The Obama administration waived provisions of a federal law which ban the supply of weapons and money to terrorists. The move is opening doors to supplying Syrian opposition with protection from chemical weapons.

 

The Arms Export Control Act (AECA) allows the US president to waive provisions in Sections 40 and 40A, which forbid providing munitions, credit and licenses to countries supporting acts of terrorism. But those prohibitions can be waived "if the President determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States."

 

President Barrack Obama ordered such a waiver for supplying chemical weapons-related assistance to "select vetted members" of Syrian opposition forces, the administration announced on Monday.

 

 

Yes, we can: Obama waives anti-terrorism provisions to arm Syrian rebels ? RT USA

 

 

I've waited a little this morning to post this, HOPING Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or someone would get this and run.

 

We are literally arming the same people Al-Qaeda, who had a hand in attacking this country on 9/11..........is no one disturbed?

 

And please do not say it is just medical/chemical weapons equipment -

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/15/how-exactly-is-restricted-us-military-issue-equipment-getting-captured-in-syria-video/

 

 

A video released Thursday of an alleged FSA (Free Syrian Army) arms cache captured by Assad forces appears to show two pieces of highly-regulated U.S.-made military equipment worth more than $4,500.

 

One is a Trijicon ACOG (Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight) which is issued to US Special Forces and the other is a set of PVS-7 night vision goggles.

 

Both of these items fall under ITAR, or the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. As such, their ownership outside of the continental United States is highly regulated.

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/15/how-exactly-is-restricted-us-military-issue-equipment-getting-captured-in-syria-video/#ixzz2fAZ3LEBZ

Its ok, liberals want the destruction of America, look who they voted for as President. Of course Obama wants to arm the terrorist and support the muslim brotherhood (who Egypt is trying to get rid of). Will Obama arm the terrorist in the Sinia Penisula whom the Egyptian army is trying to kill.

Things like this are the natural consequence of the imperial presidency, which Congress and the American people have been more than happy to let run wild over the last century. It's probably too late to stop it now.

While this bothers me to the extreme, it always has bothered me.

 

It bothered me just as much when Reagan's Administration made deals with the very Iranians who took our embassy, sold them weapons, and then took the cash to fund Contras in Nicaragua that were murdering their own citizenry along the way.

 

Gestlow is right. This ship seems to have sailed long ago and it's latest captain, Obama, is plowing it toward new speeds.

 

Just my thoughts.

While this bothers me to the extreme, it always has bothered me.

 

It bothered me just as much when Reagan's Administration made deals with the very Iranians who took our embassy, sold them weapons, and then took the cash to fund Contras in Nicaragua that were murdering their own citizenry along the way.

 

Gestlow is right. This ship seems to have sailed long ago and it's latest captain, Obama, is plowing it toward new speeds.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Let's not mention anything that contradicts the mysticism of the Reagan presidency....he could never have done anything that could be so against conservative thought ;-)

While this bothers me to the extreme, it always has bothered me.

 

It bothered me just as much when Reagan's Administration made deals with the very Iranians who took our embassy, sold them weapons, and then took the cash to fund Contras in Nicaragua that were murdering their own citizenry along the way.

 

Gestlow is right. This ship seems to have sailed long ago and it's latest captain, Obama, is plowing it toward new speeds.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Pretty much sums it up for me.

Disturbing but not surprising. Change we can believe in. Remember that one?

Let's not mention anything that contradicts the mysticism of the Reagan presidency....he could never have done anything that could be so against conservative thought ;-)

Hard to argue against an imperial presidency when it's sanctioned by the Almighty himself:

 

"The people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. The Lord answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'”

-- 1 Samuel 8:19-22

1964: Gulf of Tonkin Resolution - Congress voted. Passed based on (intentionally) misleading information about attacks on American vessels. Provided power to conduct Vietnam War until ended. Supposed threat to US assets in region.

1965: Invasion of Dominican Republic - No Congressional approval. Triggered by coup that overthrew elected government. Occupied country until 1966. Civil war.

1983: Grenada - no approval by Congress. Invasion based on potential (not proven) threat to US citizen medical students. Civil war.

1991: Gulf War Resolution - Approved by Congress in support of UN Resolution. Compared to Gulf of Tonkin resolution in terms of giving uncapped power to President. Cross border invasion.

2003: Iraq resolution - Approved by Joint Resolution of Congress. Supported UN resolution. Cited lack of cooperation by Hussein as main reason. No direct threat to US or cross border action.

2011: US actively helps overthrow Gaddafi with military force. No Congressional approval. No UN resolution. Civil war.

2013: US supplies weapons to forces fighting Syrian President Assad. Claims of chemical weapon use trigger more direct threat. Civil war.

 

It appears that the time Congress is ignored the most when Presidents want to get involved in 'civil wars'. When the issue is more direct aggression at US (Gulf of Tonkin) or cross-border (Gulf War) there is more support sought and given. Gulf War II seemed to be triggered by the fact that some powerful countries in the region (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and (get this) Turkey) wanted Hussein gone. Also the fact that Hussein threatened H. with a death threat did not help him.

 

Turkey seems to the main country calling for Assad's ouster. They seem to have pull and have been a big backer of Obama. Presidents usually have ways to help friends. In this case - the 'Chemical weapon line' was drawn months ago to set up a trigger. And lo and behold. The line was crossed. Not to unlike the Gulf of Tonkin methodology. We invoked a response from the North Vietnamese by penetrating deep into their waters with spy vessels. When they reacted we used as an excuse to go to war. Sadams WMDs being hidden provided similar trigger. The formula seems to re-usable.

 

In most cases the CIA lead the way. Benghazi (with 40 CIA staff at the annex) was almost certainly a base for moving weapons to the Syrian opposition - through Turkey. Its not really a secret at this point. But the Russians will not give up on Assad. He is their best ally in the region. So this has become somewhat of a proxy war.

Its ok, liberals want the destruction of America, look who they voted for as President. Of course Obama wants to arm the terrorist and support the muslim brotherhood (who Egypt is trying to get rid of). Will Obama arm the terrorist in the Sinia Penisula whom the Egyptian army is trying to kill.

 

Exhibit A, your honor, of the sort of hyperbole that stands in the way of good discussion. May I treat this witness as hostile?

Hard to argue against an imperial presidency when it's sanctioned by the Almighty himself:

 

"The people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. The Lord answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'”

-- 1 Samuel 8:19-22

 

I just threw up a little. In my mouth. I've brushed my teeth. I still taste it.

Exhibit A, your honor, of the sort of hyperbole that stands in the way of good discussion. May I treat this witness as hostile?

 

Why, because I used the word LIBERAL in a bad way?

Did you even know of the Egyptian Army fighting terrorist in the Sinia Pennisula for their own country's safety, the same ones and groups Obama is arming in Syria.

Did you know Egypt is trying to rid the terror group Muslim Brotherhood from egypt due to inciting riots and terror, which is the same group OBAMA SUPPORTS.

 

So what is wrong with my discussion, because I used the word LIBERAL in a bad way.

 

It is the Liberals fault, they voted for the person who has let our foreign policy and integrity go down the drain. So go thank a LIBERAL for this mess.

And a liberal is ?

And a liberal is ?

 

BRAINWASHED

And a liberal is ?

 

A word misunderstood by modern Americans who stopped studying Latin too long ago.