Obama delays Syria vote, says diplomacy may work

In this Sept. 6, 2013 file photo, President Barack Obama speaks in St. Petersburg, Russia. A new Associated Press poll shows a majority of Americans oppose a U.S. strike on Syria, despite a weeks-long Obama administration campaign to respond to chemical weapons attacks allegedly carried out by the regime of President Bashar Assad. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

In this Sept. 6, 2013 file photo, President Barack Obama speaks in St. Petersburg, Russia. A new Associated Press poll shows a majority of Americans oppose a U.S. strike on Syria, despite a weeks-long Obama administration campaign to respond to chemical weapons attacks allegedly carried out by the regime of President Bashar Assad. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

— President Barack Obama told a war-weary nation Tuesday night that diplomacy suddenly holds "the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons" in Syria without the use of force. But he also vowed the U.S. military will be ready to strike against President Bashar Assad if other measures fail.

For now, Obama said he had asked congressional leaders to postpone a vote on legislation he has been seeking to authorize the use of military force against Syria.

In a 16-minute speech, the president repeatedly offered reassurances that even the failure of diplomacy — in promised talks at the United Nations or elsewhere — would not plunge America into another war.

"I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria," he promised. "I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo."

"This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad's capabilities," he said.

The speech capped a frenzied 10-day stretch that began when he unexpectedly announced he was stepping back from a threatened military strike and instead asking Congress first to pass legislation authorizing the use of such force against Assad.

With public opinion polls consistently showing widespread opposition to American military intervention, the White House has struggled mightily to generate support among liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans alike who have expressed fears of involvement in yet another war in the Middle East and have questioned whether U.S. national security interests were at stake in Syria. Obama had trouble, as well, building international support for a military attack designed to degrade Assad's military.

Suddenly, though, events took another unexpected turn this week. First Russia and then Syria reacted positively to a remark from Secretary of State John Kerry indicating that the crisis could be defused if Damascus agreed to put its chemical weapons under international control.

The president said he was sending Kerry to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Thursday, and he added, "I will continue my own discussion" with Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom he has said he had been discussing ways out of the Syrian predicament for some time.

At the same time, he said the United States and its allies would work with Russia and China to present a resolution to the United Nations Security Council "requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control."

"It's too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments," he said.

Acknowledging the weariness the nation feels after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama said, "America is not the world's policeman."

And yet, he added, "When with modest effort and risk we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That's what makes America different. That's what makes us exceptional."

"Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used," he declared.

Obama recounted the events of the deadly chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 that the United States blames on Assad.

"When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until these horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied," he said.

The president said firmly that Assad's alleged attack was "not only a violation of international law, it's also a danger to our security."

If diplomacy now fails and the United States fails to act, he said, "the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons" and "other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using" it. Over time, he added, U.S. troops could face the threat of chemical warfare, and if fighting escapes Syria's border, "these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel."

In the run-up to the president's speech, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel pointedly told a congressional hearing it was not time to let the threat of military retaliation lapse. "For this diplomatic option to have a chance at succeeding, the threat of a U.S. military action, the credible, real threat of U.S. military action, must continue," he declared.

At the same hearing, Kerry said any diplomacy "cannot be a process of delay. This cannot be a process of avoidance."

He later added that any agreement must include binding consequences if Syria fails to comply, and lawmakers moved to rewrite pending legislation along the same lines.

The president readied his speech as a small crowd of anti-war protesters, some waving signs, gathered outside the gates of the White House.

U.S. officials say more than 1,400 died in the Aug. 21 episode, including at least 400 children, and other victims suffered uncontrollable twitching, foaming at the mouth and other symptoms typical of exposure to chemical weapons banned by international treaty. Other casualty estimates are lower, and Assad has said the attack was launched by rebels who have been fighting to drive him from power in a civil war that has so far claimed the lives of more than 100,000 civilians.

Assad's patron, Russia, has blocked U.S. attempts to rally the Security Council behind a military strike. But Monday, after a remark by Kerry, it spoke favorably about requiring Syria to surrender control of its chemical weapons, and the Syrian foreign minister did likewise.

The foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, said Tuesday that his government was ready to turn over its chemical weapons stockpile in line with Russia's proposal in order "to thwart U.S. aggression." He also said Syria was prepared to sign an international chemical convention it has long rejected — a step it can take on its own at any time without U.S. or U.N. supervision.

Syria has long refused to provide an accounting of the size of its stockpile, rarely referring in public to its existence. According to an unclassified estimate by the French government, it includes more than 1,000 tons of "chemical agents and precursor chemicals," including sulfur mustard, VX and sarin gas.

Obama has said frequently he has the authority as commander in chief to order a military strike against Assad regardless of any vote in Congress.

The response in Congress to support such a strike has been lukewarm at best — as underscored during the day when liberal Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and conservative Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., both announced their opposition.

Markey, who was elected to the seat that Kerry vacated when he joined the Cabinet, said the legislation under consideration was too broad, "the effects of a strike are too unpredictable, and ... I believe we must give diplomatic measures that could avoid military action a chance to work."

And Rep. James Langevin, a Rhode Island Democrat who sits on committees dealing both with military and intelligence matters, said he feared that "Iran and Russia could cause serious damage" to the United States if they retaliated with a cyberattack.

Yet Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat in the House, said, "It would be inimical to our country's standing if we do not show a willingness to act in the face of the use of chemical weapons and to act in a limited way to address that use alone."

Earlier, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell became the first congressional leader to come out against legislation giving the president authority for limited strikes. "There are just too many unanswered questions about our long-term strategy in Syria," he said.

By contrast, Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, the top two Republicans in the House, have endorsed Obama's request.

Given the uncertainty of diplomatic maneuvering, no vote is expected for several days, if then.

"If something can be done diplomatically, I'm totally satisfied with that. I'm not a blood and thunder guy. I'm not for shock and awe," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a reference to the massive display of firepower that opened the war in Iraq nearly a decade ago.

Still, there was ample skepticism in Congress about the United Nations as well as Russia's true intentions, as well as Syria's willingness to be bound by international agreements.

"There is an overwhelming view it would be preferable if international law and the family of nations could strip Syria of the chemical weapons," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "And there's a large view we should let that process play out for a little while."

Said Boehner: "Clearly, diplomacy is always a better outcome than military action. But I will say that I'm somewhat skeptical of those that are involved in the diplomatic discussions today."

Read the full transcript here.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Stories

Comments » 46

26yearsonmarco writes:

The Great One Sez:

"Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used,"

It's not OUR leadership that is at stake, its Obama's lack of leadership that is destroying OUR ONCE GREAT NATION.

August8 writes:

in response to 26yearsonmarco:

The Great One Sez:

"Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used,"

It's not OUR leadership that is at stake, its Obama's lack of leadership that is destroying OUR ONCE GREAT NATION.

Exactly, point well made. His Chickens have come home to roost.

Sparky100 writes:

Dumbo like smoke and mirrors. Anything to distract the American people from seeing the effects of dumbocare, our economy, unemployment rate only going down 1/2% over his entire term in office so far, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, NSA and I am sure I missed a few others.
OK Klaus, explain how all this is Bushs fault. I really need a good laugh today.

26yearsonmarco writes:

Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria
News • Syria • News • ISSUE 49•36 • Sep 5, 2013

WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.

The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.

“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,” respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they “strongly support” any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. “With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment—the perfect moment, really—for the United States to send our legislators to the region.”

“In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago,” she added.

Citing overwhelming support from the international community—including that of the Arab League, Turkey, and France, as well as Great Britain, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Japan, Mexico, China, and Canada, all of whom are reported to be unilaterally in favor of sending the U.S. Congress to Syria—the majority of survey respondents said they believe the United States should refocus its entire approach to Syria’s civil war on the ground deployment of U.S. senators and representatives, regardless of whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not.

26yearsonmarco writes:

Poll Continued:

In fact, 91 percent of those surveyed agreed that the active use of sarin gas attacks by the Syrian government would, if anything, only increase poll respondents’ desire to send Congress to Syria.

