Is the President a Laughingstock?

[Jack Hays]

I really do have to go, but see if you find this interesting:

An investigation by a committee in the House of Representatives in 2004 identified “237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies.” According to the committee, at least 61 separate statements “misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda.” A Senate investigation in 2006 also covered these lies.

I'll try to find out what this committee was later ... really do have to go ... take care ...

And I think the "committee" is bogus.

 

[specklebang]

Two years ago we were quite well informed, and the rebels we like (secular, moderate) were undisputed masters of the resistance. Asad was teetering, and Iran and Hezbollah had not yet come powerfully to his aid. We could have destroyed Iran's primary Middle East ally just by helping the people who like us. An opportunity missed. The destruction of the Asad regime would be a heavy strategic blow against both Iran and Hezbollah.eace

So you are suggesting that 2 years ago, at the start of the civil war, we should have come to the aid of who? Assad hasn't done anything to the US. He's a Dictator, that's all. It's not like his replacement will be a Democracy. If anybody at all should have assisted the "Rebels", assuming you could even define who they were, wouldn't that be a function for Israel? But why should they bother? I think there is no particular point or purpose to have chosen sides, then or now. Problem is that once The Big O opened his mouth, we got stuck with choices - none of them a benefit for us no matter what the end result is.

Stupid or brilliant depends on who did it and why. If Assad did it and ends up with no U.S. military intervention, more aid from Russia and Iran then he can stop using CWs and still continue to kill his opposition. If the Assad "U.S. friendly" opposition did it then they may have calulated that it would be a relatively small sacrafice of innocents to force Obama to honor his "red line" deal and have the U.S. military help them get control of Syria. If some outside force, or "non U.S. friendly" oppositon did it then they may have other motives for changing the political climate in Syria - perhaps as simple as just keeping the U.S. military too busy to pay much attention to their other planned activites.

I think we're agreeing that we are in a lose-lose situation with Syria and the best thing we could have done was express shock and horror at the use of CWs and then taken the rest of the day off. I mean, why exactly should we give a **** who does what with what to who? None of them are our friends. There is no US friendly opposition government in exile. Sure, murdering kids with CWs is ugly but so is murdering them with guns or bombs.

 

[Jack Hays]

So you are suggesting that 2 years ago, at the start of the civil war, we should have come to the aid of who? Assad hasn't done anything to the US. He's a Dictator, that's all. It's not like his replacement will be a Democracy. If anybody at all should have assisted the "Rebels", assuming you could even define who they were, wouldn't that be a function for Israel? But why should they bother? I think there is no particular point or purpose to have chosen sides, then or now. Problem is that once The Big O opened his mouth, we got stuck with choices - none of them a benefit for us no matter what the end result is.

The destruction of the Asad regime would be a significant strategic gain for the US, cutting off Hezbollah's supply line and blunting Iran's reach in the Middle East. Two years ago that gain could have been had easily, quickly and cheaply. The first wave of Syrian rebels were quite well and favorably known to us. Overt Israeli aid to any side in Syria is obviously a non-starter.eace

 

[specklebang]

The destruction of the Asad regime would be a significant strategic gain for the US, cutting off Hezbollah's supply line and blunting Iran's reach in the Middle East. Two years ago that gain could have been had easily, quickly and cheaply. The first wave of Syrian rebels were quite well and favorably known to us. Overt Israeli aid to any side in Syria is obviously a non-starter.eace

What leads you to believe that any Syrian would not support Hezbollah in their holy war against Israel? I've seen some express concern that the rebels have strong representation by Al Qaeda.

Presumably any aid given would be covert. Thus, Israel has a better opportunity than America does to support one faction or another.

Also, what would we have done 2 years ago? Entered the fighting? Do you think Obama would have had greater support 2 years ago or would we have the exact same people who disapprove of anti-Syrian involvement now have felt differently then?

 

[Linc]

A&M's defense is making its 1st appearance and A&M is playing its first real game. 'Bama got its wake-up call in week one.
Looking way ahead, GA and ALA could give us one and even both teams in the BCS if ALA loses the SEC title game. A one-loss SEC = a zero-loss anybody else.

:lamo We'll have to wait until the game is played. I had a bad feeling before last year's game. I do have a better feeling about the rematch...

 

[Linc]

None was needed. We're all sick of that revision game, both ways.

