The next wingnut conspiracy theory talking point on Syria?

[EriktheRed]

IS RIGHT-WING CHEMICAL WEAPONS TRUTHERISM ABOUT TO GO MAINSTREAM?

"You and the rest of Congress, including the president of the United States have went against the will your people in Syria regardless of your position and vote, whether it is a yes or no is still a political smokescreen," the town hall attendee said to an irritated McCain. "I believe wholeheartedly you do not care about the will and well-being of America or its people. You lied the American people about the chemical attacks in Syria. The American people know that it was our government that is most likely responsible. There is strong evidence, including video, that these attacks were carried out by al Qaeda and you advocate starting a war, even maybe World War, by taking the same attack and blaming it on Assad."

We know that a lot of people on the right think it was the Syrian opposition that used chemical weapons (and, of course, doubt about the official story is not limited to the right) -- but what's this about "our government" being "most likely responsible"? In the next sentence, the man blames Al Qaeda. Was blaming the U.S. a slip of the tongue?

No. The right has a new narrative of the chemical weapons attack, and it's perfect, because it's Obama's fault. Let Kevin Drum explain:

... There have long been mutterings that the chemical attack in Ghouta was a false-flag operation. That is, the Syrian opposition actually carried out the attack, hoping that Bashar al-Assad would get blamed and President Obama would retaliate with a huge bombing campaign. But it's just been mutterings. Today [Tuesday], though, Rush Limbaugh upped the ante, jabbering on air about an article by Yossef Bodansky titled "Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?"

... Bodansky, an Assad sympathizer who has previously suggested that the 1995 Oklahoma bombing was orchestrated by Iran and that Saddam's WMDs all ended up in Syria, tells a simple story. Starting on August 13, at a meeting between Syrian opposition leaders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US intelligence, senior opposition commanders told everyone to expect "a war-changing development" which would soon lead to a U.S. bombing campaign in Syria. Shortly afterward, a huge cache of weapons was released to the rebels under the supervision of US intelligence, and they were told to get ready to use them. Sure enough, a few days later a major chemical attack took place and Assad got the blame....

No More Mister Nice Blog

So is this gonna be the next tune coming out of the wingnut Wurlitzer?

 

[PredFan]

IS RIGHT-WING CHEMICAL WEAPONS TRUTHERISM ABOUT TO GO MAINSTREAM?

"You and the rest of Congress, including the president of the United States have went against the will your people in Syria regardless of your position and vote, whether it is a yes or no is still a political smokescreen," the town hall attendee said to an irritated McCain. "I believe wholeheartedly you do not care about the will and well-being of America or its people. You lied the American people about the chemical attacks in Syria. The American people know that it was our government that is most likely responsible. There is strong evidence, including video, that these attacks were carried out by al Qaeda and you advocate starting a war, even maybe World War, by taking the same attack and blaming it on Assad."

We know that a lot of people on the right think it was the Syrian opposition that used chemical weapons (and, of course, doubt about the official story is not limited to the right) -- but what's this about "our government" being "most likely responsible"? In the next sentence, the man blames Al Qaeda. Was blaming the U.S. a slip of the tongue?

No. The right has a new narrative of the chemical weapons attack, and it's perfect, because it's Obama's fault. Let Kevin Drum explain:

... There have long been mutterings that the chemical attack in Ghouta was a false-flag operation. That is, the Syrian opposition actually carried out the attack, hoping that Bashar al-Assad would get blamed and President Obama would retaliate with a huge bombing campaign. But it's just been mutterings. Today [Tuesday], though, Rush Limbaugh upped the ante, jabbering on air about an article by Yossef Bodansky titled "Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?"

... Bodansky, an Assad sympathizer who has previously suggested that the 1995 Oklahoma bombing was orchestrated by Iran and that Saddam's WMDs all ended up in Syria, tells a simple story. Starting on August 13, at a meeting between Syrian opposition leaders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US intelligence, senior opposition commanders told everyone to expect "a war-changing development" which would soon lead to a U.S. bombing campaign in Syria. Shortly afterward, a huge cache of weapons was released to the rebels under the supervision of US intelligence, and they were told to get ready to use them. Sure enough, a few days later a major chemical attack took place and Assad got the blame....

No More Mister Nice Blog

So is this gonna be the next tune coming out of the wingnut Wurlitzer?

So....one guy yelling at McCain is tha base that you wingnuts use to broad brush then whole of conservatism?

Dismissed.

NEXT?

 

[Katzndogz]

The chemical attack was carried out by obama's allies, al quaeda. The attack wasn't planned by the white house. It was planned by al quaeda and carried out by them too. The goals of the Syrian terrorists and the whitehouse just happen to dovetail at the juncture of eliminating Christians.

 

[EriktheRed]

So....one guy yelling at McCain is tha base that you wingnuts use to broad brush then whole of conservatism?

