Colorado GOP Barely Even Tries To Justify Syria Hypocrisy

Last night, President Donald Trump ordered a round of cruise missile strikes against a Syrian government airbase believed to have been the origin of an horrific chemical weapons attack on civilians and rebel-held positions in that country. The response from Colorado Republicans and Democrats to this strike was generally supportive on both sides–but as Denver7’s Blair Miller reports, Republican reactions to the strike are markedly different than a very similar situation in 2013, when President Barack Obama unsuccessfully sought permission to attack Syria after another incident where chemical weapons were used against civilians:

The reaction from many lawmakers to Thursday night’s U.S. attack on a Syrian air base that followed a chemical weapons attack that killed dozens earlier this week stands in stark contrast to their reactions when President Obama called for similar military actions in 2013.

Thousands of Syrians were hit with chemical weapons in a strike purportedly ordered by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Aug. 21, 2013.

As the Obama administration wringed its hands over how to respond to the attack, which was a violation of the Geneva Convention that bans the use of chemical weapons, most members of Congress also fretted over how the U.S. government might respond…

On Aug. 28 of that year, then-Rep. Cory Gardner, Rep. Scott Tipton, and Rep. Mike Coffman signed on to a House letter to Obama that urged the president to “consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria.”

“Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,” the letter said. [Pols emphasis]

Cory Gardner, Mike Coffman, Scott Tipton, and Doug Lamborn.

As the situation developed in August of 2013, Colorado Republicans hardened in opposition to any use of force against Syria in response to the chemical weapons attack on Ghouta, Syria on August 21st of that year:

Coffman tweeted on Aug. 29 of that year, “Pres. Obama must obey Constitution and come to Congress before any military action in Syria,” a day after saying, “Your Colorado delegation agrees, no to war in Syria and yes to transparency from the President.”

…Gardner tweeted on Sept. 4 and 5 of that year that he was “skeptical” of the U.S. getting involved in Syria. On the 4th, he said, “I am not yet convinced of a compelling & vital national interest.” [Pols emphasis]

As for Rep. Doug Lamborn? You can just imagine:

Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., issued a statement Sept. 12 of that year saying, “Nothing I heard from President Obama tonight convinced me that a military strike against Syria is in America’s best interest,” adding that he had “lost confidence in the president’s ability to lead” and that neither classified nor unclassified briefings convinced him he should vote for or against any possible resolution to authorize military actions in Syria – a resolution that never came.

But as FOX 31 rounded up last night, that was then. This is what Cory Gardner says now:

Tonight, the United States of America took action against a treacherous regime whose actions and allies have shown the world the dark edge of humanity. The use of chemical weapons is illegal under international law and the Administration is well justified taking this long-overdue action tonight against a designated state sponsor of terrorism.

And Rep. Mike Coffman, for whom the War Powers Resolution was so critically important under Obama:

Tonight’s actions in Syria come after Assad’s horrific actions against his own people. America must show leadership and I’m thankful for what appears to be an effective response by our military.

And Rep. Doug Lamborn, who told Obama that striking Syria is not in America’s best interest–does he even remember what he said before?

Syrian President Assad continues to act far beyond the norms of civilized leaders. Unlike the previous administration which walked away from similar outrages, [Pols emphasis] President Trump is willing to send a clear signal of U.S. opposition to crimes against humanity.

In Blair’s story, Gardner makes a feeble attempt to justify this clear contradiction, claiming that the situation is worse now, even though many more civilians died in the 2013 chemical weapons attacks. As for Lamborn and Coffman, they don’t even try to make sense of what they said then versus now.

That’s because they can’t. The hypocrisy on display here is simply too much to explain away. The only real difference between the chemical attack by Syria in 2013 and the latest attack is the fact that a Republican is now President. And that means to these politicians, the lives lost and the moral need to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians are all just part of the game.

However you feel about this military action, if that is not outrageous, nothing is.

66 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DavieDavie says:

    Just when you think Republicans have scraped bottom, they realize there is no bottom.

