Consider that this came fro aDemocrat group!
June 21st, 2014 • 8:25 PM
More Evidence of Saudi/Obama cooperation in Funding, Training, and Arming ISIS
In two articles written by Aaron Klein and published by WND.com entitled "Saudis Arming Jihadists Seizing Iraqi Cities"  and "Blowback! U.S. Trained ISIS at Secret Jordan Base,"  Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's charge that ISIS is funded and supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been fully confirmed. But more than that, Klein's articles, and another article published by WND.com by F. Michael Maloof entitled "Source: Besieged Iraq Sees Obama As Jihad 'Accomplice,'"  establish beyond doubt that Obama has been complicit with the Saudis in this terrorist endeavor.
Time to Impeach him
In the first of the above articles, Klein reports that sources from the Jordanian and Syrian regimes report that the Saudis "are a driving force in supporting the group called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS."
In the second article, Klein reports that informed Jordanian officials told him that members of ISIS "were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan. The officials said dozens of ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria."
On Feb. 24, 2012, Klein reported in an article entitled "Mideast War in March?"  that the United States, Turkey, and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern desert region, and that Saudi Arabia was sending weapons to the rebels. That report was confirmed by an article in Der Spiegel on March 10, 2013 titled "Americans Are Training Syria Rebels in Jordan," which reported that "Saudi Arabia and Qatar are widely believed to be providing weapons to the rebels." The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry. The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.
Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported on March 8, 2013 in an article titled "West Training Syrian Rebels in Jordan,"  that U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.
Klein also reports in the aforementioned "Blowback!"  article, that ISIS has received training in Turkey. At least one of the training camps for ISIS is in the vicinity of Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey, where American personnel and equipment are located. According to Klein's sources, after training in Turkey, thousands of ISIS fighters went to Iraq by way of Syria.
In the aforementioned article published by WND.com on June 16, 2014 titled "Besieged Iraq Sees Obama As Jihad 'Accomplice,'"  author F. Michael Maloof writes that Saudi Arabia "paid some $3 billion to the jihadist group to overthrow Maliki."
Having been complicit with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey in funding, training, and arming ISIS, Obama is now engaged in an effort to effect regime change in Iraq by ousting Maliki.
In doing so, he now claims that he can take military action in Iraq without Congressional consent in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. After having said that he would not deploy boots on the ground, he has now deployed 275 combat-equipped troops to Baghdad, ostensibly to protect U.S. citizens and property in connection with the U.S. embassy, and a special operations team of 300 military advisors to Iraq to coordinate potential air strikes and to provide tactical advice to Iraqi commanders. Enough is enough! It is time to impeach Obama now!
Obama: "Your Presidency Is Over," Latest NBC Poll Shows
Commenting on the results of the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll which shows Barack Obama with the lowest foreign policy rating in the poll's history, NBC's White House correspondent Chuck Todd told the Morning Joe program on June 18 that
Disaster for the President
"this poll is a disaster for the President.... You look at the presidency here: lowest job rating, tied for the lowest; lowest on foreign policy. His administration is seen as less competent than the Bush Administration.... Then on the issue of 'do you believe you can still lead?' and a majority believe not. Essentially the public is saying 'Your Presidency is over' by saying a number like that. Fifty-four percent saying he no longer has the ability to lead and solve problems.
Obama Is Violating Constitution, War Powers Resolution with Iraq
As Barack Obama announced to the world that he does not have to seek Congressional authorization to deploy troops to Iraq, and therefore does not intend to do so, a number of voices have denounced his action as in violation of both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.
Voices of Reason
Former Rep. Paul Findley, who was a key author of the War Powers Resolution and a leader in securing its enactment by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon, said on Thursday: "Just as with threats to attack Syria last year, an attack on Iraq would violate the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. As with any President, he [President Obama] commits an impeachable offense if he does not follow the Constitution."
Marjorie Cohn, a former president of the National Lawyers Guild, stated: "Under the War Powers Resolution, the President can introduce U.S. troops into hostilities, or into situations 'where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,' only after (1) a Congressional declaration of war, (2) 'specific statutory authorization,' or (3) in 'a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.' This is the current situation: First, Congress has not declared war. Second, neither the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) (which Bush used to invade Iraq), nor the 2001 AUMF (which Bush used to invade Afghanistan), would provide a legal basis for an attack on Iraq at the present time. Third, there has been no attack on the United States or U.S. armed forces. Moreover, the UN Charter only allows a military attack on another country in the case of self-defense or when the UN Security Council authorizes it; neither is the case at the present time."
Finally, Francis Boyle, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, stated: "This could escalate in any number of ways—exactly what the War Powers Resolution was supposed to stop. It's not legitimate for the President—or members of Congress—to make arrangements that violate the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. Obama just stated that the 300 U.S. troops would be doing training, but CNN reports his spokesperson Jay Carney stated they would also 'provide airfield management security and logistic support.' Does this mean that they will become the required forward air controllers for the targeted and precise military action that Obama says he is preparing? If the U.S. is going to target ISIS, will it be limited to Iraq or will it eventually go into Syria?"
Open Congressional Revolt Against Obama, Bush-Cheney War Policy
An array of bipartisan amendments to the 2015 Department of Defense Appropriations bill were voted on Thursday in the House of Representatives, all of which proposed curbing the power of the President to wage war on Iraq and Syria, and implicitly on other nations.
While not all the amendments passed, in total they represent a stunning bipartisan revolt by House members against the Bush-Cheney war policy which Barack Obama has continued at the behest of the British Queen, otherwise known as Satan.
An amendment proposing to prohibit weapons transfer to Syrian rebels, introduced by Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), did not pass, but one introduced by Michigan Democrat John Conyers and Florida Republican Ted Yoho, prohibiting the transfer of man- portable defense systems (MANPADs) to Syria, passed by a voice vote. Reflecting the same motion was the bipartisan, veto-proof amendment, approved 293-123, introduced by Kentucky Rep. Thomas Masssie, curbing NSA and CIA surveillance.
Of particular note were the four amendments introduced by California Democrat Barbara Lee, in her capacity as the Congressional Progressive Caucus's Peace and Security Task Force Chair:
* The amendment to block all funding for ground troops in Iraq, while allowing the sending of advisors for training purposes, failed by a vote of 165-250; but a large contingent of 142 Democrats supported Lee, and many of the 23 Republicans who sided with her belong to the anti-war faction which has been consistently briefed by LaRouche PAC.
"We must not let history repeat itself in Iraq. This is a sectarian war with long-standing roots that were flamed, unfortunately, when we invaded Iraq in 2003," Lee stated. She was supported from the floor by Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) and Janice Hahn (D-Calif.).
* The amendment to prohibit funding pursuant to the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Iraq, failed by a vote of 182-231, but had the support of 151 Democrats and 31 anti-war Republicans. As truthout.org pointed out yesterday, the 182 wasn't a majority of the members voting, "but it is similar to the number of Members of the House—192—who urged President Obama to come to Congress for authorization before bombing Syria last August." Among the 151 Democrats—81% of the Democrats voting—were House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. "By voting yes on Rep. Lee's amendment, these Members of the House affirmed that they oppose invocation of the Iraq AUMF to justify U.S. military action in Iraq today," truthout noted.
* The amendment to prohibit the use of force pursuant to the 2001 AUMF, failed by 157-260, as did the one prohibiting funding for operations in Afghanistan.
"The President Has No Mandate to Bomb Iraq or Syria"
The above is the headline on a truthout.org article from late yesterday afternoon, driving home Obama's stunning defeat at the hands of large numbers of the House of Representatives, who aren't willing to give him the authority to bomb Iraq or Syria into oblivion.
'Contravention of the War Powers Resolution
Of note: an amendment by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) prohibiting the transfer of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADs) to Syrian rebels passed yesterday evening by a voice vote. In his arguments, Conyers pointed to media reports that MANPADs could end up in the hands of terrorists who would use them against Western targets, especially against airliners.
In early June, nineteen congressmen from both parties had signed a letter to Obama, warning him that providing these "potent and easy-to-use anti-aircraft missiles in an unstable war zone is fraught with risk."
An amendment introduced by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), which would have blocked all U.S. weaponry for Syrian rebels, failed to pass by a vote of 167 to 244, although an earlier amendment with much the same content, lost by a much smaller margin.
Also passing by voice vote June 19 was the amendment by Democratic Rep. Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. It states that none of the funds made available in the Defense Appropriations bill "may be used with respect to Iraq in contravention of the War Powers Resolution ... including for the introduction of United States forces into hostilities in Iraq, into situations in Iraq where imminent where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, or into Iraqi territory, airspace, or waters while equipped for combat, in contravention of the congressional consultation and reporting requirements of sections 3 and 4 of such Resolution."
Hanabusa's amendment was firmly backed by California Democrat John Garamendi, who told ravallirepublic.com that "there are many people in the House of Representatives who are deeply concerned about the slippery slope that we are apparently about to step on."
Obama Aims at Another Regime Change in Iraq
President Obama has told the Iraqis that it wants them to form a new government without Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the London Independent and the Wall Street Journal reported on June 19. The report has not been denied.
In fact, it had already been launched by Secretary of State John Kerry on June 16 in this exchange with reporter Katie Kouric:
QUESTION: "Some are suggesting that Maliki should resign." SECRETARY KERRY: "Well, that's up to the Iraqi people and its up to the government formation process. I don't think the United States should be issuing instructions or orders. I don't think any country should. But I think we can—" QUESTION: "But could that be further destabilizing?" SECRETARY KERRY: "—but I think we should work—it depends, not necessarily at all. If there is a clear successor, if the results of the election are respected, if people come together with the cohesiveness necessary to build a legitimate government that puts the reforms in place that people want, that might wind up being very salutatory. I think its up to the Iraqi political process to work that."
Iraq held parliamentary elections on April 30, with 60% turnout, so Maliki's government is now in caretaker status until a new one is formed. Maliki's coalition won a plurality of seats, 92 out of 328. His party will be the first to be asked to form a new government, and he is in a strong position to keep his job. But Obama wants to prevent that in favor of another "regime change" in Iraq. Indeed, Kerry's tour of the area has the objective of arranging Maliki's replacement, both with Iraqis and with other governments in Southwest Asia and Europe.