Reply With Quote
I'm assuming that article is a joke....?
REPUBLICANS: OBAMA MUST TAKE ACTION IN SYRIA SO WE CAN CRITICIZE ACTION HE TOOK IN SYRIA
Washington — A growing chorus of Republican lawmakers are demanding that President Obama take some action in Syria so that they can attack whatever action he took in Syria.
Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) laid out the situation in stark terms: “The time for President Obama to do something in Syria that we can eviscerate him for is long overdue.”
Arguing that there are a variety of options available to Mr. Obama for dealing with Syria, Sen. Graham said, “The President needs to choose one of those options so that we can immediately identify it as a catastrophic choice and demand that he be impeached.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) used an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to express impatience with Mr. Obama’s “steadfast refusal to give us something new to rake him over the coals for.”
“The American people have grown weary of my nonstop criticism of the President’s handling of Libya,” he said. “They are ready to hear me incessantly berate him for his handling of a different country.”
At the end of his television appearance, Sen. McCain seemed to draw a line in the sand, making a direct challenge to Mr. Obama: “Mr. President, we are sick and tired of attacking you for your inaction. The time has come for us to attack you for your action.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...rowitz%20(113)
I'm assuming that article is a joke....?
it's deadly serious, All Repug Politics, All The Time
I just watched McCain's entire Meet the Press interview from yesterday and he never said any of that (unless I missed it).
It seemed like it was too far out there.
It's like the onion without the talent.
In the actual interview McCain goes out of his way to compliment Obama for running a great campaign in 2008.
Speaking of.......
Of course it is. It's the "New Yorker."
boutons cannot see the double standards at all.
Israel Claims Syria Used Chemical Weapons, But Israel Has Used White Phosphorus
http://www.policymic.com/articles/37...ite-phosphorussraeli web magazine +972 reported Thursday that the Israeli army has stopped using white phosphorus because it “does not look good” internationally. Israel was widely criticized after its use of white phosphorus in Operation Cast Lead in 2009 caused the civilian deaths. That was four years ago, but this announcement coincides with evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria. It could be part of a strategy to make Israel look good while pressing for international action on Syria.
White phosphorus burns on contact with air, emitting smoke. When it comes into contact with skin, it causes severe chemical burns that may extend down to the bone, that are difficult to heal because they may reignite when exposed to oxygen. The chemical has been used by international forces in Afghanistan, where an 8-year-old girl was severely burned on her head and neck by a white phosphorus s in 2009.
In 2009, Human Rights Watch claimed that Israel’s use of white phosphorus s s over densely populated areas of Gaza during Operation Cast Lead was evidence of war crimes.White phosphorus is legal because, even though it is a dangerous incendiary, it is primarily used to provide smoke cover for troops. However, the HRW report said that their researchers found clear evidence that the Israeli military fired white phosphorus over dense urban areas where troops weren’t present and safer alternatives were available. As a result, the s s killed twelve civilians and wounded dozens of others.
The Israeli military responded at the time that its use of white phosphorus was in line with international law. Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons allows white phosphorus because it only restricts weapons “primarily designed” to set fires or cause burns. White phosphorus munitions’ primary military uses are to provide smokescreens for troop movement and to provide target markers, not as an incendiary.
MORE...
syria has no natural resources that the US gives a about to get involve this civil war
so much for obamas inaugural speech...
Too bad Israel controls the chicken hawks in Washington, all this hypocritical accusations against Syria & Iran are going to be very problematic assuming Obama follows their foreign policy.
Christian jihad against Muslims!
GOP Rep Justifies U.S. Military Intervention In Syria: ‘So Much Of Christianity Is There’
“There’s a huge US interest in the region. Our commitment to the Levante is long-standing, partially because of our relationship with Israel and with Lebanon,” Issa told a handful of reporters after leaving a classified briefing on the Syria intel assessment and possible US options.
“Partially, if you will, because of this being an area of the Holy Land,” Issa added. “The oldest churches. So much of Christianity is there.”
http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...istians-syria/
And how many $100Bs of taxpayer money and taxpayer livess is fiscal-hawk 1%er Issa willing to blow saving Syria's Christians?
Glad the grown-ups seem to be controlling the industrial war machine to some degree...
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/07/539...use-still.htmlOn Monday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, D-NJ, alluded to chemical weapons as he proposed a measure to provide limited arms to the rebels, asserting that Assad’s regime “has crossed a red line that forces us to consider all options.”
That assertion, however, appears far less certain than it did only a week ago. British, French and Israeli experts who expressed more confidence in their assessment than the Obama administration had in its judgment have in recent days qualified their positions, said Greg Thielmann, a former State Department intelligence analyst now with the Arms Control Association, a private organization that provides analysis of weapons issues. “That should make everyone su ious,” he said. “And the reality may be lot more complicated.”
Thielmann added, “Do you really risk going to war without knowing who has used what and in what cir stances?”
Existing evidence casts more doubt on claims of chemical weapons use than it does to help build a case that one or both sides of the conflict have employed them.
Syria is important because without Syria, Hezbollah is cutoff from Iran. I can see why that might be considered advantageous. The thing is that it's not just advantageous for us and the NATO core countries outside of France are isolationist lately.
Well, it is the Americans, British and French would have engaged in 'proactive war' by NATO...the problem in Syria is that the 'rebels' are Islamist and Assad, who needs to go, has kept Syria more secular....so if the US directly supplies the rebels, and they topple Assad, we could be making the very same mistake we made in Afghanistan with Obama...ummm...Osama..
There is much more to Israel's recent attacks on Syria than we are being told by the mainstream media.
[SCG News] The REAL Reason Israel Attacked Syria
I'm sorry SA210, but that's the second time I started wa6ching that video, and the second time I stopped it then the idiot said "unprovoked."
I won't believe "news" from a "reporter" who won't give his name.
The SYRIAN QUESTION...
Read more: http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/8...hting-in-syriaTunisian Foreign Minister Othmane Jarandi told Agence France Presse on Saturday that some 800 Tunisians are fighting in Islamist rebel ranks in Syria and said the country would work to repatriate its citizens taken prisoner there.
"We don't have exact numbers, since several people left the country illegally, but the most accurate estimate is a maximum of 800," fighting in Syria, he said.
Tunis has been criticized by non-government organizations and the opposition since diplomatic relations with Damascus were severed in February 2011, and has been accused of abandoning Tunisians in Syria to their fate.
"The repatriation of Tunisians can be facilitated by the embassy in Lebanon after the government makes contact with the Syrian authorities about imprisoned Tunisian citizens," Jarandi said.
That right there is the bottom line in Syria, do we supply the Islamist war against Assad?
Better yet, let the Chinese deal with it. They drive more cars than we do, why should we be subsidizing their oil consumption with our military?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
