Reply With Quote
McCain: Syria 'no' vote would be 'catastrophic'
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ote-96170.html
McCain: Syria 'no' vote would be 'catastrophic'
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ote-96170.html
So you think that the Israelis and Saudis are together controlling the USA? Where is the Illuminati in all of this?genocidal maniacs.
the only genocidal maniacs are the Bush including the adoptive Saudi son Bandar Bush Bin Satan
USA is nothing but a puppet of the Saudi-Israeli coalition
"Saudi is on board with the attacks" - John Kerry
they won't even let US refuel or take off their jets from Saudi
Still hyping that yet-another thoroughly debunked Repug fabricated scandal?
IRS targeted only right-wing fraudulent groups?
MSM this weekend and on Monday's Morning Joe is REALLY PUSHING for bombing Syria.
like "Obama put the country in a corner",
US, Obama credibility (aka "honor") at stake if murderous "Imperial USA #1" DOESN'T bomb Syria
etc, etc, etc, just endless bull .
Pretty much the same spineless and chicken groupthink that the MSM herd spewed instead of REALLY exposing the LIES and bullying the Repugs used to invade Iraq-for-oil.
right-wingers here trashing Obama if USA bombs Syria, or if it doesn't, yawn.
Watch the hard-core, blood-thirsty Repug neocons vote against bombing just because Obama proposed it.
After absolutely INSISTING on a Congressional vote, they will now frame it as a defeat for Obama (but it will be a WIN for the gas bombers) rather than as a victory for checks-and-balance (really a defeat for dichhead's unCons utional "unitary executive" as Emperor beyond check-and-balances).
Remember the dubya/ head Repugs said the Global War on Terrorism was open-ended so the President has open-ended right to wage war.
Obviously, gassing in a civil war is a TERRORIST act (but even K-12 students in USA get charged with terrorism by ignorant ing cops).
Make it as simplistic as possible...
the only genocidal maniacs are the Bush including the adoptive Saudi son Bandar Bush Bin Satan
USA is nothing but a puppet of the Saudi-Israeli coalition
"Saudi is on board with the attacks" - John Kerry
they won't even let US refuel or take off their jets from Saudi
Israeli-Saudi coalition... While I'm sure they have some mutual interests, this is hilarious in a sick sorta way.
Why many Republicans won't support Obama on Syria attack
BY BYRON YORK | SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 AT 7:59 PM
Early signs say it will be hard for President Obama to win congressional authorization for military action in Syria. That could change; lawmakers might re-write the president's draft authorization into something they can live with, ultimately allowing Obama to go forward. But whatever happens, Republicans have a compelling case for rejecting the president's request. Based on off-the-record conversations with some of them, this is it:
1) The chemical weapons evidence. The Obama administration appears to believe that conclusive proof that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against Syrian civilians creates an unassailable case for U.S. intervention. A few lawmakers will likely challenge whether the proof is really conclusive. But a far larger number will accept the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons -- and still reject intervention.
Sign Up for the Byron York newsletter!
Those lawmakers will argue that Obama did not intervene when Assad used conventional weapons to slaughter thousands of innocent people; the death toll in the two-and-and-half-year civil war is put at 100,000. What is different now? They will also point to the various atrocities and human rights violations around the world in which the United States has not intervened. American involvement, they will argue, should be contingent on a genuine U.S. national security interest, not the simple fact that an awful thing has been done.
2) The blank check problem. Lots of lawmakers, Republican and Democrat, believe Obama's draft resolution gives the president too much power. The draft would grant Obama the authority to use armed force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in connection with weapons of mass destruction in Syria, for the purpose of preventing the future use or spread of those weapons, or, more generally, protecting the U.S. and its allies.
For many lawmakers, that's too broad a mandate. But a significant number of members might reject even a narrowed version of the resolution on the grounds that, once the use of force is authorized, Congress as a practical matter will have little control over how the president exercises it.
3) The nature of the Syrian opposition. Many Republicans will never be convinced the U.S. can come to the aid of good rebels in Syria without also helping bad rebels in Syria. It's just too complicated, they believe, and there are simply too many bad guys. Why risk aiding al Qaeda or its affiliates? These Republicans remain unconvinced by arguments from fellow GOP lawmakers like John McCain, who point out that in the Libyan operation the U.S. essentially set up a safe area for good rebels in Benghazi. Given what happened later in that Libyan city, the skeptics will remain unconvinced.
4) The lack of confidence in Barack Obama. There's no doubt the president has been extremely reluctant to take action in Syria. He also showed terrible judgment by painting himself into a corner with his 2012 "red line" comments on chemical weapons. For those reasons, and more, some Republicans will argue that they simply cannot entrust special warmaking powers to a president who they believe is not competent to use them.
