Not to be a serial poster, but it looks like we're going to bomb Syria and

[jmcon007]

if that's the case, then it's important that our Congressmen and Senators demand rock solid reasons! The neonuts have been looking for a reason to invade Syria and Rove's trouble is reason enough. Please note in the story below our solid sources, "based on alleged statements by unidentified U.S. military and intelligence officials."
Also, this story was posted December 29, 2004 and Syria since has captured Sadaam's half-brother and 20 or 30 other Sunni insurgents and turned them over to Iraq of February of this year. (The US military had no comment.)

Bush administration increases pressure on Syria

WASHINGTON — Although Syria appears to be meeting current U.S. demands — securing its border with Iraq and making peace overtures to Israel — neo-conservatives in the Bush administration are pushing for stronger action, including a military option.

According to Jim Lobe, writing for Inter Press Service, the campaign was officially launched when three analysts associated with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which generally backs Israel’s Likud Party, published an article in The Washington Times titled “Syria’s Murderous Role: Assad Aides (sic) Iraq’s Terrorist Insurgency.”

In a recent editorial, William Kristol, chairman of the Project for the New American Century and editor of The Weekly Standard, suggested bombing Syrian military facilities, occupying border towns, and actively supporting the domestic opposition.

The Wall Street Journal also has piled on, charging Syria with “providing material support to terrorist groups killing American soldiers in Iraq while openly calling on Iraqis to join the ‘resistance.’”

Lobe says the campaign is based on alleged statements by unidentified U.S. military and intelligence officials suggesting that the Sunni insurgency in Iraq is being organized, funded, and even managed by Iraqi Baathists operating in Syria.

(more)
http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/0904/1229.shtml

[ewagner]

1. The sources of inflamatory

rhetoric have been pretty much under the radar since the Rove issues have been going down....

It sounds like somebody is trying to build a case for it.

[Mythsaje]

2. Sure!

Let's invade ANOTHER country when we can't afford the wars we're already fighting, when both our checkbook and military strength are puttering like a 58' Chev chugging to a stop 125 miles from the nearest gas station.

Fiscal responsibility my ass.

[OKDem08]

5. Come on guys

this is totally absurd! With continued support for the War in Iraq in serious jeopardy and the obvious strain our military endures, a move like that would be nothing short of suicidal, in my opinion.

[Mythsaje]

7. I think so too...

Thus my wiseass post.

They'd have to be crazy.

Hey, wait a minute...they ARE crazy.

But are they THAT crazy?

[Karenina]

11. Yes.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

15. My thoughts exactly

The neocons seem dead-set on earning for themselves the title of "that gang of %^#$$#ing idiots who brought down the USA." Syria unlike Iraq was not pounded by a decade of sanctions, stripped of its military and bombed relentlessly by US and British warplanes during the interim. It actually has a competent military and millions of hard-core potential fighters.

Invading Syria would set the region totally on fire; we would lose whatever residual support we have among Arab nations there (I can see a potential oil embargo on the horizon), plus we would garner little support from our current token allies in Iraq. Which would leave the burden of fighting to us, and bankrupt the US within a couple years. Yet another dimwitted brain-fart from the neoconservative minds of Kristol, Kagan, Wolfowitz and Co. (Even Hillary has been stupidly joining in with the anti-Syria brigade lately. Just perfect-- a neocon in Democrat's clothing.) We need to loudly object to any prospect of this invasion, and make sure that a heavy price is paid on Election Day by any elected representative who supports it.

[rman]

3. yet again it looks like the plan comes first, and reasons are secondary.

it's not even that long ago when it used to be the other way around.

[atommom]

9. I don't know ... I think the order is: 1. Act; 2. Lie about the reasons;

3.) Lie about the plan. But I think they like to mix the steps up a little bit sometimes, just as long as there's still plenty of lying. :eyes:

[PurityOfEssence]

4. "...meeting current U.S. demands."

This is said as if it's our due. We can demand whatever we want of anyone we want whenever we want, and if they don't comply, we have the right to fuck them in any way we choose. This is only a set of "current demands"; we also reserve the right to change them whenever we please.

This is just disgusting, and it's tossed off as a simple premise upon which the rest of the world must operate.

We have become disgusting bullies, and it hardly seems to bear any passing notice anymore. What next?

Somehow, when our demands aren't met, we've been betrayed and we deserve to retaliate out of self-defense. This is nothing short of ugly.

