Political Hypocrisy....

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Political Hypocrisy....

    Coulter makes some very good comparisons here. Imagine if Romney were elected president, would Barbara Boxer (CA) Senator have casted her vote for a military strike. I'm guessing not a snowballs chance in hell. It's all politics, that's what Obama is good at, not making the tough decisions and being a leader. 

    (Article below)

    Oh, how I long for the days when liberals wailed that "the rest of the world" hated America, rather than now, when the rest of the world laughs at us.

    With the vast majority of Americans opposing a strike against Syria, President Obama has requested that Congress vote on his powers as commander in chief under the Constitution. The president doesn't need congressional approval to shoot a few missiles into Syria, nor -- amazingly -- has he said he'll abide by such a vote, anyway.

    Why is Congress even having a vote? This is nothing but a fig leaf to cover Obama's own idiotic "red line" ultimatum to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria on chemical weapons. The Nobel Peace Prize winner needs to get Congress on the record so that whatever happens, the media can blame Republicans.

    No Republican who thinks seriously about America's national security interests -- by which I mean to exclude John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- can support Obama's "plan" to shoot blindly into this hornet's nest.

    It would be completely different if we knew with absolute certainty that Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on his own people. (I'm still waiting to see if it was a Syrian upset about a YouTube video.)

    It would be different if instead of killing a few hundred civilians, Assad had killed 5,000 civilians with poison gas in a single day, as well as tens of thousands more with chemical weapons in the past few decades.

    It would be different if Assad were known to torture his own people, administer summary executions, rapes, burnings and electric shocks, often in front of the victim's wife or children.

    It would be different if Assad had acted aggressively toward the United States itself, perhaps attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president or giving shelter to terrorists who had struck within the U.S. -- someone like Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist.



    It would be different if Assad were stirring up trouble in the entire Middle East by, for example, paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers in other countries.

    It would also be different if we could be sure that intervention in Syria would not lead to a multi-nation conflagration.

    It would be different if we knew that any action against Syria would not put al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in power, but rather would result in a functioning, peaceful democracy.

    And it would be different if an attack on Syria would so terrify other dictators in the region that they would instantly give up their WMDs -- say, Iran abandoning its nuclear program.

    If all of that were true, this would be a military intervention worth supporting!

    All of that was true about Iraq, but the Democrats hysterically opposed that war. They opposed it even after all this was known to be true -- indeed, especially after it was known to be true! The loudest opponent was Barack Obama.

    President Saddam Hussein of Iraq had attempted to assassinate former president George H.W. Bush. He gave shelter to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

    Soon after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi was so terrified of an attack on his own country, he voluntarily relinquished his WMDs -- which turned out to be far more extensive than previously imagined.

    Al-Qaida not only did not take over Iraq, but got its butt handed to it in Iraq, where the U.S. and its allies killed thousands of al-Qaida fighters, including the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Iraq became the first genuine Arab democracy, holding several elections and presiding over a trial of Saddam Hussein.

    Does anyone imagine that any of this would result from an Obama-led operation in Syria? How did his interventions work out in Egypt and Libya?

    As for chemical weapons -- the casus belli for the current drums of war -- in a matter of hours on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein slaughtered roughly 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja with mustard, sarin and VX gas. The victims blistered, vomited or laughed hysterically before dropping dead. Thousands more would die later from the after-effects of these poisons.

    Saddam launched nearly two dozen more chemical attacks on the Kurds, resulting in at least 50,000 deaths, perhaps three times that many. That's to say nothing of the tens of thousands of Iranians Saddam killed with poison gas. Indeed, in making the case against Assad recently, Secretary of State John Kerry said his use of chemical weapons put him in the same league as "Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein."

    Not even close -- but may we ask why Kerry sneered at the war that removed such a monster as Hussein?

    There were endless United Nations reports and resolutions both establishing that Saddam had used chemical weapons and calling on him to give them up. (For the eighth billionth time, we did find chemical weapons in Iraq, just no "stockpiles." Those had been moved before the war, according to Saddam's own general, Georges Sada -- to Syria.)

    On far less evidence, our current president accuses Assad of using chemical weapons against a fraction of the civilians provably murdered with poison gas by Saddam Hussein. So why did Obama angrily denounce the military operation that removed Hussein? Why did he call that a "war of choice"?

    Obama says Assad -- unlike that great statesman Saddam Hussein -- has posed "a challenge to the world." But the world disagrees. Even our usual ally, Britain, disagrees. So Obama demands the United States act alone to stop a dictator, who -- compared to Saddam -- is a piker.

    At this point, Assad is at least 49,000 dead bodies short of the good cause the Iraq War was, even if chemical weapons had been the only reason to take out Saddam Hussein.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Political Hypocrisy....

    So Ann's point is because there are some similarities between Syria today and Iraq of 10 years ago that the Iraq war was justified and as a result people who opposed that war but support a limited bombimg run over Syria are hypocrites?  

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Political Hypocrisy....

    I think Ann's point is that those calling for a strike against Syria are mostly one in the same who complained about invading Iraq.

    I don't think she is trying to justify Iraq, I think she is asking some leftwingers that opposed Iraq to explain how they could support a strike against Syria.

    There is no threat to national security or to any Americans.

    Syria never did anything to us to justify an attack.

    At least with Iraq, they were shooting at us in violation of a UN cease fire agreement which we were enforcing with a no-fly zone. That doesn't mean that Iraq was all fine and justified. I am just saying there was more going on in Iraq to justify force than there is now in Syria, yet somehow those that condemned our actions in Iraq are now chickenhawks screaming for war.

    Could it be because of politics and the fact we now have a halfrican American liberal Democrat as President? No, that can't be possible can it? I mean Obama is unleashing all his political operatives to sell us on this war, not any military people or anyone from the UN. So it can't be politics, can it?

    And who will benefit from our actions - terrorists we went after in Iraq. Terrorists that were recently caught manufacturing Sarin and Mustard gas. Just a coincidence I'm sure.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Political Hypocrisy....

    Interesting analysis, one that ignores the scores and scores of Democrats and progressives who are calling for restraint, or outright not supporting the presidents call to action.  Moveon and Codepink have taken up their protests, and there is nothing even close to resembling a unified front among Dems to support action in Syria.  

    Which is why your claims are so bizarre.  Sorry not bizarre, I meant to say that is why your claims are lies.  Conservatives are tripping over themselves to make an argument that isn't supported by facts, which is par for the course, I guess.  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Political Hypocrisy....

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    I think Ann's point is that those calling for a strike against Syria are mostly one in the same who complained about invading Iraq.

    I don't think she is trying to justify Iraq, I think she is asking some leftwingers that opposed Iraq to explain how they could support a strike against Syria.

    There is no threat to national security or to any Americans.

    Syria never did anything to us to justify an attack.

    At least with Iraq, they were shooting at us in violation of a UN cease fire agreement which we were enforcing with a no-fly zone. That doesn't mean that Iraq was all fine and justified. I am just saying there was more going on in Iraq to justify force than there is now in Syria, yet somehow those that condemned our actions in Iraq are now chickenhawks screaming for war.

    Could it be because of politics and the fact we now have a halfrican American liberal Democrat as President? No, that can't be possible can it? I mean Obama is unleashing all his political operatives to sell us on this war, not any military people or anyone from the UN. So it can't be politics, can it?

    And who will benefit from our actions - terrorists we went after in Iraq. Terrorists that were recently caught manufacturing Sarin and Mustard gas. Just a coincidence I'm sure.



    Taking lunch and was going to reply to those above. Your reply is most of what I was thinking to say....spot on. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Political Hypocrisy....

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    I think Ann's point is that those calling for a strike against Syria are mostly one in the same who complained about invading Iraq.

    I don't think she is trying to justify Iraq, I think she is asking some leftwingers that opposed Iraq to explain how they could support a strike against Syria.

    There is no threat to national security or to any Americans.

    Syria never did anything to us to justify an attack.

    At least with Iraq, they were shooting at us in violation of a UN cease fire agreement which we were enforcing with a no-fly zone. That doesn't mean that Iraq was all fine and justified. I am just saying there was more going on in Iraq to justify force than there is now in Syria, yet somehow those that condemned our actions in Iraq are now chickenhawks screaming for war.

    Could it be because of politics and the fact we now have a halfrican American liberal Democrat as President? No, that can't be possible can it? I mean Obama is unleashing all his political operatives to sell us on this war, not any military people or anyone from the UN. So it can't be politics, can it?

    And who will benefit from our actions - terrorists we went after in Iraq. Terrorists that were recently caught manufacturing Sarin and Mustard gas. Just a coincidence I'm sure.


    The reason for any US airstrikes is that the use of chemical weapons is against any humane way to wage war not that waging war is humane at all ..... I don't want to see a war or it's after effects ever again ..... the best thing for the people of Syria and everybody else is a peaceful outcome ..... The use of chemical weapons by anybody should not be tolerated by anyone .... now if you want to discuss dubya's war of choice based on lies ... I'm here for you .

    Semper Fi !

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Political Hypocrisy....

     

    now if you want to discuss dubya's war of choice based on lies ... I'm here for you

     

    Sister, in the immortal words of some very dedicated liberals... MOVE ON!

