"THEY" are going to attack...........

[ASH]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

I believe the bottom line is this: Never get involved in a land war in Asia (or the Middle East), as set forth in the DOD's video training manual, below.

Note: In this newly updated adaptation for the world stage, the role of the Great Vizzini shall be played by the always entertaining... Barack Obama; while the role of the Princess Bride, originally cast for Hilary Clinton, is gallantly portrayed by the uber talented actor John Kerry as her stand-in.

You have brought joy to my day, and superb literary taste to this forum!

[Southernguy]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

The sinking of the Maine in Havana (USA intervention in Cuban independence war)
The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnam war)
The "polish troops" attacking a radio station in German-Poland frontier
The "weapons of mass destruction" in Saddam's arsenal
The "dangerous to USA Cuban troops" present in Grenada
The drug lord president Noriega of Panama (nasty fellow in CIA payroll)
That's right from my memory.
Now the "use of chemical weapons by Assad"

Not need to spend valuable intellectual power trying retorted explanations to simple facts.
West has long ago decided to "do something" about Syria. For some reason they decided time is now. Time to order "rebels" to spread some deadly gas on civilians.

It doesn't make much sense to me, either, but it makes more sense than the alternative explanations I've heard.

Delivery by rocket to multiple rebel neighborhoods that the Syrian government was also attacking by conventional means sounds to me like the Syrian government. Yes, it could have been a rebel faction trying to draw Western intervention, using captured weapons, but that seems less likely to me. In the first place, as another poster noted, it is rumored that some of the rebels have sarin, but that's less well established than the Syrian government's acknowledged stockpile of chemical weapons. In the second place, the rebels aren't the ones with heavy weapon delivery systems (e.g. rocket artillery). Most importantly, if you were Assad or one of the rebel factions, observing the track record of the US, you would note:

• President Obama has thus far been obviously reluctant to intervene in Syria
• US military leadership has repeatedly and vocally opposed intervening in Syria
• American public opinion is very opposed to intervening in Syria
• President Obama has stressed the need for UN Security Council authorization for past interventions (which will definitely not be forthcoming from Russia and China)
• Presented with earlier pretexts to intervene (smaller-scale chemical attacks), President Obama did not take them
• Even the light weapons promised to the rebels by the US have not materialized
• Many of the people fighting Assad are sworn enemies of the US, so an American intervention in support of them makes no strategic sense

I contend that this pattern of past behavior would reduce the risk perceived by Assad that employing his chemical arms would draw in the US, and raise the risk perceived by the rebels that attempting to draw in Western involvement would fail. If I were the rebels and I had chemical weapons deliverable by rocket in the vicinity of Damascus, I'd probably try to take out the Syrian leadership instead of attacking a bunch of people on my own side in the hope of drawing in a flaky outsider that has looked weak and hypocritical thus far. There's an interesting article by John Norris that argues there's a history of dictators who initially prevail in facing down the US eventually playing their hands too far. He attributes the quip "A village a day keeps NATO away" to a Serbian general, describing the thinking that gradual ethnic cleansing could forestall Western intervention, as long as no single event was too sudden and shocking. When you "get away with it" for years, and the words of disproving outsiders are not backed by deeds, it's pretty easy to hold them in contempt and miscalibrate their threshold for action.

That said, I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense for Assad to grant UN inspectors access if he's responsible for the attacks. But to me, it still makes more sense than an alternative explanation. For one thing, forbidding, delaying, or restricting access by inspectors has, in the past, been a pretext for US intervention. There might be more percentage in relying upon the fact that the UN team's mandate is only to determine if chemical weapons were used, and not who used them. Then, having demonstrated willingness to work through the UN and comply with inspection, sheltering behind Russian and Chinese vetoes on UN Security Council resolutions may have seemed more practical. Since Obama had given a lot of lipservice to international norms and lawfulness up to this point, they might have (wrongly) concluded that the US under Obama would behave lawfully -- and the only substantive protection Assad has is through diplomatic blockage of legal intervention through the UN. By "playing by the rules" and allowing UN inspectors in, Assad may have been trying to defuse the argument that the UN should be circumvented.

