Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
After the response from the right on our involvement in Libya, I can hardly blame him for not wanting to get involved.

What's your solution? What does a "win" for us in Syria look like?

Arm the rebels? If he does that, you'll howl that they're affiliated with al Qaeda (they are), so he's arming "terrorists".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
It's a totally outrageous and awful statement, if it's true. I can find no credible source for it, and question it, myself. It only shows up via Google from rather UNcredible sources.

It may be a valid statement, if anyone actually made it, but it's gawd awful. The facts are still the same, either way; it's a no-win situation and I certainly don't have any answers, only horror at what's happening.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

I hafta admit that I never questioned the source. The Weekly Standard is large enough to have to be respectable-- biased but respectable, generally.

It does raise 2 valid points: (1)under international law, ( see my post above ),nobody may have ANY LEGAL authority to interfere in what al-Assad does to his own people; and, (2)under the US Constitution, Obama may not have had the legal authority to TAKE any action without the consent of Congress.
So Obama may have been just jaw-boning, as it were, shooting his mouth off, so to speak, bullying Assad in an effort to scare him, to get him to leave town quietly.

E-T-A: I did follow up the source. Weekly Standard says the quote was to the NY TIMES, gives a link. I followed that. The Times reports it as a direct quote, buried about 20 paragraphs into the story.

Either they're part of the big lame-stream media covering up for Obama, or they were scared he might be tapping their phones too. Or thay might have some other reason...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Thanx, NewOld, I appreciate that, and I'll accept the NY Times. Just never heard of the Standard and the first page of what I Googled wasn't anything recognizable. Ergo, I go back to my original statement: "It's a totally outrageous and awful statement". Disgusting.

It IS a "global village" in so many ways nowadays, and whether we can do anything about it or not, I'm all in favor of bringing it to light, condemning it, and seeing if there are ways that won't harm our country to help. Unfortunately, I still also maintain it's a no-win situation and at this point a proxy war as much as anything else (added to all the other things said in this thread), so what CAN we do?

---

Quote:

---

The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative[2][3][4][5] opinion magazine[6] published 48 times per year. Its founding publisher, News Corporation, debuted the title September 18, 1995. Currently edited by founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes, the Standard has been described as a "redoubt of neoconservatism" and as "the neo-con bible".[7][8] Since it was founded in 1995, the Weekly Standard has never been profitable, and has remained in business through subsidies from wealthy conservative benefactors such as former owner Rupert Murdoch.[9] Many of the magazine's articles are written by members of conservative think tanks located in Washington, D.C.: the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the Hudson Institute

---