syrian rebels have no access to sarin gas, right?- Page 2

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 12:33pm

~ what - the - hell?!!

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 12:41pm

Not meant as a slam against Clinton, but as an example of double talk -- those who claim that something isn't what it all too clearly is.

Who'm I kidding. Yeah, it is a slam against Clinton's lying doublethink on those issues. Why not. It sucks when Clinton did it, it sucks that so many years later we're still stuck with politicians who resort to such crap.

Updated On: 8/28/13 at 12:41 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 12:47pm

Ficus, Roscoe, focus!

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 12:49pm

Thimk.


Focus on Ficus

Updated On: 8/28/13 at 12:49 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 1:35pm

OK sometimes I jut have to put this stuff out there because otherwise I think I am going crazy. Papa linked the story about how ghastly it is that "for the first time in history" the USA will be fighting on the side of AL Qaeda- and now I'm seeing that thought all over right wing websites and on conservatives' Facebook pages. Drudge has it headlined DOES OBAMA KNOW HE'S FIGHTING ON AL QAEDA'S SIDE?

Al Qaeda exists because Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr pumped millions (billions?) of dollars into training followers of Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet/Afghanistan war. We created Al Qaeda to fight on "our side".

OK you can go back to whatever. I just had to point that out.

[tazber]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 1:44pm

Well, to be more precise we armed the Taliban.

And the hysteria about us being on AQ's side is reaching a bit.

AQ is but one of several factions that make up the rebellion. All those factions are also fighting amongst themselves, so there are wars within wars over there.

I suppose if you were being reductive you could draw the conclusion that we are helping AQ, but that's a very narrow view.

Still, there is some legitimacy to the general concept.

As I said yesterday, there is no winning here for anyone. Every possible action and scenario is bad.

Updated On: 8/28/13 at 01:44 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 2:06pm

actually, joe, despite reagan crowing about it, the afghan mujaheddin got their money from a democrat controlled congress - as was immortalized in the film "charlie wilson's war" - due to the vgaliant efforts of a texas democrat. y'know back when those things still existed.

[suestorm]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 2:13pm

its always the Republicans fault. thats the LIBERAL Motto. take no responsibility blame someone else. kind of like my baby sister.

Reagans fault? why not go all the way back to Lincoln? it would be funny if not sad. Besides, I thought it has been well established that everything was BUSH Jr fault!.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 2:19pm

Papa, you're calling the Great Communicator a liar?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 2:27pm

oh, i am saying that he didn't create osama bin laden all on his own, reg.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 2:45pm

As long as we can agree that he single-handedly brought down the Berlin Wall . . .

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 2:51pm

with one pull of his mighty right hand.

[suestorm]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 2:54pm

""As long as we can agree that he single-handedly brought down the Berlin Wall . . . ""

Glad to see youre finally coming around Regg though i wish you wouldve back when we had this conversation a few months back.

But to be fair, Pope John Paul II Gorby and Lech Walesa helped too.

Updated On: 8/28/13 at 02:54 PM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 3:07pm

Papa, you know I love when you mix politics and smut talk.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 4:39pm

It only took one pull? Nancy must have taught him that trick.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 4:41pm

Omar Dahi at the Jadaliyya blog provides a nuanced look at the options from inside the Middle East.

A US- or NATO-led attack, which appears to be imminent, is likely to be disastrous for Syrians (as well as Lebanese and Palestinians). If the attack is intense enough to completely destroy the Syrian regime it will destroy whatever is left of Syria. If it is not, it will leave the regime in place to retaliate where it is strong, against its internal enemies, except now having its nationalist credentials bolstered as having fought off US aggression. Either way the strike will be devastating to millions inside Syria, not to mention the millions of refugees and internally displaced populations who are living hand to mouth and who depend on daily humanitarian aid that will surely be disrupted or stopped. There is no such thing as a surgical strike, and no possibility in a country as densely populated as Syria for an attack that does not incur civilian casualties.
Jadaliyya: Chemical Attacks and Military Interventions

Updated On: 8/28/13 at 04:41 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 4:44pm

and here bashar himself weighs in on the west's options:
So, what's it going to be?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 5:25pm

Did the Onion publish that before or after it was taken over by the Symbionese Liberation Front?

[javero]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 5:35pm

Since you're going for levity Papa why don't we just send Marky Mark over there to kick some Assad?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 5:55pm

things have evidently gone from bad to worse. i blame namo for obvious reasons.
syria beseiged by marauding bears

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 6:20pm

Papa you've got to admit the Bear Gambit is brilliant! Y'all were playing checkers and all along, Obama has been playing chess.

[tazber]

Posted: 8/28/13 at 11:13pm

The Onion is my favorite new source.

That bear story had me laughing myself into an asthma attack!

[dented146]

Posted: 8/29/13 at 2:15am

This situation in Syria is more dangerous than anything I've seen in years. We can't even say, for sure, Assad did it. And even if he did, military action on our part could easily cause an attack on Israel. Imagine their response.

And where does Obama have the authority to take military action? Even Bush presented his case to the American people and had Congressional approval. Obama only has the authority to act by presidential order if Syria presents a direct threat to the US. That notion is ridiculous.

This is FUBAR.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 8/29/13 at 9:23am

"Memories of the 2003 Iraq War and political wrangling stalled a key British government vote over U.S.-led plans to strike Syria -- which officials initially said could be launched as early as Thursday.

British Prime Minister David Cameron was forced to change his stance late Wednesday, saying military action would have to wait until the U.N. Security Council had seen the findings of inspectors in Damascus and the U.K. parliament had held two votes, one of them scheduled for next week. Britain's role in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, which was based on evidence of weapons of mass destruction that later turned out to be false, remains a controversial and divisive issue."


The UK says not so fast...

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/29/13 at 9:33am

some intelligence types warning folks that this is not exactly the open and shut case obama and kerry are making it seem to be?

i am all for waiting and the gop hawks in congress and elsewhere need to shut the f*ck up and realize this is more than about making obama look bad (and that he's doing fine on that by himself). the gop looks worse than ever with this and needs to make like champ bailey and not talk for a while.
no slam dunk