Is Obama Being Shamed Into A Demonstration War With Syria?

[Wehrwolfen]

Lets sum up your posts
'misparaphrase' and deflect.

'misparaphrase' and deflect.

'misparaphrase' and deflect.

mission accomplished P, take the rest of the day off.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

careful, this could blow up in your face, like the killing of Bin Laden and winning two presidential elections did ...

I certainly do not call Obama claiming the victory that GW laid the groundwork for or an uninformed and misled public blowing up in my face. The fact that you folks elected this empty suit that is way way way over his head is what is blowing up in all our faces. Domestically we are in far bigger mess than when the zer 0 was first elected, foreign policy wise, as continents go, all is falling in the crapper under zer 0.

Possibly one continent, Antarctica, is not more adversely affected by this "president"... I am sure people in the know about that could probably show me the my error on even that declaration.

 

[Vern]

Weak dodge and dishonest.
Here..remember posting this?



definition of "one"; unique: used to indicate the only thing or person with a specific characteristic

opposite of "honest" is dishonest

opposite of "intelligent" is unintelligent.

Hoisted on your own petard. embarrassing, huh?

er uh P, you've consistently 'misparaphrased' what I said. the first two times I clearly pointed it out. So you avoided dealing with it. So the third time, I didn't bother to point out the falsehood of your statement. So of course your rebuttal has to pretend I was contesting the meaning of "honest" and "intelligent". Read this slowly so you cant 'confuse' yourself again. No where did I say or imply "one side is pure and blameless".

And no where did you deal with what I posted in an honest and intelligent fashion.

 

[windowdressing]

God, I hope the democrats nominate Hillary. It will be a cake walk for Portman in 2016.

:lamo .. love it! (BTW, you better tell your GOP friends who Portman is so that way he can get the nomination.) but, seriously, thanks for the laugh ...

 

[windowdressing]

I certainly do not call Obama claiming the victory that GW laid the groundwork for or an uninformed and misled public blowing up in my face. The fact that you folks elected this empty suit that is way way way over his head is what is blowing up in all our faces. Domestically we are in far bigger mess than when the zer 0 was first elected, foreign policy wise, as continents go, all is falling in the crapper under zer 0.

Possibly one continent, Antarctica, is not more adversely affected by this "president"... I am sure people in the know about that could probably show me the my error on even that declaration.

:lamo ... if nothing else, you're always good for a chuckle ... thank you ...

 

[windowdressing]

I certainly do not call Obama claiming the victory that GW laid the groundwork for or an uninformed and misled public blowing up in my face. The fact that you folks elected this empty suit that is way way way over his head is what is blowing up in all our faces. Domestically we are in far bigger mess than when the zer 0 was first elected, foreign policy wise, as continents go, all is falling in the crapper under zer 0.

Possibly one continent, Antarctica, is not more adversely affected by this "president"... I am sure people in the know about that could probably show me the my error on even that declaration.

BTW, you and Fisher should think about taking your act on the road ...

 

[P. Kersey]

er uh P, you've consistently 'misparaphrased' what I said. the first two times I clearly pointed it out. So you avoided dealing with it. So the third time, I didn't bother to point out the falsehood of your statement. So of course your rebuttal has to pretend I was contesting the meaning of "honest" and "intelligent". Read this slowly so you cant 'confuse' yourself again. No where did I say or imply "one side is pure and blameless".

And no where did you deal with what I posted in an honest and intelligent fashion.

Don't try to move the goalpost now. It's too late for that. Words have meanings and aren't continuously variable according to what you want to believe.
Your own words;

the country is polarized because one side refuses to engage in an honest and intelligent conversation.

definition of "one"; unique: used to indicate the only thing or person with a specific characteristic

opposite of "honest" is dishonest

opposite of "intelligent" is unintelligent.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

:lamo ... if nothing else, you're always good for a chuckle ... thank you ...

Glad to give joy even to the terminal, especially to the terminal. :lol:

 

[Fisher]

:lamo .. love it! (BTW, you better tell your GOP friends who Portman is so that way he can get the nomination.) but, seriously, thanks for the laugh ...

