Obama melts down

Loading

obama not my fault

Maybe it’s jet lag.

Maybe it’s the sleeping pills.

Whatever. Barack Obama has melted down. Reality has slipped his grip like a wet salmon. Obama has always been one to take credit for everything (“I got Bin Laden”) and own everything (“my military”) yet never, ever take responsibility for anything. At his news conference in Sweden he said things that a rational person could never utter.

STEVE HOLLAND, REUTERS: Have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved? Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines? And were you able to enlist the support of the prime minister here for support in Syria?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That’s point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

The world set the red line? Which world is that??? Not this world. Let’s crank up the Wayback machine.

wayback

WaPo:

Obama issues Syria a ‘red line’ warning on chemical weapons

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus,” Obama said. “That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.”

That sounds very much to me like he set a red line.

Obama said Syria does not pose an imminent threat:

“We may not be directly imminently threatened by what’s taking place in a Kosovo or a Syria or a Rawanda in the short-term but our long-term national security will be impacted in a profound way and our humanity’s impacted in a profound way.”

Wait- what? That’s not what he’s been saying.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLkvuXsMnCs[/youtube]

Again, the Wayback machine:

In a speech at a 2002 anti-war rally, Obama, then an Illinois state senator, conceded that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was “a brutal man,” “a ruthless man,” “a man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.” He noted that the Iraqi dictator “has reeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.”

In short, there was no question that “the world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.” Still, Obama said, “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States.” Hence a U.S. invasion aimed at overthrowing him would be “a dumb war,” “a rash war,” “a war based not on reason but on passion.”

Notably, Saddam’s crimes against his own people included using chemical weapons against Kurds in northern Iraq, a campaign that killed some 5,000 men, women, and children. That murderous assault, in Obama’s view, did not justify U.S. intervention.

Today, by contrast, Obama says a sarin-gas attack that caused about 1,400 of the 100,000 deaths so far in Syria’s civil war demands an American response in the form of missiles aimed at President Bashar al-Assad’s forces. “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” Obama asked in a speech on Saturday. Presumably the same message he was willing to send when he opposed war with Iraq.

And BTW, his credibility is not on the line. Ours is.

“My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line and America and Congress’s credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”

Huh?

WASHINGTON (AP) — For more than a week, the White House had been barreling toward imminent military action against Syria. But President Barack Obama’s abrupt decision to instead ask Congress for permission left him with a high-risk gamble that could devastate his credibility if no action is ultimately taken in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack that crossed his own ‘‘red line.’’

The stunning reversal also raises questions about the president’s decisiveness and could embolden leaders in Syria, Iran, North Korea and elsewhere, leaving them with the impression of a U.S. president unwilling to back up his words with actions.

This is astonishing, even for Obama.

Let’s be very clear here. Obama blurted out the “red line” thing. Not the world. Obama put his credibility on the line- not ours. He is now desperate to drag us into something most Americans oppose. I do not believe it has to do with anything other than pulling his ass out of the fire alone. We have seen no compelling evidence for action. He has not made the case to the UN. Speaking which, the UN Secretary General said that any action by the US without UN approval would be illegal.

And that makes things very interesting.

Should the US act alone- is it an illegal act in the eyes of the world? What would that do to our credibility? Would Russia be justified in responding to such an illegality? Would Iran? Would Assad be justified in tossing some munitions at US bases in Iraq?

Hardly anyone supports action right now, especially in the absence of proof and has been posted here and here, there are a lot of doubts.

It is only fair for the rest of us to wallow in the same self-righteous indignation Senator Obama so enjoyed prior to sitting in the big chair.

It’s not so easy, is it?

This is about Obama’s ego more than anything else. I hope that liberals will finally catch on to this charlatan, this empty suit. If it’s the world’s problem, let the world take care of it. If the world set the red line, let them handle it. It can’t be our credibility on the line for something the world did.

It’s time to put on the big boy pants, Barack, and stop blaming everyone else. As you sow, you know….

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
276 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This man child, this brilliant narcissist, is a study for doctorial papers on the human failure to accept responsibility or live in reality.

His “credibility” is not on the line because he never had any to begin with……

little baby King thinskin obomba said, “I know you are but what am I?” PeeWee Herman must be proud. If PeeWee had a son, he would be obomba.

