Boxed In President Obama Reverses Course On Syria – Will Wait For Congress To (Dis)Approve Action…. Flinch? Chicken Out? Poll Testing?……. FUBAR?…. You Decide…

All About Politics – All About Optics – All The Time

Every single move our President takes is determined by political winds…..

Wow.  Just wow.   The speech by President Obama this afternoon was just staggeringly unreal.   Bizzarro World Type pretzel contortions.    The speech was short, but in a surprising twist Obama announced he will seek congressional authority on attacking Syria even though he believes he has the authority to go ahead with strike. (this really is must watch stuff – even if you find yourself challenged to stick with it through the absurd nature of what you are bearing witness to)

Following the speech Charles Krauthammer accurately captured several optical realities.

Charles noted it was astonishing the lack of urgency he displayed, suggesting he could carry out this attack in the next week or the next month. “This is amateur hour,” Krauthammer said, “and if you were sitting in Syria, Iraq, or Moscow watching this speech, then it looked like Obama was looking for a way out of striking Syria after he had boxed himself in“.

THAT is exactly what this looks like. Having poll tested the electoral water, and having come under scrutiny from just about every single person, group, or entity who note the obvious, President Obama is looking for a way out….. He needs a way out of the very geography he walked himself in to.

You can clearly take away from the construct of this speech that he WANTS the politics of the possibilities to determine his action. If congress votes NO on authorization for use of force in Syria he has a plausible reason to hit the exit door. If congress approves – it just inflates his position.

This is a historical level of incompetence playing out on the world stage.

This CK analysis is also relative and well presented as Krauthammer talks about how this looks to the world and our allies.  Like we have “chickened out”…

Advertisements
This entry was posted in A New America, Cultural Marxism, Dear Leader - Creepy POTUS Worship, Dem Hypocrisy, Egypt & Libya Part 2, Fabian Socialists - Modern Progressives, Islam, Israel, Jihad, media bias, Military, Obama Research/Discovery, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Russia, Syria, Terrorist Attacks, Turkey, Uncategorized, United Nations, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

125 Responses to Boxed In President Obama Reverses Course On Syria – Will Wait For Congress To (Dis)Approve Action…. Flinch? Chicken Out? Poll Testing?……. FUBAR?…. You Decide…

  1. harrydweeks says:

    Not only is the World laughing but the American people should now begin to see this Amateur President for what he is …..a JOKE.

    Like

  2. maryfrommarin says:

    Could it be that his political handlers have left him twisting in the wind, with perhaps the purpose of making Hillary look stronger in comparison?

    Like

  3. No doubt whatsoever this “announcement” today was a result of the polls showing 80% of America is against this strike. I’m quite certain that O got an earful from Democrats who are fighting to retain their seats in the House and Senate. And Obama was not happy about it. His “authority” has been called into question and he made sure to tell us all that he believes he has the authority to act without the approval of Congress. But, he’ll acquiesce to us “idiots” who do not understand the urgency and imminent national security danger and wait for Congress to return to have a welcomed “debate” and vote. He absolutely stressed that time was NOT of the essence since this is only to be a punitive strike. THAT is strange, in and of itself. Something smells rotten here.
    Obama is torn between doing what is right for his party (and thus the continuation of the “fundamental transformation” of America) and his commitment to his Sunni Muslim brethren. It appears that Obama has gotten himself painted into a corner. If leaked intelligence is right, and he is guilty of assisting other Mideast nations of supplying the rebels with WMD and vowing support, then he doesn’t have a good out in this thing. If he moves one way, he loses domestically. If he moves another, he loses internationally. What is he going to do now?
    One thing is certain – he is feeling the pressure. He sure gave everyone from the American people, to Congress to other world leaders a good chastising today. It’s all about “saving face” for Obama.

    Like

  4. CWO4(Retired) says:

    Heads up…..Prez knows Congress will say No, then he’ll say it was all their fault!

    Like

  5. Sharon says:

    I really don’t know which is more painful — listening to that piece of work role play his way through another day or listening to Juan Williams trying to clean up after him.