How many people really knew who Bill Clinton or Obama were? When people are looking for "Change they can believe in" Hillary Clinton came up short. She will be swiftboated out of the nomination if she were to run with the "What does it matter?" comment about the dead Americans. Mark Warner is the democrats' best bet at this point in the game, but the liberals will never support him because he **OMG A social Moderate and fiscal conservative :vomit:***

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

BTW, you and Fisher should think about taking your act on the road ...

Well, my side already gets it, you think your side is ready for the truth yet? I mean, our economy has its arm up behind its back, grinding those at the bottom even further down, those in the middle having to pay for those at the bottom and the top, we are just about as divided/polarized as this president can get us to be [ although I guess he still have room for leaping off the edge and dragging us all with him ] and the world without strong American leadership is collapsing like a sandcastle hit by the waves of sudden reality that there is a vacuum to be filled....

I guess your side is ready you are saying?? If so, you are right, Fisher lets go....

 

[windowdressing]

How many people really knew who Bill Clinton or Obama were? When people are looking for "Change they can believe in" Hillary Clinton came up short. She will be swiftboated out of the nomination if she were to run with the "What does it matter?" comment about the dead Americans. Mark Warner is the democrats' best bet at this point in the game, but the liberals will never support him because he **OMG A social Moderate and fiscal conservative :vomit:***

and you predicted who to win in 2008 and 2012?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

The problem I have is how no matter what President Obama decides cons will be instructed to think it was the wrong thing. I never got an explanation how cons could support Iraq 100 % and Libya 0 %.

Can one con explain why they supported invading Iraq to "get rid of a dictator who 'has' WMDs" but would not support any military action to "get rid of a dictator who actually has WMDs and has used them".

First of all you are wrong on the numbers about Iraq and Libya. Care to parse those out for us? A lot of libs were against our intervention in Libya too, remember? Besides which, did 0bama ever come to Congress to get authorization...seems to me he was in violation of the War Powers Act... I seem to remember something like that.

Second, do you have inside information that proves one side vs the other used WMDs in Syria? Proof certain? And with regards to Libya, 0bama didn't have to worry about Gaddafi and WMDs as Gaddafi had quickly decided to give his up voluntarily after seeing his opposite number in the old Iraqi regime pulled up out of a hole after GW went in and cleaned some house...

 

[windowdressing]

Well, my side already gets it, you think your side is ready for the truth yet? I mean, our economy has its arm up behind its back, grinding those at the bottom even further down, those in the middle having to pay for those at the bottom and the top, we are just about as divided/polarized as this president can get us to be [ although I guess he still have room for leaping off the edge and dragging us all with him ] and the world without strong American leadership is collapsing like a sandcastle hit by the waves of sudden reality that there is a vacuum to be filled....

I guess your side is ready you are saying?? If so, you are right, Fisher lets go....

Did you know that Bush is still blamed for the bad economy more than Obama is? And correctly so, I might add ... Can you help me with something? Can you help me find a poll on who gets blamed more for gridlock - the prez or Congress?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

The problem I have is how no matter what President Obama decides cons will be instructed to think it was the wrong thing. I never got an explanation how cons could support Iraq 100 % and Libya 0 %.

Can one con explain why they supported invading Iraq to "get rid of a dictator who 'has' WMDs" but would not support any military action to "get rid of a dictator who actually has WMDs and has used them".

Calling Out the Misleaders of the Phony

'Progressives' and the Fake U.S. 'Left'​

“It is both sad and simultaneously horribly fascinating to observe so many euphorically pinning their hopes and dreams on Barack Obama, a chameleon who speaks liberally of 'change' but who is, himself, beholden to the very same blood-sucking corporate vampires (including Lockheed and others) who are ravaging the people of America, and the entire planet...Many Black Americans and our Brown and Red sisters and brothers will, I fear, come to be deeply disappointed in Barack Obama, once he demonstrates who he really is. There will be no peace or justice under an Obama presidency. Even the majority of White Americans, with the exception of the corporate liberals and conservatives, may yet come to realize that Obama's interests are corporate interests; they are not the needs and interests of everyday people, who represent the overwhelming majority of this nation and the world.”



