[TheRealThing]

The rhetoric intended to fire up support for Mr Obama's decision to take military action in Syria is eerily similar in tone, and content to things that were said in support of the Iraq War Resolution of 2002. Here is a list of Democratic Senators who both lobbied to support and voted for military action by the United States.

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

I bolded the six names who notably were very outspoken in their openly enthusiastic support to invade Iraq, only later to shamelessly turn on the president in an effort to disavow the validity of their own actions. Democrats conceived and subsequently launched a withering assault on the executive branch alleging they had been somehow tricked and therefore bore no responsibility for US involvement in the war. Lie after lie blaming the entire war effort solely on W raged on and on and has continued to capture converts to this very day.

Fast forward to present day. What are the reasons for bombing Syria? According to prominent Dems of our day which, incredibly are the very same Dems (bolded) who were at the forefront of congressional support in George W's day, are at it again, citing the use of WMD's as the primary reason. Now folks, if it's inexcusable for Bashar al-Assad to have gassed or used biological devices of mass destruction of late. And if, that act by definition justifies a military response by the US. Again, according to the self same top level Democrats plus one notable addition in Mr Obama. Then it was no less justifiable in the case of Iraq. As I have pointed out on number of occasions on here. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons, WMD's on hundreds of thousands of hapless Kurds in those indisputable acts of genocide. Somehow it's all okay again now to bust another rogue regime that is using WMD's?

Any bettors as to whether the Dems will skewer Obama like they did Bush by the mid-terms? But, the better question in my mind would be this; how is it possible for so many voters to be so oft deceived, by the inconsistent actions and purposeful distortions of these liberal Democratic hypocrites? I mean, there are any number of books out these days detailing the unbelievable litany of lying, story changing and backing up that this bunch has been involved in with regard to Benghazi. And now we're supposed to just jump up and support them in a war with Syria? I wouldn't believe them if they were on a stack of Bibles. We still don't have one guy in custody, nor has your federal government had the courage or wherewithal to stand up and explain themselves for one of the greatest lapses of security in recent history.

[nky]

Where was the outrage, when over 100000 were killed in Syria using conventional weapons? now that it's gas we have to do something over 1500 deaths?

[judgementday]

Syria is in a war with Syria. Yes it is horrible that they used chemical weapons but why is the US the only country always willing to step in to start a war?

[nky]

Who are we helping if we bomb Syria?

[TheRealThing]

Who are we helping if we bomb Syria?

Nobody, except Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. They're a threat to the region but, after the disastrous US foreign policy blunders of the last 5 years I suppose the world is lucky the conflict hasn't gone nuclear.

[vundy33]

We tied one hand behind our backs with the "red-line". There was no reason to make that statement if we don't have the will to actually enforce it.

I agree with the premise, if CW becomes "normal", we're just one step closer to nuclear. The biggest problem with it however is CW being used on us by an enemy in the future. That would suck.

I do not believe a strike would help AQ or anyone looking to topple Assad. It's not going to happen, Assad has gotten past the worst of the war and I am convinced he will eventually win out. Also, Iran has shown over and over and over that their talk is just that, talk. If another front in this war opened up, that would help the opposition more than any punitive strike by us would. Not only would a big chunk of Hezbollah have to be committed, but they'd also have to take some away from the frontline in Syria.

We have shot ourselves in the foot yet again. We've shown weakness, and Russia and China have taken full advantage of it. The State Dept is a joke in my opinion, it's one blunder after another.

[TheRealThing]

^The "red line" statement Obama made did hurt. And he has been laughed to scorn by the entire planet for having said it. It would certainly not be much of a stretch to assume some amount of damage control is being attempted by Sec of State Kerry. You may have already noticed that Obama, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry have all parroted the same catch phrase today on national TV. "Obama didn't draw the red line the people of the world did that." Funny thing is, if we bomb Syria we will be alone in the matter. The Arab League has gone as far as authoring and releasing a letter condemning the US, should they take military action in Syria.

I've also heard Dodd trying to rationalize his way out of any responsibility for the Iraq War Resolution and saying the congress and the American people were misled by George W. :please: Heck, it's the congress that is supposed to be smart enough to not allow the people to be misled, much less try to say the congress is just as dumb if not dumber than the general populace when it comes to foreign policy. These guys have to think they're speaking to morons when they say this kind of stuff. I'm totally offended at being taken for a fool by legislators like him as I believe everyone should be.

[MustangSally]

[YOUTUBE="Where did he say world?"]IxxwfaIAl_Q[/YOUTUBE]

[vundy33]

But, I have to defend the remarks that we're not the world's police. Our leaders since WW2, for the most part, have chosen that path. We can't carry the weight we do around the world and expect no one to call on us when there is trouble. Especially trouble that we have helped happen.

It's tough to go from the world's biggest and baddest cop and then turn around and go back to the days where we stayed out of everything. Things are different, and we're now screwed because of it. Obviously, the world is getting a bit sick of our hypocrisy. They are now showing it, considering the only country that supports a punitive strike is France.

