Shared publicly  - 
Sources confirmed to Fox News Syria's military has mixed chemical weapons and loaded them into bombs in preparation for possible use on President Assad's own people.
Max Phillips's profile photoscott gregor's profile photoWorldAware OPCEN's profile photoJason Combs's profile photo
Um....Saddam did gas his own people.  That is a documented fact.

Also, these are most likely the WMD's leftover from Iraq.
Funny how the "Bush lied, people died" overlooks the fact that Saddam sent his WMDs to his Bathist buddies in Syria...before he went to hide there himself.
In addition to +Margaret Leber's take, let's remember the uproar from the left and the anti-war crowd after we went into Iraq. I'm curious if they're going to be screaming as loudly if Bronco Bama decides to invade Syria?

I'm guessing he'll try "surgical" strikes with drones, since he seems to get off on using them in other parts of the world.
Saddam never hid in Syria.  When Saddam was gassing Iranians, America was an ally.  After the Gulf War, there were no WMDs.
I wonder why rags like the   #RT   aren't reporting on this..?

Too much of a vested interest..?
Funny how the left complains that we are world police, but scream when we aren't rushing to do something here.

Stay out of it, tired of wasting our money on these barbarians.
+LeRoy Gomez I don't think you understand foreign policy. We must stop them from using chemical weapons for many reasons. Humanitarian reasons, security reasons, self preservation. When you let rogue regimes do what they want like test nukes, build wmd's, enrich uranium, poke their enemies in the chest by test drills to see responses Iran did with the Palestinians to test Israel's reaction, build and use chemical weapons without being checked, you create a situation that will eventually be to your own demise. 

The trick is to not let them test and/or build these weapons if you can help it. Like anything, you build, test, improve. Any chance they get to test a weapon only lets them build a bigger more dangerous one in the future.
Block me too,if you hate the truth
Why can't the Arab states get together and police themselves?  We supply arms to the Saudi's.  Turkey is a NATO member.  Why can't they form a coalition and tell Assad that THEY won't tolerate it?  Of course, we would have to backstop it and underwrite the success, but we can no longer afford to dispatch carrier groups and hyper-expensive drones with laser bombs to every domestic disturbance and take out every psychopath on Earth.
Unleash Isreal on the entire region.
Nope, let some other nation deal with these barbarians.
I'm pretty sure Isreal is another nation.
+Erik Grissell While I agree with you in theory and in spirit, I really think the US getting directly involved in this is a bad idea. First of all, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Ethically, we'll be seen by many as trying to prevent a civil genocide. But the moment we step in there, most of the rest of the Arab world will hate us, because they will, once again, see us as trying to "nation build", the way we tried to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The world cannot expect the US to charge in and clean up the problems of these backwards, badly-run, mismanaged, psychotic Middle Eastern nations. We don't benefit in any way, we potentially lose personnel and resources, and we wind up mired in a situation that provides no quick exit...just like the previously mentioned nations.

Perhaps I sound callous (and I work at the Pentagon and have spent most of my adult life in and around the military system in America), but where is the rest of the Arab world on this? Where are the people of the surrounding Arab nations, the ones who really have the most to lose in a protracted war (especially if chemical agents become part of the action)? This is the argument I've always had about the so-called "Palestinian question". Arab nations are prepared to try to wipe Israel off the map over this issue, but not one of those nations has ever made a serious offer of taking the Palestinian people into their borders and providing them some kind of reasonable home.

This country had the opportunity to help Arabs rebelling against Assad long before it came to this, even if it was in a surreptitious way. Too late for that now.
These savages are a threat to the entire planet. The sooner the better, I say.
WW3 is close = the end.
"World Cop" is an ignominious role.  But how can we deny aid to innocents being tortured and killed by their own government?  You could make a serious ethical argument for the use of force against Assad and the psychotic Kim family.
Part of the reason the rest of the world looks to us to handle these is because....we do it.  Every single time.  We don't ask for compensation.  In fact, we usually show up with a fat sack full of "foreign aid" and start slinging that out like beads from a Mardi Gras float.  We have to change that dynamic.  We simply can't afford it, and there is no end.  The egomaniacal ruthless dictator minor league system is stocked with young brutes.
It is quite possible that these are the WMDs that left Iraq just a short time before we went back into Iraq.  I have mixed feelings on what we should do...10 years ago I would have said go in and take this guy out, but today...anything we do in the Middle East is a waste of life (our troops), waste of money and waste of time....Iraq is already showing its true colors after we began pulling out...  I think this time...we should sit back and let someone else take the lead...either way, we are going to hear about it no matter what we least our troops will not be at risk.
+LeRoy Gomez I have to take issue with your WMD statesman early on in the thread. Like +Spencer Scott correctly mentioned, Saddam Hussein tested chemical weapons on his own people by the thousands. Ten's of thousands of people were killed by chemical weapons and put in a ditch. Remember ALL intelligence given, from U.S. and other countries ALL confirmed that they had WMD's. He would not let UN inspectors in to check their facilities. In the meantime, satellite images were showing a long convoy of heavy trucks that were all covered over going into Syria. It was suspected they were moving the WMD's there. Finally, they let UN in to inspect and low and behold, they didn't find anything. Doesn't take a genius, to determine what happened. Just a little common sense on that one tells you they moved them to Syria.
Isreal has the best intelligence, they know who the players are. They have a pretty good surgical ability to take out the bad guys without too much collateral damage. Why not let them do what they do best and back them up with Naval and Air power? Let them do the door to door. These Jihadists are getting way out of hand and should have been euthanized a long time ago.
+Steve Barnes How do you know that we are the only ones? I could almost guarantee we are not the only soldiers in there doing the work. We do get help from UN (in certain situations), and other allies. However, we mostly lead the charge, but Great Britain also plays a significant role as well. It always looks like we are the only ones but it's a lack of reporting on that subject. 
Where is Europe = Smart enough to stay out of it and take care of themselves:)
C Nevs
Any use of chemical weapons is unacceptable for any country or people. Some argue there is no difference between that and a conventional war but the suffering is that of which you will never want to witness, it can destroy land,water, crops everything....war is never good but as a veteran of combat i can tell you that chem weps are devastating. 
+Jeffrey Koontz All prices have increased due to inflation (dollar devaluation caused by increasing the money supply...printing more dollars) and only government causes inflation.

Inflation is a form of tax -When a government spends more than it confiscates.

Washington, DC loves to blame the problems they cause on somebody else.

Syria is the only secular state in the Middle East. The other one, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, was handed over to the Iranian Shiites because the US was tricked into believing that Saddam Hussein had Iranian intel sources. The Islamist extremists trying to overthrow the Assad government are led by Iranian soldiers. The current US regime wants to arm them the same way the US armed the terrorists who murdered Americans in Benghazi.
King Assad is the last remnant of the advanced Assyrian civilization that the mongrol Arabs have decimated over the centuries he has the right and should decimate those barbarians , that is what this is about the people he is getting ready to gas deserve it , he knows what he is doing like they have done to his clan  
I disagree. The current regime has only underscored the failings of big government, no matter who is in charge and the danger of Democracy, because a corrupt government reflects a corrupt populace.

Commercial media has never provided checks and balances. The Spanish-American War was the result of media manipulation. People are still driven by hysteria as evidenced when the media claimed that Romney threatened to reduce the public trough.
This thug probably wouldn't do this if Bush where still in office. 
+Mike Niccum Would the Iranians and Al Qaeda be causing the rebellion if Bush was in office too? This is no freedom movement but an Islamic coup as the one in Libya that NATO supported. Assad has been keeping the Islamo-fascists out of power for years.
There was no reason that the U.S. people would have supported to go into Iraq without all of the lies.  Many factions of this country hold interests diametrically opposed to ours.  The WMD story was a blatant lie.  Just ask Joe Wilson and his wife, who a few traitors outed.  But, even if it were true, that's not a reason to invade a country, because they didn't pose a threat to us, despite how Condolezza Rica tried to make it out.  Mushroom cloud?  And there isn't any evidence that nukes were smuggled to Syria.  

As for the problems here, there are two solutions to start with: (1) nationalize the Federal Reserve (and so put the power of printing money back into the hands of the people where it belongs) and (2) raise the reserve requirements on banks gradually to 100%.  They shouldn't have the privilege of lending out money they don't have in order to acquire real (emphasis on real) estate through foreclosure.  Nor should they use this fantasy money to play the equivalent of fantasy football in the stock market through derivatives trades.  

The debt crisis should be balanced on the backs of Goldman Sachs and the addition to prison time.  
+john acker Thanks for the ironic pat on the back.  But, I'm not saying that Sarin gas couldn't have been smuggled out.  I haven't seen any evidence of it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  It'd be nice to see a link or two pointing to the evidence.  But as for the claim that nuclear bombs were smuggled into Syria, that's a blatant lie.  You'll never find any evidence of that.  That's what that scandal involving Joe Wilson was about.  G. Bush wanted to claim that Saddam was smuggling yellow cake uranium from Niger.  Joe Wilson went to investigate it and found it to be false.  This put a damper in the Bush administration's pre-conceived conclusions (along with the UN weapons inspectors showing again and again that the claim of Saddam having nukes was false).  So, the Bush administration decided to out Wilson's wife who was a CIA secret agent, thus jeopardizing her life, the life of all connected to her through her clandestine operations.  Traitors.  
+Jeffrey Koontz +john acker I'm surprised that you  both didn't catch this story.  It was big for quite a while.  Why do you think Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury?  I hope no one minds if I post an entire article on here, but I figured I should get an article from the most respectable source possible; unfortunately, since its a research site, you can only access it with a library card, or some other form of subscription.  
 American Law Yearbook , 2008

A crime that occurs when an individual willfully makes a false statement during a judicial proceeding, after he or she has taken an oath to speak the truth.

