Patterico's Pontifications

8/30/2013

Syria Attack to Be Enough to Keep Obama from Getting Mocked

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:46 am

Because that’s what’s important here:

A U.S. official briefed on the military options being considered by President Obama told the Los Angeles Times that the White House is seeking a strike on Syria “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”

“They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic,” the official told the paper, giving credence to similar reports describing a limited military strike in the aftermath of last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack.

Via Hot Air.

It’s all ego with this guy.

UPDATE: And, as a reminder: it all started with an ad lib.

RANDOM THOUGHT: I bet if Obama thought he could use the military domestically to avoid being mocked, he’d do that too.

292 Responses to “Syria Attack to Be Enough to Keep Obama from Getting Mocked”

  1. They really are in a fix. The administration has never told us the rationale for an attack on Syria. Is it a preventative measure aimed at degrading Assad’s ability to undertake any additional chemical attacks on his citizens? If so, it has to be very surgical in nature and it is doubtful if we have gathered the necessary intelligence to pinpoint that particular program. Is it a punitive measure designed to punish Assad and his military for earlier chemical attacks? If so, how do we decide exactly how punitive the measure should be. Should we kill 100 enlisted men in Syria’s army in retaliation? Should it be 200, or 500? Should Assad himself be targeted, the same way that Reagan targeted Gaddafi years ago? Just what is the “proportionate response” in this case?

    JVW (23867e)

  2. I bet if Obama thought he could use the military domestically to avoid being mocked, he’d do that too.

    He’s already accomplishing so much with the NSA, the IRS, and the mainstream media, that using the military in this case would be superfluous.

    JVW (23867e)

  3. The USA attacks Syria. There is no mockery possible of the world’s largest and now most incompetent bully.

    htom (412a17)

  4. “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”

    Too Late!

    as for Ear Leader using the military domestically, who does our SCOAMF think fills the ranks of the shooters in it, idiots like tifosa and EPWhatever?

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  5. A word from a man who isn’t Liberal enuf to be authentically black.

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/a-truly-great-phony/

    Authentically human then? Authentically not-born-yesterday, mayhap?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  6. It’s an awful idea. There is no imminent national threat and there are no good guys only bad choices. The strikes don’t figure to change much. Telegraphing our intentions is also not terribly smart for operational safety of out servicemen.The day after the strike would show MFM video and photos of women and children killed by US cruise missiles.

    But even worse; The One going forward with this without a Congressional vote is playing with fire with not only Paul/Amash constitutionalist GOP but also his own leftist base. Recall for all the terrible things you can say about the wars of the Bushes they did seek and get Congressional votes authorizing their actions.That Obama is too lazy or dumb to do so speaks volumes about the size of his ego.

    Bugg (5dc2de)

  7. Has Iran been consulted as to what their threshold is constituting an existential threat to their most significant ally?

    Or does shadow CiC Jarrett know them to be bluffing?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  8. Also about the all important “international community’-the British PM had Parliament reject his war authorization by vote for the first time since 1782.

    Bugg (5dc2de)

  9. 6. “The day after the strike would show MFM video and photos of women and children killed by US cruise missiles.”

    I don’t believe the Syrian Baathists to be quite the monsters the Iraqis were, but Saddam’s ploy to use urban ammo dumps as Air Raid Shelters, kinda contributed to the ‘shock’ in Shock and Awe.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  10. Obama may have impulsively drawn a Red Line in Syrian sand back in August 2012, but he’s using it now as a pretext for a cruise missile attack.

    There’s pretty good evidence that it wasn’t Bashar al-Assad’s forces who deployed Sarin nerve gas in Damascus, but al-Qaeda insurgents in a false-flag operation designed to provoke the US into taking a direct role in the Sunni revolt by degrading Assad’s air power.

    After Obama’s pipeline of weapons and trained fighters from Libya was cut off by the Benghazi attack, the Syrian army began to have greater success against the Sunni insurgency. So, unable to continue his previous lines of support, Obama conspired to create a pretext for using the US military to keep the Muslim Brotherhood’s Arab Spring alive. And, all he had to do was conspire with al-Qaeda to commit an egregious war crime and pin it on a known bad guy.

    ropelight (5b0279)

  11. Obama seems to be afraid of doing anything that would affect the balance of power in the Syrian civil war. Which leaves him in a quandary.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  12. When he is talking about not being mocked, he’s talking more about his international reputation, which means the reputation of the United States here. He doesn’t want to lose the ability to affect things.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  13. Important point or question:

    Why did Saddam Hussein STOP using chemical weapons after he used them few times against the Kurds in 1988?

    It is not because he lost Gulf War I and the United States was protecting the Kurds, and he was afraid maybe iof a resumption of the invasion. That was 3 years later.

    Saddam Hussein stopped using chemical weapons after the Iran-Iraq war ended.

    There must have been some secret diplomacy involved. What?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  14. I think a lot of the foreign press and world leaders have figured out that his title may be POTUS, but he does not currently represent the values, goals, or desires of the majority of Americans when it comes to foreign policy matters. This will not end well for him or for us.

    elissa (fdb36e)

  15. Jeebus, but these guys can’t make a decision on lunch. How much time do you think Reagan spent fine-tuning the Libyan raid?

    Obama is so deliberate that by the time it happens, everyone will have forgotten why. I bet his kids get their spankings age-appropriate non-violent punishments 3 weeks later.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  16. I also believe that one deterrent to the use of chemical weapons by Iraq was that the people who carried out the order felt they fed possible prosecution and even execution. That’s indeed what happened many years later to “Chemical Ali”

    Saddam Hussein was also charged in the same trial, but before the trial was over he was executed for another matter – I think a somewhat minor massacre in a Sunni city which got picked out as the thing to charge him with.

    In 1988 also it wasn’t so clear that Iraq had used chemical weapons against civilians, so there could be more fear of what would happen if it continued. And the wheel could turn – there was no power to do anything against anyone then, but tat could change.

    Here we’ve pronounced the Syrian government guilty, but at the same time vowed not to punish anyone (How could Obama do so? He’s still pushing, I think, for a negotiated settlement to the civil war)

    Anyway when it came time for the Iraq war in 2003, I think the generals and who knows how far down the ranks responsibility might go, were all afraid of being held to account. Not just Saddam being held to account, but anyone with significant responsibility, even if they acted under orders. Nothing like that’s going on now with Syria.

    The thing Obama is most afraid of is charging Bashir Assad with crimes against humanity, and still less his generals. Not a hint of that anywhere. Because of al Qaeda, maybe.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  17. Sammy, the thing Obama is most afraid of is missing his putt and having a reporter there to capture his reaction dance steps and humiliation.

    elissa (fdb36e)

  18. The irony is that it is his waffling and fine-tuning are what will get him mocked. US public opinion doesn’t care if our military actions are “legal” in some UN sense. But it does care if we seem to be a paper tiger. As it stands the strike will be late, be anti-climatic and its size and target will have little if anything to do with chemical weapons.

    A real President would have unloaded the nearest aircraft carrier and/or cruise missile boat on the known and cataloged weapons sites. With maybe a bit of overkill and rubble bouncing. It would have happened within hours, not weeks, and it would not have been discussed in the open beforehand.

    There is nothing here BUT mockery.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  19. Sammy, the thing Obama is most afraid of is missing his putt and having a reporter there to capture his reaction dance steps and humiliation.

    I’ll bet you that cameras and cell phones will be confiscated from everyone there in the future. For security reasons, of course.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  20. All y’all racisty racists wouldn’t be a-mockin’ a WHITE
    indecisive spineless bimbo.

    Icy (c91e24)

  21. Comment by ropelight (5b0279) — 8/30/2013 @ 8:37 am

    There’s pretty good evidence that it wasn’t Bashar al-Assad’s forces who deployed Sarin nerve gas in Damascus, but al-Qaeda insurgents in a false-flag operation designed to provoke the US into taking a direct role in the Sunni revolt by degrading Assad’s air power.

    This is total nonsense. I think we know pretty well from where the rockets that dropped the chemicals were launched. There are lots of people reporters and others talked to.

    There isn’t any doubt the Syrian military did it. The question is why.

    The only way this is a false flag is if Assad’s army is infiltrated. And that wouldn’t be by al Qaeda. I’d suspect maybe Saudi Arabia and Prince Bandar, not al Qaeda, as having engineered this.

    A tremendous number of people in Syria want some foreign intervention. Reporters can’t get into Syria, especially rebel controlled territory, without having people ask them why hasn’t any or enough been done.

    And throughout the war there have been people who have not yet defected who are against Assad.

    So there may be people in his army who want some foreign intervention.

    And you could suspect that there are some people in Assad’s army who deliberately gave advice to use chemical weapons precisely because they hoped it would trigger foreign intervention.

    You could even suspect they were encouraged or even given talking points by some outside powers..

    War can get complicated after a while.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  22. Lookout aspirin factories.
    And then we will pay to rebuild.
    Fricken dolt of a piss ant leader.

    mg (31009b)

  23. Sammy – Obama needs to have Prince Bandar tell him what to do so that he will not be mocked.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  24. 17. Elissa. Sammy, the thing Obama is most afraid of is missing his putt and having a reporter there to capture his reaction dance steps and humiliation.

    I mean what Obama is most afraid of in Syria.

    That’s doing anything that makes a difference in the outcome.

    For that, he would have to evaluate the chances of this or that happening and take a risk.

    There really is no risk al Qaeda could come into power, or capture chemical weapons, if he’s prepared to stop it.

    And the truth is, doing nothing is also a risk.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  25. Now, on a military level the use of chemical weapons it was something to break the stalemate in the area it was used..

    I feel that the U.S. ignoring the massacres in Egypt was factor. You might not think that logical but it could be argued if the U.S. didn’t say anything about that, it would ignore this too. Because the same humanitarian arguments applied. Bad guys really believe the USA is GOOD.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  26. A Facebook post has surfaced supposedly written by Hafez al-Assad, the 11-year-old son of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. In it the young Assad invites America to attack Syria, saying: “I just want them to attack sooo much, because I want them to make this huge mistake of beginning something that they don’t know the end of it.”

    Hafez al-Assad describes America’s army as “cowards with new technology who claim themselves liberators”, saying that even in the event of a land invasion of Syria, Western forces will “never destroy these remnants and little bits of resistance, it’s who we are, we were born to fight and resist”.

    Icy (c91e24)

  27. Obama seems to be afraid.

    edited for brevity & accuracy.

    scared little men do stupid things, and they don’t come any smaller or stupider than President RICO Mom-jeans.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  28. If there was a “red line” on the Stupid Meter on Obama’s dashboard, he’s long since gone over the line.

    Comanche Voter (f4c7d5)

  29. 10, 11, 12. So there have been small exercises, by someone, of nerve gas since Ogabe’s August throwaway peacemaker posturing.

    Back then Mursi and the MB were on track. Libya was a fresh wound, we already knew the weaponry used therein was being recycled.

    Dog’s fears of being taken for a toy pony lie entirely with the ME tinpot power-brokers, the Sauds, Iran, al-Sisi, Erdogan and their clients.

    It has been many months since the Rebels had the upper hand. Israel has felt safe enough to hit Regime ammo dumps and harbors. Il Douche even leaked their means in the latter case as he did Stuxnet earlier.

    No one can maintain that his interests and those of America coincide. Even Alan Colmes sees that.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  30. 21. You lie.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  31. poor Sammy: he keeps seeing deep thoughts and Machiavellian planning where the rest of the world, avowed enemies and erstwhile allies both, only see a Stuttering Clusterf**k Of A Miserable Failure.

    bad news: your hero has stumps of clay.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  32. BTW: in all the blathering that passes for “news”, do we actually have definitive proof that mil-spec Sarin or other nerve agent was used, or is it all still conjecture?

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  33. There’s pretty good evidence that it wasn’t Bashar al-Assad’s forces who deployed Sarin nerve gas in Damascus, but al-Qaeda insurgents in a false-flag operation designed to provoke the US into taking a direct role in the Sunni revolt by degrading Assad’s air power.

    This doesn’t pass the laugh test. If al-Qaeda had Sarin, there are a few other places they’d use it first and the US and Brits would be going apeshi+ trying to preempt.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  34. I don’t buy that this is primarily due to Obama’s red line comment. We are talking about Obama here. He has made many much more specific comments without the slightest hesitation at not following through with them. Words and deeds are not necessarily connected for him. He is simply not motivated or bound by keeping his word. it’s out of character.

    No, he wouldn’t be doing this because of an off-hand comment, there’s got to be more to it than that.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  35. Interesting. Presidents Carter and Booosh weigh in on Syria—

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/30/as-obama-weighs-syria-strikes-predecessors-weigh-in/

    elissa (fdb36e)

  36. Over and over, ad nauseum, Kerry says It matters!

    And it hasn’t been so long ago that Hillary Clinton said, What difference does it make?

    ropelight (5b0279)

  37. Nobody is asking where Syria got the WMD.
    When the Booosh Administration suggested that Saddam’s WMD were moved into Syria, the anti-war left wingers said that didn’t happen.
    Now the left insists Syria has WMD.

    Ok, so where did they get it from ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  38. Didnt Sec’s Kerry and Clinton call Assad a reformer?

    JD (6852ce)

  39. ES – it is not fair to ask those kinds of questions.

    JD (6852ce)

  40. There isn’t any doubt the Syrian military did it.

    Yet only Obama and the French see it as casus belli.

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f)

  41. Didnt Sec’s Kerry and Clinton call Assad a reformer?

    Didn’t Pelosi and others send a letter of introduction to Assad to help Code Pink carry cash and supplies to al’Qaeda in Iraq?

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f)

  42. I feel comfortable in saying that if we can only mock his response to this conflict, we got off easy.

    JD (6852ce)

  43. #37, ES, reports began circulating in early July, largely based on Palestinian sources, warning that Sunni backed political and military interests (al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood) in concert with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the Obama Administration were planning a renewed political and military campaign against Syria scheduled to begin in August and September.

    The plan involved large scale chemical weapons use to justify renewed calls for a no-fly-zone, humanitarian corridors and outside intervention by conventional military forces.

    Recently hacked emails from Germany reveal that a British Defense contractor was offered an enormous sum of money to secretly move Soviet era chemical weapons from Libya to Syria.

    Evidence for the plan includes the very recent discovery of a stockpile of chemicals, atropine antidotes and other military equipment necessary for chemical weapons attacks hidden near Damascus in an underground tunnel used by al-Qaeda insurgents.

    ropelight (5b0279)

  44. Recently hacked emails…

    Meh. You cannot distinguish between “hacked” and “fabricated”.

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f)

  45. Remember how the Left used to use a pic from almost a decade earlier of Bush and Saddam shaking hands? Watch how many times they show pics of Pelosi and Assad, or Kerry and Assad.

    JD (6852ce)

  46. I’m just a SCOAMF whose intentions are good.
    Lord, don’t let me be dissed in the hood.

    nk (875f57)

  47. Jabhat al-Nusrah is in possession of chemical weapons according to Abdola Al-Jaledi, (@abo_almonthir) as reported in Syrian Dampress Online Journal.

    Al-Jaledi is a former member of the al-Qaeda associated, Sunni Jabhat al-Nusrah front which is fighting the Syrian military in an attempt to oust Bashar al-Assad and establish a Muslim Brotherhood backed Islamic Sharia state. al-Jaledi has admitted that Jabhat al-Nusrah is in possession of chemical weapons. On his Twitter account, Al-Jaledi said he personally knew the al-Qaeda fighter who made chemical bombs.

    ropelight (5b0279)

  48. The real question here is what should the president of America do in a situation where it is proven that a particular president or leader of a nation used chemical weapons against his own people? Is there a moral justification to expect a response from the leader of the free world? Whether Democrat or Republican? If it is proven that Assad did use WMD against his own people, what would you expect this president to do about it?

    The Emperor (9ae02a)

  49. And here comes the SCOAMF defense squad.

    If it is proven that Assad did use WMD against his own people, what would you expect this president to do about it?

    Send his kids to Mexico and skiing at the cost of $24 million taxpayer dollars, send Moochelle to London at the cost of $8 million taxpayer dollars, and bring Reggie Love to the White House for mutual fellatio, like usual.

    nk (875f57)

  50. Hi NK.

    The Emperor (9ae02a)

  51. The hacked emails are from British defense contractor, Britam Defense. They reveal a plan “approved by Washington” and funded by Qatar to stage a chemical weapons attack in Syria and blame it on the Assad regime.

    The plan fulfills Obama’s “red line” pledge that threatens US intervention in the Syrian conflict. The emails, which were reported by an unknown hacker in Germany, feature an exchange between Britam Defence’s Business Development Director David Goulding and the company’s founder Philip Doughty;

    Phil We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington. We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record. Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion? Kind regards David

    Now, I have no way of knowing if the emails are legitimate or fabricated, but I do know the Benghazi attack wasn’t a spontaneous demonstration sparked by an obscure video tape. And, I have good reason to consider that anything the Obama Administration says can’t be taken at face value, and I’m coming to the same conclusions about you, Rob Crawford.

    ropelight (5b0279)

  52. If it is proven that Assad did use WMD against his own people, what would you expect this president to do about it?

    Emperor, see my comment in the number one slot above. Should the President act in a preventative or punitive manner in this case? I am not sure if we can muster the former, and it is probably too late for the latter.

    JVW (23867e)

  53. nk wins teh Intarwebz for the afternoon.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  54. i have yet to be convinced that this attack was not made with pesticide versus actual mil-spec Sarin.

    in Japan, the unprotected first responders took contact casualties, yet the videos show unprotected “rescuers” moving around freely in Syria.

    Sarin volatilizes & disperses fairly rapidly, but there should have been some residual agent, since they were recovering victims that were still exhibiting symptoms and were working inside structures, which would help retard dispersal/breakdown of the agent.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  55. If it is proven that Assad did use WMD against his own people, what would you expect this president to do about it?
    Comment by The Emperor (9ae02a) — 8/30/2013 @ 11:24 am

    — Ah, Christmas memories . . .

    Not to worry. Such blunders [Bush invading Iraq] won’t happen again under a more sensible, restrained regime.
    Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 12/25/2008 @ 2:56 pm

    Icy (c91e24)

  56. 34. Comment by Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 8/30/2013 @ 9:59 am

    No, he wouldn’t be doing this because of an off-hand comment, there’s got to be more to it than that.

    Well, he didn’t make the offhand comment for an offhand reason.

    It might more be the statement he made “I don’t bluff”

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/i-dont-bluff-obama-says-on-iran/

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  57. If Obama doesn’t bomb Syria, he will definitely get mocked by the conservative national-security concerned writers employed by Lorne Michaels on NBC’s ‘Saturday Night Live.’

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  58. Well played icy @11:51 am

    dustin (e35d7e)

  59. Icy. You actually make my point. But in this particular case chemical weapons have been used. I am not hasty to jump to conclusions that Assad used them knowing what would be the consequences. I am actually interested in the findings of the UN inspectors. I think Obama should not act until it is proven this regime did gas its own people. But the question is if indeed it is proven they did what would you expect this president to do about it?

    The Emperor (dc1df5)

  60. 31. Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 8/30/2013 @ 9:28 am

    poor Sammy: he keeps seeing deep thoughts and Machiavellian planning where the rest of the world, avowed enemies and erstwhile allies both, only see a Stuttering Clusterf**k Of A Miserable Failure.

    What, if anything, that I said, gave you the idea I was saying Obama had any deep thoughts and Machiavellian planning rather than a Stuttering Clusterf**k Of A Miserable Failure?

    The only thing is, there are calculations involved. But they are mostly Stuttering Clusterf**k type calculations.

    bad news: your hero has stumps of clay.

    when did I say anything about Obama and Syria (or anything else really) that would make him a hero?

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  61. I think Obama should not act until it is proven this regime did gas its own people. But the question is if indeed it is proven they did what would you expect this president to do about it?

    Let Al Qaeda gain control of them so it can use them against us.

    nk (875f57)

  62. But in this particular case chemical weapons have been used.

    facts not in evidence: the injuries we have seen could have been caused by your garden variety pesticide. there has been 0 proof brought forward that a mil-spec chemical weapon was employed.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  63. Comment by The Emperor (dc1df5) — 8/30/2013 @ 12:03 pm

    if indeed it is proven they did what would you expect this president to do about it?

    As little as possible, for fear of changing the balance in the Syrian civil war. I mean, that’s his policy so far. He doesn’t even want to give the rebels the weapons he now promised them.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  64. @jvw. Well at this point the preventive ship has sailed. Unless to prevent future usage of the same weapons of mass death. On the punitive side it gets really complicated. I think if this is shown to be done by the Assad regime they don’t really deserve such consideration. All forms of brutality will be justifiable. A regime change should be the only meaningful proportionate response. But I still want evidence that Assad ordered this dastardly act of cruelty against the innocent. If he did then we should not bother ourselves about what is appropriate and what is not.

    The Emperor (dc1df5)

  65. 43. Well we may be assured that the UN weapons forensic team will shortly give us a definitive answer to the source and users of the WMD. /sarc off

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  66. 14. I think a lot of the foreign press and world leaders have figured out that his title may be POTUS, but he does not currently represent the values, goals, or desires of the majority of Americans when it comes to foreign policy matters. This will not end well for him or for us.

    Comment by elissa (fdb36e) — 8/30/2013 @ 8:52 am

    That would have been true had Obama been a one term President. But he was reelected last November after delivering the same FP he’s pursuing now. The FP he promised in 2008 as a candidate.

    Mark Steyn and John Bolton discuss Obama’s disastrous FP in this 2011 video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw1xoDfa5HA

    They discuss this as if these are Obama’s “missteps,” I suppose just unwilling to admit it’s deliberate. But why should foreign leaders conclude that Obama’s FP doesn’t represent exactly what the majority of Americans want, since if it wasn’t clear who this guy was and what he intended to do in 2008 it sure was in 2012. Especially when AQ put an exclamation point on it with Benghazi. And a majority of Americans still reelected him.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  67. 61. But in this particular case chemical weapons have been used.

    facts not in evidence: the injuries we have seen could have been caused by your garden variety pesticide. there has been 0 proof brought forward that a mil-spec chemical weapon was employed.

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 8/30/2013 @ 12:11 pm

    Remember Bhopal.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  68. There’s so much propaganda going on here.

    There is now a claim that Syrian rebels did it, using chemical weapons supplied them by Saudi Arabia which they allegedly mishandled.

    Obvious lie. But who is doing it?

    http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_08_30/Syrian-rebels-take-responsibility-for-the-chemical-attack-admitting-the-weapons-were-provided-by-Saudis-1203/?from=menu

    Voice of Russia. Oh, Putin’s the source of that story.

    Syrian and Iranian propaganda is that Prince Bandar and the Zionist lobby are manuevering Obama into a war with Syria, so it wasn’t coming from them.

    And there’s a claim that Putin would retaliate against Saudi Arabia.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  69. 49. Now thas what Ima talkin’bout. Yearrrgghhh!

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  70. 33. There’s pretty good evidence that it wasn’t Bashar al-Assad’s forces who deployed Sarin nerve gas in Damascus, but al-Qaeda insurgents in a false-flag operation designed to provoke the US into taking a direct role in the Sunni revolt by degrading Assad’s air power.

    This doesn’t pass the laugh test. If al-Qaeda had Sarin, there are a few other places they’d use it first and the US and Brits would be going apeshi+ trying to preempt.

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 8/30/2013 @ 9:39 am

    Why would they attack the US and other western countries while the civil war in Syria is still a toss up? If we intervene against Assad then we’re intervening on their behalf. Which means their odds of taking over in Syria improve. And if they take over Syria then all the chemical and biological weapons fall into their hands.

    These people aren’t stupid. They have a plan of action and milestones and they’re sticking to them. In fact AQ has been very public about it, and the other Islamists are going along with the plan. At this stage they’re consolidating their position; that’s what the Arab Spring was about. They aren’t about screw that up.

    If we’re stupid enough to help them take over Syria, they’re smart enough to let us first. Then they’ll use those weapons.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  71. 51. The so called hacked emails are something from this apast January, and probably Russian propaganda.

    http://intellihub.com/2013/01/28/leaked-files-of-britam-defense-implicate-the-plot-against-russia-and-syria/

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  72. @jvw. Well at this point the preventive ship has sailed. Unless to prevent future usage of the same weapons of mass death. On the punitive side it gets really complicated. I think if this is shown to be done by the Assad regime they don’t really deserve such consideration. All forms of brutality will be justifiable. A regime change should be the only meaningful proportionate response. But I still want evidence that Assad ordered this dastardly act of cruelty against the innocent. If he did then we should not bother ourselves about what is appropriate and what is not.

    Yes, I did mean that the preventative side is to prevent it from happening again. If our intelligence community somehow miraculously figured out where these chemical weapons were being manufactured and stored and how they were to be unleashed upon Assad’s enemies, I would support military strikes to disrupt all of the above.

    You can’t seriously be talking about “regime change” after a decade of whining over Iraq, can you? That would be the absolute apotheosis of liberal hypocrisy. Especially if Obama can’t pull together a “coalition of the willing,” and the way things are presently looking at NATO and the UN he won’t be able to. I also don’t see our Anglosphere friends in Australia and Canada helping us depose Assad.

    See liberals, foreign policy isn’t so easy when it’s your guy making the decisions, is it?

    JVW (23867e)

  73. 666. And even the most trenchant mouthpiece of the Borg has to admit the Russky propaganda makes more sense than ours.

    Why any discussion of this matter should assume our side are not the biggest liars in the mix I’d like to know.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  74. The hacked emails…

    Could as easily be fabricated as “hacked”.

    Stop buying into every piece of BS just because someone slapped a trendy word on it.

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f)

  75. There’s so much propaganda going on here.

    Yeah, Sammy, but we still (kinda) respect you.

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f)

  76. I would think that the issue of who provided the weapons and who used them is very much open to investigation:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/dont-show-obama-report-about-who-really-behind-syrian-chemical-attacks

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  77. There are many sides to this. I think this president should sit and wait this one out. Something very fishy about this. But if he decides to unilaterally invade Syria without the backing of the international community then he is no better than George Bush whom he criticized for Iraq. Deja vu all over again. *sighs

    The Emperor (9ae02a)

  78. Sounds like an Iranian trial balloon, like when they insisted that Bandar had been assasinated last summer, but the story is very murky.

    narciso (3fec35)

  79. “But if he decides to unilaterally invade Syria without the backing of the international community then he is no better than George Bush whom he criticized for Iraq. “

    The Emperor – how can you say this? At this point, Obama has the backing of …. France. And no Congressional approval.

    George W. Bush had a couple of score of countries, some UN resolutions regarding non compliance with the terms of the resolution of the previous Gulf War, and Congressional approval. All for the Iraq War.

    If Obama begins striking Syria, he won’t “no better than George W. Bush” – he’ll be much worse and impeachable.

    SPQR (768505)

  80. His ego backed him into a corner and now he has to back it up.

    Who wants to bet we launch a few missiles into some barren desert area, which has been pre-evacuated. Then the lapdog media will say we hit a major stockpile of chemical weapons.

    That is pretty much what I would expect from this president and the media.

    TomK (760d73)

  81. The Emperor #75,

    Except for the fact that President Boooosh actually had Congressional votes in favor of action against Iraq, as well as “international support.”

    Facts.

    *Sigh.*

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  82. #71, don’t be so cynical gg. Isn’t this the same Obama crew that promised unemployment would stay under 7.5% if the Stimulus Bill was passed. You remember all those shovel-ready jobs just waiting for taxpayer money to be squandered on Solyndra so our economy would revive during Recovery Summer (version 1.0)

    These are the same guys who told us they weren’t running guns to Mexican Drug cartels, they were tracking those AK-47s for our benefit and Obama had to claim Executive Privilege to protect us from ourselves.

    And, they’re the same guys who told us that ObamaCare wouldn’t raise costs at all, we’d save a pile of money and be able to keep our health insurance if we liked it.

    They also told us the attack on Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration against a video tape no one ever saw. That’s why they had to remove all the security from the compound and order our rescue forces to stand down.

    Now they’re telling us that the chemical weapons used in Damascus belonged to Assad’s forces. And, with a track record like Obama’s who could possibly doubt his word?

    ropelight (5b0279)

  83. 77. “You want our imprimatur on your cowboy adventurism?”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/and-another-deserts-nato-says-obama-his-own

    Italians and Germans have already said Hahahaha..no.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  84. What difference, at this point, does it make ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  85. Why does Obama want to murder innocent Muslims ?
    No blood for sagging approval ratings.
    No wagging the dog. (And no eating the dog, either, Barack !)

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  86. . If he did then we should not bother ourselves about what is appropriate and what is not.

    Screw the constitution. Lets do something that makes us feel like we are doing something without actually doing anything.

    Lovie/Chimperor never fails to bring the stupid.

    JD (6852ce)

  87. Obama eats dogs but does he eat pork?

    ropelight (5b0279)

  88. Obama has already proven himself far worse than George W. Bush from a foreign policy perspective. No matter what you think of GWB, when he decided to invade Iraq he forced to UN to comply, he rounded up a coalition, and he did so in a manner whereby Russia’s opposition was marginalized and thus rendered moot. He made a clear ultimatum (“Saddam and his sons must go”) and stuck with it. Contrast that with Obama who has zero support among our allies, who is allowing Russia to effectively veto our objectives (“Tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility after the election”), and he has drawn lines in the sand that are little more than blatant bluffs. Our country lost a great deal of prestige during the Iraq fiasco, but Obama has done nothing — nothing! — to repair the damage; he has made it much worse.

    JVW (23867e)

  89. Bush did not have the backing of the UN. That is the fact. And in his case there were NO WMDs to be found in Iraq. When I compared Obama to Bush in my last comment it is about the hastiness to invade without getting the appropriate cooperation from those who will give it its legitimacy. Collecting some countries on a cowboy raid does not serve as the backing of the free world.

    The Emperor (09061e)

  90. 71. …If our intelligence community somehow miraculously figured out where these chemical weapons were being manufactured and stored and how they were to be unleashed upon Assad’s enemies, I would support military strikes to disrupt all of the above.

    Comment by JVW (23867e) — 8/30/2013 @ 12:35 pm

    Hate to break the news to you, but we admitted we started losing track of Syrian chemical (and presumably bio) weapons a year ago. Who knows how long before Panetta went public that intel really lost track of those weapons.

    http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/28/panetta_we_ve_lost_track_of_syrian_chemical_weapons#.UGXGV4dI4wQ.twitter

    Panetta: We’ve Lost Track of Some Syrian Chemical Weapons

    At the same time, in September 2012, Panetta acknowledged we also lost track of which side has them.

    The U.S. has lost track of some of Syria’s chemical weapons, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Friday, and does not know if any potentially lethal chemicals have fallen into the hands of Syrian rebels or Iranian forces inside the country.

    …Panetta’s statement follows reporting that Syrian rebels claim to have taken control of a military base that contains chemical weapons.

    …“I don’t have any specific information about the opposition and whether or not they’ve obtained some of this, or how much they’ve obtained and just exactly what has taken place,” Panetta said.

    Merely threatening to do what this administration says it will do is in itself an act of insanity.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  91. Tonight I’m going to try to be drunk enough without being mocked. It’s a worthy goal.

    Birdbath (716828)

  92. The Emperor, your comment is really pathetic. The “free world” ? Most of them were active participants in the Iraq War.

    Meanwhile, George W. Bush obtained Congressional resolutions in support, support of all our major allies, and had UN resolutions specifically condemning Iraq for breaking their obligations.

    Obama has …. Valerie Jarrett’s OK?

    SPQR (768505)

  93. 89. Mindless drivel ==(everywhere equivalent with) BOOOSH!!!

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  94. “[N]o better than George W. Bush” …

    Unbelievable.

    If George W. Bush was a “cowboy”, then Obama is El Kabong.

    SPQR (768505)

  95. And again, as per the script, The Emperor makes the claim that the invasion of Iraq was all about the WMDs, thereby ignoring the other reasons laid out by the Bush Administration including:

    * noncompliance with the terms of the Gulf ceasefire including preventing unfettered weapons inspections
    * past use of chemical weapons on the Kurds and other ethnic groups, and the likelihood that he would use them again
    * heavy repression of opposition groups, including torture and targeting killings
    * financial sponsorship of Hamas, including bounties paid to the families of suicide bombers
    * violation of the UN sanctions through selling oil in exchange for currency via back-channels
    * potential ties to other terrorist organizations

    Like it or not, there are way more reasons to support military action in Iraq than there are to support it in Syria. For a President who was going to open a dialogue with Iran without any preconditions, Obama sure finds himself in a bad fix with their rabid little lapdog.

    JVW (23867e)

  96. The Emperor,

    Good Allah, man, the UN is merely an organization of nations—it is not the organization of the free world.

    Four other nations took part in the Iraq invasion, and over thirty countries were involved after the invasion.

    This notion that if countries such as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, et al, have the inherent moral authority to give “legitimacy” to a United States-led war effort is a bit irrational and morally confused, to be quite frank. But please don’t call me, ‘Shirley.’

    Where was the rest of “the world” to stop the Nazi invasion of the Czechs, Poland, France, et al ?
    The famously “neutral” Swiss were the Nazis’ bankers.
    Where was the rest of the world when the Soviets steamrolled various eastern European nations, and absorbed them into the Iron Curtain ?

    If you’re going to argue that “the rest of the world” has inherent moral authority to give a greenlight or redlight to a war effort, then you have a responsibility to assess those same nations’ track record in past wars.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  97. Collecting some countries on a cowboy raid

    Comment by The Emperor (09061e) — 8/30/2013 @ 1:19 pm

    Why would you diminish the accomplishments of countries that participated in the removal of a tyrant?

    Birdbath (716828)

  98. Hence my comments. Obama has yet to prove to us that going to war is justifiable and serves the US’s best interests. Judging from the fiasco that was the Arab spring and Libya I am not in a hurry to support any further invasions or interventions. But and if Assad did use chemical weapons on his people it is grounds for an attack but with the full backing of the international community.

    The Emperor (be6d20)

  99. They held three seats from the Soviet puppets Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia since 1940, they displaced Taiwan for the People’s Republic. they hold Cuba and Zimbabwe in high regard, they gave Chaves standing run seatings, and they will do the same for his clown Maduro

    narciso (3fec35)

  100. 89. Bush did not have the backing of the UN. That is the fact.

    SPQR’s original point was that Bush had UN resolutions confirming that Iraq was not complying with the ceasefire provisions. That is a fact. It is irrelevant that the UN refused to back its own resolutions. The fact is Hussein was violating the ceasefire, and the UN admitted that fact.

    And in his case there were NO WMDs to be found in Iraq.

    False. The National Ground Intelligence Center declassified reported that between 2003 and 2006 coalition forces recovered approx. 500 filled chemical munitions in Iraq. Others remained unaccounted for, most likely mustard and sarin gas munitions like the 500 weapons mentioned previously.

    http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

    The fact that WMDs were found in Iraq, and not destroyed as required by the ceasefire, obscures the larger point. The justification for invading Iraq was not because they possessed WMDs. It was because Saddam Hussein’s regime was in material breach of nearly all of the ceasefire provisions. From refusing to destroy its WMDs to continuing support to terrorism (he was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to cite one of hundreds of examples) to refusing to account for US and Kuwaiti prisoners and refusing to return Kuwaiti property. Those are all in the AUMF as justification for the invasion, along with at least a dozen other justifications.

    It is post-war fiction that Bush justified invading Iraq over WMDs, or that Hussein helped AQ with 9/11. In other words, those are lies.

    When I compared Obama to Bush in my last comment it is about the hastiness to invade without getting the appropriate cooperation from those who will give it its legitimacy. Collecting some countries on a cowboy raid does not serve as the backing of the free world.

    Comment by The Emperor (09061e) — 8/30/2013 @ 1:19 pm

    It may have escaped your notice, but Iraq was no cowboy raid. It was a planned invasion and occupation.

    Bush was able to get, what, close to 50 countries to sign up for that.

    Obama can’t even get Britain to go along with him to lob a few meaningless cruise missiles at Syria. It doesn’t even rise to the level of a cowboy raid, let alone compare to the massive operation Bush put together.

    Obama isn’t even on the same planet when it comes to diplomatic ability as Bush, let alone in the same league. Obama couldn’t lead a group of deaf mutes in a silent prayer.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  101. But and if Assad did use chemical weapons on his people it is grounds for an attack but with the full backing of the international community.

    And that is The Emperor Worm. Sneak in a justification of SCOAMF while pretending to be concerned that SCOAMF may be doing it the wrong way.

    nk (875f57)

  102. This is a government of the morons, by the morons, for the morons.
    If only we had someone with an IQ reaching room temperature within the National Command Authority, we might have a chance.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  103. Bush did not have the backing of the UN. That is the fact. And in his case there were NO WMDs to be found in Iraq.

    Good effin Allah. They simply make shlt up. Google Resolution 1441, and its 14 or 15 predecessors.

    JD (5c1832)

  104. But and if Assad did use chemical weapons on his people it is grounds for an attack but with the full backing of the international community.

    Sorry, but those are weasel words. What exactly is “the international community”? Which of the following countries have veto rights on U.S. action:

    Britain
    France
    Germany
    Spain
    Italy
    Russia
    China
    Israel
    Saudi Arabia
    Turkey
    Iran
    Pakistan
    Yemen
    Brazil
    Venezuela
    El Salvador
    Mexico

    What is the bare minimum coalition that Obama needs in order to be legitimate in your eyes? Let’s face it: he’s not going to get a UN resolution as long as China and Russia can veto any Security Council action.

    JVW (23867e)

  105. The idea that there was a rush to war in Iraq is an overt lie as well.

    JD (5c1832)

  106. 18 m9nths, the turtle at the opening to office space, was faster.

    narciso (3fec35)

  107. turtles are so cool they just move along at their own pace and take in the view

    I’m a big fan

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  108. it’s turtles all the way down, pikachu,

    narciso (3fec35)

  109. So O, you are already being mocked–by Assad’s son, no less. Even if it is agitprop, it’s pretty damn effective.

    Our allies are now abandoning us (small wonder with Mr. Arrogant)so now Obama will have to get some “countries you could buy on e-bay” I guess.

    Perhaps he could get some of ME allies to throw in with him? Oops, they are ticked off too.

    He speaks Austrian, so that should work out.

    Patricia (be0117)

  110. 104. …What is the bare minimum coalition that Obama needs in order to be legitimate in your eyes?

    Comment by JVW (23867e) — 8/30/2013 @ 2:06 pm

    France. Clearly.

    You see, Bush could get Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy, Spain, Poland, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Slovakia, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Lithuania, Hungary, Portugal, Romania, Estonia, Macedonia, Albania, Ukraine, Honduras, New Zealand, El Salvador, Moldava, The Dominican Republic, the Philippines, Thailand, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iceland, and lord knows who else to go along with the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    But Obama has France, and only France, on his side. Bush never could get France.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  111. If you don’t have France, it must be a cowboy raid.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  112. National Review’s Morning Jolt notes examples of when a President saidestepped Congress (since the war Powers Act was passed in 1973) are Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, Iraq in 1991, Haiti in 1994 and Kosovo in 1999.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  113. Correction: CNN so claimed. Morning Jolt thinks maybe somalis should be substituted.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  114. Bush could get Britain, Australia, [. . .] Iceland, and lord knows who else to go along with the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    Don’t forget the Kingdom of Tonga! One of my high school buddies was from Tonga, so I have always loved the fact that they sent troops to help with Iraq.

    JVW (23867e)

  115. None of this really matters. Obama doesn’t care who did what to whom when. What matters is whether we have a president who can decide anything, or if we have a president who is all dither, debate and delay.

    This is EXACTLY what happened in Benghazi.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  116. ==That would have been true had Obama been a one term President. But he was reelected last November after delivering the same FP he’s pursuing now. The FP he promised in 2008 as a candidate.==

    I take your point Steve57. The 2008 “historic presidency” promised a major foreign policy shift. But get back to me when you have any evidence that his foreign policy–real or imagined– had anything to do with his re-election. Lots of his supporters (who voted for him anyway) had in fact lost faith in his FP promises and were very vocal about it. Others of his supporters wouldn’t know a foreign policy debate if it bit them in their Obamaphone butt. Benghazi scandal was tamped down by the sycophant press to protect him pre-reelection and the Republicans were not effective in getting the word out until much later. Behghazi is causing him real grief now and it is not going away.

    == But why should foreign leaders conclude that Obama’s FP doesn’t represent exactly what the majority of Americans want, since if it wasn’t clear who this guy was and what he intended to do in 2008 it sure was in 2012. Especially when AQ put an exclamation point on it with Benghazi. And a majority of Americans still reelected him.==

    Same as I just said. Most foreign leaders and the competent foreign press are much more savvy right now than you give them credit for, I think. They’ve had his number for a while. They also can read both his crashing polls and the tea leaves.

    elissa (fdb36e)

  117. Iraq in 1991

    Not so. Desert Shield was a protective deployment and did not fall under the WPA, but Desert Storm had full congressional approval.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  118. Kosovo in 1999

    The House took up the intervention and the approval FAILED on a tie vote. So, in that instance the WPA was not ignored, but Congress’ disapproval was.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  119. And if this was considered to be the equivalent of a Declaration of War, it would need 2/3 in both houses.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  120. The Emperor, basically you are just making crap up in a failed attempt to build any comparison where Obama is “no better” than Bush. Complete failure. Biden said he would work to impeach a president who did what the White House is proposing. Not that he remembers any of his statements.

    SPQR (f6a7aa)

  121. This has now become a lose/lose for Mr. O. Even if he bombs something, Assad & Co. will post pictures of an aspirin factory and mock him to death. If he goes all out, WW III.

    Unless he resurrects Osama and kills him again, he is in real trouble. So are we.

    Patricia (be0117)

  122. Via PowerLine:

    ALERTS TO THREATS IN 2013 EUROPE
    From JOHN CLEESE

    The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.” Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.” The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

    The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

    The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France ‘s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.

    Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”

    The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbour” and “Lose.”

    Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..

    The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

    Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be right, Mate.” Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is cancelled.” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

    Regards,
    John Cleese ,
    British writer, actor and tall person

    And as a final thought – Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.

    MD in Philly (from a different computer and location) (226c84)

  123. Under the circumstances can anyone come up with a reason why poor Mr. “I vote present so I don’t ever have to make a decision or take a stand” doesn’t call back Congress and tell them to take a vote ala Cameron?

    elissa (fdb36e)

  124. 127. Because they’ve got nothing, he want’s to pay up on Bandar’s redeemed markers and he’s worried this is bridge too far for the Pink Vaginas, e.g., McDermott (D-WA).

    Pulling this while leaving ships in the Persian Gulf is harm’s way.

    Kerry simply left unstated that there is only one possessor of WMD in theatre. Which won’t stand scrutiny.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  125. The nation of Tonga was an ally in Operation Iraqi Freedom. They sent 85 Marines. That was more than France.

    Birdbath (716828)

  126. elissa, he campaigned to a large extent on his glorious foreign policy. Here are his top twelve major accomplishments per the Obama 2012 campaign.

    http://www.2012obama2012.com/President_Obama_s_Accomp.html

    Six of the top twelve accomplishments, in the mind of Barack Obama, are in the FP arena. He also heavily fundraised on FP.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-16/obama-says-restoring-u-s-image-abroad-was-a-top-accomplishment.html

    Obama Says Restoring U.S. Image Abroad Was a Top Accomplishment

    It may be true that many of his supporters criticized his foreign policy while voting for him anyway. It is beyond doubt a fact that his die hard supporters “wouldn’t know a foreign policy debate if it bit them in their Obamaphone butt.” But you left out one type of voter. The kool-aid drinkers who really believed, and still believe, Obama when he tells them he’s restored America’s image abroad after George Bush trashed it.

    Foreign leaders and the foreign press are sophisticated. But what are they to make of this situation. Obama has put together a winning electoral combination of voters who don’t know and don’t care about Santa Claus’ FP, people who don’t like his FP but not enough to stop pulling the lever to reelect Santa Claus, and voters who believe whatever Santa Claus tells them about the greatness of his FP.

    How does Obama’s FP not reflect the values, etc., of that majority he put together?

    The proof is in the pudding. If (I believe it’s more a question of when) reliable allies start pursuing foreign policies increasingly independent of the the United States’ it won’t be because of Obama. It will be because those voters have convinced them Obama isn’t an aberration.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  127. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will officiate at a same-sex wedding this weekend in what is believed to be a first for a member of the nation’s highest court. Ginsburg will officiate Saturday at the marriage of Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and John Roberts, a government economist.

    Icy (c91e24)

  128. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 8/30/2013 @ 2:30 pm

    Kevin, you know darned well that Obama was never told about Benghazi, and has no idea to this day what Hillary did there.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  129. Comment by ropelight (5b0279) — 8/30/2013 @ 1:00 pm

    Isn’t this the same Obama crew that promised unemployment would stay under 7.5% if the Stimulus Bill was passed.

    That was an honest prediction. Later on, we had the claim hat “but for” the stimulus bill, unemployment would have been so and so much higher.

    You remember all those shovel-ready jobs just waiting for taxpayer money to be squandered on

    This wass not careful thinking, and they surely hae known better. In the 1930s, you could indeed apprpropriate money and something spent soon. The liberals sort of like forgot or ignored (because of course, every regulation they favor has no downside, that because of environmental impact statements [since 1970] and the like, no money could go out the door for construction very quickly (unless everything was waived, as it is in the case of emergency repairs) And there’s another fallacy. That constrfuction jobs are good jobs. Of course you could always say you could always buold something useful, but nowadays most projects are not useful or they just “repair” what already exists. This was really just to reard unions. But they didn’t do even that. There’s no regor here.

    Solyndra so our economy would revive during Recovery Summer (version 1.0)

    There are equations (economic models) to say all that but what they don’t tell you is that economic models don’t work, and are not true.

    These are the same guys who told us they weren’t running guns to Mexican Drug cartels

    I don’t think they denied that – well there was a denial that any guns were beinbg allowed to walk. This actually originated in the bureaucracy.

    they were tracking those AK-47s for our benefit

    On the paper justifcations, but not in reality.

    and Obama had to claim Executive Privilege to protect us from ourselves.

    Standard but a very good president would not have done that. He’s need to be very good though.

    And, they’re the same guys who told us that ObamaCare wouldn’t raise costs at all, we’d save a pile of money and be able to keep our health insurance if we liked it.

    Any idiot would no this is not so, and every idiot and non-idiot did.

    They also told us the attack on Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration against a video tape no one ever saw.

    That was because of Sooper Sekrit intelligence, which they believes. The internal e-mails show they believed that it was spontaneous.

    That’s why they had to remove all the security from the compound

    I don’t think we got the answer as to why that happened, except maybe that an attempt to limit foreign entanglments.

    and order our rescue forces to stand down.

    To stay put.

    Now they’re telling us that the chemical weapons used in Damascus belonged to Assad’s forces. And, with a track record like Obama’s who could possibly doubt his word?

    That’s different. His standard lies and misrepresentations are not about raw data, but they are errors of logic, and interpretation, where you actually have all the key facts.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  130. Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/30/2013 @ 3:21 pm

    Kerry simply left unstated that there is only one possessor of WMD in theatre. Which won’t stand scrutiny.

    what do you mean? That’s 100% true. Only one KNOWN possesser of WMDs. And actually (there was a leak) they saw some chemical weapons being moved from storage a few days before. (but they thought nothing of it. Syria had done that before.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  131. Define WMD!

    The U.S. is “in theatre”, and definitely possesses “WMD”.
    Assad possesses WMD. Israel is reputed by her enemies to possess WMD.
    Anyone with the capabilities to manufacture insecticide could possess WMD.
    So, SF, by your criteria, there are two (2) known possessors of WMD “in theatre”.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  132. 134. I rest my case.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  133. It was sent into the air locally.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  134. WMD are of course nuclear chemical and biological weapons, but in the cae of Iraq really meant only chemical weapons. We knew Saddam;s nuclear program wa sin mothballs. The biological program was a research program. Even with the false information it didn’tt add much.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  135. Obama said the other day he wants to do something that is:

    clear and decisive

    BUT

    very limited

    describing it a shot across the bow which I did find a bit off.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  136. Rico’s update reminds me for the umpteenth time, the early 2008 campaign’s attempts to keep Il Doof on message.

    Before they found the TOTUS they tried an earpiece. One time after he was corrected by the booth he put his hand to the piece, looked up at the booth and said in exasperation “But that’s what I said”.

    As Dr. Sowell reminds us, except as a con artiste he has always been incompetent, at everything, with the possible exception of moderating panels of fools.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  137. #126. Thanks, MD. I needed that!

    “These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy”.

    -Priceless.

    felipe (6100bc)

  138. Obama still is hoping for a negotiated solution to the Syrian civil war.

    He said so today.

    That is, he said, there’s no solely military solution.

    In other words, Bashir Assad is too necessary to fail!

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  139. I think there’s all too much unnecessary worry.

    When and if something will happen that can have grave consequences, they probably won’t worry.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  140. Obama is glad Congress is not in session. And that’s cited as a reasdon by Congressman Elliot Engel for going ahead without Congress.

    Individual members of Congress are being briefed,.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  141. They say today’s New York Times) it’s not so bad they won’t have British military support – diplomatic support is more important and they’re getting lots of that. (from a number of countries I assume.

    It’s not just France that’s giving diplomatic support.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  142. Obama described Syria;s use of chemical weapons as a threat to the United states. That’s probably for legal reasons. They’ve told reporters they don’t mena that Assad would use them on the United Sattes.

    What it amounts to is a worry that the taboo against using chemical weapons could disappear.

    And the real worry after that is that the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons could also disappear.

    And there goes the balance of terror and world security.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  143. 127. Comment by elissa (fdb36e) — 8/30/2013 @ 2:57 pm

    Under the circumstances can anyone come up with a reason why poor Mr. “I vote present so I don’t ever have to make a decision or take a stand” doesn’t call back Congress and tell them to take a vote ala Cameron?

    He could lose a vote, like the British Prime Minister.

    Another reason is there’s not enough time for Congress to debate this, if he wants to act soon..

    One very ineteresting thing: Obama wants Assad to survive in power so he can negotiate an end to Syrian Civil war!

    He didn’t quite say that explicitly, bit that’s what he meant.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  144. Another reason is there’s not enough time for Congress to debate this, if he wants to act soon.. .

    Well, it’s been nine days since the alleged chemical attack. Not sure what waiting two or three more days, or even a week, would cost us in terms of lost prestige.

    JVW (23867e)

  145. 132. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 8/30/2013 @ 2:30 pm

    Kevin, you know darned well that Obama was never told about Benghazi, and has no idea to this day what Hillary did there.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 8/30/2013 @ 3:32 pm

    Ironic that the same guy insists that Assad has to be held accountable for everything everyone in his regime does.

    Assad should go on TV and start quoting from the Obama script. I could write that speech.

    Bashar al Assad: Thank you ladies and gentlement of the Damascus press corps. First I want to assure you that I learned about these chemical weapons attacks from the same news reports as you did. It would be outrageous and contrary to our traditions if Syrian military personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on. First we await the results of the UN report. If the UN finds that chemical weapons were used, I will launch a thorough investigation to determine if these weapons were in fact used by the Syrian military. We will make sure we find out exactly what happened. If someone acted improperly, if there was some sort of breakdown, if it turns out someone didn’t do their job, I will hold those responsible accountable.

    Let me be clear. The buck stops with me. As commander in chief, I will take appropriate action. The misuse of these weapons pose a threat to everyone. I may be president of Syria, but I am not immune to these sorts of weapons, nor is my lovely wife Asma or my three wonderful children. I find the implication that I may have permitted these weapons personally offensive.

    I must, though, reserve further comment until we have a full report from our internal investigation. To comment further would threaten the integrity of that investigation. People must have confidence that the individuals I have appointed to the board of inquiry, Minister of Defense Fahd Jassem al-Freij, Minister of Justice Najm Hamad Al Ahmad, and the head of the General Security Directorate Mohammed Dib Zaitoun will investigate my government as an independent body and pursue the evidence regardless of where it leads in a non-partisan way. You should feel that way whether you are an alawite government loyalist or a sunni extremist, a Syrian or an American.

    Thank you (leaves without taking any questions).

    Steve57 (713b70)

  146. How can we lose what already has been squandered.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  147. 149- Priceless.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  148. ==He could lose a vote, like the British Prime Minister.==

    Exactly. And I have absolutely no problem with that.

    elissa (1a5407)

  149. But he won’t because he knows he doesnt have the votes

    http://joshuafoust.com/extraordinary-court-statement/

    narciso (3fec35)

  150. Correction
    #126 not by John Cleese
    but it is still funny

    MD in Philly (from a different computer and location) (226c84)

  151. I feel as if I am reliving the Carter years.
    Double sigh.

    mg (31009b)

  152. I can hardly wait for Obama’s next foreign policy address in a couple of weeks inwhich he claims credit for keeping his promise to end US involvement in the war in Iraq, to end US involvement in the war in Afghanistan, and now for ending US involvement in the war in Syria.

    Unlike that idiot cowboy Bush who started wars with no end in sight, the super efficient off-the-chart genius Gradschool McMomJeans announces his timetable for withdrawal before starting his wars. Heck, he announces his timetable for withdrawal this week before checking to see if the Congress, the American people, or any allies want to join him in the war he’s managed to squeeze into his schedule week after next between his golf game and a fundraiser in Chicago.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  153. Meanwhile Afghanistan falls to the Taliban, we’ve seen this movie 1996, I can’t even think of the proper analogy of what will happen in Iraq, something out of Hieronymous Bosch, and the turmoil from Syria will move South and SouthWest,

    narciso (3fec35)

  154. Jews and Christians – Take cover

    mg (31009b)

  155. Benghazi scandal was tamped down by the sycophant press to protect him pre-reelection and the Republicans were not effective in getting the word out until much later. Behghazi is causing him real grief now and it is not going away.

    elissa, it occurred to me I wasn’t clear about my meaning.

    When I said this:

    “…if it wasn’t clear who this guy was and what he intended to do in 2008 it sure was in 2012. Especially when AQ put an exclamation point on it with Benghazi.”

    I wasn’t speaking about what normally gets lumped into the Benghazi scandal; the refusal to safeguard the facility and personnel, the failure to respond, the ensuing lies and the cover-up.

    I meant the utterly craven, feeble actions the Obama administration took abroad in their incompetent attempt to deal with the threat to our embassies and consulates across the Muslim world in the face of violent protests that followed the successful AQ assault in Benghazi.

    Those attacks couldn’t have taken place without some level of government complicity. In fact, in most places the government must have been involved in organizing them. The lowlight must have been when Sudan refused Obama’s request to send in additional Marines to reinforce the Khartoum embassy.

    The latter, especially, was a huge humiliation. I can’t imagine any President since Carter that would have allowed himself to be insulted like that. I can’t imagine a country like the Sudan daring to try to insult any President except Carter or Obama like that.

    Don’t think that wasn’t lost on foreign observers.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  156. Yes, Steve, the reason is the factions who were on the out, were the ones who organized the attack, and
    the good guys like Jibril and Magarief, were humiliated by us,

    narciso (3fec35)

  157. It is okay to not express every single solitary random incoherent thought.

    JD (59acf6)

  158. elissa #152 – Cameron (British Prime Minister) didn’t lose the vote – Pres’ent Obama lost such votes quite a while back …

    As I said elsewhere, today, someone said that no-one is afraid of America today – and I responded that those who might have to work militarily with America are afraid of America – would *you* want to be fighting side-by-side with the current administration leading from behind ?

    And the not-quite-John-Cleese item missed the obvious bit at the end about the Assyrians were quite assyrtive …

    Alastor (e7cb73)

  159. How long until president giveaway has the syrians equipped with e.b.t. cards and phones?

    mg (31009b)

  160. I want to know was Kerry this time against it before he was for it?

    hug?

    EPWJ (1cedce)

  161. Love the comedy piece, MD in Philly. :)

    Patricia (be0117)

  162. 163. …As I said elsewhere, today, someone said that no-one is afraid of America today – and I responded that those who might have to work militarily with America are afraid of America – would *you* want to be fighting side-by-side with the current administration leading from behind ?

    Comment by Alastor (e7cb73) — 8/30/2013 @ 6:45 pm

    How much more afraid must those countries who had intelligence sharing relationships with the US on the condition we kept that relationship a secret be?

    Steve57 (713b70)

  163. 164. How long until president giveaway has the syrians equipped with e.b.t. cards and phones?

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 8/30/2013 @ 6:54 pm

    The real question is how long until the Obama administration blame the UN’s “failure to act” on the fact it’s packed with tea partying Republican obstructionists who are putting party before global justice.

    A close second question is how long before the Obama administration or its proxies accuse Putin and Assad of crossing Obama’s redlines because of teh racism. If he “looked like all those other Presidents” they’d have complied.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  164. Gridlock. Everywhere Obama has to deal with gridlock.

    And we know why (wink, wink). The world hates seeing a strong black man in the WH.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  165. glad to see all pro-war conservatve war hawks now put on the peace signs and become ant-war peaceniks now that a black democrat is in white house! I think kicking jane fonda off of the anti-aircraft gun so you can sit on it to fire it at obama is a little goushe!

    james (e5260a)

  166. The left invented, then perfected hypocrisy.

    mg (31009b)

  167. james, we’re just looking out for the guy. He is after all America’s first historic Nobel Peace Prize American President.

    We’d hate to see him squander that legacy simply because he appointed his id as foreign policy czar.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  168. The Obama doctrine: “Unleash the id of War!”

    Steve57 (713b70)

  169. http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/personalityelem.htm

    The id is very important early in life, because it ensures that an infant’s needs are met. If the infant is hungry or uncomfortable, he or she will cry until the demands of the id are met.

    Has anyone ever seen a more accurate description of the process by which Obama arrived at his Syrian red lines, and how he shaped his diplomatic efforts to encourage others to help enforce them?

    Steve57 (713b70)

  170. Has anyone considered the real possibility that Obama is not at all incompetent in foreign affairs but that he’s accomplishing exactly what he set out to do: Destroy America’s credibility and its ability tp wage war?

    Denny (2425fb)

  171. Yes, Denny.

    66. …Mark Steyn and John Bolton discuss Obama’s disastrous FP in this 2011 video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw1xoDfa5HA

    They discuss this as if these are Obama’s “missteps,” I suppose just unwilling to admit it’s deliberate…

    Comment by Steve57 (713b70) — 8/30/2013 @ 12:20 pm

    I’ve also considered the possibility that when the Preezy claimed the following perhaps he was lying.

    http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/072713-665459-obama-weekly-remarks-help-middle-class.htm

    Obama: I spend every minute every day to make the economy work

    By Andrew Malcolm
    Posted 07/27/2013 09:00 AM ET

    …And as long as I have the privilege of holding this office, I will spend every minute of every day doing everything in my power to make this economy work for working Americans again; to build that better bargain for the middle class; to make sure that the American Dream is something that’s achievable for everybody — not just today, but for decades to come. Thanks, and have a great weekend.

    Unless of course spending all this time on attacking Syria is meant to turn it into a “shovel ready project” that will provide job opportunities.

    But if that isn’t the case, we’ll have to wait until after the Labor Day holiday when Obama returns from another well deserved rest to ask how attacking Syria fits into his plan to spend every minute of every day making this economy work for working Americans.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  172. @170 glad to see all pro-war conservatve war hawks now put on the peace signs and become ant-war peaceniks now that a black democrat is in white house! I think kicking jane fonda off of the anti-aircraft gun so you can sit on it to fire it at obama is a little goushe!

    Comment by james (e5260a) — 8/30/2013 @ 8:13 pm

    I can see your confusion James.

    When our national security is in jeopardy, conservatives will fight to defend it, if we have to.

    When the Muslim Brotherhood is in jeopardy, not so much.

    (We’re old-fashion that way)

    Pons Asinorum (8ce71a)

  173. james, if you weren’t an incompetent hack drive-by troll, you’d be able to explain to us why Obama gets a “pass” on all the requirements the he himself, as well as his Vice President, said were necessary for the President to use military force.

    But since you are an incompetent hack drive-by troll, you can’t and won’t.

    SPQR (768505)

  174. Denny, for the record a lot of people have considered the real possibility that Obama’s foreign policy is working exactly as intended.

    If you recall, and unfortunately I can’t find the exact quote, Obama noted during the 2008 campaign that no country ever maintained its military preeminence without maintaining its economic preeminence. The more superficial assumed that Obama intended to maintain both.

    More sober minds, such as Victor David Hanson, noted it was merely a truism. And that everything in Obama’s history pointed to the fact that he’d rather maintain neither.

    How are those Obamanomics working out, people?

    That’s just one example. I’m not claiming any deep insight. This guy has been transparent for years. A lot of people have seen through him.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  175. 178. james, if you weren’t an incompetent hack drive-by troll, you’d be able to explain to us why Obama gets a “pass” on all the requirements the he himself, as well as his Vice President, said were necessary for the President to use military force.

    But since you are an incompetent hack drive-by troll, you can’t and won’t.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 8/30/2013 @ 9:17 pm

    I’d really like to know what adulation james would like to direct Obama’s way for performing the vital presidential function of meeting with Magic Johnson yesterday, the 29th.

    What’s your assessment, james? Was that part of spending every minute of every day making this country work for working Americans?

    Was it part of the lightworker’s effort to use those minutes that exist in what must be an alternate universe to see justice done in Syria?

    Perhaps there’s a fourth or fifth universe that gives Obama time not granted to us mere mortals to work on gun control or promoting Obamacare.

    Do tell, james.

    Steve57 (713b70)

  176. glad to see all pro-war conservatve war hawks now put on the peace sign

    Actually, it’s more a case of “glad to see all the anti-war liberal (and Nobel-Peace Prize-loving) doves now put on a helmet and battle fatigues.”

    The irony truly emanates from the left — and not the right — since the conservatives (at least the sane ones) you’re presumably referring to don’t see Syria as being of vital, earth-shattering importance to US interests and security, don’t believe forces either in support of or opposed to Syria’s current regime are true friends of the US and deserve our blood, sweat and tears, and that evidence of unconscionable gassing of innocent Syrian civilians is totally ironclad, indisputable and 100% attributable to Syria’s strongman and military.

    As usual and typical, the left is ass backwards in the way it deals with people and situations, time and time again.

    Mark (fd91da)

  177. I think kicking jane fonda off of the anti-aircraft gun so you can sit on it to fire it at obama is a little goushe!

    Please don’t use words whose spelling is so alien to you that you can’t even find it via Google. [Although, sure enough, I Googled “goushe” and was asked “Did you mean gauche?” so maybe my advice to james ought to be to learn to use Google.]

    JVW (23867e)

  178. Right on point, Mark.

    nk (875f57)

  179. It occurs to me that history will judge Obama harshly; a man who entered office with manifest goodwill at home and abroad and who managed to alienate nearly everyone.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  180. It occurs to me that history will judge Obama harshly; a man who entered office with manifest goodwill at home and abroad and who managed to alienate nearly everyone.

    Democrat Presidents in modern times come in two different types: those who leave office tragically (Roosevelt, JFK, Clinton to some degree) immediately become exalted and celebrated way beyond what their record deserves. This of course opens them to revision down the road. It is not surprising that Democrat heroes like Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson are slipping in estimation among modern historians. The other type of Democrat is the one who leaves office after compiling a mediocre-to-negative record (Truman, LBJ, Carter). The historians lie low for a while, but later make a concerted effort to raise the stock of the unpopular liberal administrations. Fifteen years ago we were dealing with the Truman renaissance; modern-day liberals who once hated LBJ for Vietnam now salute him for Medicare, Civil Rights, and the Great Society; and we constantly hear that Jimmuh Carter is “the greatest ex-President of all-time.” Chances are that Obama will be given the Roosevelt/JFK/Clinton treatment and immediately celebrated as a transformative President by the liberal media/academia axis, but even if he leaves office with an underwater popularity rating they will soon begin “reevaluating” his Presidency and deciding that it had been very brilliant and wise after all, just as they did with Truman/LBJ/Carter.

    We will all be pushing daisies from down below before we can get an honest assessment of what Obama hath truly wrought.

    JVW (23867e)

  181. Look, in Syria we have muslims killing muslims. This is activity that should be encouraged and prolonged to the extent possible. If we can add to the chaos by flinging cruise missiles and/or other ordnance at random into the country (this would be an ideal mission for an Iowa-class battleship, if only we had one or two still on active duty), so much the better. Win-win!

    Strabo (5539ae)

  182. We will all be pushing daisies from down below before we can get an honest assessment of what Obama hath truly wrought.

    not true at all: Obubles is, was, and always will be a Stuttering Clusterf**k Of Miserable Failure.

    he couldn’t be anything else, even if his worthless carcass actually aspired to mediocrity.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  183. I’m not a big fan of ‘let Muslims kill Muslims’ as a long term strategy. That doesn’t mean I want us to interfere … we can’t take on every issue, but I don’t think waging a proxy battle that encourages that kind of ‘keep both sides fighting’ concept actually benefits us. We’ll have more and more hopeless, battle hardened, and armed bad guys.

    In 30 years, our kids get to pay for that. Like everything.

    There is only one way out of this. That part of the world needs to gain hope, on an individual level. Each person needs to have some kind of plausible hope. A hope that includes a family, a career, etc. The things that make you or me invest in a good society.

    Is endless ‘muslim kill muslim’ proxy genocide going to accomplish that? Nope. Is it even a good ruthless strategy? I think not, given high birth rates. I think we’re just making a stronger enemy.

    I also don’t really have a big objection to Obama striking Syria over their use of WMDs. WMDs they probably got from Saddam, which vindicate the Bush administration. But in 2003 we didn’t have a good enough plan for after the strike. I assumed we did and I assumed wrong. This time, we don’t have a plan, we don’t have a coalition, and we’re not serious about actually accomplishing anything.

    If Obama treated this matter like he meant it, I would probably be on board.

    And how in the hell is John Kerry, a bona fide traitor, our Secretary of State? What kind of image does that present to the world? We don’t respect ourselves… that’s the image. I’m sick of seeing that guy on TV. How in the world did Obama manage to find a downgrade from Hillary?

    Dustin (655264)

  184. Who are our allies, the Nusra front, who’s chief apprenticed with Zarquawi, Doha and Riyadh pick who get the monies, Erdogan the junior partner, who jailed the military so an Al Asisi like situation couldn’t arise,

    narciso (3fec35)

  185. Comment by Alastor (e7cb73) — 8/30/2013 @ 6:45 pm
    I just passed it on.
    I thought you might appreciate the comment on the Scots (I claim Scottish heritage, BTW)

    Glad you liked it, Patricia.

    On the serious side, I’m not sure why a use or two of poison gas that kills a relatively small number of people is more important than the multiple-fold loss of life from other means.
    For those willing to consider it, there is a huge difference between this and Iraq. In Iraq there was a near uniformly hated government and the major opposition were the coalition forces that were liberating the country from their tyrant, and weapon caches were more likely to be controlled (though none of that worked as well as hoped, especially while we decided to let the Iranians mess with it).
    In Syria you have a tyrant being opposed by barbarians, and if and when the Syrian govt falls the weaponry will fall into the hands of people more willing to use them in suicidal jihad.

    Whether Muslim or not, if you could extricate the women and children and all who did not want to fight and let them have it out, it might be the best thing
    but that is not readily possible
    though perhaps it would be possible if there was an overwhelming force present to enforce a cease-fire that would obliterate anything that so much as threw a rock (C130 gunships on patrol, for example)
    but that will not happen

    MD in Philly (from a different computer and location) (226c84)

  186. You need to check out AZ Bob’s link if you haven’t already…

    Obama made reference to “my” military

    If that is not a (yet another) Freudian slip revealing his narcissism and imperial presidency I’m not sure what is.

    It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so scary.

    MD in Philly (from a different computer and location) (226c84)

  187. 25-quotes-about-coming-war-syria-every-american-should-see

    Even if Obama were a Republican and of the right, I’d be no less irritated by his response to Syria, and the piece at zerohedge.com explains why in detail.

    But to make matters far worse, we have a “commander in chief,” who per AZ Bob’s link, refers to the US military as “my military.” “My military”!? You got to be kidding me.

    Such peculiar phraseology (a Freudian slip, perhaps?) coming from a leftist like Obama makes me better understand why I’ve heard certain conservative commentators in decades past snipe about the way that major military conflicts were initiated or exacerbated by White Houses run by Democrats/liberals. I wasn’t sure if such criticism was fair or accurate, but now that I’m witnessing the MO of Obama and Kerry, I’m getting a better sense of why there perhaps is a connection between leftism and clumsy, idiotic responses foisted upon the US military by a liberal Commander in Chief.

    Mark (fd91da)

  188. Questions:

    Why is Obama pushing so hard to identify the Assad regime as the perpetrator of the chemical weapons attack when Syrian forces are the least likely candidate? Where is Obama’s evidence?

    What would be Assad’s motive for provoking a superpower to enter the conflict on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood’s al-Qaeda insurgents?

    Why doesn’t Obama ask Congress to put the use of military force to a vote?

    What’s the rush?

    ropelight (934b84)

  189. If that is not a (yet another) Freudian slip

    Oops, I was beaten to the punch.

    The historians lie low for a while, but later make a concerted effort to raise the stock of the unpopular liberal administrations.

    Historians also have generally failed to note (or be very bothered by) the surprising bigotry and racism of liberal presidents like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt and Harry Truman. And the use of “bigotry” and “racism” applied to such people isn’t couched in the inflated definition that those words now represent in this era of political correctness run amok.

    Mark (fd91da)

  190. I agree, ropelight. Why would Assad do this? He’s winning! And he doesn’t have to deal with the US. Why would he provoke us?

    I think Hamlet in the WH is going to pull the trigger today. Holiday weekend. Maybe no one will notice.

    Patricia (be0117)

  191. #198, OTOH, Patricia, the al-Qaeda insurgents have every incentive to provoke the US into an attack on Assad’s forces, they were nearly on the ropes after Obama’s Benghazi weapons and replacement fighters smuggling operation died on 9/11/12 along with our Ambassador and the other 3 Americans.

    Obama’s been in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda all along. The Arab Spring isn’t entirely his creation, but it couldn’t succeed in displacing one Middle Eastern strongmen after another without America’s influence and military muscle.

    Additionally, Saudi Arabia wants Assad out of the way so they can build an oil and natural gas pipeline across Syria in order to undercut Russian oil in Europe.

    Start thinking in terms of petro-dollars and some of the motivational pieces begin to fall into place.

    ropelight (934b84)

  192. Blast from the past:

    http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2011/aug/01/hama-syria-massacre-1982-archive

    1982: Syria’s President Hafez al-Assad crushes rebellion in Hama

    In a three-week siege, Hama was razed and thousands died as Syrian security forces combed the rubble, killing surviving rebels. Read how the Guardian reported events

    The Syrian city of Hama was the scene of a massacre in 1982 when President Hafez al-Assad, father of the current president Bashar al-Assad, razed the city to crush a Sunni rebellion, slaughtering an estimated 20,000 of his own people.

    Assad’s troops pounded Hama with artillery fire for several days and, with the city in ruins, his bulldozers moved in and flattened neighbourhoods.

    The 1982 massacre is regarded as the single bloodiest assault by an Arab ruler against his own people in modern times and remains a pivotal event in Syrian history.

    The Assads are passed masters at killing their own people by the tens of thousands using conventional weapons. They don’t need to use chemical weapons. And when you look at the body count Bashar has racked up using conventional weapons, what fraction of those killed is this administration pretending to be upset about? We’re talking in the single digits.

    I get that chemical weapons are prohibited by the laws of war. But then, so are hollow point bullets. Is President Tiger Beat making that a red line, too? Because the Syrian gub’mint no doubt has stockpiles of ammo that were manufactured to comply with the laws of war. The rebels use what they can get. Anyone checking?

    My problem with this is multi-fold. Bashar al Assad has no need of chemical weapons to kill as many people as he needs to. If he runs out of conventional weapons and munitions, Putin and a few others will resupply him.

    The rebels with their irregular supply chain are more likely to use weapons or munitions that violate the laws of war. They use what they can get their hands on.

    The rebels by all accounts have gotten their hands on some amount of chemical weapons. It’s by no means certain that the only side in this civil war that could use chemical weapons is the Assad regime.

    The rebels have a greater incentive to use chemical weapons, for two reasons. It’s what they have, and they don’t have much. And if they use them, Obama will blame Assad and give them an air force.

    My final problem is that Assad is unlikely to use those chemical or biological weapons against me. Putin and others would keep him on a leash. If the AQ affiliates get ahold of them all bets are off.

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  193. It was Friedman, who told us about Hama, and yet said Hafwz was someone we could do business with.

    narciso (3fec35)

  194. narciso @201, Hama was one of the great massacres of the early 80s. But not the only one.

    It pales in comparison to Mugabe’s massacre of the Matabele during his Gukuranhundi campaign.

    Mugabe is Shona, as are the majority of of Zimbabweans. The Matabele are a northern branch of the Zulu. They’re sort of like the Copts in Egypt, comprising about 20% of the population.

    They opposed Mugabe’s one party rule. Consequently they were slaughtered by the dictator’s North Korean trained 5th Battalion in the tens of thousands.

    It wasn’t news because it was the natural result of Jimmah’s and the Congressional Black Caucus’ anti-Rhodesian foreign policy.

    You’ve got to break a few eggs to make an omelette, right?

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  195. Even though Muzorewa won, funny how that works.

    narciso (3fec35)

  196. ‘scuse me. 5th Brigade.

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  197. Because Muzorewa won.

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  198. The second tier guys are always less secure.

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  199. If Obama doesn’t want to strike Syria right away, that is his prerogative. After all, it is his military.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  200. Obama has decided to seek Congressional authorization for attacking Syria. (Even though Congressional approval could take weeks, Obama claims a Syrian attack isn’t time sensitive.) It seems like Obama wants out of this mess he’s gotten himself into. I think he’d be lucky if Congress responds to him the way Parliament did to Cameron.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  201. 208. If Obama doesn’t want to strike Syria right away, that is his prerogative. After all, it is his military.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/31/2013 @ 11:57 am

    I am so glad I retired in 2010, so I didn’t have to swear personal loyalty to Ear Leader.

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  202. Not that I would have.

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  203. Must be strange folks are really more used to rushing to war and occupation based on BS evidence rather than taking your time, presenting proper evidence, and making a limited strike. I can see why the confusion.

    sfar (9031e1)

  204. Ah ‘the Rush to war; that took eighteen months.

    narciso (3fec35)

  205. I’m pretty sure that Senator Obama would disagree with what President Obama is doing.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  206. Using the word “limited” when getting the U.S. military involved someplace, or whenever a so-called “quick in an out punishment/preventative measure” is being suggested is a fool’s errand. Anyone who reads history and understands the law of unintended consequences knows this. For refernce see, Kennedy, J.F., Johnson, Lyndon Baines, MacNamara, Robert.

    Looks like in between Labor Day festivities this weekend communications with the senators and congressional reps are in order.

    elissa (1a5407)

  207. ahill / sfar – see comment policy right below where you click on “Submit Comment”

    JD (5c1832)

  208. “Anyone who reads history and understands the law of unintended consequences knows this”

    We’ve gone in an out of places before. Reagan invaded Grenada, bombed Libya, armed the contras.
    There are lots of options that don’t involve invading and occupying without really knowing what we’re doing.

    Then again Reagan also let the marines die in Lebanon.

    sfar (9031e1)

  209. Leftist SQUIRREL trolls are so predictable. And tiresome.

    JD (5c1832)

  210. Sounds like you’re kinda itching for a new war front, sfar. Didn’t “we” elect Barack Obama to disengage from existing conflicts and to avoid just this sort of thing in the future?

    Wha hoppen?

    elissa (1a5407)

  211. And dishonest.

    JD (5c1832)

  212. All these newly minted leftist war mongers and military history experts like sfar are making me chuckle, JD.

    elissa (1a5407)

  213. Sfar – go back and look at what Obama and Bjden had to say about this type of action in 2008. Kthxby

    JD (5c1832)

  214. “Sounds like you’re kinda itching for a new war front, sfar. Didn’t “we” elect Barack Obama to disengage from existing conflicts and to avoid just this sort of thing in the future? ”

    I do hope he avoids the mistakes of the past and instead follows the successes of the past. And I like that now Congress is going to have to go on record too. While he could have acted without congress, as has been done in the past, it’s a good move sure to cut down on the partisan sniping.

    I see how all this riles folks. I mean, the House GOP is going to have to choose between leaving Obama holding his wang or finally hitting Syria.

    sfar (9031e1)

  215. You are so cute, sfar.

    JD (5c1832)

  216. Oh, in truth, I think it’s going to be waaay more interesting to see how the House D’s vote. President Peace Prize has put them in a real pickle with their constituents and with an election coming up next fall, too.

    elissa (1a5407)

  217. This is nothing over than eleventh hour arse-covering after being left totally and completely exposed by the British.

    JD (5c1832)

  218. President ad lib red line got way out over his skis. Ego is a lousy substitute for an actual foreign policy.

    JD (5c1832)

  219. I mean, the House GOP is going to have to choose between leaving Obama holding his wang or finally hitting Syria.

    Only partisan hacks should want to vote on this matter based on who is or isn’t occupying the Oval Office. I can easily see (and respect) members of Congress of all stripes — of both major parties and ideologies — saying “fuggedaboutit” to the request that the US get involved in Syria—and, in turn, getting stuck with the bill for another military endeavor.

    This situation is quite different from that of Iraq and Saddam Hussein (aka the “butcher of Baghdad”) in 2003, since those fighting Syria’s Bashar al-Assad are even worse than he is (ie, they sure as hell aren’t freedom fighters yearning to make Syria a wonderful democracy), since al-Assad isn’t quite as notorious and bloody as Hussein was, and since Syria is a smaller player on the world stage than Iraq was, and is of less importance to vital US interests.

    Mark (fd91da)

  220. Also, there actually are chemical weapons in Syria.

    sfar (9031e1)

  221. I’ll meet you at the Marine recruiting station and buy you lunch after you’ve applied for enlistment, sfar.

    nk (875f57)

  222. Quick question: is sfar imdw?

    Chuck Bartowski (ad7249)

  223. Are the marines going in?

    sfar (9031e1)

  224. Sounds like him doesn’t it, Chuck? Oh, what the hey. It’s a slow Saturday, let’s play whack-the-troll.

    nk (875f57)

  225. 232.Are the marines going in?

    Depends. How hard is it raining at the Rose Garden?

    nk (875f57)

  226. Like I said, I see why this riles folks.

    sfar (9031e1)

  227. I think someone needs to change the Monty Python “spam” song to “Trolls, trolls, trolls, trolls…”

    Simon Jester (3a06ee)

  228. “Like I said, I see why this riles folks.”

    sfar – It’s riled President Stompyfoot McBombypants so much he’s decided her needs to go to Congress to cover his butt so he’s no hanging out there alone in this no win situation.

    Voting present is what he does best. Going to Congress gives him other people to blame. A lot of WTF in that move.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  229. 235. Like I said, I see why this riles folks.

    Comment by sfar (9031e1) — 8/31/2013 @ 3:27 pm

    How generous of you. You concede that being entirely full of **** “riles folks.”

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  230. sfar, another dishonest troll. Have you nothing to say that isn’t a lie?

    SPQR (768505)

  231. the House GOP is going to have to choose between leaving Obama holding his wang or finally hitting Syria.

    The WH press gaggle has been caddying Obama’s wang since January 2009

    steveg (794291)

  232. JOM has a blistering new post up on the Syria crisis filled with brutal quotes about the president which were culled from well known Eastern columnists’ columns today. I predict that sfar and his ilk will not be pleased that the ugly truth is being told.

    http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2013/08/circling-the-drain-on-syria.html

    elissa (1a5407)

  233. Lotta racists out there today criticizing the historic president.

    elissa (1a5407)

  234. 242. I like how a fierce retaliation o’ yours does not figure prominently, oh, check that, at all.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  235. “How generous of you. You concede that being entirely full of **** “riles folks.””

    Except that in this case, it’s not. There actually are chemical weapons there.

    sfar (9031e1)

  236. sfar, says the same intel agencies as in 2003….

    (Of course, the Duelfer report documented chemical weapons in Iraq).

    SPQR (768505)

  237. Not that Syria and Iran are bluffing about hitting Israel, I doubt that they are playing that card without misdirection intended.

    We will have to position our ships out of range of Russian cruisers and Syrian coast installations. Airstrips in Qatar will be targeted certainly, possibly Bahrain and UAE.

    The stealth bombers will come from the US but anything from Incirlik will get a butt-full.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  238. 147.127. Comment by elissa (fdb36e) — 8/30/2013 @ 2:57 pm

    Under the circumstances can anyone come up with a reason why poor Mr. “I vote present so I don’t ever have to make a decision or take a stand” doesn’t call back Congress and tell them to take a vote ala Cameron?

    It looks like President Obama decided to mtake your advice. (or maybe that of the New York times which lamented about Congress and the United Nations Security Council doing nothing)

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  239. Yeah, well if he’s on my wavelength I’ve got a few other suggestions for him too, Sammy.

    elissa (91e21f)

  240. He kept stepping on the rakes, ala Sideshow Bob, time to try something else,

    narciso (3fec35)

  241. Despite the circuitous, halting, and embarrassing route that got him there, I am not at all unhappy that Obama is taking a resolution to congress. This hideous non emergency episode over a red line and him shooting off his mouth without considering repercussions, has outed the hypocrisy of the left like little else in recent memory.

    I am fine with putting congresscritters, Dem and Repub, on teh spot and forcing them to take a stand on using our military and tax dollars in this way. It may be quite instructive. If they listen to the American public and vote against a strike–and he does it anyway–well all bets are off. I doubt even he’d be that stupid, tho.

    elissa (91e21f)

  242. One cannot rule out that he may have some cornhusker kickback type pork up his sleeve to entice the piggies, I suppose.

    elissa (91e21f)

  243. If he waits till the vote, we’ll be bombing on September 11th, that doesn’t proclude any adverse action from the other side,

    narciso (3fec35)

  244. Not to worry Narciso. Al Quaeda is on the run. You might want to plan to work from home that day, though.

    elissa (91e21f)

  245. 245. “How generous of you. You concede that being entirely full of **** “riles folks.””

    Except that in this case, it’s not. There actually are chemical weapons there.

    Comment by sfar (9031e1) — 8/31/2013 @ 4:56 pm

    How old are you, child?

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  246. Seriously, sfar, are you old enough to know what the other case was about?

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  247. One is struck how there was so little data, besides the maps, maybe they will present NSA intercepts, photgraphs of tanker trucks, missile batteries, but why haven’t they,

    narciso (3fec35)

  248. 254. 9/11, there’s that date again. When he sacrifices an infant on the high, holy place in the Dome of the Rock I see the scales falling from many an eye.

    For ‘lissa on an earlier request:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-31/guest-post-what-expect-during-next-stage-collapse

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  249. Yup. They were trucked in from Iraq in February, 2003.

    Chuck Bartowski (ad7249)

  250. Except that in this case, it’s not. There actually are chemical weapons there.

    Yup. They were trucked in from Iraq in February, 2003.

    (Gotta lay off the scotch until after I copy/paste.)

    Chuck Bartowski (ad7249)

  251. 261. …(Gotta lay off the scotch until after I copy/paste.)

    Comment by Chuck Bartowski (ad7249) — 8/31/2013 @ 10:37 pm

    Don’t worry about it. Anything short of a DUI or a Geraldo Rivera nude selfie is eminently reparable.

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  252. Forgivable. Excusable. Whatever.

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  253. “Seriously, sfar, are you old enough to know what the other case was about?”

    You don’t remember Rummy saying he knew where the weapons where?

    sfar (9031e1)

  254. David Gregory just said on NBC News morning newscast that Obama has made up his mind to attack Syria and that he will order it no matter what Congress votes. Obama would be acting illegally for the second time. Biden once asserted that he would work for the impeachment of any President who did that. And of course Obama said in 2007 that the President had no authority to so act…

    SPQR (768505)

  255. He should sit right down and write a scathing letter.. a letter that is so scathingly scathful that the Syrians would never misunderestimate his stalwart resoluteness again.

    Colonel Haiku (b5b99c)

  256. SPQR, they were talking about someone who was just a mere president who was “selected, not elected”, not The Emaculate Won, who can stop the seas from rising, and cure Mother Gaia.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  257. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-syria-crisis-russia-g20-analysis-idUSBRE98007P20130901

    Yes! Obama has so totally restored the US to a position of respect in the eyes of the world.

    Analysis: Putin sees chance to turn tables on Obama at G20

    (Reuters) – Less than three months after Vladimir Putin was cast as a pariah over Syria at the last big meeting of world leaders, the Russian president has glimpsed a chance to turn the tables on Barack Obama.

    I loved this part:

    Buoyed by growing pressure on the U.S., French and British leaders over Syria, the former KGB spy has also now hit back in comments referring ironically to Obama as a Nobel Peace laureate and portraying U.S. global policy as a failure.

    …Denying as “utter nonsense” the idea that Assad’s forces would use chemical weapons when they were winning the civil war, Putin looked steely and confident.

    I’m telling you, it’s just a matter of time before guys like Putin start quoting Obama’s own words back at him.

    We’re just days away from Putin or Assad start calling Obama’s allegations a “phony scandal.”

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  258. Why shouldn’t Putin do what we’ve been doing for weeks/months now?
    He’s got Rights too (cable TV, sing the Blues, etc., etc.).

    askeptic (2bb434)

  259. Yeah, this is going well.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/10/us-weapons-syria-shiites/2503953/

    U.S. arms showing up in hands of pro-Assad militias

    The money quote:

    State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the administration has taken steps “to do everything possible to ensure that any aid is making its way into the right hands” in Syria.

    No doubt veterans of Fast & Furious have been seconded to the DoS to make sure of that.

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  260. Some of those U.S. arms may have been supplied by the Russians – they grabbed a lot of them in Georgia.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  261. R.I.P. David Frost

    Icy (b23af1)

  262. 271. Some of those U.S. arms may have been supplied by the Russians – they grabbed a lot of them in Georgia.

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 9/1/2013 @ 8:07 am

    True.

    But I never underestimate this administration’s capacity to ship large volumes of weapons to failed states and then completely losing track of them. At times it seems to be their only real talent.

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  263. While it’s a big stretch to say that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is similar to Egypt’s former, pre-Muslim-Brotherhood president Hosni Mubarak, in a very general way it’s also not totally inapplicable.

    AFP, August 26, 2013: In Wadi al-Nassara, a valley in western Syria dotted with Christian hamlets, residents have hung white silk ribbons to mourn war victims and pray the army will defeat its jihadist foes. Around 50,000 Christians now live in Wadi al-Nassara, where they have formed “popular defence committees” with the blessing of the authorities.

    On August 15, rebels travelling from Al-Hosn village where the Krak is located attacked checkpoints manned by the local committees killing 11 people — five of the militiamen and six civilians.

    Issa Yazigi, whose son Soumer was also killed in the August 15 attack, said most residents have fled Al-Hosn and now the town is in the hands of jihadist fighters. “The extremist groups threaten us and are trying to chase us out” of Marmarita, said Yazigi.

    Christians account for only five percent of the population in Syria, and many back the Assad regime because they fear the growing strength of jihadists whose aim is to set up an Islamic state in Syria.

    “They’ve came, they’ve cut off roads. They, Al Nusra Front. They are scary,” said the mother of Soumer Yazigi. “Too many of our youths have been killed. Enough! We want the army to protect us.

    He husband insisted that “jihadists… are threatening to take over the valley.”

    It’s also a stretch to say that pro-Syrian-regime forces are analogous to a George Zimmerman and the rebels are analogous to a Trayvon Martin. But when the left (hello, Obama!) is notorious for misidentifying (and transposing) the good and bad in both people and situations — time and time again — applying the lesson of Syria to certain domestic controversies is not necessarily the ultimate in a contortionist routine.

    Mark (fd91da)

  264. If the goal of the announced Syria adventure is to keep Obama from getting mocked, it’s already too late for that. It’s too late to achieve much of anything. And don’t think people haven’t noticed.

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/08/obama-promises-syria-strike-will-have-no-objective.html

    The Borowitz Report: Obama Promises Syria Strike Will Have No Objective

    WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Attempting to quell criticism of his proposal for a limited military mission in Syria, President Obama floated a more modest strategy today, saying that any U.S. action in Syria would have “no objective whatsoever.”

    “Let me be clear,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.”

    “I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal,” he said. “This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past.”

    Steve57 (dcc108)

  265. 252. Comment by elissa (91e21f) — 8/31/2013 @ 7:16 pm

    If they listen to the American public and vote against a strike–and he does it anyway–well all bets are off. I doubt even he’d be that stupid, tho. </I.

    What if they vote against it, and he DOESN'T go ahead, and then Syria uses chemical weapons again, and they hold a second vote, and this time he wins?

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  266. By voting for an second resolution, even not everybody who voted against the first one, but enough for it to carry, they will have confessed for all to see that the first vote was wrong.

    Now Obama is prtobably not planning on that.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  267. McCain and others are saying Obama has got to make the case to the American people, not just to members of Congress.

    McCain and Graham don’t want to vote for it if there’s no strategy or plan, at the same time apparently McCain he feels this is a vote the president can’t be allowed to lose, because the international situation will get bad if it fails. (and he doesn’t go ahead anyway, it goeds without saying)

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  268. 276. 277. Sammy, the “what ifs?” and the “then whats?” of this very fluid international situation really are quite complex and in my opinion are beyond the ability of any single nation or group of well intentioned bloggers (such as us) to greatly influence, prevent, or accurately predict. Too often I think we lose sight of that when we focus so narrowly on American partisan politics or what might make a particular pol or party look good or bad on the world stage– rather than examining the likely inputs, roles, power, or motives that the other main characters on the world stage may have. Ideally a nation’s foreign policy/national security should be held arms length apart from internal politics and there should be appropriate contingency plans to deal with various scenarios.

    Ignoring this how big wars get started–unintentionally.

    elissa (91e21f)

  269. Comment by elissa (91e21f) — 9/1/2013 @ 12:19 pm

    Ignoring this how big wars get started–unintentionally. >/i>

    I see there’s a lot of room for miscalculation here. A lot more room was added to it yesterday.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  270. Comment by Mark (fd91da) — 8/31/2013 @ 1:56 pm

    since those fighting Syria’s Bashar al-Assad are even worse than he is

    People are succumbing to propaganda. There are different groups of rebels, and really, it’s not too confusing to keep straight.

    More and more al Nusra is contrlling separate territory. The only reason it exxists at all, of course iis bad policyy these past two years.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  271. 279. …Ignoring this how big wars get started–unintentionally.

    Comment by elissa (91e21f) — 9/1/2013 @ 12:19 pm

    Of course this strike on Syria won’t start any big wars. I’m sure instead it’ll make Assad be a good boy and mind his manners.

    These things always work. Remember how in April 1993 launched cruise missiles at Baghdad in retaliation for the Iraqi dictator’s plot to Kill George Bush senior during his visit to Kuwait?

    After that, we had no more trouble from Saddam Hussein. Yessir, he reformed completely after that “shot across his bow.”

    Cruise missile strikes work like magic with Arab dictators. Every. Single. Time.

    So no worries about an unintentional war here.

    Steve57 (35dd46)

  272. *in April 1993 Clinton launched cruise missiles*

    Steve57 (35dd46)

  273. People are succumbing to propaganda. There are different groups of rebels, and really, it’s not too confusing to keep straight.

    Which ones are the good terro…er, rebels?

    Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba)

  274. There’s the Judean People’s Front, the Popular Front for Judea, and a few other outfits,

    narciso (3fec35)

  275. 281. People are succumbing to propaganda. There are different groups of rebels, and really, it’s not too confusing to keep straight.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (67ff63) — 9/1/2013 @ 1:51 pm

    We don’t have firsthand knowledge like you, Sammy. Did you have time to take any pictures during your fact finding embed with the Syrian rebels?

    Steve57 (35dd46)

  276. Wikipedia has a list of the “not too confusing to keep straight” opposition groups. Seems rather extensive, but as long as the Samster has it all figured out—I’m good!

    Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba)

  277. 279. This fellow says Iran obtained two fissible warheads from Khazhakastan around 1991.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Mihai_Pacepa

    Of course he could be playing us still. I’m somewhat confident Mom isn’t playing me.

    But what’s the guarantee that Iran won’t kill a bunch of ours and walk? Do we want trouble with Iran, they are animals. Sure we’ll crush them in neutral territory, but come and get them?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  278. 287. It is not too difficult to see that al Qaeda does not dominate them. Nor were they active in the area where sarin was used.

    What’s stupid is trying to expect them to be united.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  279. Comment by Steve57 (35dd46) — 9/1/2013 @ 2:33 pm

    We don’t have firsthand knowledge like you, Sammy.

    What kind of knowledge can you have if you claim the military opposition is mainly or exclsuively al Qaeda?

    You hear so many times, you think it’s true.

    Detailed nesspaper reports make it clear it is not so. They are even fighting each other, from time to time.

    Killing that idea – that the chief military opposition is al Qaeda – or that the rebels and not the Syrian government were the ones to use the poison gas – is at least one virtue of throwing this thing into Congress, because I don’t think either idea will be echoed by any member of Congress taken seriously by the oother members.

    You probably won’t even catch Rand Paul making either claim, even the easiier claim about al Qaeda being the ones who would win if Assad loses, because that could be true only of we let it happen.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)

  280. NO

    Yoda (ee1de0)

  281. There was a member of the House (Rick Nolan, D-Minn) who did make a claim that there wasn’t enough evidence that the Syrian government was responsible and Kerry argued with him rather heatedly, according to Politico. I read tghat this morning in the New York Post, but wasn’t able to find the Politici article.

    Ah ,here it is, maybe

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/john-kerry-to-democrats-munich-moment-96165.html?hp=t1_3

    Now that I have Nolan’s name it became somewhat easier to find.

    Paragraphs 8 and 9:

    Minnesota Rep. Rick Nolan challenged the evidence that Obama administration officials have presented on the reported use of chemical weapons by Assad’s force against Syrian civilians. U.S. intelligence officials and Syrian rebel groups claim that more than 1,000 Syrian died in that attack, including hundreds of children.

    Nolan and Kerry got into a “heated exchange,” according to multiple sources on the call. Nolan compared Syria to Vietnam, which angered Kerry, who was wounded during that conflict.

    In a statement afterward, Nolan said the call further convinced him to not support the president’s plan, and he added that Assad should be tried in an international court.

    I’m not sdure what Nolan disagreed about, but it might not have been the idea that the Syrian government didn’t use chemical weapons. He seemed more to oppose what Obama and Kerry wanted to do about it. So paragraph 8 might mistate things.

    Sammy Finkelman (67ff63)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 2.0264 secs.