America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel suggested Friday that the Pentagon was moving naval forces closer to Syria in preparation for a possible decision by President Obama to order military strikes.

The president's senior national security advisers are expected to meet at the White House this weekend to discuss possible military options for responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, a U.S. official told Fox News Friday.

U.S. defense officials told The Associated Press that the Navy had sent a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles into the eastern Mediterranean Sea but without immediate orders for any missile launch into Syria.

U.S. Navy ships are capable of a variety of military action, including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, as they did against Libya in 2011 as part of an international action that led to the overthrow of the Libyan government.

"The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for contingencies, and that requires positioning our forces, positioning our assets, to be able to carry out different options -- whatever options the president might choose," Hagel said.

He said the U.S. is coordinating with the international community to determine "what exactly did happen" in the reported use by the Syrian government of chemical weapons against civilians earlier this week. "We're still assessing that," he said.



What then? Bomb them. Rebuild them $$$. Give them visas to come here. Finally, thank everyone for service to our country?
We are MAD.

obama the peacemaker outrage ! I thought everything would be hunky dory once we elected our clean articulate half white presdint.

It will be interesting to see whether his peacenik followers go all wackadoodle bush hate on him or make excuses.

I have no problem moving a bit closer in possible anticipation (LOL) to be ready at a moment's notice, yet I hate to see the U.S. get involved. Movement alone after all, in and of itself just might be enough to influence Assad- a little bit. What I do have a problem with is the U.S. getting involved to any additional degree- without approval and military contribution from Russia, China and other Islamic countries.

And then, only if we are going to act on their behalf to a very minor overall degree in total- a couple missiles here and there (among friends ) and perhaps a bombing or two of
Assad's the capability to use WMD. But, but that is it. NOTHING MORE.

No troops on the ground; no being the enforcer of a no-fly zone. Certainly nothing without overwhelming support and contribution from the rest of the world. This is, IMO, Russia's problem, not ours.

My real U.S. geopolitical concern here is four-fold: Israelis and Palestinians; Turkey and Jordan (order means nothing). No more attacks on Israel from Syria or Lebanon. No detriment to any chance of Israel and the Palestinians continuing to "negotiate". No destabilization of either Turkey or Jordan with Syrian civil war +refugees.

So, to answer Bloody's question succinctly: YES, I think we are, once again, on the very border of insanity.

If we don't do something now, they Syrian navy will be invading New York City within three years and you will all regret your inaction.

I blame Sadam for giving Syria the WMDs.....

Remember when the liberals were bleeding out their eyeballs in outrage when Bush invaded Iraq, when when he had congressional approval to do so?

This guys gets us involved in Libya, and will get is involved in Syria, with no approval whatsoever.

This is not our fight. No matter what side we back, they will turn around and bite us one day, so we should just sit it out.

John McCain is still alive?!

You hit it on the head. Actually, I'm surprised that you didn't see this one a while ago. You are generally better at reading what's going on.

John McCain is a conservative?

Buckwheat, it's the blatant effrontery to the tax payer & total worthless and unprovoked finality of this violent action by a President who is supposed to be anti-intervention that gets to me.

It was also the "thanking" of folks for their service to OUR country that I was never able to wrap my brain around completely when, IMHO, they were doing mercenary jobs & rebuilding for others. Shame that I came to this realization late in life after thanking so many for fighting in Vietnam, etc. So many brothers and sisters lost or damaged unnecessarily for the gain of a few.

Why does it get to you like that. he's no different than any President for decades if not a century when it comes to world involvement.

They were doing mercenary jobs on behalf of the U>S>, wrong or not, but thanking them is still the right thing to do, IMO.

The gain of a few- Chenney and Haliburton? I am begining to think that Bush never knew the intel was a lie...

Good point

Good point

Makes me wonder whether buyer or seller pays for transport and risk during transport. Oil seller probably dictates terms, I bet.

Either way, the cost gets passed on to the end-user.

Flawed logic there. McCain is a card-carrying RINO. He's about as conservative as Hillary is.

Syria is the 57th state.

First, you are either totally ignorant, or hopelessly deluded if you think McCain is a "conservative." This ignores:

1) His revulsion for the Tea Party (remember his "hobbits" comment),

2) His breathless desire to run to Chris Matthews to be called a "maverick" again,

3) How he crapped all over Conservatives in his presidential primaries,

Seriously, Robert, you claim that anyone who is slightly to the right of Mao Tse Tung is a "conservative." It is just flat-out false. McCain is no conservative. Any passive, unbiased, informed individual can figure that one out.