To the world, we are a country that committed over half a million lives to a war that was based on the case that we had to protect ourselves from a threat of weapons of mass destruction. Yet when we have a MUCH bigger threat of these same kind of weapons not only being used, but possibly falling into the hands of our current biggest enemy, we continue to do nothing when the threat is much higher. Not only that, but we intervened and helped in Libya when a dictator there starts killing scores of his own people. Yet again, when Syria does it, we tuck our tail between our legs because for one, it doesn't fall in enough people's interest to help. And 2, they have a big brother called Russia.

Obviously we know why we're so hesitant to do anything. We've done so and we've found it wasn't a smart decision afterward, like both Iraq and Libya. But ya have to realize how ridiculous that makes us look in the eyes of everyone else when we believe what we want to believe and ignore what we want to ignore, no matter the actual facts.

I said earlier we had shot ourselves in the foot, but it seems more like we've shot ourselves in the leg and accidentally hit an artery. There is no right or wrong decision here, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

[vundy33]

I don't blame our allies for not wanting to get involved in anything new. I just think they have chosen the wrong time to do that.

There's just no consistency. We start a war like Iraq, then under a new administration we jump into a conflict in Syria with our allies on our side, and then when Syria breaks an obvious taboo in using chemical weapons, we do nothing.

But this isn't a new thing. What did we do when Saddam used gas on his own people? Not much.

[vundy33]

All of that is without even mentioned the war in Afghanistan, which was started nearly two years before Iraq and was supposed to be fought with airpower and special operations. But for the last decade, we've sent normal infantry and fought an insurgency. 12 years.
This has caused billions and billions upgrading equipment to deal with changing tactics, taking care of veterans, ect.

And we're not even done there yet, have had allies help there, and they've lost lives as well as money even if it doesn't compare to what we've lost. I can't blame them honestly.

To then find out our own CIA has given Afghan President Karzai bags of cash for his cooperation that we have not gotten pisses me off. The last thing I want is another situation like the one we're not even out of, but I do think we can't allow ourselves to look so pathetically weak that we, the U.S. and our allies who are supposed to be the good guys, can't even keep a regime from using chemical weapons on their own people. But now our leaders don't even know how to access a threat and have shown their inability to do so over and over and over.

If I were an enemy of America, this would be the perfect time to make my move. I know if I know that, the actual enemy definitely knows it.

[TheRealThing]

But, I have to defend the remarks that we're not the world's police. Our leaders since WW2, for the most part, have chosen that path. We can't carry the weight we do around the world and expect no one to call on us when there is trouble. Especially trouble that we have helped happen.

It's tough to go from the world's biggest and baddest cop and then turn around and go back to the days where we stayed out of everything. Things are different, and we're now screwed because of it. Obviously, the world is getting a bit sick of our hypocrisy. They are now showing it, considering the only country that supports a punitive strike is France.

To the world, we are a country that committed over half a million lives to a war that was based on the case that we had to protect ourselves from a threat of weapons of mass destruction. Yet when we have a MUCH bigger threat of these same kind of weapons not only being used, but possibly falling into the hands of our current biggest enemy, we continue to do nothing when the threat is much higher. Not only that, but we intervened and helped in Libya when a dictator there starts killing scores of his own people. Yet again, when Syria does it, we tuck our tail between our legs because for one, it doesn't fall in enough people's interest to help. And 2, they have a big brother called Russia.

Obviously we know why we're so hesitant to do anything. We've done so and we've found it wasn't a smart decision afterward, like both Iraq and Libya. But ya have to realize how ridiculous that makes us look in the eyes of everyone else when we believe what we want to believe and ignore what we want to ignore, no matter the actual facts.

I said earlier we had shot ourselves in the foot, but it seems more like we've shot ourselves in the leg and accidentally hit an artery. There is no right or wrong decision here, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

All true. As to the bolded, there was a time when we commanded tremendous respect around the world. During the days of our economic boom following WW2 we were a force for good up until the day that Jimmie Carter helped get the rug pulled out from under the Shaw of Iran.

[vundy33]

I think bipartisanship just muddies the situation futher really. Both sides have made big mistakes.

We're screwed from my point of view. I really don't even think the administration really wants to do this, but feels it has to for mainly political reasons. That's a joke on it's own but the world we obviously live in. We're so screwed in the Middle East that I don't see how we still hold any credibility with any ally. I think the main reason we still have any on our side is because of what they get from us in return.

I'm confident that by the time my kids are my age (which will be quite a while since I don't have any yet), we'll still be fighting terrorism on a large scale. I don't see us being at peace for another 20 years at least, and that is a shame. It's going to be one thing after another.

[TheRealThing]

But, I have to defend the remarks that we're not the world's police. Our leaders since WW2, for the most part, have chosen that path. We can't carry the weight we do around the world and expect no one to call on us when there is trouble. Especially trouble that we have helped happen.

It's tough to go from the world's biggest and baddest cop and then turn around and go back to the days where we stayed out of everything. Things are different, and we're now screwed because of it. Obviously, the world is getting a bit sick of our hypocrisy. They are now showing it, considering the only country that supports a punitive strike is France.