For another thing, the UN inspectors were already in Syria, yet it took Assad four days to grant access to the site of the new attacks, during which those sites were pulverized with artillery. You could argue that ongoing military operations had to take precedence over what is essentially international diplomacy, and the battle in those areas had to be concluded before allowing the UN team in. On the other hand, if Assad's forces weren't responsible for the gas attack, you'd think he'd have wanted to get the UN team in there sooner, without churning everything up.

Anyway, from my standpoint, it doesn't make sense for Assad to use gas against the rebels, given that doing so wasn't militarily necessary (as far as I know), and that doing so incurs basically the only risk of significant outside intervention. At the same time, I'm not sure that time was on Assad's side -- although help from Hezbollah and his other allies had recently turned the tide of battle in his favor, it's not clear to me that the long-term trend was in his favor. He gained a one-time increment of Hezbollah fighters, but the rebel cause will continue to attract jihadis from across the region, and money and materiel from Iran's enemies (who, in aggregate, are much richer than Syria's benefactors). He can buy weapons from Russia, but I'm sure his regime is hurting for funds (the economy being wrecked and all), and his inventory of equipment and men are gradually being ground down. Perhaps he put too much faith in Obama's lawfulness and miscalibrated Obama's threshold for action; perhaps the recent gas attacks were meant to be just the next incremental escalation in a direction he hoped would end the rebellion before his power base is ground down. I think there could be other explanations, but this makes more sense to me than the alternatives I've heard.

[flintlock]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

I think most of us don't really know exactly what is going on over there. I've heard everything from Assad was winning to he's on the ropes. I just know that Assad has to know that Chemical weapons are what helped get Saddam Hussein in trouble with the UN. Although I suppose that did take a long time to play out. He wouldn't be the first dictator to underestimate the West.

Chemical weapons are a terror weapon as much as anything. Good for killing indiscriminately. If they just wanted to kill a bunch of civilians they have the artillery to flatten half the city. At best its was a poor move on his part to use chemicals. At worst its a trap laid by (?), the US is about to fall right into. I do remember seeing videos many months ago of fake atrocities filmed by various factions, trying to hurt the other side in world opinion. This is nothing new in that war. Some of the rebels in particular are desperate. They either win or die. There will be no reconciliation.

So we go in and bomb stuff. Then what? Who are you replacing Assad with?( assuming a few cruise missiles would accomplish this!) Al Qaeda? There is a lack of clarity in US policy. They can't decide whose side they are on and the whole world knows it. US policy is short sighted and only reaches as far as the next elections. At what point are citizens of the US no different than Germans in WWII? I frankly worry that myself and my family will someday have to pay an awful price for the political machinations of our leaders. Its not that I am always against intervention in world affairs. But you have to have a clear goal and back the correct side. In this case I don't think there is a "good" side and time will prove that out.

[c1ue]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

• President Obama has thus far been obviously reluctant to intervene in Syria
• US military leadership has repeatedly and vocally opposed intervening in Syria
• American public opinion is very opposed to intervening in Syria
• President Obama has stressed the need for UN Security Council authorization for past interventions (which will definitely not be forthcoming from Russia and China)
• Presented with earlier pretexts to intervene (smaller-scale chemical attacks), President Obama did not take them
• Even the light weapons promised to the rebels by the US have not materialized
• Many of the people fighting Assad are sworn enemies of the US, so an American intervention in support of them makes no strategic sense

These points are true, but they are counterbalanced by these points:

1) Saudi Arabia - as exemplified by Bandar's visit to Moscow - is very much still in the game of supporting the 'free Syrian rebels'.
2) The US and others have already agreed to arm said 'rebels' in Jordan, for example, so it cannot be said that the US has decided to stand off.
3) A number of prominent US politicians - Kerry and McCain, among others - have been more than a little bit vocal about intervening
4) Obama drew a very clear line in the sand on chemical weapons
5) It is still far from clear to me what possible benefit there can be for the use of chemical weapons by Assad. Yes, you can argue that it is possible that the perceived risk of intervention by the US is low, but the result of such an intervention cannot be anything but catastrophic. Barring insanity or stupidity - neither of which has been displayed in Syria to date - I cannot help but wonder why even a 'low' risk of catastrophe is worthwhile in the context of the actual situation.

If Assad were clearly losing/about to lose, that would be one thing. Even if he isn't clearly winning, at the same time it is quite clear that he isn't clearly losing.

