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.”
While Mr. Obama clearly hoped that his proposal of a brief and pointless intervention in Syria would reassure the international community, it immediately drew howls of protest from U.S. allies, who argued that two days was too open-ended a timeframe for such a mission.
More at the Borowitz Report
H/T Instapundit
All eyes are on the Narcissist, waiting, awaiting, anticipating, . . . .something, anything. What incompetence!
Wow, the Teleprompter just announced, . . . Nothing. zzzzzzzzzz
Satire is having a tough time staying ahead of reality these days.
I almost feel sorry for the people who put together the Borowitz Report, the Onion, Iowahawk and others.
Today Obama took to the podium and read a statement.
He will allow Congress, not to merely be ”consulted,” (as he said the other day) but to actually weigh in on whether he should go ahead with any military action on Syria.
Also he said it is better IF the president gets Congress’ support…..BUT he did NOT say not getting that support would necessarily prevent his attack on Syria.
Gee.
And Obama failed to call Congress back into session.
It is due to come into session on Sept. 9th.
So……
And SO, Paralysis. You cannot do worse than that as leader of a country.
I don’t want to see missles go off, but the narcissist has not made a decision either way. His insecure Ego put his foot his mouth and now has no idea how to get it out.
America, as a result, looks weak.
@James Raider, #2:
Really? Congress demanded a vote before any military action is taken in Syria. It was just announced that Congress is going to get one.
Congressional republicans will now have the option of publicly blocking any punitive action against a Muslim dictator on the border of Israel whose military has just killed hundreds of children with nerve gas. They will also have the option of setting a precedent demonstrating that weapons of mass destruction can be produced and used with impunity—without any serious repercussions from the United States or the world community.
Hopefully they’ll spend a few days thinking about that.
@Greg: Obama already
. Now he is just trying to find someone else to blame (Congress) or maybe he will blame it on Bush!
@Randy, #6:
The Chemical Weapons Convention that Obama has referenced was ratified by Congress in 1997. Republicans had majorities in both the House and Senate at the time.
House republicans are presently in a position to block any military response to Syria’s use of nerve gas. If they do so, they will be responsible for the consequences of inaction. If they let Obama proceed, it would be reasonable to blame him for the results of military action.
Since Ted Cruz wanted a debate in Congress so badly, I now look forward to hearing him take an outspoken position and casting a vote for or against responding to Assad’s state-sponsored act of domestic terrorism.
If Obama wants to involve Congress, it means he’s got nothing and want to share culpability.
@Greg: It is already too late to do anything Greg. Are you too ignorant to know that? The options that would have been are no longer. Obama dithered and people died. Weapons were moved and hostages are taken. There is no option that would show the US in a good light. There are only negative outcomes. Even the Democrats know this!
Ok….maybe I have been studying for my 10 year physician recertification exam too long today, but even with the disdain that I have for the marxist buffoon in the Oval Office, I cannot believe he actually said what was quoted above. Isn’t the website a humor website? This has to be sarcasm….I would be utterly gobsmacked if Obama actually said what he is quoted to have said in tbe piece.
@DrJohn: #9,
He’s voting “Present” but doing it in front of the whole world which can observe and can feel the embarrassment we feel.
Between this “Present” and Kerry, not only do they have no objective, they have no plan.
If gassing 1000 people, after killing 100,000 is too much to bear, why go on and on with how terrible that is, if you’re not doing anything. And why is it so hard to admit, “we’re taking Assad out,” since his actions were so atrocious? Either take him out, or stay home, but don’t advertise that you’re now going to do nothing till Santa Claus arrives.
If “Present” was serious, he’d have forced Congress back, but Nooooo, that would require making a decision, any decision.
@DrJohn, #9:
Republicans insisted that Congress should debate the issue and take a vote. They’re getting exactly what they said they wanted. This, of course, could delay the genuinely important business of a 41st meaningless vote by the House to repeal Obamacare. Unfortunately it can’t be helped.