To the world, we are a country that committed over half a million lives to a war that was based on the case that we had to protect ourselves from a threat of weapons of mass destruction. Yet when we have a MUCH bigger threat of these same kind of weapons not only being used, but possibly falling into the hands of our current biggest enemy, we continue to do nothing when the threat is much higher. Not only that, but we intervened and helped in Libya when a dictator there starts killing scores of his own people. Yet again, when Syria does it, we tuck our tail between our legs because for one, it doesn't fall in enough people's interest to help. And 2, they have a big brother called Russia.

Obviously we know why we're so hesitant to do anything. We've done so and we've found it wasn't a smart decision afterward, like both Iraq and Libya. But ya have to realize how ridiculous that makes us look in the eyes of everyone else when we believe what we want to believe and ignore what we want to ignore, no matter the actual facts.

I said earlier we had shot ourselves in the foot, but it seems more like we've shot ourselves in the leg and accidentally hit an artery. There is no right or wrong decision here, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

All true. As to the bolded, there was a time when we commanded tremendous respect around the world. During the days of our economic boom following WW2 we were a force for good, up until the day we started to slide a little. On that day Jimmie Carter helped get the rug pulled out from under the Shaw of Iran, whose citizenry at the time, craved a westernized civilization. However, the idea that we could somehow be responsible for policing the world for perpetuity, was manifestly naïve as world events have revealed. We could never have kept up with it all even if Iraq had successfully transitioned into becoming a democracy. But, imagine how much more manageable a prospect a stabilized middle east would have been if they had.

World policing is sort of like herding cats, we have to pick our fights and let the rest go. Actually, I believe it's the Americans who have assumed the lead in global naivety. They tend to believe that everybody else somehow is just not as smart as we Americans are. Probably because they get their notions of Americanism from Hollywood and the nightly news. Anyway, I think we are incapable of understanding as you say, how ridiculous we look to the rest of the world. All of which, is one of the unfortunate outcomes when one of our two political parties, makes a living politicizing world affairs in the manner in which we saw Senator Dodd do today. At any rate, there are some very intelligent folks around this world and they have nothing but contempt for the US because we treat them like they're lucky we even notice them.

I mean, here we are at that very same Iraqi cross roads once again, trying to decide if it is the right call to take military action in Syria. We haven't learned a single thing from the experience which was Iraq, except that Democrats will use anything to make political hay out of. Including thousands of slain Kurds or hundreds of thousands of slain Syrians. Those folks have suffered miserably and today we see proof positive in Dodd's speech that we still can't rise above the lies and finger pointing and that Democrats can't cease from propagating the political food fight long enough to govern like men. Despite what Dodd says, there is no difference between the Iraq War Resolution and the one being proffered to authorize the use of force against Syria. It is the very same argument. Innocent civilians, many of whom were children, were slain by a man who could give Assad a run for his money any day and that man of course was Saddam. Democrats even tried to use a picture showing rows of slain Iraqi children laid out with white body coverings on them, as evidence to support their commander in chief's request from congress, trying to say they were Syrian children. Then later after they got caught said oh, that was a mistake. Sure was, somebody who wasn't quite as dumb as was pegged to be, caught the dems up in another lie.

If Obama wants to try to restabilize the region somewhat, Iran is the problem. If they want to impress me they can hop on over to Iran and do some nice surgical strikes on the nuclear weapons factories, centrifuges and other uranium enrichment facilities. Then they can warn Kim Jr to comply or get a dose of the same. Jumping up on Syria seems like smoke and mirrors to me. :biggrin:

[vundy33]

I've always been one to defend the thought that so many Americans have about the world hating us because in my experience, it wasn't true. But getting back into the loop that I left after the military has shown me it's gotten quite a bit worse.

[TheRealThing]

I think bipartisanship just muddies the situation futher really. Both sides have made big mistakes.

We're screwed from my point of view. I really don't even think the administration really wants to do this, but feels it has to for mainly political reasons. That's a joke on it's own but the world we obviously live in. We're so screwed in the Middle East that I don't see how we still hold any credibility with any ally. I think the main reason we still have any on our side is because of what they get from us in return.

I'm confident that by the time my kids are my age (which will be quite a while since I don't have any yet), we'll still be fighting terrorism on a large scale. I don't see us being at peace for another 20 years at least, and that is a shame. It's going to be one thing after another.

I think you are exactly right. To me one must go back at least as far as the Carter administration to get a handle on the attitude of radical Islamists. Under his watch, America sat seemingly paralyzed on her hands and watched the Shaw be deposed with spit dripping off her chin. (a similar foreign policy fog bank has again beset the land in our day) Remember the ridged resolve demonstrated the Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers to reinstate the validity of strict adherence to Sharia Law in Iran? Fast forward to the military overthrow of Mohammed Morsi and the reaction of his followers. The Egyptian based Muslim Brotherhood had been lurking in the shadows for decades, patiently effecting change and standing in unwavering fashion, hoping to see the reestablishment of Sharia Law and eventually the Caliphate. They had successfully seized upon the opportunity to grab power in the vacuum created by the departure of Mubarak. Now they're more determined than ever to push forward with their dream of total control of the Middle East and eventually the world. These guys really believe they'll be rewarded for sacrificing themselves on the field of battle which, to them is anywhere from a crowded café in Jerusalem, to caves in Afghanistan, to the cockpit of a Boeing 767 with a bead on the 82nd floor of the World Trade Center south tower.

