Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Videos

Watch Obama squirm on 60 Minutes…explaining his $500 billion train Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria as a way for him “to try different things”

CBS’ Steve Kroft pressed President Obama on his foreign policy shortcomings, labeling his efforts in Syria “an embarrassment.”

Published

on

27 Views

Via RT with comment from Sott.net…

The failed $500 million program to set up a proxy army in Syria was a test, US President Barack Obama told ’60 Minutes’, adding that he had doubts about the project from the start. He also ruled out sending US troops to Syria.

“I’ve been skeptical from the get-go about the notion that we were going to effectively create this proxy army inside of Syria,” Obama said in the interview. “My goal has been to try to test the proposition, can we be able to train and equip a moderate opposition that’s willing to fight ISIL?”

Comment: If Obama was skeptical, then why was the program even begun? Could it be that Obama is just following orders and that the notions that the president of the U.S. is “commander-in-chief” and “leader of the free world” are myths? That the president is told what to do? The fact that Obama is coming out now, only when the program has clearly failed, could be a sign that he’s really just trying to politically distance himself from the worsening public reaction to Washington’s handling of Syria and Russia’s takeover and eminent success in fighting ISIS. But it also could be a sign of Obama essentially admitting that he doesn’t really have a choice on America’s foreign policy decisions. Of course, the U.S. HAS successfully created a proxy army in Syria, except it’s not moderate rebels, but ISIS.

Broadcast Sunday night, Obama’s interview with CBS correspondent Steve Kroft was recorded last Tuesday, days before the administration announced it would stop attempting to train a force of ‘moderate’ militants in Syria.

After spending hundreds of millions of dollars, Washington had only “four or five” fighters to show for the effort. Most of the equipment ended up in jihadist hands as US-trained rebels were captured or deserted without ever facing Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL) in battle.

Comment: Most of the equipment and cash was meant for ISIS, and the idea that it “accidentally” ended up in their hands is merely the propaganda that the government and media are using to explain how the vast majority of funding and resources were never used as intended.

Asked why he went through with the program he doubted, Obama responded that part of what he has to do “is to try different things,” adding another reason was “because we also have partners on the ground that are invested and interested in seeing some sort of resolution to this problem.”

Comment: What problem? The Assad regime is democratically elected. If the people of Syria are unhappy with the leaders they elected, they can choose to remove them during the next elections. It is not within the purview of the U.S. or any other country to choose who leads Syria. Countries who claim to represent freedom and democracy do not engage in regime change in other countries.

“And they wanted you to do it,” Kroft asked.

“Well, no. That’s not what I said,” Obama replied.

Obama’s efforts to reframe almost every question and at times change the subject appeared to irk Kroft, who at one point remarked, “I feel like I’m being filibustered, Mr. President.”

The White House said last Friday it was dropping the training program because it had not lived up to expectations, but said it would continue providing weapons to the ‘moderate’ Syrian militants.

“Look, there’s no doubt that it did not work,” Obama said of the program, but argued that there was no “silver bullet” approach to solving the Syrian problem. Washington would continue to support the ‘moderate’ opposition in Syria in hopes of seeing regime change in Damascus, but “what we are not going to do is to try to reinsert ourselves in a military campaign inside of Syria,” Obama said.

“What we have not been able to do so far, and I’m the first to acknowledge this, is to change the dynamic inside of Syria,” Obama said. According to him, victory over Islamic State will depend on the Sunni population in Syria and Iraq “working in a concerted way” with the US-backed coalition.

The president stuck close to the official US line, blaming the government of President Bashar Assad for the failure of US-backed rebels to fight against Islamic State forces. As long as Assad remains in power, getting “those folks” to focus on IS was difficult, Obama argued.

It will be this “community of nations” to eventually defeat Islamic State, Obama said, dismissing the Russian air campaign as nothing more than a desperate effort to save Assad.

Since September 30, Russian aircraft have struck over 100 terrorist targets inside Syria, from artillery positions to command centers and ammunition depots. Hundreds of militants have deserted and fled the country, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

Comment: Obama seems almost desperate to continue capitulating the propaganda. He and his bosses advisors must really feel the pressure closing in all around them to resort to the tone given in this interview. Give it up Obama, those people in the world with firing neurons are seeing the reality of the inept U.S. effort to fight ISIS and their empirical designs to overthrow a freely elected leader.

References:

http://www.sott.net/article/303858-Obama-tries-to-rewrite-history-saying-he-had-doubts-about-ability-to-create-moderate-rebels-in-Syria

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
1 Comment

1
Leave a Reply

avatar
1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
0 Comment authors
Watch Obama squirm on 60 Minutes…explaining his $500 billion train Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria as a way for him “to try different things” | NewZSentinel Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Latest

Lori Loughlin’s daughter was aboard USC official’s yacht in Bahamas when mom was charged

Lori Loughlin’s daughter was on the yacht of USC’s Board of Trustees when her mom was accused in scheme.

The Duran

Published

on

Via Fox News


Lori Loughlin’s daughter Olivia Jade Giannulli was spending spring break on a University of Southern California official’s yacht when her mother was accused Tuesday of involvement in a college admissions scheme, reports said.

Giannulli, 19, was on Rick Caruso’s luxury yacht Invictus in the Bahamas, a report said. Caruso is chairman of USC’s Board of Trustees.

Giannulli, who currently attends USC, was with Caruso’s daughter Gianna and several other friends, the outlet reported.

“My daughter and a group of students left for spring break prior to the government’s announcement yesterday,” Caruso told TMZ. “Once we became aware of the investigation, the young woman decided it would be in her best interests to return home.”

Loughlin’s daughter has since returned to Los Angeles to face the allegations that could result in her getting expelled from USC.

USC’s Board of Trustees will not decide the status of Giannulli and the other students involved in the case, but rather, the university’s president will make the decisions, according to TMZ.

Business deals in jeopardy?

Giannulli is a YouTube beauty vlogger and social media star, but in the midst of her mother’s charges, she may lose the lucrative brand-sponsorship deals she has landed over the years, Variety reported.

HP, having cut ties with Giannulli, said in a statement, “HP worked with Lori Loughlin and Olivia Jade in 2017 for a one-time product campaign. HP has removed the content from its properties.”

Giannulli also cut brand deals with partners including Amazon, Dolce & Gabbana, Lulus, Marc Jacobs Beauty, Sephora, Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics, Smile Direct Club, Too Faced Cosmetics, Boohoo, and Unilever’s TRESemmé, the report said.

Giannulli’s rep declined to comment, Variety reported. Estée Lauder Companies, which owns Smashbox and Too Faced, also declined to comment, while the other brands or companies the magazine reached out to did not immediately respond to their requests for comment.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

$250M Lawsuit Against CNN Imminent; Covington High MAGA Student Suffered “Direct Attacks”

CNN will be the second MSM outlet sued over their reporting of the incident, after Sandmann launched a $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post in late February. 

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


CNN is about to be sued for more than $250 million for spreading fake news about 16-year-old Covington High School student Nicholas Sandmann.

Sandmann was viciously attacked by left-leaning news outlets over a deceptively edited video clip from the January March for Life rally at the Lincoln Memorial, in which the MAGA-hat-wearing teenager appeared to be mocking a Native American man beating a drum. Around a day later, a longer version of the video revealed that Sandmann did absolutely nothing wrong – after the media had played judge, jury and executioner of Sandmann’s reputation.

CNN will be the second MSM outlet sued over their reporting of the incident, after Sandmann launched a $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post in late February.

Speaking with Fox News host Mark Levin in an interview set to air Sunday, Sandmann’s attorney, L. Lin Wood, said “CNN was probably more vicious in its direct attacks on Nicholas than The Washington Post. And CNN goes into millions of individuals’ homes. It’s broadcast into their homes.”

