Administration Official: Evidence? We Don’t Need No Steenkin’ Evidence!
Politico, quoted by Meredith Jessup at the Blaze (to avoid giving a link to Politico):
The Obama administration’s decision Thursday to provide military and political aid to anti-Assad fighters wasn’t merely a result of confirmation the Syrian regime used sarin gas on rebels — but a decision prompted by the realization that Syrian President Bashar Assad was on the cusp of gaining a permanent advantage over rebel groups and the fear of imminent sectarian bloodshed further spilling into neighboring Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon.
“The decision was ultimately driven by the discovery Assad used [chemical weapons] but there were a number of other factors in place that were also important,” conceded an administration official with direct knowledge of the deliberations.
“Would we have made [the determination Assad had breached the red line] even if we didn’t have the evidence? Probably.”
Reassuring!
Ding.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/14/2013 @ 7:50 am“it’s a pity they can’t both lose”
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:09 amBegin the dithering process on what to do which should have been completed more than six months ago!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:13 amI think it just took a while to figure out which weapons suppliers were going to get the sweetheart contracts. Bill Clinton’s announcement last week that we should step in seems to signal the final back room deals have been made.
As far as Frey hypocritically commenting on the lack of evidence, the Iraq WMD hoax sticks out as the key item on his track record. But it’s nice to see daley missing the point by saying we should have armed these tribal militias long before we even knew there was a possibility of chemical weapons use.
As we hand over arms, do the fine friendly folks in this site want to insist on pay-go, or do you think we should lump this onto the deficit our kids will pay.
I also wonder, will arming these rebel end up biting us in the butt later? When we armed Saddam it did. When we armed Osama it did. When we armed Egypt it did. When we helped Libya it did. Can someone smart elucidate why Syria will be different, and how you know that there aren’t anti-Western radicals among the rebels?
Mahalia Cab (3f3b0e) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:56 amMahalia is a predictable but-monkey
JD (b63a52) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:58 amI also wonder, will arming these rebel end up biting us in the butt later? When we armed Saddam it did. When we armed Osama it did. When we armed Egypt it did. When we helped Libya it did. Can someone smart elucidate why Syria will be different, and how you know that there aren’t anti-Western radicals among the rebels?
I know for a fact there are anti-American radicals amongst the rebels. Everyone does, except you, apparently. Your above history is typical leftist Zinn claptrap.
JD (b63a52) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:00 amIn other words, they were just waiting for the optics to be right.
Like Sandy Hook and gun control. Other than a few vague mentions of the subject, they didn’t do anything for four years UNTIL they had a group of precious little faces and a group of grieving parent props that they could exploit.
Icy (1008d7) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:10 amI hope and pray that they will find chemical weapons that were spirited our of Iraq before the war started.
Patricia (be0117) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:35 amThat never happened, Patricia. That was a warforoilandnobloodforoil started by Chimpy McHitler$urton to pay off Cheney and the Carlyle Group.
JD (b63a52) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:36 am90-100,000 people (rebels + government forces) killed?
Meh, sure wish you guys would stop blasting each other.
100-150 people killed by chemical weapons?
Well, now you’ve gone and done did violate international law.
We’re gonna gitcha fer that!
Icy (1008d7) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:42 amFrom Iran (early in his 1st term) to Egypt (and the Arab Spring) to Syria, Obama has consistently “hoped” the rebels would prevail on their own. So instead of jumping in early when casualties & cost could be minimized, he waits until the rebels are about to lose before doing anything. Which maximizes casualties & cost. Not to mention undercutting any “good will” the rebels might have had if we’d helped from the start.
That’s the opposite of “Smart Power”.
John T (8c1409) — 6/14/2013 @ 10:36 amThese Muslim countries certainly do manufacture a lot of man-made disasters.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/14/2013 @ 10:42 am“But it’s nice to see daley missing the point by saying we should have armed these tribal militias long before we even knew there was a possibility of chemical weapons use.”
Mahalia Moron – You missed the point. Read my comment again. I said we should have a plan. What has the Administration been doing the past six months, focusing on low priority issues like gun control?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 10:54 amI question the timing.
Desperate scandals call for desperate distraction measures.
Leviticus (b98400) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:03 amTed Cruz !
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:04 amI wonder if Barack Obama realizes that he’s turning out to be a historically mediocre president – by even the most generous standard. I hope he does, and I hope it bothers him.