It's hard to know exactly how to deal with people who will never stop coming at you. From my view. We must understand that as a matter national survival, we should never blink when dealing with these guys. If they continue to kill and maim, we must respond in kind and we will have to do that each and every time. You know, we actually won in Iraq and then surrendered after the victory was secured, on the premise that Iraq needed to become self sufficient. Heck, we lost more American citizens over a single weekend in a Chicago land murdering rampage than we lost in Iraq in six months. The legions of Rome never left a conquered land with their tail tucked, it would have made them seem somehow weaker than they really were. Same thing with Iraq, we won and then scrammed out of there like we didn't have a clue what we were doing there in the first place. Sort of like paying for a corvette in timely monthly precision only to default on the very last payment thereby losing the corvette along with the respect of the bank and the community. We made ourselves look impotent.

One thing is certain. Strong leadership and visionary foreign policy is best left to legitimate statesmen and not in the incapable hands of novice liberal ideologues.

[Wildcatk23]

All true. As to the bolded, there was a time when we commanded tremendous respect around the world. During the days of our economic boom following WW2 we were a force for good, up until the day we started to slide a little. On that day Jimmie Carter helped get the rug pulled out from under the Shaw of Iran, whose citizenry at the time, craved a westernized civilization. However, the idea that we could somehow be responsible for policing the world for perpetuity, was manifestly naïve as world events have revealed. We could never have kept up with it all even if Iraq had successfully transitioned into becoming a democracy. But, imagine how much more manageable a prospect a stabilized middle east would have been if they had.

World policing is sort of like herding cats, we have to pick our fights and let the rest go. Actually, I believe it's the Americans who have assumed the lead in global naivety. They tend to believe that everybody else somehow is just not as smart as we Americans are. Probably because they get their notions of Americanism from Hollywood and the nightly news. Anyway, I think we are incapable of understanding as you say, how ridiculous we look to the rest of the world. All of which, is one of the unfortunate outcomes when one of our two political parties, makes a living politicizing world affairs in the manner in which we saw Senator Dodd do today. At any rate, there are some very intelligent folks around this world and they have nothing but contempt for the US because we treat them like they're lucky we even notice them.

I mean, here we are at that very same Iraqi cross roads once again, trying to decide if it is the right call to take military action in Syria. We haven't learned a single thing from the experience which was Iraq, except that Democrats will use anything to make political hay out of. Including thousands of slain Kurds or hundreds of thousands of slain Syrians. Those folks have suffered miserably and today we see proof positive in Dodd's speech that we still can't rise above the lies and finger pointing and that Democrats can't cease from propagating the political food fight long enough to govern like men. Despite what Dodd says, there is no difference between the Iraq War Resolution and the one being proffered to authorize the use of force against Syria. It is the very same argument. Innocent civilians, many of whom were children, were slain by a man who could give Assad a run for his money any day and that man of course was Saddam. Democrats even tried to use a picture showing rows of slain Iraqi children laid out with white body coverings on them, as evidence to support their commander in chief's request from congress, trying to say they were Syrian children. Then later after they got caught said oh, that was a mistake. Sure was, somebody who wasn't quite as dumb as was pegged to be, caught the dems up in another lie.

If Obama wants to try to restabilize the region somewhat, Iran is the problem. If they want to impress me they can hop on over to Iran and do some nice surgical strikes on the nuclear weapons factories, centrifuges and other uranium enrichment facilities. Then they can warn Kim Jr to comply or get a dose of the same. Jumping up on Syria seems like smoke and mirrors to me. :biggrin:

I agree with most of what you guys are saying . I just find it interesting that you blame absolutely everything on democrats . You say they politicize everything and bush won his second election because of the war an his fight on terrorist.
There was no action against Iraq over the chemical weapons . We didn't invade there until the "intel" that they had WMD. We found none .

You mention war and the conservatives get all excited . McCain doesn't like the presidents plan because he wants more action . Is it really a good time to throw ourselves in another war?

[TheRealThing]

I agree with most of what you guys are saying . I just find it interesting that you blame absolutely everything on democrats . You say they politicize everything and bush won his second election because of the war an his fight on terrorist.
There was no action against Iraq over the chemical weapons . We didn't invade there until the "intel" that they had WMD. We found none .

You mention war and the conservatives get all excited . McCain doesn't like the presidents plan because he wants more action . Is it really a good time to throw ourselves in another war?

Au contraire. I'm not blaming one single thing on democrats. I am merely calling up the record of some of their more recent legislative actions. Hopefully, you noticed the names of Democratic Senators listed in the thread starter who voted to support the Iraq War Resolution of 2002. Senators Kerry, Reid, Clinton, Schumer, Rockefeller and the venerable Joseph Biden were among those calling more loudly for a military response. Citing intel which linked Iraq to terrorist activities and the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction which claimed the lives of at least 80,000 Kurdish men women and children, these senators were adamant in their support.

Senator Dick Durbin (D) Illinois and Senate Foreign Relations Committee member, was busy once again slamming republicans and Bush in particular, blaming them for deceiving the nation and the congress in the matter of the Iraq War, during his statement of support for the committee's decision to support action in Syria yesterday. As I pointed out, there is no difference between the action taken in Iraq and the action being pushed for in Syria. Both situations are identical. Thousands of innocents having been slaughtered by megalomaniac dictators who had no compunctions against using WMD's on their own people. (chemical weapons of mass destruction in both cases) In yet another display of shameless politicization of world affairs, he (a democrat) used incidents of genocide to gain a political edge for his party during his endorsement of Mr Obama's request to attack Syria. I don't know how to break this to Durbin but, those who know the truth, which, is anybody who has looked into the matter with an unbiased eye, ain't buying what he and others keep saying.

To me, the real argument here is why we should accept the reasoning being proffered as the truth from an administration and it's State Department which, has stonewalled against the attempts of the congress and the American public to find out what really happened in Benghazi? We know Hillary et-al lied their heads off in blaming a video they knew had nothing to do with the attacks at the compound in which, four very good and brave US citizens sacrificed their lives for something. What exactly is not yet known because Hillary and her subordinates have denied us that truth. Why now should we accept the word of the very same State Department as truthful? Because Hill is gone and Kerry is now the man?

Trust, once lost, is a hard thing to regain. As Vundy pointed out, we look bad in the eyes of the world because we wrongly believe we can successfully haze the planet and nobody will be smart enough to see it. The poles show beyond doubt that Americans have now awakened to a large degree as well, and they don't trust their federal government by an overwhelming majority.

The WMD's that were missing in Iraq were sent to Syria. We have that on good authority, Saddam's second in charge, Iraqi general Georges Sada. If you would care to take a few moments of your day to read up on the matter, here's a link to an article written in the last day or so; http://www.policymic.com/articles/62103/...end-saddam

At any rate, how anybody could try to deny that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction totally escapes me. How many thousand Kurds would necessarily have needed to be slain in order for you to believe they existed? The whole thing was a lie. George W was helpless to dispel the lie because as you say, by the time we got there they were already gone and he therefore could not silence his critics. Unlike his successor, W wouldn't have cheapened the office of the president by engaging in a pointless back and forth between himself and democrats who had made the charge that they were never there. The fact that our own intel, an Israeli general and the rest of the sources named in the article I sourced spoke up in support of their existence, is enough to convince me.

FWIW, I'm no fan of John McCain either.

[tvtimeout]

Au contraire. I'm not blaming one single thing on democrats. I am merely calling up the record of some of their more recent legislative actions. Hopefully, you noticed the names of Democratic Senators listed in the thread starter who voted to support the Iraq War Resolution of 2002. Senators Kerry, Reid, Clinton, Schumer, Rockefeller and the venerable Joseph Biden were among those calling more loudly for a military response. Citing intel which linked Iraq to terrorist activities and the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction which claimed the lives of at least 80,000 Kurdish men women and children, these senators were adamant in their support.

Senator Dick Durbin (D) Illinois and Senate Foreign Relations Committee member, was busy once again slamming republicans and Bush in particular, blaming them for deceiving the nation and the congress in the matter of the Iraq War, during his statement of support for the committee's decision to support action in Syria yesterday. As I pointed out, there is no difference between the action taken in Iraq and the action being pushed for in Syria. Both situations are identical. Thousands of innocents having been slaughtered by megalomaniac dictators who had no compunctions against using WMD's on their own people. (chemical weapons of mass destruction in both cases) In yet another display of shameless politicization of world affairs, he (a democrat) used incidents of genocide to gain a political edge for his party during his endorsement of Mr Obama's request to attack Syria. I don't know how to break this to Durbin but, those who know the truth, which, is anybody who has looked into the matter with an unbiased eye, ain't buying what he and others keep saying.

To me, the real argument here is why we should accept the reasoning being proffered as the truth from an administration and it's State Department which, has stonewalled against the attempts of the congress and the American public to find out what really happened in Benghazi? We know Hillary et-al lied their heads off in blaming a video they knew had nothing to do with the attacks at the compound in which, four very good and brave US citizens sacrificed their lives for something. What exactly is not yet known because Hillary and her subordinates have denied us that truth. Why now should we accept the word of the very same State Department as truthful? Because Hill is gone and Kerry is now the man?

Trust, once lost, is a hard thing to regain. As Vundy pointed out, we look bad in the eyes of the world because we wrongly believe we can successfully haze the planet and nobody will be smart enough to see it. The poles show beyond doubt that Americans have now awakened to a large degree as well, and they don't trust their federal government by an overwhelming majority.