    Like

    • dws says:

      agree and agree

      Like

    • canadacan says:

      I have to agree with you about Juan. Williams .I know I am so darn sick of seeing him sitting there pontificating and doing a clean up job for bungling Barry and his minions. Fox would be better off without him as a commentator.FUBAR Is an apt phrase here.

      Like

      • Fantasia says:

        I get furious when I just see that stupid grin on his face appear on my television. I want so much to slap that stupid, chastizing grin off of his face. That man irritates me almost as much as Obama. Just grrr!

        Like

  6. LetJusticePrevail" says:

    Did Obama create this situation intentionally? Certainly, he has nothing to *personally* gain politically, but what about his progressive buddies? How many of THEM can gain votes through his over dramatizing of the Syrian CW attack (and perhaps even misleading the American public about WHO was behind the attack, to begin with) and then criticizing any Conservative member of Congress who votes against BHO’s proposed strike?

    Is he trying to force the hand of Congress, to get their cooperation, and then be able to lay some (or most) of the blame for any international blowback on Congress (if they support him)?

    OR

    Is he simply trying to use this as part of a ploy to gain Congressional seats for Progressives in 2014?

    Either way, it shows that he is perfectly willing to discredit the US internationally, either by making us appear weak, or divided in our resolve. And wasn’t he the one who spoke about a world where America was no longer a driving force?

    Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      Ya can’t make us weak by appearance. We have a couple sub’s wandering around that can take out the whole world still. He figgered out he was wrong and nobody was with him on this. This is the best way out of the box. It is the right thing to do.

      Like

      • LetJusticePrevail" says:

        I don’t know, ddd, I hope you’re right, but hesitation makes him, and the US look indecisive, and weak. Maybe I’m “oversimplifying” this, but weakness (or even the appearance of indecision) breeds aggression. What other despots will be now be tempted to perform some similar dastardly deed, or challenge the resolve of our foreign policies?

        Don’t get me wrong, I am dead set AGAINST the US striking Syria for this. This is something best left to a decision by the UN, and for a broader coalition to handle. WE don’t need to be the policemen of the world. And, quite frankly, I have no trust for EITHER side in the Syrian civil war, but I have a deep disdain for the Al Qaeda forces fighting against Assad. Why make it any easier for them to wrest control there? Am I mistaken for thinking that is what could happen, if we weaken Assad?

        No, my criticism of Obama is that he shot his mouth off without gaining any international support for a strike, and then continued to rattle his saber only to finally defer to Congress. Shouldn’t he have simply waited until the UN appraised the situation? Didn’t he, after all, just say that there is no hurry?

        Like

        • doodahdaze says:

          The Russians have given Syria top notch anti-ship missiles. Our ships are vulnerable. They shoot and might get hit. Then what? Over dead anti-american muslims? IMO the more the better.

          Like

          • LetJusticePrevail" says:

            Yes, I have worried about this ever since I read that we had sent a second carrier to the region. A concentration of naval power could be an open invitation for someone (the Russkies) to deplete our naval capability.

            Like

          • Could be wrong, but haven’t seen/heard anything different, but the anti-ship missiles Russia gave Syria are land-based and have a 300 km range. They could be moved to a ship, but I haven’t seen any reports of this. Israel possibly took them out in July, as well. Our Tomahawk cruise missiles have a range that is 3x those of the Russian/Syrian anti-ship missiles. We don’t need to be vulnerable to Syrian anti-ship missiles. We’re vulnerable in other ways, though.

            When President Bush got authorization from Congress and developed a larger coalition than his father did to go into Iraq, it was described that he decided to “go it alone”. Without any coalition, without any authorization from Congress, how would Obama’s action be described if he does, truly, decide to go it alone?

            Hearing a lot of chatter that Obama has lost support in a more far-reaching way than just with Syria. He’s smart, regardless of his inexperience. I think he knows that if he orders an attack on Syria without Congressional approval, at this stage, it is the beginning of the end for him.

            Like

            • Polk8dot says:

              @ ‘how would Obama’s action be described if he does, truly, decide to go it alone?’
              The same way the MSM attempts to excuse/explain away every misstep from this faker.
              1). It will start with the overflow of praise: ‘He HAD TO do it, for the world at large, for the sustaining of the position of America in the world. He HAD TO SACRIFICE his support from the US population to STAND FOR what’s right. He is the SAVIOR of the world, and as such it was his anointed obligation to act, even though we morons do not understand his reasons. He had access to intelligence we could not even fathom.’
              2). Then, after the MSM puffed him up, he will come out and give us all a good verbal spanking. ‘ He was SIMPLY LIED TO by the US Military who are all war mongers, and who tricked him into action. He was promised support by ‘his personal Conservative friends in Congress, but they got scared off again by big bad wolf Rush Limgaugh and the Tea Party, and lied claiming they never supported his action at all. They chickened out and left him holding the bag, trying to make themselves look better for future elections. They are cowards, liars and traitors. And the stupid American public has their share of blame to shoulder too, because they simply EXPECTED TOO MUCH from him, and thus forced his hand when HE wasn’t ready.’
              3). He will dump the guilt and the responsibility evenly on his political opponents. He will chastise and ridicule the thinking people of this nation. No matter what was really said and done, HE WILL NEVER TAKE OWNERSHIP of anything, while in the same breath demanding praise and adulation for ‘his personal strength, determination and standing up to opposition’. Somehow he will even manage to make it racial, claiming that the White Americans did not want to support ‘non-White Syrians’. And, of course, ‘he alone had to make the decision using his ‘superior intellect’ and who the F are we to dare to question HIM!!??!!??’
              4). There will be contradiction from statement to statement, which he will not even realize. There will be calling us ‘RACISTS for: pointing out his failings; calling out his indolence; lying about his total lack of understanding of geo-politics and the US’s national interest.’
              5). The only ones who will escape unscathed from this political disaster and his wrath afterwards will be the Libs and Odumbass himself. That’s the plan, the continuously repeated SOP, and hey – it’s gotten him this far. Oh yeah, the finger wagging, the chastising, and the blame shifting is soon coming our way.

              I do not agree that he is smart. He is a MORON; an IDIOT-KING who’s gotten every possible break, every possible benefit of Affirmative Action; an empty PUPPET put together by the liberal whackos; the Man of the People who absolutely can not stand the People! He is the prime example of what is wrong with America today – the mediocrity being praised as superiority, the cowardice being couched as statesmanship, the laziness being packaged as thoughtfulness.
              Whatever the real outcome in Syria, we, the US, have already lost the war of perception. And the eroding of America took another giant leap forward….

              Like

        • Rurik says:

          Perhaps Weepy Boner will become more aggressive toward Little Barry. Or maybe eve a little more assertive. Okay, I’ll settle for slightly less subservient. Please.

          Like

  7. LetJusticePrevail" says:

    Are the dead children in Syria just an international version of Trayvon Martin?

    Like

  8. LetJusticePrevail" says:

    Article II, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution gives the president power to convene Congress, or either house, “on extraordinary [or special] occasions.” It is usual for the president when calling an extra session to indicate the exact matter that needs the attention of Congress. However, once convened, Congress cannot be limited in the subject matter that it will consider. The president is also empowered by the Constitution to adjourn Congress “at such time as he may think proper” when the House and Senate disagree with respect to the time for adjournment; however, to date no president has exercised this power. Many constitutional experts believe the provision applies only in the case of extraordinary sessions.

    So, BHO HAS the power to convene Congress, if he so desires. But he chooses NOT to, saying that he can wait a month if he needs to. So, if there;s no hurry, why the big deal? It certainly appears like he is manufacturing a crisis, and will use the time between now and September 9th to push some sort of political agenda. What will it be? Any guesses?

    Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      Putin has given Syria maxed out ant-ship missiles. Until we wish to go all out and declare war this is not a good idea. For what? 1k dead Anti-American Muslims? The old Navy is vulnerable once they shoot. Naval shots are not a good plan. If we attack our ships are fair game and vulnerable.

