In a move that could arguably be at odds with his prior statements on Syria, Florida Senator Marco Rubio voted against the resolution which would allow the President to use force against the Syrian regime. Rubio cast the vote as part of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The resolution was passed by a vote of 10 to 7 and could now proceed to the Senate floor.

Report from the Washington Examiner:

Marco Rubio surprised some observers Wednesday when he voted in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee against a resolution authorizing President Obama to use U.S. military force in Syria. The surprise came not because Rubio had been beating the drum for war earlier — he hadn’t — but because he has in the past used foreign policy statements to express deep concerns not only about the Syrian situation but also about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Those concerns seemed to mirror the positions of Senate colleagues John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two of the most strident hawks on the Syria issue, so there were perhaps some assumptions that Rubio would vote in favor of military intervention.

There was also talk about a political motivation. Some critics suggested that Rubio voted “No” to curry favor with a Republican base that he had alienated during the fight for comprehensive immigration reform. “Rubio manages to make himself look juvenile, afraid of base after immigration,” tweeted the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin on Wednesday. “Not presidential in the least.”

But in explaining his vote, Rubio said his position is nothing new. “While I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in the conflict,” Rubio said. “And I still don’t. I remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work.”

If you’ll recall, Rubio stated back in April that he supported the complete removal of the Syrian regime.


  1. Who voted yes?:
    Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) (by proxy — was absent due to the Jewish holiday), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.). Ranking member Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

    Who voted no?:
    Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

    Who voted present?:
    Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

  2. Nate, please elaborate on the use of the vote “present” by Markey. Is this, in fact, the same as an abstention.

    • Billy: You’re always saying Americans love war, and I think we are at a place that shows that that is NOT true. I don’t think I’d go as high as Sam saying 99%, but I do believe a solid majority do NOT want war.

      Unfortunately, Americans are patriotic, so although 70% of Americans were against the Iraq War, once we were in it, it was too late to be against it, so we all went along (for the ride down the toilet).

      However, Americans LOVE a short war that we win. So if whatever Obama has planned kicks Assad’s ass, Mr. Big Ears could become as popular as Bush was (temporarily).

      • Mr Behr, just saying it doesn’t make it so. Most people say they are against foreign aid to the middle east countries. When the rubber hit the road only 13 senators voted no while 86 voted yes. Now let’s see how many win re election. That’s what counts. You posted the senators in favor of war and those opposed. Again we will see how many in favor get re elected. I rest my case.

    The truth will set us free; it will enlighten, inspire, awaken and unite us. Armed with the truth united we stand, for Texas, peace, freedom, health and happiness for all.
    President Obama and most Washington politicians are out of touch with the U.S. economic crisis and the Syria reality. Obama is a puppet that is being push by The Washington corrupt elite, leaders of the U.S. political culture of corruption that really control our country.
    The U.S. has nothing to gain from military intervention in Syria, given that we’ve waited too long to take action, during the Syria’s 21-month civil war, 40,000 people died and we fail to act, why now?; the risks and costs are too high and we continue expending huge amounts of money from our military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. We do not have the money for any more wars we borrowed trillions of Dollars and we still haven’t settled our accounts from the wars.
    It’s become pretty clear over the last couple of years once the U.S.A. realized it could not control the Arab awakening, it decided to crash and burn it by encouraging armed struggle, knowing full well in the Muslim world this would inevitably attracts al- Qaeda militants like moths to a flame, and would result in either a disorganize State made up of armed and warring factions as happened in Libya, or a pliable military dictatorship like the one that emerged in Egypt which relies on the US government for weaponry and finance.
    Basically what Washington is working on, is to repeat the type of US backed militarization which took place in central and South America in the 20th Century. It is worth noting that this created hate and the cry for YANKY GO HOME in Latin America, but this strategy made rich the multinational corporations. Syria and the Mideast wars are about the oil it is not about humanity or the welfare of the people. The Mideast countries that were invaded by the U.S are worse today than before the U.S. Military intervention, millions orphans and widows, no jobs, extreme poverty and millions of families displace and homeless. This military intervention will promote more hate for Americans and will cost American lives and trillions of Dollars that we do not have.
    We must oppose direct US military intervention in Syria.
    Arguments against intervention, we can’t continue being the world’s bully and support rebel forces.
    1-At a time of economic crisis how can the U.S Government justify the cost of yet another failed war? Washington must learn from their pass, this It is just plain wrong.
    2- Military intervention would inflame Lebanon and Jordan and possibly spin over into Iran, which could have disastrous consequences for the Middle East, Turkey and the wider world
    3- It will make a bad situation worse, as almost all of the other US military interventions have done.
    4- Without a Security Council resolution it will be against international law.
    5- Every nation has the right to demand proper treatment under their sovereignty and no country should violate the territory of any other country.
    America supposed to be a morally pure city on the hill. Every campaign, domestic or foreign, should be a crusade for social justice and the benefit of humanity under the rule of law, no the continuation of this inherent impurity of political reality full of corruption and betrayal.
    Posted by Juan Reynoso
    [email protected]
    Fellow American if you care about the future of our country send letters to your Washington representative.
    I am not sure whether this structure of corruption and betrayals will continue after the collapse of this economic. Today the American primary system is corrupt and guarantees its continuation. American politicians rely on the elite that control the country to be elect or stay in power; these are the people who write the checks to hire the people who come to rallies, who canvass and make phone calls, organize the base and the political activists. During the primary, the activists must be kept happy until the nomination has been achieved; they become less important as the general election looms and after the elections they are betray by the politician that they place their trust on, work hard and fill their hopes for a better future. I pray to our Lord for the unification of all Christians to save our country.

  4. Bill O’Reilly supports the resolution and even went so far as to say that if the US doesn’t intervene, then we will look weak and loose respect with the other nations. He also said that more biological warfare will increase unless we stop it!

    The whole thing smacks of a power play. A ploy to get the US to enter into combat so that Russia and China can jump in. Their ultimate goal is to destroy Israel, then us.

    Why do we have to be the police of the world? Rand Paul is correct when he said that it is sad to loose civilians, but many more have been blown up; macheted; and executed then the casualities lost in Syria.

    Obama mis-stepped when he stated what the red line would be. Now he is trying to back pedal and say it wasn’t he who spoke those words.

  5. With all this dogpile on Rubio going on…its making me wonder if he’s a better presidential candidate than i think he is. Anyone the press attacks this much has to be something good for the country…

    • samreusser — Superb post!

      I’m posting it on other sites now.

      Ted Cruz’s Father mops the floor with the rag that’s Hussein Obama!

      Make this 9 minute video viral.

      One of the best points: “When people lose their freedoms from other countries they come to America. But if we lose our freedoms, where are we to go…?!”

      NOWHERE, so we MUST stand our ground and save this Nation from Obama and his dictatorial clique NOW!

      Impeaching Obama NOW will go a long way to save our country!

  6. Pope Francis said it best: “The US has to stop acting and reacting like the big boy of the neighborhood of the world”.

    It seems to me that Obama, Kerry and Hagel climbed a tall tree and don’t know how to climb down. And who sent up the rescue ladder? McCain, Boehner, Flake, and Corker.

    The Senate foreign relations committee agreed on a draft resolution backing the use of US military force in Syria. It authorizes strikes against the Syrian regime within a 60-day window, extendable to 90 days. It also includes tougher wording introduced by Senator John McCain, which makes it “the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria”.

    Maybe this explains some of Britain’s reluctance: Thomas Docherty, a member of the House of Commons’ committee on arms export controls, disclosed that British firms were granted licenses in January 2012 to sell chemicals to Syria that could be used to make nerve gas including sarin.

    • Tess Trueheart wrote the above. Prairieflower was a typo. It is (or was) a code name. Sorry.

      Nate…I notice that my comments usually ” await moderation”. What does this mean?

      • Tess: I think that’s a system issue–like saying “busy.” I see it sometimes, and sometimes not. Ain’t like Nate’s pulling out a red pencil.

    • Tess — shills use different monickers to post their defunct dogma. That’s further proof you are nothing but a paid gubbermint shill….

      As a proven paid Obama shill — you are lucky to have your posts published, period….LOL.

  7. by Ron Paul:

    “President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.

    Besides, the president made it clear that Congressional authorization is superfluous, asserting falsely that he has the authority to act on his own with or without Congress. That Congress allows itself to be treated as window dressing by the imperial president is just astonishing.

    The President on Saturday claimed that the alleged chemical attack in Syria on August 21 presented “a serious danger to our national security.” I disagree with the idea that every conflict, every dictator, and every insurgency everywhere in the world is somehow critical to our national security. That is the thinking of an empire, not a republic. It is the kind of thinking that this president shares with his predecessor and it is bankrupting us and destroying our liberties here at home.

    According to recent media reports, the military does not have enough money to attack Syria and would have to go to Congress for a supplemental appropriation to carry out the strikes. It seems our empire is at the end of its financial rope. The limited strikes that the president has called for in Syria would cost the US in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote to Congress last month that just the training of Syrian rebels and “limited” missile and air strikes would cost “in the billions” of dollars. We should clearly understand what another war will do to the US economy, not to mention the effects of additional unknown costs such as a spike in fuel costs as oil skyrockets.