Over 1 million have already left Syria.
Today over 2 million Syrians are at the border with Lebanon and with Jordan, hoping to get out.
10,000 may get across per day into Lebanon.
But more are coming every hour.

Also, Abdeltawwab Shahrour, head of the forensic medicine committee in Aleppo, defected and had documents proving that a chemical weapons attack took place and eye-witness accounts from police authorities that contradicted the administration’s version of events.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-syria-crisis-defection-idUSBRE9820KN20130903

Also, Former Syrian Defence Minister General Ali Habib, a prominent member of President Bashar al-Assad’s Alawite sect, has defected and is now in Turkey, although Assad claims he’s still in Syria.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-syria-crisis-defection-idUSBRE9830O420130904

IF Obama’s war cry set all this in motion, it is both a good thing and a bad thing.
Yes, Assad’s regime is being weakened and proven to be filled with liars.
BUT Syria is losing all but their poorest people.
A brain drain is occurring.
IF the result is a new Islamist state where Syria used to be, those rich and/or smart will not be going back.
Syria will be, like Egypt became under the Muslim Brotherhood, an economic basket case and a magnet for jihadist trainees.

According to RCP, Obama’s approval rating has ticked up 0.4 since yesterday. Perhaps he should stay out of country. I’m sure the French would be more than happy to put him up for a spell.

Does anyone think that Obama is ever going to be responsible for his own words, spoken without a teleprompter? Nah. He’ll just continue to claim credit for “getting ObL” in spite of the fact that hundreds of our intel worked on trying to locate ObL long before he came into office. But if things in the Middle East really turn to crap because of his actions, he’ll be quick to tell us all “It’s Bush’s fault.”

Iranians are pouring into Syria to help the jihadists fighting Assad. There was no American troops in Iraq to stop them, or even slow them down. Obama has already bought Egypt and Libya. Now he wants to add Syria to the notches on his gun. Only one problem; it will be the American people, and our military, that pays the tab for his folly.

Syria has NO strategic advantage for us. None. It is a civil war with two fractions of Islam fighting each other and we are going to step right into the middle of a civil war where both sides was us dead.

“First of all, I didn’t set a red line.” Sounds to me like he’s laying the foundation for an insanity defense.

Cue up the Obama apologist’s. They’re sure to be along any minute now.

If the media would have done its job in 2007 and verified all of Obama’s papers and credentials he never would have gotten into office in the first place. If someone with the cajones would do it now, we could overturn every law he has signed and every appointment he has made. Let’s be clear, this is what happens when affirmative action is carried too far.

Then we could have an honest election.

Dems Udall of NM and Murphy of CT voted against Obama’s war resolution today.
There are apologists for Obama who have hit their limits.

Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That’s point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

What do we not understand about the nature of ratified international treaties? If the Chemical Weapons Convention isn’t a formally established red line, what is? What does the Constitution say about the status of U.S. Treaties?

Greg: What do we not understand about the nature of ratified international treaties? If the Chemical Weapons Convention isn’t a formally established red line, what is? What does the Constitution say about the status of U.S. Treaties?

Get serious. If they were so all fired bent on honoring the CWC, they’d follow the proper procedure. i.e. wait for the UN report, then go to the UNSC to debate and compile a coalition with other member nations of the OPCW – as defined in the agreement as to how to handle non member violations. Not act unilaterally with only Saudis, UAE, Qatar and Turkey at our side.

If your violation involves killing your civilian population with nerve gas, you should expect there to be consequences. A government has no fundamental right recognized by anyone to engage in such behavior.

First, there is no proof as to who used the CW since both are capable. Secondly, the CWC does not empower the US to be the arbiter, judge, jury and executioner of the CWC.

@Greg:

If the Chemical Weapons Convention isn’t a formally established red line, what is? What does the Constitution say about the status of U.S. Treaties?

And Syria is not a party to that convention. So why should they agree to anything the Narcissist in Chief wants?

@retire05, #11:

Are you suggesting that any nation that refuses to recognize a standard set by the international community and formalized by an international treaty that the United States is party to should feel completely free to disregard it, with no fear of consequence?

That’s simply not the way things work, under either international law or the U.S. Constitution.