  2. Genghis says:

    It's a good thing we elected the non-interventionist Donnie Dump. That monstrous warmonger Clinton might have escalated U.S. military involvement in Syria and/or upped drone strikes by 432%.

  3. Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

     Syria, a conundrum. 

     When the media flashes pictures of dead and dying children across the TVs of Americans, everyone regardless of political affiliation is horrified. Democrats, Republicans and Independents all insist that something must be done. But "something", is usually never defined.  The Congress is really good talking about "something".  The problem is, responsibility is seldom attached to a Congress person for the actions that "something" entails. It will always fall on the President. When Congress acts on an emotional "something", like pictures of dead children, the next pictures that cross our TV screens are the pictures of dead and dying military people.

    The children that we've seen in this case, are they any more dead because they were killed by poison gas as opposed to a bullet or an explosion?  For them or for any of us, the result is the same. Shot, stabbed, poisoned or blown up, the result is the same. The manner of death really doesn't  doesn't change the outcome. 

     It is wrong for the U. S. to use military force in another countries civil war to assuage the desire for revenge or justice, because we were shown some pictures.

     It is a legitimate factor to take into consideration the use of weapons of mass  destruction because of proportionality. Killing must remain a nasty business if humanity is to avoid extinction. The use of poison gas, atomic bombs or biological weapons automates the destruction loosing proportionality. You may argue that a cruise  missile is automated and it is. But the warhead is only 1000 pounds of explosives and is proportional in the cost and effort to the destruction delivered.

    Trump is justified in responding to the use of weapons of mass destruction  in Syria. Intervention in the on going Syrian conflict, absent a use of weapons of mass destruction should not be supported.

    The ancient tribal heritage of the region as it manifest itself today makes for an  unsolvable situation. There must be a winner and the losers must know and feel their loss.  Diplomacy will not provide peace in the Middle East.

    • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

      So, by your logic, "pictures" of the atrocities in the concentration camps of the Holocaust would not have been sufficient to send military to intervene. You would have been in the isolationist camp. And in fact, Roosevelt delayed entry into World War II for more than a year after the first reports and pictures of starvations and mass murder began emerging. Some of my mother's Austrian family, who died in the camps, might have survived with earlier intervention….or might not.

      After his first two wartime "fireside chats", FDR still had to get Congress' consent to go to war.

      DJT hasn't even begun approaching Congress for any consent to his buildup of troops in Syria – who are already there in harm's way – in spite of DJT endlessly trolling Obama about how Obama needed to get consent for the drone attacks which deadheaded ISIS /ISIL leadership. I have students with family members who are there, or who are deploying now.

      Is there a strategy? Is this all a gambit to distract from Trump's many scandals and allow him to strut his stuff as a "wartime President"?

      I'm tentatively approving the bombing of the airfields to prevent further liftoff of chemical-bomb bearing aircraft…but you know what else would work, perhaps even better?

      1. Quit cozying up to the Russians. Make a "deal" with them not to support Bashar el-Assad, who kills children with nerve gas. Without Russian financial and military support, the rebels might have taken back the country months ago. 2. Rescind the “Muslim ban” barring Syrian refugees or limiting their number. This policy puts the lie to your supposed “humanitarian concern” for Syrian civilians.

      The United States purported intention in Syria is to defeat ISIS – although your hero DJT has yet to reveal his "secret plan" for doing so. I fear there is no plan. With our impulsive barely literate President, we are set to lurch from one crisis to the next.

      • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

        Germany was not in a civil war.

      • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

         Syria is a civil war. Assad represents a  religious sect that comprises about 15% of the Syrian population. The Assads have used their military to keep control of the country at the expense of the majority. Now the population is rebelling against the minority with armed force. 

        We should let this play out to determine who the winner will be and there must be no doubt who the looser is. If you want to influehnce the outcome do it with supplies and equipment. Nut cases McCain and Graham want to send thousands of troops to Syria. o

        Where would America be if France had forced Lincoln to accept the South. I suspect Lincoln would have use sarin gas on the South if it had been available. Not much is written about the  atrocities of the Union forces because they were the winners. The more people who escape the calamity of a civil war as refugees, are the same people who will not accept defeat and start the next war.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          Uhh, Prunie, France never had the power to help the South.  It was Britain and her Navy that the Slave Power begged for help.  As to atrocities, Andersonville shows the cruelty of the Slave Power with total clarity.  And if slavery itself wasn't atrocity enough for you, I don't know what would be.  Stop watching Gone with the Wind and see Glory.

          • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

            Or the "Free State of Jones".


          • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

            You missed the point. If there are no winners and losers, the a war will not end. There will be no recognition of such in the Muslim world. We are doomed to kill each other for the foreseeable future.


            • VoyageurVoyageur says:

              I guess you addressed that to mj?  Anyway, you're right, sort of.  The worst scenario is verdun, where all parties bleed white.  I am sort of supporting the missile strikes, even though an idiot ordered them, in hopes of taking one barbarous tool off the table.  You seem mildly critical of the strikes, while recognizing the complexity of this mess.

              At least you are making an honest effort as, I hope, I am.  To Goebbels boy, the answer is simple: blame Obama.  He's going to be so sad when his mother tells him Obama isn't president any more

              Sherman was right.  War is hell.  And a war endlessly prolonged is hell prolonged.  The only friends we have there are the Kurds, for their own reasons.  Otherwise, nbc says there are more than 100 rebel groups, each with its own agenda.

              I think the strikes pass muster, primarily because we got the support of key NATO allies and gave the russians–and their Syrian stooges–plenty of warning to get out of the way.  But I don't want to make a habit of it.

              • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

                If he did, he didn't answer any of my questions:

                Is there a strategy? Is this all a gambit to distract from Trump's many scandals and allow him to strut his stuff as a "wartime President"?

                And more questions: If Trump is so concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Syria, why is he still trying to limit numbers of Syrian refugees accepted into the US?

                What financial interests do transnational oil companies such as the Russian Rosneft, Quatar QIA, and American EXXON have in Syria, and is this a long term strategy to "take their oil"?

                Syria has little oil resources of its own, but as a central strategic location for groups looking to control pipelines and the flow of oil, it is central to policy. And there is  a huge natural gas field off the coasts of Israel, Palestine’s Gaza strip, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria, which these O&G companies would want to exploit.

                If we follow the money trail in Syria, where does it lead?

  4. VoyageurVoyageur says:

    I'm an old fashioned man. I despise the imbecile now running America.  But for me, politics stops at the waters edge.  Holland and Merkle supported the strikes, ergo I do too.

    • DavieDavie says:

      I would too, if there were a strategy behind it.  If there is, it would only be in the thoughts of National Security Advisor McMaster, subject to immediate reversal from our fickle buffoon-in-chief.

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        Well, the leaders of the "free world" today are France and Germany. Any real strategy will have to come from them.  Holland leaves office in about a month, so Angela, you da man!

  5. In theory I support the idea of a deterrent strike against the chemical bombing of Syrian civilians. But given the reports that Assad knew about the strike in advance and moved most of his equipment from the field beforehand, certain formalities should have been followed without changing the "success" of the mission.

    In 2013, President Obama decided against a strike becuase he wanted Congressional approval. We wound up without that approval and with a disarmament agreement instead. If so much of Congress is in favor of the strike, a resolution of approval could have happened within 24 hours; a special session could have been called with no problem.

  6. Republicans would have been all over this as "wagging the dog". Sadly, in this case I'd be inclined to believe it. Trump gets to look military while responding to a horrible chemical weapons sttack, appearing to defy Putin. Russia and Syria both get advance notice so they can move their equipment, leaving a few token older planes behind; zero air defenses are deployed to counter the missiles. The attack destroys about a third of the base's buildings but leaves the runways intact and the base operational enough that the Syrians launch more airstrikes from the base the very next day.

  7. Andrew Carnegie says:


    Obama decided against a strike because he was Obama, all talk no action.  He famously drew a red line and when it was crossed he ignored it.

    To quote the former chief policy planning adviser in Obama's state department, Anne-Marie Slaughter: 

    “I feel like finally we have done the right thing”

    “The years of hypocrisy just hurt us all. It undermined the U.S., it undermined the world order.”

