John McCain never saw a war he didn’t want to fight. I guess we can take comfort in the fact that he doesn’t want to put U.S. “boots on the ground” in Syria. He only wants to create a safety zone, probably modeled on the no-fly zones in Iraq. Terrorism aficionado Rep. Peter King of Long Island is sensible enough, however, to realize that the rebels in this instance aren’t of the freedom-loving Ahmed Chalabi variety. He’s skeptical about arming them at all.
It pays to remember that American intelligence agencies have medium to high confidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, but it is not completely clear who was using them. That ought to be enough proof and provocation to justify the U.S. getting hugely involved in the Syrian Civil War, right?
What is truly frightening is that people like John McCain think there are pro-American rebels to arm.
Guess the Syrian “pro-American rebels” that have McCain’s ear haven’t been as persuasive as the Iraqi “pro-American rebels” he listened to that convinced him the arms should be in the hands of US troops.
I saw a survey, not terribly well documented in the article, that only ten percent of Americans want us to get involved in Syria. Even that sounds too high. Anyone see a recent legitimate survey on this?
Apparently a bit higher at 16% with 45% opposed to supplying munitions. What may be at 10% is the percentage of the population that’s following the events in Syria.
I would like for American intelligence agencies to lay out exactly what evidence they have. The situation in Syria is so confused that I doubt how accurate the intelligence of the major players is. I smell and Israeli agenda and a self-interested plant.
I don’t trust American intelligence to know what is going on, given how much they’ve missed in the past and how easily they can be corrupted to others’ agendas.
John McCain has completely lost the thread–if he ever had a grasp of it.
Anyone who intervenes has to lay out an argument for how intervention is not worse than staying out. And what they intend to do. The realistic view is that an occupation army of at least 3 million actual troops plus the additional personnel to support them is a minimum–just for Syria. If you really want to shut down the war. Then you have the logistical and strategic problem of inserting them quickly and having a 10-year plan for occupation that assumes that everyone will be mad as hornets.
The appropriate tack for the President would be to level with the American people about what we know, what we don’t know, and what the national security concerns are. And then let that reality bubble in the political system.
It’s time that our leaders start treating us like adults and insist that we have the understanding of adults. And it is likely that there is zero, zilch, nada, bupkus that the US can do that will help the situation in Syria. And much damage that can result from overreaching. This is not Libya.
Obummer boxed himself into a corner with his “red line” comment. Do you think Iran and North Korea are watching to see what he does?
You scared of Irania and Northia Koreieia?
Do they frighten you?
Do you need a blanket to grasp while hiding in a dark place?
Let it be noted that four years and three-and-a-half months after Barack Obama was sworn in, his wingnut opponents finally managed to come up with a charge that was valid.
Yes, he did box himself in. He should have been more careful with his wording – a most unusual mistake for him.
U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator
it’s moments like these that make me thankful that Obama is president.
If John McCain was president, we’d be knee-deep in troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria. He’d need to hire a shit ton of Blackwater or reinstate the draft at the rate he’s going.
Who could have predicted? Probably most of the world. But who supplied the rebels?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer is “themselves.” We’ve known for a while the Syrian weapons aren’t perfectly guarded, and a temporary victory, defection or even bribery might have gotten them some.
Could be. If we accept that those reports are accurate. Not that I’d put any money on that.
OTOH and if true, it doesn’t imply that Syria has massive stores of Sarin as the rebels didn’t get their hands on much of it. I’m still more inclined to suspect that it was supplied to the rebels from outside supporters.
Didn’t Hillary say she wanted to arm the rebels? She’s as bad as McCain. I am so glad that Barack Obama is our President and not either of those two yahoos.
You mean Hillary the Hawk?
In truth, non of them is all that much better than the other.
from NYT:
Moving or using large quantities of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and “change my calculus,” the president declared in response to a question at a news conference, to the surprise of some of the advisers who had attended the weekend meetings and wondered where the “red line” came from. With such an evocative phrase, the president had defined his policy in a way some advisers wish they could take back.
What’s really disturbing is that you essentially claim Prez ‘Bam ‘Bam has no intention of carrying out long-laid plans, such as the ones Wes Clark laid out. If it’s Tuesday we must whack Belgium. Sure, the Neocons, but Obama would never… Selective memory is a gift.
No, seriously: Tell me the difference between Oh, Brother! and the NeoCons. And while yer at it, the NeoLibs. Sell me that two-chapter book!
Wait…so you’re using your own prediction that Obama will attack Syria – a prediction that has been wrong for more than two years now – as evidence for your image of him…and your image of him is the only evidence you have to support your prediction.
OK, how’s this for a difference: unlike the neocons and you, President Obama doesn’t base his understanding of the world on what he wants to believe.
We can be relatively sure about 1 thing: When the Islamist rebels oust Assad, women will do worse, and non-Islamic forces will not be happy. In SD, we know a Syrian woman (wife of former D Sen Jim Aborazek) who is a big Assad supporter, for those reasons. Women in Syrian will be in the chadour again.
I dislike Assad, but I hope that people realize what the alternative is.
I think you’re assuming an unwarranted coherence and consistency among the rebels.
There are a lot of different factions, and what the post-war government will look like is a very open question.
Who gains if the US strikes? Only a single name comes to mind and that’s Israel.
The “red line” comment Obama gave off script could easily have been perceived by Israel as opening the door to tip Obama into their game. For them, it’s not such a stretch to then engage Iran.
Syria is a pawn in many many games and McCain is only 1 of a cadre of poor analytical minds. If and when Obama finds that it is a part of the rebel faction that used chemical weapons and he releases that info, the complexity of the situation will be mind boggling.
John McCain, the US Navy’s Shittiest Pilot, never met a war he didn’t want to fight with your children. Christ, send Meghan first.