Libby Convicted for Lying About His Role in CIA Leak
A federal jury in March 2007 convicted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, on four criminal charges related to his role in the leak of the identify of an undercover agent of the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. Jurors said after the trial that Libby's defense that he had could not remember facts related to the case was weak. However, members of the jury also indicated that they believed Libby to be the fall guy, taking the blame for other members of the administration of President GEORGE W. BUSH.

The case stemmed from a statement made during Bush's State of the Union address in 2003, where he indicated that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had bought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Reporters learned that this information contradicted reports from former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who visited Niger in 2002. Wilson later wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times in which he said that Bush had exaggerated the threat of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Journalists learned shortly thereafter that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was an operative of the CIA and had been involved with sending her husband to Niger. Robert Novak, a syndicated columnist, revealed Plame's identity in an article published on July 14. He attributed his information to two unidentified "senior administration officials." Shortly after Novak's piece was published, three reporters for Time also said that government officials had disclosed Plame's identity to them. In September 2003, the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT authorized the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION to begin a criminal investigation into the leak of Plame's identify.

The investigation led to the convening of a grand jury for the U.S. District Court for the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The grand jury called several witnesses, including Bush, Cheney, Presidential Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley, Assistant to the President Dan Bartlett, former press secretary Art Fleischer, and advisor Karen Hughes. Libby testified under oath on two different occasions during March 2004.

The grand jury investigation became embroiled in more controversy when reporters for the New York Times and Time refused to cooperate. Over the next several months, the reporters and their employers fought subpoenas that the grand jury had issued, and two of the reporters were eventually found in contempt of court. Over the next year, New York Times reporter Judith Miller continued to refuse to divulge her sources, even after she was sent to jail for her refusal. Time reporter Matthew Cooper faced similar penalties for not cooperating with the grand jury.

Miller finally testified on September 30, 2005. About a month later, the grand jury indicted Libby on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and perjury. Shortly after his indictment was announced, Bob Woodward, editor of the Washington Post, said the senior government official who had released Plame's identify was not Libby. By December 2005, special prosecutor Robert Fitzgerald began presenting evidence against Bush advisor Karl Rove before a new grand jury. Rove was never officially charged in the case.

Throughout much of 2006, Libby's attorneys tried to obtain notes and other information about the CIA leak from various journalists. Judge Reggie B. Walton ruled that Libby was not entitled to know the identity of the official who had revealed information about Plame to two journalists. Reports in March 2006 suggested that the source of the leak was former STATE DEPARTMENT official Richard L. Armitage. However, no other official was charged in the case.

Libby's trial began on January 16, 2007. Libby told investigators that he had forgotten that he had learned about Plame from Cheney in June 2003 that that he mistakenly believed that he learned of her from NBC's Tim Russert about a month later. Miller contradicted Libby's statements by testifying that she had learned of Plame's identity from Libby on June 23, 2003. However, six journalists testified on February 12 that Libby was not the source of information about Plame' identity and that they had learned about her from other sources within the administration.

Evidence at the trial suggested that Cheney was trying to disparage Wilson, who had been openly critical of the war with Iraq. Wilson clearly implied that the results of his findings would have been reported to Cheney, meaning that Cheney would have known that Bush's statement about the alleged uranium connection between Iraq and Niger were false. Defense attorneys had suggested that they were going to call both Libby and Cheney to the stand, but neither of the men testified at the trial.

On March 6, the jury convicted Libby on four of the five charges, including obstruction of justice, making a false statement to the FBI, and two counts of perjury. The jury acquitted Libby on a charge that he made a false statement related to a conversation that Libby allegedly had with Cooper in July 2003. Libby faces a possible prison term of 1 1/2 to three years under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Cheney said in a written statement that he was "disappointed with the verdict." Jurors said that they did not believe Libby's defense that he could not remember the source who told him of Plame's identity. However, one juror said that the jury had a "tremendous amount of sympathy" for Libby and that the members of the jury questioned why other White House officials were not also charged. The juror also indicated that the jury believed that Cheney had told Libby to speak with reporters about Plame's identity.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning.
Source Citation
"Perjury." American Law Yearbook. 2007 ed. Detroit: Gale, 2008. 144-146. Gale U.S. History In Context. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.
Document URL
Gale Document Number: GALE|CX2689900076
I suppose you could say that Scooter Libby was a scapegoat.  He was Dick Cheney's chief of staff and so it's possible that, while Cheney gave the order to out a CIA agent, Scooter took the blame.  Or, perhaps, they both had a hand in it and the less powerful one was punished.  That often happens.  Many more officials in the Bush White House could've had a hand in this.  Unfortunately, the wheels of justice are pretty rusty now-a-days.  Otherwise, Cheney and Bush would've been compelled to testify under oath and separately; and, more convictions would've occurred, even up to impeachment.  

You keep believing anything you like, if it makes you feel good.  

By the way, have you read The Pentagon Papers?
Let the Arab League take care of their own. Not our mess.
Add a comment...