    I agree that any chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of US bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by US allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the US allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria?

    For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama’s drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?

    In “The Sociology of Imperialism,” Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the Roman Empire’s suicidal interventionism:

    “There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome’s allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest – why, then it was the national honour that had been insulted.”

    Sadly, this sounds like a summary of Obama’s speech over the weekend. We are rapidly headed for the same collapse as the Roman Empire if we continue down the president’s war path. What we desperately need is an overwhelming Congressional rejection of the president’s war authorization. Even a favorable vote, however, cannot change the fact that this is a self-destructive and immoral policy.”

  8. Ron Paul nails it !!!

    Make this 8 minute video viral.

    Could there be any doubt left that our War Policy has nothing to do with OUR National Security, but ONLY with protecting a SINGLE Foreign Nation — Israel…!!!

    When will the American People wake up to the FACT that Israel’s influence on the US Government is BANKRUPTING US, and American lives are constantly lost, and will continue to be lost, in order to PROTECT Israel ONLY!

  9. Tess — shills use different monickers to post their dead dogma. That’s further proof you are nothing but a paid gubbermint shill….

    As a proven paid Obama shill — you are lucky to have your posts published, period….LOL.

    • Foreign Relations Committee hearings — Rand Paul makes Kerry look like the village idiot.

      And yet Kerry has the gall to try and make a case for Obama to attack Syria months later — like he wasn’t already exposed in April for the clownish puppet that he is…WOW!

      Make this video viral.

          • Dude, if you were paying attention, you’d see that I am against Mr. Big Ears on “punishing” another country.

            BUT I do think it was brilliant to throw it into Congress’ lap. Let them squabble amongst themselves instead of taking cheap pot shots at him. Good move.

            Also, as I said, it could become a precedent for any future action by any president–if Congress does its job.

  10. One of the things that disturbs me about this whole thing is that the USA is going a route of defining rules of war and making itself the global policeman. Before now it has been a debate and in which some have been claiming the USA has been going it alone, but this has not been true. Previous to now, the USA has acted with a global community. But now, the anti-war advocates (Obama and his crew), are *actually* doing the thing they’ve been *claiming* America has been doing all along…going it alone to use our strength against a weaker foe. How strange it must be for John Kerry to be a Colin Powell…only without global agreement on the evidence.

    To make it worse, it has become O&Co’s policy to help those who hate us and would destroy our way of life (individual liberty and universal equality). This is an expansion of Carter’s failed Iranian fact the problem we are facing now is *because of* Carter’s failed Iranian Policy. Carter backed the Ayatollah Khomeini and inadvertently birthed today’s terrorist movement. Now the expansion of Khomeini’s philosophy is burning across the middle east turning over government after government and, just like Carter, Obama is backing the wrong group. Egypt, Libya, and Syria probably Ethiopia (or Somalia) is around the corner, all falling to terrorist groups – Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah all of these groups are filling the vacuum we create by backing the wrong people against lesser evils.

    What’s worse? An egomaniac who wants to rule unjustly within borders, or a mass of egomaniacs who want to take over the world? This should be an easy question to answer…but not to those who don’t understand that democratic republics only work when the society and government follow the precepts in the bible. Problem is with these groups, they don’t care about representation or the individual, they only care about spreading Islam by force. So when our government thinks they’re backing democracy, they’re actually backing militant Islam….who is partnering with Russia.

    What worries me about this route (truly go it alone philosophy) is that it may turn to bite us in the future (not sure how far). Who’s to say that if the USA continues this philosophy what the global community will do in response. Or worse, like eugenics, what will happen when another nation takes up the same philosophy? Germany took up America’s eugenics movement and used it to start WWII. America’s eugenics movement sterilized 100’s of 1000’s of Americans in an attempt to end poverty, crime, and other social ills the modern science of those days deemed to be genetic in origin. Germany took up the cause in an attempt to speed evolution (which doesn’t exist by the way) by cleansing the gene pool – starting with the Jews.

    What happens when even more twisted minds take up a dumb idea? WWII was one result. What about what’s happening now?

    • Josh: Well, yes and no. We used to be the “World’s Policeman.” Now we’re the “World’s School Marm,” talking about “punishing” countries.

      But while going to Congress was really probably just a tactic to shut them up until he could get International support, it does have the possibility of stopping our war-of-the-month mentality, if Congress ever grows a backbone, that is.

      Oh, and “precepts of the bible”. . .ha! War is pretty much what the OT is all about.

      • You are always the voice of sane reasoning so take a moment to laugh.

        From the Onion: “The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time”

        When asked if they believe that Sen. Rand Paul should be deployed to Syria, 100 percent of respondents said yes.

        Public opinion was essentially unchanged when survey respondents were asked about a broader range of attacks, with more than 79 percent of Americans saying they would strongly support sending Congress to Syria in cases of bomb and missile attacks. .

        • Tess: I know that’s meant as a joke, but we really would have more sanity if Congress had a stake in matters. It would be nice if ONLY those with immediate family members in the military would be allowed to vote on deployments.

  11. Ron Paul: *Plans, rumors, and war propaganda for attacking Syria and deposing Assad have been around for many months.*

    Date of speech: June 19, 2012 (HE WARNED US OVER A YEAR AGO — but those with their political blinders on, keep on being the Marching Morons to START ANOTHER WAR!)

    “This past week however, it was reported that the Pentagon indeed has finalized plans to do just that. In my opinion, all the evidence to justify this attack is bogus. It is no more credible than the pretext given for the 2003 invasion of Iraq or the 2011 attack on Libya.

    The total waste of those wars should cause us to pause before this all-out effort at occupation and regime change is initiated against Syria.

    There are no national security concerns that require such a foolish escalation of violence in the Middle East. There should be no doubt that our security interests are best served by completely staying out of the internal strife now raging in Syria.

    We are already too much involved in supporting the forces within Syria anxious to overthrow the current government. Without outside interference, the strife—now characterized as a civil war—would likely be non-existent.

    Whether or not we attack yet another country, occupying it and setting up a new regime that we hope we can control poses a serious Constitutional question: From where does a president get such authority?

    Since World War II the proper authority to go to war has been ignored. It has been replaced by international entities like the United Nations and NATO, or the President himself, while ignoring the Congress. And sadly, the people don’t object.

    Our recent presidents explicitly maintain that the authority to go to war is not the U.S. Congress. This has been the case since 1950 when we were taken into war in Korea under UN Resolution and without Congressional approval.

    And once again, we are about to engage in military action against Syria and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia. We’re now engaged in a game of “chicken” with Russia which presents a much greater threat to our security than does Syria.

    How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border? We would consider that a legitimate concern for us. But, for us to be engaged in Syria, where the Russian have a legal naval base, is equivalent to the Russians being in our backyard in Mexico.

    We are hypocritical when we condemn Russia for protecting their neighborhood interests for exactly what we have been doing ourselves, thousands of miles away from our shores. There’s no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria.

    Falsely charging the Russians with supplying military helicopters to Assad is an unnecessary provocation. Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda.

    Most knowledgeable people now recognize that the planned war against Syria is merely the next step to take on the Iranian government, something the neo-cons openly admit.

    Controlling Iranian oil, just as we have done in Saudi Arabia and are attempting to do in Iraq, is the real goal of the neo-conservatives who have been in charge of our foreign policy for the past couple of decades.

    War is inevitable without a significant change in our foreign policy, and soon. Disagreements between our two political parties are minor. Both agree the sequestration of any war funds must be canceled. Neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in the Middle East and South Asia.

    This crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much bigger war than just another routine occupation and regime change that the American people have grown to accept or ignore.

    It’s time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy, seeking peace, trade, and friendship. We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire.

    Besides, we’re broke, we can’t afford it, and worst of all, we’re fulfilling the strategy laid out by Osama bin Laden whose goal had always been to bog us down in the Middle East and bring on our bankruptcy here at home.

    It’s time to bring our troops home and establish a non-interventionist foreign policy, which is the only road to peace and prosperity.

    This week I am introducing legislation to prohibit the Administration, absent a declaration of war by Congress, from supporting — directly or indirectly — any military or paramilitary operations in Syria. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.”

  12. I like to think strategically. Today, a reporter asked Obama if he’d go ahead if Congress didn’t give him a resolution. He ignored the question, but one of his aids back home said that Obama would respect the will of Congress.

    I came up with an answer for that. What Obama should say is that the resolution is to get the United States out in front of the international effort, and to lead. Without the resolution, the world will still act, but we will not be the leader. I think that’s a great answer. He might even point out that FRANCE would probably take the lead (as they did in Libya).

    I’m still against military action, but strategically, that would be a good way to frame his position.

  13. Goethe…I no longer have an immediate family member in the service but many times I have shared your thoughts on deployments. Our education system fails our young people by not teaching the principles and duties of public servants. Instead teachers (professors) tend to teach their own personal and political agenda. Many Americans are in the rut of voting a straight ticket which means they are voting for a few (many) unknowns. So, it is really the American voter at fault, as “we the voters” put the present misfits in office.

