Syria: they're using chemical weapons...

[dogtowner]

Bush asked with the intention of doing it. Obama is stalling for time as Congress isn't back for 10 more days, but said that even if Congress doesn't want him to, he still has the authority to if he wants to.

My guess is he doesn't want to do this and is looking for Congress to give him the excuse to get out of it, and then if Syria does more gassing (if Assad is the one doing it) then Obama can blame Congress for not being able to bomb them.

Am I the only one that understands Obama's MO?

there is no question that this is the mo. the only real question is whether anyone buys it or not. reason enough to let the vote vote barely pass. dangerkus game as the donkeys can counter such a strategy.

 

[Texas_tea]

You mean like the Democrats who voted to invade Iraq took the blame?

Auz, you don't understand how our politics work. Democrats NEVER take the blame for anything, but they ALWAYS blame the Republicans.

Oh, but 4 degrees from the Universities makes one an expert ....

 

[PLC1]

Bush asked with the intention of doing it. Obama is stalling for time as Congress isn't back for 10 more days, but said that even if Congress doesn't want him to, he still has the authority to if he wants to.

My guess is he doesn't want to do this and is looking for Congress to give him the excuse to get out of it, and then if Syria does more gassing (if Assad is the one doing it) then Obama can blame Congress for not being able to bomb them.

Am I the only one that understands Obama's MO?

That sounds about right.

Since there is no good choice in the matter, it's best to put it off as long as possible and perhaps make Congress take some of the responsibility.

 

[Gipper]

The intel is the intel...we can believe it or not I suppose. But what else do you have to go on?



I obviously would take issue with most of these statements.

David Stockman does a nice job of explaining what is and has been going...how does one refute his statements?

Next week Congress can do far more than stop a feckless Tomahawk barrage on a small country which is already a graveyard of civil war and sectarian slaughter. By voting “no” it can trigger the end of the American Imperium—-five decades of incessant meddling, bullying and subversion around the globe which has added precious little to national security, but left America fiscally exhausted and morally diminished.

Indeed, the tragedy of this vast string of misbegotten interventions—from the 1953 coup against Mossedegh in Iran through the recent bombing campaign in Libya —-is that virtually none of them involved defending the homeland or any tangible, steely-eyed linkages to national security. They were all rooted in ideology—that is, anti-communism, anti-terrorism, humanitarianism, R2Pism, nation-building, American exceptionalism. These were the historic building blocks of a failed Pax Americana. Now the White House wants authorization for the last straw: Namely, to deliver from the firing tubes of U.S. naval destroyers a dose of righteous “punishment” that has no plausible military or strategic purpose. By the President’s own statements the proposed attack is merely designed to censure the Syrian regime for allegedly visiting one particularly horrific form of violence on its own citizens.

Well, really? After having rained napalm, white phosphorous, bunker-busters, drone missiles and the most violent machinery of conventional warfare ever assembled upon millions of innocent Vietnamese, Cambodians, Serbs, Somalis, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Yemeni, Libyans and countless more, Washington now presupposes to be in the moral sanctions business? That’s downright farcical. Nevertheless, by declaring himself the world’s spanker-in-chief, President Obama has unwittingly precipitated the mother of all clarifying moments. {To say nothing of Truman's incineration of innocent old men, women and children with the a-bombing - Gipper}

The screaming strategic truth is that America no longer has any industrial state enemies capable of delivering military harm to its shores: Russia has become a feeble kleptocracy run by a loud-mouthed thief and the communist party oligarchs in China would face a devastating economic collapse within months were it to attack its American markets for sneakers and Apples. So the real question now before Congress recurs: how is it possible that the peace-loving citizens of America, facing no industrial-scale military threat from anywhere on the planet, find themselves in a constant state of war? The answer is that they have been betrayed by the beltway political class which is in thrall to a vast warfare state apparatus that endlessly invents specious reasons for meddling, spying, intervention and occupation.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/david-stockman/imperium-rip/

 

[OldTrapper]

David Stockman does a nice job of explaining what is and has been going...how does one refute his statements?

One doesn't. however, one does not blame the current woes on Obama when, as Stockman points out, it began long before him.

BTW, the "clarity" Stockman speaks of is one of having Congress be the decider as the Constitution declares.

 

[Cruella]

I'll repost this from David Axelrod's tweet

David Axelrod ‏@davidaxelrod 31 Aug
Big move by POTUS. Consistent with his principles. Congress is now the dog that caught the car. Should be a fascinating week!

So the congress wanted it, and now they have it. If they vote no, and Syria goes south, Obama can blame congress. And if they vote yes, and Syria goes south, Obama can still blame congress.

He will take no responsibility. Proof;

Obama says he didn’t draw the red line on Syria, world did

“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”

Obama didn't set the red line and his credibility isn't on the line. It's all the fault of the world, America and congress.

 

[OldTrapper]

I'll repost this from David Axelrod's tweet

David Axelrod ‏@davidaxelrod 31 Aug
Big move by POTUS. Consistent with his principles. Congress is now the dog that caught the car. Should be a fascinating week!

So the congress wanted it, and now they have it. If they vote no, and Syria goes south, Obama can blame congress. And if they vote yes, and Syria goes south, Obama can still blame congress.

He will take no responsibility. Proof;

Obama says he didn’t draw the red line on Syria, world did

“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”

Obama didn't set the red line and his credibility isn't on the line. It's all the fault of the world, America and congress.

