Patterico's Pontifications

9/14/2013

Syria Deal Reached

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:11 pm



New York Times:

The United States and Russia reached a sweeping agreement on Saturday that called for Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons to be removed or destroyed by the middle of 2014 and indefinitely stalled the prospect of American airstrikes.

However, the joint announcement, on the third day of intensive talks in Geneva, also set the stage for one of the most challenging undertakings in the history of arms control.

“This situation has no precedent,” said Amy E. Smithson, an expert on chemical weapons at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “They are cramming what would probably be five or six years’ worth of work into a period of several months, and they are undertaking this in an extremely difficult security environment due to the ongoing civil war.”

Sure, it’s unworkable. But it defers an embarrassing vote, and so it’s politically helpful to Obama.

And, in the end, isn’t that the only thing that matters?

119 Responses to “Syria Deal Reached”

  1. I’m just glad that our national credibility has been preserved. Hold your head up high, America!

    Pious Agnostic (ac89e5)

  2. I drove by one of my neighbors, who had Kerry-Edwards 2004 signs all over his yard 9 long years ago, and saw him doing yard work in front of his house. This is the same guy that – after that election – I honked in a “four more years” pattern every time I either saw him or drove by his house.

    Anyways, seeing him outside, I couldn’t resist the urge to pull my car over and innocently ask, “How are you liking Kerry now?”.

    The man just sneered, lol.

    Colonel Haiku (764dd5)

  3. I get it now… with Putin now heading to Iran for “nuke talks”, it seems President Armslength Obumbler is subcontracting his foreign policy!

    Colonel Haiku (764dd5)

  4. one of the most challenging undertakings in the history of arms control.

    Can you get the Nobel Peace Prize twice?

    nk (875f57)

  5. “sweeping” or shovel-ready?

    Colonel Haiku (764dd5)

  6. Reality doesn’t matter, only appearance does.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  7. I wonder what happens to Edward Snowden if he gets the Peace Prize instead of Putin.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  8. The media is portraying this as a win for Obama on substance, which shows how clueless they are. Putin and Assad were successful in forcing Obama to drop his threat to strike Syria, showing how neutered Obama has become. Now Obama is relegated to issuing empty threats to anyone who would listen.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  9. I believe this is as credible as Tlaloc’s economic theories.

    JD (5c1832)

  10. If want potato, don’t say I take potato. Send soldier, take potato.

    Obama should have bombed on Friday afternoon, August 30. Labor Day weekend, old news by Tuesday. If he were a serious person. Instead, he gave his weak-kneed “sending it to Congress” speech on Saturday.

    Dork.

    nk (875f57)

  11. “They are cramming what would probably be five or six years’ worth of work into a period of several months, and they are undertaking this in an extremely difficult security environment due to the ongoing civil war.”

    Unless they’re just planning on dumping all of it in the ocean, try more like 10 years of work.

    This could only be more ridiculous if they had demanded Assad account for all his chemical weapons and destroy them all by the middle of last week.

    Steve57 (6f26ff)

  12. I can’t wait for Obama to announce complete success just before the 2014 election.

    Does anyone doubt that’s what’s going to happen.

    Obama gets an election year boost for the Dems, and Assad keeps his weapons.

    Steve57 (6f26ff)

  13. Strategically and tactically, the worst outcome for Obama is if he has to or if he does start bombing Syria.

    This entire situation has me puzzled because I assumed that he originally was being goaded into acting more aggressively against Syria by France and Britain, or NATO in general. IOW, it wasn’t really in his nature (or we-are-the-world heart) to want to use the US military in a non-defense manner.

    There’s something seemingly below the surface and out of view — something suspicious — about Obama vis a vie his response to the Middle East. Something involving odd bedfellows between the Saudis, Qatars and Obama, and between Al-Assad, Iran and Putin. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something doesn’t jibe correctly.

    Mark (58ea35)

  14. Sure, it’s unworkable. But it defers an embarrassing vote, and so it’s politically helpful to Obama.

    Of course, because national security is a given. Assad could never strike back!

    ;(

    Patricia (be0117)

  15. Mark #13 – ummmm, it is entirely in Pres’ent Obama’s ‘nature’ and style to be overtaken by events such that nothing is his fault …

    Alastor (2e7f9f)

  16. So who should that peace-loving Nobel Prize committee pick? Choom-sHrillary-Lurch troika or maybe shades of Yassir Arafish or the Oslo Accords crew? How about Choom, Putin and Assad? Peace in our time. I’m sure the Mideast would settle into the long-awaited progtard wet dream of endless Kumbaya if Iran just nuked those warmongering Jooos into oblivion.

    calypso louie Farrakhan (f08b78)

  17. The Russians haven’t rolled a US President like this since Yalta.

    SPQR (768505)

  18. Ultimately it probably helps republicans the most. The house was gearing up for yet another bruising fight between factions and more humiliation of the house leadership. That’s something the right does not need. And if they had voted no, as seemed likely ultimately, it simultaneously let Obama off the hook and made the GOP an easy (if unfair) scape goat for any further atrocities. More sarin attacks and Obama can just say “I would have prevented it if only republicans hadn’t obstructed.” It’s unfair but yes it would have played on the media pretty well.