@Randy, #10:
Already too late to do anything will come if they launch chemical warheads at Tel Aviv, or if chemical weapons fall into the hands of al Qaeda and turn up in a European capital. Before that point, it’s not too late to do anything.
The timing of a vote announcement might be calculated to allow for behind-the-scene negotiations. Maybe the Assad government would consider giving up its chemical weapons in return for no military intervention. That might conceivably look reasonable, given that the rebels seem to be losing ground anyway. Russia might make such a suggestion. It would be foolish to think that all moves of this game are being played out it public.
@James Raider, #12:
A pragmatic calculation may have been made that it’s best for Assad to stay, provided his chemical weapons go. That’s pure speculation, but I can see how things might be worked around in that direction.
Wait for it, wait for it, . . . the best part, . . . Obama went GOLFING.
He’d had such a hard day of doing “Present.”
Obama, “PresentDent” of the US
@James Raider:
James
I understand now. The imminent threat was that Obama might not be able to go golfing.
@Greg:
Greg, after repeatedly displaying his contempt for Congress and the Constitution why involve them now?
@drjohn, #18:
He could have called Congress back, if he’d wanted a quick vote. Apparently he doesn’t. I can only speculate as to why.
Possibly this was done to put republicans in the position of having to either support his policy, or having to publicly vote to take no action against a regime that has used weapons of mass destruction against its own civilian population. This is an awkward spot to be in, to say the least. They kind of set themselves up for it.
Possibly to rationalize a delay, while the anvil hangs over Assad’s head. That allows time for alternatives to start seeming more desirable—concessions on Syria’s chemical weapons, for example.
None of this would be openly acknowledged.
Another possibility it that he’s totally inept, as his critics assert. I find that difficult to believe, considering where he presently is. I think he’s got some serious political skills.
@Greg:
Anvil over Assad?
Nah.
Obama already said regime change wasn’t the goal, but you’re on the right track. Stay tuned.
@Pete, nope. Obama didn’t say any of the above. Just the usual irreverence of Borowitz, who’s a comedian with a regular column of political satire at the liberal New Yorker. Nor is it “news”.
While it’s good for a smile at the characterization, it’s neither true and one heckuva serious issue for satire.
Here’s the transcript of the Cabinet meeting with the other heads of State, and the Obama statement afterwards.
Personally I don’t think Obama wants to strike Syria in private, but feels the need to publicly state his desire to because of his past, foolish attempt at cowboy swaggering. Then there is that pesky detail of the ratified OPCW obligations, which Greg mentioned. All that feel good, one world agreement crap comes home to roost, eh? Who woulda thunk it.
Since Obama’s not much of a CiC who wants to lead in front, especially unilaterally, I think that he’s looking for the way out of both military action, and the OPCW, with a formal Congressional rejection.
My problem is, I don’t think they are going to reject it…. either party. Hang, when you even have the “I was against it with Bush/Saddam/Iraq before I was for it with Obama/Assad/Syria” types… ahem, Greg, that’s you as their poster child… fully on board, I’d say that the US may just be led by the stupid and obtuse, willing to be the catalyst for WWIII.
In his statement, Obama noted he wasn’t calling Congress back early, so I’d say that Assad knows it won’t be happening before they’re back the week of Sept 9th. Then of course, there’s the debate and votes before any AUMF resolution will be agreed upon, or rejected. This will at least give the UN time to finalize their report on the site findings… not that I think it will change any of the beltway’s mind that only Assad could have done this. They can be as stubborn as birthers and truthers in their own way.
What may be the most ironic, and depressing of possibilities, is if Congress quickly agrees to an AUMF, and the US strikes Syria on Sept 11th… just in time to help the same people who brought down the towers twelve years earlier. At that point, every citizen should be telling politicians of all stripes to go home and get a real job, not on the taxpayers dime.