If your violation involves killing your civilian population with nerve gas, you should expect there to be consequences. A government has no fundamental right recognized by anyone to engage in such behavior.

@Greg:

I am suggesting that Obama is about to throw us in World War III. If he is so worried about people dying, why aren’t we bombing Boko Haram?

Like all fools in the Democrat Party, you seem to be of the opinion that dying by chemical weapons is worse than dying by having your head removed from your shoulders. If Obama wants to bomb something, perhaps he could start in Mexico ferretting out the drug cartel headquarters? It’s not like enough people haven’t died in Mexico due to his lack of actions.

There are compelling reasons why nerve gas and other chemical war agents have been banned. If you can’t figure out why that is for yourself, I doubt if anyone can explain it to you.

@Greg: You’re bias is sickening. A treaty is an agreement between countries bound by honor. Syria signed no such agreement, and is free to act within it’s own country as it sees fit. If we don’t like it, fine: but call it what it is — the imposition of America’s will to affect the outcome we want. I’m not arguing for or against that, but this disease of non-intentionality is killing our country. If we go in, we do it because we chose to, not because of B.S. pretense of an implied legal imperative (as you suggesting).

If Syria attacked another nation, that lends more credence for a given nation to get involved. But that’s not what we have here. They’ve killed thousands, and the chemical weapon is heinous and should be lobbied against as it has been, but dead is dead. Why is Obama upset now? Because of the Chem weapons? I understand, but the bigger picture needs to be viewed.

Iraq was strategic, and a success. Some nation were against it, some supported it. Obama’s actions have no goal, and do not make any sense. Some nations support it, and some are against it. My how the table turns, and the mindless libs are now falling for all the lies that they accused those supporting Bush of falling for.

What goes around comes around, and it’s now be proven that the personality cult engineered by the left for the sole purpose of gaining and keeping votes is engendering the most ignorant American voices to date.

@Greg: But shooting kids is OK. If that happens, there’s not need to do anything.

Volition — it’s what gives a person honor and is worth supporting.

@Greg:

Dead is dead. And if the purpose it to prevent dictators from killing their own, then we will be going into a lot more counties than just Syria.

And what do we have in Syria? We have Assad loyalists killing Al Qaeda jihadists and vise versa. And you seem to think that is a bad thing.

@Nathan Blue, #15:

Syria signed no such agreement, and is free to act within it’s own country as it sees fit.

Would you have made the same argument, if Hitler had politely remained within Germany’s borders, and had set about sending the Jewish population to gas chambers only there?

Iraq was strategic, and a success.

This is not 2003. Syria is not Iraq. People keep telling me about Iraq. I’m tired of arguing about Iraq.

#16 & #17:

But shooting kids is OK. If that happens, there’s not need to do anything.

Innocent people get killed in all wars and the death of any innocent child is always tragic. There’s a difference, however, between being in the path of a random bullet or bomb blast, and being in an area that was targeted by nerve gas. Nerve gas, by its nature, is an indiscriminate killer that can’t be precisely aimed. Those who use it know they’re killing indiscriminately. They’re eradicating human beings without regard for their involvement or non-involvement in the conflict, in the same fashion someone would spray for insects. Even in the terrible context of warfare, this stands out as an outrage.

@Greg:
So you now support theinvasion of Iraq where many more people were killed by Saddam’s use of chemical weapons?

@Greg:
Of course you don’t want to talk about Iraq, because doing so clearly demonstrates leftist hypocrisy.

@Pete, #21:

What I think the difference between support for a full-scale land invasion of Iraq and support for a limited response in Syria represents is something else entirely. I’ve clearly stated my thoughts on that recently, however, as well as many times in the past, and don’t see much point in pursuing the argument like a hamster running for nowhere its little exercise wheel.

“It’s Bush’s fault,” has morphed into “It’s Congress’ fault.”

Where’s Alice in this rabbit hole?

I’m waiting for, “It’s the UN’s fault,” any day now and then, just down the road, “the World made me do it.”

@James Raider: Where’s Alice in this rabbit hole?

She’s taking a doobie break, JR. Let her enjoy the break.

On the other hand, this is a mess of GOP Congress, along with a Teflon Bill POTUS term. But if you evoke that as the reason, you must follow the rules they agreed to on behalf of this nation.

They aren’t…. Agreed upon conditions do not allow the US to act independent of the UNSC when non member states are involved, nor without fellow signatories.

@MataHarley

WTF is the big rush to bomb? What are they afraid might be found before they can act?? It’s too late to keep things from being hidden.

@drjohn, if you ask my honest opinion.. and you may not like it… I don’t think it has a thing to do with Obama, his legacy, the CWC, our credibility, or any of that bandied about crap.

What I think it has to do with is Saudi pressure. They are a major ally in the region, still the major supplier of our oil resource, and Syria is of *vast* importance to them. And that’s the reason that the only outspoken, unconditional allies consist of the Saudis, UAE, Qatar and Turkey. That should have been a clue to the “war for oil” crowd, but they just ain’t that bright.

Frankly, I think this is an under the table manufacturing of a reason to appease the Saudis. They want to wrench Syria away from Iran big time, and draw them back into the fold. Syria is not as religious partisan as so many might think historically (hence why Assad was considered a reformer… capitalism). Might burst the ODS bubble of some, but there you have it. Life is a lot bigger than Obama and his pathetic eight years. Oil and the US/Saudi relations? Forever… unless we become totally independent.

@MataHarley:

I still would like to know why the big rush. It is illogical to pre-empt the US and damned obvious.

I just told you, drj. I’ll try again.

Assad is winning. The Saudis don’t want Assad to win. They need the US to intervene. Any military distraction – even a token, casual bombing – takes Assad’s resources and attentions away from the Saudi allies (the rebels) in Syria.

Israel has bombed Syria twice recently. If Assad’s chem weapons are not destroyed there is a possibility/probability that they may be used against israel. Israel is backing the Saudi backed side. It is quite amusing to see how the extreme hate towards all things Obama will even take precedence over the right wing’s “love” of israel.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-defends-obamas-delay-on-syria-strike-20130902-2t19g.html
http://news.yahoo.com/insight-obama-blinks-syria-israel-saudis-common-cause-125250283.html
most of the posters here hate Obama more than they like Israel. No matter that he is doing israel’s bidding they will still hate him for hitting Assad’s chem weapons

john, you really should resist the impulse to speak. While it may be your 1st Amendment right, your lack of an overall perspective of all things ME is too readily apparent, and does you little good with your drive by one-liners. It’s why the bulk of us ignore you, despite your longevity here.

@MataHarley: #26

Battles for control over oil and gas fields around the world, and their delivery systems, have been responsible for most of the dead bodies created over the past fifty years.

The pressure from the Saudi camp is absolutely at play, but don’t dismiss Obama’s narcissism, which will energize his decision. And that is profoundly sad, particularly given the spread of fundamentalism which the Saudis have been responsible for, and which has caused us such extensive harm.

James Raider, you are placing too much emphasis on even, what I will agree with, Obama’s ego.. I understand the pressure Obama must be under to preserve the US-Saudi relations that will survive any Obama term. Not that it means I agree with compliance.

There isn’t much of an argument that Syria needs to return to less obligations to Iran. Even Russia/China/NK, for that matter. But the latter are an easier hurdle than Iran.

My point is, I understand the Saudi pressure and I don’t know what they are threatening Obama/US with. But I’m sure it’s something major. However even the Saudi pressure doesn’t justify intervention.

@Greg: I think you’re toeing the liberal line instead of giving me a real argument.

Yes, gas is bad. We don’t want people to use gas. If they do, the outrage is (appropriately) greater, and could spark action. I agree. The issue is that of context: We’ve been engaged in a few of these ME regime changes during the Obama years, and no one is sure what is going on. Who are we supporting? Who is the “enemy?” Did Assad even do this (probably)?

Context. And while you might like to take the easy way out and say “this is not 2003,” I’ll just counter with “this is not 1938.”

But you sidestepped the question. If a decision is made to go into Syria, it should be because we think it’s the right thing to do, not because a host of our “allies” said “go ahead! We’re cool with it!” That’s the junk that media lapped up in 2004 with Bush and Iraq. Bush was a real president, made real decisions with congress, and suffered when lib and rino cowards threw him under bus to save their seats. That’s a fact.