Leviticus (b98400) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:04 am“Ted Cruz !”
Exactly. Elephant Stone gets it.
Leviticus (b98400) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:05 amOh, JD, of course, it was all a Chimpy lie!
Patricia (be0117) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:08 amLeviticus, I didn’t think you would ever admit that “Ted Cruz !” is one of those distraction measures, but I’m impressed that you did.
By the way, looks like Klinsman has Team USA playing with consistency. We’re sitting on top of the table.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:25 am“Mahalia Moron – You missed the point. Read my comment again. I said we should have a plan. What has the Administration been doing the past six months, focusing on low priority issues like gun control?”
daley the dingbat, (sorry couldn’t resist) Obama did not decide to start focusing on gun control six months ago, Adam Lanza did. Obama was perfectly happy to ignore gun control to that point, just like he was fine with DOMA for years and years.
But doing nothing in Syria is the right approach, just like Canada and Australia and Denmark and all the other countries that have nothing to do with the thousand year old conflicts that plague the region. Our multi-trillion dollar mistake in Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught you you can spend and spend our kids money, but you get nothing in return and you foolishly draw more hatred and intensification of conflict by making gnats into formidable opponents.
In fact, getting more and more entangled in the Mid East is exactly what bin Laden wanted and predicted and you are happily carrying out his wishes as he laughs in hell. I understand what Obama and the Clintons are getting out of this, more pay-for-play by defense contractors and more “gravity” for 2016, but what are Conservatives getting? The money is flowing AWAY from their pet defense contractors, no?
Mahalia Cab (465b4e) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:25 amMahalia Person, if you’re blaming Adam Lanza for Obama’s gun control policies, then would you blame poor people for a politician’s welfare policies ?
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:29 amIn the Third Book of Moses, it was written:
Were he to be historically mediocre, ‘twould be a vast improvement; right now, I see him as the worst president of my lifetime, and my lifetime includes Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.
But you needn’t fret that Mr Obama sees himself as anything less than Our Savior, because he has millions of sycophants telling him just that.
The Dana who thinks Leviticus is too generous (3e4784) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:45 amYes, I know, that’s pretty stunning, but I believe that we should give the rebels just enough weapons to keep them fighting, for a good, long time.
Fighting, but not quite winning. The best outcome is for both sides to lose, which won’t happen, but the second best is for Syria and Hezbollah to be so damaged by this that they will simply have neither the time nor the resources to engage in international mischief.
The Dana who supports President Obama's decision (3e4784) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:48 am…in other words, conditional honesty from this administration is once again blatantly on display.
rtrski (c69273) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:13 pmMahalia–fwiw, in your zeal to paint or disguise yourself as an “Eisenhower Republican” (whatever that may be) you seemingly feel the need to make everyone on this site your adversary at all times. As such, you have lost any semblance of cogent thought or credibility in your various comments and accusations. Today for example you seem to be arguing as if every person on this thread wants us to intervene in Syria and has been chomping at the bit to do so. Perhaps some do want that, but I can assure you others of us do not. Also “we” didn’t arm Libya. The guy with the kill list and an agenda did that and has mucked up things pretty badly. Historians will argue for the next 100 years if the U.S. and Britain and other allies should have gone in to topple Saddam, will argue whether the costs in lives and treasure were worth it, and will disagree about what happened to Iraq’s chemical weapons. But what is not in dispute is that WMD were there at one time- and both congress and the world knew that- because the bodies of his victims bore the markers of the chemical poison in their corpses. Hoax? Try telling their relatives and friends that Saddam didn’t use chemical weapons.
elissa (136423) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:19 pmObama did not decide to start focusing on gun control six months ago, Adam Lanza did.
You must have missed those months where he paraded the victims families around as props for speeches and on AF1 trying to use the tragedy to pursue the same type of anti-2nd Amendment hooey he has always advocated.
JD (04b3a3) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:33 pmI think most of the media (and maybe even the Syrian government, although it may know better) are not paying close enough attentiuon to this.
The military aid from the United States will be very limited. (although it may make it a bit easier for Britain and France to send more)
All that Obama is doing is preventing Assad from prevailing, and that’s all he wants to do.
Which means actually his policy is to keep the war and the bloodshed going. Although I guess technically it’s for a negotiated settlement.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:41 pmNow there is an argument to be made for avoiding having Assad suffer a military defeat. He has plenty of chemical weapons, and missiles, and faced with losing everything he might try to use them.