And yet not a single statement can be produced that uses 9/11 as a justification for the invasion of Iraq.

 

[washunut]

What leads you to believe that any Syrian would not support Hezbollah in their holy war against Israel? I've seen some express concern that the rebels have strong representation by Al Qaeda.

Presumably any aid given would be covert. Thus, Israel has a better opportunity than America does to support one faction or another.

Also, what would we have done 2 years ago? Entered the fighting? Do you think Obama would have had greater support 2 years ago or would we have the exact same people who disapprove of anti-Syrian involvement now have felt differently then?

Not sure of you have followed this issue based on the above.

The opposition to Assad are mainly from the Sunni sect while Hezbollah is Shia, as is Iran and Assad is an offshoot of this sect.

What we could have done, perhaps not two years ago but a year ago when the Free Syrian Army was established provided them with weapons and training. That might have kept these extremist groups from even getting involved.

Let's remember that as terrible as using chemical weapons is, Assad has been torturing even kids since the beginning of this uprising.

 

[Jack Hays]

What leads you to believe that any Syrian would not support Hezbollah in their holy war against Israel? I've seen some express concern that the rebels have strong representation by Al Qaeda.

Presumably any aid given would be covert. Thus, Israel has a better opportunity than America does to support one faction or another.

Also, what would we have done 2 years ago? Entered the fighting? Do you think Obama would have had greater support 2 years ago or would we have the exact same people who disapprove of anti-Syrian involvement now have felt differently then?

Hezbollah is Shia. Al Qaeda is Sunni. They are sworn enemies; that is why Al Qaeda opposes Asad. The Asad regime is a minority Shia government imposed on a majority Sunni population. No non-Shia successor Syrian regime would support Hezbollah. Two years ago all we needed to do was provide weapons and military materiel to the rebels.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

None was needed. We're all sick of that revision game, both ways.

I'm merely exposing a canard.

 

[Linc]

As for the rest, it seems that our POTUS has run from a strong hand.

And I would say it seems not. Too bad "both sides" in America can't get behind their POTUS on Foreign Relations...
Heard a clip of Goldwater tonite accusing JFK of playing politics with the timing of the Cuban missile crisis. He gave no proof, of course.

 

[Jack Hays]

And I would say it seems not. Too bad "both sides" in America can't get behind their POTUS on Foreign Relations...
Heard a clip of Goldwater tonite accusing JFK of playing politics with the timing of the Cuban missile crisis. He gave no proof, of course.

I am completely behind BHO. I only wish BHO were behind BHO.eace

 

[Linc]

The Asad regime is a minority Shia government imposed on a majority Sunni population.

As is Saudi Arabia...

Two years ago all we needed to do was provide weapons and military materiel to the rebels.eace

Present Moment Awareness would dictate an end to this mindless revision.

 

[Jack Hays]

As is Saudi Arabia... Present Moment Awareness would dictate an end to this mindless revision.

False on both counts. Saudi Arabia is thoroughly Sunni. And the situation two years ago in Syria was well documented at the time.

 

[Linc]

I am completely behind BHO.

What would you do at this "Present Moment"???

I only wish BHO were behind BHO.eace

Now who isn't making sense?? Repubs have a long, ****ty history of being isolationists during a Dem Presidency.

 

[Linc]

False on both counts. Saudi Arabia is thoroughly Sunni.

which is what I said--and run by Shias, as you stated, which makes you wrong...

And the situation two years ago in Syria was well documented at the time.

Still living in the past...

 

[specklebang]

Not sure of you have followed this issue based on the above.

The opposition to Assad are mainly from the Sunni sect while Hezbollah is Shia, as is Iran and Assad is an offshoot of this sect.

What we could have done, perhaps not two years ago but a year ago when the Free Syrian Army was established provided them with weapons and training. That might have kept these extremist groups from even getting involved.

Let's remember that as terrible as using chemical weapons is, Assad has been torturing even kids since the beginning of this uprising.

Hezbollah is Shia. Al Qaeda is Sunni. They are sworn enemies; that is why Al Qaeda opposes Asad. The Asad regime is a minority Shia government imposed on a majority Sunni population. No non-Shia successor Syrian regime would support Hezbollah. Two years ago all we needed to do was provide weapons and military materiel to the rebels.eace

OK, both of you have offered a really good response. The flaw might be that Al Qaeda is not particularly friendly to the US or Israel so how does this switch benefit us? If anything, we (the US) have more grievance with Al Qaeda (particularly on this sad anniversary day) than we do with Hezbollah. So how could the US have supported Al Qaeda and provided them weapons?