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  19. Well it’s more a Brexhnev doctrine than say Stalin,

    narciso (3fec35)

  20. Obama can’t get Democrats to back him in Congress but Tlaloc ascribes the problem Obama has to Republicans. The spin continues for the Empty Suit(tm).

    SPQR (768505)

  21. Obama can’t get Democrats to back him in Congress but Tlaloc ascribes the problem Obama has to Republicans. The spin continues for the Empty Suit(tm).

    Much as I’d like to say otherwise I’d bet most dems would grudgingly support Obama on the issue. But since they are in the minority if the GOP comes out strongly against they have no say in the matter. So, yeah.

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  22. We know the CIA is already in Syria and I’m guessing there are military and other “advisers” there, too. They will probably increase during the next year. Oh, and did I mention our only ally is France?

    How ironic to see John Kerry and Barack Obama repeat JFK’s decisions in French Indochina. Perhaps Syria will be the Democrats next Vietnam.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  23. Don’t worry, narciso, the troops will not be allowed to defend themselves …er, wage actual war.

    Patricia (be0117)

  24. How ironic to see John Kerry and Barack Obama repeat JFK’s decisions in French Indochina. Perhaps Syria will be the Democrats next Vietnam.

    Maybe young Navy Lt. John Forbes Kerry Kennedy Smith, graduate of Yale, will be sent into Lebanon on a secret mission by President-elect Ted Cruz on Christmas Day 2020.

    JVW (23867e)

  25. They didnt have majorities is the House or the Senate when Teh One called for a delay on the vote. I blame Republicans.

    JD (5c1832)

  26. == Perhaps Syria will be the Democrats next Vietnam.==

    Oh, I hope not DRJ. There are certainly differences in the civil war aspects, but there also seem to be so many parallels with respect to our government’s response and their trying to “prop up” elements that do not deserve propping up.

    elissa (bf3931)

  27. Obama got endorsements from Boehner and Cantor, but they had to postpone the House vote because the GOP was only going to deliver about 60% of their caucus. I blame Republicans.

    JVW (23867e)

  28. McClatchy has pretty good on balance, but they can still spin with the best;

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/14/202177/obama-only-suffers-small-hit-in.html#.UjUPrz_DLFw

    narciso (3fec35)

  29. Gore Vidal in his novel about Lincoln told an apocryphal tale about the future Civil War president wrestling a wild hog. He quoted Lincoln saying something along the lines of: “Somebody help me let this pig go!”

    Lincoln fought a war to let the pig go. Our current President simply decided to hold on to the pig.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  30. Does this oldie but goodie sound about right, narciso?

    JVW (23867e)

  31. We didn’t directly intervene in Central America, except for PAnama since Dominican Republic in ’65.

    http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/09/14/neither-rand-paul-nor-john-mccain-get-conservative-foreign-policy-right/

    narciso (3fec35)

  32. That was fast.

    This happened only because the Russians caved in on everything that was important to Obama and Kerry. Putin had given instructions that the negotiations were not going to be allowed to break up.

    Obama and Kerry didn’t realize that they’d cave in on even more, so the agreement is not perfect.

    I suspect that the deadline is not at all the middle of 2014.

    Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6)

  33. Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons will be delivered and destroyed by spring 2014.

    Obamacare will be fully implemented by January 2014.

    The economy will be growing at 3.5% by mid-2011.

    Guantanamo Bay will be closed by January 2010.

    I can see where this is going.

    JVW (23867e)

  34. This happened only because the Russians caved in on everything that was important to Obama and Kerry.

    I can’t stand this anymore.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  35. Sammy… that is some mighty powerful stuff you’re smoking, shooting, snorting, or rubbing into your belly button…

    Colonel Haiku (d90963)

  36. 17. 19. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 9/14/2013 @ 3:03 pm

    17.The Russians haven’t rolled a US President like this since Yalta.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 9/14/2013 @ 3:36 pm

    Well it’s more a Brexhnev doctrine than say Stalin,

    What this is, is another Helsinki Agreement. (1975)

    When Brezhnev thought he had won a big concession (no borders in Europe were to be changed) only to discover he was holding an empty bag (nobody was proposing to change back the borders of Poland or Germany again 30 years after the ear)

    While meanwhile a little minor appendix to the agreement about human rights, just like half a dozen other human rights pronouncements the Soviet Union had agreed to since 1945, that he had to agree to to get the agreement, became the only thing important about it.

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

    Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6)

  37. President Gerald Ford got lost in the thickets of his sentence in the 1976 debate with Jimmy Carter.

    Where he was going, or should have gone, was that the Soviet Union did not dominate Eastern Europe because of the Helsinki agreement.

    But he forgot and left off the end of that sentence.

    And then he tried to defend what he said when asked a followuop question by Max Frankel..

    Well, there’s Yugoslavia (Tito, independent since 1948) And Romania (Ceascesceu had an independent foreign policy since about 1966)

    And…

    Poland!

    Ford had discussed not long before several Communist countries in Eastern Europe that weren’t completely satellites, Yugoslavia, Romania and Poland with Henry Kissinger.

    If Ford had stopped counting at 2 it wouldn’t have been so bad.

    But anyway I knew what he had originally been intending to say.

    Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6)

  38. Forget it he’s rolling;

    narciso (3fec35)

  39. SF: This happened only because the Russians caved in on everything that was important to Obama and Kerry.

    They did.

    True, the UN Resolution will not mention Article 7 – but that’s not important.

    I’m not saying that Obama and Kerry could not have held out for more – but they got everything that was important to them: acknowledgment that Syria had chemical weapons and of the approximate amount that they had, agreement by Syria to get rid of them soon, and no limitations agreed to on future American use of force.

    You’re hearing 2014, but that’s only when it si supposed to be all gone. Syria agrees to the chemnical weapons treaty effective October 14 (that still gives them a whole month) Equipment for producing chemical weapons and filling munitions with poison gas must be destroyed by November (Nov. 1?). The Syrian government must identify all sites containing chemical weapons and let them be inspected by end of November.

    There’s room for trouble, especially since Russia is not agreeing on the number of chemical weapos sites.

    But any violations of the agreement make the case for military action stronger. If this agreement falls apart, Obama does not go back to waiting.

    Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6)

  40. This happened only because the Russians caved in on everything that was important to Obama and Kerry.

    On what planet do you reside?

    JD (5c1832)

  41. The one with two suns,

    narciso (3fec35)

  42. As they say, the devil is in the details.

    Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6)

  43. Bless Sammy’s heart.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  44. If Obama had semnt some cruise misiles and dropped some bombs, he couldn’t have expected abetter agreement,

    Having this actually work is a new red line.

    Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6)

  45. Sammy has SOOPEREKRIT intelligence

    JD (5c1832)

  46. Didn’t Lurch say that this could never happen?
    How many ‘wrongs’ is he allowed in a lifetime?

    askeptic (2bb434)

  47. As somewhat of a cynic, I would say that there will be no weapons turned over by the Syrian’s to whomever, as they will all be used in the ongoing Civil War, reducing the size of the Syrian population considerably, and without any consequence to Assad.
    Just another day at the office for a National/International Socialist.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  48. There will be malfunctioning and obsolete weapons “given up,” and everyone will know it is a farce. Meanwhile, Assad (or, who knows, perhaps the rebels) may decide to use chemical weapons again. Obama will not have bothered to get U.N. or Congressional authority for an attack, the Russians and the Chinese will dither on punishment, so we will be exactly right back where we started with all of this.

    I mean, my Lord, even the NYTimes and Washington Post seem to be pretty blasé towards this agreement, and you know they are desperate to lavish praise on Obama.

    JVW (23867e)

  49. Oh, and not to mention, the U.S. probably has to sit quietly by while Assad pulverizes the opposition, or else we have to secretly help Saudi Arabia arm them and hope that we get goodwill credit if they happen to pull of a miracle win.

    JVW (23867e)

  50. Slap teh Sammy down… slap teh Sammy down again.

    Colonel Haiku (42710d)

  51. 37. Sammy… that is some mighty powerful stuff you’re smoking, shooting, snorting, or rubbing into your belly button…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (d90963) — 9/14/2013 @ 7:11 pm

    I believe he’s injecting it directly into his brain through some sort of surgical implant in his skull.

    Steve57 (6f26ff)

  52. The facts on the ground, are indeed disturbing;

    https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister

    narciso (3fec35)

  53. 41. True, the UN Resolution will not mention Article 7 – but that’s not important.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 9/14/2013 @ 7:33 pm

    AFP report via SCMP:

    http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1310065/us-russia-deal-syria-sets-coming-battle-within-un

    However, while Chapter 7 of the UN Charter was cited in the US-Russia deal announced in Geneva, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quick to stress “there is no talk of using force”.

    Other than that Sammy, you’re doing fine.

    Steve57 (6f26ff)

  54. On what planet do you reside?

    Hisanus?

    that’s certainly an accurate location for his otherwise empty head.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  55. 34. Obama and Kerry didn’t realize that they’d cave in on even more, so the agreement is not perfect.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 9/14/2013 @ 7:00 pm

    What else was Putin willing to cave in on, Sammy?

    Steve57 (6f26ff)

  56. How many holes of golf did Obama play today?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  57. well I be a monkey’s uncle peace in our time!

    never thought I’d see the day

    this is goddamn historic

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  58. looking back at this debacle, i wasn’t aware that Putin had caved on anything…

    only Lurch and our SCOAMF did any caving.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  59. Sammy – time to get new knee pads from your allah obama.
    Do you get a pink hat for being a fictional paragraph writer? Or a waiver on your obamacare?

    mg (31009b)

  60. Lurch is a traitor, his past is somehow over looked.

    mg (31009b)

  61. I can’t stand this anymore.

    Because most of the other regulars to this forum who are of the left rarely cite reference material — or don’t bother to copy and paste the way Sammy often does — I was under the impression that Finkleman perhaps was a wobbly Democrat or certainly a very wobbly Republican, or a wobbly independent. D’oh to me!

    He’s far more liberal and partisan than I originally assumed. Still, he does debate in a manner that other left-leaning people, but who are often labeled “trolls” by various forumers here, could well try to emulate.

    Mark (58ea35)

  62. that is some mighty powerful stuff you’re smoking, shooting, snorting, or rubbing into your belly button…

    It would be interesting if research ever discovered certain drugs or substances that cause a human brain to become leftwing or even more liberal. However, a case of stunted maturity in humans (eg, 51-year-old Obama) does appear to have such an effect.

    Mark (58ea35)

  63. Oh for the sake of f@ck, mark.

    JD (cbd374)

  64. Meanwhile the House GOP intends to play its pat hand.

    They will fund Boehnercare, rubber stamp another CR, bring Amnesty forward, change the bandages on Benghazi, Syria, NSA, IRS, Fast&Furious, DHS paramilitarism, on and on and on.

    All this in the hope that appearing cooperative, statesmenlike, the bad news will cling to Urkel like stink on, well, you know.

    As yourselves, did you like Romany Debate 1 or Romany Debate 3? Show your work.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  65. Headline at HotAir…..

    Assad Forces Attacking Hospitals

    Why not, if Allah wants people well, he will heal them – hospitals not required!

    askeptic (2bb434)

  66. i didn’t like anything to do with Mittens, except maybe his choice for VP.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  67. …and proving that journo’s are really far from the sharpest knives in the drawer, we have this question from reliable Lefty, Candy Crowley:

    CNN’s Crowley: ‘Do We Really Care that Russia Got the Diplomatic Edge?’

    askeptic (2bb434)

  68. 69. Yeah, me too. They got a bunch of us curmudgeons with that one.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  69. 70. I know she wasn’t addressing those present, but “A house divided against itself cannot stand”.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  70. Oh for the sake of f@ck, mark.

    JD, I hope you never assume that the commenting of true-blue, dyed-in-the-wool liberals perhaps is related to outside forces (or — per the quip above — mind-altering substances), or a lack of enough information — or because he/she likes to “troll” in a forum (and “troll” to me means a person who like to inflame purely for the sake of inflaming). That implies such a person doesn’t really believe what he or she is arguing and that with enough feedback and countervailing data he/she will change his POV (or voting habits). I wish.

    Mark (58ea35)

  71. narciso – Obama interview with Munchkinopoulis is snortworthy.

    Hey, Obama had a conversation with Pooty-Poot about Syria a year ago so he’s got that going for him.

    Did it lead to any plans or progress? Hell no, but at least they had a conversation you damn raaaaacists!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  72. Obama’s steely-eyed diplomacy supported by his coalition of one and his willingness to back-pedal furiously while throwing blame everywhere except where it belonged allowed him to grab hold of Russia’s opportunistic pouncing on John Kerry’s diplomatic gaffe and save complete humiliation.

    Media overpraise and rewriting of facts have now commenced.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  73. throwing blame everywhere except where it belonged

    I’m going to have to use that. Tiger Beat’s weapon of choice isn’t really the drone. It’s the blamethrower.

    http://loyalkng.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/flamethrower.jpg

    Steve57 (6f26ff)

  74. narciso @74, cool link.

    Obama tells ABC he cares about getting policy right more than “style points.”

    President Pants Crease is all about substance.

    Steve57 (6f26ff)

  75. President Pants Crease is all about substance abuse.

    FTFY!

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  76. Let’s run out the clock thru Nov. ’14. No fouls.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/to-win-minority-vote-gop-has-to-show-its-ready-to-battle-privileged-interests/article/2535755

    So what if we put up a cipher so far. Go for the last shot.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  77. 80. I suppose it helps if one believes words have power by their mere utterance.

    No actual evidence necessary, just repeat the meme.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  78. Steve57 – The blamethrower is the “go to” weapon is Obama’s arsenal.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  79. I don’t think Sammy is liberal, Mark, but I don’t really care if he is. He’s simply so wrong so often that I can no longer stand trying to correct what he says.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  80. And I don’t think it’s helpful to try to discredit arguments by claiming someone is liberal, as if by doing so then you can disregard what they say. Good people can be liberals and they can even be right about some things. Deal with people’s arguments on the merits and stop trying to demonize them just because you disagree with their worldview.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  81. 81- So, according to the “experts” at the WaEx, the GOP has to “engage” the “privileged interests” –
    Does that mean it has to skin and gut the media, since they are one of the largest “privileged interests” within the Dem orbit?

    Works for me, but I don’t know how many Black, Brown, or LGBT votes that it’s going to generate for the GOP – Indy’s who decry “partisanship” may be leary, but the MSM has shown that is anything but Non-Partisan, and is thoroughly in the tank for Obama and the Progressives, which should counter their (Indy’s) latent hostility to aggressive politics (Can’t we all just get along?).

    askeptic (2bb434)

  82. I’m not trying to be mean to you, Mark. I actually agree with many of your substantive points about society, but that doesn’t mean individual liberals are childish or stupid or evil. There are many reasons people hold specific views. If we are to have any hope of convincing people to agree with our views, we have to address their points without rancor or calling them sinful. We’re all sinners and you can’t win if you try to claim your sins aren’t as bad as the next guy’s.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  83. 87. “We’re all sinners and you can’t win if you try to claim your sins aren’t as bad as the next guy’s.”

    I think this might just be the crux of the matter.

    Settling the conundrum of works vs. grace is a life’s work. We each do so, with more or less reflection.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  84. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/14/2013 @ 12:40 pm

    I wonder what happens to Edward Snowden if he gets the Peace Prize instead of Putin.

    Well, that wouldn’t cause trouble, but something else might. Someone wrote an Op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal reminding us (or telling us – I wasn’t familiar with his fate) what happened to a previous defector, Edward Lee Victor Howard.

    Robert Stone: Beware the Curse of Asylum in Russia The fate of ex-CIA agent Edward Lee Howard may contain a cautionary tale for Edward Snowden. – Aug. 8, 2013 page A11

    Edward Lee Howard was the only former CIA employee ever to seek asylum in Moscow. I met him in 1993, almost a decade after his defection. I then found him a publisher for his 1995 memoir, “Safe House.”….The FBI never let up on the chase. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Congress also took up the matter, threatening to curtail American aid to Russia unless Edward Lee Howard was brought to justice in the U.S. But the Russians never gave him up, standing by him to the end.

    Or did they?

    In 2002, the Russian news agency TASS reported that Ed had died in a drunken fall—and with a broken neck, another source said—at his KGB-owned dacha in the woods outside Moscow. On July 23, 2002, the New York Times reported: ” ‘The [U.S.] embassy has received reports that Edward Lee Howard died on July 12th,’ said Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, confirming his death. Another official said the department had confirmed the death with Mr. Howard’s next of kin. Mr. Howard’s death remains as mysterious as his life.”

    I first visited Ed at the same dacha. Knowing the layout, I can report that it doesn’t present much in the way of opportunities for fatal accidental falls. The story didn’t make sense.

    But then it was not supposed to make sense. I imagine that they—two former KGB heavies—approached from the north side of the house, using the woods as cover. They would have moved silently up the steps and through the back door. Or perhaps they simply knocked on the front door—Ed opened it to see two friends paying an impromptu visit, waving a bottle of vodka.

    In either case, whether it is with a shove out the window or a gunshot, Russian-style execution comes unannounced and from behind—and this time would have been no different. Did Ed hear something just before? Was there a brief scuffle? Whatever the case, I would also guess that in those last moments, Ed knew what was coming. Instead of two bullets to the base of the skull, the killers probably broke his neck, followed by a vodka toast to a completed mission.

    This was, you may note, just a little over 2 years after Putin had come to power (which was January 1, 2000)

    What was probably going on? You see, Putin didn’t want him to be an issue between Russia and the United States. At the same time, he didn’t want to return him to the United States, because that would ruin Russia’s reputation for protecting spies.

    So he met with an “accident.”

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  85. Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 9/15/2013 @ 9:00 am

    I was under the impression that Finkleman perhaps was a wobbly Democrat or certainly a very wobbly Republican, or a wobbly independent. D’oh to me!

    Registered Democrat, but you have to be to vote in primaries in New York State. Otherwise, I’d probably be an independent. I have never voted for a Democrat for president. I don’t vote for most Democrats.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  86. 91. Well, I have voted for Democrat(s), one William Proxmire off the top, twice even.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  87. JVW, all our wars since WWII have been progressive wars: wars to save democracy, to bring democracy; wars to end the use of gas; wars to save minority Muslims.

    I am including our progressive Bush II in this as well, the compassionate conservative (progressive). All the rest were started by Dems.

    Patricia (be0117)

  88. Patricia, don’t neglect WW-1; aka, The Great War, The War to End All Wars, etc. It too was engaged in by a Progressive who ran for re-election in ’16 under the slogan “He Kept Us Out Of War!”.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  89. Oh that’s right, askeptic!

    Apparently there is a hagiography out now of Wilson by Berg.

    The usual suspects are all aflutter; strangely, the “racism” charge is never uttered.

    Patricia (be0117)

  90. Yes, just because he resegregated the DC public schools, and gave DW Griffith inspiration to adopt ‘Birth of a Nation’ from his other friend, Thomas Dixon, that had nothing to do with it.

    narciso (3fec35)

  91. But he was a progressive, began the tax and spend gambit, and demeaned the Constitution.

    So all is forgiven. 🙂

    Patricia (be0117)

  92. kicked off the 19 year occupation of a Black majority nation, (Haiti) started the career of Breckenridge Long, yes Il Duce’s penpal and the door keeper against the Jews before the War all a misunderstanding

    narciso (3fec35)

  93. 94. JVW, all our wars since WWII have been progressive wars: wars to save democracy, to bring democracy; wars to end the use of gas; wars to save minority Muslims.

    I am including our progressive Bush II in this as well, the compassionate conservative (progressive). All the rest were started by Dems.

    Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 9/15/2013 @ 1:38 pm

    The only reason I can see why Arizonans keep sending McCain back to the Senate is because he was a POW in Vietnam. He was shot down in 1967. Three years after Johnson won on the campaign promise that he wasn’t going to send American boys to fight a war that Asian boys should be fighting.

    Then here was McCain joining in the sales pitch that US involvement in Syria wouldn’t involve US boots on the ground.

    His boots were definitely on the ground for quite awhile in the war Johnson said wouldn’t happen.

    When someone like Kerry (did you know he served in Vietnam?) says he’s not talking about going to war in the “classic” sense it’s like being told you can only get a little bit pregnant.

    I used to believe these guys thought we were idiots. But after watching these guys I’m convinced they’re complete idiots.

    Steve57 (6f26ff)

  94. Woodrow Wilson is the only modern President I consider worse than Obama. But we’ve still 3+ years to go…

    SPQR (768505)

  95. Pray that he doesn’t suffer a stroke….but there is the 25th-A to prevent another Edith, theoretically.
    In today’s DC, it’s so hard to actually rely on what is written in the Constitution.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  96. I don’t think Sammy is liberal, Mark, but I don’t really care if he is. He’s simply so wrong so often that I can no longer stand trying to correct what he says.

    DRJ, but I certainly don’t think he’s of the right either. I know people can be contradictory and complicated in their viewpoints, so I’d be the last to say that if a person is generally of the left or right, he or she will automatically believe (or won’t believe) in A, B or C. That’s why I figure most people have bits of squish in them. That’s one reason — and unlike some staunch conservatives — I don’t feel quite as resentful if a right-leaning politician on the ballot isn’t lining up with every one of my preferences.

    We’re all sinners and you can’t win if you try to claim your sins aren’t as bad as the next guy’s.

    But I think it’s important to point out the two-faced and surprisingly inconsistent nature of liberals, mainly because that facet of them is rarely mentioned or discussed in public. IOW, it wasn’t until Patterico’s board forced me to look more closely at various issues, particularly those that cast a spotlight upon the real nature of people who lean left, that I finally found out about statistics/surveys that don’t paint a very pretty picture of a good percentage of liberals.

    I admit to originally believing that people of the left, if there were a few — a few — good traits they could truly call their own, would be the ones who at least had a slightly lower chance of being bigoted, of being stingy, of being greedy, of being unkind, non-compassionate and intolerant. So when, bzzzt, I discovered my assumptions were wrong, I was surprised and caught off guard.

    BTW, unlike some folks on this forum, I generally don’t label a person I disagree with a “troll” or describe such a person as “trolling.” After all, people who have contrary opinions can be, or are, called trolls on every internet message board in existence, from sports forums to music forums, from food forums to science forums. So I personally would rather know if it’s a person’s leftism that makes them tick, and not anything to do with whether they’re a troll or not.

    Mark (58ea35)

  97. The usual suspects are all aflutter; strangely, the “racism” charge is never uttered.

    That’s another reason why I find myself having to sort of pinch myself on a regular basis (because those historians and academicians, etc, etc, sure as hell don’t help clarify reality) and say, uh, the left can be pretty damn lousy, pretty damn contemptible.

    Mark (58ea35)

  98. I have never voted for a Democrat for president. I don’t vote for most Democrats.

    Sammy, that implies you’ve voted for Republicans in every presidential election since the day you were old enough to vote, but call me skeptical. However, if you’re more ideologically nuanced than I’ve been led to believe over the past few days (even though I originally assumed otherwise), that’s perfectly fine with me.

    Mark (58ea35)

  99. “I have never voted for a Democrat for president. I don’t vote for most Democrats.”

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 9/15/2013 @ 11:25 pm

    Sammy, that implies you’ve voted for Republicans in every presidential election since the day you were old enough to vote,

    No. I voted for Perot. I knew he would lose, but I also knew New York State would not be carried by the Republican. I did not agree with Perot about the deficit. I felt he got side-tracked. I
    could not stand Bush I – we were headed on a train tha would make Quayle President. I thought Clinton would be impeached. It took longer than I thought. I really didn’t think it would take five to 6 years.

    Sammy Finkelman (117043)

  100. 94. Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 9/15/2013 @ 1:38 pm

    94. JVW, all our wars since WWII have been progressive wars: wars to save democracy, to bring democracy; wars to end the use of gas; wars to save minority Muslims.

    All our wars since the Mexican War. Although World War II did have an element of self-defense to it for the United States, it was really to save the world from a new dark age…

    Sammy Finkelman (117043)

  101. 107. “World War II did have an element of self-defense”

    Not an auspicious beginning to Sept. 16, I hope the day is not lost to the fog of war.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  102. 103. Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 9/15/2013 @ 11:11 pm

    I admit to originally believing that people of the left, if there were a few — a few — good traits they could truly call their own, would be the ones who at least had a slightly lower chance of being bigoted,

    That apparently sees to be based on polls that show them more likely to believe in stereotypes.

    A lot of sociology involves someone arbitrarily saying M=Z, because they can measure M, so this maybe becomes people being bogoted.

    of being stingy, of being greedy, of being unkind, non-compassionate and intolerant.

    They don’t give to charity because they have automatic withdrawals – the government does it for them.

    Also, religious institutions may be counted as charity, and they are less religious, although even excluding that, polls show they give less.

    Also, people getting assistance themselves don’t generally give away money, and some people in that category may answer polls and get classified..

    Sammy Finkelman (117043)

  103. Sammy, you previously rationalized away the innately leftist underpinnings of Obama and, now, you’re rationalizing away the lousy characteristics of a good percentage of liberals in general.

    I’m puzzled why in light of such things, DRJ (etc) will say “I don’t think Sammy is liberal.” However, what strikes me as potentially a moment fraught with the perils (or naivete) of a Karl Rove presuming that Latinos don’t support Republicans because of conservatives’ approach to the topic of illegal immigration is when she says: “I don’t really care if he [Sammy] is.”

    Mark (58ea35)

  104. 95-102 Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 9/15/2013 @ 8:12 pm

    Apparently there is a hagiography out now of Wilson by Berg.

    The usual suspects are all aflutter; strangely, the “racism” charge is never uttered.

    It’s not a charge – it’s an undeniable fact, but it is not remembered because in his time it was not much of an issue for most (white) people, so it just about never came up. And his his time, there was all this movement to bring Union and Confederate veterans together.

    But Woodrow Wilson was a died-in-the-wool southerner, with all the attitudes of the south, only slightly moderate on race – I mean he was not in favor of lynching, but he was taught keeping blacks out of government and low was the prudent and wise course, the experience of the post Civil War period supposedly showing the dangers of the opposite.

    Woodrow Wilson did not come from New Jersey, or even from Virginia, his place of birth – he grew up in Georgia and he was there when General Sherman was marching through it. (5 years old)

    He left the south to go to Princeton, a transfer student from Davison College in North Carolina or maybe started over, but then attended the University of Virginia Law school and even practiced law in Georgia in 1882-83, before heading toward John Hopkins in Maryland (culturally still part of the south) for gradulate studies, writing wat later became a rather famous theiss in 1885 about Coongressional government (which he disapproved of)

    And then he became a professor in the north, winding up at his alma mater, Princeton, in 1890.

    In many things Woodrow Wilson was the classsic academic who lived in an ivory tower.

    Sammy Finkelman (117043)

  105. 110. Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 9/16/2013 @ 7:02 am

    110.Sammy, you previously rationalized away the innately leftist underpinnings of Obama and, now, you’re rationalizing away the lousy characteristics of a good percentage of liberals in general.

    I think you should judge people favorably (if they haven’t revealed themselvesa s really bad) and if not favorably, not jump to unfavorable conclusions.

    All that there is to show that liberals are bigoted are some polls, which I even read the question(that suupposedly showd that) and there is a perfextly logical explanation for why they should give less to charity, and I’m suspiciopus of polls anyway that show surprising conclusions.

    Sammy Finkelman (117043)

  106. But Woodrow Wilson was a died-in-the-wool southerner, with all the attitudes of the south, only slightly moderate on race

    Meanwhile, Franklin D Roosevelt was from your part of the US, a dyed-in-the-wool Yankee from New York, but one who thought Jews bore some of the responsibility for the anger aimed at them in 1930’s Germany, and that it was best if white and Asian couples didn’t have children. Plus, he never bothered to congratulate Jesse Owens (a US citizen, btw) for winning Gold at the 1936 Olympics, while no less than Hitler at least made an effort to publicly recognize Owen’s achievement.

    Decades later, America’s “first black president,” Bill Clinton, is known to use the “n” word not in a fit of fury but in apparently casual, low-key conversations to merely express his unhappiness about a black person. Oh, and he snarked that Obama in the past would have been the type restricted to serving him at a restaurant.

    Sammy, your desire to rationalize away the cruddy characteristics of liberals/Democrats is very revealing.

    Mark (58ea35)

  107. It’s not a charge – it’s an undeniable fact, but it is not remembered because in his time it was not much of an issue for most (white) people, so it just about never came up. And his his time, there was all this movement to bring Union and Confederate veterans together.

    Yeah, I never heard about Thomas Jefferson being a racist and slave owner, or any founding father for that matter. It’s just never mentioned because it was a different time, and D.W. Griffith wasn’t around yet.

    Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba)

  108. Comment by Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba) — 9/16/2013 @ 7:58 am

    I never heard about Thomas Jefferson being a racist and slave owner, or any founding father for that matter. It’s just never mentioned because it was a different time, and D.W. Griffith wasn’t around yet.

    ?? That everybody knew, even if it wasn’t pointed out so much. You couldn’t write about where Thomas Jefferson lived and how he lived, without mentioning slavery.

    But Woodrow Wilson’s attitude on race, could easily be completely lost.

    Sammy Finkelman (e0f80a)

  109. “But Woodrow Wilson was a died-in-the-wool southerner, with all the attitudes of the south, only slightly moderate on race”

    113. Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 9/16/2013 @ 7:28 am

    Meanwhile, Franklin D Roosevelt was from your part of the US, a dyed-in-the-wool Yankee from New York,

    Yankee!? He was Dutch! Remember New Amsterdam? He was from there, or rather from an estate somewhat further up the Hudson River, also settled by the Dutch. You know, Sleepy Hollow, Rip Van Winkle. (Maybe only partially Dutch by that generation. Interestingly, Theodore Roosevelt beloged to the Dutch Reformed church but Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an Episcopalian.)

    but one who thought Jews bore some of the responsibility for the anger aimed at them in 1930′s Germany,

    Not exactly. This was a rationalization, he is reported to have communicated rather early on in Germany’s persecution.

    Part of it was that, indeed he ahd the same attitude himself, or had bought into it. If you had merit selection, prettyy soon the whole university would be mostly Jews. and FDR had been involved in putting in quotas in Harvard or something like that, in the 1920s.

    The “complaint” he attached legitimacy to was that there were too many Jews in the professions compared to their proportion of the population. It was an attempt to understand what was going on in Germany.

    Except that Hitler’s accusations barely dealt with that. He accused Jews of being evil. Irremediably evil.

    and that it was best if white and Asian couples didn’t have children.

    I think you mean a mixed couple. Yes, he did adopt some ideas of the time. I don’t know what you are referring to, but it;s quoite plausible.

    Plus, he never bothered to congratulate Jesse Owens (a US citizen, btw) for winning Gold at the 1936 Olympics, while no less than Hitler at least made an effort to publicly recognize Owen’s achievement.

    Which one of them had to win votes in the American south?

    What you shouldn’t do in confuse a person’s personal feelings with his political cynicism. Sometimes it is one thing, and sometimes it is he other. The political cowardice of Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew no bounds. He couldn’t even openly say he wanted to replace his Vice President in 1944.

    BTW, Franklin Delano Roosevelt put in fair employment requirements for defense contractors during World War II, but only after A. Philip Randolph, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, had threatened to lead a march on Washington to demand it.

    Decades later, America’s “first black president,” Bill Clinton, is known to use the “n” word not in a fit of fury but in apparently casual, low-key conversations to merely express his unhappiness about a black person. Oh, and he snarked that Obama in the past would have been the type restricted to serving him at a restaurant.

    Clinton is not prejudiced but he hope(s)(d) other people were/are. He used the word probably in hopes of bonding, or if said directly to anyone, as a weapon in an argument)

    Sammy, your desire to rationalize away the cruddy characteristics of liberals/Democrats is very revealing.

    It’s not really not cruddy to say someone is cynical. In other cases its because it doesn’t mean what you want to think it means.

    Sammy Finkelman (e0f80a)

  110. There were some very important things FDR could have done that he didn’t do, but he gave the impression of being morally very strongly opposed to Hitler.

    Sammy Finkelman (e0f80a)

  111. Several outlets, including CNN, are reporting that Syria is moving their chemical weapons into Iraq. Iraq has denied the claims. If it’s true, it is interesting and…ironic.

    ratbeach (f5aad4)

  112. Saddam’s babies are going home.

    askeptic (b8ab92)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1221 secs.