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      Oh, just shut up, Goebbels boy.  Prunie is making an honest attempt to discuss a difficult policy dilemma.  You are just kissing Trump's ass because he reversed his policy of pro Assad, pro Russia.  Nobody wants to hear your racist drivel .  Remember Bowling Green.

      • Andrew Carnegie says:


        You think we should defer in matters of foreign policy to France and Germany, but not to them "Jews" in Israel?

        Still think Trump is a Russian puppet?

        What exactly has Trump done that is pro Russia or pro Assad?

        Lifted sanctions?  No.

        Turned his head to chemical strikes like Obama?  No.

        Cat got your tongue?

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          I think we should listen to NATO, Goebbels boy.  You know, the team that won the Cold War against your Russian pals.  Of course, until 48 hours ago, Trump was on record viciously attacking any attempt to interfere with Russian hegemony inSyria.  Hey, remember when Team Trump altered the Republican platform to rule out aid to ukraine?   How's that Manafort thing working out for you?

          Ohh, how the smell of Putin's ass must turn you on as you kiss it relentlessly.

          • Andrew Carnegie says:

            Answer to Q 1?

            Outsource foreign policy to countries that don't pay their fair share to NATO.

            Can't come up with an answer to questions 2 and 3?

            Enough said.

            • VoyageurVoyageur says:

              Uhh, Goebbelsboy, nations don't pay dues to. NATO.  Are you really that stupid? Sigh.  I've actually been to NATO headquarters in Mons, Belgium.  I rely on them now because the U.S. is now ruled by a nitwit who thinks Putin is our friend — and who over the last year repeatedly savaged the very idea of military action against Syria.  Of course, I guess General Flynn, his national security advisor, convinced him to take a stand against Russia? 

              Oh, wait.

              You need to decide whether kissing Trump"'s ass or Putin's ass is your goal in life.  So far, you've kissed both. And frankly, you would suck the shit from a syphilitic camel if you had the chance.

              Do five minutes of homework before embarrassing yourself again, Goebbels boy.  Nato doesn't collect dues. And you are almost as stupid as Trump to insist it does.

              • Andrew Carnegie says:


                Stupid, dishonest or both, which are you?  I am thinking both.

                I did not say nations pay dues to NATO.  I said pay their fair share.  We both know all of the members signed on to paying 2% of their GDP on defense spending in 2006.  We both know Germany spends about 1.2% and is a free loader.  In my view we should close our bases in Germany and move them to Poland and perhaps Germany will step up.  We currently account for 2/3 of the spending on defense of the NATO members and it should be close to 1/2.

                Still haven't come up with an answer to what exactly Trump did that shows he is pro Russia or pro Assad?

                He didn't sell the Russians any of our Uranium did he?

                • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                  Goebbels boy, you didn't know how NAT0 worked untik I embarassed you and you looked it up.  You still claim they need to "pay" smething.  No, stupid one, it's a matter of setting their own defense budgets.  In the specific case of Germany, it has carried the brunt of the economic sanctions against your buddy putin.   

                  As to questions: you have no standing to ask them.  I am a former West Point staff member who has met hundreds of times with soldiers and diplomats from the Nixon administratipn on. You are a rotting bag of pus quoting desperately from your Hitler Youth talking points to earn a few kopecks.  No one respects you, no one listens to you.  

                  You stink, Goebbels Boy.  Stay downwind!

                  • Andrew Carnegie says:


                    We all have standing to ask questions.

                    You have no capacity to answer the question, so it remains unanswered.

                    The answer to the question is there is no evidence that Trump has done anything pro-Russia or pro- Assad, but you know that.

                    You just can't muster the strength to say that, old man.

                    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                      You have standing to kiss my ass, Goebbels boy.  You're so stupid, you appently don't even know who Goebbels was because you don't even flinch at the insult.  You lie, of course, about Putin.  Your Trump army forced the Republican platform committee to eepeal a plank promising aid to Ukraine because Manaford's Russian paymasters didn't like it.  You have also hinted at all sorts of payback for Russian help in electing Trump, but Lindsay Graham and John mccain, among othets held you up.  Flynn was part of your payback to the Russians, but he is fired already.  The only diffetence between you and a lying sack of shit is the sack.

