| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Is Obama Starting A War With Syria Just A Distraction From All The Scandals? |
| 2013-06-15 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #15 Like the Iran/Iraq war this was one we should have let played out. We have no responsibility to be the worlds police man as we have been told over and over again by our allies and enemies for the last decade. Those applauding our getting involved now will be the same calling us warmongers in a few years when we have no way to cleanly get out of the mess. Bad call, very bad call, to get involved. Turkey stayed out of the Iraq war when we needed them. Let them deal with this mess on their border if they want to. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2013-06-15 20:33 |
| #14 > "in Syria there is no good side for the West" > All the more reason we should stay the hell out of it. Or arm both sides... |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-06-15 18:55 |
| #13 I'm sure Champ's motivation has something to do with his "line in the sand" statement and creating yet another media distraction. The fella that I can't figure out is McShame. In spite of the obvious and quite bitter consequences, do we have the benevolent grace and understanding of an all mighty Gott to thank for McShame losing his bid for the presidency? Sometimes I wonder. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-06-15 15:58 |
| #12 "in Syria there is no good side for the West" All the more reason we should stay the hell out of it. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2013-06-15 12:45 |
| #11 Yes, it's all in the line of "President Forever" And he;s good for it. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2013-06-15 11:24 |
| #10 Is Obama Starting A War With Syria Just A Distraction From All The Scandals? No. The scandals are a factor in that they've caused a loss of Mr. Obama's domestic and foreign political capital - especially the latter. That and his off-hand declaration of a 'red line' with Syria is forcing him to provide support the rebels. As far as this claim of being a distraction, this is a frequent claim is made of Britain in WW1, FDR foreign policy before WW2, etc. Its probably nonsense Well, it is Zerohedge. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-06-15 11:14 |
| #9 The timing of the statement, of course, was calculated. But if noticed it wasnÂ’t the POTUS or even a Cabinet member making the announcement. It was late in the week and he used a lower advisor as his mouthpiece. Now, if the President actually takes ownership then people should start to question motivation. Until then this is classic Obama pretending to do something while really not doing anything. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2013-06-15 11:04 |
| #8 Lip movement.... the key. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-06-15 09:36 |
| #7 Everything Obama and this administrations says should be questioned; they are all habitual liars. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2013-06-15 09:29 |
| #6 Squirrel! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2013-06-15 08:41 |
| #5 Perhaps more of a 'not letting a good crisis go to waste'. Or he's is trying to avoid making 'not doing anything' into another crisis. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2013-06-15 08:35 |
| #4 Actually I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, in Syria there is no good side for the West. Although I will say that part of the reason for that is Obama policy. However using nerve gas is wrong and Obama is not alone in this view. As far as this claim of being a distraction, this is a frequent claim is made of Britain in WW1, FDR foreign policy before WW2, etc. Its probably nonsense |
| Posted by: BernardZ 2013-06-15 07:19 |
| #3 Yes. Next question? Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2013-06-15 06:48 |
| #2 Yes |
| Posted by: Dale 2013-06-15 05:39 |
| #1 Of course it is a calculated scandal distraction. Look at the media and broadcast air time the story is consuming. Some sort of "no fly zone" will eventually come as well, but it must be bled out over time, discussion, and much media debate. I'm waiting to learn that he's buying small arms ammunition from Vlad to give to the rebels. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-06-15 04:45 |