      Like

      • LetJusticePrevail" says:

        No, you’re mistaking my criticism of Obama as backing for a strike against Syria. That’s NOT my position. I am dead set AGAINST such a strike. Frankly, as callous as this sounds, I don’t really CARE that another 1400 Syrians are dead, no matter WHICH side of their internal war is responsible. Either way, I view them as enemies of America, and of our interests in the Middle East. Would I want us to attack them, because of that viewpoint? Certainly not. But I certainly feel no “Responsibility To Protect” them, either.

        Like

        • doodahdaze says:

          Righto. But at least he figgered it out before the Big Blunder. Now the Congress can put on the clamps. I don’t care if 100% of the anti-American Muslims kill each other. Not even a little bit.

          Like

          • LetJusticePrevail" says:

            Yes, there’s that. I’m assuming that his statement today means he will wait for Congress to convene and decide the issue, even if there is another similar attack between now, and then. I certainly hope he sticks to this recent and more reasonable course of action. I am also assuming that *after* Congress meets, he will adhere to a decision (from them) to refrain from intervening in Syria in any military fashion.

            And (I always seem to have an *and* don’t I? LOL) this is assuming that Congress tells him to STFU and put his toys (missiles) away. Is there ANY possibility that they WON’T? I certainly hope they don’t vote to support a strike of ANY type in Syria.

            Like

            • doodahdaze says:

              There are a lot of Sailor’s in harm’s way. The new anti-ship missiles are deadly. Cheap and effective. Hard to defend against for a ship on the sea with no place to go.

              Like

              • LetJusticePrevail" says:

                That’s very true. If action IS taken, those missiles would HAVE to be the first targets. Let’s hope it does not come down to that.

                Like

    • Lottacats says:

      The last couple of sentences reminded me of a movie I saw last night. Wag the dog. LOL

      Like

  9. doodahdaze says:

    I think that for whatever the reason this is the right way to go. JMO but he finally did the right thing. The first decision I agree with. I hope this is a precedent. Unless we are attacked by a specific nation a declaration of war is required to take military action. All these police actions have not been good. Me… I will back what the Congress decides even if I do not like it. That’s the way it is sposed ta be.

    Like

  10. myopiafree says:

    I do not care how Obama – AVOIDS shooting missiles in to Syria – only that he NOT DO IT. He has no right to do it. In 10 days, most of the “heat” will have gone down. The 100,000 killed is tragic, but it is an internal civil war. No one “wins” in that civil war – and we can not have any involvement. If we shoot the missiles – then we kill innocents – including children. We must not do that. There is NO “National Security Issue” for the USA – even though Obama insists there is.

    Like

  11. LetJusticePrevail" says:

    Looking at all of this, and listening to Charles Krauthammer’s comments, makes it quite clear that from an international standpoint, this is most definitely FUBAR, and the responsibility for the international repercussions rest entirely on the shoulders of the incompetent “Community Organizer” from Chicago, Barack Hussein Obama.

    Not ONLY has he stirred up global anti-US sentiment with his initial threats, but he has NOW made the US look weak, indecisive and impotent. What other nation could ever respect THAT?

    Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      I do not agree. Blowing them away would be like swatting a fly. Krout is for the strong executive. Not me. I think this is the right way to go. JMO.

      Like

      • LetJusticePrevail" says:

        Well, I’m not sure if Krauthammer is actually advocating for a “strong executive” or not. That may very well be his position, I just don’t know. Speaking for myself, I believe we need to regain a “balance” between the powers of the branches of our federal government AND have a federal government that that defers more domestic decisions to the states. At the current state of affairs we have quite the opposite. An executive branch that seems to reign with impunity over Legislative and Judicial Branches, and plows under States Rights like a farmer clearing the fields for a new crop.

        But, all that being said, we need a leader who can present a cohesive and consistent foreign policy (in alignment with the principles of our Constitution) to the rest of the world, and show the resolve to back up that policy. Right now, we don’t have that. What we have is a President who is “winging it”, and it shows.

        Like

        • doodahdaze says:

          Yep. That makes my point. The Executive has been given too much power by the Congress. Get a bad President and lookit what happens. The Agencies are too many and the regulations are oppressive. The Carriers are Sitting Ducks now with all the new missiles. The enemy knows where they are at all times. The enemy can take out the whole country with a couple big EMP nukes. Heck we even have to hitch hike to the Space Station compliments of Putin. We are in bad shape. The states have all sold out to federal financing and money so they have to toe the line.The Army is more worried about Gay Rights than anything else. Good Grief.

          Like

  12. The Trial and Error president.

    “Hey, lt’s destroy pefectly good cars. That will stimulate sales of new cars…. Uh, okay, that was a f%$#ed up idea.”

    “Let’s get rid of Mubarek and install the muslim bro’hood…. Oooookay. Thats’ not so good.”

    “Let’s get rid of Gaddafi and put in whomever we want…Hmmm. Dead Seals and an ambassador raped and then killed….Not MY fault. This must be a random world.”

    “How about I announce that I’ll just order all firearms illegal…. Whoops!”

    “I got it! I’ll decide the bom the hell out of Syria…. No? All alone? Okay, how about I decide NOT to bomb Syria. HENCEFORTH, NO ONE WILL BOMB SYRIA. I ORDER IT.”

    This guy can’t even pick the right bicycle.

    Like

  13. Trevor says:

    My question is.. if the evidence points the blame at the Syrian rebel opposition, is Obama going to bomb them for doing it?

    Like

  14. Wizzum says:

    I’ve always thought of military action as a last resort, nothing else can be done, backed into a corner option. If it is not serious enough to have to go NOW then this is punishment, that is NOT what military action is for. Why not just take away his internet privileges for a month.
    This sickens me that he would kill people just to keep face.

    Like

  15. czarowniczy says:

    I think the lack of urgency is more sheer relief that one of his handlers finally figured out the obvious: punt to Congress and let Mikey eat it. I really like his assurance sthat we have objective proof Assad used chemical weapons against his people while the only boots-on-ground are Larry, Shemp and Curly Joe from the UN. If he has samples then cough ’em up. Or did he get the commo intercepts that showed the standard Russian ‘signature’ for an NBC attack? So show us the beef.
    I like the phrase: ” Young girls and boys gassed…” Ummm – weren’t we just talking, last week, about ‘gas’ experiments conducted by OUR government on unsuspecting, unwilling students? As horrified as the POtuS appeared to be about kids being gassed he wasn’t horrified enough to take action Reagan-like without waiting for a potential straw dog if the mission goes south.
    Nice bit about how the Pentagon says the mission ‘is not time sensitive’. I’m betting that Pentagonese for ‘there’s nothing to hit, it’s all been moved’. By now they’ve had enough time to dismantle downtown Damascus and move it three clicks west. Wonder if Putin’s decided to throw his dawg a sop and has set up a few Hollywood FX warehouses to blow in front of cameras when the Tomahawks strike? Sort of leverage that ‘flexibility’.
    The “what message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” I’d guess the message would be that Barack Obama’s still in the Oval Office.”
    I’m waiting to see if Moscow’s going to get an ‘independent’ request from Assad to send advanced S-300 or even S-400 AAMs to Syria to protect from further unprovoked, unilateral and non-UN sanctioned attacks, acts of war, by a rogue (and not the nice rogue) US president.

    Like

  16. sangell says:

    First of all, while I do think using nerve gas or any other lethal ‘chemical weapon’ on civilians is a war crime, these are not really WMD and have little military use beyond an initial ‘surprise’ factor. They were used extensively in WW1 but were never decisive so they are hardly a ‘national security issue in the same way biological or nuclear weapons truly are.

    This being the case there is no more compelling reason to act to prevent the use of chemical weapons against civilians in a civil war setting than there is to act to stop the indiscriminate shooting, bombing, shelling or hanging of civilians. If the ‘international community’ sees fit, a big if, an indictment for war crimes and the violation of the international protocols against the use of chemical weapons can be issued and the offending country sanctioned until it turns the people over.

    Like

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      Yes, This. A much better solution than a military action, unilateral, or otherwise.