Now of course stupidity due to poor information is also a possibility. Again, the actions of those under Assad - as can be seen by the hacking of various social media accounts to pro-Assad purposes - bespeaks a considerable understanding and interaction with Western media, which in turn makes such lack of information unlikely.

Let's also not forget that this isn't the first time 'chemical weapons attacks' have been pushed about as a pretext for direct US intervention.

It happened once before - and the US reaction was anything but benign.

Lastly I'd note that heavy weapons delivery systems don't themselves mean anything. Given Obama's line in the sand, an appropriately placed ingenue could just as easily be doing this for his own purposes. Say, $10 million and a nice place to live in Saudi Arabia for the rest of his life. It isn't like members of Assad's military haven't jumped ship before.

Let's also look at Iran, Russia, and China. Would any of these 3 nations, in any way, fail to underscore the dangers of Assad using chemical weapons? Is there any possible benefit to any of these nations to have Syria get the Kosovo treatment?

Lastly on the political front in the US.

The reality is that Obama has been mightily damaged, both internationally and domestically, by Snowden.

Remember the last time a US president needed a distraction to build up his own image? Lewinsky -> Snowden ; Kosovo -> Syria

[dcarrigg]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

The reality is that Obama has been mightily damaged, both internationally and domestically, by Snowden.

Remember the last time a US president needed a distraction to build up his own image? Lewinsky -> Snowden ; Kosovo -> Syria

I think you're mistaken here. Most people don't give two hoots about Snowden. The internet and techies do. That's all. Barely over 50% even call him a whistleblower.

Obama will not get "a distraction" out of Syria. He will get a political catastrophe at worst, and lose a few points approval points from his base at best. After all of the Middle East wars, Americans are done.

People who wouldn't recognize Snowden's name remember "WMDs" and "Chemical Weapons." They don't care. Polls show it. The lie sold to them for the Iraq invasion had more convincing evidence than this. There's just no taste for another mid-east war. It's not "fun in the sun" like it was in the 90s with stormin norman and desert storm trading cards. It's 12 years of perpetual war with no end in site and a request to extend the field of engagement.

[c1ue]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

I think you're mistaken here. Most people don't give two hoots about Snowden. The internet and techies do. That's all.

Obama will not get "a distraction" out of Syria. He will get a political catastrophe at worst, and lose a few points approval points from his base at best. After all of the Middle East wars, Americans are done.

People who wouldn't recognize Snowden's name remember "WMDs" and "Chemical Weapons." They don't care. Polls show it. The lie sold to them for the Iraq invasion had more convincing evidence than this. There's just no taste for another mid-east war. It's not "fun in the sun" like it was in the 90s with stormin norman and desert storm trading cards. It's 12 years of perpetual war with no end in site and a request to extend the field of engagement.

Really? So what is this apropos of:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ce-privacy-pew

Numerous polls taken since our reporting on previously secret NSA activities first began have strongly suggested major public opinion shifts in how NSA surveillance and privacy are viewed. But a new comprehensive poll released over the weekend weekend by Pew Research provides the most compelling evidence yet of how stark the shift is.

Among other things, Pew finds that "a majority of Americans – 56% – say that federal courts fail to provide adequate limits on the telephone and internet data the government is collecting as part of its anti-terrorism efforts." And "an even larger percentage (70%) believes that the government uses this data for purposes other than investigating terrorism." Moreover, "63% think the government is also gathering information about the content of communications." That demonstrates a decisive rejection of the US government's three primary defenses of its secret programs: there is adequate oversight; we're not listening to the content of communication; and the spying is only used to Keep You Safe™.

But the most striking finding is this one:

"Overall, 47% say their greater concern about government anti-terrorism policies is that they have gone too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties, while 35% say they are more concerned that policies have not gone far enough to protect the country. This is the first time in Pew Research polling that more have expressed concern over civil liberties than protection from terrorism since the question was first asked in 2004."

For anyone who spent the post-9/11 years defending core liberties against assaults relentlessly perpetrated in the name of terrorism, polling data like that is nothing short of shocking. This Pew visual underscores what a radical shift has occurred from these recent NSA disclosures:



Perhaps more amazingly still, this shift has infected the US Congress. Following up on last week's momentous House vote - in which 55% of Democrats and 45% of Republicans defied the White House and their own leadership to vote for the Amash/Conyers amendment to ban the NSA's bulk phone records collection program - the New York Times has an article this morning which it summarizes on its front page this way:



The article describes how opposition to the NSA, which the paper says was recently confined to the Congressional "fringes", has now "built a momentum that even critics say may be unstoppable, drawing support from Republican and Democratic leaders, attracting moderates in both parties and pulling in some of the most respected voices on national security in the House."