- Article titled, Barack Obama and the Euphoria of Madness, by Larry Pinkney, The Black Commentator – February 7, 2008 - Issue 263


It is now February 2013, and Common Dreams reports that Barack Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that he is the draconian 'Kill List,' drone missile, “war criminal” president of the United States. For these past years there has been, and continues to be, “no peace or justice under [the] Obama presidency.” The misleaders of the everyday people knew full well, or should have known, back in the years 2007 and 2008 that Barack Obama represented the systemic interests of the U.S. corporate/military power elite – not those of everyday Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow people. There was a wealth of information available (even in 2007 and 2008) that showed that Barack Obama was substantively no different from his predecessors in the White House – but the partisan 'progressive' and 'leftist' misleaders of the people chose to ignore it. Indeed, Barack Obama on his third day in office as U.S. president (in his first term), began slamming down predator drone missiles upon the people of Pakistan. Now, in 2013, Obama's blood-baths and systemic terror have only grown and intensified.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Calling Out the Misleaders of the Phony 'Progressives' and the Fake U.S. 'Left' - Keeping it Real By Larry Pinkney, BC Editorial Board

Of course the Progressive Left is pinning their hopes and aspirations on Obama. He has certainly proven his ineptitude in handling the American Economy, American race relations and Foreign Policy.

 

[Vern]

First of all you are wrong on the numbers about Iraq and Libya. Care to parse those out for us? A lot of libs were against our intervention in Libya too, remember? Besides which, did 0bama ever come to Congress to get authorization...seems to me he was in violation of the War Powers Act... I seem to remember something like that.

Second, do you have inside information that proves one side vs the other used WMDs in Syria? Proof certain? And with regards to Libya, 0bama didn't have to worry about Gaddafi and WMDs as Gaddafi had quickly decided to give his up voluntarily after seeing his opposite number in the old Iraqi regime pulled up out of a hole after GW went in and cleaned some house...

thank you gauging, for attempting to reply to what I wrote. A welcome change from previous posters. I was making a comment on the overwhelming support cons had for invading Iraq and the almost complete lack of support for they had for Libya. And yes, a lot of liberals were against Libya and almost all liberals were against Iraq. But some dems supported Iraq and Libya. I did not support Iraq but did support Libya but I can enunciate clearly why I supported Libya but not Iraq. I'm simply asking a con to enunciate why they supported Iraq but not Libya. ( this is where cons usually say "you first")

Now ignoring your rhetoric about Gadaffy submitting to Bush's will (you realize that WMDs was not the reason for Libya right?), the demand of absolute proof of WMDs seems to be a bit hypocritical and weak. (do I need to point out why its hypocritical?) the only person claiming the rebels used the chemical weapons are Syria. And since President Obama has not had a Day 1 agenda to attack Syria, seems quite reticent to do so and there is no company embedded in the WH that would greatly benefit from such an attack, he would of course have more credibility in saying Syria used chemical weapons.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

thank you gauging, for attempting to reply to what I wrote. A welcome change from previous posters. I was making a comment on the overwhelming support cons had for invading Iraq and the almost complete lack of support for they had for Libya. And yes, a lot of liberals were against Libya and almost all liberals were against Iraq. But some dems supported Iraq and Libya. I did not support Iraq but did support Libya but I can enunciate clearly why I supported Libya but not Iraq. I'm simply asking a con to enunciate why they supported Iraq but not Libya. ( this is where cons usually say "you first")

So, instead you are asking me to go first then huh? Hmmmm…and…

I will disregard the attempted slam of my fellow posters and will try to succinctly address your questions. First, Libya, as you admitted below, had nothing in particular to do with WMDs during the 0bama term… Iraq credibly had just that potential and Saddam had danced around the inspections, was in violation of the 1991 Cease fire agreement, 16 UN resolutions and was pretending [ almost understandably with some of the aggressive enemy neighbors that surrounded Iraq ] to have WMDs. He had a history of using them as well. Against his own people and the Iranians. He was a mass murderer of his own people. Why were the good reasons for going into Libya again? I am curious.

Oh and as for no Republicans/cons as you put it not supporting a military strike in Syria…

Obama's surprising ally on Syria: Republicans - The Week

I would agree that McCain and Graham are not really conservatives… but I am not going to be splitting hairs and deciding who is con and who is lib…basically the Republicans would be the more conservative and the Dems would be the libs.