Dismissed.

NEXT?

So you RW nutbags aren't going to start that line of attack on the Prez over this?

Good to know.

 

[Sherry]

Our government doing it is a load of horseshit, but I can understand why people would question groups such al Qaeda doing it to stir the pot. After what the left witnessed with Powell going in front of the UN with "evidence", they would look like fucking idiots not demanding that this administration show their proof that it was the Syrian government before committing us to any sort of action.

 

[Katzndogz]

The difference is, Colin Powell had evidence. obama only has his word. There is no evidence that Assad was responsible.

Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S. | Reuters

There is a great deal of evidence that obama's allies in al quaeda were responsible.

 

[Sherry]

The difference is, Colin Powell had evidence. obama only has his word. There is no evidence that Assad was responsible.

Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S. | Reuters

There is a great deal of evidence that obama's allies in al quaeda were responsible.

Agreed, but from the perspective of many on the left, it was false evidence designed to engage us in an illegal conflict. That they would now be willing to proceed with any sort of military action, without the expectation/demand for hard evidence, is remarkable.

 

[asterism]

IS RIGHT-WING CHEMICAL WEAPONS TRUTHERISM ABOUT TO GO MAINSTREAM?

"You and the rest of Congress, including the president of the United States have went against the will your people in Syria regardless of your position and vote, whether it is a yes or no is still a political smokescreen," the town hall attendee said to an irritated McCain. "I believe wholeheartedly you do not care about the will and well-being of America or its people. You lied the American people about the chemical attacks in Syria. The American people know that it was our government that is most likely responsible. There is strong evidence, including video, that these attacks were carried out by al Qaeda and you advocate starting a war, even maybe World War, by taking the same attack and blaming it on Assad."

We know that a lot of people on the right think it was the Syrian opposition that used chemical weapons (and, of course, doubt about the official story is not limited to the right) -- but what's this about "our government" being "most likely responsible"? In the next sentence, the man blames Al Qaeda. Was blaming the U.S. a slip of the tongue?

No. The right has a new narrative of the chemical weapons attack, and it's perfect, because it's Obama's fault. Let Kevin Drum explain:

... There have long been mutterings that the chemical attack in Ghouta was a false-flag operation. That is, the Syrian opposition actually carried out the attack, hoping that Bashar al-Assad would get blamed and President Obama would retaliate with a huge bombing campaign. But it's just been mutterings. Today [Tuesday], though, Rush Limbaugh upped the ante, jabbering on air about an article by Yossef Bodansky titled "Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?"

... Bodansky, an Assad sympathizer who has previously suggested that the 1995 Oklahoma bombing was orchestrated by Iran and that Saddam's WMDs all ended up in Syria, tells a simple story. Starting on August 13, at a meeting between Syrian opposition leaders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US intelligence, senior opposition commanders told everyone to expect "a war-changing development" which would soon lead to a U.S. bombing campaign in Syria. Shortly afterward, a huge cache of weapons was released to the rebels under the supervision of US intelligence, and they were told to get ready to use them. Sure enough, a few days later a major chemical attack took place and Assad got the blame....

No More Mister Nice Blog

So is this gonna be the next tune coming out of the wingnut Wurlitzer?

Pro-war liberals are funny.

I'm still on the fence because while I think humanitarian reasons are valid as a premise for military action, I don't see a winning proposition for us in Syria. In Iraq, I saw the opportunity to enforce our cease fire, get rid of Saddam and his state support for terrorism, and hamper Al Qaeda's ability to grow and expand in Iraq. While the results have not been ideal, the Iraqi people have much more freedom (which in some areas ironically means freedom to live under Sharia Law ) and Saddam's reign of terror is over.

I don't see how bombing Assad's military is going to do anything but help Al Qaeda, nor do I see how it's going to liberate Syria in any way. I'm willing to be convinced, but it has to be on honest terms not some talking points poking a stick at anyone who opposes Obama.

 

[bodecea]

The difference is, Colin Powell had evidence. obama only has his word. There is no evidence that Assad was responsible.

Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S. | Reuters

There is a great deal of evidence that obama's allies in al quaeda were responsible.

 

[EriktheRed]

IS RIGHT-WING CHEMICAL WEAPONS TRUTHERISM ABOUT TO GO MAINSTREAM?




We know that a lot of people on the right think it was the Syrian opposition that used chemical weapons (and, of course, doubt about the official story is not limited to the right) -- but what's this about "our government" being "most likely responsible"? In the next sentence, the man blames Al Qaeda. Was blaming the U.S. a slip of the tongue?

No. The right has a new narrative of the chemical weapons attack, and it's perfect, because it's Obama's fault. Let Kevin Drum explain:

No More Mister Nice Blog

So is this gonna be the next tune coming out of the wingnut Wurlitzer?