[jmcon007]

6. I'll be called an anti-semite, but if I must wear the tag for saying this,

then so be it.
The Likud Party of Arial Sharon of Israel and the neo-conservatives of the US are basically one and the same. Now, I don't care if it's the Jews of Israel or citizens of the home of my ancestry, Ireland, our foreign policies cannot be dictated entirely by the desires of another country. Of course we will defend Israel, but how many soldiers do they have committed in Iraq? Whose blood is being spilled because of their paranoia?
If someone believes this is not the case, please research the American Enterprise Institute, The Federalist Society, and google simply "neoconservative". What is being carried out in our name is not primarily because of the needs of our country. Period.

[PurityOfEssence]

16. Not by me you won't

But you're definitely correct with the assumption. Remember what happened to Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) when he said that Israel had undue influence in our government.

There's a lot of fellow traveling or looking the other way going on in this country when the subject of Saddam comes up, and it has to do with his dream of being the big Pan-Arab Strongman (a modern Nasser, maybe) and his giving $25K honorariums to some families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Meanwhile, any country that is threatening or has threatened Israel is squarely in the cross hairs of this mob. It's an unholy alliance, but it's still quite strong.

At least much of the support (or non-opposition) will not be there this time. Here in Los Angeles, 4 Democratic Representatives (all Jewish) voted for the Iraq war resolution: Harman, Berman, Schiff and even the truly honorable Howard Waxman. Why? Gosh, I don't know...

They'll be less supportive of popping Syria, but others will play along.

For the record, I was raised protestant until rebelling and walking away from all religion at the age of six. We are very careful with our still quite young children to keep the baying hounds of certainty away from them, but don't keep them in a cave. Both went to a Jewish pre-school. Most of our Jewish friends are deeply troubled by the blind eye being turned to this crap by those who will do anything at any cost to sustain Israel in whatever folly it pursues. Some of our friends, however, were happy to use any excuse to stomp Hussein and have no qualms about doing the same to Syria except for the blowback issue. For them, Israel is the new girlfriend: she can do no wrong and she may have anything she wants.

So don't fret about saying this; it needs to be said. There are many who will take you to task, and there many who will stand with you.

[Gloria]

8. Don't forget the August issue of the American Enterprise Institute's

magazine which espouses cutting loose S. Korea and unleashing preemptive nuke war on the Korean Peninsula! (S. Koreans so pissed they cut the $$ they've been giving to the AEI for years....)

From the soon to be archived current issue of the World Media Watch:

3//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong Jul 15, 2005

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/GG15Dg01.html



SEOUL’S WARNING TO THE US ON PYONGYANG

By Todd Crowell

The South Korean government has withdrawn its financial support for an influential Washington DC-based policy institute to show its displeasure over a series of articles about the North Korean nuclear weapons situation that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) published in the summer issue of its magazine, The American Enterprise.

"Nip it Now," reads the cover line of the July-August issue, with a picture of a huge nuclear explosion. The sub-heading reads, "Averting a Nightmare in North Korea." Inside, the authors lay out the case for dissolving the alliance with South Korea, stifling China if it doesn't pressure the North into giving up its nuclear weapons program, and waging a preemptive war.

The American Enterprise is a publication of the AEI, which has provided many of the senior figures of the current Republican administration. Part of its US$30 million annual budget has been underwritten for years by the Korea Foundation, a government institution under the Foreign Ministry in Seoul.

Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon recently told a committee of the National Assembly that the Korea Foundation had ended is support for the AEI because of the articles. He said that South Korea had contributed about $1.4 million to the institute's activities since 1992. President Roh Moo-hyun fired back himself: under no circumstances will South Korea allow the US to attack North Korea.

The authors of the controversial articles are Daniel Kennelly, managing editor of The American Interest, conservative writers Gordon Cucullu and Victor Davis Hanson, James Lilley, a former ambassador to South Korea and China, and Nicholas Eberstadt, author of The End of North Korea.

MORE

[wli]

10. these freaks need to be removed from office ASAP

[Karenina]

12. Yes.

[jmcon007]

13. Bush will try another country 'til we get it right. This is how he ran

his businesses. He rode them for all they were worth and moved on to greener pastures. The Republicans keep telling us to look at the good news in Iraq. But, just what are we truly receiving in return for the blood of our children, wives, and husbands? You tell me.
Do the Iraqis even want us there? That would be a good question.



Polls conducted in June 2005 suggest even more anti-occupation sentiment; most alarming to American policymakers is rising support for the insurgency. According to the Boston Globe (10 June 2005): "a recent internal poll conducted for the US-led coalition found that nearly 45 percent of the population supported the insurgent attacks, making accurate intelligence difficult to obtain. Only 15 percent of those polled said they strongly supported the US-led coalition."<16> Demands for U.S. withdrawal have also been signed on by one third of Iraq's Parliament.<17>

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency#Analysis_and_polls)

[McCamy Taylor]

14. Bush's polls will dip yet again.