Obama's Latest BFF Selfie

Awww .... Not enough hearts ♥♥♥♥ to describe this picture

Say it isn't so: Syria's Dictator Continues to Hide Chemical Weapons from the World

By Rob Janicki

Even though Syria has been pressured by foreign powers to give up materials to produce chemical weapons, Israel intelligence believes Syria has retained weapons that are combat-ready.  Continue Reading FreeBeacon

Anyone who believes that Bashar al Asaad has given up all or even most of his chemical weapons, is just fooling themselves.  Obviously the Israeli intelligence community hasn't been lulled into believing that fairytale.

One question that no one seems to have ever asked is simple.  Where did al Asaad get all those chemical weapons and/or the means to create them?  What is only known by several national intelligence agencies is that photo reconnaissance of Iraq prior to the Allied invasion of Iraq, showed large army truck convoys leaving Iraq for Syria.  I seriously doubt these convoys were heading to Syria to sell prayer beads.

If any national intelligence agency has a handle on Syria's current cache of chemical weapons, I'm betting it's Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad.  Right now Mossad is better at intelligent gathering in the Middle East than the CIA and the DIA in the Pentagon.

Israeli intelligence does not believe that ISIS has been able to acquire any of al Asaad's chemical weapons.  The reasoning is simple.  ISIS would just as soon turn these chemical weapons on the Syrian government forces as they would like to use these weapons against the Kurds and the Iraqi Shias.  Al Asaad realizes that ISIS is his enemy as much or more than any other enemy he is facing in Syria.  

Al Asaad is actually using the issues of ISIS to hide his store of chemical weapons and delivery systems.  The world is focused on ISIS, which provides al Asaad the perfect cover to conceal the remaining chemical weapons he has hidden from international inspectors.

McConnell: ISIS is a Consequence of Obama’s Foreign Policy

by Elizabeth Nelson

Who can deny McConnell is onto something here, Obama's Foreign Policy is a hot mess, even Bush warned Obama and all of America, in 2007, when everyone wanted him to pull out of Iraq, that if we pulled out before we decimated al-Qaeda the consequences would be dire for not only America but for Iraq.

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States.

• It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda [ISIS].
  
• It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.
   
• It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven [Islamic State the size of Belgium] in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.
  
• It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

Obama entered this Presidency with the mindset of a political war, of Americans vs. Muslims and it was Bush's war, not his war to win and he was going to be the hero and stop it.  So he has no one to blame but himself for the vacuum he caused in our pull-out and ISIS jumping in it and growing stronger in its darkness, and the Islamic State he created.

With Obama's "core coalition" rotting out, before the rest of the coalition of 10 is even formed, or can even hits ISIS, "wherever they are." Now there's another wrinkle in Obama's genius political strategy to "degrade and manage" ISIS.  If Obama bombs ISIS in Syria, without permission from Bashar al-Assad, it will be seen, by al-Assad, as "an act of aggression."

Syria’s foreign minister warned the U.S. on Monday not to conduct airstrikes inside Syria against the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham group without Damascus’ consent, saying any such attack would be considered an aggression.  I guess this means that al-Assad and Putin, his friend, won't be joining Obama's core of " merry men." So, what do all of Obama's failed foreign policies mean for the future of U.S.A, when we put them all together, do you think he'll figure it out in time to take the war to ISIS in  Syria, as he said he would or just make it worse? 

"Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: [since when?] if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven."  

Will Obama find his "foreign policy grove" in Syria and Iraq, with ISIS/Boko Haram; well, I guess that all depends on if you're looking at this as a liberal with Obama-rose-colored glasses or a conservative with clear eyes.  Basically we have a high school football coach in charge of an NFL football team that we already see has a losing record, and what do you think he's going to do, when he's on the field, faced with an aggressive team that doesn't just want to take out or knees but wants to take off our head?

So, we won't be allowed to call this a "War on Terror," because Obama didn't "take action and hunt down terrorist threats, in our Country or anywhere else for that matter." Years later, we still don't have an answer for Benghazi." No, he ended that war, but "Bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaeda is on the run." No, they just reinvent themselves as well as Madonna in the 80s. They may have been "on the run", but has now they've reinvented themselves as a meaner, bigger, smarter, technical, madder ISIS and whatever other group they may pop up as next, mr. Obama, because your foreign policies failed us.