                    • Andrew Carnegie says:


                      Not responding to your insults is a sign of intelligence, which apparently you do not have the ability to understand.

                      Your answer to the question as to the evidence that Trump has done anything pro-Russian or pro-Assad is that something was taken out of the Republican Platform?  

                      That is truly earth shattering. I am sure that proves the case.

                      I would rather expose you as a fool, than call you one. 

                    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                      Hey, Goebbels boy, what does it say about your intelligence when you kiss Putin's butt?

            • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

              Andrei…your questions are absurd. There is only one overarching issue in all of this and it is the half-trillion dollar oil deal Exxon/Mobil is working out with Rosneft. And many others they are just now starting to consider. 

              This is about energy hegemony. The international ( or,  I daresay, "supranational") companies are now overtly driving policy…no need to deal in the back rooms anymore. Both nations…Russia AND the United States of Trumpia are now run by oligarchs. Profit is king and the keys to the Treasury have been tossed to the Billionaires for safe keeping.

              Yeah…this is going to end well.


              • Andrew Carnegie says:


                Seems you are a one trick pony.  The only issue comes down to an oil deal.

                If it was about energy why is our current policy to expand domestic supply and drive down price?

                It would be in the oligarchs interest that we limit fracking not expand it on federal lands.

                Under your theory it must be the environmental folks that are conspiring with them Russians.

                • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                  How would you know what the interests of the so-called oligarchs is? It's all about energy. Guess you haven't heard of the Energy Act of 2005 that requires the Bureau of Land Management to hold quarterly lease sales, to big Oil & Gas, of parcels nominated by industry. As a result, Colorado alone has over 270,000 acres of undeveloped O & G leases. Taxpayers get no royalties and the state gets no severance taxes from these leases. But the leases do look good on companies' bottom lines.

                  • Andrew Carnegie says:


                    Are the Russian oligarchs better served with oil at $50 per barrel or $100 per barrel?

                    Seems to me if you provide a product, a higher price is a good thing and a lower price is a bad thing.

                    If Trump was serving his purported masters in Moscow he would make it harder to extract energy resources, not easier.

                    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

                      You are thinking way too small, Andrei…this is about global domination. Exxon/Mobil is well placed in the US…this is about finally crushing OPEC and capturing the European market for nat gas at the same time. 

                      The only way to get every last dime out of a failing market is to control production and prices.

                      The big five are all over changing the world market to suit them. Nation states that are uncooperative will not be tolerated. Do you really think for one minute that Tillerson is going to Moscow to talk about Syria?

                      It is to laugh…


                    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                      Andrew: you're dodging my Colorado-based commentary.

                • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

                  AC, it's always interesting to see which way you try to direct conversations, as it gives some insight into  your GOP faction's current talking points. Right now, you seem to be saying, "Russian interests? What Russian interests – nothing to see here,"  and "Energy policy? There are no energy interests at stake here."

                  Energy Policy – Chaos is profitable

                  The issue is not our (the United states") energy policy.

                  The problem is that, under the Trump administration, Rex Tillerson, our Secretary of State, is acting in the interests of EXXON, his former company, and of ROSNEFT and GAZPROM, the Russian oil and gas companies which Putin has an interest in. Under Obama, those interests were to remove Assad from power. Under Trump's Tillerson, the messages regarding Assad are mixed at best. There is no doctrine; there is no policy. There is only reaction.  That's how Trump rolls.

                  My theory on Syria and energy policy is that the intent is to destabilize the region; even though Syria has few oil resources of its own, this should eventually decrease transport and access to oil (including for ISIS/ISIL), force dipping into the reserves, and drive prices up. Since the US has extensive oil reserves, since we did not decrease production, a chaotic Syria should benefit companies such as Tillerson's EXXON.  It will also directly benefit Putin's Rosneft and Gazprom, if prices go up, and if access to offshore natural gas reserves can be assured. Russia also has other strategic interests in Syria.