      Like

    • dws says:

      Agreed. What is so magical about chemical weapons? Killing by that means is something completely unacceptable but by the standard means it’s ok? Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. Not. And the US is not the policeman of the world. No American should die for this nonsense. Americans volunteer for the military to defend this country not to be used for nonsense.

      That being said, I would be practically shocked senseless if in the end the US is not directly involved in Syria. Whether it takes days, weeks or months.

      Like

  17. judy says:

    There always seems to be more than meets the eye. This is an excellent article from Walter Russell Mead’s Blog, The American Interest on Why Syria Isn’t the Big Story This Week.
    He points out that the economic crisis in India represents a much more fateful moment in world politics than anything happening in Syria and that in the long run, what India does about its industrial and land use policy matters much more to the world than anything that happens in Syria. It matters more to the happiness and economic security of billions of human beings, and it matters more to the prospects for world peace.

    Even in the middle of yet another crisis in the unhappy Middle East, Americans need to keep their eyes on the countries in which humanity’s fate in the 21st century will be hammered out. Land policy in India is a bigger deal than sectarian politics in Syria; we need to keep our eyes on the big picture.
    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/08/31/why-syria-isnt-the-big-story-this-week/

    Like

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      OK, I know I’ll catch “heat” for saying this, but the pic of the YPG fighter sold me. There’s just something about a woman holding a gun… even if it IS an AK47….

      Like

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      On a more serious note, the plight of the Syrian Kurds seems to parallel that of the Iraqi Kurds during the Hussein administration. What is it about these people that attracts the hatred of Muslims? Is it a question of ethnic, cultural, or religious differences that makes them targets, or is it more that the Syrian and Iraqi governments simply wanted whatever resources the Kurdish regions held? From what I had understood (but now question) was that the areas they inhabit were largely unproductive, with little natural resources, and little corresponding value. Is that not true?

      Like

  18. scaretactics says:

    Obama doesn’t even know how to threaten!

    All (good) parents know this: If you say you’re going to dole out a consequence if your child misbehaves, you ALWAYS follow through. Misbehavior = consequence…100% of the time.

    If you don’t dole out a consequence, you look weak and uncertain to your child.

    If you tell your child that he earned a consequence for his misbehavior and then change your mind and tell him that you’re not going to give him the consequence, what kind of parent are you?

    This is rules of parenting 101, and Obama can’t even get this right….2016 can’t get here fast enough …

    Like

  19. czarowniczy says:

    I trust that those who dismiss the use of chemical weapons have no experience working with them or they would nottraet them so lightly. They are indiscriminate terror weapons, they’re not bullets or explosives, they are poisonous substances that kill slowly, horribly and indiscriminately and can contaminate ground for decades. Post-WW II the US and a few allies tried to set the bar on mass killings of civilians and soldiers by means civilized people found repulsive. You may well find killing repulsive but killing has a spectrum of acceptability, strange as that may seem, and a civilized society tries to set standards in facing the inevitability of having to sow death. The use of chemical weapons is never defensive, it is offensive in all of ‘offensive’s’ definitions.
    The US isn’t the world’s policeman but has served admirably as the world’s moral conscience – sometimes more in theory than example but were it not for the US how many despots would still be up and running? The UN as a moral standard is a joke, one of the reasons the UN can’t pull its head out over this issue is that so many of its members, the Security Council in particular, retain an offensive chemical warfare capability and don’t want the issue surfaced. If the world’s allowed to adopt a ho-hum attitude about chemical weapons they will become as accepted in use as bullets and that cannot happen. The despots are trying to make nuclear, chemical and biological warfare more acceptable to further their abilities to destroy large numbers of people easily, quickly and cheaply. One terrorist with a small fire extinguisher-sized canister of high-quality sarin or V-series agent can cause more damage than a company of regular personnel with automatic weapons. The damage that sub-lethal doses of a nerve agent can do to a person is long-lasting and irreversible, especially to children.
    We have international standards for bullets to prevent unnecessary damage to combatants and the US even the gave up using flamethrowers 35 years ago due to revulsion over how they worked. Now it appears that some type of flame weapon was used on a playground in Aleppo, killing ten children and severely burning more – as the US hasn’t signed the protocols banning the use of napalm is that acceptable? Those burned to death are as dead as if they were shot, and their burn injuries can be just as bad long-term as those caused by bullets. Should we not display moral outrage at their being burned as it can be compared to their being shot and respond? What about the children who weren’t killed by any nerve gas use and now will suffer severe neurological aftereffects for the rest of their lives? The President, Congress and so many of the US public seem to be weighing these innocents’ deaths against ‘how will this inconvenience me?’. Someone’s drowning in a pool or trapped in a burning car are you going to call your lawyer and discuss the minuet legalities of how you are going to assist them and possibilities of how your actions in rescuing them may get you sued?
    We were a moral country, in the main, not too long ago. We had moral standards and we were not ashamed to act on them, now the fish is rotting from the head and we’re just holding our noses. I have a red line in many moral issues and believe that the president, as our leading moral figure, shouldn’t scamper around dithering over how reacting to protect innocents against blatant, bald murderous actions might effect his place in history. If 535 self-serving public servants can’t make a decision, while people are dying waiting for them to get off the dime, then a real president should