  14. Goethe Behr — that’s not strategical “thinking” on your part, but utter nonsense, kid.

    1) What “international effort”? Name the nations that are willing to war on Syria without the US Military Machine’s full might.

    Can you say: None…!

    2) “He might even point out that FRANCE would probably take the lead” — *might*, *probably*…these are not DEFINITIVE TERMS, but only worthless suppositions.

    Can you say: France will lead the attack on Syria…(without breaking into convulsive laughter)…?!

    3) “Without the resolution, the world will still act, but we will not be the leader.” — *The World* (you mean the whole planet will war on Syria)..!?

    Do you pause to think what you are posting — before you start typing — or are you this far removed from reason that you’ll type anything to please Tess…LOL.

    Stop making it so easy for me to dissect your nonsensical posts with Logic — you used to be better than this, kid.

    • Surf: Take off your blinders.

      You don’t really HAVE to be totally negative ALL of the time! The only time you EVER say anything positive is to agree with someone else who has said something negative and/or hateful.

      We DO have a recent example–Libya. We did NOT want to get involved there, and we shouldn’t have. But once France decided to take the lead there, the administration didn’t want to appear to be isolationist, so we helped. That is EXACTLY the case again, in which France is hot to attack. Sunni governments are hot for it, too. Turkey would like to bring down Assad, and of course, Israel is pulling strings behind the scenes. While the British people are against involvement, Parliament is already saying, “well, gee, we didn’t really mean to kill the idea, we just wanted to embarrass the Prime Minister, who was too wussy to ask us again. Ask us again!!”

      Dude, you really should not embarrass yourself like that. People are starting to feel sorry for you.

      • Goethe Behr — partial nonsense.

        Israel is pulling the strings (correct). They certainly won’t attack.

        England is only “reconsidering” because they are waiting to see what Congress says (if NO, they’ll be out of the picture, period).

        France will never attack (unless they have a secret agreement with the US that the US will become involved again, as was the case in Libya).

        What Turkey wants and what Turkey will do are not the same.


        In conclusion — 2 possible Nations are not “The World” as you claimed is the case: “…The World will still act, but we will not be the leader.”

        • Surfisher: You missed the whole point.

          If you’ll look at my post above, I said I was speaking strategically, and ended with, that’s how he should FRAME his response. I didn’t claim what would actually happen.

  15. Congress is getting bullied by Obama to vote for War.

    Beware, if any of you do vote YES, than you’ll betray yourselves as anti-American Obama patsies…and come next election you’ll be sent home packing!

    So, Vote NO — and get a second chance to Stay in Congress longer…with all your fringe benefits (free limousines, free dinners, nice “gifts” from all lobbyists that feed your kitty). Don’t pass on these niceties, which is the only reason you are in Washington. Obama will soon get Impeached on his FAKE Birth Certificate alone…plus probably more criminal charges.

    So, don’t cow-tow to the soon-to-be-gone “president”…but look out for your own interests, Dear Leaches!

    The American People are finally WATCHING YOU …! So do what’s BEST FOR YOU.

  16. Ron Paul on Neil Cavuto — good luck trying to view this video…without cutting out most of the time!

    It is too powerful to be allowed on YouTube (Sergey Brin — the Jewish Russian Owner of Google and YouTube…who was present at the Bilderberg Group’s secret meetings, and is NOW part of the Bilderberg Gang, won’t let you see it UNINTEREPTED)!

    Ron Paul: Why Does America Always Have to Solve the World’s Problems?

    Make it viral — if you can!

    • Cavuto should stick to pretending he understands the stock market. When he talks politics, it’s too obvious he’s out of his league. In this case, Ron Paul is explaining that it’s the REBELS who have been killing Christians and burning churches, and THESE are the people we want to help? Then Cavuto says (honest-to-god), “well, we don’t know WHICH rebels we’ll be supporting.” What a moron. As if we could bring down Assad and put in “our guy” this time.

      Yes,the CIA did bring down governments in Egypt and Iran in the 50s and Chile in the 70s, for example. But that was when we had people on the inside early. In Syria, a full HALF of the rebels are jihadis. They’re not going to take their orders from the CIA, and that half is a lot more adamant and determined than the other half. Cavuto is an idiot.

  17. Goethe – it seems you just restated what i said with this comment:
    We used to be the “World’s Policeman.” Now we’re the “World’s School Marm,” talking about “punishing” countries…not sure what you meant..agree, disagree…or just trying to correct terminology.

    Congress does need to grow a backbone and say no. I’m not sure why he went to congress. Maybe he realized it would truly be unconstitutional to go to war with a country without going to congress. Maybe he realized he overstated himself with the ‘red line’ commentary ever since the chemical weapons were used and see’s congress as a way to get out of the situation. I honestly wonder if he’s hoping they vote no, i know i do.

    As for the bible…yeah, the OT is the history of a nation (Israel), makes sense that it would contain conflicts with other nations. And just like reading history books…you can learn something. Not sure why you would be against learning from the past. Plus, the founders of the USA had this opinion as well….that the morality of the bible followed by society is the only way our democratic republic will succeed long term.

    A perfect example for government officials learning from the bible about war is this quote from John Jay (the 1st Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court):

    in referring to wars in the old testament:

    “That all those wars and fightings are unlawful, which proceed from culpable desires and designs (or in Scripture language from lusts), on the one side or on the other, is too clear to require proof. As to wars of an opposite description, and many such there have been, I believe they are as lawful to the unoffending party in our days, as they were in the days of Abraham. He waged war against and defeated the five kings. He piously dedicated a tenth of the spoils; and, instead of being blamed, was blessed.”

    Restated in today’s language:
    “that wars and conflict rooted in the lust of man are unjust and wrong is self evident. however, wars of a just cause do exist, like abraham who won a war gave a portion of the spoils to God and was blessed, not cursed”

    indeed further – in Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, he used the bible to demonstrate that monarchy is not the divine plan. The use of the bible in persuation helped to shift the course of national thought from being uncertain, or against, revolution…to being overwhelmingly for it.

    Goethe – your comment about society and government following the precepts of the bible is easily demonstrated as naive.

    • “the morality of the bible followed by society is the only way our democratic republic will succeed long term.”

      Josh, it truly baffles me how someone who expresses himself so intelligently and writes so well does not understand the difference between a democracy and a theocracy and is at a total loss when it comes to the crucial importance of separation of Church and State recognized and established by Jefferson and our founders.

    • The Declaration of Independence mentioned the “Creator,” while the Constitution makes no reference to a divine being, Christian or otherwise, and the First Amendment explicitly forbid the establishment of any official church or creed. Article VI specifically states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust.”

      Franklin and Jefferson were deists, Washington harbored a sense of destiny, John Adams began a Congregationalist and ended a Unitarian, Hamilton was a lukewarm Anglican. The famous quote of Thomas Jefferson, included the phrase, “a wall of separation between church and state,” was part of a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason provided a popular deist text that remained influential throughout the 19th century.

      History is a fascinating read…so is the bible…but we live in a world that is beyond anything that can be found in their writings. Which means that our present leaders will make judgment errors, just as the prior administration made judgment errors, and on back.

      • Tess: Here’s an interesting tid-bit: I was watching the 700 Club one time and Pat Robertson said that at the time of the Revolution, only NINE percent (9%) of the American population belonged to any church at all. I was surprised, considering the source.

        • Pat Robertson was close to accurate. When we speak of our forefathers there is a tendency to forget that they were living under English rule and the Anglican faith prior to the end of the Revolution. And like all leaders were sometime subject to errors in judgment

          In an independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office. Jews did not have civil rights. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches.

          John Jay is one of the most quoted, usually from the Federalist Papers. During the New York State Constitutional deliberations of 1776-1777, Jay advocated barring Catholics from State citizenship and government service unless they pledged to “abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and state in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil.” Jay’s proposal passed the convention.

          In 1779, as Virginia’s governor, Thomas Jefferson had drafted a bill that guaranteed legal equality for citizens of all religions—including those of no religion—in the state. At that time, Patrick Henry blocked the advancement of the bill.

          Present day citizens should use Jefferson’s outlook: “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

    • Josh: Yeah. I meant to say it’s worse than it used to be.

      In the old days, in the good ol’ Cold War, there were two sides who divided up the world. Each side “policed” the small-time players, because we didn’t want anyone to get out of line. But now that the world sees us as the only real superpower–who spends more on offense than the next 14 countries combined, we think we can “punish” others for not obeying us. It’s really embarrassing to think about how history will see us.

  18. Tom – it seems you are the one who does not understand what a theocracy is and that separation of church and state does not mean that legislators are not allowed to refer to the bible for wisdom, history, guidance when writing legislation. It means that the legislature cannot establish a religion, or consider any religion as *the* national religion. it doesn’t mean our government can’t acknowledge reality (the existence of God is reality), what it means is that in America our laws are about behavior, not beliefs. That’s the core of the separation of church and state thinking, at least it is from Jefferson’s perspective.

