Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
With a lack of evidence, a lack of clear policy, and a lack of support from the people of their districts, I don't see how any member of congress can vote FOR an authorization of attack.
Classified Syria Intelligence Fails to Prove Assad Used Chemical Weapons
The administration’s public case for chemical weapons use by the Syrian government is extremely weak, and former high-level intelligence officers say that publicly-available information proves that the Syrian government likely did not carry out the chemical weapons attacks.
The Obama administration claims that classified intelligence proves that it was the Assad government which carried out the attacks.
But numerous congressional members who have seen the classified intelligence information say that it is no better than the public war brief … and doesn’t prove anything.
Congressman Justin Amash said last week:
What I heard in Obama admn briefing actually makes me more skeptical of certain significant aspects of Pres’s case for attacking
He noted yesterday, after attending another classified briefing and reviewing more classified materials:
Attended another classified briefing on #Syria & reviewed add’l materials. Now more skeptical than ever. Can’t believe Pres is pushing war.
And today, Amash wrote:
If Americans could read classified docs, they’d be even more against #Syria action. Obama admn’s public statements are misleading at best.
Congress Members Who Have Seen Classified Evidence About Syria Say It Fails to Prove Anything | Washington's Blog
Probably do not want to be looked upon by the press as being racist, you know, going against a president that is a "man of color"... while that is tongue in cheek... its not very much tongue and not very much cheek.If they have all this prof that Assad did not use these chemical weapons, then why are they not taking a stand? Why are they refusing to vote on this issue?
If they have all this prof that Assad did not use these chemical weapons, then why are they not taking a stand? Why are they refusing to vote on this issue?
If they have all this prof that Assad did not use these chemical weapons, then why are they not taking a stand? Why are they refusing to vote on this issue?
I don't think they have proof either way which is why we hear the word "believe" when used with "Assad used chemical weapons".
AP reporters have been regularly presenting evidence of Islamic extremists use of chemical weapons, the Russians have delivered a a 100 page report to the UN documenting past use of chemical weapons by the insurgents, insurgents have used snipers on UN inspectors trying to gather evidence at the site of use.
One must consider the sources - Russians in my view aren't very credible as they have motive to keep Assad in power and thwart the U.S. no matter what we do. The AP reports may have credibility (I haven't read them) and I think its common knowledge snipers did go after the UN inspectors gathering evidence, but who was behind the snipers? Assad or AQ or some other faction?
Well I would recommend you look into the material the AP has been presenting that MSM has been ignoring in the frenzy for war. Also, defence contractors are owners and investors in American media and the MIC is their interest. Also, your dismissing the Russians report before having seen it. The hypocrisy from the US on this is thick. Oh, and did you bother to check out the thread on the Christian village that the terrorists have sacked despite Assad's forces attempt to protect it?
Let's just say the AP info is 100% accurate and so is the 100 page Russian report. Reading that will inform me more on the details but I've already made up my mind that the U.S. has no business doing anything with Syria. I did read the Christian village article this morning, but I have to tell you I look at most information coming out right now with a very large dose of skepticism as everyone is jostling for their "side" to either act or not. As in 2002, much of the "evidence" and "reporting" was BS we later found out. So at this point I rely on my own values and views to form my opinions rather than the MSM (who is pulling for Obama and action IMO) or the WH and other Democrats who are banging the war drums as loudly as the Republicans did in the lead up to Iraq.
With a lack of evidence, a lack of clear policy, and a lack of support from the people of their districts, I don't see how any member of congress can vote FOR an authorization of attack.
Congress men and women are the whores of democracy. Congress doesn't give a fat rat's ass about Syria.
Congress wants two things:
1. Plausible deniability. Either way, attacking or not. Congress wants to be assured that, whatever the decision, Congress can deflect blame if things go tits up in Syria. They don't give a damn about what Americans want as long as they avoid blame.
2. Concessions. All of the above whores are holding out for presidential concessions. They want to be bribed for their votes. It is the only thing they understand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?