Tuesday, September 10, 2013

The Syria Solution: Obama Got Played by Putin and Assad, Or Did He?...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Interesting possibility from the NEW REPUBLIC.

This, apparently, is how diplomacy happens these days: Someone makes an off-hand remark at a press conference and triggers an international chain reaction that turns an already chaotic and complex situation completely on its head, and gives everyone a sense that, perhaps, this is the light at the end of the indecision tunnel.

Speaking in London next to British Foreign Secretary William Hague on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that perhaps the military strike around which the administration has been painfully circling for weeks could be avoided if Bashar al-Assad can "turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that.”

The fact that Kerry immediately followed with, “But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously,” didn't seem to bother anyone. (Probably because they were focusing on his other slip-up: calling the promised strikes "unbelievably small.")

The Russians immediately jumped on the impromptu proposal, calling Kerry to check if he was serious before going live with their proposal to lean on Syria. An hour later, they trotted out Syria's foreign minister, Walid al-Mouallem, who said he too was down with the proposal, which was a strange way to get the Syrians to finally admit they even had chemical weapons to begin with. Before long, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, the English, and the French were all on board, too.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, the White House was just as surprised as anyone. Asked if this was a White House plan that Kerry had served up in London, Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken was unequivocal. "No, no, no," he said. "We literally just heard about this as you did some hours ago."

So that's good. At least everyone's on the same page.{Read More}

Interesting hypothesis indeed. Possibly correct. Possibly... not?

If planned all along by the Obama administration recognizing Russia's national interests in Syria it would be a stroke of diplomatic genius. Perhaps only the Shadow (will ever) know(s) the real truth truth.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. Well... hats off to the lucky president!


    1. Was he lucky jmj? Or, was it orchestrated? Regardless the results are positive.

  2. A different point of view:

    "So much for the argument from some on the left that Russia was “bailing out” Obama on Syria. The truth is that those in the media (I’m looking at you, Ed Schultz), and those on the left who were screaming warmonger were so completely wrong that they should be ashamed of themselves.

    As usual, Barack Obama was ten steps ahead of his critics, and that’s why this president is moving closer to a diplomatic solution on Syria’s chemical weapons.

    Here’s a newsflash for the media. Obama is smarter than you. All presidents use the media’s ability to jump off the ledge and get hysterical over anything, but Obama has raised the technique to the level of high art. It is amazing that so many of the Obama bashers and media car chasers haven’t figured out yet that nothing is said accidentally. Every word is measured and used for a reason.

    The idea that Russia pounced on an idea that John Kerry just so happened to casually mention demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of both the diplomatic process, and how presidential administrations use the media.

    Obama’s goal always has been to get a diplomatic solution, and once again this president has outsmarted those who are guided by their own small minded biases." --Jason Easley

    I agree with the above. Does anyone really, really believe that this was "off the cuff?" Something as important as this? Really?

    That's rather naive.

    1. I can only answer your question from a business perspective. Rarely, if ever are business issues of immense magnitude handled off the cuff. They are calculated. I can only assume that diplomatic issues with potentially far reaching and perhaps global geopolitical consequences might be handled in the same fashion.

      Answer to question, likely not. For the majority of folks.

    2. “But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously,” That, along with the vacillation ("I'm going in without Congress, no I better go to Congress first"), the fact that this is one of the worst human rights violations ever (we are led to believe) and our response to it is going to be "unbelievably small", and the fact that there doesn't seem to be any clearly defined objective and I'm really beginning to think that these are the Keystone cops here, Shaw.

  3. Maybe it was a sophisticated game of good cop/bad cop or maybe he put himself in a corner and got lucky.

    Either way, if Syria backs off chemical agents it's a pretty good win.

  4. And one that will embolden Syria's socialist regime to slaughter civilians with abandon. As long as it does so without chemical weapons.

    1. Are you suggesting we should take military action regardless dmarks?

    2. They haven't been doing that?

      Have you been under a rock or are you foolish enough to believe
      a few cruise missiles will do anything but aggravate the situation?

      I'll say it again. If this does anything to eliinate some
      chemical agents it's a gain.

    3. Fact check/correction: Syria's regime is a very typical example of a socialist regime. You should know better than to link to lunatic fascist-left sites that make up their own definitions of the word. No one is buying your game of lying about huge parts of the socialist movement in a completely failed attempt to re-define them as not being socialist. The Green Left article is a particularly disingenuous and false piece of imagination, as it has renamed the ruling party of Syria from its actual name, to one more in line with its case. In other words, it is lying about things to attempt to prove its point.