    Here’s the definition and description of a theocracy from Miriam-Webster:

    “Government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state’s legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations. The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western countries. Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican. ” – side

    It is by no means an establishment of a national religion for people to freely choose to read and follow the bible and does not establish a theocracy. It is by no means an establishment of a national religion for our government officials to read and follow the bible in their personal lives, or seek it for wisdom when writing legislation and it does not establish a theocracy. There is no reason the bible should not be sought as a source, in fact for government to specifically exclude it (not by individual preference, but systemic exclusion) would be religious persecution and establishment of an atheistic religion by proxy (or some other belief system used to exclude).

    As to the Separation of Church and State, in 1802 the Danbury Baptist association wrote to Jefferson complaining about the fact that their state’s charter (which predated the revolution) and written laws considered religion as “the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.”

    It seems the baptists were facing a religion imposed by state and were writing Jefferson to help stop it…yes, that’s right, religious people complaining about what seemed to be a theocratic form of state government. Jefferson responded by saying:

    “the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

    Jefferson’s comments have nothing to do with referencing the bible, learning from the bible, adhering personally to the bible as a citizen. It had nothing to do with legislators doing the same. He was saying religious text is not allowed to be in supreme authority under the constitution. That doesn’t mean that religious views cannot be represented. Laws are based on the values we have based on what we believe is right and wrong. In a representative republic, the citizens choose people who will represent their values. If the values of the people are rooted in not represent those values would mean you are not a representative republic, not democratic, but tyrannical. There’s a difference between values representation, and considering a religious documents to be higher authority within government than legislation. One is representation, the other is theocratic.

    What Jefferson wrote has been redefined in recent years, likely by secularists, to mean that any beliefs are welcome to be represented, except those which are religiously rooted. Most of the philosophy of the founders has been redefined in recent years. John Jay – the 1st Supreme Court Justice, Founding Father, and also helped pass the constitution – called America a ‘Christian Nation.’

    The bible is a historical book, it is a book that speaks to how people should treat each other. Yes, it is religious. Yes, it is true. The founders were predominantly christian and believed the precepts of the bible to be foundational to america’s founding and future…in their own words:

    John Adams: The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.

    John Hancock: Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement.

    Patrick Henry: The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible.

    John Jay (1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court): The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.

    Also John Jay: Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

    George Washington: You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.

    Also George Washington: I now make it my earnest prayer that God would… most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion….

    Now these are the guys who wrote and established the non-establishment and free exercise clauses of the bill of rights. Don’t you think they’d know if they were out of line with the constitution they just established? Don’t you think they would know if they were crossing the boundaries of theocracy and establishment/free exercise with their advice?

    My statement that “the morality of the bible followed by society is the only way our democratic republic will succeed long term.” Is consistent with the founders philosophy. Your take on theocracy and separation of church and state is not in line with theirs.

    Believe me, I do understand the crucial importance of the separation of church and state. I believe this separation is the reason Christianity is the fastest growing religion in the world today (heard an atheist say that in a debate at Cambridge…so i assume its probably true). But i will say that you misunderstand the separation clause, and also don’t understand what a theocracy is.

    Not to sound rude, but it seems that the misunderstanding and lack of knowledge are yours not mine.

    • A bit long-winded, but an impressive response to my post. Unfortunately, it fails to convince me that someone who is pitching the grossly inaccurate and misguided claim that “democratic republics ONLY (emphasis mine) work when the society and government follow the precepts in the bible” is not someone longing for (or praying for) a theocracy. Not only that, your narrow view of things strikes me as frighteningly similar to the radical Islamist who also believes that governments only work when society follows the precepts in his beloved Koran.

      • Tom – it seems you now concede that i do have an understanding of theocracy and separation of church and state. It now seems you are paranoid that regardless of what I am saying, you believe I really…secretly…want a theocracy. Bro, i think you’ve drunk the anti-religion cool-aid.

        But regardless, I am not trying to convince you that I am for or against theocracy. But to state it clearly, I am adamantly against theocracy to the point that I would likely be willing to take up arms against it (in similar fashion as our revolutionary war). The only time theocracy will, or could, ever work is when God himself is at the head of it. Not some vicar, or someone claiming to represent Him, or be His spokesman. Jesus said it: ‘many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.’ That is the deception of christian theocratic forms of government…it gives man a position he should never have. Thomas Paine did an excellent job of destroying the ‘divine monarchy’ ideology in Common Sense…and used the bible to do so.

        I am only stating the fact that America’s form of government was designed by the founders to work only with a Godly, Christian people, and I get this from their own words. As reflected by John Adams quote:

        “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

        Whether they intentionally did so, or looking back on what they wrote they came to the conclusion, it is still true that they believed our form of government works best when the bible is embraced by society.

        It would seem that you would propose America’s founders were grossly inaccurate, misguided, and narrow minded?

        I agree there are similarities between radical Christianity and radical Islam, and there are differences. Both are from the viewpoint that their religion is the absolute truth. The difference comes with the approach for spreading the truth. Radical Islamist use terrorism and the force of government – examples are the Iranian Regime, Saudi Arabia, the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah…etc.

        However, radical Christianity takes a very different course. Persuasion with words, debate, charity, kindness, goodness..etc, to persuade people to freely choose Christ. Examples are Billy Graham, Mother Theresa, Bill Wilson (a guy in NYC who leads the largest sunday school in the world reaching out to the worst areas of the city), Saint Jude’s Hospital, the Salvation Army and the list goes on.

        History revisionists have associated the evil perpetrated by European governments in the pre-Enlightenment Era with Christianity. The more I consider what happened in those days, and the more I understand what’s actually in the bible, I realize this is not – and never has been – true.

        It is the force of government which imposes views (any views – theocratic, poly-theocratic, atheocratic) that is dangerous and destructive. This is seen in the USSR and Nazi Germany – the age of enlightenment produced the atheistic philosophies these governments followed and used to justify killing people in the millions. The age of enlightenment produced the guillotine in France. The oppression is still happening with China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea…etc.

        Another long winded response…but somewhat necessary for clarity.

        • Josh: I think it’s dangerous to say that the democracy won’t work for Jews, Muslms, Hindus, or those who do not espouse an organized religion. Aside from the fact that it’s total nonsense. There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests what you are saying–and it was designed exactly to be so.

          And when people refer to “radical Christianity” they mean those who are as filled with hatred as anyone else who uses religion to justify hateful acts–such as those who demonstrate at funerals and cheer because soldiers died for a country that rejects their narrow and perverted form of Christianity.

          • Goethe – you either did not read, misunderstand, or are deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying. Seems like an attempt to win a straw man argument – setup an argument no one is making, then argue against it instead of what is actually being said.

            Israel is a great success and is a Jewish based nation…America is accurately said to be founded on JUDEO-Christian values. Where are those values found? The bible.

            What I am saying is the same thing the founders have said. Thomas Jefferson is also quoted as saying: “The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.”

            Would you say the founders were claiming democracy doesn’t work for non-Christians when they praised and promoted the values of the bible and Jesus Christ? Obviously they were not claiming that, and neither am I. So what did they mean by pointing so much to only 1 religion, and only 1 religious book? That Christianity ought be imposed? Obviously not.

            They were, like me, promoting the values which are found therein as values which will make for a good and stable society and values upon which the constitution was based. You just can’t get around this statement by John Adams, and come to any other conclusion:

            “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


            “it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.”


            “[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.


            “If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.”

            If you look around the world at democracies which are not Christian values based, you see democracy working, but not in a good way:

            Nazi Germany – no need to say anything else here (Hitler was democratically elected)
            India – the Hindu caste philosophy is producing all kinds of wrong in this nation
            Turkey – only muslims have workers rights, non-muslims can be fired simply to be replaced by a muslim. they have ‘soft persecution’ but still persecution…legal.

            The proof as they say is in the puddin’

        • Josh, as an ex-Christian and born again agnostic I was very pleased to learn that you are adamantly opposed to a theocracy. There’s hope for you, yet, my friend. However, I must say that your view of governments and democracies (ours or those throughout the world) remains hopelessly theistic and obsolete. With all due respect to your religious beliefs and at the risk of hyperbole, an uncomfortable number of your statements—including the one I’ve already cited—come off as if you were abducted and brainwashed at an early age by televangelists or tent revivalists. And, by the way, do you actually believe John Adams, Patrick Henry, John Jay, et al., if they somehow surfaced today, would view this country as an exclusively Christian one whose government and population should be following or largely ruled by the precepts of the Christian bible after observing this nation’s dramatically different nature, its extraordinary diversity, and its present-day make-up (including far greater numbers of traditional non-Christian religions, rapidly growing numbers of non-theists, atheists, agnostics, the unaffiliated, a slew of believers in Eastern religions and secular disciplines, or countless unorthodox and non-traditional religions unheard of or unimaginable in the 18th century)?

          • “I must say that your view of governments and democracies (ours or those throughout the world) remains hopelessly theistic and obsolete.”

            Do you realize you are actually doing what you are accusing me of? Essentially saying: “democratic republics ONLY work when the society and government follow the precepts in the bible”…are excluded. Maybe that’s not what you intended, but that’s really the result of your comments.

