President Obama Waives Ban On Arming Terrorist Groups So He Can Arm Syrian Rebels….

Riddle Me This:

If the Syrian “Rebels” are not *TERRORISTS* then why does President Obama need to provide a Terrorist Waiver for the ‘Armed Control Export Act’ to provide them weapons?

Obama syriaWASHINGTON DC – President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to “vetted” opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, which was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., in 2001. Assad’s regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah.

The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would “waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction.”

Those two sections prohibit sending weaponry to countries described in section 40(d): “The prohibitions contained in this section apply with respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism,” Congress stated in the Arms Control Export Act.  (continue reading)

Obama war on syria

This entry was posted in CIA, Clinton(s), Dear Leader - Creepy POTUS Worship, Decepticons, Dem Hypocrisy, European Union, Islam, Israel, Jihad, media bias, Russia, Secretary of State, Susan Rice, Syria, Terrorist Attacks, Turkey, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, United Nations. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to President Obama Waives Ban On Arming Terrorist Groups So He Can Arm Syrian Rebels….

  1. myopiafree says:

    I thought the Islamic party killed four people in Libya, including our Ambassador. Why is the Islamic party in Syria not a terrorist group? Please Mr. Obama, explain that one. Try to not use the word, “trust me” or your “crystal ball”. Thanks!


  2. lovemygirl says:

    Why am I not comforted by the following statement?

    “Our intelligence agencies, I think, have a very good handle on who to support and who not to support,” Corker said. “And there’s going to be mistakes. We understand some people are going to get arms that should not be getting arms. But we still should be doing everything we can to support the free Syrian opposition.”

    If Obama realized he had to sign the waiver to legally transfer the weapons then he knows full well that he is arming the “bad guys”.


  3. d'hack says:

    So, Obama will waive a law (can he do that?) to allow him to arm Al Queda, and disregard the Constitution in his quest to disarm the American people…what gives? Is there no one in Congress willing to stop him?

    And at the same time illegals/prisoners are being released from our prisons??? God help us!!


  4. There’s no riddle about this at all. BHO is arming our enemies, consciously and purposefully.

    Facts, experience, and history indicate that I am right. It’s up to him, or any of the quislings in Congress, to prove me wrong.

    It is worse than a rogue government. It is an enemy government. The sooner we get that through our heads, the better.


  5. Bogey says:

    Consider this:

    Obama filed a waiver to allow the US to arm terrorist connected foreigners with state of the art weapons, none of which will receive a background check, many of whom will use them to kill innocent civilians then turned around and told his AG to block the re-importation of rifles, that would be sold to Americans with a clean background check, for use in hunting and target shooting.

    This is too absurd of a scenario for anyone not insane to accept.


  6. sundance says:

    If anyone finds a reconciling explanation for the question please provide a link or citation for an explanation.

    {This is, assuming of course, that someone actually asks an official type person to explain}


    • “The law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he “determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States.”

      Obviously, he will claim, as he has all along, that it is in the interest of “national security” to arm the opposition. Morrel basically said this in his interview on 60 minutes and he has been advising the Administration on how to proceed in Syria.


  7. LittleLaughter says:

    This will end badly for us.


  8. John Galt says:

    Left wing atheist speaks about Zero: (you will be surprised)


  9. Debbie Quick says:

    Here’s the best article on percentages of bad guys that I’ve read so far. It just shows how confusing the whole situation is. IMO how one group can keep weapons away from another group will probably be impossible.


  10. dws says:

    Thanks for posting this.


  11. Pingback: Do the United States of Obama even have a Foreign Policy? | danmillerinpanama

  12. flaladybug says:

    Have NONE of these people watched the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War”??? You would think our Government would EVENTUALLY learn…..but I am convinced that tree bark has a higher learning curve than these people!!!


  13. jizmo3 says:

    What a firebrand! If she wasn’t an atheist I could see her waving our flag at the battle of Concord. Hell I don’t care if she is an atheist. Right or left we need more people with spines. What is that womans name?????


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s