional and intellectual immaturity.
Are people just losing their ability to form coherent thoughts or do I sense some intellectual dishonesty?

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:58--OK I will think about that. Actually we do live in system of government which functions as a democracy. Those in Syria like under a system of government known as a dictatorship. I was referring to the system of government.

Jen C said...

Anon @1023 and Anon @ 1113, I understand how you feel. As a mother, it broke my heart to see those kids. The first thing I did when I saw those pics was cry. However, there are some inescapable issues here. First, our military is already too stretched. In my job, I have to interview too many soldiers with physical and mental scars from the repeated (repeated, repeated) deployments into combat zones. To send our men and women into a situation that is, in all likelihood, a lose-lose prospect is wrong. A "limited strike," as they are talking about cannot (is not designed to) take out Assad's chemical weapon supply, so he'll be able to use them again. The WH states that regime change is not the objective, but what if Assad falls and even the extremist Al-Qaeda-backed rebels take control and impose an even harsher govt on the people. Then, they have the option of the chemical weapons they now hold. If Assad comes out on top, it looks bad for the US and emboldens Iran, which is a bad bad thing. If Assad is toppled, the next regime may be worse. Look how well things turned out in Egypt when a Muslim-Brotherhood guy took charge there. There's no way to take out those chem weapons without our troops, our sons and daughters, on the ground in there. And while I'll support the troops for every step they take, I don't want them in there. We should have learned through the last 40 years or so that intervening in the Middle East doesn't help. Look at the corrupt govt in Afghanistan now, and the way that we are leaving Iraq. Throw in Iran threatening Israel and Russia taking a stand, this could really spill over into a much bigger mess. And, underneath it all, we really can't save those poor babies, who I believe are at least in a better place now. I can't imagine the horror of losing a child that way, and my heart breaks for all the mothers, in spite of any religious or cultural differences. Mothers all over the world love their babies. Long way of saying, I understand your heart, but getting into Syria holds a lot of danger. So please understand that those of us who don't want the US mired down in another middle eastern war aren't cold-hearted or callous. God bles.

Jen said...

Sorry..I did not mean to imply that the Syrian government was the same as ours, nor was I defending their stance. The point I was trying to drive home is that the rebels are (at this point) a catalyst in the situation. The extreme measures being taken, resulting in innocent casualties, are in response to the rebel uprising...right, wrong or draw. Involving our military in backing rebel forces to unseat the current leadership guarantees nothing...the rebel forces could end up being even more ruthless and cruel (they certainly haven't dropped their weapons and surrendered the fight for the good of their fellow citizens, even as 1000's have died).

The US cannot have a positive effect on the situation, by intervening we will only further destabilize the region, give birth to another level of anti-American sentiment and further stretch and weaken our military at such a volatile time. I wish children weren't dying from sarin gas...I wish nobody had to live in oppression and fear of their government. But I don't think a US military intervention will change that now, or ever.

Jen said...

Sorry..I did not mean to imply that the Syrian government was the same as ours, nor was I defending their stance. The point I was trying to drive home is that the rebels are (at this point) a catalyst in the situation. The extreme measures being taken, resulting in innocent casualties, are in response to the rebel uprising...right, wrong or draw. Involving our military in backing rebel forces to unseat the current leadership guarantees nothing...the rebel forces could end up being even more ruthless and cruel (they certainly haven't dropped their weapons and surrendered the fight for the good of their fellow citizens, even as 1000's have died).

The US cannot have a positive effect on the situation, by intervening we will only further destabilize the region, give birth to another level of anti-American sentiment and further stretch and weaken our military at such a volatile time. I wish children weren't dying from sarin gas...I wish nobody had to live in oppression and fear of their government. But I don't think a US military intervention will change that now, or ever.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 9:0 p.m., wrong. The statement "the subject is dead, the statement is alive" is still just as ludicrous as it ever was.

To say it means "not to focus on the person but focus on the words" is ridiculous, when the person speaking the words is not dead but is very much alive. Duh.

Hobnob said...

off topic

The mother of an Oregon boy missing since 2010 says that the most recent search has turned up “a lot of things and possibly evidence.”

Desiree Young said that the weekend search she organized for her son, Kyron Horman, was successful, although she would not be specific about what items were found, KPTV reported.

"We're not going to find Kyron if we're not searching," Young told the station.

About 60 volunteers, two nonprofits and 10 search dogs joined in the search, which started Saturday morning and ended Sunday, according to KPTV.

The items found were turned over to the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office, which is processing the find to determine whether anything is related to Kyron’s case.

Kyron Horman vanished from Skyline School in northwest Portland on June 4, 2010. The 7-year-old’s disappearance prompted the largest search in state history, but he was never found.