            When you call a view which values biblical precepts in society and government as obsolete…you are saying it has no place…that makes you a bigot….some might even call you a hater. Do you realize that? I mean, I’m not accusing you of malice. But seriously, you do have an ‘exclusive’ viewpoint, which excludes the biblical precepts as being valuable.

            Abducted and brainwashed? Reveals even more bigotry toward viewpoints you disagree with. Is this how you view all non-agnostics?

            I mean, its one thing to explain why something is wrong. But it seems you have no reasons *why* I am wrong.

            You tried saying I don’t understand democracies, theocracies, and separating of church and state…only to reveal your own lack of understanding.

            You then tried saying that I am secretly trying to promote a theocracy…only again to reveal your own misunderstanding

            Now, without anything else to say and no real content to add, you recycle again ad hominem comments, and are trying to propose some theoretical…”if they were alive today” type of thinking.

            The truth is America has *never* been an exclusively Christian society. Just a majority Christian society (still is today…polls show around 80% of people consider themselves Christian. Memory may not be serving, but it is definitely the VAST majority). But even that is not the point of my comments, or the founders. The point is the values, the morals, the precepts. The founders were learned men, they knew of other religions, other forms of government.

            They concluded, as do I, that the bible contains the best information for a society for values, morals, and precepts.

            Does this mean *only* Christians will succeed? No. But it does mean that the values…etc, are things a society should follow. Thomas Jefferson stated:

            The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.


            “We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses”

            Does this make Jefferson a Christian? Not necessarily, but taken at face value, his comments definitely mean he valued the bible and Jesus highly. To call these views ‘obsolete’ is really an unsupportable statement, given the way the nation has grown since they laid its foundation on such views.

  19. Tess – about the Declaration and “Nature’s Creator” you are correct and the 1st Amendment states precisely: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and there is no mention pro or con in the Constitution about a Creator or Almighty Source (GOD to some). Acknowledging “God” has zero reference to religion. In fact to the contrary, Deists and Theists are very anti-religious. All 50 states have God in their Constitutions, so there is even a discrepancy between Federal (or Republic’s) and States rights. Applying the word God is entirely up to “We the People” as a Majority. Religious writings are humans, memories, history, writings, and editing, no matter what anyone tries to declare and certainly not authorized by the Source and usually involve power and control.

    Morality – some believe that it is passed down thru genetics and DNA, other believe that the universe was created by the Source for “intelligents” to live and chose as they see fit and that the Source’s energy is part of each of us and within that lies morals. Either way if not reinforced by parents or a mentor or if there is a physical disability. Morals are mutated.

    Goethe – actually we are now longer thought of as a “Superpower” we are thought of a wild Country that nobody is sure of what we will do. As I said before, with intelligent discussions and removal of egos, China, Russia, and the U.S. could combine to divide up the world and keep peace and no use of WMD’s. I still believe that all three countries should remove themselves from the middle-east and let Allah decide. But i would bet money that the U.S. is going to do something stupid and we are just a RCH away from WWIII..

  20. You don’t have to be a logician, to see what’s going on:

    Obama drew a “red line” to attack Syria because he thought it was a given (since English Prime Minister Cameron was all gung-ho to war on Syria on “evidence” that has NEVER been verified that dictator Assad used the chemical weapons … and not the rebels themselves). So, the wannabe US Dictator, Hussein Obama, felt sure his English counterpart was in line. And based his comments on that assurance.

    But then, the imaginable to Obama happened — the British Parliament had the guts to say NO to Lil’ Cameron’s warmongering!

    Thus, Lil’ Hussein found himself in a quandary — he had stated that he believes that he needs NO Congressional authority to attack Syria, but now he was left dry by his schooled British counterpart. And on top of that, polls showed that 90% of Americans don’t want another war started by this administration.

    So what does this US “president” do — who speaks and acts without thinking — but toss his miscalculation to the US Congress and Senate (a desperate move since Lil’ Hussein is now left with no other options).

    Now, his hope is that he, and his pet Kerry, and the rest of the sycophants that surround him, will be able to bully the House into submission…and give him the War he wanted in the first place!

    His attempt to bully both Houses is usage of disturbing videos of horrific images *shown only to a select group of senators in closed-door briefings* — meaning, Lil’ Hussein is gathering the leadership to be on board…and hoping they’ll advise their underlings how to vote!

    How despicable is such abusive propaganda, by what is supposed to be the US President!

    And then, he sicks his pet, Kerry, again, and Senate “Intelligence” Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (another Obama sycophant) to use THE UNVERIFIED chemical attacks by Assad (according to NBC: “NBC News has not been able to independently verify the authenticity of these videos”) as “proof” to START ANOTHER WAR that will bankrupt the USA to the point of no economical recovery possible!

    Read this article by NBC News: “White House showed gruesome videos to senators in case for Syria strike”

    When will the American People finally wake up, and demand Obama’s Impeachment — how long must we suffer this Usurper of the White House that lords it over us!

    • Sam: That had nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. It was a straightforward interview. If he had badgered him or put words in his mouth, you could complain, but it was a straight report of what he said. And a good job, I’d say.

      You don’t do yourself any favors by identifying objectivity and reality as “liberalism.”

      • Goethe – you’re confusing comments by me – I thot Rose’s CBS interview with Assad was straightforward and great and hope B.O. read it and paid attention to Assad: Stay out of Middle East affairs, It has been proven it never ends well. for the U.S. to get involved.

        The older YouTube suggested by Surfisher: Progressive Anna Kasparian of TheYoungTurk’s “The Point” panel discussion crossed Ideological lines and showed as much dismay and anger about bombing Syria as do most conservatives. And most of their objections were different from both GOP & Libertarians.

        You sure look how to get crossways, even on subjects we almost agree on.

        • Sam: My apologies. Trying to read on an iPhone, and I did, in fact, confuse the two. It makes more sense now.

          The NeoCons are preDICKtably urging attack (Billy Kristol, for example)–and I thought that the issue might unite liberals and libertarians, which it largely has.

          When Obama turned to Congress, I thought it was a stroke of brilliance–let them talk it to death, and end up with a resolution that IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN that we’d do something, which is not a bad compromise. However, I still don’t see why we have a right or duty to attack at all. Sort of reminds me of when a parent yanks a kid’s arm half out of its socket and whacks the kid repeatedly–to punish the kid for hitting his brother.

          If it can be proven that Assad used chemical weapons, that’s a war crime, so the appropriate response would be to drag him to the War Crimes Tribunal, as was suggested by Catholic News Agency:

          It will be interesting to see what Obama has to say Tuesday night. I think it’s too late to use the line I suggested, that if we don’t act, the “world” will act without us. It’s still possible that he could say “something” should be done, and leave it to Congress to come up with what that “something” should be. That might go a long way toward getting Congress to put on its “big boy pants” and reassert its responsibility to declare war, or NOT.

          • Goethe Behr — why not concentrate to post why Congress must NOT give approval to Obama’s warmongering (instead of coming up with possible outs for him)?

            It would help if all posters here (regardless off political stance) stand fast TOGETHER and not give excuses for Obama, but say unanimously NO to yet another War!

            • Sur: You have delusions of grandeur.

              You seem to think world leaders and the “great unwashed” hang on your every word. And yet, you do multiple posts of the same rants, because you do realize NOBODY gets these comments if they have not already OPTED IN to accept posts on any specific thread.

              Instead of predictable tl;dr [“too long; didn’t read”] rants, and links only to try to support what you’ve already said, I try to come up with different angles, and consider alternative views. And, yes, find ways to offer support for those who have been unfairly or overly attacked here. [In this case, I wish we had someone who could offer possible reasons WHY Obama is taking this path.]

              I’d rather have posts that are interesting and/or surprising, kid.

    • Israel have shown they are Big Boys — see their bombs dropping on Syria.

      Why must the USA treat Israel as innocent little girls, that can’t protect themselves — but need Uncle Obama to destroy Syria on their behalf… and later on Iran?

      And why care what Russia may do (after all their nukes are nearly rusted)…as long as we spent US lives to protect Israel…and NOT the USA!

      Nah, this will never happen — it’s all a conspiracy theory…right…?

      Let’s keep Obama in office, after all, he has the most intelligent brain on the planet, and, therefore, knows what’s best for US and The Whole Universe.

      Let us all chant in unison — “Long Live Obama, our new shining Deity” and bring offerings to his Temple in DC.

  21. This 2012 video (10 minutes) shows some disturbing food for thought.

    View it and see what you think (the Russians are stubborn enough to do something stupid, if Obama is permitted to act even more stupidly!).

    With one thing I totally agree — Impeach Lil’ maniacal Hussein NOW!

  22. John Kerry in Europe — is he the “new” Joseph Goebbels (the propaganda war chief of Barrack Hussein…and who would than Obama be…)?:

    Watch the patented Goebbels’ hand gestures and mock anger that Kerry uses! 1940’s déjà vu…all over again… LOL!

    Pay attention to the Israeli video — where the former Israeli ambassador to the United States terms Russia, Iran and Assad’s Syria as THE AXIS…wow, 1940’s déjà vu…all over again…and stumbles on AIPAC (the most powerful lobby in DC that is concerned only with Israel’s interests, and not those of the USA!)….