They really went after Nicholas with the idea that he was part of a mob that was attacking the Black Hebrew Israelites, yelling racist slurs at the Black Hebrew Israelites,” continued Wood. “Totally false. Saying things like that Nicholas was part of a group that was threatening the Black Hebrew Israelites, that they thought it was going to be a lynching.”

Why didn’t they stop and just take an hour and look through the internet and find the truth and then report it?” Wood asked. “Maybe do that before you report the lies. They didn’t do it. They were vicious. It was false. CNN will be sued next week, and the dollar figure in the CNN case may be higher than it was [against] The Washington Post.”

Watch: 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Rand Paul refuses to support emergency declaration, deepening problem

Rand Paul gives a principled reason for his refusal, and he cannot be faulted for that, but it leaves the borders open and unsafe.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Senator Rand Paul indicated he will vote to terminate President Trump’s National Emergency Declaration on Sunday. This continues a story that seems to want no resolution.

Weeks ago, the seed to this news piece started this way:

One 35-day partial government shutdown and almost three weeks later, the debate over a statistically tiny amount of money in the US budget for the building of a border wall drags on with no solution. On February 15th, if there is no agreement that is to President Trump’s satisfaction, the government will once again descend into a partial shutdown.

And on February 15th, the President signed a continuing resolution to keep the government open through the rest of the fiscal year. This CR gave sharply limited authority of funds with regards to the border wall. This prompted the President to take it a step farther and declare a National Emergency.

This is because very few people in the US government actually desire a solution to close and secure the American-Mexican border. In fact, what we see is a government that is largely aligned against the will of its citizens.

President Trump has made repeated statements and speeches in which he outlines a fair array of facts concerning the problems experienced in the US by illegal border crossings of both people and controlled substances.

However, the issue of border security remains something that Congress only supports with words. We saw this in action both last week and the week before with the Democrat led House of Representatives voting 245-182 to terminate the National Emergency declaration. While this was to be expected in the House, on March 3rd, libertarian Senator Rand Paul, a known strong supporter of President Trump, nonetheless penned an Op-Ed piece on Fox News in which he said he planned to also vote against the National Emergency in the Republican-led Senate (emphasis added):

In September of 2014,  I had these words to say: “The president acts like he’s a king. He ignores the Constitution.  He arrogantly says, ‘If Congress will not act, then I must.’

Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”

I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security.

However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power…

There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding:

  • First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders,
  • and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders?

As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.

But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power.  In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation.  In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security.  It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers.  Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress.  This turns that principle on its head.

Some are attempting to say that there isn’t a good analogy between President Obama’s orders or the Youngstown case. I disagree. Not only are the issues similar, but I think Youngstown Steel implications are even more profound in the case of emergency appropriations. We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion. Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.

In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.

Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.

This statement by Rand Paul is extremely – and painfully – fair. It marks not the actions of a liberal but of someone who is trying to do things truly “by the book.” He cannot be faulted for this.

But his “Nay” is very poorly placed because it comes in the context of a Congress that is full of people far less committed to the vision of America and its sovereignty than he or the President are. One of the reasons stated for lax border security is that cutting off illegal immigration also cuts off very cheap labor for several industries. Some of those industry leaders donate lavishly to political campaigns, ergo, corruption.

Rand Paul, in trying to fight for what is right by the letter of the law, may be correct, but in the short term it appears to exacerbate the problem of the porous US-Mexico border.

President Trump is trying to do the right thing in the company of a Congress who does not want this, for various reasons. Some of it is because some Congressmen and women are petty, Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer being the crabby National Grandparents in this aspect. But add to the “resist Trump because he is Trump” lobby those people who gain from illegal immigration in the short term, and those like the new socialist crop of Congressional members who are ready to change the very nature of the United States into something like their cannabis-induced dream of Sweden (which didn’t even work in Sweden!) and we see that border security is every bit the uphill climb that President Trump has shown it to be.

The government shutdown did one very good thing: It got the American focus on the border and some opinions on the matter moved – at least among the American people.

But since when did our representatives and senators really represent us, the American people?

It has been a long, long time.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending