A Stunning defeat!

BREAKING:

LONDON — British Prime Minister David Cameron has lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes, a stunning defeat for a government which had seemed days away from joining the U.S. in possible attacks to punish Bashar Assad’s regime over an alleged chemical weapons attack.

SEE ALSO: There goes the neighborhood: Mideast prepping for Syria spillover into all-out religious war

Thursday evening’s vote was nonbinding, but in practice the rejection of military strikes means Cameron’s hands are tied. In a terse statement to Parliament, Cameron said it was clear to him that the British people did not want to see military action.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/29/uks-cameron-loses-preliminary-vote-syria/#ixzz2dOmjdIRV

Syrian President Bashar Assad will pay for what he has done, it's just a matter of time.

Thank God we have a leader like President Obama who will see that it gets done right.

"Thank God we have a leader like President Obama who will see that it gets done right."

Didn't you mean, Thank allah?

This is “Cowboy Diplomacy”...

No, wait...

 

I wonder if the Brits felt this way because of how obama ignored the death of Margaret Thatcher.


Friends and allies of Baroness Thatcher expressed ‘surprise and disappointment’ last night as it emerged President Obama is not planning to send any serving member of his administration to her funeral.

Whitehall sources have revealed that the US delegation at tomorrow’s service in St Paul’s Cathedral will be led by two Reagan era secretaries of state: James Baker and George Shultz.

Though President Obama himself had not been expected to attend, there had been speculation that he would be represented either by Vice President Joe Biden or wife Michelle. However, the Obama administration had said it would not be attending Thatcher’s funeral before the Boston bombings.

The Queen’s decision to attend Lady Thatcher’s funeral has effectively elevated it to a state occasion unprecedented for a political figure in Britain since the death of Sir Winston Churchill in 1965.

Other world leaders, including Canada’s Stephen Harper, Mario Monti of Italy and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, are attending the service in person.

Your signature says: "Guess who elected obummer?" How come you can say offensive things about President Obama?

Oh I know why...because he is a Democrat...

Britain's House of Commons handed President Obama a big embarrassment Thursday by refusing to endorse joint military action with the U.S. against Syria.

But nobody in the White House should have been surprised, since Obama's relationship with America's closest ally has often been tenuous at best.

Obama first miffed British officials in February 2009, shortly after the president's inauguration, when he decided to make the Oval Office his own by removing the bust of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

The bust was loaned to America after the September 11, 2001, attacks. "The rejection of the bust has left some British officials nervously reading the runes to see how much influence the UK can wield with the new regime in Washington," the Telegraph reported at the time.

The British weren't too keen, either, on Obama's failure to accord the proper pomp and circumstance to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's March 2009 state visit. It was noted on Fleet Street that "Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister."

Then there were those "gifts" Obama gave Brown and the Queen (DVDs that didn't work in U.K. players and an iPod full of Obama speeches, respectively).

The DVDs, according to the Telegraph, "could have been bought from any High Street store, looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state." Ouch.

Then in May 2011, Obama "deeply offended" British scientists by not accepting an award for furthering scientific research in the U.S.

Britain also rejected Obama's purposeful categorization of the Falkland Islands as "the Maldives" in June 2012. Obama was supposed to say "Malvinas," which is what the Argentine government calls the islands, even though they are a British possession. "This is a position that Britain views as completely unacceptable, and with good reason," wrote the Telegraph.

It should be remembered that nearly 450 British troops have died in the war in Afghanistan. Add that fact to Obama's snubs and it's a little easier to put that vote in Parliament in context.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/britains-syria-vote-not-its-first-obama-rejection/article/2534956

Who cares what the Brits do or think.  The only ones who care are the "Hate America Clan".

Syria will be introduced to the most advanced Tomahawks which can fly fly at 550 mph, have GPS, onboard digital maps, video cameras, two-way satellite links and a navigation system that allows them to loiter over an area and wait for their targets to pop up. That's in addition to the 1,000-pound bomb each Tomahawk typically carries.

Then a few remote-controlled drones will hit them when they least expect it.

Sleep tight my little Syrian gas bags...no pun intended.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Britain is most likely war shy after the debacle in Iraq. It was Tony Blair, not Bush, who sold the invasion to us, and it's a shame that Bush and Cheney suckered Blair into supporting us. I'm sure the Brits are still feeling the sting from that one, and I don't blame them.

Donzel wrote:Who cares what the Brits do or think.  The only ones who care are the "Hate America Clan".

Syria will be introduced to the most advanced Tomahawks which can fly fly at 550 mph, have GPS, onboard digital maps, video cameras, two-way satellite links and a navigation system that allows them to loiter over an area and wait for their targets to pop up. That's in addition to the 1,000-pound bomb each Tomahawk typically carries.

Then a few remote-controlled drones will hit them when they least expect it.

Sleep tight my little Syrian gas bags...no pun intended.

What's that you say??? You mean Obama won't lie us into a protracted needless war that only benefits defense contractors like Halliburton subsidiaries such as Kellogg Brown & Root?

CHARLOTTE, September 1, 2013 — Whether the United States should lob cruise missiles into Syria is a subject for debate, but a more disturbing problem has surfaced as a result of that controversy.

Does Barack Obama have the personal capacity to address the magnitude of a war-time office?

The situation is critical. Not only does it affect the security of the United States but also the entire international community. The president’s inability to cope with the duties of his position are approaching a dangerous threshold of ineptitude the world can ill afford.

Obama’s words remain confident, but they are empty. His deeds, however, reflect a frightened man overwhelmed by indecision.

To some playing a round of golf with the vice president following a major foreign policy announcement is cool. A more honest evaluation is that the president is incapable of facing the challenges before him. The golf course is a refuge.

Early in his administration, Obama’s golf outings and fund raisers appeared arrogant and out of touch. As the world has become more dangerous, largely on the president’s watch, escaping to the golf course may be a sign of growing emotional and mental insecurity.

President Obama took to the Rose Garden microphone Saturday to state his position for a strike against Syria.

Despite his “personal” declaration to move forward, the president will now seek congressional authority to proceed.

In other words, Mr. Obama is gambling that congress will vote “no” and make the decision he really wants for him. Which he can then declare the partisanship in Washington is the root of all our ills.

With congress due back in Washington on September 9, the president is buying time to allow the rationale for a military strike to dissipate and, in the process, conceal his ineptitude.

Obama’s decision is not that of a wise and thoughtful commander in chief. Rather it is a calculated, devious, self-serving manipulation of political power disguised as leadership.

More troubling, however, is that it is indicative of a man paralyzed by weakness who is out of touch with reality.

John Bolton, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, says American credibility will return in three years when we get a “real” president in the White House.

Sending Kerry to do something the president should have done himself is demonstrative of Obama’s methodology. The president made Kerry look foolish and, in the process, he also made a fool of himself. Unfortunately, the president was oblivious to it.

What Mr. Obama did to John Kerry was not delegation. It was abrogation

The power of the presidency has shrouded President Obama within a cocoon of irrationality. It has become a personal tool to insulate him from any aspect of the job he may dislike, regardless of cost.  

For now we get ten more days of media speculation followed by added speculation. The panoramic parade of talking heads will continue across our television screens pontificating opinions without solutions.

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/political-potpourri/2013/sep/1/barack-no-bomb-and-foreign-policy-weakness/#ixzz2djqyXwYt

Exactly!!!!!!!!!