And Obama doesn’t want anyone else to inherit them, and if it looked like Assad was lsoing control of his most dangerous weapons, the United states has already arranged, mostly with Jordan, to have special forces – joint U.S. Jordanian probably – go ahead and seize them and they know if they didn’t Israel might try.
But because it is dangerous, and some U.S. soldiers might get killed, and maybe it will fail, and maybe the chemical weapons or misisleS being seized will be used in retaliation against Israel, or even U.S. ships in the Mediterranean Sea, and you can count on the Pentagon giving him all kinds of horrible scenarios, Obama doesn’t actually want to try to capture them.
But the problem with his negotiation strategy is that it won’t work, becausze it ignores reality.
There is an argument for negotiation but what the negotiation has to be about is Assad’s peaceful surrender.
Either maybe to get him to accept some place of asylum, in which case the United States should be busy arranging it (there’s no guarantee Assad would like it, and there;s not too much reason to think ity is feasible)
Or something like safe conduct to the Hague with negotiations about prison conditions – he might be allowed conjugal visits – that might be true anyway.
Talking about a transition of power is just total nonsense.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:44 pmAssad probably didn’t want to involve Hezbollah, but he had to, to avoid having the rebels hold a town in a strategic location. The same thing probably goes for his limited use of chemocal weapons.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:45 pmThere is another problem: what rebels?
The truth is, that basically there needs to a second round and maybe a third round of the civil war, although maybe this can be avoided if the proper messages are sent to the proper parties.
What the United States needs to do, of course, is exclusively aid rebels friendly to the United States to democracy and reasonably tolerant of Israel.
What the Obama Administration has done instead is allow Saudi Arabia and Qatar to pick whom to arm.
They will arm (and actually create mostly really) only rebels who:
1) Are committed against democracy
2) Are commmitted to unrelenting hostility to Israel and to preventing Lebanon from signing a peace treaty with Israel too.
3) Will not in any other way undermine Saudi domestic or foreign policy.
I am not so sure that item number is more important than item number 2.
And the objective should not be to pick the second worst set of rebels.
By the way, I think maybe Iran is backing some rebels – they may be hedging their bets.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:49 pmSammy wrote;
“What the United States needs to do, of course, is exclusively aid rebels friendly to the United States to democracy and reasonably tolerant of Israel.”
————-
Sammy, the Obama Administration is not friendly toward American democracy nor is it even reasonably tolerant of Israel, so why would they demand it from the rebels ?
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:54 pm“it’s a pity they can’t both lose”
Let ’em fight it out, then when a victor emerges, kill them.
Blacque Jacques Shellacque (bed55d) — 6/14/2013 @ 2:32 pmI meant to add to #33 to consider the dithering process begun.
Obama’s plan is to talk about a plan with Russia. Begging, more like it. Which isn’t giving its permission. Instead Putin’s giving President Prom Queen the back of his hand.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323734304578545062769525132.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/14/2013 @ 3:02 pmWT? All the rebels need is a double-barrel shotgun. Point it toward Damascus and fire a couple of rounds. And I hope we are not going to let them have guns without background checks, are we?
nk (875f57) — 6/14/2013 @ 5:00 pmI recall they had this attitude in Bosnia, oh they didn’t
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/06/it-is-irresponsible-for-critics-like-mr.html
narciso (3fec35) — 6/14/2013 @ 5:23 pmI know you’re surprised;
http://washingtonexaminer.com/7-of-9-key-syrian-rebel-fighter-groups-are-islamist/article/2531928?custom_click=rss
narciso (3fec35) — 6/15/2013 @ 7:17 amhttp://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-official-admits-they-would-have-lied-about-red-line-breach/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=obama-official-admits-they-would-have-lied-about-red-line-breach
narciso (3fec35) — 6/15/2013 @ 8:17 am“Obama’s plan is to talk about a plan with Russia.”