Pro-war liberals are funny.

I'm still on the fence because while I think humanitarian reasons are valid as a premise for military action, I don't see a winning proposition for us in Syria. In Iraq, I saw the opportunity to enforce our cease fire, get rid of Saddam and his state support for terrorism, and hamper Al Qaeda's ability to grow and expand in Iraq. While the results have not been ideal, the Iraqi people have much more freedom (which in some areas ironically means freedom to live under Sharia Law ) and Saddam's reign of terror is over.

I don't see how bombing Assad's military is going to do anything but help Al Qaeda, nor do I see how it's going to liberate Syria in any way. I'm willing to be convinced, but it has to be on honest terms not some talking points poking a stick at anyone who opposes Obama.

Y'know, there's a poll thread on here started by Paulitician about being in favor of strikes on Syria. Go find it and check out the names under "No" and then get back with me.

 

[Stephanie]

what we can take from this thread and all of them chastising, , RWnuts nutters, is the left has got some blood lust and want to attack any country, doesn't matter as long as Obama want's it, they say lets go..
you think we'll be hearing from them how attacking a country was the BIGGEST MISTAKE or Obama IS LYING US into attacking a country that is no imminent THREAT TO US like they do and STILL accuse Bush about IRAQ?

they have become warmongers-chicken hawks, really chicken shits because all Obama war is about DROPPING bombs on a country and they NEVER have to SEE OR HEAR about ANY collate damage, so that is AOK with them.... and now if you are what they a call, a RW NUTTER, against this attack on Syria, they will BEAT YOU DOWN FOR IT and call you stupid names like, chemical weapon truthers...

you can only shake your head after watching them with Bush and Iraq....

what is shows , is the left anti-war, peace at all cost are and was, FULL OF CRAP and two faced hypocrites as long as a Democrat is President...

Do you liberals ever grow up, all these stupid names you come up with to label people...chemical weopons TRUTHERS...dear gawd that is why these people should never be put in power over us and our country

 

[Edgetho]

Off your Meds, libturds? Did you lose them in your Mommy's basement again?

Keep looking, you'll find them.....

They look like this --

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obama wants this strike badly. Everyone in the world can see that. But even in a time of near universal agreement against it, you take the time to engage in partisan attacks? Does this political system endear such deep seated hatred? It's about time you stopped thinking that our government can do no wrong. It has done plenty of wrong many of times over. Stop worshiping this government like some god. If anything it is more of a demon.

 

[AceRothstein]

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to stay out of Syria. There is no reason for any conspiracies.

 

[Stephanie]

So....one guy yelling at McCain is tha base that you wingnuts use to broad brush then whole of conservatism?

Dismissed.

NEXT?

So you RW nutbags aren't going to start that line of attack on the Prez over this?

Good to know.

What the hell was the purpose of this thread? to whine over your Dear Leader being attacked or what? you should try growing up

 

[EriktheRed]

What the hell was the purpose of this thread? to whine over your Dear Leader being attacked or what? you should try growing up

OMG!

 

[Stephanie]

What the hell was the purpose of this thread? to whine over your Dear Leader being attacked or what? you should try growing up

OMG!

really, that is what I thought of this thread...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Um, unless you're absolutely trapped inside the corporate media bubble, it's well-known that the Al Qaeda rebels did the attack, even the UN inspectors said that is the most likely case.

 

[Antares]

So....one guy yelling at McCain is tha base that you wingnuts use to broad brush then whole of conservatism?

Dismissed.

NEXT?

So you RW nutbags aren't going to start that line of attack on the Prez over this?

Good to know.

Meaning you, the kook fringe Left don't care where Assad's Weapon caches end up.

Good to know.

 

[asterism]

No More Mister Nice Blog

So is this gonna be the next tune coming out of the wingnut Wurlitzer?

Pro-war liberals are funny.

I'm still on the fence because while I think humanitarian reasons are valid as a premise for military action, I don't see a winning proposition for us in Syria. In Iraq, I saw the opportunity to enforce our cease fire, get rid of Saddam and his state support for terrorism, and hamper Al Qaeda's ability to grow and expand in Iraq. While the results have not been ideal, the Iraqi people have much more freedom (which in some areas ironically means freedom to live under Sharia Law ) and Saddam's reign of terror is over.

I don't see how bombing Assad's military is going to do anything but help Al Qaeda, nor do I see how it's going to liberate Syria in any way. I'm willing to be convinced, but it has to be on honest terms not some talking points poking a stick at anyone who opposes Obama.

Y'know, there's a poll thread on here started by Paulitician about being in favor of strikes on Syria. Go find it and check out the names under "No" and then get back with me.

Why do I care about who votes how?

This isn't some sort of club where I can get kicked out for having the wrong views.