Public opinion was essentially unchanged when survey respondents were asked about a broader range of attacks, with more than 79 percent of Americans saying they would strongly support sending Congress to Syria in cases of bomb and missile attacks, 78 percent supporting intervention in cases of kidnappings and executions, and 75 percent saying representatives should be deployed in cases where government forces were found to have used torture.

When asked if they believe that Sen. Rand Paul should be deployed to Syria, 100 percent of respondents said yes.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that sending Congress to Syria—or, at the very least, sending the major congressional leaders in both parties—is the correct course of action,” survey respondent and Iraq war veteran Maj. Gen. John Mill said, noting that his opinion was informed by four tours of duty in which he saw dozens of close friends sustain physical as well as emotional injury and post-traumatic stress. “There is a clear solution to our problems staring us right in the face here, and we need to take action.”

“Sooner rather than later, too,” Mill added. “This war isn’t going to last forever.”

WMissow writes:

26,

Excellent suggestions!

Lurch Kerry could also be deployed and who knows he may even be able to finally get for himself an honestly earned Purple Heart.

August8 writes:

Read the rag New York Times today, our Country is now officially embarrised by Obama.

26yearsonmarco writes:

OBAMA RATED 5th BEST PRESIDENT IN OUR HISTORY

From a total of 44 US Presidents: Obama rated 5th best president ever.

The Democratic publicity release said,"...after a little more than 5 years, Americans have rated President Obama the 5th best president ever."

The details according to White House Publicists:

Reagan & Lincoln tied for first,

23 presidents tied for second,

17 other presidents tied for third,

Jimmy Carter came in 4th, and

Obama came in fifth

Konfuzius writes:

For me he is number one. No other President faces this kind of trouble. And he did good.
With a little mistake you can burn the world some s----- idiots will not understand.
Great President Barack Obama did fantastic. Putin looks like an moron. His support for Assad will kill him political. Great President Barack Obama is my hero. Protected thousands of life of innocent kids and American soldiers.
Hurray!~

WMissow writes:

in response to August8:

Read the rag New York Times today, our Country is now officially embarrised by Obama.

Now, who with least a half of a brain did not know that? Well, I do know one blogger who would disagree with that.

26yearsonmarco writes:

in response to Konfuzius:

For me he is number one. No other President faces this kind of trouble. And he did good.
With a little mistake you can burn the world some s----- idiots will not understand.
Great President Barack Obama did fantastic. Putin looks like an moron. His support for Assad will kill him political. Great President Barack Obama is my hero. Protected thousands of life of innocent kids and American soldiers.
Hurray!~

Klaus,

I thought you would be extremely happy your Great Hero came in 5th out of 44 Presidents.

I guess some people are never happy.

August8 writes:

in response to WMissow:

Now, who with least a half of a brain did not know that? Well, I do know one blogger who would disagree with that.

He's a waist, how do you spell 'LOON'?

Konfuzius writes:

How scary is that?
On August 04, 2013, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, addressed the DUMA(Russian Parliament), and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:
"In Russia live like Russians.
Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia,
should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian law. If they prefer Sharia Law, and live the life of Muslim's then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law.
Russia does not need Muslim minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell 'discrimination'.
We will not tolerate disrespect of our Russian culture. We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation.
The Muslims are taking over those countries and they will not take over Russia.
The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways Sharia Law and Muslims.
When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the Russian national interest first, observing that the Muslims Minorities Are Not Russians.
The politicians in the DUMA gave Putin a five minute standing ovation.
If you keep this to yourself, you are part of the problem!

It is a sad day when a Communist makes more sense than our Hon Mr Harper but here it is!!!!

In Australia the people campaign the message:

You have the right to go!
Time to think new!

August8 writes:

How do you spell 'COWARD/SNAKE' ?

26yearsonmarco writes:

Klaus,

It looks like you had a rude awakening 3:41am, and heard someone telling the truth about "Our Once Great Nation".

"We will not tolerate disrespect of our Russian culture. We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation".