    Here is this Frenchman’s original post in its entirety:

    by Bela —September 8, 2013

    “While Kerry was in Paris, France, a lady asked (him or them): “People at home are telling their congress members, we want to worry about our schools, our kids, how can the administration take action in the face of that, without the mandate of the U.N., without the mandate of Europeans for military action?”
    Kerry answered this: “Because this concerns every Americans security. This is not remote. This is not some far-off place where something happened that’s just one Arab sect killing another Arab sect on some internal fight. So we are supposed to turn away because the U.N. itself has become a tool of ideology of individual nations and not say that the principle we put in place and have fought for all of these years is going to be thrown away? I don’t think so.”


    Q1.: How this concerns every Americans security? He knows some secret? Or it concerns as Saddam did with his non-existing WMDs? It is worth to ask Kerry about this.

    Q2.: If it is harms every Americans’ security, then why he is in Europe? He did not say any word about the Europeans’ security there.

    Kerry tries to rally support in Europe.
    Here too, as tries to explain, but nothing concrete:
    “Kerry: This concerns every American’s security”

    Another interesting video:
    “Israel’s role in the Syrian conflict”

    (…) The former Israeli ambassador to the United States is now a distinguished fellow at the Brookings Institution. (…)
    R. – Is it in Israel’s interest for Assad to stay in power?
    A. – No. It is not. If Assad stays in power under the present circumstances, this would be a victory for the axis of Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Assad. Assad will be even more of an Iranian puppet than he is now, and definitely it is not in our interest.
    R. – Why, then, has Israel not been more of a vocal ally of the White House in this particular instance with regards to striking Syria?
    A. – Because we don’t want to be part of this conflict. This conflict is not about Israel. It’s a Syrian conflict, it’s a regional conflict. It has now become very much a defining international issue. What the regime tries to is to turn into yet another Israeli issue and we do not want to fall into that trap. So we try to say as much as we can, both in practice and in word.

    Q3.: Which country is the foe neighbor of Syria, and which country is more than 5000 miles away from Syria?

    Israelis do not complain, but the U.S. is in severe danger. Yup.

    I am convinced of one thing: Kerry is as good in war propaganda as Goebbels was.

    John Kerry: “In America You Have A Right To Be Stupid”


    Russia unexpectedly has asked Syria to put its chemical weapons under international supervision.

    If Assad agrees to that, Obama can cancel his bluff, and end up with a solution that is akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis. AND, if that is what he and Putin discussed when Obama was there for the G8 summit, he will deserve full credit for averting a crisis, while getting exactly what he has asked for since his Sept 2012 “red line” speech.

    Added benefits:

    (1) Russia should be given the credit for the resolution, allowing for a real “reset” of relations, and

    (2) Sets up the precedent that a president should seek Congressional debate and decision on military action.

  24. Syria is one of five countries, Angola, North Korea, Egypt, and South Sudan, that have refused to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention Act drawn up in 1992. This in itself is questionable.

    This is not President Obama’s war albeit it will always be labeled as such. No president, alone, starts a war. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Heads of State, and Congressional leaders are the president’s decision makers. President Obama made a wise decision in burdening Congress with the decision of war or punishment.

    The most interesting development is watching the change of attitude from other countries. Russia has urged Syria to put its chemical weapons under international control. German intelligence has intercepted communications indicating Syrian military commanders had asked al-Assad for permission to use chemical weapons on nine separate occasions. Iran’s foreign minister denied reports Sunday that his country could be planning a retaliatory strike against the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad if the United States launches a military strike against Syria. Ten members of the G20 (UK, Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain and Turkey) have joined the United States in accusing the Syrian government of carrying out a chemical weapons attack on civilians

    Bashar al-Assad warned of possible reprisal attacks if the United States uses military force against Syria, saying that if there were strikes, Americans could “expect every action”. Repercussions “may take different forms,” including “direct and indirect” effects, Assad told Charlie Rose.

    Assad’s words are a threat to the welfare of America’s people. How will Congress handle this?

    • Tess: My guess is that Congress will “handle” this as they handle most things–drag things out until things fix themselves or the situation gets so bad there is no cure.

      In this case, I think Obama threw it to them to keep them off his back until he could find a way out of this without them. Since Russia made its advice to Assad publicly, they don’t plan to be ignored, so maybe there’s hope. AND, I can’t think of a better solution than to have the arms put under international control.

      McCain and Graham and Kristol and Cheney won’t be happy, but the rest of the world will be.

    • Tess — that’s pure propaganda on you part, that lacks any merit.

      But than again, what could be expected from a sciolist like you, that googles for ‘knowledge” and spouts what an Obama shill is paid to do.

      “Assad’s words are a threat to the welfare of America’s people” — utter nonsense.

      You need to go back to school, since you are not earning your 30 pieces of Silver to shill for Obama in a convincing way.

      Try taking some coursers in Logic (and if you are able to pass them this time around) perhaps, you won’t make such silly propositions.

      Here is a preview of what you need to comprehend, before you open your mouth again:

      1) Words are static forms of communication — as such they do not present any danger.

      2) Action — on the other hand — is a dynamic state, that may or may not produce danger.

      You are such a silly goose, that I doubt you’ll ever rise to the ranks of actually gaining intelligence (even if you go back to school — but you should try it, nevertheless). At least, your future posts (in ten years or so) may not be such dogmatic duds….

  25. Let’s hope Russia’s suggestion becomes the solution and Congress dilly-dallies and fumbles until action from them is not needed. I still don’t know why Obama is pressing so hard for something no one wants.He’s made his point and is basically saving face. to send his shill Rice out on Syria after Benghazi coverup is a definite declaration of stupidity and disrespect for the intelligence of the American people

    • Sam: I don’t think anyone (except Surfisher) thinks Obama ever wanted a real confrontation with Syria. And the current bluster is really not his style.

      The only thing I can imagine is that when Obama met with Putin, he tried to hammer out some kind of arrangement to settle things. I think Putin didn’t take him seriously, just as Krushchev didn’t take JFK seriously in 1962.

      I think Putin said, “yeah, you and whose army?” And Obama finally said, “MINE.”

      I think the bluff and bluster was to convince Putin that there would be an attack on Syria if the chemical weapons were not secured, and preferably surrendered. I don’t think Putin believed that Obama would make such a point of it. Kerry also seems to be way out of character with the bluster.

      In 1962, Krushchev backed off. I think Putin will tell Assad to at least agree to give up his chemicals. That will allow Obama to say the crisis is over, and Congress will be able to give a collective sigh of relief that they will not actually have to earn their pay.

      Maybe I’m being overly optimistic, but this is how it looks to me at this point. I hope Assad agrees before Obama’s Tuesday speech.

      • Goethe Behr — are you trying out for the village idiot award, with this post, kid?

        Logical dissection:

        1) “I don’t think anyone (except Surfisher) thinks Obama ever wanted a real confrontation with Syria.” — so, according to you, only one person (I, in this statement of yours), from the entire planet, believe Obama wants to war on Syria, and not a single other person in the world does…?!

        That’s not ‘thinking” — it is pure lunacy, idiocy, total lack of intelligence on your part — since it is an unsustainable supposition.

        2) “And the current bluster is really not his style (Obama’s)”.

        Than name WHOSE bluster it actually is — since you purport it is not his (Obama’s) style.

        Another unsupported, and thus idiotic, statement by G. Behr.

        3) “The only thing I can imagine is that when Obama met with Putin…and so on…I think….(the readers can read the rest of your post, no need to make it long here)” — You imagine…!

        Trying to introduce your “thinking” into the world of imagination is NOT reasoning — but the opposite of logical thought. The moment you introduced: “The only thing I can imagine is…” into your silly post — you did win the Village Idiot Award!

        My conclusion:

        You, Goethe Behr & Tess the Obama Shill, need to get some schooling (classes in Logic would be a start for you two), so you don’t look like the Obama Court Jesters you’ve betrayed yourselves to be.

        Good luck passing in school.

        • Surfisher: Reminds me of the great line from the movie, Two Weeks’ Notice. Sandra Bullock says Hugh Grant is the most selfish man on the planet. Instead of arguing the point, he says, “that’s nonsense, have you MET every man on the planet?” In this case, you’re not arguing that you’re not a hopeless minority, you’re just saying you’re not a minority of one–and on here, you are.

          POINT 1:
          I was talking about “anyone” on here. Sam and I have disagreed, sometimes violently, but even Sam thinks that Obama just “stepped in it,” and never really meant to commit us to conflict. Those on here who are knee-jerk anti-Obama have not given him the credit to have gotten into this on purpose. You’re the only one on here who knee-jerks himself into just BEING a jerk.

          POINT 2:
          Again, the complaint about Obama, from both friend and foe is that he thinks things to death and doesn’t shoot from the hip. He doesn’t shoot his mouth off. He says the wrong thing, according to some people, but it’s just a slip of the tongue or a bad attempt at humor. During the campaign, he had to PRETEND to get angry in order to dispel the complaint that he doesn’t know how to bluster.

          I, mean, dude, hate him if you like, but try to fashion your tl;dr rants into some sort of semblance of reality. At least a facsimile thereof.

    • samreusser — spot on!