While no suspect has been named in the case, suspicion has centered on Kyron’s stepmother, Terri Horman. Terri Horman told investigators she last saw the bespectacled boy walking down the hall to his classroom after she snapped a photo of him standing next to his science project – a poster of a red-eyed tree frog.

Kyron’s teacher had recorded him absent, and nothing seemed out of order until Kyron didn’t get off his school bus later that day.

The ensuing search included more than 500 people from 18 jurisdictions, some from outside the state. The FBI also was involved.

Days became weeks, weeks became years.

Kyron’s father, Kaine Horman, eventually sought a restraining order against Terri, from whom he also filed for divorce, when sheriff’s investigators told Kaine that his wife had tried to hire someone to kill him in the months before Kyron disappeared.

Terri Horman has not been charged in the case; she has made no public comment.

Now Diane Young continues the search for Kyron.

"It's been a passion of mine to do as much as I can to keep this case moving forward and to help law enforcement to get some answers and find out what happened on June 4," said Young, according to KPTV.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Read more:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/02/search-for-kyron-horman-missing-since-2010-yields-new-info-mother-says/

anonymously said...


ego-puke . . . .

I like your way with words!

Anonymous said...

EXECUTE THE NIGGER PRESIDENT!

Trigger said...

What happens when we send American troops to Syria to be gassed to death?

American men die on foreign soil with the President's blessing.

The Americans who don't die become battle weary, wounded, incapacitated, restricted, homesick, and depressed. They are left mentally, emotionally, and physically handicapped for life, and prosecuted for killing the wrong people by mistake because of the hatred that Syrians have for Americans.

Americans are racist imperialists and infidels.

Why not send U.N. troops to Syria?

It would be more humane.

Trigger said...

Let's not forget how American soldiers were treated in the Viet Nam War, a civil war.

Our own government lied to them about Agent Orange, a powerful CHEMICAL that "defoliates" trees to kill them.

Our government refused to acknowledge that it killed, wounded, and severely damaged U.S. soldiers for life.

What about all the CHEMICAL weapons like napalm that were used on women and children by the U.S. government?

"The pot is calling the kettle black." As the old saying goes.

anonymously said...


do any of us really believe anything the current president says?
Come on now.....

Anonymous said...

Did you believe anything alcoholic George Dubya Bush said? Shame on you!

Have you not observed all the homeless, unemployable, broke, mentally ill, injured and otherwise wheelchair bound and handicapped Bush left on the streets all over this country during HIS tenure? Shame on you!

Trigger said...

"I'm ready to act in the face of this outrage."

Does Mr. Obama have a personal motive?

Is he going to personally lead his warriors into battle in Syria because of this outrage?

Or just sign a presidential initiative to send American men and women to Syria to be slain while he watches from his screen in the White House?

The King of America has spoken. He is ready to sacrifice the lives of young vigorous American sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters for his personal preferences and "outrage."

What a guy!

anonymously said...


there's that offensive defense again. . .

campaigning for the imperial "I"...


OT...
Trigger, you are on the right track.

Jen said...

What does the credibility of former President Bush have to do with whether or not Obama is credible? Does the idea that Bush was a liar negate Obama's dishonesty for you? What do the two things have to do with each other?

One could argue that EVERY president in history was a liar, and it wouldn't make Obama less of a liar! It's been five years since Bush was in office...isn't it about time for the focus and blame for ANYTHING to fall on Obama!

Dee said...

Hobnob said...off topic

Kyron’s father, Kaine Horman, eventually sought a restraining order against Terri, from whom he also filed for divorce, when sheriff’s investigators told Kaine that his wife had tried to hire someone to kill him in the months before Kyron disappeared.

*****************************
Was Terri ever charged with attempting to hire a hit man?

Anonymous said...

An armed rebel force stages a violent uprising within our country, (the US) attempting to overthrow the government.

What measures would the US government employ to prevent that?...with the help of it's(U.S.)'s many armed civilians; preventing an uprising is written into our constitution.

Anonymous said...

A sad day it is when we are bowing to murderous dictators.

As well as worrying and vowing to "protect" by not sending to war GROWN MEN who having freely joined the armed forces rather than giving pity where pity is due to innocent children being slaughtered.

How well we have warped reality so that we may sit cozily in our comfortable nests with minds at peace ready to soak in the next episode of "The Bachelor". Anything to get that one nagging thought "these are innocent children being gassed to death" out of our mind. Call George Bush a name, point out the chaos of the Middle East, worry for our grown men, anything, anything to still that nagging thought "these are innocent children being gassed to death by the hundreds".

Anonymous said...