So it seems to me that in a lose-lose situation like this, doing nothing might have been the only logical response. Had Fearless Leader kept his mouth shut, we at least wouldn't be in this awkward position. OTOH, if Russia intervenes and confiscates (or effectively prohibits the use of) the CWs, we can stay out of this one.

 

[Jack Hays]

What would you do at this "Present Moment"??? Now who isn't making sense?? Repubs have a long, ****ty history of being isolationists during a Dem Presidency.

I would already have seriously ramped up assistance to the Free Syrian Army, with regime change as the objective. As for the Repubs, who cares? Since I'm not a Repub, their record is irrelevant to this discussion. Moreover, the Repub record under Presidents FD Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton was admirably supportive.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

which is what I said--and run by Shias, as you stated, which makes you wrong... Still living in the past...

Saudi Arabia is a country with an overwhelmingly Sunni population run by a Sunni regime. What's your point?

 

[Linc]

If anything, we (the US) have more grievance with Al Qaeda (particularly on this sad anniversary day) than we do with Hezbollah. So how could the US have supported Al Qaeda and provided them weapons?

How many original al Qaeda leaders from 2001 are still around??
The USA needs a history lesson on Sunni/Shia on its favorite news..

 

[Jack Hays]

OK, both of you have offered a really good response. The flaw might be that Al Qaeda is not particularly friendly to the US or Israel so how does this switch benefit us? If anything, we (the US) have more grievance with Al Qaeda (particularly on this sad anniversary day) than we do with Hezbollah. So how could the US have supported Al Qaeda and provided them weapons?

So it seems to me that in a lose-lose situation like this, doing nothing might have been the only logical response. Had Fearless Leader kept his mouth shut, we at least wouldn't be in this awkward position. OTOH, if Russia intervenes and confiscates (or effectively prohibits the use of) the CWs, we can stay out of this one.

Hezbollah is an arm of Iranian influence and far more powerful than Al Qaeda.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

A&M's defense is making its 1st appearance and A&M is playing its first real game. 'Bama got its wake-up call in week one.
Looking way ahead, GA and ALA could give us one and even both teams in the BCS if ALA loses the SEC title game. A one-loss SEC = a zero-loss anybody else.

I don't see a one loss SEC team in the last BCS game unless they win the SEC championship game or if everyone else has multiple losses. As to the VT game, Saban let his offensive line take on the full front of VT without letting AJ call an audible or having the TEs block down. I'm thinking there was purpose for that action yet the offense still scored twice...

 

[Fisher]

The President has shot himself in the foot. That on the eve of strikes to have such a turn of events that show that they hadn't even seriously tried the negotiation/diplomatic route is a pretty glaring failure, especially in light of people like the Pope having called for such a process.

Regardless, we will eventually bomb them anyway. At this point, it is the only way to save face. They will claim to have tried to negotiate in good faith but the other side is part of the empire of evildoers.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

The President has shot himself in the foot. That on the eve of strikes to have such a turn of events that show that they hadn't even seriously tried the negotiation/diplomatic route is a pretty glaring failure, especially in light of people like the Pope having called for such a process.

Regardless, we will eventually bomb them anyway. At this point, it is the only way to save face. They will claim to have tried to negotiate in good faith but the other side is part of the empire of evildoers.

If he does decide to let the cruise missiles fly, it will be without Congressional approval or public support which would not be good heading into an election year...

 

[sangha]

Not sure of you have followed this issue based on the above.

The opposition to Assad are mainly from the Sunni sect while Hezbollah is Shia, as is Iran and Assad is an offshoot of this sect.

What we could have done, perhaps not two years ago but a year ago when the Free Syrian Army was established provided them with weapons and training. That might have kept these extremist groups from even getting involved.

Let's remember that as terrible as using chemical weapons is, Assad has been torturing even kids since the beginning of this uprising.

The FSA did not hold territory securely enough for us to supply weapons to them.

What were we supposed to do? Mail the weapons Fed Ex with the ATT: Free Syrian Army and hope the right people got them?

 

[sangha]

I would already have seriously ramped up assistance to the Free Syrian Army

How would you do that when the FSA held to territory at that time and Syria has a strong air defense?