      Harry Reid delayed the Senate vote for exactly that reason — it would have been an embarrassment for Obama to have lost it, so Reid played patsy to save him face.

      But let us hope that Congress gets to actually vote — since it looks like the vote will definitely be NO — and that would be a big slap on Obama’s dictatorial face!

      “I still don’t know why Obama is pressing so hard for something no one wants.”

      The best explanation for this is that Obama is such a narcissist that he simply cannot accept the fact that his dictates are not unilaterally obeyed. That is a true sign of a mentally ill Dictator — the total disregard, from what in his eyes are his “subjects” (the American People), that can possibly dare to disagree with him.

  26. Sam..your first 31/2 sentences captured my total attention. However, Rice has a name, Susan Rice, Ambassador to the United Nations. You attach too much prominence to her role in Benghazi. She simply expressed what had been relayed to her by the state department. To me, that means, she took a beating for someone else’s blunder. Sen. John Kerry and former French President Nicolas Sarkozy.put forth the idea of establishing a humanitarian corridor to protect civilians and create a safe passage for aid in Syria. Susan Rice reminded the two that “There are real challenges with a humanitarian corridor, not least of which is that it entails having troops on the ground,”


  27. The more this goes on, the more it looks like the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. In both cases, the actual risk to the US was minimal and/or unlikely. In both cases, the president said something in a press conference that, he felt, required him to take action later. In both cases, the problem was weapons in a Russian client state. In both cases, the Russian leader underestimated the young American president. In both cases, the young American president surprised him by threatening military attack. In both cases, another off-hand remark was pounced on by the other side to promote a peaceful settlement. And, in both cases, if attack is averted, the president will be seen as getting exactly what he wanted by talking tough, while not losing American lives and treasure.

    • days go by, only the mentally blind will fail to see the parallel between the Crisis Missile Crisis and the Syrian Crisis. Both presidents were young, their senate experience relatively short, and each was maligned by the hate element. Kennedy, because he he was Catholic and Obama because he is half Black. President Kennedy said of Cuba “this is a political struggle as much as military”. President Obama could use the same phrase about Syria.

      An American U-2 spy plane(1962) photographed ballistic and nuclear missile sites on the island of Cuba. Some completed, others under construction. President Kennedy ordered Cuba to be surrounded by US Warships and called it a “quarantine” because by international law, a blockade is an act of war. i lived in a west Texas oil center which, or so we were told, had armed missiles aimed in our direction.

      In a world of terrorists and extremists, chemical weapons are one of our greatest dangers.

  28. Tess – 1st – during informal comments or blogs, most everyone is referred to by initials, last names, or sometimes nice or un-nice titles or acronyms. And Rice should be thankful she was simply referred to by just a last name. That human is a disgrace even for a politician, she has never had an original thought and she has only ever repeated exactly what she has been told to say. And in the case of Benghazi, only Clinton was worse because she was in collusion with B.O. in not providing adequate security protection from as far back as June of ’11 plus backing up B.O. in “standing down” a response to an attack on civilian Americans. All for the purpose of “Gun Running” and an attempted kidnapping for a later trade. What a heinous set of actions and betrayal by Democrat Politicians. Tess – i often wonder if your comments are innocence, ignorance, or just being a Democrat.

    Goethe – there was and is a huge difference between Cuba and this fiasco.1st – Cuba is only 90 miles from our shores and Khrushchev wanted to implant missile launch pads to attack us.The launch pads were partially built and missiles coming in with the tide. And don’t know about you but i was active duty aboard a Destroyer and no quibbling, Russia runs the blockade and War is Declared, were our orders. National Interests were directed at risk.

    2nd – B.O. has let his alligator mouth overload his canary ass several times and blurted out stupid remarks or in-sensitivities with out thinking or knowledge of possible repercussions. Most often this happen with respect to Race or the Muslim Brotherhood. As a matter of fact the ONLY time his mouth is shut and thought to be contemplating is when he and his speechwriters are stymied and dumbfounded and don’t have a clue. His Administration has never had an original thought that hasn’t been derived from a Marxist writing.

    • Sam: Jeez, Louise. I didn’t say the two events happened at the same time and were identical. I said, “the more this goes on, the more it looks like.” Imagine saying, “as time goes on, a Ferrari looks more and more like a Yugo”–because eventually, ALL (but a handful of collectibles) end up in the crusher!

      In this case, I pointed out the specific points in my argument, and you didn’t counter any of them. You just went off on another attention. But at the time, as now, I didn’t see the Cuban Missile Crisis as anything other than a young president who was embarrassed by the Bay of Pigs Invasion, trying to impress an old, well established Russian leader.

      Regarding “BO” as you call him, I prefer “Mr. Big Ears,” that’s nonsense. Obama’s problem is that he measures his words too carefully. It would be nice if he were more comfortable with the media, but he knows things will be taken out of context, such as the “red line” quote. It amazes me how they have twisted things that he has said over the past five years. And some people STILL try to claim that the media are on his side.

      The media are not “biased.” They are just (a) lazy, and (b) like paparazzi, trying to whip up a story where none exists.

  29. War is profitable, and all the nations on the list written up by the PNAC group in the 90?s are to be taken out one by one, all the shiite islamics will be defeated because they are against usury/ central banks. The big corporations controlling the United States have already planned and divvied up the spoils. They never change their plans. They will have 3 regions and a 1 world centralised gov’t/ currency. A one world religion based on science/ earth worship. The 3 world regions are nearly ready, they are the pacific rim region, european union, and the N American union. The Chinese have been buying up the world’s gold to quicken the collapse of the US dollar (the world’s currency).

    Before 1944, the world reference currency was the Pound Sterling. After World War II, the international financial system was governed by a formal agreement, the Bretton Woods System. Under this system the United States dollar was placed deliberately as the anchor of the system, with the US government guaranteeing other central banks that they could sell their US dollar reserves at a fixed rate for gold.

    Is the Syrian war really about the injustices done to the Syrian people (the children especially) or is it a ruse for the world puppet masters to manipulate the US into another war by “maintaining” our fiat dollars before they are projected to collapse by 2025?

  30. Interesting story:

    It is an interview regarding Peter Nicholas’ story in Rupert Murdock’s Wall Street Journal, entitled, “A Long Path Led to Offer on Chemical Arms.”

    Nicholas says Kerry’s comment about getting rid of chemical weapons to avoid attack was really the culmination of a year of high-level talks between the US and Russia, begun at LAST year’s G8 summit meeting between Obama and Putin.

    He says the August 21 chemical attack is what pushed the Russians toward more urgency, with Kerry meeting nine times with his Russian counterpart after that.

    • One thing is for sure Goethe, there is something that Russia wants and the USA needs to be involved in Syria’s mess. Russia wants a foot hold in the Arab nations and the USA wants to look like they have restored peace and are still a super power nation. China thinks it is a bad idea for us to declare war and so does all the other nations except for France.

      Obama is being played like a fiddle, but he will have no qualms in starting a war that will send 700 Syrian scuds straight to Israel. Israel will retaliate and then WWW III begins. ~ info abt “bitcoins” I think the Chinese are waiting for the world to get more sophisicated I-phones so that the new world currency will be “bitcoins”. A virtual currency that can be bought/sold online. It is only a matter of time until the sleeping giant demands payment for the notes that it holds…

      • I would think the only thing Russia wants out of Syria is US. I can see Assad’s position using gas on his enemy as it sure as hell saves a lot of money on the rebuilding process. Let’s face it gas is the poor mans A-Bomb. So the countries that have nuclear weapons outlaw gas. We can use nukes on you but you can’t have anything to retaliate with. Gun control. Not really true as Bin Laden showed there is a way to bring Goliath to his knees.for just a few thousand dollars and less than 20 men.

        • This whole story seems pretty convoluted. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that top US and Russian officials have been fashioning the agreement to get the chemical weapons out of Syria. I think they may want to make sure that none of their neighbors will have weapons that might get in the hands of the Chechyns.

          And the attack makes no sense. Assad’s forces have been making advances for much of the last year. Defeat seemed imminent last year, but now the rebels are on the ropes. Assad was getting all the weapons he needs, so why bring down the wrath of Western countries with gas?

          Maybe it was a rogue commander. There have been indications that Assad was surprised and embarrassed by the attack. And the only circumstantial evidence that we have that Assad’s people did it is that (a) it’s supposedly too sophisticated for the rebels, (b) purportedly, satellite video seems to show that the missle seem to have come from Assad-held territory, and (c) there are claims that forward troops put on gas masks ahead of the attack.

          I think China just doesn’t want a rebellion at home, so they want all current governments to remain in place. Other than that, I don’t think China gives a rip.

  31. Vladimir Putin, who spent 17 years with the KGB (FSB), who keeps Edward Snowden on an uncomfortable leash, who keeps members of an American riotous girl band rotting in jail, who allows his own government to throw activists in jail, who threatens to close NGOs, and rubber-stamps draconian and discriminatory laws,and who sells the latest in weapons to Assad. This is the man who is lecturing and censoring the government of the United States. The New York Times holds the dubious honor of publishing his editorial front page. For one New York minute, can you fathom a Russian newspaper that would print, unedited,such a letter from an American president?

