Obama’s Humiliating Defeat

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

When presidents fail, it is a public spectacle. In his rush into unprovoked war against Syria, President Obama overplayed his hand. Shortly before he appeared on television on Tuesday, “Obama’s handlers advised him that his political position was, for the time being, untenable.” But he’ll soon be back on the warpath, meaner and more aggressive than ever.


Obama’s Humiliating Defeat

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

Obama will be back on the Syria warpath as soon as the proper false flag operations can be arranged.”

It was a strange speech, in which the real news was left for last, popping out like a Jack-in-the-Box after 11 minutes of growls and snarls and Obama’s bizarre whining about how unfair it is to be restrained from making war on people who have done you no harm. The president abruptly switched from absurd, lie-based justifications for war to his surprise announcement that, no, Syria’s turn to endure Shock and Awe had been postponed. The reader suddenly realizes that the diplomatic developments had been hastily cut and pasted into the speech, probably only hours before. Obama had intended to build the case for smashing Assad to an imperial peroration – a laying down of the law from on high. But his handlers threw in the towel, for reasons both foreign and domestic. Temporarily defeated, Obama will be back on the Syria warpath as soon as the proper false flag operations can be arranged.

The president’s roiling emotions, visible through his eyes, got in the way of his oratorical skills. But then, he didn’t have much material to work with, just an endless string of prevarications and half-truths strung almost randomly together. Obama, who was reluctantly asking permission from Congress to violate the most fundamental tenets of international law – permission that Congress is not empowered to give – framed Syria as a rogue nation because it has not signed a treaty on chemical weapons like “98 percent of humanity.” This makes Syria ripe for bombing. The president does not explain that Syria’s neighbors, Israel and Egypt – both U.S. allies – have also not signed the treaty. He does not suggest bombing Tel Aviv or Cairo.

He was already priming the public to accept Assad’s guilt the next time chemical weapons explode in Syria.”

Obama claims that the U.S. has proof that “Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.” Not a shred of evidence has been presented to back up this narrative – which, under the circumstances, tends to prove it is fiction. On the other hand, there are credible reports (everybody’s reports are more credible than the Americans), that rebels under U.S. allied control were told to prepare to go on the offensive following an American retaliation to a chemical attack that would be blamed on Assad’s forces – a story whose logic conforms to what actually occurred and answers the common sense question, Who profits?

Obama will not for long accept diplomatic delays in his war schedule. On Tuesday night, he was already priming the public to accept Assad’s guilt the next time chemical weapons explode in Syria. “If we fail to act,” said the president, “the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.” American and allied secret services will gladly arrange a replay.

Early in the speech, Obama raised the specter that, because of Assad’s mad chemical predilections, “our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.” Moreover, “If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel.” At this point, the president was arguing for a punitive strike, and had taken on the persona of warlike Obama.

Near the end of the speech, Obama responds to those who want Assad “taken out” right away and permanently, rather than merely “degrading” his forces with calibrated strikes. Now speaking as the “moderate” Obama, the president makes the case that Assad has no “interest in escalation that would lead to his demise, and our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force.”

Assad would not launch a chemical attack just a few miles away from United Nations inspectors that had just arrived in the country at his government’s request.”

The two Obamas are matched with two corresponding Assads. One Assad is a menace to the whole neighborhood and to himself, while the other Assad knows who to mess with and takes no risks with his own survival.

It would seem logical that the latter Assad, who is not prone to suicidal actions, would not launch a chemical attack just a few miles away from United Nations inspectors that had just arrived in the country at his government’s request.

The point here is not to argue with Obama’s logic, but to show how inconsistent, opportunistic and, at times, incoherent his reasoning is. He has not the slightest interest in truth or simple logic, only in what sounds right in the immediate context. Obama mixes his personas, and those of his nemesis, at the drop of a hat, because he is shameless and absolutely cynical – as befits a mass murderer.

Barack Obama pretends to believe – at least I hope he’s only pretending – that it was his idea to wait for a congressional debate before blasting Syria to smithereens. “So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security to take this debate to Congress.” He didn’t take the debate to Congress; the congressional detour was forced on the White House on August 31 when it became clear that Obama lacked both domestic and foreign support for a speedy strike. That was Obama’s first big defeat. The second was a knockout, after Russia and Syria seized on Secretary of State John Kerry’s “joke” about Assad giving up his chemical weapons, at which point Obama’s handlers advised him that his political position was, for the time being, untenable. He arrived in front of the cameras shaken, angry, and humiliated – with a patched together script and a mouth full of crow.

He arrived in front of the cameras shaken, angry, and humiliated.”

The president who claimed that he could bomb the sovereign nation of Libya for seven months, overthrow its government and kill its president, without triggering the War Powers Act – and, further, that no state of war exists unless Americans are killed – told his Tuesday night audience that he opposes excessive presidential power. “This is especially true,” said Obama, with a straight face, “after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.”

In truth, it was the likelihood of rejection by American “people’s representatives” – just as British Prime Minister Cameron’s war plans were rejected by Parliament – that derailed Obama.

It took more than 1,500 words before Obama acknowledged the existence of the real world, in which he was compelled to “postpone” a congressional vote on the use of force while the U.S., Russia, China, France and Britain work on a UN resolution “requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control.” Syria has already agreed to the arrangement, in principle. Obama must bear, not only the bitter burden of defeat, but the humiliation of having to pretend that the UN route was his idea, all along.

Expect him back on the war track in no time flat. What else is an imperialist to do?

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].


President Drone Loses On Three Fronts

Our "intelligence" agents started the Syrian civil war two years ago. No bombing campaign means no control of Syrian air space. Therefore, the final result of this proxy war is:


  1. Assad remains in power, since he's already winning.
  2. The chemical weapons ruse can't be used to justify another push to war, because the weapons will be under the control of the UN.
  3. All future wars against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran will have embedded Russian military on the ground and (most importantly) in the air.


Poor Whites Need Black Friends

Grow the middle class?  Give it a "fat belly"?  Leave the upper class with a big head full of static ideas?  Starve the legs untill the whole form tips over?  I come here--a while male--wondering why Obama can't see this.  He doesn't even need to be elected again.  Is he "held against his will" or just plain sapped of ideas?  I just can't figure out why he can't speak to the growing calamity happening at the bottom rung of the economic system.  And...making war to cover and distract from the key issues? Is that why he put his Syria Plan on?  Just what is going on in this man's mind? People at the base of the system have lost hope...even for those raised in racist families, survival trumps race.  Thanks for being there for those poor white folks.

He is part of the global domination agenda

I honest to God believe Obama was planned. The nasty plutocrats got together at some Skull and Bones meeting and decided to find some desperate, power hungry guy who would look good to liberals and get him to run for President on a platform of change, tell them everything they wanted to hear, knowing full well they would embrace him and ignore the signs that were there all along. In public, the neocons fought him, created the tea party to hate him, riled up everyone to think they were against him, then laughed all the way to the bank. He’s been worse than Bush on just about everything except maybe gay marriage, but because of issues like gay marriage and the fact he told us all what we wanted to hear, we let him get away with it. He can see it; he's in on it, it's evident from every angle.

Superb analysis

of that pathetic, mendacious peformance.


There are a couple of quoted citations in this article that have no attribution. The one that concerns me most is this one:

“Obama’s handlers advised him that his political position was, for the time being, untenable.”

Who said this? Failure to provide a source for quoted text is utterly sub-standard journalism.

Understand, I am as big an opponent of Obama as you are. And for all the same reasons. I am also a supporter of your writing. But if your work isn't credible, you serve only to damage the cause.

Please provide sources for the quoted text in this article or I shall be forced to completely reassess your credibility.

Professionalism of Mr. Ford Questioned by a Careless Reader

The material of which you write was not quoted, thereby, it requred no attribution.  A little humility can do wonders for precision and validity of criticism, ya know?  Your comment can only result in your "credibility" being "reassessed" (for those into the whole "assessment" game).


WTF are you talking about?

Of course it was quoted. It's in quotation marks. In English, these are used to denote that someone said something. In journalism, when quotation marks are used, the  person or entity that is quoted is identified. This was not done here.

Two points


1. Putin/Russia couldn't give a shit about Assad/Syria -- 
2. and as I said would happen, the deals been cut. Russia is taking the credit as some kinda peace broker but in reality is overseeing the disarmement of Syria, setting it up nice so it's safe for the Cowboys to go in -- boots on the ground'n all.

Arabs are quivering bedwetting cowards. 

Never give up your weapons in a world run by gangsters. 

Call their bluff mothafucka -- they don't want this. White supremacy aka RUSSIA and EUMERICA are nothing more than a bunch of flabby pale faced fag ass bitch boys, who aint got the stomach for a war they can't win with PlayStation technology. 

