What If Bombing Helps Rebel Terrorists? What If Hypocrite Obama Starts World War III?

todayAugust 29, 2013 2

share close

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Wouldn’t that just be par for the proverbial course?  You lob a couple hundred cruise missiles into Syria, you blow things to kingdom come, you have international outcry and outrage expressed by those that suffer the collateral damage, and you have the Russians now dragged into a scenario that could lead to another world war, of all things.  What a wonderful thing this would be to do.  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…


Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Leon Hadar, who I believe writes at The National Interest, says: “Syria is Not Kosovo – But the alliance of liberal internationalist and neoconservative ‘experts’ is back,” meaning you don’t have one or two different people.  You have all kinds of varying people here.

What Lincoln Killed flyer
Hear the story of the United States AFTER the Constitution like you’ve never heard it before


As President Obama replaced members of his foreign policy and national security team at the start of his second term, I made the case here that the selection of liberal-internationalist heavyweights Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and John Kerry as chief diplomats signaled a “willingness on the part of the White House to reassess its strategy in Syria and to allow Power more influence in drawing up an activist approach that would resemble the U.S. military interventions in the former Yugoslavia under President Bill Clinton and more recently in Libya under Obama.”

article-v-pamphlet-adIndeed, against the backdrop of planned U.S. military strikes against Syria in retaliation for that regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons against its own citizens, it seems that America will almost inevitably be dragged into civil war. As retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni told the Washington Post, “The one thing we should learn is that you can’t get a little bit pregnant.”

Even a “surgical” American strike in Syria would induce regional and international momentum, with targets of the U.S. pledging retaliation and rebel forces lobbying for greater American involvement [Mike: Again, who makes up the bulk of rebel forces? Terrorists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda-types. Why in God’s name would we want to ally with these people?] “If you do a one-and-done and say you’re going to repeat it if unacceptable things happen, you might find these people keep doing unacceptable things,” Zinni added. “It will suck you in.”

[end reading]

Mike Church Show Transcript – The Founding Fathers Denied The British Empire To Form The U.S. – Who Will Deny The American Empire?

Mike:  Wouldn’t that just be par for the proverbial course?  You lob a couple hundred cruise missiles into Syria, you blow things to kingdom come, you have international outcry and outrage expressed by those that suffer the collateral damage, and you have the Russians now dragged into a scenario that could lead to another world war, of all things.  What a wonderful thing this would be to do.  Let’s say Obama said: Aircraft carriers, back off.  Then the rebels, who I believe will ultimately be held and found to be culpable for the detonation of that chemical weapon — I might be wrong, but I believe that’s what the UN inspectors will ultimately determine and find out.  Then coincidentally on cue, another chemical weapon strike. Boy, that Bashar al-Assad guy is a real dummy.  Obama told him that if there were no more chemical weapon strikes, there would be no more Tomahawks.  Lo and behold, there’s another chemical weapons detonation.  What an imbecile, or is he?  Or would you be witnessing then more proof that the weapons were actually used by forces who would benefit from it?

For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!
[private FP-Yearly|FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly-WLK]

I often refer to one of my favorite films — and yes, I know it’s vulgar and I probably shouldn’t watch it but I do — The Big Lebowski.  There is a scene in the movie where Jeff Bridges is trying to tell – I probably have the tape of it but it’s filled with obscenities.  There’s a scene where they’re trying to figure out who kidnapped Bunny Lebowski.  Jeff Bridges is telling John Goodman’s character, Walter Sobchak, he’s telling him, [mocking Lebowski] “You know, man, it’s like what Lenin said.”  Then Steve Buscemi, who plays the lovable Donny, is going, “I am the walrus.  I am the walrus.”  Bridges is going, “Yeah, you look for who would benefit, man.  You follow the money.”  Then John Goodman screams, “V.I. Lenin, Donny, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov!”

republican-shirt-ifyouhavetoask1Follow the money.  Who benefits from that weapon being detonated?  It’s undeniable who benefits from that weapon being detonated, and it certainly is not the Assad regime.  I know the Israelis say they have this intercept here and some unidentified Syrian commander is on the intercept screaming and hollering about: Who set that bomb off?  Who set that bomb off?  If you’re in a court of law, you might say the Syrian commander is going: Uh, you weren’t supposed to do that, why did you do that?  Instead it’s: Bashar said you’re supposed to set it off on block C13, you idiot.  You set it off on C10.  That’s how it’s being played, they put it in the wrong place.  You don’t know that.  Besides the fact, you’re never going to actually hear that intercept, ever.

Why is all this happening and why is it happening now?  Why have the decepticons led by Bill Kristol and the like suddenly reemerged?  And what about what President Obama and Vice President Joey Biden used to say about intervening in other countries’ internecine affairs when they were either candidates or members of the United States Senate?  W. James Antle, III informs us of this in the pages of The Daily Caller today.



“The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” candidate Obama told The Boston Globe in 2007. He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense. It’s always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

[end reading]

Mike:  No, it’s not preferable, it is required.  That was the other thing that was driving me crazy on the alleged conservative network that is Fox News yesterday as I heard anchor after anchor after star talent after star talent regurgitate the following line, and I’m paraphrasing, [mocking] “The only thing standing in between a unilateral military strike in Syria is President Obama’s decision.  We are awaiting President Obama’s decision to see if there’s going to be military strikes in Syria.”  No, what you should be awaiting is Congress’s decision.  Obama can’t do this, only Congress can do this.  Why oh why weren’t the “conservatives” on that particular network reminding me and the viewers of that?

Mike Church Show Transcript – A Rose Is A Rose . . . Nationalism Is Nationalism


Vice President Joe Biden, who voted for the Iraq War, agreed with Obama.

“The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war… unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” Biden said in 2007.

Biden, then a Democratic senator from Delaware, suggested presidential war-making was an impeachable offense.

This was not a new position for Biden. He delivered a speech before the Senate outlining Congress’ powers to declare war back in 1998.

“Given this,” Biden said at the time, “the only logical conclusion is that the framers intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.”

magnificent samObama and Biden aren’t the only administration officials whose past comments will be parsed if strikes are ordered on Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry suggested the Syrian government would have to answer for the “moral obscenity” of chemical weapons use, while Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said troops are “ready to go” to Syria at the president’s command.

But in 2008, Kerry and Hagel, then U.S. senators, co-authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “It’s Time to Talk to Syria.”

“Syria’s leaders have always made cold calculations in the name of self-preservation, and history shows that intensive diplomacy can pay off,” Kerry and Hagel wrote.

“The ultimate challenge — moving Syria away from its marriage of convenience with Iran — will certainly not happen overnight,” they continued. “But it’s telling that Iran lobbied Syria not to negotiate with Israel and that Syria decided to proceed regardless.”

The senators urged Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and President George W. Bush to emulate their fathers’ cooperation during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Founders TV – We Want Regime Change! When Do We Want It? When Obama Says So!

“While many doubt Syria’s intentions, we have real leverage and some inducements that have more value to Syria than cost to us,” Hagel and Kerry wrote. “There is no guarantee of an agreement, but the potential payoff is huge, and our current policy is failing.”

Kerry and Hagel both voted for the Iraq War, which they subsequently opposed.

“We must move beyond the mindset of perpetual war,” President Obama said in Berlin in June.

[end reading]

End Mike Church Show Transcript



Print Friendly, PDF & Email
author avatar

Written by: AbbyMcGinnis

Rate it

Post comments (0)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x