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Political Hypocrisy....

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    I think Ann's point is that those calling for a strike against Syria are mostly one in the same who complained about invading Iraq.

    I don't think she is trying to justify Iraq, I think she is asking some leftwingers that opposed Iraq to explain how they could support a strike against Syria.

    There is no threat to national security or to any Americans.

    Syria never did anything to us to justify an attack.

    At least with Iraq, they were shooting at us in violation of a UN cease fire agreement which we were enforcing with a no-fly zone. That doesn't mean that Iraq was all fine and justified. I am just saying there was more going on in Iraq to justify force than there is now in Syria, yet somehow those that condemned our actions in Iraq are now chickenhawks screaming for war.

    Could it be because of politics and the fact we now have a halfrican American liberal Democrat as President? No, that can't be possible can it? I mean Obama is unleashing all his political operatives to sell us on this war, not any military people or anyone from the UN. So it can't be politics, can it?

    And who will benefit from our actions - terrorists we went after in Iraq. Terrorists that were recently caught manufacturing Sarin and Mustard gas. Just a coincidence I'm sure.

     

     


    The reason for any US airstrikes is that the use of chemical weapons is against any humane way to wage war not that waging war is humane at all ..... I don't want to see a war or it's after effects ever again ..... the best thing for the people of Syria and everybody else is a peaceful outcome ..... The use of chemical weapons by anybody should not be tolerated by anyone .... now if you want to discuss dubya's war of choice based on lies ... I'm here for you .

     

     

    Semper Fi !

     



    So you are ok sitting by and watching 90,000 people get killed with guns, machetes etc, but if they use chemical weapons to kill 1000  people THAT is a problem? And how do you know that what is going to be done will prevent it from happening it again? You probably have not even asked yourself that question you are so lip-locked to Obama's a55.

     

    And speaking of lies, why do you accept what we are being spoon fed by the Obama administration with no proof?  Do you mind being told by that fool that it is just going to be strikes from the air and cruise missiles while Congress prepares an authorization for use of TROOPS in Syria??

    Even if I accept the WMD evidence as lies from Bush, there was still more of a reason to use force in Iraq than there is in Syria.

    And when we are all done with your chickenhawk war, who is going to benefit?

    Al Qaeda and their affiliate Al Nusrah, both caught making chemical weapons in Iraq. Just a coincidence I am sure.

    SisterSludge and Barack Hussein Obama ....with the terrorists. Awesome.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Political Hypocrisy....

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    I think Ann's point is that those calling for a strike against Syria are mostly one in the same who complained about invading Iraq.

    I don't think she is trying to justify Iraq, I think she is asking some leftwingers that opposed Iraq to explain how they could support a strike against Syria.

    There is no threat to national security or to any Americans.

    Syria never did anything to us to justify an attack.

    At least with Iraq, they were shooting at us in violation of a UN cease fire agreement which we were enforcing with a no-fly zone. That doesn't mean that Iraq was all fine and justified. I am just saying there was more going on in Iraq to justify force than there is now in Syria, yet somehow those that condemned our actions in Iraq are now chickenhawks screaming for war.

    Could it be because of politics and the fact we now have a halfrican American liberal Democrat as President? No, that can't be possible can it? I mean Obama is unleashing all his political operatives to sell us on this war, not any military people or anyone from the UN. So it can't be politics, can it?

    And who will benefit from our actions - terrorists we went after in Iraq. Terrorists that were recently caught manufacturing Sarin and Mustard gas. Just a coincidence I'm sure.

     

     


    The reason for any US airstrikes is that the use of chemical weapons is against any humane way to wage war not that waging war is humane at all ..... I don't want to see a war or it's after effects ever again ..... the best thing for the people of Syria and everybody else is a peaceful outcome ..... The use of chemical weapons by anybody should not be tolerated by anyone .... now if you want to discuss dubya's war of choice based on lies ... I'm here for you .

     

     

    Semper Fi !

     



    So you are ok sitting by and watching 90,000 people get killed with guns, machetes etc, but if they use chemical weapons to kill 1000  people THAT is a problem? And how do you know that what is going to be done will prevent it from happening it again? You probably have not even asked yourself that question you are so lip-locked to Obama's a55.

     

    And speaking of lies, why do you accept what we are being spoon fed by the Obama administration with no proof?  Do you mind being told by that fool that it is just going to be strikes from the air and cruise missiles while Congress prepares an authorization for use of TROOPS in Syria??

    Even if I accept the WMD evidence as lies from Bush, there was still more of a reason to use force in Iraq than there is in Syria.