Face them mofos down -- whatever will be, will be . . .

Btw -- what's with this negro shooter in Washington?

(he's negro, for me, until we have a clearer idea about what cause he did all that killing over).

Hope it's not another Manchurian candy ass deal.

Sheesh, I can't keep up with all the negros killing for everybody's cause but their own . . . Obama . . The Shoe Bomber, the Woolwich Killers . . . 

Bitch assness everywhere you look. 


What does Russia have to do with European Supremacy?

They lost 30 million people to win the world the second world war.  The Germans saw them as some mongrels who had to be exterminated.  Russians are SLAVS which comes from the world 'slave'.  Their President condemns the American President of Kenyan heritage for saying Americans are 'exceptional'.  Putin says that is very dangerous because Russia suffered under the German people who claimed to be 'exceptional' too.  Let's get this straight.  Russia does have an independent foreign policy.  The don't have AIPAC and others breathing down their necks telling them what to do.  Yes, they have their interests.  Syria is their interest; and I think they will defend it.  Why do you think they have sent 10 warships to the area.  Russia is called the bear for a reason.  A bear will not attack from one's back. It is becoming clear that fall of the Soviet Union was truly geo-political calamity.  Everybody now wants Russia to jump in and fight the west but no one was complaining when the West was surrounding Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia has to use every avenue in international law and diplomacy to hold off the dogs of war; but don't ever doubt it if Russia is pushed in a corner, it will defend itself; and it can.

lancel bb

J'ai foi que d'un discours de haine doit être protégé par la loi portant sur les droits étant donné que les gens se transportaient sur le chemin à d'autres personnes.Pas cher sac lancel en ligne Les voleurs estampillés sac lancel vente lancel disponibles leur flamme et cac dans des sac lancel pas cher Outlet un arbre de sortie lancel premier flirt de sac lancel pas cher, mais quand Widdowfield arrivés à cette scène, le gars a réalisé les cendres de la flamme ont été encore grésillant.Chantez les propriétaires de maisons closes prostituée C'est sac lancel réplique la "fleur", qui encore sac lancel sortie morrie ans Mbt Chaussures droit municipal, la errenzhuan exactement la même année? Même maintenant, n'a pas ne soldes lancel 2013 LiuLaoGen "étape" importante, maintenant il a des sac lancel pas cher de devenir un classique.Je personnellement manuel vous principalement en ce qui concerne les plus redresser à rester sac lancel pas cher en vente une carte de l'authenticité. sac lancel pas cher lancel bb réplique à vendre lancel bb réplique lancel bb réplique vendre à vendre "Ils essaient vraiment de trouver un moyen de la stocker, même si sac lancel aucune acquisition.Ici va, en termes de base: personnes platine est incontestablement x plus rare par rapport à bijoux.Pour un accès direct avec l'intérieur avec le sac lancel, ce sac lancel bb offre une grande ouverte fissuration.Rader mentionné entrevues pendant son dossier de condamnation.Une classe est souvent animée, dynamique et passionnant. D'autres divergences contiennent les différents sac lancel pas cher sac bb lancel qu'elle aurait transporté.Mais alors il ya quelques chanceux qui ont beaucoup d'argent à leur disposition. Être produit portefeuille lancel propriétaires de grosses sommes d'argent, et www.allviolinacademy.com la recherche de style s'attaquer à la priorité, ces divas aiment acheter des emballages de développement pour correspondre avec tous les vêtements qu'ils portent. sac mademoiselle adjani Ils pourraient ne pas être aussi riche que Paris Hilton, mais ils pourraient être sans aucun doute une partie du cercle mondain de haut niveau qui est présente dans chaque communauté. Et pour ces femmes, l'utilisation du sac lancel surmonter dès leur retour de la célébration pour laquelle il a été acheté.Ce sont ces femmes qui offrent alors une fois hors de leurs travailleurs uniquement lancel french flair violet des sac lancel pas cher en ligne. Pourquoi fontils cela pourrait avoir des raisons différentes peutêtre qu'ils veulent vraiment trouver quelque chose de bon de remboursement, peutêtre qu'ils veulent simplement nettoyer leurs placards, peutêtre qu'ils connaissent certaines crises financières et veulent résoudre par la commercialisation de toutes les choses de luxe. Mais ce sac premier flirt lancel que les gens comme nous doivent être troublé ne sont pas les bonnes raisons sur lesquelles ces femmes à commercialiser leurs sac lancel de marque de concepteur utilisés.