IMHO, Obama was correct to dither over Syria in the past, as he would be correct to dither over Syria now. The trick is, how to dither and still keep face for a nation that signed on to the OPCW. I suspect that we’ll see other nations refuse to stand by their OPCW obligations as well.
@MataHarley:
It’s fake but real. It largely reflects the truth.
@DrJohn, I admit I did get a smile with the headline… albeit in a sad way. I might even suggest that it being “largely” true has some merit in another satire.
But I would say that the caveat that it having “no objective” really isn’t true on any level, save as a sad joke. Fact is, it has merit, and an “objective”, if the US wants to honor it’s ratification of the OPCW – a more honorable, if not pathetically stupid agreement in the global warfare “one world” universe. After all, we all know that only the good guys follow treaties and conventions, so why embarrass yer bad self?
BTW, speaking of stupid agreements, I’d like to point out that of the nations that have not finalized their ratification, or acceded to the OPCW, Egypt, Syria and Israel are three nations among those.
On the less honorable level, it also has “an objective” even viewed thru the ODS lens. Because the objective then would be to make sure the US CiC honors his warnings. Thus a personal objective would be for Obama to save face personally, and we’re dragged into that as a nation as well. Dumb to go to war over stupid posturing. I’d rather look weak at the moment, and make up for it when it really matters.
Congress rejecting an AUMF with a strong, if not resounding “NO” would accomplish three things.
1: It would get Obama off the hook for his assumed and foolish swagger, which I personally think he strongly desires.
2: It would send a message to the other States that ratified the OPCW that it’s not a blanket obligation, and maybe they ought to think twice about doing stupid stuff (but they won’t…) and
3: It might prevent the US from being the catalyst for WWIII.
My gut says Congress will not say no… either party.
And no, it’s not news, and it’s not “real” in the scheme of serious news. While I appreciate the personal grin from Borowitz, I reject such satire as being fodder for BS debate about a very serious matter, with nasty repercussions, merely to satisfy an ODS condition. As I said above, I approve of Obama’s “dithering” in the past INRE Syria, and I’d like him to continue “dithering”. The difference between me and many here is that Obama loses whether he dithers or not, simply because they don’t like him. I don’t either, but when he does something I agree with… like staying out of it… I’ll say so.
My problem is he should have stayed out of a lot of other situations as well, but didn’t.
@MataHarley: #21
I suspect we agree on that – Leadership doesn’t mean let’s attack, but it shouldn’t mean dithering either. Prolonging, or delaying, or deciding not to go, isn’t dithering. Leadership means making a decision and then executing that decision with some degree of common sense and intelligence. That includes staying put. From Mr. Present, we get, well, he’s not even present, he went golfing. Just as well, he might otherwise have coughed up something else to signal to Syria and Iran what the U.S. was doing.
I feel sorry for “My military.”
@James Raider, what Obama and our state department should be doing is facilitating peace talks, just as they do (occasionally) with Israel and Palestine. Our diplomatic pressure is a far stronger advantage for us, showing we don’t want to interfere but “care”.
Personally, I don’t care… LOL. Let ’em kill each other and their peers. Little we can do about it. We’ll deal with what’s left standing after the dust cloud disseminates. The only exception being if Israel requests our aid. Then I’m all in.
@MataHarley: #25
Absolutely right, however, to use it, you must have the capacity to understand what you have and then you have to know how to use it. We have a President which neither understands it, nor has the capability to understand how to use it.
The “it” in my view is principally 1) the fact that the U.S. is and remains by far the biggest enocomy on earth, and 2) the fact that it is also by far the most powerful and potent military force in history.
Just intelligently using those two elements effectively should be potent enough for someone with talent and experience “negotiating” tough deals. You can use a soft ermine-covered hand or a sledgehammer in the process.
Instead, we have a guy who keeps up on his basketball statistics so he can correctly predict payoff outcomes, or plays plenty of golf in preparation for retirement. He seems not to want to be President.
I might point out that the ONLY President IMHO who was brilliant at this game in my lifetime was Reagan. Clinton was typically and progressively clueless, and both Bushes missed incredible opportunities which they had at hand and could have played effectively but didn’t.
The thug in Moscow didn’t miss an opportunity on the W.H. paralysis, slapping Mr. Present in the mouth with his Nobel Peace Prize. Martians must be looking in on this and cracking ribs.
James, then in all honesty, you have to say the same for every prior admin who’s tried for peace between Israel and Palestine. It matters less for the success, as far as perception, than it does for an attempt… even if clumsy.
This is what so many miss on what Syria means at this moment in time. It’s not Syria, since we don’t care about Syria itself. What matters is that Syria is backed in full force by both Russia and Iran, who would not hesitate to step into the major player field in the event of an attack on Syria. AQ would gain because Syria/Assad would have to refocus on a larger enemy than his Islamic insurgents.
INRE your @comment #26, : I fear you are part of one of those who basks in former US influence and power. Hey, I’m an old fart too, and I remember those heydays well.
Consider the reality of the US economy. Debt/deficits, never ending debt ceiling hikes on that threshold, plus newly acquired debt/deficits via legislation (ACA/Dodd-Frank), combined with proposed Syrian “war” increased costs – all without controls and curbs. Then add that we have a declining labor force, a never ending horizon of reduced incomes with low income jobs.
What we have is a waning consumer base and little “shining city on the hill” appeal left. Compare that to the more local powers (i.e. China and Russia), which are strengthening.
None of that includes a concerted and deliberate devaluing of the dollar.
The US economic glory and power is a thing of the past, and our influence as a superpower declines just as fast. One cannot depend on that alone as influence any more. You’re living in the good ol’ days, my friend. It’s a different reality now.
@MataHarley: #28
I’ll stick with what I wrote, “1) the fact that the U.S. is and remains by far the biggest enocomy on earth, and 2) the fact that it is also by far the most powerful and potent military force in history.” Those are Current facts, not reveries of a bygone era.
Yes, the economy is much worse than the W.H. or the MSM pretend and unemployment is in the mid teens, not at 7.8%. And it is sliding. Plus there is financial burden mounting which will at some point create a clamity. That day isn’t yet here, even if it’s just around the proverbial corner.
China’s economy remains a distant second to the U.S., with total dependence on America and the EU for its future economic well being. Russia is a cleptocracy doing nothing to build a future for its society, or lay the foundation for a strong, economic powerhouse, but Putin knows how to sell oil, gas, and arms. All businesses exist in fear of either the KGB or the Mob. If you open your mouth loud enough and complain, you get assassinated. It’s a mess.
The U.S. remains the biggest economy and will probably remain so for a long time. It still attracts all the loose capital floating around the world, including the trillions being pilfered by dictatorships from Russia to Saudi Arabia – I’ll include China on that list. America remains, relative to all others, the principal place to safely invest and preserve capital. Why? Because it has the biggest guns. That fact is delaying the inevitable disaster which Bernanke is futilely kicking down the road. America will survive.
For now, America cannot afford another war, even a lead-from-behind war, I agree. That’s exactly why I would advocate the above in #26. You use what you have, and right now those 2 facts above are what should be used.
I’m also aware that Reagan didn’t have what he pretended when he rattled Russia. There was no such thing as the missile defence shield, or anything close, which he used as a threatening sword. I lived by Mount Diablo some miles just North of the Lawrence Livermore Labs and I knew scientist there. They were working on dreams, great technology, but still, dreams. Reagan made it believable.
Reagan was the differentiating factor. Gorby caved. Obviously there were other factors at play as well. Today, we have someone who is incapable of such strategic thinking or the implementation of such.
@MataHarley:
Once you cut through all the B.S. that is being said, I believe you are 100% right in this statement.
@Greg:
So you would, using tbe same reasoning, support an immediate strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, that even El Baredai says are working towards nuclear weapons?
@Pete, #31:
Iran hasn’t recently attacked a civilian population with nerve gas.
I don’t want to see an attack on Syria. A far better outcome would be for Syria to offer chemical weapons concessions to avoid such an attack. Putin could play statesman and advance such a proposal.
I’m genuinely puzzled that so many conservatives seem to think doing nothing won’t encourage the proliferation of chemical weapons, and that proliferation wouldn’t make their future danger far greater than it is at present. I would have expected wider agreement on that point; I would have expected intervention to be a much harder sell to liberals than to conservatives.
When planning on ”doing something,” one should look to history for the right something to do!
What did Bush do that led Libya to dismantle their weapons program?
The U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq and the October 2003 interdiction of a ship containing nuclear-related components destined for Libya were key factors.
Also there were years of international sanctions and diplomatic efforts.
And there was the U.S. intelligence community uncovering and halting the nuclear smuggling network led by Pakistani nuclear official Abdul Qadeer Khan.
So, ask yourself:
What something is Obama planning?
And what will it (by his own admission) accomplish?
Obama acts like he cares about dead Syrians when 97% of them died via conventional weapons with not a peep from Obama!
And the 3% who died in this chemical weapons attack could have been saved since Obama knew about it coming three days before it did and yet did nothing.
@Greg:
Hey Greg! You do know that there are military recruiter’s offices all over Indiana don’t you? You seem so gung-ho about this, that those veterans amongst us here on FA are surely all willing to give you directions. Heck, if I lived near there I’d even offer give you a ride to the recruiters office. All you’d have to do is pack a suitcase and tell me which military branch recruiter’s office you want me to drop you off at.
@Greg: You have abandoned logic in defense of your incompetent president.
Obama has used congress to shunt all criticism away from his failures. He’s repeatedly talked about NOT including them in decisions and finding ways around the constitutional law that binds both him and every other federal employee. Too bad he’s not a constitutional lawyer . . .
Now he’s using congress as a shield: if and when the Syria intervention goes south, he’s going to blame congress. If they don’t act, he’s going to blame congress.
For the zealous few, the young, and the low-information types, this BS tactic is going to work. Stop defending a bad president. You’ve lost all credibility and are just parsing words to fit a reality you’d like to see, one that isn’t true.
The words you use, proof-texting, and under-determinism makes you sound like a Bush apologist.
Obama on changing his mind about Syrian strikes, desiring congressional approval:
“While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective,”
What does that even mean? He’s just spent five years lambasting congress, and now he’s the “better man” for shifting his usual magnanimous stance to set up others for blame?
O-Blama. Nickname officially earned without any doubt.
@Greg: I’m reading that the majority of leftists are against taking action in Syria. Perhaps you’ve grown out of step with your cult? Ready to think for yourself?
James, I’m going to go 50/50 here with your observations. But the pendulum is swinging for economic power, and future status can, and will, play into degrees of influence. And please don’t assume I take any pleasure in the declining status of the US on the world stage. I don’t.
INRE China and Russia, and any dismissal of their rise as economic powers, Kevin Freeman addressed this a little over a month ago. As of July, Russia surpassed Germany to become the biggest Euro economy for purchasing power, and now ranks fifth in the global economy.
In addition, the National Intelligence Council released a 140 pg report in Dec 2012, noting that China’s economy should bypass the US shortly before 2030. Needless to say, the US is on the decline, and other developing nations are on the rise… specifically Russia and China.
I might also point out that the Heritage Foundation released their 2013 rankings on economic freedom. The number 1 and 2 slots are held by Hong Kong and Singapore. The US ranks number 10.
As for the US… for now we remain top dog, albeit on the decline. However pivotal to that status is whether the dollar remains the reserve currency in the world. The clamor for changing that has been on the rise, and the further in debt the US goes, buying up our own debt via Treasury, the louder that clamor becomes. I’d say that the US economic status could change overnight, and well before 2030, if that reserve currency status is lost.
On that level, what needs to be considered is not that either Russia or China, individually, can successfully launch an attack on the US dollar today. However, teaming up as one force, together, that attack could easily be successful in this moment in time. Putin has a quest that not only would like to remove the dollar as the reserve currency, but has been suggesting that the teaming of Russia with China is one heckuva good idea. This is not an impossibility.
From that June 2012 article, this omen.. notice the players involved, and place it into context today with any thought of an attack on Syria.
So the 50/50 agreement, summarized, is this. Yes, we’re still the economic superpower but with the caveat that our consumer base is earning and spending less, our dollar is deliberately being devalued, our federal reserve currency is at risk, and others are catching up. So the influence of the rising nations – most especially if Iran, Russia, China and Syria join forces – cannot be discounted as unimportant when looking forward, and beyond a “today” status. Hang, even a tomorrow status.
Is this a legitimate news story? I see the heading at the top says, “The Borowitz Report. The news, reshuffled.” What does that mean?
@Smorgasbord:
The Borowitz Report is political satire like The Colbert Report, Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, SNL’s Weekend Update or The People’s Cube.
@Ditto: #39
Curt should have mentioned this. This is one way rumors get started. Although, this is just about what obama is saying.
@Smorgasbord, it’s a Most Wanted posted by drj. Everything Curt posts has his author info at the bottom.
drj and I discussed this in our back and forth, comments #21 and 22. It’s a somewhat amusing portrayal by the comedian, Borowitz, and a headline designed to capture the attention of the ODS crowd. But there a few objectives (none credible IMHO, tho) for lobbing a few bombs at Syria.
So yes… while it is “just about” what Obama is saying, it’s also not totally without objectives… however unworthy. Nor was that what Obama said or meant.
#41
I know that every regular author has this info., except it isn’t at the bottom of this article.
I just skimmed over MOST of the comments, since there we so many when I read the article. I didn’t know the subject had been covered.
No problem, Smorgasbord. Just giving you a heads up as to how to determine where the Most Wanted’s come from. Wordsmith, Curt and I have all set up our author stuff so that a small bio appears at the bottom of everything we post as an original post, or an Most Wanted. drj hasn’t done that yet. Speaking of that, drj… it’s pretty easy if you want to do it. You can email either Curt or myself off forum if you want some quick instructions… in case you’d like to add it.
And yup… I do a lot of “skimming” myself. No biggie. Just didn’t want you thinking Curt didn’t give you a heads up on an “onion’esque” non-news article. :0)
@Smorgasbord:
Others of us have been fooled on that with “Most Wanted” posts at various times (and I include myself in that,) , which is why it’s a good idea to go to the original article to know where it’s coming from.
@Ditto, #34:
Your suggestion is much appreciated. I enlisted over 44 years ago, and spent a year on the ground in the former Republic of Vietnam.
@Nathan Blue, #35:
Conservatives enthusiastically supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq when no imminent threat to the security of the United States or its allies existed, but they’re unwilling to respond to an Islamic dictatorship next door to Israel that is known to possess a chemical weapons arsenal, that has long range delivery systems, that has a biological weapons program, and that has deployed nerve gas and other chemical agents multiple times against civilian populations in what appears to be a pattern of escalating use. That, apparently, poses no threat to the security of the United States or its allies.
If you ask me, conservatives have totally abandoned logic owing to their maniacal obsession with the man in the Oval Office. They can’t seem to think about anything clearly if Obama is in any way involved.
@Greg:
Wrong Greg. it was mostly Establishment Republicans and Democrats in Congress who supported the Bush II administration going back into Iraq. Conservatives for the most part were not convinced there was a 9/11 connection and thought that it was unwise to take needed resources away from the search for Osama bin Laden.
Greg, I have to say that I generally think you’re a nice guy. But you are one thick brick when it comes to educating yourself. And you fight tooth and nail to resist all efforts to make it simple to educate yourself, as so many of us have posted links. While you occasionally make good points, there are too many occasions when you simply end up talking in platitudes that have no bearing on reality, no matter what “facts” you choose to ignore.