"The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways Sharia Law and Muslims."

Konfuzius writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

26yearsonmarco writes:

Klaus,

You just don’t get it.

For example, ask a Chief how to spoil a perfectly good tasting stew, and I’m sure he will say, by adding too many incompatible ingredients to it.

Our population is being overrun by people who simply cannot assimilate to our society, and our Politicos continue to bend over backwards to accommodate them in order to win their vote to stay in office, and continue to feed off us.

By the way, I’m medium height and from the Northeast.

WMissow writes:

in response to Konfuzius:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Bye, Bye !!!!!

August8 writes:

in response to WMissow:

Bye, Bye !!!!!

His mission is your responses, all he knows. So, ignore as if he's not posting, advice to all.

Konfuzius writes:

"His mission is your responses, all he knows. So, ignore as if he's not posting, advice to all."

Critical opinions are not you want. Do you know your constitutions? I guess not!
By, by! Poor opinion!

August8 writes:

in response to August8:

His mission is your responses, all he knows. So, ignore as if he's not posting, advice to all.

See what I mean?

WMissow writes:

in response to Konfuzius:

"His mission is your responses, all he knows. So, ignore as if he's not posting, advice to all."

Critical opinions are not you want. Do you know your constitutions? I guess not!
By, by! Poor opinion!

My constitution is just fine, how is yours?

MIOCENE (Inactive) writes:

in response to 26yearsonmarco:

The Great One Sez:

"Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used,"

It's not OUR leadership that is at stake, its Obama's lack of leadership that is destroying OUR ONCE GREAT NATION.

I hear this quite often about how we were once a "GREAT NATION".

So exactly when WAS that:

Up until the 1970s when a thirteen year old who was raped by her uncle or the family friend was forced to choose between giving birth; or an unsafe abortion?

In the 1920s when children as common as age nine were forced to work long hours in factories at the mercy of the sexual desires of co-workers?
When our armed forces were segregated?

In the 1930's, 40's and 50's when organized crime ran the largest cities; and literally OWNED the judges and politicians?
Before the 1970's when if a man beat his wife; it was HER fault?

In the 1800's when alcohol flowed so freely in the adult and teen population that America was dubbed the “Alcoholic Republic”?
When cocaine was commonly used as a “home remedy”, advertised in respectable magazines, and beer was used to make babies fall asleep faster?

When "Chinese and dogs are not welcome"?
When a Catholic was discouraged from holding public office?
When women were kept out of the voting booth because men thought women were too irrational to vote, and women were denied equal rights in the workplace?

Up to the 1970’s when our mentally ill rotted in mental institutions like Willowbrook; with no accountability; sexually and physically abused, neglected; and nobody cared?

Before Labor Unions when the average worker sweated his life away in a twenty-dollar suit; no pensions, no Social Security. You worked until you couldn’t walk or you dropped dead?

Up to 1965; before Medicare; when a sick grandparent wiped out the family’s meager life savings?

When no one would hire an Irishman?

Before the 1980's when it was "open season" on children for priests, and sex with underage girls was "hushed up" and not talked about?

The carnage of Civil War: Over 650 thousand dead Americans; devastation in the South and thousands more left with cronic pain resulting in the greatest explosion of drug addiction in American History? (pain killers)

Before the Triangle Shirtwaist fire when American workers were locked in sweatshops?
When Blacks were routinely kept in ghettos and out of the N.Y.C. Fire Department?

Up until the late 60s when we were still lynching Blacks and Mexicans as part of Saturday night recreation in the Bible Belt?
When Italians were lynched in the Bible Belt just because they were Italian?

When Chinese and American Indians were routinely beaten up, crippled or murdered; and no body cared; except for the Chinese and Indians?
When Schwrner, Goodman and Chaney had to be murdered in order to bring voting rights to Black people in Mississippi?

When a woman was considered to be the PROPERTY of her husband?

When a person could be thrown out of his apartment if the landlord suspected that the tenant was Gay?

If one takes the time to look at it; our nation is greater NOW; then it ever HAS been.

