About the Syrian conflict:
McCain has denounced Democratic President Barack Obama for shying away from deeper involvement in the conflict.
They never learn, do they?
No, let's not. We can't save the world.
The US has such a punk track record on picking just the "right" faction to back. We don't need this and I wouldn't trust John McCain's insistence that "we can identify who these people are. We can help the right people."
It just escalates - we arm some band of fighters and Russia arms Assad. No brainer: stay away!
This post was edited by duluthinbloomz4 on Thu, May 30, 13 at 17:30
A little controversy going on regarding a "photo op" in Syria...
...." the senators office said "it would be "regrettable" if the identities of the men photographed with Sen. John McCain in Syria this week are confirmed to be individuals responsible for a year-old kidnapping" as is being reported by the Daily Star of Lebanon.
The Russians just gave Assad a whole bunch of anti-aircraft missiles, just in case somebody wanted to try to create a 'no-fly zone'.
Having followed their later careers, statements, and opinions on current affairs, I must say that I am thankful that Senator McCain and Ms Palin were not elected in 2008.
You can say that again, David!
You may be thankful that McCain and Palin weren't elected david. But I don't see that you got any better deal. Obama has kept us involved in every other conflict in one way or another, even targeting American citizens and innocents with his drone program. We have become the bullies of the world.
We have become the bullies of the world.
Still no expression of regret for the Bush Administration having taken us to war based on lies?
We have been bullies for decades and decades. Try looking back to the immediate post-WW2 era and take it from there. We have been the self-appointed cops / bullies of the world for some time, and that includes the Reagan Administration's shameful actions in Central America.
But I don't see that you got any better deal.
Iran is the first country that comes to mind re McCain Administration. We could have been in the midst of a deteriorating shooting war there had the election gone the other way. And didn't Senator McCain want us to remain in Iraq, and is opposed to the proposed withdrawal from Afghanistan?
Has John McCain ever seen a conflict in which he didn't to involve the U.S.?
Just a little refresher nancy....
It is too often forgotten, not least by historians, that George W. Bush did not invent the idea of deposing the Iraqi tyrant. For years before he came on the scene, removing Saddam Hussein had been a priority embraced by the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton and by Clinton’s most vocal supporters in the Senate:
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
These were the words of President Clinton on the night of December 16, 1998 as he announced a four-day bombing campaign over Iraq. Only six weeks earlier, Clinton had signed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing Saddam’s overthrow��"an initiative supported unanimously in the Senate and by a margin of 360 to 38 in the House. “Iraqis deserve and desire freedom,” Clinton had declared. On the evening the bombs began to drop, Vice President Al Gore told CNN’s Larry King:
You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed. [emphasis added]
Here is a link that might be useful: link
Good grief, did I hallucinate the Gulf War?
MsK, I have debunked that claim trying to tie the lies of Bush and Cheney to the situation in Iraq during Bill Clinton's time in office. You and the author of that hit piece are ignoring events took place in the years between 1998 and 2003. To link Clinton to Bush's lies is intellectually dishonest, as well as demonstrably false.
Clinton's comments were made in the following context: Operation Desert Fox -- 1998
Cooperation ends between Iraq and inspectors when the country demands the lifting of the U.N. oil embargo. UNSCOM and the IAEA pull their staffs out of Iraq in anticipation of a US-led air raid on Iraqi military targets. The four-day military offensive known as Operation Desert Fox begins on December 16, 1998. According to a U.S. military Web site, the mission of Desert Fox was "to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction." The operation is considered a success, largely finishing off what was left of Iraq' s WMD infrastructure.
In the time between Clinton's comments -- when Iraq ended cooperation with inspectors -- and Bush's rush to war -- based on lies -- inspections were renewed. Those inspections yielded reports from experts and inspectors that stated Saddam had no WMDs. ElBaradei tried his best to counter the lies of the Bush Administration.
Lots of refutations of U.S. and U.K. claims of Saddam's WMDs here. "I hope the U.S. does not know anything we do not know. If they do, they should tell us. If they are talking about indigenous capability, Iraq is far away from that. If Iraq has imported material hidden, then you're talking about six months or a year. But that's a big if [...]. I think it's difficult for Iraq to hide a complete nuclear-weapons program. They might be hiding some computer studies or [research and development] on one single centrifuge. These are not enough to make weapons."
Time Magazine, "Q&A with the Top Sleuth", 12 January 2003.
A summary of the IAEA's position was presented by ElBaradei to the Security Council on 7 March 2003:
"After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."
Key post-war readings: International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation of United Nations Security
Council Resolutions Relating to Iraq: Report by the Director General", 8 August 2003:
"While investigations could not be completed due to the lack of time, no indication of post-1991 weaponization activities was uncovered in Iraq. The Agency observed a substantial degradation in facilities, financial resources and programmes throughout Iraq that might support a nuclear infrastructure."
More here: When International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director Mohammed ElBaradei reiterated that there was no evidence of Iraq attempting to restart its nuclear program, Cheney insisted that "Mr. ElBaradei is frankly wrong." The vice president then falsely claimed that the IAEA had "consistently underestimated or missed what it was that Saddam Hussein was doing" 16 and insisted that there was no validity to the IAEA's assessments, despite their more than 1,000 inspections -- mostly without warning -- in Iraq since the early 1990s. Later, the Bush administration had ElBaradei's phone wiretapped in an unsuccessful effort to find information to discredit him. 17
This must the at least the third time that I have rebutted your claim -- through a third party -- that Bush was justified in his Iraq war because of comments from Clinton 5+ years earlier.
Maybe you should read it again.
"These were the words of President Clinton on the night of December 16, 1998 as he announced a four-day bombing campaign over Iraq. Only six weeks earlier, Clinton had signed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing Saddam’s overthrow��"an initiative supported unanimously in the Senate and by a margin of 360 to 38 in the House. “Iraqis deserve and desire freedom,” Clinton had declared. On the evening the bombs began to drop, Vice President Al Gore told CNN’s Larry King:"
Please note the date and the name of the president at that time.
So where in the history books is the record of Clinton's invasion and occupation of Iraq, sleepless?
The ILA was for aid to Iraqi opposition groups.
The concern re WMDs that made the context for the ILA was no longer valid in 2002-2003.
Historical fact is against your interpretation.