The WMD's that were missing in Iraq were sent to Syria. We have that on good authority, Saddam's second in charge, Iraqi general Georges Sada. If you would care to take a few moments of your day to read up on the matter, here's a link to an article written in the last day or so; http://www.policymic.com/articles/62103/...end-saddam

At any rate, how anybody could try to deny that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction totally escapes me. How many thousand Kurds would necessarily have needed to be slain in order for you to believe they existed? The whole thing was a lie. George W was helpless to dispel the lie because as you say, by the time we got there they were already gone and he therefore could not silence his critics. Unlike his successor, W wouldn't have cheapened the office of the president by engaging in a pointless back and forth between himself and democrats who had made the charge that they were never there. The fact that our own intel, an Israeli general and the rest of the sources named in the article I sourced spoke up in support of their existence, is enough to convince me.

FWIW, I'm no fan of John McCain either.

You know this!!! Did you show the evidence to our senators that prejury was committed?

Also earlier you stated recent actions of Democrats... I did not notice anything about the G.I. Bill that alot of our veterans use today, and I for one totally agree with.

Also no mention of Alison Grimes going to Iraq to make sure that Kentuckians had the fair oppertunity to vote in the last election.

Just bringing up two simple points for conversation sake!

[Wildcatk23]

Au contraire. I'm not blaming one single thing on democrats. I am merely calling up the record of some of their more recent legislative actions. Hopefully, you noticed the names of Democratic Senators listed in the thread starter who voted to support the Iraq War Resolution of 2002. Senators Kerry, Reid, Clinton, Schumer, Rockefeller and the venerable Joseph Biden were among those calling more loudly for a military response. Citing intel which linked Iraq to terrorist activities and the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction which claimed the lives of at least 80,000 Kurdish men women and children, these senators were adamant in their support.

Senator Dick Durbin (D) Illinois and Senate Foreign Relations Committee member, was busy once again slamming republicans and Bush in particular, blaming them for deceiving the nation and the congress in the matter of the Iraq War, during his statement of support for the committee's decision to support action in Syria yesterday. As I pointed out, there is no difference between the action taken in Iraq and the action being pushed for in Syria. Both situations are identical. Thousands of innocents having been slaughtered by megalomaniac dictators who had no compunctions against using WMD's on their own people. (chemical weapons of mass destruction in both cases) In yet another display of shameless politicization of world affairs, he (a democrat) used incidents of genocide to gain a political edge for his party during his endorsement of Mr Obama's request to attack Syria. I don't know how to break this to Durbin but, those who know the truth, which, is anybody who has looked into the matter with an unbiased eye, ain't buying what he and others keep saying.

To me, the real argument here is why we should accept the reasoning being proffered as the truth from an administration and it's State Department which, has stonewalled against the attempts of the congress and the American public to find out what really happened in Benghazi? We know Hillary et-al lied their heads off in blaming a video they knew had nothing to do with the attacks at the compound in which, four very good and brave US citizens sacrificed their lives for something. What exactly is not yet known because Hillary and her subordinates have denied us that truth. Why now should we accept the word of the very same State Department as truthful? Because Hill is gone and Kerry is now the man?

Trust, once lost, is a hard thing to regain. As Vundy pointed out, we look bad in the eyes of the world because we wrongly believe we can successfully haze the planet and nobody will be smart enough to see it. The poles show beyond doubt that Americans have now awakened to a large degree as well, and they don't trust their federal government by an overwhelming majority.

The WMD's that were missing in Iraq were sent to Syria. We have that on good authority, Saddam's second in charge, Iraqi general Georges Sada. If you would care to take a few moments of your day to read up on the matter, here's a link to an article written in the last day or so; http://www.policymic.com/articles/62103/how-did-syria-get-chemical-weapons-did-they-come-from-our-old-friend-saddam

At any rate, how anybody could try to deny that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction totally escapes me. How many thousand Kurds would necessarily have needed to be slain in order for you to believe they existed? The whole thing was a lie. George W was helpless to dispel the lie because as you say, by the time we got there they were already gone and he therefore could not silence his critics. Unlike his successor, W wouldn't have cheapened the office of the president by engaging in a pointless back and forth between himself and democrats who had made the charge that they were never there. The fact that our own intel, an Israeli general and the rest of the sources named in the article I sourced spoke up in support of their existence, is enough to convince me.

FWIW, I'm no fan of John McCain either.

Did bush not have any scandals? Lies or controversies?

So you would believe satan if he told you he was jesus? Why would you credit him a good source?

When was the Kurds being massively exterminated and when did we invade iraq?

[TheRealThing]

You know this!!! Did you show the evidence to our senators that prejury was committed?

Also earlier you stated recent actions of Democrats... I did not notice anything about the G.I. Bill that alot of our veterans use today, and I for one totally agree with.

Also no mention of Alison Grimes going to Iraq to make sure that Kentuckians had the fair oppertunity to vote in the last election.

Just bringing up two simple points for conversation sake!

LOL, well, this particular conversation is about the US going to war with Syria and the similarities that exist between the Iraq Resolution of 2002 and the one currently on the table to bomb Syria.

[TheRealThing]

Did bush not have any scandals? Lies or controversies?

So you would believe satan if he told you he was jesus? Why would you credit him a good source?

When was the Kurds being massively exterminated and when did we invade iraq?

I'm not aware of any lies or scandals George W was caught up in, maybe you could enlighten me.