MIOCENE

26yearsonmarco writes:

MIOCENE:

To “Top it Off”, as they say, a group of “Diverse Judges”, at 11 pm last night, elected a “Hindu American”, as she described herself, as our 2014 Miss America, backed up by an “Asian American", who came in second.

Other than one “Afro American”, all the other “Losers” were “Anglos”, including one who served in the Marines, and one who continued to compete with a broken leg.

As to your question:

I hear this quite often about how we were once a "GREAT NATION".

So exactly when WAS that:

My answer would be prior to the election of Jimmy (the Wimp) Carter.

26yearsonmarco writes:

MIOCENE:

You mention issues involving sexual abuse, so I'm sure you will be pleased with the "Great Ones" answer to that problem:

http://nypost.com/2013/09/15/obamacar...

MIOCENE (Inactive) writes:

in response to 26yearsonmarco:

MIOCENE:

To “Top it Off”, as they say, a group of “Diverse Judges”, at 11 pm last night, elected a “Hindu American”, as she described herself, as our 2014 Miss America, backed up by an “Asian American", who came in second.

Other than one “Afro American”, all the other “Losers” were “Anglos”, including one who served in the Marines, and one who continued to compete with a broken leg.

As to your question:

I hear this quite often about how we were once a "GREAT NATION".

So exactly when WAS that:

My answer would be prior to the election of Jimmy (the Wimp) Carter.

But you see: Less than 10 years before Jimmy
Carter we had to run out of Vietnam with our tail between our legs while the whole world watched. We lost over 50,000 young men there; -for nothing.

Before that; J.F.K. lost the Island of Cuba to the Commies only ninety miles from Key West.

So you see: This Benghazi thing (ie) under Obama is nothing in comparison. It won't even make the history books.

Also keep in mind that this time last century the world was preparing to burn Europe to the ground.

The only real threat in the present is some nuts getting a hold of an atomic bomb.

Benghazi, Syria, Egypt; a few shootings or bombings now and then is nothing; (peanuts); compared to the death and distruction we and the world experienced during the 20th Century.

Thanks for reading.
M.

26yearsonmarco writes:

MIOCENE,

I AGREE THE LOSS OF AMERICAN LIVES AND TREASURE IN ALL THE WARS (CONFLICTS) SINCE WWII WERE A WASTE, BUT THERE IS NO WAY I CAN AGREE ABOUT THE LOSS OF FOUR AMERICAN LIVES ON AMERICAN SOIL IN BENGHAZI IS NOTHING (PEANITS), UNLESS YOU AGREE WITH HILLARY'S STATEMENT: "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE".

Konfuzius writes:

Hillary is smart. I guess her statement is the truth.

MIOCENE (Inactive) writes:

in response to 26yearsonmarco:

MIOCENE,

I AGREE THE LOSS OF AMERICAN LIVES AND TREASURE IN ALL THE WARS (CONFLICTS) SINCE WWII WERE A WASTE, BUT THERE IS NO WAY I CAN AGREE ABOUT THE LOSS OF FOUR AMERICAN LIVES ON AMERICAN SOIL IN BENGHAZI IS NOTHING (PEANITS), UNLESS YOU AGREE WITH HILLARY'S STATEMENT: "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE".

A little research indicates that there have been previous attacks on U.S. properties overseas, and during the Bush administration alone we saw the following:

Jan. 22, 2002, Kolkata Consulate, five filled.
June 14, 2002, Karachi Consulate, 12 killed.
Feb. 28, 2003, Islamabad Embassy, two killed.
June 30, 2004: Tashkent Embassy — two killed.
Dec. 6, 2004, U.S. Compound, Saudi Arabia, nine killed.
March 2, 2006, Karachi Consulate, two killed.
Sept. 12, 2006, Syrian Embassy, four killed.
March 18, 2008 Yemen Embassy, two killed.
July 9, 2008, Istanbul Consulate, six killed.
Sept. 17, 2008, Yemen Embassy, 16 killed.

Total deaths: 60.
Outraged Republicans: 0.