Obama is fumbling and it’s going to get a lot of people killed.

@Greg: Throwing bombs and missiles is a publicity stunt, not real act of intention. That’s the issue, and the reason I agreed with the Iraq War. If we want to impose our will on a country, then do it. “Pretend Wars” like Serbia, and now likely Syria, don’t do anything.

@john: @MataHarley: I’m convinced john is paid troll. They’re can’t be any other explanation for his posts.

@MataHarley:

I know he’s winning. That’s why the assertion that Assad would use sarin now makes zero sense.

With two of our enemies fighting each other on foreign soil – I say grab the popcorn and find a good seat to watch the show as a by-stander.

It’s clear that some people think they should be able to reprint an article, that was posted here by someone else days ago, and act as if they just stumbled on a jewel and want to let everyone know about it without giving accreditation to the person that actually brought it to the FA community attention. So here is another little tid-bit that someone can act like they found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lLP-F9XbNg

The Title? “More Gas Cylinders Mounted on Shells and Fired by FSA Terrorists against the Syrian Army.

Can someone email this YouTube video to the Administration since ZeroHedge reported that it is YouTube where this Administration seems to be getting its intel.

@Nathan Blue, john predates you on this forum by four years. Additionally he and I have, in the early part of that four years, corresponded off forum. He is a different voice – which I don’t mind. But I see no indication that he is a “paid” troll. Only that he is an inadequate spokesperson for his own theories due to youth/age and inexperience.

There’s a reason I said what I did to john. I’ve ignored him because he’s descended into absurdity instead of being curious enough about historical fact for his commentary. I’m not the only one that ignores him.