There is no excuse for the Syrian regime not to provide access to the UN team that are in Damascus now to assess the use of chemical weapons,' Mr Hague said.
Russia, too, has urged an 'objective' investigation but Assad's biggest foreign ally also heaped scepticism on his enemies' claims.
A foreign ministry spokesman in Moscow said the release of gas after UN inspectors arrived suggested that it was a rebel 'provocation' to discredit Syria's government.
'These reports are uncorroborated and we are urgently seeking more information. But it is clear that if they are verified, it would mark a shocking escalation in the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
'Those who order the use of chemical weapons, and those who use them, should be in no doubt that we will work in every way we can to hold them to account.
'I call on the Syrian government to allow immediate access to the area for the UN team currently investigating previous allegations of chemical weapons use. The UK will be raising this incident at the UN Security Council.'
Syria's neighbour Turkey said it was clear that chemical weapons had been used.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in an interview broadcast on Turkey's Kanal 24 television: 'Use of chemical weapons in Syria is evident from the footage coming from there.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398691/Syrias-darkest-hour-Hundreds-childrens-bodies-piled-high-nerve-gas-attack-near-Damascus-leaves-1-300-dead.html

Anonymous said...

Here's some food for thought: Dictators are honest people. Yes or No?

Who has the more efficient propaganda machine? Rebels under attack or dictator?

Who was shooting at the UN investigators? Government or rebel forces?

it's a sad day alright said...

@ anon

It's a very a sad day when you mock the worry felt for our military members, and OUR President even considers forcing them to assist the very people they joined up to fight against. MY family members who serve OUR country joined after 9/11 to protect OUR children, and OUR way of life. Not to fight alongside the enemy.

BTW how many GROWN MEN (who you feel deserve no pity or worry) from YOUR family will be laying their lives on the line to fight this battle? Your husband? brother? son? daughter? or how about youself, since you're so worried about the innocent children?

Jo said...

Dee, I was about to ask the same thing. How is it that she was never charged with murder for hire but yet they continue to say that she did in fact attempt to hire someone.

Jen said...

Hi Jo

I think it was because the info about a murder for hire plot was provided by the gardener who Terri Horman had an affair with (and allegedly tried to convince to kill Kane), making it more or less a 'he said, she said' type of thing. But there was apparently enough evidence to persuade the judge to suspend TerrI's contact with her bio-daughter due to these accusations, and TH's lack of cooperation with LE regarding Kyron. I think it's likely true, (whether or not they can prove it), based on TH's bizarre behavior and her quickness to walk away from her own child to avoid answering investigators questions.

Jen said...

Eewww! I just ran across this little gem on my FB feed. I don't know much about Glen Beck, (if he a credible source), but here it is..titled 'this is who we are helping' (about the syrian rebels), and it's disturbing to say the least. I had a little trouble getting it to play, but it shows a leader of the rebel forces cutting open the chest of a dead man, removing his heart and liver, gesturing toward the camera and then eating the organs as a warning to those they are fighting against (according to Beck)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4CnR8WTzEo&sns=em

Anonymous said...

I'll bet if you ask the people of Syria if more missile attacks are helpful, they would disagree.

Anonymous said...

"We still have this infant. Her age may be about one month old, and we put her as Unknown No. 14," Akram told independent filmmaker Humam Husari, who provided the footage to NBC News.
The little girl had died in the arms of volunteer paramedic Abu Ahmed, who described how he tried in vain to save her life.
"SHE WAS THE YOUNGEST MARTYR," he said, "and the rest of them between 14 and less."
Other footage provided to NBC News showed Ahmed cradling the newborn after the attack, a bib still around her neck and her lower body swaddled in a blanket with the word: Baby.
He placed her on the ground, where the motionless forms of several other children could be seen under sheets.
"The children were laying here," he said, pointing to a now-empty room days later. "I counted them. There were 34 children."
The children came in blue, witnesses said. The paramedics doused them with water in a futile attempt to revive them, Ahmed said.
"She was an innocent girl," he said of one young victim. "She sniffed and died. We sprayed water on her [but] we couldn't do anything."
He said he didn't know anything about her parents or whether they survived the attack that has the U.S. weighing missile strikes against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
"We wished that we all are her family," he said. "This innocent child that went to sleep and never woke up."
"MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON US," he said.http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/27/20217042-unknown-no-14-syrian-hospital-trying-to-id-dead-children?lite

"MARTYR???"...those who die from US missiles are called victims or casualties. This situation is obviously a concern for humankind, but should be negotiated by those more learned then the average..."How -well- we- have- warped- reality so that we may sit cozily in our comfortable nests with minds at peace ready to soak in the next episode of "The Bachelor". Anything to get that one nagging thought "these are innocent children being gassed to death" out of our mind."

Anonymous said...