Now ignoring your rhetoric about Gadaffy submitting to Bush's will (you realize that WMDs was not the reason for Libya right?), the demand of absolute proof of WMDs seems to be a bit hypocritical and weak. (do I need to point out why its hypocritical?) the only person claiming the rebels used the chemical weapons are Syria. And since President Obama has not had a Day 1 agenda to attack Syria, seems quite reticent to do so and there is no company embedded in the WH that would greatly benefit from such an attack, he would of course have more credibility in saying Syria used chemical weapons.

Yes, the WMDs in Libya was taken care of in the GWB administration. We are not asking for absolute proof that Syria has the offending chemical weapons, what we are asking is for there to be actual proof of responsibility before we make our decision. Best not to do the old, “Ready…. Fire….Aim…” thing. As the British have indicated with their vote, you don’t make a decision and then await for information. Especially on something this big.

NPR, not know for its conservative leanings said the Rebels could have and have used chemweapons, not likely, but we do not know...if we do no know, how about we wait and try to find out?
Is It Possible The Syrian Rebels (Not Assad) Used Chemical Weapons? : The Two-Way : NPR


Whose side are we on? Whose side should we be on? Who knows, we only know that 0bama has painted us into a corner with no window to jump out of...there are no good avenues to pursue.

The fact of the matter is 0bama did not have a Day 1 and still does not have a Day 1460+ plan for any of this… he is lost… it is apparent to most everyone. To say he has more credibility just because he has no plan…and that nobody will benefit from the attack, including us and this will probably be used against us later…..so…uhhh…NO…sorry.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

So, instead you are asking me to go first then huh? Hmmmm…and…

I will disregard the attempted slam of my fellow posters and will try to succinctly address your questions. First, Libya, as you admitted below, had nothing in particular to do with WMDs during the 0bama term… Iraq credibly had just that potential and Saddam had danced around the inspections, was in violation of the 1991 Cease fire agreement, 16 UN resolutions and was pretending [ almost understandably with some of the aggressive enemy neighbors that surrounded Iraq ] to have WMDs. He had a history of using them as well. Against his own people and the Iranians. He was a mass murderer of his own people. Why were the good reasons for going into Libya again? I am curious.

Oh and as for no Republicans/cons as you put it not supporting a military strike in Syria…

Obama's surprising ally on Syria: Republicans - The Week

I would agree that McCain and Graham are not really conservatives… but I am not going to be splitting hairs and deciding who is con and who is lib…basically the Republicans would be the more conservative and the Dems would be the libs.

Yes, the WMDs in Libya was taken care of in the GWB administration. We are not asking for absolute proof that Syria has the offending chemical weapons, what we are asking is for there to be actual proof of responsibility before we make our decision. Best not to do the old, “Ready…. Fire….Aim…” thing. As the British have indicated with their vote, you don’t make a decision and then await for information. Especially on something this big.

NPR, not know for its conservative leanings said the Rebels could have and have used chemweapons, not likely, but we do not know...if we do no know, how about we wait and try to find out?
Is It Possible The Syrian Rebels (Not Assad) Used Chemical Weapons? : The Two-Way : NPR


Whose side are we on? Whose side should we be on? Who knows, we only know that 0bama has painted us into a corner with no window to jump out of...there are no good avenues to pursue.

The fact of the matter is 0bama did not have a Day 1 and still does not have a Day 1460+ plan for any of this… he is lost… it is apparent to most everyone. To say he has more credibility just because he has no plan…and that nobody will benefit from the attack, including us and this will probably be used against us later…..so…uhhh…NO…sorry.

Very well put. We notice the loud silence coming from Vern and his fellow lemmings.

 

[Vern]

So, instead you are asking me to go first then huh? Hmmmm…and…

I did ask first if that counts for anything. And the dozens of times I asked (at other sites) the reply was “no you go first” like we were playing a game of dare. I would then clearly enunciate my reasons and then cons would just attack what I posted and would never enunciate their reasons.

I will disregard the attempted slam of my fellow posters and will try to succinctly address your questions.

Sorry it was not a slam. Go back read what I posted and then read how they ‘interpreted’ it .