You should pay more attention to what Stockman said. Having said that, in 1925 the international community said no chemical weapons t was done in 1925 after adopting the Geneva Protocol for the "Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases and theBacterological Methods of Warfare." In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly unanimously passed the Genocide Convention. Signatories agreed to suppress and punish the perpetrators. Yet in spite of these agreements, never have they been enforced by the International Community.

So, explain, without your usual "blame Obama" argument, just how it is his "shame", and not that of every President who has ignored such actions for the past almost 100 years?

But you see, you have actually boxed yourself into a corner. If the Congress says no, and the International Community says no, and the Arab League says no, your only solution for Obama to "save face" is a unilateral action by the United States, and then you would bitch about that.

Sounds like the right has not had enough of war yet.

 

[Gipper]

You should pay more attention to what Stockman said. Having said that, in 1925 the international community said no chemical weapons t was done in 1925 after adopting the Geneva Protocol for the "Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases and theBacterological Methods of Warfare." In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly unanimously passed the Genocide Convention. Signatories agreed to suppress and punish the perpetrators. Yet in spite of these agreements, never have they been enforced by the International Community.

So, explain, without your usual "blame Obama" argument, just how it is his "shame", and not that of every President who has ignored such actions for the past almost 100 years?

But you see, you have actually boxed yourself into a corner. If the Congress says no, and the International Community says no, and the Arab League says no, your only solution for Obama to "save face" is a unilateral action by the United States, and then you would bitch about that.

Sounds like the right has not had enough of war yet.

You blame the right for warmongering, but excuse Obama.......and yet it is Obama who is pushing for war in Syria.

The truth is many on the right and left in Congress are against Obama's warmongering. Sadly many on the right and left in Congress support Obama's warmongering.

 

[Texas_tea]

You blame the right for warmongering, but excuse Obama.......and yet it is Obama who is pushing for war in Syria.

The truth is many on the right and left in Congress are against Obama's warmongering. Sadly many on the right and left in Congress support Obama's warmongering.

Exactly Gipper ....

And why Syria ... why now .... why support Al Qaeda?? What about all the other atrocities going on across the globe. It amazes me how ol' trap never fails to come on here spouting the propaganda straight from the White House just like it's the gospel!

But, consistency .... even if it's insanity .... has to count for something, right?

 

[OldTrapper]

You blame the right for warmongering, but excuse Obama.......and yet it is Obama who is pushing for war in Syria.

The truth is many on the right and left in Congress are against Obama's warmongering. Sadly many on the right and left in Congress support Obama's warmongering.

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I did not excuse Obama, just asked that he not be blamed for the actions, or lack of actions, of others.

What I do notice is that most of those, not all, who support this "war mongering", are cowards like Kerry, Bolton, Rumsfield, Graham, and others, who themselves lacked the courage to enter into a war zone when called to do so. And yes, I know Kerry served. It was the manner, and the lies, in which he served that makes him a coward.

Then too, I do not know exactly what you are calling "war mongering" by Obama save for his "red line" comment. Are you saying he has the same approach as Bush did?

 

[OldTrapper]

Exactly Gipper ....

And why Syria ... why now .... why support Al Qaeda?? What about all the other atrocities going on across the globe. It amazes me how ol' trap never fails to come on here spouting the propaganda straight from the White House just like it's the gospel!

But, consistency .... even if it's insanity .... has to count for something, right?

What is amazing is how a teabagger comes in here, spouts off ********* (which is required of a teabagger), and yet never shows just where the one he is bull shitting about (BS is just a nice way of saying "lies") does what he claims is being done.

In some cases insanity is just another word for ignorance.

 

[Gipper]

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I did not excuse Obama, just asked that he not be blamed for the actions, or lack of actions, of others.

What I do notice is that most of those, not all, who support this "war mongering", are cowards like Kerry, Bolton, Rumsfield, Graham, and others, who themselves lacked the courage to enter into a war zone when called to do so. And yes, I know Kerry served. It was the manner, and the lies, in which he served that makes him a coward.

Then too, I do not know exactly what you are calling "war mongering" by Obama save for his "red line" comment. Are you saying he has the same approach as Bush did?

You do not know what I mean by war mongering by Obama???? What???? Who is demanding US military action in Syria?

 

[Texas_tea]

Who is demanding US military action in Syria?

Well Bush of course .....

 

[BigRob]

David Stockman does a nice job of explaining what is and has been going...how does one refute his statements?

Here is the important line: "The screaming strategic truth is that America no longer has any industrial state enemies capable of delivering military harm to its shores."

This is true enough, but it ignores that one doesn't need to send a squad of bombers over here to do real damage to us like in the old days. You can accomplish a million times that amount of damage just sitting in front of a computer screen. Just because no one is going to invade our shores, doesn't mean we have no threats and no enemies.

 

[Texas_tea]

Russia Delivers 100-Page Report to U.N. Saying Syrian Rebels Behind Sarin Gas Attack in March

In addition, the Russian report on the March attack — in which 26 people died and 86 were injured — says it contains scientific detail that’s lacking in the much-shorter intelligence summaries the United States, Britain, and France delivered as evidence that the Syrian government launched chemical weapons against Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21.

The Russian report, apparently delivered to the U.N. in July but not released, asserts that each of the three nations’ summaries regarding the August attack relies primarily on circumstantial evidence to make its case, and details in each report differ, most notably the number of people who died.