5) The "first to die" dilemma. Some Republicans are so war-weary that they would be loathe to authorize any military action in the absence of an actual attack on the United States. When Sen. Rand Paul re-phrased John Kerry's words from Vietnam -- Kerry famously asked, "How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?" which Paul changed to "How do you ask a man to be the first to die for a mistake?" -- the senator from Kentucky was signaling that there is virtually no way lawmakers like him will ever support a Syrian initiative.
How many Republicans hold some or all of these beliefs? Quite a few. Perhaps in anticipation of a close vote, a new argument is circulating among pro-interventionists which says that protecting the prerogatives of future presidents is so important that Republicans should support Obama's Syrian action even if there is no good case for doing so.
Rejecting Obama could permanently weaken the presidency, argues political scientist James Ceaser in an article cited by influential conservative commentator William Kristol. Therefore, Republicans should vote to authorize force "even if they think that the president’s policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks…even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and…even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment."
That will be a very hard sell for Republicans. In the end, many will carefully consider all the evidence and then vote their instincts. And that will mean a vote against Barack Obama.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-ma...rticle/2535061
The bolded is how politics is played. This win/win positioning was not invented by the Republicans. This should not be new to you. This kind of crap is played out in business offices as well. But it's not good for business and should be recognized as such. It's not good for the country either.
but the Repugs had "confidence" in dubya and head? that worked great!
Well why make the same mistake twice then?but the Repugs had "confidence" in dubya and head? that worked great!
it's not a question about confidence. It's about Repugs blindly, reflexively obstructing any and all stuff Dem, just like they blindly, reflexively SUPPORTED all the Repug from 2001 - 2009.
A Repug voting for a Dem project, or "crossing the isle" to compromise, means getting primaried by extreme right wing tea baggers.
Ask Saxby Chandless and any moderate Repugs who have resigned or been beaten/primaried.
The tea baggers are PURIFYING the Repug party so that nothing will left but extremely SEPTIC nut-case extremists like Cruz and 100% intimidated non-extremists.
We can only hope.
MCCAIN: SHOUTING 'ALLAHU AKHBAR!' SAME AS CHRISTIANS SHOUTING 'THANK GOD!'
by BEN SHAPIRO 3 Sep 2013, 7:00 AM PDT
On Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) suggested that Fox News host Brian Kilmeade was Islamaphobic because he said that Syrian opposition groups shouting “Allahu Akhbar! Allahu Akhbar!” as rockets hit government offices demonstrated Islamist influence among the opposition.
“I have a problem helping those people screaming that after a hit,” Kilmeade said. McCain responded: “Would you have a problem with an American or Christians saying ‘thank God? Thank God?’” He added, “That’s what they’re saying. Come on! Of course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.” McCain provided no evidence to suggest that Syrian opposition groups are moderate, as opposed to the wide swath of evidence suggesting that the opposition is heavily infested with al Qaeda.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...-allahu-akhbar
breitbart?
The Imperial Pretensions That Dominate Washington
how seriously will the world take a bomb-and-missile laden gesture against sarin gas when CIA do ents now confirm that Washington helped Saddam Hussein use sarin and other chemical agents against Iran in 1988.? As Secretary of State [8]John Kerry[8] himself said, "History will judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turn a blind eye to a dictator's wanton use of weapons of mass destruction."
http://readersupportednews.org/opini...ate-washington
The USA Empire depends on ignorant, amnesiac, dumbed-down Americans, who NEVER rise up. Those who do take to the streets like the 99% OWS against the 1%, or minimum wage workers, get trashed by right-wingers, suckers, dupes, and/or shills, here and elsewhere, and playing right into the Empire's hands.
CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...iran?page=full
Alrighty then. I'll put you down as a "NO" on striking Syria. Welcome to the team.breitbart?
The Imperial Pretensions That Dominate Washington
how seriously will the world take a bomb-and-missile laden gesture against sarin gas when CIA do ents now confirm that Washington helped Saddam Hussein use sarin and other chemical agents against Iran in 1988.? As Secretary of State [8]John Kerry[8] himself said, "History will judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turn a blind eye to a dictator's wanton use of weapons of mass destruction."
http://readersupportednews.org/opini...ate-washington
The USA Empire depends on ignorant, amnesiac, dumbed-down Americans, who NEVER rise up. Those who do take to the streets like the 99% OWS against the 1%, or minimum wage workers, get trashed by right-wingers, suckers, dupes, and/or shills, here and elsewhere, and playing right into the Empire's hands.
CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...iran?page=full
lol thinkprogress
Israelis have the most powerful international lobby inside the US government
and Saudis are 100% backed monarchy by the US due to the unlimited funds and oil resources. They also have lifetime contracts with US oil companies and now have large ownership of US corps and banks. If you think these 2 are not dominant forces in US policy you need your diapers changed
apparently Bandar Bin Satan provided the chems for the false flag attack:
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witness...eapons/168135/
However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.
“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.
“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.
The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.” told ya this chems BS is all but BS
Mustafa Alani, a Gulf analyst with good connections to Saudi officials, said the kingdom was also warning Washington that a failure to attack Assad would benefit their common enemy al-Qaeda: “No action will boost the extremist position,” he said, explaining that rebel despair at US inaction on Syria would push more fighters to switch allegiance to Islamist militants.
“Without a punishment of the Syrian regime, extremists will enjoy wider support and attract more moderate fighters.”
so basically the Saudi's way of thinking is: US should hit Syria and help Al-Qaeda now or Al-Qaeda will get mad and do some terror attacks at US for failing to help them
this is similar threat Bandar Bin Satan issued to Putin last month "drop Syria and our Chechen terrorists will not try to attack your Olympics"
The Saudi Arabian Spy Chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, has allegedly ridiculed the kingdom’s Persian Gulf neighbor Qatar, describing it as "only 300 people and a television channel" but "not a country."
Why Climate Change May Be Responsible for the Horrors in Syria
Syria has been convulsed by civil war since climate change came to Syria with a vengeance. Drought devastated the country from 2006 to 2011. Rainfall in most of the country fell below eight inches (20 cm) a year, the absolute minimum needed to sustain un-irrigated farming. Desperate for water, farmers began to tap aquifers with tens of thousands of new well. But, as they did, the water table quickly dropped to a level below which their pumps could lift it.
In some areas, all agriculture ceased. In others crop failures reached 75%. And generally as much as 85% of livestock died of thirst or hunger. Hundreds of thousands of Syria’s farmers gave up, abandoned their farms and fled to the cities and towns in search of almost non-existent jobs and severely short food supplies. Outside observers including UN experts estimated that between 2 and 3 million of Syria’s 10 million rural inhabitants were reduced to “extreme poverty.”
The domestic Syrian refugees immediately found that they had to compete not only with one another for scarce food, water and jobs, but also with the already existing foreign refugee population. Syria already was a refuge for quarter of a million Palestinians and about a hundred thousand people who had fled the war and occupation of Iraq. Formerly prosperous farmers were lucky to get jobs as hawkers or street sweepers. And in the desperation of the times, hostilities erupted among groups that were competing just to survive.
Survival was the key issue. The senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) representative in Syria turned to the USAID program for help. Terming the situation “a perfect storm,” in November 2008, he warned that Syria faced “social destruction.” He noted that the Syrian Minister of Agriculture had “stated publicly that [the] economic and social fallout from the drought was ‘beyond our capacity as a country to deal with.’” But, his appeal fell on deaf ears: the USAID director commented that “we question whether limited USG resources should be directed toward this appeal at this time.” (reported on November 26, 2008 in cable 08DAMASCUS847_a to Washington and “leaked” to Wikileaks )
Whether or not this was a wise decision, we now know that the Syrian government made the situation much worse by its next action. Lured by the high price of wheat on the world market, it sold its reserves. In 2006, according to the US Department of Agriculture, it sold 1,500,000 metric tons or twice as much as in the previous year. The next year it had little left to export; in 2008 and for the rest of the drought years it had to import enough wheat to keep its citizens alive.
So tens of thousands of frightened, angry, hungry and impoverished former farmers flooded cons uted a “tinder” that was ready to catch fire. The spark was struck on March 15, 2011 when a relatively small group gathered in the town of Daraa to protest against government failure to help them. Instead of meeting with the protestors and at least hearing their complaints, the government cracked down on them as subversives. The Assads, who had ruled the country since 1971, were not known for political openness or popular sensitivity. And their action backfired. Riots broke out all over the country, and as they did, the Assads attempted to quell them with military force. They failed to do so and, as outside help – money from the Gulf states and Muslim “freedom fighters” from the rest of the world – poured into the country, the government lost control of over 30% of the country’s rural areas and perhaps half of its population. By the spring of 2013, according to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), upwards of 100,000 people had been killed in the fighting, perhaps 2 million have lost their homes and upwards of 2 million have fled abroad. Additionally, vast amounts of infrastructure, virtually whole cities like Aleppo, have been destroyed.
http://www.alternet.org/syria?akid=1...t=9&paging=off
You said they controlled our policy. And either you do not understand the meaning of the word dominate or the breadth of lobbying efforts in this country.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