      Even more interesting is that the "Green Left" link that Dervish gives argues that the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party isn't socialist because it has allowed too much freedom. Yes, that's it, the Syrian regime isn't brutal enough for "Green Left" in order for them to be called socialist because it has in recent years (prior to the revolt) allowed some freedoms.

      From Wikipedia, from a reference that has passed the neutrality test and is not questioned:

      "The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region .... founded on 7 April 1947 by Michel Aflaq, Salah al-Din al-Bitar and followers of Zaki al-Arsuzi. The party has ruled Syria continuously since the 1963 Syrian coup d'├ętat which brought the Ba'athists to power. The Ba'ath party functions as Syria's dominant party."

      The bold emphasized words are to show that not only has Syria's regime been socialist in the past, the current regime is socialist. I have also emphasized the actual name of this socialist party.

  5. Ducky, it's all too obvious that no matter what this president does, the knee-jerk reaction from the far left and the far right is that he's incompetent or a liar and "blah, blah, blah, blah."

    No one, and that includes all of us who prattle on the blogs all over the internet, knows what went on or what goes on behind the scenes. We only know what the media report and what the pundits, who, like us, do not know what is going on behind the scenes.

    I wrote on my blog and elsewhere that I did not support a strike. That's all I could do, since I had absolutely no information about the machinations between the countries and the diplomats.

    From what I've read and witnessed, it appears the president, who the rightwingers love to call incompetent, has bamboozled his detractors.

    1. Are you saying the extremes have closed the loop and are now holding hands? ;-)

    2. I'm saying just what I wrote in the above comment. Nothing more.

    3. It is a puzzlement, Shaw.
      Talking about "the red line" may have been a mistake but when he had an
      opportunity to accomplish something worthwhile he was ably to deal with Putin.
      I call that a good quality.

      It seems that conservatives wold rather cut off their units with a power tool than admit it when Obama shows mature leadership.

  6. Where is the comment from Will Hart saying Obama backed himself into a corner? This post went up yesterday, Will! Get with it.

    1. I said that he backed himself into a corner with this idiotic red line (which he's now trying to weasel out of by saying that the "world" set the red line - the world evidently not setting a red line when Hussein gassed tens of thousands of Kurds 20 years ago) comment of his. I have no idea if this whole Vladimir Putin thing was planned out or not. I, unlike you, cannot read minds.

    2. The United States signed the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty on 4/29/1997 and the Kurds were gassed in 1988. The treaty is the "red line" and it didn't exist when the Kurds were gassed. Plus, it was the Reagan and GHWB administrations that approved the selling (by US corporations) of the chemical agents Saddam used. Clearly they weren't going to say anything about crimes they were complicit in. BTW, we violated the treaty (while GWb was commander in chief) when depleted uranium and white phosphorus was used during the Iraq war (which could certainly be viewed as war crimes).

      This "backing himself into a corner" accusation when referring to an actual red line drawn by THE WORLD is politics. Period, end of discussion... and in my opinion is shameless, absolutely shameless.

    3. Shameless politics indeed. Pot meet kettle. Bulldog and leather. Agenda driven interpretations. Oy Vey...

    4. You idiot, wd. a) The world banned chemical weapons in 1925 after WW1 (the Geneva protocol) and b) the only country that is supporting Obama on this is the French and that is only because of their colonial ties to the area. All of you partisan stooges hammered Bush (who clearly DID mention the gassing of the Kurds) for going it alone (this, despite the fact that over 30 countries supported our invasion) and now you are silent. THAT is shameless.

    5. And of course using chemical weapons is a violation of international law. The question is, do we go to war over it and do we involve ourselves in another nation's internal civil war in which a hundred thousand people had already died via conventional means? That was the frigging red-line that Obama was talking about, wd; them using them (which he probably didn't think that they ever would) and us responding (by military means) to them using them. THAT was the corner.

    6. The Geneva convention of 1925 "is now understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons, but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer" and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997 "outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors".

      So using chemical weapons was outlawed under the 1925 Geneva convention but production and stockpiling wasn't outlawed until 1997. But the Reagan and first Bush administrations DID approve sale by US corporations of chemicals that were used against the Kurds. And the sale continued AFTER Sadam's "Anfal campaign", so my point stands concerning those administrations not saying anything due to their complicity.