It's a sad day alright--
I have had several members of my family serve in the military--some drafted, some not.
I am mocking nothing but the cowardice of a people who sit back while kids are gassed.
Seriously, why did we even go fight Hitler? My uncle was in the Battle of the Bulge and fought for another 9 mos in WWII! But why did we even go there according to all the rhetoric--gassing kids to death is considered something to overlook right?! Nobodies even talking about boots on the ground so save me the speech. We're talking about doing some missile strikes.
We don't have a draft! If grown men don't want to fight in the military, then don't join! By all means, find another career path! If ever there was a better cause I don't see it.
For all who claim to be Christians, bullshit you are!
You think grown men should be sitting around while kids are being gassed to death?
What would Jesus do? Would he look the other way?
Oh, of course he would, because this is the age of comfort above all else!

Anonymous said...

Have fun with your "reality show Jesus" who does what you want, thinks the way you want, reads the script you want.
God forbid any of you should ever be in the hellish circumstances of these people having the children of your town gassed! Because you would want someone to intervene! And if they did not, their rationalizations and cowardice would mean nothing to you!!!

Anonymous said...

Oh, and also, since you are asking me what family members of mine are in the military and if I would be willing to fight, I am the mother of a young son who would not have anyone else to raise him if I went over and fought, so no I would not go. But I suppose I should go right so the men can stay at home and get manicures.
And what a stupid diversion this is, since we are not even talking "boots on the ground"!

Anonymous said...

I hear there is a new show on tonight called "Jesus's World". It's a new reality show--it will follow him around getting a perm and strolling through shops in LA to buy himself some new big screen TVs and comfy furniture.

Jen said...

Jesus' World reality show...how blasphemous! Also, I'm not sure how you think that rant relates to the topic at hand, but ok, lol.

As to your comments about 'boots on the ground' maybe you should study up a little. John Kerry stated that the intervention planning could NOT exclude broader measures, including the possibility of ground forces being deployed 'in the event Syria imploded, or the weapons fell into the wrong hands'. (Which is inevitable...they are ALREADY in the wrong hands.)

Your comments about those in the military are very offensive and short-sighted. You state that you couldn't possibly serve because you must care for your son. What about him...would you send your son to fight , if he were of age?

SKEoD said...

it's better to offend than to have to defend. that is why some people are always winners.
and if anyone has a problem with that, you can just offend them some more, that is the best defense.

Anonymous said...

'in the event Syria imploded,...it seems it is imploding and taking the surrounding countries down. The major religion in the region added a pillar to it's tenents of faith calling for a "Holy war". Jesus preached peace and love. The doctors in the country where the children are being gassed are calling them martyrs. Thats questionable.

Anonymous said...

Jen--I'm not really concerned with blasphemy lol.
This is becoming a circular argument. If grown men join the armed forces, and children are being gassed to death, where does the imperative lie--in pitying and defending the children or pitying and defending the men who joined the armed forces? I am not saying I have no compassion for them, quite the contrary. They are warriors. I give them my utmost respect. They are making the ultimate sacrifice putting their lives on the line. But war is ugly, it is not pretty, there are moral imperatives involved--the moral imperative is to defend the innocent children being gassed. It is as simple as that. And it is obvious my words are being maligned, acting as if I am insulting soldiers when all I am doing is pointing out that the code of being a warrior does not allow for well, it's just to hard, too dangerous, whatever, to save those children. If that is the case, no, this person is not a true warrior. What this shows is that I have a profound respect for anyone who is a warrior, a soldier, a part of the armed forces. It is the most courageous and solemn oath a person can take.
It's a circular argument if I say I am a woman caring for a young son and if I go fight there will be noone to care for him and you say well would you want your son to go fight? He is a boy, not a man, under my care, so I cannot fight and neither can he.
If I was a man who had joined the armed forces, no, I would not consider it my luxury to say, well I am a soldier, a warrior, but I will not go, it sounds like it will involve fighting. Just as a firefighter cannot say, you know I just don't feel like going to fight that fire.
War is horrible. Children being gassed is horrible. Being a warrior is absolutely the most courageous job a person could have.
If I am offensive, that is too bad. The only thing I am offended by is a murderous dictator gassing children.

Anonymous said...

Anon--Jesus was not always a peaceful man. Recall the story of him overturning the money changers' tables in the temple.

Anonymous said...

the moral imperative is to defend the innocent children being gassed....Did you see the picture in the Daily Mail.com of the mass grave filled with dead Syrians being filled by a bulldozer?

Anonymous said...

Hmmm...I have an idea.
Deep breath.
WHAT WOULD JESUS SAY TO DO?

Anonymous said...

6 million Syrians displaced in the last few years..they cannot cope with the effects of war.

Anonymous said...

The only thing I am offended by is a murderous dictator gassing children...like Saddam before him. Did this start with Komehni?

Anonymous said...

For his actions Assad (if he were in America) could possibly plead insanity and get life in prison.

Anonymous said...

You people are just playing word games. Yes, Saddam did it, Hitler did it, and....Time to stop it. It's the right thing to do. Funny how clear this becomes when we stop playing with alphabet soup.

Anonymous said...

Saddam did it, Hitler did it, and....Time to stop it...How? Psychopaths can be charismatic, egotistical, in a leadership position deadly, (bin ladan) etc.

Jen said...

I notice you avoided and danced around my direct question about whether you would want to send your son IF HE WERE OF AGE. In Statement Analysis we say if a subject declines to answer a question, they have answered it ;)

When 'grown men' as you call them join our military, they pledge an oath to defend the UNITED STATES...not to arm and defend the same radicals we are fighting elsewhere in the world. As you said, war is ugly, and the Syrians have been at it for years.The ONLY people who can stop 'children from being gassed' are those gassing them. A US military intervention of any kind will only snowball into a DISASTER.

Our military budget has been slashed and 'sequestered', our national debt is out of control,unemployment is at an all time high...I could go on and on, but there's not enough time in the day. Bottom line, we need to concentrate on our own problems, not play referee to the middle east.

Do you somehow believe that missle strikes will turn a bunch of barbarians into civilized gentlemen who respect the innocent lives of children? Since 'we are not interested in a regime change', what do you think missle strikes will do, besides ignite a larger conflict?

Jen said...

Psychopaths can be charismatic, egotistical, in a leadership position deadly...

Indeed, Nobel Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama...a perfect example!

Anonymous said...

By Matthew Schofield — McClatchy Foreign Staff

BERLIN — German intelligence intercepted a phone call between a Hezbollah commander and an unidentified official at an Iranian embassy that provided evidence that the Syrian government was behind the alleged Aug. 21 chemical-weapons attack, a German newsmagazine has reported.

Tuesday’s report was based on a classified briefing that German Foreign Intelligence Chief Gerhard Schindler gave selected German lawmakers Monday, according to the magazine, Der Spiegel.

A senior U.S. official, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because the information is classified, said the intercepted call wasn’t the same communication that American officials had cited to bolster their case that Syrian President Bashar Assad was responsible for the attack.

“We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence,” said a U.S. assessment released last week.

According to Der Spiegel, one of the parties in the intercepted phone call was a “high-ranking member of Hezbollah,” the militant Lebanese movement that’s sent fighters to support the Assad government. That Hezbollah member told the Iranian that “ASSAD HAD LOST HIS TEMPER AND COMMITTED A HUGE MISTAKE BY GIVING THE ORDER FOR THE POISON GAS USE," according to the magazine’s account.

Jen said...

Article titled '4 things military families want you to know', (about Syria)

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3863668

Anonymous said...

Life under Khomeini[edit source]

In a speech given to a huge crowd after returning to Iran from exile 1 February 1979, Khomeini made a variety of promises to Iranians for his coming Islamic regime: A popularly elected government that would represent the people of Iran and with which the clergy would not interfere. He promised that "no one should remain homeless in this country," and that Iranians would have free telephone, heating, electricity, bus services and free oil at their doorstep. While these things did not come to pass, many other changes did.
Under Khomeini's rule, Sharia (Islamic law) was introduced, with the Islamic dress code enforced for both men and women by Islamic Revolutionary Guards and other Islamic groups Women were required to cover their hair, and men were not allowed to wear shorts. Alcoholic drinks, most Western movies, the practice of men and women swimming or sunbathing together were banned. The Iranian educational curriculum was Islamized at all levels with the Islamic Cultural Revolution; the "Committee for Islamization of Universities" carried this out thoroughly. The broadcasting of any music other than martial or religious on Iranian radio and television was banned by Khomeini in July 1979. The ban lasted 10 years (approximately the rest of his life)
Emigration and economy[edit source]
Khomeini is said to have stressed "the spiritual over the material".] Six months after his first speech he expressed exasperation with complaints about the sharp drop in Iran's standard of living: 'I cannot believe that the purpose of all these sacrifices was to have less expensive melons' On another occasion emphasizing the importance of MARTYRDOM over material prosperity: "Could anyone wish his child to be martyred to obtain a good house? This is not the issue. The issue is another world." He is also reportedly famous for answering a question about his economic policies by declaring that 'economics is for donkeys'.[127] This low opinion of economics is said to be "one factor explaining the inchoate performance of the Iranian economy since the revolution."[123] Another factor was the long war with Iraq, the cost of which led to government debt and inflation, eroding personal incomes, and unprecedented unemployment.
While Iran became more strict Islamically under Khomeini, absolute poverty was said to have rose by nearly 45% during the first 6 years of his rule. Emigration from Iran also developed, reportedly for the first time in the country's history. Since the revolution, an estimated "two to four million entrepreneurs, professionals, technicians, and skilled craftspeople (and their capital)" have emigrated to other countries.Wikipedia

Anonymous said...