    And when we are all done with your chickenhawk war, who is going to benefit?

    Al Qaeda and their affiliate Al Nusrah, both caught making chemical weapons in Iraq. Just a coincidence I am sure.

    SisterSludge and Barack Hussein Obama ....with the terrorists. Awesome.




    yo dog .... did I say that I was alright with what is happening in Syria .. no ..... what chickenhawk war are you talking about ... I never said I'm in favor of any US Troops going to war in Syria , I said Assad should be punished .. and if after the debate in congress and congress votes for a airstrike so be it and if they don't so be that too ..... if al Qaeda and al Nursah were caught making chemical weapons .. that means they were caught ... and if they use chemical weapons they get punished too

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Political Hypocrisy....

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    So Ann's point is because there are some similarities between Syria today and Iraq of 10 years ago that the Iraq war was justified and as a result people who opposed that war but support a limited bombimg run over Syria are hypocrites?  



    No, I think her point is that Syria is a war of choice, and that the same liberal fools that crowed about it with Iraq are know running around trying to deny that.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Political Hypocrisy....

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

    I think Ann's point is that those calling for a strike against Syria are mostly one in the same who complained about invading Iraq.

    I don't think she is trying to justify Iraq, I think she is asking some leftwingers that opposed Iraq to explain how they could support a strike against Syria.

    There is no threat to national security or to any Americans.

    Syria never did anything to us to justify an attack.

    At least with Iraq, they were shooting at us in violation of a UN cease fire agreement which we were enforcing with a no-fly zone. That doesn't mean that Iraq was all fine and justified. I am just saying there was more going on in Iraq to justify force than there is now in Syria, yet somehow those that condemned our actions in Iraq are now chickenhawks screaming for war.

    Could it be because of politics and the fact we now have a halfrican American liberal Democrat as President? No, that can't be possible can it? I mean Obama is unleashing all his political operatives to sell us on this war, not any military people or anyone from the UN. So it can't be politics, can it?

    And who will benefit from our actions - terrorists we went after in Iraq. Terrorists that were recently caught manufacturing Sarin and Mustard gas. Just a coincidence I'm sure.

     

     


    The reason for any US airstrikes is that the use of chemical weapons is against any humane way to wage war not that waging war is humane at all ..... I don't want to see a war or it's after effects ever again ..... the best thing for the people of Syria and everybody else is a peaceful outcome ..... The use of chemical weapons by anybody should not be tolerated by anyone .... now if you want to discuss dubya's war of choice based on lies ... I'm here for you .

     

     

    Semper Fi !

     



    So you are ok sitting by and watching 90,000 people get killed with guns, machetes etc, but if they use chemical weapons to kill 1000  people THAT is a problem? And how do you know that what is going to be done will prevent it from happening it again? You probably have not even asked yourself that question you are so lip-locked to Obama's a55.

     

    And speaking of lies, why do you accept what we are being spoon fed by the Obama administration with no proof?  Do you mind being told by that fool that it is just going to be strikes from the air and cruise missiles while Congress prepares an authorization for use of TROOPS in Syria??

    Even if I accept the WMD evidence as lies from Bush, there was still more of a reason to use force in Iraq than there is in Syria.

    And when we are all done with your chickenhawk war, who is going to benefit?

    Al Qaeda and their affiliate Al Nusrah, both caught making chemical weapons in Iraq. Just a coincidence I am sure.

    SisterSludge and Barack Hussein Obama ....with the terrorists. Awesome.

     

     




    yo dog .... did I say that I was alright with what is happening in Syria .. no ..... what chickenhawk war are you talking about ... I never said I'm in favor of any US Troops going to war in Syria , I said Assad should be punished .. and if after the debate in congress and congress votes for a airstrike so be it and if they don't so be that too ..... if al Qaeda and al Nursah were caught making chemical weapons .. that means they were caught ... and if they use chemical weapons they get punished too

     

     

     

     



    Just what did you do in the marines? I hope it had nothing to do with sharp objects or guns.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Political Hypocrisy....

    skeeter what did I do in the USMC ... I was a 0311 which is a rifleman and my job  was to make sure that this country had a military force which would put a world of hurt on people who wanted to do nothing but to destroy our way of life .... so I gave to our country ... what did you do

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Political Hypocrisy....

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    skeeter what did I do in the USMC ... I was a 0311 which is a rifleman and my job  was to make sure that this country had a military force which would put a world of hurt on people who wanted to do nothing but to destroy our way of life .... so I gave to our country ... what did you do




    I don't wear what I did on my sleeve and make everyone salute.

    You seem pretty commited to destroying our way of life, so I can't really understand who you were defending us against.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share