                  Examine the moral basis of that for a minute. The players in the Syrian arena: Assad, ISIS / ISIL, the other rebel factions, the US, and Russia are all willing to cause suffering and deaths of half a million civilians, in order to increase future profits.

                  So that's the "energy hegemony" motive for maintaining chaos in Syria.

                  Russian connections in Trump administration

                  Now, let's look at the Russian, allies in the Trump administration. While it is true that sanctions on Russia have not been lifted….yet, there are strong signals that this will occur soon. Trump said in Jan 2017:

                  "If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebody's doing some really great things?"

                  If sanctions were lifted, this would open the way for ROSNEFT and EXXON to begin a joint $500 billion Arctic oil drilling project, the Strategic Cooperation Agreement.

                  I don't know about your net worth, but 500 billion is  sufficient motivation for most people.

                  Let's briefly look at Trump's cabinet and inner circle with strong Russian connections (partial list)

                  1.Michael Flynn, fired Security Council Chief, while on the Turkish payroll, was a propagandist for Russia today. During the campaign, he met with Russian ambassador Kisleyak, and lied about it. He is turning state's evidence, for a price.

                  2.Secretary of State Rex Tillerson skipped the NATO meeting, and went to Russia, signalling that Russian interests are where his true allegiance lies.

                  3.Trump's former campaign chief, Paul Manafort, worked directly for Russian and Ukranian businessmen and dictators with an anti-democracy agenda. He was paid millions for this work.

                  4.Trump's Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, met with Russian diplomats and businessmen secretly during the campaign, and later lied about this under oath.

                  5. Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, met with a sanctioned Russian banker with ties to Putin during the transition.

                  6. Wilbur Ross,  Commerce Secretary, oversw some money laundering and shady banking deals which benefited Russian oligarchs while he was vice chair at Cyprus Bank. Nobody could understand why Ross sat in on the cabinet "situation room" photo op on the Syrian air strike; perhaps his banking connections help explain that.

                  6. Trump Properties and other Trump businesses have extensive hotel, resort, and other business deals with Russia, most of which remain mysterious, since he refuses to release his tax returns.


                  This won't convince you, of course; but I enjoy exploring the issues and putting my ideas in order – and it may help others to do the same.

                  • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

                    I read your post. Pols was correct to block it the first time. Your ideas are nothing short of Unabomber crazy. I fear for the well being of your students. You need counseling.

                    • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

                      And yet, you offer not a single substantive argument to counter my "crazy" post. As per usual.

                      Thanks for your concern, but my students are just fine. They, including the Trumpers and conservatives, know that all debate is welcome, but they must include evidence to back up their claims if they wish to be taken seriously.

                      Unfortunately, your teachers did not teach that process.


                    • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

                      "PP" just as well stand for Psychological Projection in your case. That is, assuming trolls have emotions.

                    • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

                      I bet you have some great evidence for Area 51.

                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      And yet, you didn't actually refute anything with facts, did you?  

                  • Andrew Carnegie says:


                    How has our Syria policy, save Trump did what Obama said but did not do, changed under Trump?  Was Obama part of the grand Oil conspiracy, too?

                    You list all sorts of people that have been to Russia, as if that means they gave up their allegiance to their country when they got on the plane.  I don't buy that.  I was there in the old USSR days and it served as a basis for understanding the troubles that totalitarianism and socialism can visit on a people, not something I found attractive.

                    I do appreciate the thought you put into your post but as you concluded I am not convinced. Throwing a lot of garbage against the wall to see what sticks takes work, but it is still garbage.


                    • mamajama55mamajama55 says:


                      1.How has our Syria policy changed under Trump? We have moved from "Assad must go", to "Meh. Let the Syrian people decide", and now, post gas attack, post air strike to "Russians have conflicting interests to USA". Tillerson said that there is "No change in policy" – but nobody except Nikki Haley, UN ambassador, is still saying "Assad must go".

                      So in terms of policy change towards Syria under Trump,  ambiguity and mixed messages rule.

                      2. Most of the Trump campaign people who met with Russian spies, diplomats, and bankers did so in the US.  This is also true of cabinet appointees who were not in the campaign per se. Where they met is not as of much concern as that they did meet,  in the middle of an election where all of our own spies and security forces say that there was a concerted and coordinated effort to spread anti-Clinton propaganda to benefit Trump.

                      3. If you've read my past posts (doubtful), you know that I also am not at all enchanted with totalitarianism and socialism as  forms of government. In my youth, I knew many socialists. Most who were affiliated with national parties (SWP, and "Trots") were deceitful and opportunistic. I also saw that totalitarian governments tended to be patriarchal and prudish, rigidly restricting women and gay folks, as well as the press and civil liberties generally.

                      "Democratic socialism", as envisioned by Sanders and practiced in the UK, Denmark, and many other modern industrialized countries, is a different proposition.

                      3. I'm still researching Syrian oil connections and what US and Russian interests in the region are.  I found it interesting that most US sources dismiss Syria's oil resources; in fact, Syria comes in 64th in world oil production.

                      But most of Syria's oil is either in the hands of ISIS/ISIL terrorists, or in the hands of anti-Assad rebels. There is extensive production, but of low grade heavy oil, like for asphalt, and diesel, which everyone uses for fuel and electricity generation. It's not the "light sweet crude" so rhapsodized about. Financial Times has a fascinating article, "How Oil Fuels the Jihadi Terrorists" and infographic about oil in Syria, and who uses it, and how. (Yes, I am a nerd. I read Financial Times about Syrian oil production).

                      If you look on the infographic showing where the US and Russia have targeted airstrikes, you'll see that Russia primarily targeted rebel-held areas, and that the US primarily targeted ISIS held and Kurdish border fields. Russia and the US do have ISIS as a common enemy, but their approaches may cancel each other out in Syria.


                      Whether or not there is a "Grand Oil Conspiracy", the effects of the airstrike can't be doubted – oil prices are up all over the world. Like I said, chaos is profitable. Like Duke said, the big picture game is to control both production and prices.

                    • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

                      Andrew and Moderatus. I am giving mamajama55, a new name. After reading her last two  manifestoes it is clear the name Unabomber fits eerily well. You are welcome to use it if you want.

                      Even the Colorado Pols give her special treatment, they don't want woman detached from reality mucking up the site, so they pat her on the head and say "how nice".

                      Keep winning President Trump. 

                • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

                  Pols, you're moderating my long linky comments about Russia again. Please release the lock on it.

                  • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                    It appears that your post has been unblocked. Of course, Passionate Prune has no logical response to your post. So, s/he has to cloud the issue with references to the Unabomber. I think PP would be in line for counseling far ahead of MJ (note that I don't often agree with MJ, but she seems spot-on here with her Russian connections commentary).

                    And I wonder how Prune, Andrew, and Moderatus feel now about Trump's cruise missile strike since that base is already back in operation. Funny that none of our missiles seem to have cratered the runways. Was the strike just for show, like so much of Trump is?

                    • Andrew Carnegie says:


                      I don't think anybody thought the one strike would permanently take out the airport.  It was meant to make a point.

                      Personally, I think sending over some more periodically to the same base just to let them know we can do it at will would be a good thing, but I digress.

                    • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

                      Thank you General Banger. It's comforting to know that you have more military knowledge than anybody in the government. You forgot to mention that you're a conservative.p

                    • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

                      Factually, the air base is in use again. It remains to be seen whether this will "deter" further gas attacks.

                      Apparently, Pissy Pest was threatened enough to attempt to brand me as a crazed terrorist for my nerdy factfinding and speculation. Because arranging facts and posting speculatiions on a blog is totally like being an insane mass murderer.

                      As far as why my posts are blocked or unblocked, apparently it has to do mostly with the number of links inserted; I tend to be kind of linky.

                      Moderatus and AC can do as they like, of course. I am the only long time writer here who has declined to use sexualized, rapey nicknames to refer to them, and who has objected when others did that.