Steve57 – It’s a good thing Obama finally found out what was happening in Syria from reading the newspapers.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/15/2013 @ 11:34 amWe have no dog in this fight;
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/305789-palin-slams-intervention-in-syria-let-allah-sort-it-out#ixzz2WJ7mInXH
whether Quradawi and that nice Mr. ERdogan on one side, or the Iranian mullahs on the other
narciso (3fec35) — 6/15/2013 @ 11:57 amOther than diversion from teh one’s troubles, what is the mission?
elissa (b478e4) — 6/15/2013 @ 11:59 amI hate to say it but this president looks as if he is worse than weak here. He is being dragged around by events and pressures like a rag doll. And this news that we are entering the war with military supplies is provided by Ben Rhodes, not the president. That’s nothing against Ben, but when a president is effectively declaring war, don’t you think he has a duty to tell the American people why and what he intends to achieve?
But nada. You voted twice for Obama? You’re getting the policies of McCain and the Clintons, the candidates he defeated. I wish I could understand this – but, of course, my worry is that the pincer movement of Rice and Power is already pushing us into a war we do not need, and cannot win.
This is worse than a mistake. It’s a betrayal – delivered casually. Maybe he thinks his supporters will treat this declaration of war just as casually. In which case, he’s in for a big surprise.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/13/obamas-betrayal-on-syria/
elissa (b478e4) — 6/15/2013 @ 12:07 pmThe Obama person is just trying to chill, and play a little golf, and go on safari to Africa, and then all these world problems are happening to him.
Where’s the fairness in that ?
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/15/2013 @ 12:20 pmToo bad we can’t attribute that quote to a specific campaign official as I’d like to turn it around and apply a similar but higher standard to the Obama administration.
I came across this story:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/06/obama-exerted-unlawful-command-influence-in-speaking-166288.html
Didn’t Obama exercise the same “command influence” over the IRS and other federal agencies when his campaign specifically targeted individual Romney donors by name as “a group of wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records” and many “have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans?”
“Unlawful command influence” only exists as a legal concept in the military justice system, but as a concept “unlawful command influence” can pretty much describe this Cook County pol’s entire presidency.
So now we have evidence that he’s crossed the red line when it comes to DoD; why not make the case he’s crossed the same red line when it comes to myriad departments and agencies.
It’s a higher standard than they’re using to get us mired in this insanely stupid Syrian adventure out of which only bad will come.
Let’s some it up. We’re going to get involved in a war with a Russian proxy. President Tiger Beat who despite saying for the past 2 years that Assad must go now let’s us in that his only plan for Syria if Assad crosses his red line is to confer with other countries to see what kind of plan we can come up with. Meanwhile since Obama has been running his yap for years Putin’s way ahead of him and has been giving Assad the weapons and even has naval forces off Tartus to block any plan with any realistic hope of succeeding. And really the window in which any plan had any realistic closed a long time ago.
So now we’re going to do too little, too late. Like peeing on a house fire once the house is fully engulfed. And we’re actually going to become allies with AQ and the MB to do it.
It’s past time for this insane marxist narcissist to go. I’ve said several times during and after the stupid “Arab Spring” that everyone with more than two brain cells to rub together could see how it would turn out that this blinkered ideological madman is going to set set the whole ME ablaze. Now he personally wants to strike the match.
Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/15/2013 @ 2:07 pmI meant to add to my second to last paragraph in #44, “And we’re going to do all this without evidence.”
A blast from the past; March 8, 2010. The author of the linked article, Martin Peretz, writes about how dangerously obtuse Obama was back when he was making kissy face with Assad and his administration was calling him a “reformer.” He includes an article by Barry Rubin after his own.
The main points are about how dangerously obtuse this foreign policy amateur was. And they still applies since he’s learned nothing over the past three years and has simply flipped from being dangerously obtuse about the Syrian regime to being dangerously obtuse about the Syrian Rebels.
And speaking of dangerously obtuse, then Sen. Kerry figures prominently. Like obviously attracts like in the Obama administration. Clearly a guy who refuses to acknowledge reality and sees the whole world through his ideological prism thinks a guy who’s been ignoring reality and has been wrong on every major foreign policy issue since the 1970s has extensive foreign policy experience. Some select quotes from both authors:
http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/the-spine/the-multitudinous-disasters-the-obama-administration-here-syria-and-iran#
Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/15/2013 @ 2:36 pm“The main points are about how dangerously obtuse this foreign policy amateur was. And they still applies since he’s learned nothing over the past three years and has simply flipped from being dangerously obtuse about the Syrian regime to being dangerously obtuse about the Syrian Rebels.”