-And that's just recently. There are at least two dozen more attacks with American fatalities dating back to the 1950's.

Interesting how Limbaugh, Hannity and Co. overlook these events when spreading right wing propaganda.

So you see: It's nothing new.

26yearsonmarco writes:

in response to MIOCENE:

A little research indicates that there have been previous attacks on U.S. properties overseas, and during the Bush administration alone we saw the following:

Jan. 22, 2002, Kolkata Consulate, five filled.
June 14, 2002, Karachi Consulate, 12 killed.
Feb. 28, 2003, Islamabad Embassy, two killed.
June 30, 2004: Tashkent Embassy — two killed.
Dec. 6, 2004, U.S. Compound, Saudi Arabia, nine killed.
March 2, 2006, Karachi Consulate, two killed.
Sept. 12, 2006, Syrian Embassy, four killed.
March 18, 2008 Yemen Embassy, two killed.
July 9, 2008, Istanbul Consulate, six killed.
Sept. 17, 2008, Yemen Embassy, 16 killed.

Total deaths: 60.
Outraged Republicans: 0.

-And that's just recently. There are at least two dozen more attacks with American fatalities dating back to the 1950's.

Interesting how Limbaugh, Hannity and Co. overlook these events when spreading right wing propaganda.

So you see: It's nothing new.

HOW MANY OF THE 60 DEATHS WERE AMERICANS???

Konfuzius writes:

The message is very easy. Go out of Middle East.
Their is no future.

MIOCENE (Inactive) writes:

26 years:

2003; Saudi Arabia. "Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans."

Just by chance; Some Americans must have been killed in similiar attacks.

Actually; since this has become common knowledge; Fox News is looking quite "slanted" in hammering Pres Obama over something which has been quite common over the last 40 years.

MIOCENE (Inactive) writes:

More examples:

1) On January 31, 1968, the US embassy at Saigon (South Vietnam) was attacked, killing diplomats who had to fight for themselves.
2) One person was killed when the US embassy at Phnom Penh, Cambodia was attacked on September 26, 1971.

3) A US marine was wounded when Communists in Manila attacked the American diplomatic mission in 1972.
4) On August 19, 1974, the US ambassador and his assistant were killed by a sniper in a riot outside the country’s embassy in Nicosia, Cyprus.

5) On Nov 4, 1979, US embassy at Tehran was attacked and country’s 52 diplomats were taken hostage by a group of pro-Revolution students and hardliners. The Iran hostage crisis continued for 444 days till January 20, 1981.
7) On Nov 21, 1979, a mob attacked US embassy in Islamabad, killing two American diplomats.
8) On April 18, 1983, a car bomb attack on US embassy at Beirut claimed 63 lives, including 17 Americans.

9) On Dec 12, 1983, a truck bomb exploded outside US embassy at Kuwait, killing six people.
10) On September 20, 1984, a Hezbollah truck bomb outside the US embassy at Beirut killed 24 people, including two Americans.
11 In Nov 1984, a car bomb outside the US embassy at Bogota (Columbia) killed one person.

SO, Fox News:
With respect to what happened in Benghazi: What's new?

26yearsonmarco writes:

Miocene,

5) On Nov 4, 1979, US embassy at Tehran was attacked and country’s 52 diplomats were taken hostage by a group of pro-Revolution students and hardliners. The Iran hostage crisis continued for 444 days till January 20, 1981.

This happened under the watch of Jimmy (the wimp) Carter.

I have first hand knowledge that Navy Seals were sent in within 24 hours, and waited a week for the Wimp to give them orders that never came, and they left.

Just think, if the Wimp acted then, when Ahmadinejad was in their sights, how different time would be today.

MIOCENE (Inactive) writes:

in response to 26yearsonmarco:

Miocene,

5) On Nov 4, 1979, US embassy at Tehran was attacked and country’s 52 diplomats were taken hostage by a group of pro-Revolution students and hardliners. The Iran hostage crisis continued for 444 days till January 20, 1981.

This happened under the watch of Jimmy (the wimp) Carter.