                      Your initial post on this thread showed that you had some reasoned doubts about escalating a Syrian war based on the gas attack visuals. I gave you the courtesy of responding to the questions you raised. You've never answered mine, so here they are again:

                      1. If Trump is so concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Syria, why is he still trying to limit numbers of Syrian refugees accepted into the US?

                      2.What financial interests do transnational oil companies such as the Russian Rosneft, Quatar QIA, and American EXXON have in Syria, and is this a long term strategy to "take their oil"?

                      Syria has little oil resources of its own, but as a central strategic location for groups looking to control pipelines and the flow of oil, it is central to policy. And there is  a huge natural gas field off the coasts of Israel, Palestine’s Gaza strip, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria, which these O&G companies would want to exploit.

                      Oil prices are up worldwide following the airstrikes – so something worked. 

                      3.If we follow the money trail in Syria, where does it lead?

                      4. Here's another one – will Trump's escalation of the air and land war in Syria limit ISIS' access to oil, or will it aid their recruitment efforts?

                      You don't like my answers – what are yours?




                    • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

                      Mamaboma, I like that too.

                      1. You and General Banger presuppose that rendering the air base was the objective. If that was the purpose it would have been destroyed. If it were me I would have dropped a MOAB on Assads palace. I have faith in Trumps military minds, and suspect they have more moves to make.

                      2. Syrians need to remain in Syria. That's why they started the war against Assad, so their many various tribes can be represented without the Alawite sect domination.

                      3. I would suspect that oil companies, where ever they are located have the desire for access to supplies at market prices. I doubt you make your investment choices on one data poin. The oil price is heading lower. Manic commodity traders will respond like manic traders respond with uncertainty.

                      4. I doubt that Trump cares about oil tanker drivers. Moving supplies via truck would be temporary employment. Because you have not heard of these things being destroyed is not reason to think they are not happening.


                    • VoyageurVoyageur says:


                      If you think Moldyanus is a sexualized nickname, we need to talk. 😉

  8. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    "Thank you General Banger……"  Actually, Prune, it was your man, Donald Trump, who said during the campaign that he knows more about how to defeat ISIS than any of our generals. As usual, Prune, you omit salient facts. But that is the custom of a troll, isn't it? 

    • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

      You are the"conservative" that is whining about the attack.

      "Funny that none of our missiles seem to have cratered the runways. Was the strike just for show, like so much of Trump is?" – See more at:

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        And your point is? Asking questions does not imply "whining." You, on the other hand, seem incapable of answering questions about your commentary. Maybe you should just imitate Moderatus, who generally cuts and runs after his short comments.

        • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

          "onnthen"…..not familiar with that word.

          • Curmudgeon says:

            Wow. You're actually giving someone flak for their typing?  The guy with the same 4th grade communication level as the so-called President?

            That's really the горшок calling the чайник Черный, isn't it? 

            • Conserv. Head Banger says:

              Prune has to grasp at minor straws (i.e., a typo) because that's all he has to support his case.

              But to return his favor, where he says: you are the “conservative”……., there should be a space between the ‘e’ of the and his quote mark.

              Just for the record, I’ve been diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis for 40 years, with swollen and out of line finger joints and tendons. I try to catch my typos, but occasionally miss one.

              • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                It doesn't help to type on these crappy phone or tablet keyboards.  Give me a real keyboard , ergonomic, and I do okay.  

              • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

                We all make mistakes, I more than most, "Ill tell you that for sure". 

                Red flags are raised when a person has to continue to qualify themselves among a group. You frequently see it as necessary to state you are a conservative. How long have you been on this site? And when you are not crowing about being a conservative, you have to state how you  differentiate from the other KOOKS like mamaboma.

                You tell us about your extensive travels as that has great insight and weight to your position that obviously the rest of cannot match. Maybe Rick Steves would have more credibility if that was the measure.

                You may be a smart guy, and good on you if you are. But here on the Pols you are just another clown wasting time pecking out words that nobody cares about, me included.

                As far as being a Conservative you are a fraud. But that's ok, this site is where frauds reside.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.