Steve57 – Since it is illegal under U.S. law to supply weapons to terrorists and most of the Syrian Rebel groups are either affiliated with Al Qaeda or have sworn allegiance to Al Qaeda, I’m very interested in how Obama is going to finesse his potentially illegal actions.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/15/2013 @ 2:54 pmdaley, I think they’re going to finesse shipping arms to Syria the same way they did it when they were running guns to Mexico during F&F.
They just plan to ignore the law and get away with it. The media won’t report the story. They won’t prosecute themselves. And they don’t have to fear any repurcussions from the Dems and the McCain/Graham wing in the Senate.
Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/15/2013 @ 3:14 pmWell technically they’ll be aiding General Idris, it’s all copacetic,
narciso (3fec35) — 6/15/2013 @ 3:22 pmelisa said “…in your zeal to paint or disguise yourself as an “Eisenhower Republican” (whatever that may be) you seemingly feel the need to make everyone on this site your adversary at all times. As such, you have lost any semblance of cogent thought or credibility in your various comments and accusations.”
Such as we should not get involved in Syria – which you agree with? Let’s call that one cogent, credible point then. Btw an Eisenhower Republican is one that favors roads and schools over bombs, supports the middle class and actually balances budgets, getting the rich to create jobs by threat of 90% taxes. Per real US history, it works!
elisa, you said that Obama mucked up Libya – a hot war that ended within a few months and cost under ten US lives in subsequent terrorist attacks. You cannot possibly then say Bush did not “muck” up Iraq and Afghanistan, right? The trillions with a T spent without objectives (Iraq has fallen right back into violence) and Afghanistan was left for the next guy after 8 years of no progress and resorting to paying off tribal warlords. You break it, you own it.
So if you and I agree that Obama should have stayed out of Libya and if we agree he “mucked up” by going in, what words do you use for Bush’s policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, given the THOUSANDS of US lives lost and continuing bloodshed to this day? I’d like to see how you describe these wars after having such strong words for Obama’s brief Libyan escapade.
Historians are NOT arguing whether the US should have gone into Iraq. The global consensus was always NO, which is why Bush didn’t wait for a UN resolution (he was illegally wiretapping diplomats in NYC so he knew the outcome before the vote happened). The largest coordinated protest the world had ever seen was against the Iraq invasion, before it happened. The “coalition” assembled by Bush was an ironic joke, with only two other countries committing fighting troops. The only ones arguing are right wing Republican apologists who still somehow think the WMD chase was an “honest mistake”, ignoring the many whistleblowers who admitted it was a hoax.
In fact, Parliamentary hearings seeking answers on the Iraq WMD intel have been ongoing for FOUR years in the UK, where it’s commonly accepted that Tony Blair got suckered and pressured by Bush, that there was no evidence of WMD, and that top UK officials knew this from before the beginning of the invasion. A new documentary on this just aired a few weeks ago.
There is also clear evidence showing the evidence presented to the US Congress and the UN about WMD was made up by an exiled Iraqi cab driver. These fabrications were the basis for Powell’s speech which the entire war hinged on. We now know the CIA and White House were told at the time it was all made up to hasten a Western invasion.
Rachel Maddow’s TV special “Hubris” brought all this out on the 10 year anniversary and nothing was contested – not on this site, Breitbart, Fox, talk radio, Twitter, no where. The left was the only one to pipe in, complaining the special didn’t go far enough – so no one is really “debating” this except for dead-enders who can’t face the evidence that shows Bush and Cheney either lied us into the Iraq war or were the most blind, deaf and dumb imbeciles ever to walk on a White House carpet.
We can certainly agree WMD were in Iraq “at one time”, that time period being the US-sanctioned genocide against Iranians and Kurds, with the WMD supplied in part by the US and Monsanto Chemical, delivered as “pesticides” and “fertilizers”. This was during the Reagan era when we armed dictators and tribal fighters the world over, but things went sour after Bush 41 encouraged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam and then withdrew support, so they all got slaughtered and buried in mass graves.
There were no WMD at the time of the 2003 invasion, and the US government knew this because we oversaw the disposal and safeguarding of the WMD years before, along with the UN. Bush kicked the inspectors out of the country, not Saddam. So WHO is debating this, Cheney and Rumsfeld never appear anywhere where they can be exposed to tough questions. Of course, no active Republican politician will come anywhere near W.
It was kind of shocking and pathetic when Bush and Cheney both admitted there were no WMD during the 2004 campaign, choosing instead to paint Saddam as a criminal oil smuggler and shifting to the idea that he “intended to restart” the weapons program. So please, educate me, who you think is defending the idea that there were WMD and where are these debates taking place?
Rick Santorum was the last to try defending the WMD claims, just before he was trounced out of his Senate seat in 2006. Hannity and Limbaugh will not take calls on the subject and the international community has maintained all along from that we were wrong and that we are oil-hungry liars. One interview even surfaced from Bush’s Texas days showing he wanted to invade Iraq since before he ran for President.
Mahalia Cab (08b83a) — 6/18/2013 @ 12:50 pmComment by Mahalia Cab (08b83a) — 6/18/2013 @ 12:50 pm
There were no WMD at the time of the 2003 invasion, and the US government knew this because we oversaw the disposal and safeguarding of the WMD years before, along with the UN.
All that chemical warfare gear was just for show, eh?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/18/2013 @ 1:07 pmBtw an Eisenhower Republican is one that favors roads and schools over bombs, supports the middle class and actually balances budgets, getting the rich to create jobs by threat of 90% taxes. Per real US history, it works!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
JD (b63a52) — 6/18/2013 @ 1:24 pmThe global consensus was always NO,
Overt and aggressive lie.
JD (b63a52) — 6/18/2013 @ 1:25 pmThere were no WMD at the time of the 2003 invasion, and the US government knew this because we oversaw the disposal and safeguarding of the WMD years before, along with the UN. Bush kicked the inspectors out of the country, not Saddam.
ZOMFGWTFBBQ
JD (b63a52) — 6/18/2013 @ 1:27 pmDo you know what the difference is between an Eisenhower Republican and an Obama Democrat?
When an Eisenhower Republican says they are going to spend money on highways and infrastructure, they actually do.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/18/2013 @ 1:28 pmMahalia is fiscally conservative.
JD (b63a52) — 6/18/2013 @ 1:29 pmWhat did we do to deserve MC arising from her casket.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 6/18/2013 @ 1:30 pmwe are oil-hungry liars
Apparently incompetant ones at that, since I don’t think we are getting much oil or revenue from oil from the deal.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/18/2013 @ 1:32 pmWhat’s this I hear about the leader of one of the anti-Assad factions eating the heart of a killed adversary?
And Putin at G-8 lecturing Obama, asking if the American people know he is supporting a cannibal?
When an American President is rightly criticized by a former KGB now Russian ruler, it is a sad day.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/18/2013 @ 1:36 pmThere seem to be a few flaws in Mahalia’s “treatise”.
elissa (3efc9c) — 6/18/2013 @ 1:36 pmYou ‘read from the book’
narciso (3fec35) — 6/18/2013 @ 1:38 pmDoc, if anyone deserves to be schooled by Putin, it is Teh Won.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 6/18/2013 @ 1:49 pmThere seem to be a few flaws in Mahalia’s
“treatise”brain.Comment by elissa (3efc9c) — 6/18/2013 @ 1:36 pm
FIFY
Mahalia,
Put the crack pipe down and step away!
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 6/18/2013 @ 7:46 pmJd,, if you have facts or figures to support your braggadocio, you are certainly not using them or educating me.
elisa, if you’d like to show me which of my statements were off, I’m all ears and I’m ready to admit it.
“we are oil-hungry liars
Apparently incompetant ones at that, since I don’t think we are getting much oil or revenue from oil from the deal.”
That’s correct, other countries are now enjoying the lion’s share of the privatized Iraqi oil contracts, after all the blood spilled and overspending. Care to venture a guess why this is the case?
We have plenty of historical proof that US leaders had their eye on Iraqi oil before, during and after the invasion, but yes, ironically, we didn’t end up with the best deals after the “democracy” was installed. Why?
Mahalia Cab (d49f6d) — 6/20/2013 @ 8:03 am63. The US did not need Iraqi oil. This is an idea out of the 1920s when trade was restricted or could be restricted in a war and Britain wanted
a oil supply for its Navy.
You could make the argument (but it would be wrong) that so long as Saddam Hussein was in power, sanctions had to be maintained, and Iraqi oil would not be available on the world market,
and the U.S wanted it avaiulable but you would be wrong that anybody in the U.S. government cared about that.
Maybe some OPEC members cared the other way. Saddam Hussein in power kept off the market.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/20/2013 @ 3:03 pm* kept Iraqi oil off the market
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/20/2013 @ 3:04 pm