      So, the idiot Will Hart makes nonsense arguments about Obama backing himself into a corner when the red line is REAL, but the idiot Will Hart defends the second bush administration citing the gassing of the Kurds in 1988 as a justification for the Iraq war 15 years later? What an IDIOT!

    7. Obama's red line was the USING of chemical weapons (nice attempt to move the goal-post there, nummy, and cover for your ignorance of international law - "chemical weapons were banned in 1997" LOL!!!!!!), you imbecile! You just admitted it. And I'm fully aware of how Saddam had gotten a hold of those chemical weapons and that was all the more the more reason to disarm him. YES, the fact that he had used them MULTIPLE times in the past WAS a reason and the 2nd Bush administration had made that reason very apparent.......And, again, Obama has zero international/U.N. support, zero N.A.T.O. support, zero Congressional support (not even his own frigging party, for Christ), and zero support of the American public. The only people who are supporting him are idiotic, weaselly little partisans who, if a Republican had gotten himself into such a mess as this, you'd be crucifying him. We have atrocities being committed all over the planet and Obama had to moronically open his yapper. What a stooge he is and what a stooge you are for unthinkingly following him.......And you're little comment about the 15 years is yet additional idiocy. The Israelis continued to prosecute Nazi war criminals for decades. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes, lunatic. Saddam Hussein was INFINITELY more of a violator of human rights than Assad ever will be and the ONLY reason that you are supporting the punishment of one over the other is because of the party affiliations of the respective Presidents. Totally shameless.

    8. Of course Will is perfect and has never gotten a fact wrong. Nothing he would ever admit, of course. Like this nonsense about me being a "stooge" and "supporting" Obama no matter what course of action he takes (which I do not). But does Will, oh masterful craftsman of straw men care? Hell no. He's been stating what my position was right from the beginning (and not giving a damn what I actually think).

      The UN is on board with the proposal for Syria to destroy it's chemical weapons, moron.

      And Will's comment about the Israelis continuing to PROSECUTE Nazi war criminals for decades is pure idiocy. Prosecuting war criminals is a hell of a lot different than using war crimes as a rational for an illegal invasion 15 years later. Did the Israelis forget about Nazi war crimes for 15 years and then say they should invade Germany to find war criminals?

      Will Hart's defense of GWb while attacking the current president for things he hasn't even done? Totally shameless. And the weaselly Hart says "as long as it's their guy who doing the killing, silence is golden" when the Obama Administration hasn't killed anyone! Have we launched any missiles yet Hart (you idiot), or has the president only engaged in bluster (in order to get Assad to comply)? Jackass.

    9. The U.N. is NOT on board for military action against Syria. Nice attempt yet again to move the goal posts. That's A. And B is obviously the fact that Mr. Obama HAS been dropping bombs and HAS been killing people via his illegal drone attacks in going on 4 countries now and his shameless and moronic surge in Afghanistan (and the only reason that he isn't dropping bombs on Syria now is because Putin pulled his arse out of the fire). All of this and zero condemnation from you. I am going to respect Les's call to refrain from ad hominen attacks but you know exactly what I think of you.......And I'm not defending Bush. I am only looking for some intellectual honesty and moral consistency. We have partisans like you who are defending potential action against Assad on humanitarian grounds but who were totally silent on Hussein's torture chambers and systematic policy of rape and murder. It's all about politics with people like you and it's disgusting (and Bush wasn't President for those 15 years so we don't know if he had forgotten about it or not - that is YOUR conjecture).

    10. Will knows exactly what I think of him. I didn't move any goal posts, I'm talking about the options that are currently on the table. You said the UN wasn't with Obama, and you're WRONG. And misrepresenting my views about the use of drones (again). I'm strongly opposed to Obama's overuse of drones (because he's making more terrorists than he is killing). I've told you this before but you ignore my actual positions and make-up your own positions for me to hold (straw man).

      Excuse my lack of clarity in my prior comment. I meant the Obama Administration had not killed anyone in Syria (because they haven't dropped any bombs).

      I was also strongly opposed to the "surge" in Afghanistan.

      As for this accusation concerning me being "totally silent" about the atrocities of Saddam... not entirely accurate. I started my blog in 2006 (three years after the start of the Iraq war). Prior to that I wasn't politically active or that politically aware. The first time I voted for president it was for Clinton (but I just don't remember any discussion of Iraq during his presidency). Al Qaeda wasn't really even on the radar until the end of Clinton's presidency. So, yes, technically I was "silent", but I was largely silent about all things political.

      As for "all of this and zero condemnation from you"... there is nothing to condemn yet. I don't like the fact that he's (apparently) contemplating dropping bombs on Syria when he lacks any support (as noted in your blog post). But I'm not convinced that this isn't just rhetoric designed to pressure Assad into compliance with the Russia/US plan to get rid of his chemical weapons (a plan the UN supports).

      IMO It's all about politics with people like Will Hart and it's disgusting. The proof is in his defense of bush (and denial of bush's obvious lies) and attacks on Obama (when he's being honest with us).

    11. I never said that you didn't oppose the drone attacks, just that you do not hold Obama to the same standard as Bush and refrain from calling him a war criminal for doing a lot of the same crap as Bush (surges, warrantless wiretaps, rendition, drone attacks X6 of what President Bush did, threatening military force absent an international authorization, unlimited detention, targeting the media, lying about Benghazi - a spontaneous eruption caused by some youtube video LOL!!!!!!!!!!, etc.). I'm not a big fan of Noam Chomsky but at least he has the intellectual integrity to be consistent and hold President Obama to the same standard as his predecessor. You - not near so much......And I am not wrong. Obama still has the military option on the table and the U.N. has NOT authorized that and they won't. Bush (who I've been very critical of - you're lying again - and who I never voted for - Obama I at least voted for once) had the support for at least 30 countries when he went into Iraq (which I strongly opposed and still have a great deal of problems with) and Obama has only France. If I were him, I would send a big bouquet of flowers to Vladimir Putin.

    12. Slow down there Will. Obama has not started a war yet. You, nor any other private citizen can offer any proof that illegal renditions have occurred under Obama's administration. I don't believe he really has the authority to release the prisoners in Guantanamo. Do you think he should at least try and test the waters?

      Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are considered war criminals precisely for their secret renditions, for sanctioning the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody, for the culture of cruelty which promoted inhumane treatment of prisoners in both Abu Ghraib and Bagram, for the cruel siege of Fallujah, for the Navy shelling and aerial bombardment of Baghdad, for the unjust imprisonment of Iraqi civilian males, for the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians as the Army took over cities house by house like SS officers and for allowing a criminal organization like Blackwater to enjoy paramilitary status, paid for by the U.S. treasury, with all of their murder, mayhem and good old-fashioned fun for fascists. Many of the sins of the Bush administration and their Pentagon were not war crimes, but were still highly immoral and illegal.

      You are going to compare Obama's actions to that? You're not paying attention. You need to get off of your right-wing blog reading list and get a new hobby. I have not trusted anyone who hates the president since I got over the PUMA thing in 2010. You are a shining example of why Obama haters are not to be trusted to tell the truth. Obama restored the honor and prestige of the U.S.A. after it had been squandered for private profit. A nearly impossible task. Just how did Obama let you down anyway?

      Peace Out

    13. FJ, let it go man. Fixation on, and hatred of GWB serves no useful purpose any more than hatred for BHO does.

      Both me and Will have been critical of GWB and those misguided policies that helped drive the nation closer to cliffs edge.

      Our problem with BHO is he is on many ways more like GWB than not.

    14. According to Noam Chomsky, Obama is in certain ways "worse than Bush".

    15. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/renditions-continue-under-obama-despite-due-process-concerns/2013/01/01/4e593aa0-5102-11e2-984e-f1de82a7c98a_story.html

  7. This is a better solution than lobbing missiles into the hornet's nest. Nobody really wanted that, even Obama.

    1. You are quite correct John. This deal has far more to it that meets the eye.

      Credit to both Putin and Obama. As well as the supporting cast of characters.

    2. Credit to Obama? Is RN being a "stooge" for the president?

    3. The following posted to Mr. Sanders blog today and following is his reply.

      Rational Nation USA9/15/2013 1:07 PM

      FYI Mr. Sanders, I suspect you may not publish this..,, I disagree with the majority of your positions on issues as well as most of your conclusions when playing Sherlock Holmes. However, personal beliefs aside your commentary does give food for thought. As much as I disagree with your world view the process of stimulating honest and free exchange of ideas is more important than one Individuals view that you are "wet behind the ears" so to spea

      Considering the above you are free to post comment as will on my site The only restriction is you follow comment guidelines and refrain from personal attacks.


      Dervish Sanders9/15/2013 1:33 PM

      I did not play "Sherlock Holmes" in regards to "Ipso Facto". I don't want to be spammed with long screeds (especially off topic ones) that are posted on other blogs... although I presume you are referring to the "quilty" post and my conclusion that you were "the sword of truth".

      As for me not publishing your comment, I suspect the reason you thought I might not publish is because of the "wet behind the ears" insult. A personal attack I've previously debunked (by pointing out that my blog has been online longer than your blog).

      But you're right that I don't like it, as I don't like a comment that includes a personal attack cautioning me to not engage in personal attacks on RN's blog... when I only responded IN KIND to a personal attack from Will Hart. Did you submit the same caution (in comment form) to Mr. Hart's blog?

      BTW, is you admitting that you are toying with me (in the comment thread where you expressed pleasure at the thought of infuriating me with your inane comments) your attempt at being friendly? Certainly being a jackass (not a personal attack as you ADMITTED it) is as bad as a personal attack (or worse, given the fact that I was only defending myself against Hart's personal attack).

      Considering the above you are free to post comment on my site. The only restriction is you follow comment guidelines and refrain from personal attacks and further restrain yourself from being a jackass.

      End of comment exchange.


      Closing statement by RN USA... The above exchange explains why it is almost impossible to deal with the furthest left of the lefties. Truth 101 has it about right.

      Mr. Hart has presented material that is factual, yet Mr. Sanders continues to persist in the same fashion as he accuses Mr. Hart of doing.

      You remain welcome to post here Mr. Sanders, as long as you refrain from ad hominen attacks as Mr. Hart has acknowledged is this sites wishes. He has done so with his last comment and will no doubt continue.

      I assure you Mr. Sanders I will treat your site with the same respect, unless and/or until such time as you fail to do the same.

      This discussion is now put to bed. Any attempt by you Mr. Sanders to respond further, either here or on your site to this long running feud will result in consideration of you forever being banned from Rational Nation USA.

      Hope your weekend has been a remarkably rewarding one.

      Good day Mr. Sanders

    4. You say to me (on my blog) that "your blog is a mere amusement for me, an opportunity to laugh and then infuriate you" and then you have the NERVE to say "it is almost impossible to deal with the furthest left of the lefties"?!

      That is your idea of "respect"!?

      Do what you want (in regards to banning or not banning me). I'll continue to post on my blog anything I damn well please. As for Mr. Hart's "facts"... his facts included LIES about what my position on the Syrian situation is.

      I shall stand by for your decision (and think about what I might write on my blog if RN bans me).

      BTW, I asked you to not submit another comment (in the thread where you made the comment above). You didn't listen and submitted another anyway. Now you're going to ban me if I submit a response here? Go ahead, hypocrite.

    5. Testy aren't you Mr. Sanders. Spin, Spin, Spin as you like.


      By way of explanation I put your last name in lower case out of recognition for the disrespect you display towards President George W. Bush when you consistently type GWb.

      Now go have a nice evening.

    6. RN: WD's slight of GWB's name is probably intended as a slam at a man who, unlike WD, was elected President.

      I have no problem referring to elected Presidents, past and future, by their proper names.

    7. WD said: "in the comment thread where you expressed pleasure at the thought of infuriating me with your inane comments"

      I looked all over this, and could not find anything where RN said anything like this. It would be very much out of character for RN to have said this.

    8. dmarks... The comment Mr. Sanders is referring to was in fact made by me on a recent thread at his site, Sleeping with The Devil. To understand the context and the reason I made such statement will require a vist to his site.

    9. I did in fact look there also, RN. I found nothing in the comment threads anything like "your inane comments". No inanity, at least not from you.

  8. Please commenters, refrain from calling each other names. It serves no useful purpose.

  9. Sheesh. Even when they sort of agree (amazing by itself), they find a way to disagree and be disagreeable.

    1. (O)CT(O)PUS, thank you for your observation. It is true, I admit. Speaking for myself only of course I find it difficult, if not impossible to to agree with a certain commenter and not be disagreeable. But in this instance I have no desire to even attemt to not be disagreeable. I shall continue to find this particular leftist blogger amusing.

    2. In fact, I have no desire to converse or communicate any further with him. It has become pointless.

      I have grown to believe more each day after reading con and lib blogs recently that blogging itself has become pointless.

      But who cares? Life goes on, and there are lawns to mow and golf links or gyms waiting. The piper waits to be paid and organ grinder has his monkey.

  10. I assume that when RN says "I have no desire to converse or communicate any further with him"... he's talking about Will Hart? I'm the one who said I agreed with Will about the drone issue, but Will refused to accept my agreement and instead came back with an attack. If not, then the comment by Octopus surely applies to RN... as RN "admitted" Octo's comment was true (a comment that concerned a conversation between TWO people), but then placed the blame for disagreeing on ONE person (so he agreed with Octo, but then immediately disagreed with him).

  11. Mr. Sanders, you know what they say about assume right? In case you don't... It makes an ass of you and me.

    1) I was not referring to Will. A blogger I respect.

    2) There was no "attack" by Will.

    3) My respond to (O)CT(O)PUS was in fact based specifically on my complete lack of desire to converse with you.

    4) I did not disagree or agree with Octo, I made a statement, no clarified for you.

    What I didn't say initially and will say now. Octo and I often stand on different sides of the river. We have had heated exchanges. I respect Octo, his intelligence, his character, and his wisdom.

    Now Mr. Sanders whether or not you consider this exchange concluded I do.

    Have a restful evening Mr. Sanders:....:................................

    PS: Should there by typos or whatever struggle them I don't care.

  12. RN: There was no "attack" by Will.

    Will: You idiot, wd.

    Link. At this point I had not called Will any names.

    1. Sensitive aren't you Mr. Sanders?

      1) his comment is not an attack, it is a statement f your intelligence as he sees it. I asked all commenter to stop calling other commenters names, and Will has done so on my site.

      2)I highly suggest you peruse your archives of comment you have made being into question the intelligence, sincerity, and or integrity of individuals you did not agree with.

      3) You seem unable to let anything go once you sink your teeth into something. Even after it has been beat to death and it is obvious you are not going to change anyone's mind. You are sometimes, IMNHO, like the little spoiled child who throws a temper tantrum when everyone doesn't want to play his game.

      Let go Mr. Sanders. Find something important to discuss or point to make and then after being disagreed with move on. Either that or you will wear out your welcome.

    2. RN: ...his comment is not an attack, it is a statement of your intelligence as he sees it.

      Anyone who would attempt this spin is an idiot. Not an attack, just a statement of someone's intelligence as I see it.

    3. He's right, Les, I did throw the first ad hominem (sorry, but when the dude said that there wasn't a red-line in 1988, when the Geneva Protocol on this topic goes all the way back to 1925, that did seem pretty darn stupid at the time). I also took the bait. The dude comes out of left field and throws my name into the mix purely trying to start an argument with me and I obliged him. I obviously shouldn't have and I'll try much harder in the future to avoid it (hard, though, when the fellow lies about me - like when he said that I never defend liberals, for example).

    4. Thank you for your honesty in clearing thus off the table, for good. Yeah, I understand your frustration with Mr. Sander, I too have allowed myself to let the guy get my goat. Never again. Mr. Sanders has pretty much wore out his welcome here. But I'm pretty sure he's okay with it. More likely than not he'll soon preening himself and strutting around leftist blogistan all full of himself and proud like. Joe Truth 101 Kelly was right when he told me Mr. Sanders (whirling dervish) gave liberals and progressives a bad name.

    5. I'm not trying to get anyone's goat. I replied to comments Will made. There is a flip side to this "baiting" you know. It definitely has been getting my goat that Will keeps throwing out this "red line" argument that I see as BS. But of course you two can only see things from your own perspectives, and therefore *I'M* the one doing the baiting. Jeez... BTW, Joe Kelly can stuff it.

      At least Will admits he started it (and yes, I admit I made a dumb mistake), but seeing as there was a red line in 1988 makes the actions by the Reagan and Bush administrations even more deplorable (if that is possible). I guess they thought the chemical weapons were going to be used against Iranians? (and therefore it was OK)?

      Dennis' "grade school" comment (more ad hominem) is baloney. Who likes being blamed for something they didn't do? I'm supposed to stay silent? Better yet, I suppose I should have "admitted" that it was all my fault? (and the RN comment above is definitely his attempt at a "spanking").

  13. Seeems like one, and only one, person is playing the "grade school siblings in the back of the station wagon" he-did-it-first game. Sorry to burst your bubble, WD. Though the rest of us are adults in this room, no-one is going to spank you.

    Grow up.

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.