But I won’t put him into the “paid troll” category. Rather I will always hold out hope he might gain a curiousity for facts and history prior to picking political sides somewhere in the future when he gets older. If conservatives do not try to communicate with anyone but conservatives, it’s not only boring, but it’s a lost cause for future change.

~~~

@drjohn, don’t understand your response. I know you are aware of the complexity and vague “facts” surrounding this Syrian situation. But are you aware that you might as well replace the State of “Syria” with Iran/Russia/China/NK… then consider the equally determined opposition of US/Saudis/Turkey and know that this has little to do with Obama or the US at this point in time, but rather a larger long term battle for the heart of the ME control for a variety of reasons?

The US is likely just paying back favors… wrongly so.. to the Saudis here. It needs to be stopped. As well as our dependence upon the Saudis so this can’t happen again.

But in the meantime, the battle’s success depends upon pitting the US duped, politically oriented citizens – Obama’ites vs non Obama’ites – against each other in the lowest road possible. As long as they can depend upon the masses arguing about stupid, inconsequential shit, they will win. Because it’s all about a propaganda machine for a larger regional agenda, and none of it has to do with US local politics and leaders of the time. Ancient regimes have far more patience and perspective on longevity than the new and impatient America.

I mean, look around you… are the GOP and Dems arguing about NOT going in? Or arguing about how *big* they will go in? Allow me to say… “mission accomplished” in all caps.

It’s time to stop and take a stand. And oh, BTW, make sure we have enough domestic oil to support ourselves as part of the divorce, and repercussions for survival.

A secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012 shows that it would take 75,000 GROUND TROOPS to secure Syria’s chemical weapons facilities!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411885/Revealed-Pentagon-knew-2012-75-000-GROUND-TROOPS-secure-Syrias-chemical-weapons-facilities.html

So, Obama KNEW this, has promised no initial boots on the ground, has made ”what happens after the pinprick,” a secret and wanted an open-ended Congressional approval!

@MataHarley: #31

I don’t know what they are threatening Obama/US with. But I’m sure it’s something major. However even the Saudi pressure doesn’t justify intervention.

The cauldron boiling is cooking so many parties that we’ll never really know the details of the “threat” unless we’re in the room. Religion is a force, but greater forces include the pipeline contemplated to bring oil from the fields shared by Iran and Qatar which will feed Europe. Saudis, Putin, Iraq and Syria, along with Jordan and Turkey, are all in that pot and the broth stinks. Lots of pulling in different directions. Saudis want control over Syrian territory, which is currently under Iranian, Putin, Assad control with Qatar in the wings. Saudis vs Qatar, and with the seasoning from Shia vs Sunni fundamentalism, we have brew which would stimulate even Shakespeare’s imagination.

So, yes, oil independence should be one major National objective.

@proof: Proof, he has succeeded. #6

@MataHarley: He posts like a paid troll — I don’t care how long he’s been posting here.

@Nan G: When has Obama asked for open ended approval? He won’t ask and it certainly wouldn’t be approved.

@Greg: @Greg: Whoops, Greg:

What do we not understand about the nature of ratified international treaties? If the Chemical Weapons Convention isn’t a formally established red line, what is? What does the Constitution say about the status of U.S. Treaties?

I’d need to re-read this UN treaty, but I’m going to bet that IT DOES NOT say something like this. ” If al Qaeda forces seize the governments stocks of CW in Syria and use it to kill 1429 persons in Syria, it will be the responsibility of the United States of America to send ships, munitions, aircraft and military personnel and many many billions of dollars to Syria to attack these very same people and kill even more of them under the pretense that it is the sole responsibility of the US to police the World and unilaterally take action to enforce UN treaties that have been signed by 200 nations.”

Now Greg, if you have read the wording of that UN treaty and it does, in fact, say something similar that puts the sole responsibility on the US, please quote that section of the treaty to us.

@Redteam: Do you believe A.Q. stole Assad’s CW? Mata’s source posited A.Q was given CW by a mysterious Saudi Prince.
A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
Skooks Your thoughts??

Richard Wheeler: Do you believe A.Q. stole Assad’s CW? Mata’s source posited A.Q was given CW by a mysterious Saudi Prince.
A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

Yeah, Richard. We all know that there is only *one* possible CW that could be had by rebels, right? Therefore it was one or the other ONLY – either supplied by the Saudis, or stolen from Assad. LOL

Couldn’t possibly be rebels possess quite the variety of weaponry stashes, considering the acquisition of territories over the past year+ conflict, plus supply lines, right?

Richard… please. Addressing everyone as if they are dumber than dirt only makes you look that way. Easy pickin’s… Low ball responses like this show you’re a sitting duck in the backwoods county fair pond.

if the enemy of my enemy is my enemy, screw’um! If we kill and oppress them to keep them from killing each other. Isn’t that what the Shaw of Iran did, Assad does, Mubarak did, isn’t that what they all do? So how would we be better people by picking one evil group over the other.

@Nathan Blue, my apologies. I could have worded that better. My comment about john’s longevity here has to do with a more familiar contact with his past thru present self… altho he did go MIA for a while.

You’re certainly entitled to your perceptions of FA community participants. Just thought I’d advise you that he’s been around for quite some time. And I personally don’t write him off as a future convert over time. Most of us become more conservative as we get older. My guess is that he won’t be converted at the hands of those with preconceived notions tho.

@Richard Wheeler: When has Obama asked for open ended approval? He won’t ask and it certainly wouldn’t be approved.

Leaving aside what anyone wants to nitpick as the definition of “open ended, Obama did overreach in his AUMF, and that’s why they were rewritten by both Senate and House. So don’t play games, Richard.

Then again, it’s common bargaining technique to ask for the Sun, and accept the moon as the consolation middle ground. Either way, you are technically incorrect that Obama didn’t overstep his original request, which was corrected by House and Senate, Richard.

@Greg: @Greg: #14 There you go again. So, let me be sure that I get this straight Greg, if someone is going to kill you, you’d rather it be by blowing your legs off with an IED, or blowing off your arms , or cutting off your head or some other more humane method than you breathing one whiff of deadly gas and croaking. Is that what you’re saying? And, as I said, it IS NOT the responsibility of the US to enforce UN treaties, it is the business of the UN.

@retire05, #38:

The LP gas cylinder doesn’t indicate they’re launching nerve gas, which they most definitely are not doing. (No gas masks or protective gloves and clothing.) The LP gas cylinder is simply the container of an improvised explosive device. The orange smoke suggests the possibility of fertilizer mixed with fuel oil. What you see the narrator doing is inserting an impact detonator into an opening in the LP gas cylinder. If it contained liquid nerve agent, everyone in the video would likely be dead at that point.

What you’re looking at is propaganda from some Assad supporter, posted to YouTube for your edification.

1 2 3 6