The article I gave the link to is a good source. Their was no gain for any of those quoted in the article for speaking out.

Sec of State John Kerry is making the case along with Obama that the world community, whatever that is, is morally responsible to act whenever the "norm" of zero tolerance for the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction are used. So, I'm all ears if you can tell me the difference between gassing Kurds or gassing Syrians.

[Wildcatk23]

I'm not aware of any lies or scandals George W was caught up in, maybe you could enlighten me.

The article I gave the link to is a good source. Their was no gain for any of those quoted in the article for speaking out.

Sec of State John Kerry is making the case along with Obama that the world community, whatever that is, is morally responsible to act whenever the "norm" of zero tolerance for the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction are used. So, I'm all ears if you can tell me the difference between gassing Kurds or gassing Syrians.

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy for one.

Ive posted many before but heres a few and a link.

When testifying before Congress in 2007, L. Paul Bremer, the
former head of reconstruction in Iraq, was unable to account for as much as $12 billion—about half of his budget—as the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority between May 2003 and June 2004. According to a report by Rep. Henry Waxman, contractors brought bags to meetings in order to collect shrink-wrapped bundles of money.
In 2004, Pentagon auditors found that Halliburton had not adequately accounted for $1.8 billion of the bill it sent to the United States government for its work in Iraq and Kuwait.

Also that year, Bunnatine Greenhouse, the Army Corps of Engineers' chief contracting officer, charged that KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, unfairly received billions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts in Iraq. Greenhouse was demoted in 2005.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...ndals.html

Once again i ask you when was the gas used on the kurds and when did we invade iraq. We the NATION was told we was invading IRAQ because they had weapons of mass destruction. We didnt find any. What bigger Scandal is there?

[vundy33]

When I've looked back through history to see when chemical weapons have been used since WWI, it surprised me that the world didn't step up and do a thing in most instances. I really don't know how any of our politicians, no matter the party, can still use our morals in a defense of any kind of foreign policy.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Its 2013.
Just making sure everyone remembers.

[TheRealThing]

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy for one.

Ive posted many before but heres a few and a link.

(1) - When testifying before Congress in 2007, L. Paul Bremer, the
former head of reconstruction in Iraq, was unable to account for as much as $12 billion—about half of his budget—as the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority between May 2003 and June 2004. According to a report by Rep. Henry Waxman, contractors brought bags to meetings in order to collect shrink-wrapped bundles of money.
(2) - In 2004, Pentagon auditors found that Halliburton had not adequately accounted for $1.8 billion of the bill it sent to the United States government for its work in Iraq and Kuwait.

Also that year, Bunnatine Greenhouse, the Army Corps of Engineers' chief contracting officer, charged that KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, unfairly received billions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts in Iraq. Greenhouse was demoted in 2005.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...ndals.html

(3) - Once again i ask you when was the gas used on the kurds and when did we invade iraq. We the NATION was told we was invading IRAQ because they had weapons of mass destruction. We didnt find any. What bigger Scandal is there?

(1) - L Paul Bremer. The number I heard to be in question was 7.8 billion. One way or the other, the funds were released and spent in the Iraqi economy. Accounting was admittedly sloppy but, Bremer had directives to pump the money into the Iraqi economy which he did. I think you'll find we did largely the same thing in Japan and Germany.

(2) - The federal government is always tussling with big time contractors. Do you have any idea how many government contracts Halliburton has fulfilled over the decades? The government and Halliburton deals go as far back as the 1950's when the company was known as the Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company. The issue you like to throw out there so often was the billing problem they had with the government, which was settled to everybody's satisfaction as far as I know.

(3) - I don't know, maybe the fact that you just won't admit that Saddam had WMD's even though history records his having used them? :igiveup: What do the dates have to do with it anyway? We know at one time or another before the arrival of US forces, he used them on the Kurds and other minority communities in Iraq including the Assyrians, Shabaks, Iraqi Turkmens, Yazidis, Jews, Mandeans, and others during his reign of terror. All of which happened well before we invaded Iraq. He ran rough shod over anybody that got in his way while Billy Boy Clinton was head cheese too and we still did nothing about it until W came to office. George got to Iraq too late to catch Saddam with them. They didn't get to Hitler in time to stop him from gassing and shooting 6 million Jews either but, we know he did it.

Like I keep saying, the scandal is the way Democrats keep using world affairs to politicize these straw man arguments aimed at throwing suspicion on Republicans. During the times you mention the House and the Senate were controlled by the Democrats and that was back before Obama neutered the US congress via executive fiat. At bare minimum they are equally responsible. FTR, I'm not saying they have caused all our ills. I am saying they lie like dogs cause I hear them doing it every time they make public statements which blame Republicans. LOL, their the ones blaming republicans. You never hear republicans responding in kind.

If it turns out to be okay to bomb Syria for gassing their own, it was darn sure okay for us to bomb Iraq for doing the same and worse.

[Hoot Gibson]

I agree with most of what you guys are saying . I just find it interesting that you blame absolutely everything on democrats . You say they politicize everything and bush won his second election because of the war an his fight on terrorist.
There was no action against Iraq over the chemical weapons . We didn't invade there until the "intel" that they had WMD. We found none .

