Breaking News

Saturday, March 28, 2015 - 11:22am
Neal Barton's POV

What's more important?

What's more important?

POSTED: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 - 6:39pm

UPDATED: Friday, September 6, 2013 - 5:08pm

Here we go, the back and forth about Syria continues.

This is so weird, we're seeing liberals who cannot wait to go to war and conservatives are doves, sitting on a fence.

John Kerry and the President are in a war of their own on Capitol Hill.

Here's something a senator told Kerry, Tuesday, in a hearing about reasons why we should attack Syria for alleged chemical weapons use, "If even one American was killed in Syria by the Sarin gas, or even three or four, I'd vote to retaliate. But as of now, there are none."

Then, I thought of this, Benghazi, and how four precious U.S. souls were killed. We still don't know what happened, and to be honest, we don't even care anymore.

As I thought of that, I got mad and asked myself why are the people who were horribly gassed in Syria more important than four U.S. Embassy workers?

I guess we only care about Syria so we can get egg off our face after the "red line" comment.

Is there something we are hiding about Benghazi, or is it too difficult to find the truth? So far, when it comes to Benghazi, there is just a bad movie producer paying a price.

Is killing with gas worse than killing with a rifle and your body being dragged through the streets? I mentioned Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds and his own people and where was John Kerry then? And now, even old John McCain is against the Syria measures.

These are strange times.

That's my point of view, what's yours?

You can e-mail me at or Facebook me at KETK Neal Barton.

Comments News Comments

This may not be an exact exact quote from POTUS in Stockholm.
"It's not my reputation on the line. It's the world's. the world, Americans, and Congress whose on the line because their the ones who give lip service to the notion that these Int'l norms (not using chemical weapons) are important."
Sounds to me like he's not going to take any responsibility even though it'll be his decision. "lip service" implies he doesn't believe the world really cares about the use of chemical weapons.

Odummer is now backing off his red line comment. I guess because he's been getting heat for not already acting. Rest assured what ever he decides it'll be based on what's best for him and when it fails he'll find a way to blame the GOP. Either they forced him into it or kept him from acting.

If Syria invaded another country (as Iraq did), been forced out of that country (as Iraq was in Desert Storm), and had signed an agreement with the U.N. on relinquishing Weapons of Mass Destruction (as Saddam did in Iraq) and then failed to live up to the resolution then, yes, we could enforce the resolution and attack Syria (just as Bush did against Saddam.)

But there is no such resolution. So why bomb Syria?

Either the UN or Nato needs such a resolution or no-go.

Post new Comment