[livius]

the WSJ seems pretty gung-ho on going to war for Obama. Curious.

[ClearCase_guy]

The WSJ loves Obama. For several reasons, but mostly because of the immigration issue — slave labor is good for business. They might as well support his foreign adventures too.

[Romulus]

The WSJ editorial page is dominated by neocons who never seem to learn anything about the risks of going to war for utopian reasons.

[GeronL]

The WSJ is just as liberal as the NY Times on every page outside the editorial page. No surprise it seeps onto that page from time to time.

[Jim from C-Town]

The WSJ IS NOT a conservative newspaper, they are a Crony Capitalist Rag! War is great for business, always is. Those $200 million in missals that they will pop off will have to be replaced at the cost of $300 million and the WSJ Cronies are standing in line to replace them.

The fact is that we have NO interest in Syria except for the idea that all sides in the conflict inflict as many deaths to each other as possible. Best case scenario is that all but one guy is left in the country and he dies from the flue.

[Black Agnes]

How many Saudi investors/board members do they have?

How much money in brown paper bags (or gifts of $0.5M jewelry) have they gotten lately?

[xzins]

Helping Obama save face. They love all their crony capitalist straphangers.

[TurboZamboni]

If the WSJ op-ed writers could give all illegals amnesty as they’d like, all the illegals could be drafted to go fight in Syria.

A WSJ win-win.

[thoughtomator 2.0]

Murdoch’s News Corporation “pays” a negative corporate tax rate. In other words, the government subsidized the production of this article. Don’t bite the hand, as they say.

[3Fingas]

The Wall Street types are all for sending our kids to war, but not their own. Smedley Butler once said, “War is a racket.” I think he was on to something there.

[Sam Gamgee]

False argument. Whether the GOP is isolationist or not is NOT the argument. I was all for the Iraq war because guess who we were fighting over there after Saddam was toppled? Al Queda. Better fighting them there than here. But this time we will be fighting FOR Al Queda if we go in against Assad. Staying out serves our interests. The US stayed out of the Spanish Civil War, because fighting for the Republicans against the Nationalists would have meant fighting for our ideological enemies in the Commintern. Same thing here.

[Daveinyork]

I’d still like to hear what the objective is in attacking Syria, and how it can be achieved. Otherwise, they’re just engaging in verbal twerking.

[sarge83]

$$$ is why they are gung-ho for war.

[dforest]

It is not curious. They have been for it all along. Think natural gas to Europe if we oust Assad. Russians own it now. Saudis own it if Syria falls to the Brotherhood.

And the “good” part is that Americans get to die for it. All bought and paid for by Saudi money and American blood. But hey, there are some big players that stand to rake in billions. Meanwhile, we, the average citizen, bury our soldiers. Hell of a deal.