It describes how GOP Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner - a prime author of the Patriot Act back in 2001 and a long-time defender of even the most extremist War on Terror policies - has now become a leading critic of NSA overreach. He will have "a bill ready when Congress returned from its August recess that would restrict phone surveillance to only those named as targets of a federal terrorism investigation, make significant changes to the secret court that oversees such programs and give businesses like Microsoft and Google permission to reveal their dealings before that court."

Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren is quoted this way: "There is a growing sense that things have really gone a-kilter here". Yesterday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Democratic Sen Dick Durbin, one of Obama's closest Senate allies, said that the recently revealed NSA bulk record collection program "goes way too far".

The strategy for the NSA and its Washington defenders for managing these changes is now clear: advocate their own largely meaningless reform to placate this growing sentiment while doing nothing to actually rein in the NSA's power. "Backers of sweeping surveillance powers now say they recognize that changes are likely, and they are taking steps to make sure they maintain control over the extent of any revisions," says the NYT.

The primary problem enabling out-of-control NSA spying has long been the Intelligence Committees in both houses of Congress. That's an ironic twist given that those were the committees created in the wake of the mid-1970s Church Committee to provide rigorous oversight, as a response to the recognition that Executive Branch's surveillance powers were being radically abused - and would inevitably be abused in the future - without robust transparency and accountability.

But with a few rare and noble exceptions, the Intelligence Committees in both houses of Congress are filled with precisely those members who are most slavishly beholden to, completely captured by, the intelligence community over which they supposedly serve as watchdogs. Many receive large sums of money from the defense and intelligence industries.

There is a clear and powerful correlation between NSA support and amounts of money received by these members from those industries, as Wired's Dave Kravets adeptly documented about last week's NSA vote and has been documented before with similar NSA-protecting actions from the Intelligence Committee. In particular, the two chairs of those committees - Democrat Dianne Feinstein in the Senate and Republican Mike Rogers in the House - are such absolute loyalists to the NSA and the National Security State generally that it is usually impossible to distinguish their behavior, mindset and comments from those of NSA officials.

In sum, the Senate and House Intelligence Committees are the pure embodiment of the worst of Washington: the corrupting influence of money from the very industries they are designed to oversee and the complete capture by the agencies they are supposed to adversarially check. Anything that comes out of the leadership of those two Committees that is labeled "NSA reform" is almost certain to be designed to achieve the opposite effect: to stave off real changes in lieu of illusory tinkering whose real purpose will be to placate rising anger.

But that trick seems unlikely to work here. What has made these disclosures different from past NSA scandals - including ones showing serious abuse of their surveillance powers - are the large numbers of the NSA's own documents that are now and will continue to be available for the public to see, as well the sustained, multi-step nature of these disclosures, which makes this far more difficult for NSA defenders to predict, manage and dismiss away. At least as much as they are shining long-overdue light on these specific NSA domestic programs, the NSA disclosures are changing how Americans (and people around the world) think about the mammoth National Security State and whether it can and should be trusted with unchecked powers exercised in the dark. Those public opinion shifts aren't going to disappear as the result of some blatantly empty gestures from Dianne Feinstein and Mike Rogers masquerading as "reform".

Despite the substantial public opinion shifts, Pew found that Americans are largely split on whether the NSA data-collection program should continue. The reason for this is remarkable and repugnant though, at this point, utterly unsurprising:

Nationwide, there is more support for the government's data-collection program among Democrats (57% approve) than among Republicans (44%), but both parties face significant internal divisions: 36% of Democrats disapprove of the program as do 50% of Republicans.

