UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT LAYS OUT GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHING PRESIDENT OBAMA IF HE ATTACK SYRIA
This is a downright scary exchange between a State Department Spokesperson and the mainstream media. Not only does it point to the Obama’s unwillingness to consider facts and circumstances before taking action, it points to the White House support of a rigid ideological position …
It is unbelievable that the Department of State does not seem concerned with the pertinent facts surrounding surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, but stands ready to hold President Assad responsible for their use no matter who and how they were unleashed on the civilian population. Following this line of reason, President Obama could be impeached, tried, removed from office and jailed for the current scandals involving his administration.
- Gun running weapons to the Mexican Drug Cartels for political advantage of tightening gun control.
- Weapons delivery to known Muslim terrorists in Benghazi to aid the Muslim Brotherhood.
- IRS using audits and examinations to interfere with a presidential election.
- IRS inappropriately targeting journalists to suppress anti-administration stories.
- NSA spying on domestic Americans and expanding their scope of authority.
Lest we be accused of taking something out of context, here is the State Department transcript that appears to hold Syria’s President accountable for any action that occurred on his watch.
The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership, even if command and control – he’s not the one that pushes the button or said, “Go,” on this.
Read it for yourself …
|
Department of State -- Marie Harf - Deputy Spokesperson - Daily Press Briefing - August 28, 2013 QUESTION: I wonder if you could flesh that out for us a bit, because as you know, in the deployment of a chemical weapons or a chemical weapon or munitions armed with chemical weapons, there are several layers through which an order has to proceed. And I wonder if you are telling us that you believe that President Assad himself maintains full control, command and control, over the chemical weapons arsenal, or whether you think that that control is exercised at some mid level. Tell us what you mean when you say you think the regime maintains full control. MS. HARF: It’s a good question, and I don’t have a lot of information about that for you. If I can share more about that, I will. I think I’d make a few points, that we ultimately, of course, hold President Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons by his regime against his own people, regardless of where the command and control lies. I don’t have more details for you on that specifically. Obviously, we’ve said that the regime maintains control of these weapons and that the opposition, of course, doesn’t have the capability to use them. And if I have more to share with you about the specific command and control, I will. I just don’t at this time. QUESTION: Do you believe that he ordered this attack? MS. HARF: I don’t know the answer to that. QUESTION: If he – but if he or his people didn’t have anything – I don’t understand how you can say it doesn’t matter where the command and control lies. MS. HARF: I didn’t say it doesn’t matter. He is ultimately held responsible for the actions of his regime. QUESTION: Of his regime. QUESTION: Regardless -- MS. HARF: Regardless. QUESTION: Regardless of whether he -- MS. HARF: Right. QUESTION: -- said -- MS. HARF: Not that it doesn’t matter. QUESTION: How can you hold him accountable regardless of where the command and control is? If the command and control doesn’t rest within him or his people below him in the food chain, how do you hold him responsible? MS. HARF: Well, let’s be clear. The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership, even if command and control – he’s not the one that pushes the button or said, “Go,” on this. And again, I don’t know what the facts are here. I’m just, broadly speaking, saying that he is responsible for the actions of his regime. I’m not intimately familiar with the command and control structure of the Syrian military. I’m just not. But again, he is responsible ultimately for the decisions that are made. QUESTION: So it doesn’t matter to you whether he personally gave the order? It doesn’t -- MS. HARF: He is responsible at the same level -- QUESTION: It doesn’t matter -- MS. HARF: -- either way. QUESTION: It doesn’t – either way, depending on -- MS. HARF: And again, I just actually don’t know the facts here. QUESTION: Just let me make sure I understand. QUESTION: What do you mean by “either way”? QUESTION: Just let me make sure I understand. It does not matter whether President Assad himself gave an order to use chemical weapons? MS. HARF: He is responsible for their use. QUESTION: It doesn’t matter; is that correct? MS. HARF: He is responsible either way, yes. QUESTION: So if some rogue officer did this, it’s still his responsibility? MS. HARF: That’s – well, (a) yes. But that’s also a wildly conjecturous question that I think in no way there’s -- QUESTION: I’ll stick with -- MS. HARF: -- evidence that’s supporting it right now. QUESTION: I’ll stick with (a), but thank you. MS. HARF: Yeah. But let’s be clear here that based on multiple independent streams of information widely available that again I will say the only logical conclusion is that the Assad regime itself was responsible for the use of chemical weapons in this attack, period. QUESTION: So -- QUESTION: You’re familiar with reports that the rebels have had access to and have used sarin in this conflict, correct? MS. HARF: We do not assess that the rebels – the rebels, the opposition – excuse me – that the opposition have the capabilities to use these kinds of weapons. We don’t -- QUESTION: But -- MS. HARF: That’s our – that remains our assessment. QUESTION: But is it your assessment that they have at any possessed sarin? MS. HARF: I don’t have anything for you on that. I actually just don’t know the answer. But our assessment remains crystal clear that they don’t have the capability -- QUESTION: That’s the opposition that you support, not the al-Qaida affiliated opposition -- MS. HARF: We also assess that al-Nusrah does not have the ability to use these kinds of weapons. Again, to – let’s talk for a second – let’s step back and talk about what this was. This was a massive, large-scale, multiply – multiple-faceted attack against a wide swath of area using very sophisticated rockets, very sophisticated delivery systems that were armed with chemical weapons. There is one party in Syria who has the capability to do that, and it’s the Assad regime. WATCH IT FOR YOURSELF: If you wish to watch the press conference, it can be seen here. Source: The State Department |
It appears that the State Department under the corrupt progressive socialist democrat Hillary Clinton was totally screwed up and it is no better under the socialist progressive democrat John Kerry. Both apparently carrying out the foreign policy of Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and Tom Brennan mindless of the consequences to America. How any President of the United States, Secretary of State, and the Ambassador to the United Nations can openly lie to the American people about Benghazi seems to prove a singular point: they are corrupt ideologues unable to tell the truth unless it suits their political agenda.
Bottom line …
It is hard to believe that our government, at all levels, is so ideologically rigid and bound to the dictates of the progressive socialist democrats, that they are willing to sit idly by as President Obama commits an “act of war” on a foreign sovereign nation with no clear objective than to restore Obama’s reputation from the common perception that he is incompetent, inept, and lacks leadership skills. Always leading from behind so that someone else will take the blame if something goes wrong. A detached leader, if you can even use that term, who would rather play cards with an aide than watch an historic attack on the most notorious terrorist of our time. A man that is more comfortable campaigning and speechifying than governing. A man who appears to allow aids like Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and Tom Brennan yank his chain rather than put forth his own opinion.
We live in scary times. A time when the President’s loyalty to America is openly debated and Congress sits in session afraid to uphold their oaths of office. God Bless America in this time where leadership, courage, and morality is lacking.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS