September 13, 2013
Senator Rand Paul responded to President Obama’s address to the nation on Syria, saying that now the Obama administration is proposing that the US become allies to al-Qaeda.
Rand said: “Twelve years after we were attacked by Al Qaeda, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by Al Qaeda, President Obama now asks us to be allies with Al Qaeda.”
Paul maintains that “the possibility of a diplomatic solution is a good thing, though we must proceed with caution on the details. But one thing is for certain, the chance for diplomacy would not have occurred without strong voices against an immediate bombing campaign. If we had simply gone to war last week or the week before, as many advocated, we wouldn’t be looking at a possible solution today.”
In Obama’s address to stated: “It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But Al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death.”
Paul rebutted, explaining: “There is no clearly defined mission in Syria, no clearly defined American interest. In fact, the Obama Administration has specifically stated that ‘no military solution’ exists. They have said the war will be ‘unbelievably small and limited’. To me that sounds like they are pre-announcing that the military strikes will not punish Assad personally or effect regime change.”
Paul posed this to the president: “The question must be asked: Would a US bombing campaign make it more or less likely that Assad loses control of the chemical weapons? Would a US bombing campaign make it more or less likely that Assad attacks Israel with chemical weapons? Would a bombing campaign make it more or less likely that refugees stream into Jordan? Would a bombing campaign in Syria make the region more or less stable?”
If a vote is proposed to the Senate, Paul said: “I will vote no and encourage my colleagues to vote no as well. The president has not made a compelling case that American interests are at risk in Syria. The threshold for war should be a significant one.”
Regarding Obama’s claim that he as the president has the authority to order a military strike on Syria, Paul replied: “The president maintains that he still has the power to initiate war. This is untrue. The Constitution gave the power to declare war to Congress.”
Ron Ramsey, lieutenant governor of Tennessee tweeted : “As the President attempts to ally w/ Al-Qaeda in Syria’s civil war, we must always remember who attacked us on our soil 12 years ago.”
Former House Representative Dennis Kucinich asserted that a military strike on Syria would turn our US Air Force into “al-Qaeda’s air force.”
Kucinich went on: “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we’re just going to have a ‘targeted strike’ — that’s an act of war. It’s not anything to be trifled with.”
Abu Thuha (a pseudonym) is an al-Qaeda operative who said that “we have experience now fighting the Americans, and more experience now with the Syrian revolution. Our big hope is to form a Syrian-Iraqi Islamic state for all Muslims, and then announce our war against Iran and Israel, and free Palestine.”
The terrorist activity in Syria has been directly committed by oppositional groups that are being controlled and directed by the US government in order to facilitate internal conflict, says a study by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).
Joseph Holiday, analyst for the ISW, who studies the influence al-Qaeda has had on the Arab Spring, asserts: “The emergence of Al Qaeda-linked terrorist cells working against the regime poses risks to the United States and a challenge to those calling for material support of the armed opposition. It’s something to keep an eye out for, the convergence of Iraq and Syria. As the Syrian government loses the ability to project force on the periphery of its territory, what you’re going to see is an emboldened Sunni opposition emerging in Nineveh and Iraq.”
During Congressional talks, John Kerry, Secretary of State, dodged questions about whether or not al-Qaeda was playing a predominant role in the FSA.
Kerry claimed that the “opposition has increasingly become more defined by its moderation.”
In a speech prepared by the State Department, Kerry claimed that: “In order to protect sources and methods, some of what we know will only be released to members of Congress, the representatives of the American people. That means that some things we do know, we can’t talk about publicly.”
Kerry continued: “So what do we really know that we can talk about? Well, we know that the Assad regime has the largest chemical weapons programs in the entire Middle East. We know that the regime has used those weapons multiple times this year, and has used them on a smaller scale but still it has used them against its own people, including not very far from where last Wednesday’s attack happened. We know that the regime was specifically determined to rid the Damascus suburbs of the opposition, and it was frustrated that it hadn’t succeeded in doing so.”
In February of this year, in an interview with Greta Van Susteren, Clinton admitted that the US trained the MEK in Afghanistan when the US was engaged in using the terrorist faction against the Russians.
The MEK became the CIA-controlled faction known as al-Qaeda. Clinton said: “When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan we had this brilliant idea that we were gonna come to Pakistan and create a force of Mujahedeen, equip them with stinger missiles, and everything else and go after the Soviets in Afghanistan.” This is the creation of al-Qaeda.
Clinton goes on to say: “We were successful. We said ‘great’; and we left Afghanistan . . . Leaving these trained people who were fanatical in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Leaving them well armed and creating a mess at the time we didn’t recognize. When you look back today, the people we are fighting today, we were supporting in the fight against the Soviets.”