1) Wasn't our fight.

2) We has ZERO national interest in getting involved over there aside from payback on Quaddaffi (sp:?).

3) We have now ushered in a government - if you want to call them that - that now has strong ties to Al Qaeda, who still wants to kill every American in existence,

4) It is now becoming clear that our involvement has potentially placed some 400 surface-to-air missiles in the hands of Al Qaeda operatives.

5) I believe that Idi Amin Jr. kept forces engaged in that conflict that breached his authority under the War Powers act. Frankly speaking, that is an impeachable offense. He received ZERO authorization from Congress to engage in conflict (unlike Bush who had two different authorizations from Congress for both Iraq and Afghanistan).

6) The result of all of this was a dead ambassador, the invasion of our Embassy (which is considered US Soil, and therefore an invasion), more dead Americans, a signal to every terrorist group out there that we are timid to act, and the possibility that dangerous US weapons have now fallen into the hands of terrorists.





1) It is now being openly speculated that the chemical weapons supposedly being used on Syrians came from Iraq. Check the New York times and the Atlantic. They are now BOTH running stories that imply this.

2) Who the hell cares for the "nations of the world?" You think China really cares about this? Cripes, they strap down their own females and force them to have abortions. You think Canada is going to do anything about civilians getting gassed in Syria? Or the Brits? Or the French? Pffth!

3) Even if someone took action, and took out Assad, what is waiting in the wings to take over is EVEN WORSE THAN ASSAD! And they will get their hands on those WMDs, and God know where they will end up. At least with Assad, there is enough cognitive ability there to prevent those types of weapons from getting in the hands of terrorists, lest it be traced back to him, and an invasion ensue. The people who seek to replace Assad are the types who think everyone should be martyred in the name is Islam.

4) These same UN weapons inspectors first said that there were WMDs in Iraq, then said that there weren't, yet produced a report that Powell cited in his UN speech detailing the deficits from what was found, and what remained to be destroyed. Now they are making the same claims in Syria. So we should believe them...now?

How many times does history need to repeat itself with you, Robert, before you'll catch on?

Your type of wholesale ignorance on the subjects you highlighted above is dangerous, Robert. Your view of the world is hopelessly warped, and out of touch with reality. Most people, when confronted with this, would re-evaluate what they think. Unfortunately, I don't think that'll happen in your case.

Good point, BW. Some of us have always wanted to give our Government the benefit of the doubt. Now it appears to be unwarranted.

I just love how sanctimonious & moral Kerry comes across in justifying the red line & subsequent bombing.
Wasn't it just a short time ago that we abandoned the staff of embassy in Benghazi to die needlessly for political reasons?



Wolf, your points on oil pricing are well taken but why is it every time we get involved in an "oil war" at our expense (lives and cash), it always seems as though Europe, China, and Japan benefit the most? Perhaps the countries we "liberate" should compensate us and give us refining rights (instead of bidding out) or at the very least have the oil companies should shoulder part of the military expense with their obscene profits...
Also, why does the US of A sell so much domestic oil to Japan regardless of foreign availability? Why don't we keep that for ourselves in order to maintain lower prices?

I see a HUGE Obama train wreck ahead.

That reminds me...where the hell is Brewha with his shovel?

Liberman: Obama's credibility is at stake over Syria situation

"Former FM says US's place as leading world power on line over reaction to chemical weapons use by Assad; says Israel could be dragged into conflict if US strikes, but Assad, Hezbollah understand consequences of involving Israel.

Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman Avigdor Liberman (Yisrael Beytenu) said Tuesday that the US response to Syrian President Bashar Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons last week is a test of US President Barack Obama's credibility.

Speaking in an interview with Army Radio, Liberman said that "the region and the international community see the Syrian situation as a test for America's foreign policy and security stance."

Liberman said that the US upholding its "red lines" on the use of chemical weapons by Assad tests "both the personal credibility of Obama and of the entire US government."

The former foreign minister said that the United States' position as the world's leading super power and Washington's ability to influence world events would be judged by whether or not it strikes Syria."



I think Liberman just called Obama a poser beotch.

Barry ate the dog drafter

That Bassard..!!

Sometimes when you know it is gonna happen, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.

Embrace the war!

Appears he'll lob some Tomahawks sometime this week before he goes on vacation again.
Wonder what Russia, Syria, and Iran will do in retaliation? This ain't no Labya, folks. We're lucky to have a crack staff like Lerch and Hillary on call.