mamabearCali wrote:Oldgringo wrote:TAM for POTUS!
Amen....can we draft you?
You don't want me. I probably smoked as much dope as Bill and Barry combined back in the day.
Further complicating matters, this post which does make some kind of sense....I don't know if it is true or not, but it is worth reading:
http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/evidence- ... not-assad/. The author is a former member of Muslim Brotherhood, turned peace activist, who says that MB is fighting on the side of the rebels, and he makes a compelling case for MB being the source of the gas attacks:
1. Assad is
winning this civil war and has been for several months now after the rebels had initially made some gains.
2. Which side has the bigger motivation to use WMD, the less desperate or the more desperate side?
3. There is actually some video evidence to suggest that rebels
might be using Sarin gas, and Chlorine gas.
This could all be a pack of lies too. The point is,
WE DON'T KNOW, AND WE CANNOT KNOW!!! Neither can the administration. The absolute fact that 1,000 rebel men, women, and children were gassed is incontrovertible. Just WHO gassed them is unknowable, since both sides apparently possess WMD. Then the author finishes with:
Lying, bearing false witness, blood libel, and murder.
Yeah, that smells like the Brotherhood.
**UPDATE at 8:40am EST on August 31, 2013**
Associated Press reporter Dale Gavlak reports in MintPress news that firsthand accounts indicate that the Chemical weapons attack was the result of the rebels’ mishandling of them. According to Gavlak, the weapons came from Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar bin Sultan and were given to rebels who did not know what the weapons were or how to store them, nor were they trained how to use them. If these accounts are correct, the Obama administration – along with more than a handful of Republican congressmen – may be complicit in a blood libel.
**UPDATE at 4:25pm EST on September 3, 2013**
An explosive article by Yossef Bodansky was published on September 1st implies that it is possible – or even likely – based on “a growing volume of new evidence” that the August 21st Chemical attack was carried out by the rebels against themselves in order to push an agenda that would involve getting the U.S. to attack Assad. Worse than this, however, is that Bodansky makes the case for the likelihood that the Obama administration knew about the attack in advance. While Bodansky’s findings differ from those of Gavlak, both seem to reach the conclusion that the rebels were the ones responsible for the attack.
Not to mention that the rebels simply execute their prisoners:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world ... ml?hp&_r=0.
Has anyone noticed, that since Syria brewed up, nobody in the media has said bupkis about the IRS scandal, the Benghazi scandal, Immigration scandals, "assault weapons" bans, Fast & Furious, the federal persecution of Texas in the wake of the SCOTUS voting rights act decision, the looming debt ceiling crisis, etc., etc., etc., etc.
EVERYTHING has been swept under the rug.
Who stands the most to gain by our getting militarily involved in Syria?
Obama. That's who.
He's counting on the country rallying behind the president in a war. But it is a war that nobody wants......least of all the men and women who will be ordered to prosecute it. But Obama is willing to prosecute it and sacrifice the national good, what little is left of our moral capital, the burden it will put on our treasury and on our taxpayers to make good for it, all for the sake of his own ambitions. I can think of another national leader just like that.....who threatens wars to take his subjects' minds off their own miseries.......
.........Kim Jong-un of North Korea........
Need I say more?