While these things did not come to pass, many other changes did....they set ablaze movie theaters filled with Iranians, and barred the doors, burning their own people to death.

Anonymous said...

the militant Lebanese movement that’s sent fighters to support the Assad government...I think all this is Life after Khomeini. The seperation of church and state works in the US. Especially with the "holy war" thing in their religion.

Anonymous said...

"Assad no longer runs Syria. The real rulers of Syria are the Iranian (elite) Revolutionary Guard... with the participation of (Lebanese Shiite) Hezbollah fighters," Syrian opposition leader Ahmad Jarba told Saudi-owned newspaper Al-Hayat.

Jarba also told that Syrian rebels have seized control of "at least half" of the country, 29 months into an anti-Assad uprising. Assad is "a killer and a criminal, and... he has collapsed," the National Coalition chief charged.

The opposition leader reiterated the rebels' insistence that any settlement must exclude Assad, demanding that he be punished for the war crimes he has committed against the Syrian people.

Jarba said that supplying the rebel Free Syrian Army with sophisticated weaponry would "change the course of the revolution," despite Western fears that the arms could land in the hands of extremists.

[AFP]http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/syrian-opposition-leader-ahmad-jarba-said-syria-now-being-run-regime-allies-iran-and

Anonymous said...

QUESTION: (Original in Arabic) Ahmad Zakaria, Radio Al Kul. What are your plans in case the Obama administration failed to have the authorization of Congress?
MR. SALEH: (Original in Arabic) What we are doing now. The Presidency of the Coalition, President Ahmad Jarba, Vice Presidents, and the Secretary General in cooperation with the Coalition’s office in Washington and New York, as well as many American Syrian Organizations and the Syrian Community in the US are trying to put pressure of the US Congress. That is our main focus now. There are a number of plans that the Coalition is considering. However, the information we are receiving are somehow reassuring but there is no place for complacency. We will continue to work hard in the next coming days to make sure the US Congress authorizes Obama’s decision. Any other questions?http://www.etilaf.org/en/newsroom/press-release/item/596-weekly-press-conference-latest-political-and-military-developments-september-03,-2013.html

Anonymous said...

QUESTION: (Original in English) Yeah, just to repeat my question. In terms of what you were actually saying. You do not actually at present have any further information about chemical weapons attacks in the past. You say that maybe forthcoming. You will be- the main thing you are saying today is that you have reason to believe that further deployments may be used in--

MR. SALEH: (Original in English) That SORRY?

QUESTION: (Original in English) –Further, further deployments of chemical weapons may be used in coming days. That is basically what you are saying.

MR. SALEH: (Original in English) What we are saying- a couple of things what we have said. We have said that the Assad forces have moved some of the chemical heads into two new locations. We are very concerned about that because you have chemical heads- chemical missiles. They are carried to two new locations that where not there so that is a major concern that we have. The other thing we are talking about Dr. Abdul Tawab Shahrour who is unfortunately due to security concerns is not here with us, but he will be presenting the information that he has collected about the different crimes in Aleppo in the upcoming press conference.

QUESTION: (Original in Arabic) Nidal Siam, Al Jazeera Channel. You talked about three convoys, but you mentioned only two destinations; one in Idlib and the other is in Dumair--

MR. SALEH: (Original in Arabic) One in Rural Damascus and the other is in Rural Dera’a.

QUESTION: (Original in Arabic) Yes sorry; one in Rural Damascus and the other is in Rural Dera’a. Three convoys but two destinatinos.

MR. SALEH: (Original in Arabic) Yeah, we still do not have any information about the third convoy and its destination. We will provide you with an update on that as we get it.

QUESTION: (Original in Arabic) So do you expect there will be attacks in those areas?

MR. SALEH: (Original in Arabic) We are concerned that the regime might use rockets filled with chemical warhead in some provinces because the Assad regime has been recently saying that rebels are the ones who are using chemical weapons. We are concerned that moving those weapons is for using them against civilians. And as I have said, we have communicated with our international partners on that, and we are following closely the Assad regime’s movements in those areas.

Anonymous said...

QUESTION: (Original in English) Can you name the two locations where the chemical weapons have been moved. And you said three (inaudible)

MR. SALEH: (Original in English) Three convoys. However, we were only able to confirm two final destinations; one is the Dumair Airport. It is a military airport, and the other one is in Izraa, which is in Dera’a- in the province of Dera’a. The third convoy we are yet to confirm its final destination. We have to cross the different information that we receive just to make sure that whatever information we provide to you is accurate information.

QUESTION: (Original in English) And how many warheads?

MR. SALEH: (Original in English) We do not have- we do not have that information.