Just as Democrats went from vehement critics of Bush's due-process-free War on Terror policies to vocal cheerleaders of Obama's drone kills and even Guantanamo imprisonments, the leading defenders of the NSA specifically and America's Surveillance State generally are now found among self-identified Democrats. That was embodied by how one of the most vocal Democratic NSA critics during the Bush years - Nancy Pelosi - in almost single-handedly saved the NSA from last week's House vote. If someone had said back in 2007 that the greatest support for NSA surveillance would be found among Democrats, many would find the very idea ludicrous. But such is life in the Age of Obama: one of his most enduring legacies is transforming his party from pretend-opponents of the permanent National Security State into its most enthusiastic supporters.

But despite that hackish partisan opportunism, the positive opinion changes toward NSA surveillance and civil liberties can be seen across virtually all partisan and ideological lines:


The largest changes toward demanding civil liberties protections have occurred among liberal Democrats, Tea Party Republicans, independents and liberal/moderate Republicans. Only self-identified "moderate/conservative Democrats" - the Obama base - remains steadfast and steady in defense of NSA surveillance. The least divided, most-pro-NSA caucus in the House for last week's vote was the corporatist Blue Dog Democrat caucus, which overwhelmingly voted to protect the NSA's bulk spying on Americans.

As I've repeatedly said, the only ones defending the NSA at this point are the party loyalists and institutional authoritarians in both parties. That's enough for the moment to control Washington outcomes - as epitomized by the unholy trinity that saved the NSA in the House last week: Pelosi, John Bohener and the Obama White House - but it is clearly not enough to stem the rapidly changing tide of public opinion.

Naturally, Greenwald and the Guardian are going to have a certain view of events, so the above should be taken with a grain of salt.

I would note, however, that it is traditionally the Democrats who are supposed to be safeguarding civil liberties as opposed to those nasty corporatist Republicans; the present situation has the security Republican establishment defending a Democrat president even as the civil rights portions of the Democrats are off in the corner throwing up. The big business/revolving door Democrats, of course, don't care.

[dcarrigg]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Don't get me wrong. I didn't say it didn't move poll numbers. But they've been moving that direction anyways. 56% is a majority. But 38% identify him as a traitor in polls and the rest don't know.

That's not nearly as damning as 91% against Syrian intervention, 67% are even against it when provided with the hypothetical that chemical weapons are proven to have been used beyond a shadow of a doubt.

A 2/3 majority is a powerful thing. A Syrian campaign will not be a political walk in the park. It's certainly not a shrewd political move to distract people from Snowden. This isn't the 1990s. This is an America where a 30 year old has never known a year of peace since she was old enough to vote.

That was the only point I was making.

[ASH]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Don't get me wrong. I didn't say it didn't move poll numbers. But they've been moving that direction anyways. 56% is a majority. But 38% identify him as a traitor in polls and the rest don't know.

That's not nearly as damning as 91% against Syrian intervention, 67% are even against it when provided with the hypothetical that chemical weapons are proven to have been used beyond a shadow of a doubt.

A 2/3 majority is a powerful thing. A Syrian campaign will not be a political walk in the park. It's certainly not a shrewd political move to distract people from Snowden. This isn't the 1990s. This is an America where a 30 year old has never known a year of peace since she was old enough to vote.

That was the only point I was making.

+1

I share your take on the domestic politics of this.

[shiny!]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

I think most of us don't really know exactly what is going on over there. I've heard everything from Assad was winning to he's on the ropes. I just know that Assad has to know that Chemical weapons are what helped get Saddam Hussein in trouble with the UN. Although I suppose that did take a long time to play out. He wouldn't be the first dictator to underestimate the West.

Chemical weapons are a terror weapon as much as anything. Good for killing indiscriminately. If they just wanted to kill a bunch of civilians they have the artillery to flatten half the city. At best its was a poor move on his part to use chemicals. At worst its a trap laid by (?), the US is about to fall right into. I do remember seeing videos many months ago of fake atrocities filmed by various factions, trying to hurt the other side in world opinion. This is nothing new in that war. Some of the rebels in particular are desperate. They either win or die. There will be no reconciliation.

So we go in and bomb stuff. Then what? Who are you replacing Assad with?( assuming a few cruise missiles would accomplish this!) Al Qaeda? There is a lack of clarity in US policy. They can't decide whose side they are on and the whole world knows it. US policy is short sighted and only reaches as far as the next elections. At what point are citizens of the US no different than Germans in WWII? I frankly worry that myself and my family will someday have to pay an awful price for the political machinations of our leaders. Its not that I am always against intervention in world affairs. But you have to have a clear goal and back the correct side. In this case I don't think there is a "good" side and time will prove that out.