Iraq credibly had just that potential and Saddam had danced around the inspections, was in violation of the 1991 Cease fire agreement, 16 UN resolutions and was pretending [ almost understandably with some of the aggressive enemy neighbors that surrounded Iraq ] to have WMDs. He had a history of using them as well. Against his own people and the Iranians. He was a mass murderer of his own people. .

Nice narrative. If only It were true or relevant. We invaded Iraq because he had WMDs and/or the capability to produce them. It turned out to be lies. Oh and Bush convinced a good number of people that Saddam was behind 9-11. Seems every time he mentioned saddam he mentioned al qaeda.
And the truly tragic part of saddam gassing Iran and his own people is he did with our full knowledge and approval. After he gassed his own people Reagan tried to blame Iran. Since Iraq was Reagan’s best pal he thought nothing of lying about who gassed the kurds. So of course in 2003 we were shocked shocked to discover Saddam gassed them.
And read this part slowly. President Obama clearly stated his reasons for Libya. It seems the “conservative media” wasn’t as fair as NPR (see below). Contrast that with the ever changing reasons to justify Bush's Day 1 agenda to invade Iraq.

NPR, not know for its conservative leanings said the Rebels could have and have used chemweapons
…

Nooooooo. NPR doesn’t say that. Its funny that you interpret it that way. NPR is reporting that some sources say that. That's what actual news sources do.

Oh and as for no Republicans/cons as you put it not supporting a military strike in Syria…

Who said no republicans didn’t support a strike in Syria? (see how your responding to things I didn’t say. I’m aware that cons have been calling for us to do the same in Syria as we did in Libya.

We are not asking for absolute proof that Syria has the offending chemical weapons, what we are asking is for there to be actual proof of responsibility before we make our decision. …

I believe we are waiting for who’s responsible. And now that we both agree how are we “painted into a corner”? it seems your narratives are tripping over each other.

Best not to do the old, “Ready…. Fire….Aim…” thing…

You mean like Iraq?

The fact of the matter is 0bama did not have a Day 1 and still does not have a Day 1460+ plan for any of this… he is lost… it is apparent to most everyone. To say he has more credibility just because he has no plan…and that nobody will benefit from the attack, including us and this will probably be used against us later…..so…uhhh…NO…sorry.

You did it again. I said since Obama wasn't ‘gunning for assad’ from day 1 any statement he makes will have more credibility. You have to conflate ‘plan’ and ‘agenda’ to make your point. I don’t have to rely on ‘wordsmithing’ to make my point.

(on a side note, see how I respond directly to what you say. I don't have to imagine something or 'misparaphrase' anything)

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Americans Oppose Syria Strike, Want Obama To Seek Congressional Approval [Poll]

The Inquisitr·10 hours ago Americans are largely opposed to a military strike in Syria, according to a NBC News poll. Nearly 80 percent of Americans asked also want President Obama to get congressional approval before using force in the war torn…
Americans Oppose Syria Strike, Want Obama To Seek Congressional Approval [Poll]

 

[danarhea]

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Having leaked to the world, and thus to Syrian President Bashar Assad, a detailed briefing of the coming U.S. air attack on Syria — (1) the source (offshore warships and perhaps a bomber or two), (2) the weapon (cruise missiles), (3) the duration (two or three days), (4) the purpose (punishment, not "regime change") — perhaps we should be publishing the exact time the bombs will fall, lest we disrupt dinner in Damascus.

So much for the element of surprise. Into his third year of dithering, two years after declaring Assad had to go, one year after drawing — then erasing — his own red line on chemical weapons, Barack Obama has been stirred to action.

Or more accurately, shamed into action. Which is the worst possible reason. A president doesn't commit soldiers to a war for which he has zero enthusiasm. Nor does one go to war for demonstration purposes.

Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose.

The purpose can be either punitive or strategic: either a spasm of conscience that will inflame our opponents yet leave not a trace, or a considered application of abundant American power to alter the strategic equation that is now heavily favoring our worst enemies in the heart of the Middle East.

There are risks to any attack. Blowback terror from Syria and its terrorist allies. Threatened retaliation by Iran or Hezbollah on Israel — that could lead to a guns-of-August regional conflagration.

Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.

[Excerpt]


Read More:
Is Obama Being Shamed Into A War With Syria He Doesn't Want? - Investors.com


Obama and Bo's tail wagging the dog.

Obama has not been shamed by ANYONE into attacking Syria. He did this all on his own. He drew a line in the sand with his mouth, and now has no choice but to follow through on what he said. IMHO, it was a tactical blunder by Obama. By telescoping his feelings to the world about Assad in advance, he is now committed to follow through, whether he wants to or not. He painted himself into a corner. But, worse than that, by declaring his intentions in advance, he has given Assad plenty of time to move everything out of his bases, which are now targets, into residential areas, which we dare not hit, and other than losing some buildings, Assad will come out of this relatively unscathed. IMHO, this will become the worst foreign policy failure of Obama's administration.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Americans Oppose Syria Strike, Want Obama To Seek Congressional Approval [Poll]

The Inquisitr·10 hours ago Americans are largely opposed to a military strike in Syria, according to a NBC News poll. Nearly 80 percent of Americans asked also want President Obama to get congressional approval before using force in the war torn…
Americans Oppose Syria Strike, Want Obama To Seek Congressional Approval [Poll]

Whoops, Obama just blinked and now seeking Congressional authorization. Assad just got a breather and is repositioning his weaponry. "Wagging the dog."

 

[Wehrwolfen]

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I did ask first if that counts for anything. And the dozens of times I asked (at other sites) the reply was “no you go first” like we were playing a game of dare. I would then clearly enunciate my reasons and then cons would just attack what I posted and would never enunciate their reasons.

Might count for something if we had a narrator who was explaining events to us as they went along, but we have no “all seeing eye” that did that and while I might fancy myself fairly smart, sure had no way of knowing that. Besides, I went through the whole Iraq War thing for you and you never did explain why 0bama got involved in Libya. How is that cool?

Sorry it was not a slam. Go back read what I posted and then read how they ‘interpreted’ it .

I think if you are saying people are not responding to what you actually wrote, that would be a slam…but not gonna quibble, there are better things to argue.

Nice narrative. If only It were true or relevant. We invaded Iraq because he had WMDs and/or the capability to produce them. It turned out to be lies. Oh and Bush convinced a good number of people that Saddam was behind 9-11. Seems every time he mentioned saddam he mentioned al qaeda.

Those were not the only reasons we invaded Iraq, there were a whole slew of reasons. See here: Iraqi War Resolution : Roll Call Vote, Authorization of War in Iraq
There are 4 pages to this resolution, the abundant Whereas reasons only end on Page three. So the primarly WMD is false. “Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;” is on page one.

And the truly tragic part of saddam gassing Iran and his own people is he did with our full knowledge and approval. After he gassed his own people Reagan tried to blame Iran. Since Iraq was Reagan’s best pal he thought nothing of lying about who gassed the kurds. So of course in 2003 we were shocked shocked to discover Saddam gassed them.

You seem to know a little about how the world works, perhaps not enough. We were probably shocked during WW2 what our allies were doing then as well. Iran was our declared enemy, Iraq was our friend at that point. In WW2 the Soviets were our friends/allies and after the war our enemies. So? We live in a predatory and dangerous world. What is your point? I think what was said about those earlier attacks that makes sense to me is this quote in FP “The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.”

Yes, we live in a hard world. Yes we live in a safer and more comfy part of that hard world. Calculations and tough decisions must be made. Again…so?

And read this part slowly. President Obama clearly stated his reasons for Libya. It seems the “conservative media” wasn’t as fair as NPR (see below). Contrast that with the ever changing reasons to justify Bush's Day 1 agenda to invade Iraq.

Again, I went through a whole list, I went first…your turn… or I assume you really do not have a good answer.

Nooooooo. NPR doesn’t say that. Its funny that you interpret it that way. NPR is reporting that some sources say that. That's what actual news sources do.

NPR was reporting what a credible source of theirs was detailing. In any event, it is NOT, as you said, only Syria who is saying others may have used chemical weapons.

Remember this?:

the only person claiming the rebels used the chemical weapons are Syria.

Yeah that was you saying nobody else is claiming anybody but Syria [sic] is claiming the possibility of rebel use of chemweps.

Who said no republicans didn’t support a strike in Syria? (see how your responding to things I didn’t say. I’m aware that cons have been calling for us to do the same in Syria as we did in Libya.

Sometimes hard to follow someone who uses double negatives…or uses 0 and then 100% then the next line uses this, “Can one con explain why they supported invading Iraq to "get rid of a dictator who 'has' WMDs" but would not support any military action to "get rid of a dictator who actually has WMDs and has used them". So may easily have taken it for granted that you were using absolutes…that is so fuzzy, so imprecise not to be of any worth one way or another if you were to be called on it, is that what you were shooting for? Deniability?

I believe we are waiting for who’s responsible. And now that we both agree how are we “painted into a corner”? it seems your narratives are tripping over each other.

You want Republicans to declare their support, trying to chide them into it with the quote I just quoted. You yourself do not even want to be tied down into some form of military response and yet want Republicans to so declare? Duplicitous to put it nicely.

You mean like Iraq?

Iraq was different in a multitude of ways. For one the then president took it to our Congress to get authorization to use force. Two, we had been in a war with Iraq, they had agreed to certain things in our ceasefire agreement, they had, as I have listed before, breached that and other agreements. He had used WMDs before… the list goes on and on… I cannot reeducate you on the same things over and over…some of it should stick.

You did it again. I said since Obama wasn't ‘gunning for assad’ from day 1 any statement he makes will have more credibility. You have to conflate ‘plan’ and ‘agenda’ to make your point. I don’t have to rely on ‘wordsmithing’ to make my point.

I do not care whether there was a plan or an agenda, you are saying one has more credibility because of something unrelated to whether he has credibility or not. Obama does not have a clue as to whats what, Bush had all sorts of clues. He was just wrong on the WMDs part of it, not on the rest [ see Iraqi War Authorization above]. Obama has no credibility on much of anything… he only seemingly had credibility before, now everyone knows he doesn’t know.

(on a side note, see how I respond directly to what you say. I don't have to imagine something or 'misparaphrase' anything)

You imagine yourself and misparahrase yourself, nobody has to do it for you. For instance you, in quotes, say since “Obama wasn't ‘gunning for assad’” …you never said that which you quote. You just said 0bama didn’t have a plan day one. blah blah blah. Be that as it may, where did I misparaphrase you again? I dispensed with the plan and agenda conflation accusation…and if you are going to blame me for how you word things and how open they are to interpretation… guilty I guess, who could really know?

I’ll give you an example…

Can one con explain why they supported invading Iraq to "get rid of a dictator who 'has' WMDs" but would not support any military action to "get rid of a dictator who actually has WMDs and has used them".

Who is that first they, any conservative who supported the invasion, the conservatives in congress and the administration? Who is the dictator that we know who actually has WMDs and has used them? Are you talking here about Assad? We know Assad probably has them… but where has he used them? You have proof of that? A little confusing to say the least.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Surely like all inept decisions that Obama has made and then changed, according to Progressives, Obama is evolving. A year ago Obama drew a 'Redline' pointed to Assad and the killing of Syrians. After multiple attacks on the citizens of Syria with poison gases and Obama's two 'Redlines' Obama has painted himself into a corner. So last evening Obama evolved (uncoiled) this plan. To cover his ineptitude he has relented and turned to Congress hoping that they will not authorize the attack on Syria letting him off the hook. Problem is that with all his previous rhetoric if Obama does not attack Syria now he loses respect, credibility, and his honor as the leader of the West.

 

[P. Kersey]

Surely like all inept decisions that Obama has made and then changed, according to Progressives, Obama is evolving. A year ago Obama drew a 'Redline' pointed to Assad and the killing of Syrians. After multiple attacks on the citizens of Syria with poison gases and Obama's two 'Redlines' Obama has painted himself into a corner. So last evening Obama evolved (uncoiled) this plan. To cover his ineptitude he has relented and turned to Congress hoping that they will not authorize the attack on Syria letting him off the hook. Problem is that with all his previous rhetoric if Obama does not attack Syria now he loses respect, credibility, and his honor as the leader of the West.

That's why we have 2 ears and one mouth. A person should listen twice as much as they talk.