QUESTION: (Original in English) Excuse me, can you repeat the names of the places that are.

MR. SALEH: (Original in English) One is the Dumair Airport.

QUESTION: (Original in English) Dmair.

MR. SALEH: (Original in English) Dumair- Dumair Airport, and the other is in Izraa Fauj 175. Sahir might translate Fauj 175.

Interpreter: Regiment 175.

QUESTION: (Original in English) So you basically said that you shared the intelligence- the information that you have about these new whatever with the foreign countries, so which countries are these and how did they respond?

MR. SALEH: (Original in English) We have just shared the information. This is a very recent information. I cannot on which countries, but you can imagine that this will be shared with our- with the countries that are most concerned with the Syrian Revolution- supporting the Syrian Revolution. We have information exchanged with them which is very normal trying to deal with the fact that YOU HAVE SOMEBODY in Damascus WHO IS WILLING to use chemical weapons at any cost. Unfortunately, the message that he has been receiving from the international community until now is a green light. I know we have talked about several options that the international community is studying. However, the Assad regime still sees no actual response to the fact the he used chemical weapons that we have over 1466 confirmed deaths in the countryside of Damascus at this point.

Anonymous said...

QUESTION: (Original in English) And they were moved from Damascus?

MR. SALEH: (Original in English) They were moved from Qutayfah. There- in- usually that is where they had the chemical warheads. Let me, kind of cover--

Anonymous said...

QUESTION: (Original in Arabic) Muhanad Mansour from Basmat Suria. You said you expect Assad will hit civilians again. What are the procedures that you have taken to protect the civilians? Were you able to provide atropine or gas masks? because the regime might hit at any moment. There is another question; we have noticed that the public opinion in western democratic countries is against any military operations in Syria, and we have seen what happened in the UK parliament recently. Why are not you doing anything to try to change the public opinion in those countries?

MR. SALEH: (Original in Arabic) Let me answer you first question about the procedures the Coalition has taken to deal with the possibility that Assad’s regime might use chemical weapons. In the recent chemical weapons attack in Gouta, medical staff there have used all atropine shots they have. There were about 25000 atropine shots, and they were all used to treat victims of chemical weapons attacks. Immediately after those attacks and until now, we have managed to deliver hundreds of thousands of atropine shots to areas in Rural Damascus. Unfortunately, we are talking about an area inhabited by around 1.5 million people. Frankly speaking, the Coalition has limited financial capabilities, and we are trying to communicate with our friends to get more medical assistance, but even when we manage to get atropine shots there is a problem. It is extremely difficult to deliver any assistance whether humanitarian or medical to besieged areas. For example, we have managed to get $150.000 to one of the areas in Rural Damascus but we could not. People living in those areas told us it is impossible to deliver MONEY to such areas. So we are really facing a real problem. As for gas masks, the Syrian Coalition and the Syrian National Council bought a number of gas masks, and we are trying to deliver them. But in the end we are talking about a very large number of people. That is why Friends of Syria have a responsibility to help us at least tackle the consequences of Assad’s crimes if they do not want to put an end to the real cause of those crimes. What was your second question please?


For example, we have managed to get $150.000 to one of the areas in Rural Damascus but we could not. People living in those areas told us it is impossible to deliver MONEY to such areas. SO we are really facing a real problem.

Hmmmmm.... The REAL PROBLEM is an inability to deliver money in an area in rural Damascus? He's lying about everything!!!

Anonymous said...

I'm comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed

UGH! word choice...paralyzed.

Anonymous said...

Jen--Unfortunately if we don't stop it now it will just snowball into an even more gigantic problem. Assad is actually the one who has the power and weapons and he can and is giving them to terrorists groups. I read an article a while back about how the problem has already spilled into Qatar. Even if you want to say OK this is not our country, this is not our people, we will still have to stop the Assad regime eventually.
Also, with the question about my son, no I would want him to join the military. The crazy part is that is his dream is to join the military and be a sergeant in the marines. I hope he does not join up. On the other hand, once he is of age, he will have the choice to do as he wants, I am not going to say "Mommy is not going to let you join the armed forces!" That's just the reality of being a mother--once they are of age, you have to step back and let them do what they want.

Jen said...

So if there are supposedly no plans to put 'boots on the ground', how will missile strikes alone prevent these weapons from falling into terrorists hands?

Seems a bit counter productive doesn't it...we don't like the way Assad is utilizing these weapons, and fear them falling into the 'wrong hands', (as if there are any 'right hands' in this equation)...so we assist the rebel uprising which basically ensures THEY will end up in control of the weapons! It's a crap shoot either way.

Anonymous said...

how will missile strikes alone...the UN is there looking for weapons.