You mention war and the conservatives get all excited . McCain doesn't like the presidents plan because he wants more action . Is it really a good time to throw ourselves in another war?

McCain is not and has never been a conservative. Obama has become a global laughingstock and yet liberals continue to defend him. It appears very likely that both the Syrian government and the Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons during their civil war, but Obama, McCain, Graham, and many more misguided and dishonest politicians want to pass judgment on only the Syrian government. Does it really make sense to you for the U.S. to become an ally of Al Qaeda to in order to punish Assad for using chemical weapons when the rebels that Obama and Al Qaeda support have used the same tactic?

Syria is not Iraq and Obama is not Bush. If your entire conspiracy theory involving Bush and WMD in Iraq is correct, how would that make Obama's plan the right one to pursue in Syria?

BTW, the part of your conspiracy theory that makes no sense to me is this. If Bush and his supporters lied to get this country into a war with Iraq, then why did they not simply lie or fabricate evidence of WMD in Iraq? Would it not have been fairly simple for a corrupt administration to order a highly classified mission to extract WMD from Iraq and then simply leak a few details of the bogus operation to the media? Why would they lie to justify a war and then not conduct a bogus operation to remove fictional WMD from Iraq to prove that the war was justified on that basis?

Liberals are really clueless about who are and are not conservatives in our government. Conservatives generally despise RINOs like McCain and Lindsey Graham and would love to see them booted from office in the primaries. Citing McCain and his sidekick's position as proof that conservatives just love war is just the sort of crazy talk that we have come to expect from the left.

[Wildcatk23]

McCain is not and has never been a conservative. Obama has become a global laughingstock and yet liberals continue to defend him. It appears very likely that both the Syrian government and the Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons during their civil war, but Obama, McCain, Graham, and many more misguided and dishonest politicians want to pass judgment on only the Syrian government. Does it really make sense to you for the U.S. to become an ally of Al Qaeda to in order to punish Assad for using chemical weapons when the rebels that Obama and Al Qaeda support have used the same tactic?

Syria is not Iraq and Obama is not Bush. If your entire conspiracy theory involving Bush and WMD in Iraq is correct, how would that make Obama's plan the right one to pursue in Syria?

BTW, the part of your conspiracy theory that makes no sense to me is this. If Bush and his supporters lied to get this country into a war with Iraq, then why did they not simply lie or fabricate evidence of WMD in Iraq? Would it not have been fairly simple for a corrupt administration to order a highly classified mission to extract WMD from Iraq and then simply leak a few details of the bogus operation to the media? Why would they lie to justify a war and then not conduct a bogus operation to remove fictional WMD from Iraq to prove that the war was justified on that basis?

Liberals are really clueless about who are and are not conservatives in our government. Conservatives generally despise RINOs like McCain and Lindsey Graham and would love to see them booted from office in the primaries. Citing McCain and his sidekick's position as proof that conservatives just love war is just the sort of crazy talk that we have come to expect from the left.

Who said we was doing the right thing my involving ourselves more with Syria . It's down right stupid .

[TheRealThing]

McCain is not and has never been a conservative. Obama has become a global laughingstock and yet liberals continue to defend him. It appears very likely that both the Syrian government and the Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons during their civil war, but Obama, McCain, Graham, and many more misguided and dishonest politicians want to pass judgment on only the Syrian government. Does it really make sense to you for the U.S. to become an ally of Al Qaeda to in order to punish Assad for using chemical weapons when the rebels that Obama and Al Qaeda support have used the same tactic?

Syria is not Iraq and Obama is not Bush. If your entire conspiracy theory involving Bush and WMD in Iraq is correct, how would that make Obama's plan the right one to pursue in Syria?

BTW, the part of your conspiracy theory that makes no sense to me is this. If Bush and his supporters lied to get this country into a war with Iraq, then why did they not simply lie or fabricate evidence of WMD in Iraq? Would it not have been fairly simple for a corrupt administration to order a highly classified mission to extract WMD from Iraq and then simply leak a few details of the bogus operation to the media? Why would they lie to justify a war and then not conduct a bogus operation to remove fictional WMD from Iraq to prove that the war was justified on that basis?

Liberals are really clueless about who are and are not conservatives in our government. Conservatives generally despise RINOs like McCain and Lindsey Graham and would love to see them booted from office in the primaries. Citing McCain and his sidekick's position as proof that conservatives just love war is just the sort of crazy talk that we have come to expect from the left.

The truth. It, like a cool drink of water for one walking in the desert, is such a welcome relief, LOL. I am continually amazed how little proof it takes to satisfy the investigative curiosity of most defenders of the left.

The very first 'by-line' that the DNC comes up with usually does the trick for 95% of the democratic constituency. The new catch phrase being bandied about intended to drum up support for Obama to bomb Syria is, "a breach of the norm". I wonder where the duality really lies in this matter? If the past is any indicator, he's going to be doing something outrageous to the conservative palate, while focusing the nation's attention on the possibility of military action in Syria.

[Wildcatk23]

So I'm confused are you guys for the attack or against it .