    Like

    • sundance says:

      Very well presented. Well said. Thank you for sharing.

      Like

      • czarowniczy says:

        Thanks, but I fear the constant exposure to nuke/chem/bio information over the last few years has blunted the public’s once justified fear of their use. We’ve gone from ‘duck and cover’ to ‘does my homeowner’s cover cleanup after a chemical attack”?

        Like

        • maryfrommarin says:

          You are completely correct, czar. In general, people’s sensibilities have been blunted across the board. And once blunted, unlike pencils or paring knives, they are nearly impossible to sharpen again. When a person loses his or her moral sensibilities, they are usually gone for good.

          This has moved from “how do these outrages harm other people?” to “how do these outrages inconvenience ME?”

          Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      In that case he should ask for a declaration of war, not a resolution for a “shot across the bow.”. But here it is internal in Syria. It is not for sure the Assad Government did it. It may have been the Muslim Brotherhood or other unfriendly sources. We are not the police where these people can call 911. Let someone else do it. I have to say I think the Congress should have to declare war unless we are hit by a surprise attack. Then the President should direct the military to all out war with no quarter or worry about enemy civilians. JMO

      Like

      • czarowniczy says:

        I think the POtuS can best manage it by resigning and handing the reins over to someone who knows WTF he’s doing.
        I’m not suggesting we go out and enforce parking rules in Damascus, I’m saying that there are times when the situation just demands you act with or without help from your friends. Chamberlain comes immediately to mind – what would have happened were Britain and the allies as a group would have stood up to Hitler instead of giving him just a lil’ bit more. The West almost defeated the Bolsheviks in the post-1918 campaigns but lost the will and the subsequent Russian Communists murdered millions in eastern Europe. If we let chemical weapon use slip it makes it that much easier to excuse biological and nuclear weapon use, all heads on he same hydra.

        Like

      • rashomon says:

        Having watched all the Sunday morning shows, I am struck by how many players are involved in this (Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Britain, France, Russia, China, etc.) and how many ways this all can go so very, very, very wrong.

        Do we really know what we’re doing? Have we really studied the potential consequences of a “surgical” response? How much “collateral damage” involving innocent citizens will be involved? What about our homeland security? Do we remember that 9-11 anniversaries invite terrorist attacks on U.S. properties here and abroad? Has anyone in this crowd studied history or read Hans Morganthau’s works? Have we used every diplomatic possibility? What is the objective of “punishing Assad” without taking down his regime and, if we weaken him, who will be strengthened?

        Pardon me, but my son has served in Bosnia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq. We have ignored so much in the past and risked our soldiers in order to do what? Don’t tell me chemical warfare hasn’t been used before and we sat on our hands without interference. And how successful have we been if our goal has been to bring peace to those countries? What’s different now? The military has been cut to bare bones (made worse by sequestration 2013), but now we have the money for a strike on Syria? Doesn’t Congress have to approve such new expenditures?