Anonymous said...

we don't like the way Assad is utilizing these weapons, and fear them falling into the 'wrong hands', (as if there are any 'right hands' in this equation),,
If they disarm the region, good thing will happen.

Jen said...

Anon 5:31-32

I think u are missing my point?

How are 'we' to disarm them with ONLY missile strikes, which is currently being claimed is 'the plan'? Clearly disarming them, and securing the weapons would require ground troops. An action which is supported by nobody (our citizens, congress, allies, etc). Every entity that has weighed in has said the same thing...air strikes would be inneffective. By engaging in air strikes we would either be wasting our time, or eventually forced into a 'broader scale intervention' to achieve any real objective.

Anonymous said...

Clearly disarming them, and securing the weapons would require...peaceful intelligent discussion.

Anonymous said...

real objective.

September 5, 2013 at 6:22 PM
What do you mean? War is ruinous.

Jen said...

Please clarify your question. I'm not sure if you are implying that missile strikes alone would irradicate the WMD's, or what exactly 'war is ruinous' is supposed to mean??

Anonymous said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398691/Syrias-darkest-hour-Hundreds-childrens-bodies-piled-high-nerve-gas-attack-near-Damascus-leaves-1-300-dead.html

what exactly 'war is ruinous' is supposed to mean??...words fail me, please look at the suffering in these photos.

Anonymous said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2394401/Egypt-protests-Angry-Morsi-supports-streets-torch-government-buildings-protest-Cairo-crackdown-left-525-dead-thousands-injured.html

Anonymous said...

These weren’t the only risks that Dempsey highlighted. After going through each military option in turn, he ended his letter with an over-all assessment that should be required reading this Labor Day weekend:

All of these options would likely further the narrow military objective of helping the opposition and placing more pressure on the regime. We have learned from the past 10 years however, that it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state. We must anticipate and be prepared for the unintended consequences of our action. Should the regime’s institutions collapse in the absence of a viable opposition, we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control.
I know that the decision to use force is not one that any of us takes lightly. It is no less than an act of war. As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that the use of force will move us toward the intended outcome. We must also understand risk—not just to our forces, but to our other global responsibilities…One we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next.
Those are the cautionary words of an Army general who commanded U.S. forces in Baghdad ten years ago and saw firsthand the consequences of precipitous U.S. military action. White House officials argue it’s misleading to make any comparison with the full-scale invasion of Iraq. In the coming action in Syria, the goals and the military means to be employed are both far smaller, they insist. That’s true enough. But have the President and those pushing him to go ahead with an attack fully taken account of General Dempsey’s warnings?http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/08/has-obama-forgotten-general-dempseys-warnings.html

Jen said...

So obviously you are going to once again avoid the direct question posed. Of course 'war is ruinous'...how the hell is a US missile strike supposed to change that?

Jen said...

If the fix were as simple as lobbing a few missiles, and the world would be rid of WMD's, I would be the first to say go for it. But if we are going to have a conversation about this, (and I think everyone should be discussing it, as it is just about the most important thing happening in the world), then we have to stick with facts and reality...not emotion. Children being gassed to death is a horrible thing, and the natural reaction is to want SOMETHING to put an end to their suffering.But for a moment ponder the reality of missile strikes (which are being touted as the planned means of intervention) being used to solve that problem.

The response has been so delayed, that at this point that any strikes would be futile show-boating. The weapons have surely been moved (as stated in the article up thread) and strikes would be shallow attempt to prove our clout, bringing us no closer to eliminating these weapons. More concerning is the idea that 'cosmetic strikes' would allow Assad's regime to emerge (appearing) victorious, and flaunt themselves as having taken on the United States...and won! (a notion with incredibly dangerous implications for the US in dealing with future issues in the Middle East).

anonymously said...


Showboat is the middle name of the current president.

His only interest is smoke and mirrors, slight of hand, polysyllabic lawyer-type twisted rhetoric, and the decline of the United States in world influence.

Sadly, he is well on his way to that end result.

Anonymous said...

MR. SALEH: (Original in English) What we are saying- a couple of things what we have said. We have said that the Assad forces have moved some of the CHEMICAL HEADS into two new locations. We are very concerned about that because YOU HAVE CHEMICAL HEADS- chemical missiles. THEY ARE CARRIED to two new locations that where not there so that is a major concern that we have. The other thing we are talking about Dr. Abdul Tawab Shahrour who is unfortunately due to security concerns is not here with us, but he will be presenting the information that he has collected about the different crimes in Aleppo in the upcoming press conference.

I think a rich country should offer Assad asylum. The gathering of concerned countries can bring peaceful emergency stability to the country of Syria.

Anonymous said...

The Arab Spring was modeled after America's Civil Rights Movement. UGH!! Can you imagine if it had turned as deadly as Syria? Thank-you God for Martin Luther King.