ohioboy wrote:Assad could probably show proof and would have done so by now. That would effectively end the rebellion or at least international support of them.
OJ is waiting for you to show proof that you are not the real killers.
You do not have to prove you are NOT guilty.
ohioboy wrote:If you say you can't trust any, you better start digging a hole I guess.
May not be a bad idea
However, at the end of the day, we have no choice but to trust our government in these matters. That is why we have to stop electing people that are not trustworthy. For example, Obama and his administration have lied repeatedly in this regard.http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/04/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-reinfeldt-sweden-joint-press-
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, sir. Have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved? Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines? And were you able to enlist the support of the Prime Minister here for support in Syria?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.
I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.
We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.
Now was that just Obama being his normal terribly inarticulate self?http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/25/background-conference-call-white-house-official-syria
We go on to reaffirm that the President has set a clear red line as it relates to the United States that the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups is a red line that is not acceptable to us, nor should it be to the international community. It's precisely because we take this red line so seriously that we believe there is an obligation to fully investigate any and all evidence of chemical weapons use within Syria.
So why is he lying about this? What would he not lie about? This is why we need to hold our elected representatives, as the best we can, to a high standard of integrity and honest. When we don't, how the hell can we trust them when we have no choice but to trust them? You end up exactly where we are today. Those that want to trust them, trust them and those that do not do not. I doubt it will ever be proven conclusively by information that does not require trust that that a critical piece of that proof is legitimate. It's like Mark Furman lying under oath in the OJ trial. Why would you believe a single word he said unless you simply wanted to believe it?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.