Politics behind Syria situation?

Advertisement

What do you suppose President Obama is trying to divert attention from by threatening to attack Syria?

Obamacare implementation, Benghazi, amnesty for illegal immigrants, NSA spying, the liberal agenda of the IRS, the lousy economy, high unemployment, the budget, or do we just have a bunch of pull-dated cruise missiles that need to be used up?

Paul Martin

College Place

Advertisement

Comments

namvet60 says...

So many questions but through incompetence no answers.

Posted 12 September 2013, 9:40 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Yes, it's amazing how this Syria situation just came up out of nowhere. There's been no talk of it anywhere over the past year, no red lines were drawn, no gas used several months ago or August 21. It just appeared out of the blue as a convenient distraction from the Affordable Care Act (which Obama would like people to learn more about), and from Immigration Reform (which Obama has championed) and from the IRS/Benghazi "scandals" (are people really still talking about that???) and from the economy (which continues slow but steady growth despite zero help from Congress) and from the budget deficit (which is rapidly shrinking).

Yup, the whole Syria thing magically appeared out of nowhere so Obama wouldn't have to talk about the things he should want to talk about. Sigh.

Posted 12 September 2013, 4:30 p.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

Do YOU have any answers on the Benghazi tragedy? That's funny the families don't but you seem to pass these issues off as non-important. If it was a republican President you would be all over looking for answers.

You speak of the red line drawn - who should we say drew that line? Was it the President (from a speech he gave and is recorded) or was it the world's red line?

Where is the red line on Iran? Maybe after the first nuclear bomb is dropped.

Posted 12 September 2013, 4:47 p.m. Suggest removal

kurtfr says...

If it was a Republican president.....ok, I'll bite:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Posted 12 September 2013, 6:30 p.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

That's real nice?

Why didn't you go back to 1992 to 2000? Maybe go all the way back to 1942? The liberal way is to avoid critical answers but to deceive and be devisive.

Why don't you try to create some answers to the above questions that have not been answered?

If you recall we are in 2013 (5 yrs into this Administrations incompetent Presidency) so why don't you try to get with the present instead of dwelling on the past? The above questions still do not have answers!

Posted 13 September 2013, 6:31 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Kurtfr didn't go back to 1992-2000 because he was responding specifically to your comment: "If he was a Republican president, you would be all over looking for answers." His thorough list of embassy attacks under Bush - that in fact none of us are "all over looking for answers" - is a pretty good refutation of your claim.

Benghazi was investigated as aggressively as possible by Republicans eager to pin blame on Obama and/or Hilary Clinton. Why is no one talking about it anymore? Because there was no scandal there beyond some poorly communicated talking points. Was the CIA doing something there at the time? Maybe. Did that contribute to the awkwardness about what to say publicly? I don't know. But if the CIA was conducting covert operations in another country, that isn't a scandal. That's the CIA doing what they were created to do.

Posted 13 September 2013, 7:41 a.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

fatherof5 & kurtfr - you both seem as intelligent individuals so why don't you expose some of it instead of being ignorant?

I was referring to this last 5 years of Presidency if there was a Republican in office you liberals would be beside yourselves. Instead you come through as I stated that you won't give straight answers and still remain to be selecting divisive overtones.

In regards to Benghazi if one of those individuals would have been part of your family your stating that it would be settled and pushed aside without further questions? This Administration has indictments for the so-called individuals that participated in this tragedy but are sitting on there hands for whatever reason. For HillaryRodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama they were in charge at the time this massacre occurred. Where does the buck stop or just because they are affiliated with the Democrat Party they get a free pass?

Posted 13 September 2013, 8:53 a.m. Suggest removal

downhillracer says...

If "ignorance" is stating verifiable, factual data in a consistant timeline, I'll be more inclined to follow the 'ignorant'.

If "smart" means being rude, indifferent to valid facts and in willful denial of reality.. you can have it.

Posted 13 September 2013, 10:51 a.m. Suggest removal

tpeacock says...

Doggone it, you're using actual facts, and a lot of folks don't really care for them; they just get in the way.

Posted 16 September 2013, 4:26 p.m. Suggest removal

tpeacock says...

I gave you an answer on another of your posts, to recap; McCain is still upset over losing to Obama, and wants so badly to prove his National Defense strategy is still better, thus the uproar over Benghazi.
Where were you and the rest of the Benghazi whiners when we lost almost 5000 in Iraq. Oh, that's right, it was your guy in the White House, so that was okay.
Pretty pathetic if you ask me, this Country needs our politicians (all of them) to focus on what's good for all of us, not just what's good as far as their political slant is concerned. This has to be most difficult for the GOP as they can't even get a consensus among themselves, thus the different factions of Republicans, Tea Partier's, etc.

Posted 16 September 2013, 4:23 p.m. Suggest removal

tpeacock says...

namvet60
I gave you an answer on another of your posts, to recap; McCain is still upset over losing to Obama, and wants so badly to prove his National Defense strategy is still better, thus the uproar over Benghazi.
Where were you and the rest of the Benghazi whiners when we lost almost 5000 in Iraq. Oh, that's right, it was your guy in the White House, so that was okay.
Pretty pathetic if you ask me, this Country needs our politicians (all of them) to focus on what's good for all of us, not just what's good as far as their political slant is concerned. This has to be most difficult for the GOP as they can't even get a consensus among themselves, thus the different factions of Republicans, Tea Partier's, etc.

Posted 16 September 2013, 4:25 p.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

I really didn't know which post to address so I will respond to the latter?

I always enjoy some people that live in the past and only during Republican terms in office. As far as your McCain issue that is totally a hypothetical which makes it a bogus complaint.

Your Iraq issue was a bipartisan vote for the war - if you have forgotten who voted for it before they were against it:

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.additio...

Also in one of your earlier comments you and some of your buddies should heed your advice about throwing stones. The majority live in glass houses.

Posted 17 September 2013, 9 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Well it's a good thing that we won't have to search for answers because a Republican will not be elected president for many years. Now there's something you can whine about.

Posted 12 September 2013, 6:05 p.m. Suggest removal

downhillracer says...

Posted 13 September 2013, 11:05 a.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment