Comments on: President Obama announces he will strike Syria…

By: Don Carlos

Don Carlos — Mon, 02 Sep 2013 02:56:35 +0000

Can anyone explain why McCain and Graham are beating the drum so vigorously in HusseinO’s support?
Would we have been better off with McCain as POTUS? As the years roll on, I see less and less evidence to support that idea.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 20:12:05 +0000

Ymarsakar,

If the GOP was smarter than they are, they would use the platform provided by the Syria issue to set the record right on the Iraq intervention. Doing so would include holding the Democrats to account for their false narrative and propaganda sabotage of a critical American mission.

It’s not just about partisan political advantage.

The Democrats’ false narrative of the Iraq mission has metastasized into a fundamental guiding principle of American foreign policy. It needs to be excised and its progenitors publicly discredited in order to restore rational decision-making to our foreign policy.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 19:34:00 +0000

Back in 2004, the media and the Left + Democrats did their best to try to demoralize the American people about Iraq.

Remember what they used to call people who supported the Iraq effort?

By: Harry the Extremist

Harry the Extremist — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 19:17:31 +0000

“I think what happened is that President Obama may have been surprised by the relative unpopularity of his initial announcement that he might be about to attack Syria.”

I think what happened is that Obama was surprised by the unpopularity of undertaking any action in Syria from liberals and “progressives”. I think he could care less what anyone elses opinions are.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 17:34:59 +0000

southpaw,

Unlike Presidential election, Presidential leadership is not a popularity contest. Bush’s foreign policy was unpopular, largely due to the Left and Democrats’ propaganda, but Bush was also right.

I agree with you and Harold that what needs to be held to scrutiny is whether Obama’s proposal is a rational application.

Not whether it’s popular.

Bush rationally matched means to the ends of American liberal world leadership. Despite ostensibly pursuing the same liberal goals as Bush, Obama’s foreign affairs have not been rational. Obama’s proposal with Syria also seems to fail the test of rationally matching an action to effective US foreign policy.

By: southpaw

southpaw — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 16:23:28 +0000

If there was some way to tie the events in Syria to security the US, BO might might score some political points by claiming the republicans blocked him, but polls have consistently shown Americans aren’t up to being world’s policemen any longer. There’s very little American support for for more US involvement in places they cant find on a map or make any connection to themselves – in spite of the media’s harping on the chemical weapons story.
I’m giving Americans more credit here for recognizing if it is the right thing to intervene killing your citizens with chemical weapons, it’s the right thing to intervene killing them with any weapons.
The American public has been conditioned since the first Gulf War to be horrified by the use of chemical and biological weapons as a way to help define the monsters who have used them to commit masss murders in their own countries, as if mass murder with conventional weapons is somehow less barbaric. They’re used because they’re cheaper, leave infrastructure in place, and in recent times, are psychologically effective. You can’t see or smell the thing that’s killing you, and have no warning to get away.
But using the instrument of human destruction as the red line for intervention, rather than mass murdering itself by any means, is a ludicrous and dishonest argument. If Obama or any would be savior believes the right thing to do is stop the bloodshed, then make that case and stand by your belief. quit making lame excuses.

By: Harold

Harold — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 15:50:15 +0000

I don’t much care about the people in Syria and I don’t think their death and the use of poison gas much effects US national interests.

However since Syria is an ally of Iran, taking down the Assad regime would be a serious blow to Iran’s ambitions in the region. But the attack that the messiah is planing doesn’t address this issue. It is a purely domestic political plan. It will have little to no effect on Syria or Iran. A robust plan to take down Assad and his military would indeed address a possible US national interest.

And it truly is amusing to see Kerry and Obama shedding their anti-American pacifist positions to justify war. Their motto used to be “war, huh, yeah, what is it good for. Absolutely nothing” (Edwin Starr lyrics).

By: M J R

M J R — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 06:17:17 +0000

Looks like the disaster-in-chief has found a way to wriggle out of this one (that he himself created, but you all know that, and *he* knows that).

Krauthammer: “Amateur Hour” at the White House.

Transcript . . .

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/08/31/krauthammer_on_obama_statement_boxed_himself_into_a_corner_and_is_looking_for_a_way_out.html

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think this is astonishing – the way that my colleagues have described it – but the most astonishing thing is the lack of any urgency. As you say, Congress will be back in a week. He says, ‘I can strike in a day or a week or a month,’ as if he is a judge handing down a sentence and the execution can be any time in the future. There’s a war going on! Do you think everybody is going to hold their breath, hold their arms? Step aside until Obama decides when he wants to go to Congress?

Look, I think he should go to Congress. I think it is absolutely necessary, but he’s done no preparation. What they should have done – I mean, this is sort of amateur hour. When there was the first attacks six months ago or, if you like, when we had the current attacks, he should have immediately have called in the Congress – the way that the prime minister of Britain had called in the parliament – had a debate and got a resolution and then went out and told the world we are going do ‘x’ or we’re not going to do ‘x.’

But the idea that you make the case, you leak the details, you tell the world that this has to be done, and then you say,’ well, I’ll take my time and go to Congress and we’ll see.’ This should be done in three days. It isn’t as if people aren’t aware of the arguments. He should go out there and bring them in, have it done by the end of the week, and the world, I think, will have a little higher respect. This looks as if if you are a cynic, meaning if you’re sitting in Syria, or in Iran, or in Moscow, it looks like a president who boxed himself into a corner and is looking for a way out.

By: parker

parker — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 03:40:23 +0000

In my neck of the woods, no one, self identified as liberal or conservative, wants to become invovled in the carnage in Syria. I know this is true because I’ve talked with neighbors over a 20 block Fridaywhere we discuss local, regional, national, and international affairs.

The messiah may be able to convince the MSM he is the messiah, but the red line doesn’t count for much in flyover country.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 02:38:26 +0000

Don Carlos: “And it will be the GOP’s fault.”

They’ll say that the GOP supported invading Iraq over false intelligence on WMD yet oppose punishing Syria over a real chemical attack.