Saddam Hussein wanted to conduct trade in something other than US $$. That's what signed his death warrant. The WMDs and chemical weapons were just an excuse for taking him out.

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one trying to sort through the contradicting stories re: Syria. For no other reason than because I've lost all confidence in my government and it's propaganda machine, the MSM, to ever tell the truth when they can tell a confusing half-truth instead, I suspect that this massively confusing presentation of the Syrian situation is deliberate obfuscation . Two teams from my high school debate class went to Nationals and won. Their motto was "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh!t". That's what's going on here.

This is a no-win scenario for the USA. We can't "win" this war, but if we do somehow, we'll be further hated by even more people. If we "lose" we'll be further weakened and despised in the eyes of the world. Innocents will die, regardless. It's a race to the bottom.

[jk]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

ash, in another thread you linked to a scenario of cruise missiles degrading syrian airfields, in part to prevent resupply of syria from iran or russia. iirc, these same airfields are used as transit points for supplies from iran which then go overland to hezbollah in lebanon. i think any scenario analysis needs to include a nod to hezbollah's reaction to such an attack.

[Woodsman]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

I've lost all confidence in my government and it's propaganda machine, the MSM, to ever tell the truth when they can tell a confusing half-truth instead

Speaking of propaganda, I read a revolting little piece of agitprop in the USA Today - not worth linking - framing the story of a tense Israeli population from the perspective of a mother getting her child ready for school. God vouchsafe His protection to all mothers and children in Israel and everywhere. But what of Syrian children and their mothers? One might image an externally provoked civil war and the imminent threat of robotic death raining from the skies would make the morning routine a bit tense, no?

In trying to suss out what the genuine from the false, I find it's useful to consider the constellation of possibilities for today's events against the choices made in crises past. The period of late 1950s Vietnam comes to mind. Have you read or seen "The Quiet American?"

[c1ue]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Don't get me wrong. I didn't say it didn't move poll numbers. But they've been moving that direction anyways. 56% is a majority. But 38% identify him as a traitor in polls and the rest don't know.

That's not nearly as damning as 91% against Syrian intervention, 67% are even against it when provided with the hypothetical that chemical weapons are proven to have been used beyond a shadow of a doubt.

A 2/3 majority is a powerful thing. A Syrian campaign will not be a political walk in the park. It's certainly not a shrewd political move to distract people from Snowden. This isn't the 1990s. This is an America where a 30 year old has never known a year of peace since she was old enough to vote.

That was the only point I was making.

Fair points - and yet we're moving very perceptibly towards bangs on target.

How does this correlate with your view on the politics?

I'd also note that the American people haven't even voted for a 'kinetic military action', much less approved one, for much of the same 30 year old's lifetime.

[dcarrigg]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Fair points - and yet we're moving very perceptibly towards bangs on target.

How does this correlate with your view on the politics?

I'd also note that the American people haven't even voted for a 'kinetic military action', much less approved one, for much of the same 30 year old's lifetime.

I'm just spitting conjecture. But I figure the hesitance is real, given this scenario. An unpopular president going into a midterm year where the senate map doesn't favor the Dems is not something that wins applause at the DNC. And the President will lose a good chunk of what little political capital he has left. Of course, a President can do what he wants anyways. And my guess is that he wants to move on this, and that were it not for the politics, he may have / have had a freer hand to move more quickly. If America is knee deep in Syria next year, I'd guess a bunch of disillusioned Democrats turn out in much smaller numbers. If the GOP manages to squeak credible candidates through a primary (ones who can leave their personal assessments of witches, rape, and why they dislike the Civil Rights Act far away from the conversation), they would be in a very good spot because of it. Like I was saying, I think a Syrian invasion hurts the President and the Dems politically far more than Snowden.

[Woodsman]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Yes, since it's been confirmed that on the same day that Secretary of State John Kerry announces that we have to bomb Syria because the use of chemical weapons violate international rules, it was revealed that government files prove that the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iran.

From Foreign Policy Magazine:


The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.
BY SHANE HARRIS AND MATTHEW M. AID | AUGUST 26, 2013
The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.

[vt]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Definitely! But Hussein was operating in our interests; Assad is operating in "their" interests.