    I am against war with Syria. Putin’s stated goal, if true, is admirable. Let’s not forget his motivation behind creating this op-ed is not entirely benign. Russia has a significant presence within Syria and continues to invest money and arms with Assad.

    A Plea for Caution From Russia
    Published: September 11, 2013

    MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

    Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

    The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

    No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

    The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

    Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

    Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

    From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

    No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

    It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

    But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

    No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

    The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

    We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

    A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

    I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

    If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

    My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

    Vladimir V. Putin

    • Tess: And, of course, the “article” actually came from Russia’s American PR firm, Ketchum.

      Business Insider:


      It’s ironic that our own capitalistic propagandists will also work to promote an erstwhile and sometimes foreign opponent. (‘Anything for a buck.”)

      Of course, one would hope that our people will weigh the arguments, regardless of source. Still, it would help if people knew that “his” letter/article was likely written by Americans to manipulate Americans (eg, “created equal”).

      All that being said, “his” arguments should be a part of our national discussion, and I think we’re stronger for it.

    • Tess — dear sciolist (googleing for “knowledge” again…?) As an uneducated Obama shill, you finally got one thing right: Putin is a swine.

      However, Putin is Russian born…unlike your boss, Barrack Hussein Obama, who no-one knows where he was born.

      At least Putin speaks as a Russian; while Obama speaks as what…a Kenyan…?

  32. Worth remembering — since it will come back to bite us if we allow Kerry and Lil’ Hussein to keep on pressing against the Putin solution!

    by Ron Paul:

    “President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.

    Besides, the president made it clear that Congressional authorization is superfluous, asserting falsely that he has the authority to act on his own with or without Congress. That Congress allows itself to be treated as window dressing by the imperial president is just astonishing.

    The President on Saturday claimed that the alleged chemical attack in Syria on August 21 presented “a serious danger to our national security.” I disagree with the idea that every conflict, every dictator, and every insurgency everywhere in the world is somehow critical to our national security. That is the thinking of an empire, not a republic. It is the kind of thinking that this president shares with his predecessor and it is bankrupting us and destroying our liberties here at home.

    According to recent media reports, the military does not have enough money to attack Syria and would have to go to Congress for a supplemental appropriation to carry out the strikes. It seems our empire is at the end of its financial rope. The limited strikes that the president has called for in Syria would cost the US in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote to Congress last month that just the training of Syrian rebels and “limited” missile and air strikes would cost “in the billions” of dollars. We should clearly understand what another war will do to the US economy, not to mention the effects of additional unknown costs such as a spike in fuel costs as oil skyrockets.

    I agree that any chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of US bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by US allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the US allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria?

    For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama’s drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?

    In “The Sociology of Imperialism,” Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the Roman Empire’s suicidal interventionism:

    “There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome’s allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest – why, then it was the national honour that had been insulted.”

    Sadly, this sounds like a summary of Obama’s speech over the weekend. We are rapidly headed for the same collapse as the Roman Empire if we continue down the president’s war path. What we desperately need is an overwhelming Congressional rejection of the president’s war authorization. Even a favorable vote, however, cannot change the fact that this is a self-destructive and immoral policy. “

  33. Putin checkmated Obama (and his barking-only dog Kerry)! WOW!!! That was such a simple finesse that any decent Chess Player would have foreseen — but, obviously not the mental defects that are Obama and Kerry.

    How did these two clowns (Obama and Kerry) embarrass our nation, making us the laughing stock of the world? Here is the chronological order of their stupidities:

    Obama draws a “red line” if Chem weapons are used — and states USA will bomb Syria to stop this.

    Chem weapons are used — Obama declares (without positive proof that it was Assad, and not the terrorists themselves), along with British Prime Minister Cameron’s acceding, that the World’s Opinion must be respected and the USA will start bombing Syria along with the “International Community”….

    Cameron is ready to bomb along with Obama, but then British Parliament says NO!

    Now Obama is IN SHOCK, and on his own — he still pushes for bombing Syria — but is afraid to do it on his own volition (for the obvious political backlash)! So, NOW Obama (who had previously declared that he does not need Congressional approval to start a ‘limited’ War) NOW BACKPEDALS AND asks Congress to approve his war desires, and sends Kerry to Europe to muster some support for his Bombing Syria right away!

    Kerry arrives and makes a fool of himself in France — when asked: “What would stop the US from bombing Syria” he answers: “Assad must turn over all his Chem Weapons”.

    The Russians pounce on it immediately and state they will assure this!

    Then, poor idiot Kerry says it was a “rhetorical answer” and not one he, and Obama, were willing to accept.

    Too late — Obama’s rep, Kerry-the-idiot, opened his mouth and played right into Putin’s hands.

    Now, Putin (the swine) won and Kerry and Obama look like the village idiots that they are!

    Obama, and his toothless barking dog Kerry, have achieved what no other Administration since Jimmy Carter has done — make US look weak and STUPID!

    p.s. forgot to add —

    Impeach Obama, and put Kerry next to Lil’ Hussein’s prison cell…so the two can play the simple game of Chinese Checkers… with each other…..

  34. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, it would be good connections. Both in good age, clear, intelligent brains, big hope for USA.

      • Remember this before you vote. Speaking at the Heritage Foundation, Senator Ted Cruz said his “first political contribution, at age 10, was $10 to Senator Jesse Helms. We need 100 more like Jesse Helms”. The late Jesse Helms of North Carolina,was an unreconstructed bigot who devoted his life to the defense of white supremacy and the advancement of far-right politics.

        • Sounds like my kind of man, just animal nature to be a bigot. Now there are many exceptions but they usually don’t work out for the most part. During the budget crisis of 1981, Helms restored $200 million for school lunches by instead cutting foreign aid, That’s a bigot I can live with. Favor your own and reject others.

          • billymalone…I know you often speak “tongue in cheek” but Jesse Helms was not a man of quality. His voting records show: The measure to restore $200 million for school lunch programs was proposed by Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, chairman of the Agriculture Committee. It was an acknowledged effort to head off Democratic moves to restore $400 million to the program and to keep foreign aid intact.

            VETERANS: Voted against $80 million in pensions and $100 million in home loans. Supported massive cuts in medical care for disabled veterans. Opposed job training for unemployed veterans of Korea and Vietnam, and compensation for military personnel exposed to nuclear tests.

            EDUCATION: Proposed cuts in school lunches. Voted against funds for vocational education, Head Start programs for disadvantaged preschoolers, and special education for the disabled. One of four senators to oppose work-study jobs for college students.

            WORKERS: Voted against tax cuts for working families, 60-day notification of plant closings, parental leave, job training for those on welfare, and increasing the minimum wage

        • Tess Trueheart — the sciolistic Obama shill picks on 10-year old Ted Cruz’s history….

          LOL — what are you Tess, a 12-year old bully that picks on a ten year old child…?

          • I had to do a 2nd look at Marco just because he favored Reagan so much. No I was never a Reagan fan but thought I’d cut him some slack because of the years past. His vote for Egypt is what lined him out in my book.

            • Billy: The image of Reagan is WAY out of line with his actual performance, so everybody feels that they have to make a saint out of him.

              Regarding the Egypt vote, you’re looking at it as if it were a first-time gift. That vote was not about saving money, it was about whether we should punish Egypt for what the people want in a leader there.

              Originally, the aid was (a) a bribe to get them to make peace with Israel, and (b) a gift to our own arms manufacturers, since it was military aid.

              I’m not saying we should not reduce military gift packages, but this was the wrong time to do it. So give him a break.

            • Same break I’d give Hillary on Benghazi. By the time election time comes around I don’t even remember why I lined most of them out but a few will remain. Usually those that will get way less than 5% of the vote. So I see things a bit different than most folks but said position has served my well thus far in life.

            • Billy: I agree. Benghazi will disappear. In order to make something stick, it has to be simple and clear, and I still have absolutely no idea how or why Hillary should bear any blame for Benghazi.

              The fact that Obama was blamed before the election, and Hillary has been blamed after the election over, makes it look like a purely political ploy. It has no legs.

            • Well you do have historic facts on your side as the dumber they look in handling a crises the better the voters seem to like them. Look at Bush when 9/11 hit. The Pet Goat and it all went down hill from there. Then Hillary’s line “What difference does it make” …………….really dumb even though it is true. Too bad Hillard was new to DC and didn’t know her way around. Gen Ham Advised her the place was under attack about 20 min. after it started. If she had any leadership qualities she could have responded with something like “Masada”
              (Moshe Dayan)

  35. but he has voted properly and it is already two times, when his voting was proper ( at least documented voting ). Politicans say many things, but the main point is how they vote.
    Rand Paul is naturally the most optimal presidential candidate, but he should have somebody, must connect powers and Marco Rubio is quite good, it is young, it seems quite good senator too.

    • Stev — Rand Paul and Ted Cruz is the TRUE winning ticket to restore our Nations’ Liberties and Prosperity!

      Rand Paul and anyone else, will be good, too.

      Any other presidential choice will just keep on destroying the USA, as Obama has been doing nonstop!

Comments are closed.