Let’s start with the Iraq AUMF in Oct 2002… which is totally separate from the *other* and previous more generic AUMF introduced by Tom Daschle (Dem) on Sept 14, 2001 and passed into law within four days. (note that POTUS BUsh was twice given authority by Congress to use force). Both AUMF’s were supported by a large number of Dems.
You say that “…no imminent threat to the security of the United States or its allies existed”. Really? That, apparently, is a personally held – and naively stubborn – belief that was, and is not, shared by your party leadership. Even to this day that remains true. Saddam was always considered a clear a present danger by BOTH parties.
A little homework for you is long overdue. Here’s the link to the Iraqi 2002 resolution. I want you to read the 23 “whereas”, and tell me just how many of them had anything, whatsoever, to do with weapons of mass destruction? I already know the answer. Apparently, you don’t, since you still cling to the elementary history pushed by the media.
Secondly, both parties – and including treasured Dem POTUS, Bill Clinton – considered Saddam’s Iraq an imminent threat for many years prior… even after the first Gulf War. Hence the reason for the Iraq Liberation Act, where even Clinton himself stated that regime change was necessary, – an official moment that both funding and all necessary actions for regime change became the US official policy INRE Saddam’s Iraq.
Has this ever been the case for Syria? Has the US Congress *ever*, over it’s time, made multiple resolutions about Assad’s risk to US national security?
In light of the above, Greg, I have to say that it is you who have totally abandoned logic, owing to your own maniacal obsession with Bush and Iraq. You are apparently ostracized from even your own party leadership in this naive and stubborn belief. They, at least, recognized the imminent threat of Saddam and Iraq for years prior to OIF. They, at least, know the difference between Saddam/Iraq and Assad/Syria.
I fear that you will never get to this on your own. So many of us have tried… in the most socially civil fashion possible. And all you can say is “I don’t accept the same facts you do” WTF? You don’t even accept the same facts of your own party leadership, Greg.
It’s this simple. Iraq and Saddam were a clear and present danger – not argued on a partisan level whatsoever (except you, of course). The reasons for Saddam/Iraq were 23 in number via Congressional legislation… only a handful of which had to do with WMD. None of this bears any similarity to Assad/Syria.
What is most amusing is you, twisting yourself in a pretzel over these past weeks. You are reluctant to say you support going in, yet you allude to the legitimacy of such over and over again. All this despite not a lick of proof that it was Assad, and not the rebels, who perpetrated the chemical weapons attacks.
On the flip side, you adamantly stomp your cyber foot, make yourself look the fool when you say that Saddam… who indisputably used chem warfare… shouldn’t have been attacked, and deposed, as has been bi-partisan US policy for some time prior to OIF.
There are some issues where you have some credibility, Greg. On this… not even a wisp of one. You are appearing positively schizoid, my friend.
@Ditto: #43
I have had several emails sent to me that, when I checked into them, they were false stories. Some of them started many years ago. I try not to pass on stuff I don’t know to be true, and usually check them out. The ones I did, I tried to let the ones I sent them to know about it.
More theater of the absurd….
Two years later the courts gave us the answer.
Starvation is a pleasant way to go!
About Terry Schiavo: “The process of starving to death seems very barbaric but in actuality is very peaceful,” said Dr. Fred Mirarchi, assistant clinical professor of emergency medicine at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Schiavo/story?id=531907&page=1
Apparently there are ”good” ways to kill people (starvation, guns, missiles, throwing them off buildings, grenades, rockets) and one “bad” way to kill people (gas).
Obama put up with 100,000 Syrians being killed in those ”good” ways (along with between 9 and 14 chemical attacks before this last one) But he will not put up with 1500 Syrians being killed in a ”bad” way….this time.
This strikes me as really odd.
@MataHarley: #47
I thought Curt was the one who wrote it.