I have first hand knowledge that Navy Seals were sent in within 24 hours, and waited a week for the Wimp to give them orders that never came, and they left.

Just think, if the Wimp acted then, when Ahmadinejad was in their sights, how different time would be today.

Yes. Who's to know.

The History Channel once did a show on how different the world might have been if (say) Lincoln was never born, if George Washington was given that promotion earlier in his career with England instead of being shunned by Parliment.

If George C. Marshall became President instead of Truman; there might today be no State of Israel; and how different the Middle East might be.

If Hitler didn't persecute the Jews then Einstein might have stayed in Germany resulting in the first atomic bomb being dropped on London.

But then we could say that events taking place in the 19th Century lead to 100 million deaths in the 20th through war, famine and disease.

Who knows?

August8 writes:

The Guy is a Creep !!!!!!!!!!!!!

26yearsonmarco writes:

MIOCENE,

Let's forget history for a moment, and look at Real Time comments made yesterday by the "Great One" regarding our economy, and tell me if he isn't completely out of the loop.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-b...

Also, if you listened to the Assad interview on FOX yesterday, you heard a man who is a MD, married to a British woman, and made a complete fool out of our "Great One".

August8 writes:

in response to 26yearsonmarco:

MIOCENE,

Let's forget history for a moment, and look at Real Time comments made yesterday by the "Great One" regarding our economy, and tell me if he isn't completely out of the loop.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-b...

Also, if you listened to the Assad interview on FOX yesterday, you heard a man who is a MD, married to a British woman, and made a complete fool out of our "Great One".

It was easy !!!!

26yearsonmarco writes:

MIOCENE,

How do you explain this???

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepav...

WMissow writes:

MIOCENE,

In geologic history the Miocene period was between 3 million to 23 million years ago.

"The apes arose and diversified during the Miocene epoch, becoming widespread in the Old World. In fact, by the end of this epoch, the ancestors of humans had split away from the ancestors of the chimpanzees to follow their own evolutionary path.

26yearsonmarco writes:

in response to WMissow:

MIOCENE,

In geologic history the Miocene period was between 3 million to 23 million years ago.

"The apes arose and diversified during the Miocene epoch, becoming widespread in the Old World. In fact, by the end of this epoch, the ancestors of humans had split away from the ancestors of the chimpanzees to follow their own evolutionary path.

This helps explain the obamee birth certificate thing.

Konfuzius writes:

in response to 26yearsonmarco:

This helps explain the obamee birth certificate thing.

it amazed me anytime how rude Americans can be if they do not like somebody. Great President Barack Obama is not an ape. However it explains just one thing for me: Some Americans have no idea what democracy means. To insult this great leader as ape is ridicules.

WMissow writes:

I just think if a bunch of trained apes would do a better job than what we have now.

MIOCENE (Inactive) writes:

in response to 26yearsonmarco:

MIOCENE,

How do you explain this???

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepav...

Here is how Benghazi fits in with historical perspective:

Benghazi comes under the heading of "CHIT HAPPENS"; along with:

The U-2 incident
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
The Battle of the Bulge
Disaster at Tarawa
The USS Indianapolis
Pearl Harbor
Friendly fire
The Beirut 1983 bombing of the Marine Barracks.
Halsey steering the fleet into a typhoon
-and many, many more including why bad things happen to good people.

Under every administration; CHIT happens, and innocent people die.

Benghazi won't even make the history books; and if it does; it will only be in the event that it somehow improved Muslim-Western relations in the future; in that Muslim Countries begin to realize the importance of "separation between church and state; and perhaps make Muslim Nations more "responsible" for the safety of foreign embassies.

Other then that; in the grand scheme of things; except for a select few and the survivors, NO ONE REALLY CARES about what happened at Benghazi.

The only ones bringing it up are Conservatives; who can never let go of the past; and MOVE ON.

While Hannity and Limbaugh are wasting their breath dwelling upon a President who will be gone ANYWAY; the Dems are currently laying the foundation for another eight years of Liberalism.

MIOCENE

26yearsonmarco writes:

Australia is looking better every day.

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features