        John Kerry talking louder and louder and louder as the morning went on doesn’t make me understand this any better. I am not deaf and I do speak English. I just don’t understand the point.

        Like

    • That was a very well written and persuasive argument, czar. This:

      “We were a moral country, in the main, not too long ago. We had moral standards and we were not ashamed to act on them, now the fish is rotting from the head and we’re just holding our noses.”

      Now, our moral outrage is directed towards the rights of the terrorists and how we interrogate them. THAT is unbelievable to me. Every American citizen should watch the movie “Unthinkable”.

      Like

      • czarowniczy says:

        We debate the unthinkable with the unprincipled so that we can reach a mutually acceptable agreement. We did that with Hitler and with Saddam – didn’t work then and it won’t work now. Other problem with try to run black up against white is you get a lot of gray and that doesn’t mitigate the black as much as it does pollute the white. If the POtuS had half the morality that RR had he’d have just had the AF and Navy blast the known WMD sites in Syria as soon as they were illegally used.

        Like

        • Right – and since WHEN do we, as a Nation, negotiate with terrorists? That’s what the left would have us do, now. Interrogation is “inhumane” – well, so is blowing up people who are running a marathon. So is gassing your citizens. So is crashing airplanes into the World Trade Center. I fear an attack with some kind of chemical weapon in the U.S. – at a target such as Disney World or the Super Bowl or some such venue. When they see us as “soft” on unacceptable tactics (such as chemical weapons) then they feel emboldened.
          You’re very right – RR would have bombed them into oblivion and then eloquently explained why he did it. And he wouldn’t have “flinched” like Obama.
          We’ve got Assad denying using the weapons and the Rebels claiming responsibility – they are both our enemies and would fire a chemical weapon into the U.S. if they could and not think twice about it. Obama, again, has shown himself – on the world stage for all to see – as a yellow-bellied coward. No doubt, while it is unclear to us, there is a “motivation” behind his deference to Congress. It may be as simple as he wants Congress to bear the burden of acting or not acting, but he’s now put the onus on them. At least he thinks he has. Sadly, the lo-fo voters will buy it hook, line and sinker and not see through the ruse.

          Like

          • czarowniczy says:

            I defer to Gen Patton in how to negotiate with terrorists: “I have the utmost confidence that through your efforts we will eventually beat the hell out of those bastards — “You name them; I’ll shoot them!”
            Unfortunately Obama’s in the White House.

            Like

          • czarowniczy says:

            I defer to Gen Patton on how to deal with terrorists: “I have the utmost confidence that through (our) efforts we will eventually beat the hell out of those bastards — “You name them; I’ll shoot them!”

            I’m seeing reports on AQ doing the Sarin releases but it’s still self serving. One involved the Saudis and the other AQ thru the Turks but none of these are coming thru regular media, only alternative. If enough of the same charges are circulated through different sites the the lie becomes plausible through sheer volume alone. As for firing chem weapons into the US why would AQ waste good chem weapons on Podunk, Syria? The US has killed their management for years, recently retiring their CEO and we continue to hunt and kill them throughout the world. Why waste good Sarin on Syria when you could unload it inside of The Great Satan? The new football and TV seasons are starting within weeks so all he has to do is hang on for a bit more and it will all be background noise.

            Like

    • Josh says:

      I have a friend, a very smart fellow in fact, who thinks it POSSIBLE that the Syrian chemical attacks MAY be fake, a hoax. I cannot disagree with him that it is possible.

      Caught on Tape – Muslim Bros Faking It for Media Photos
      http://www.americanthinker.com/video/2013/08/pallywood_muslim_brotherhood_fake_protest_for_media_photos_caught_on_tape.html

      Like

      • czarowniczy says:

        I want to hear more from Doctors Without Borders but that most likely ain’t likely – they are apolitical and if they start talking more they may well find themselves thrown out or the object of attack. Or both. They did say that they had treated people for neurotoxic conditions and that has a whiff of nerve gas. It appears that reliable samples have been taken out of Syria and the Docs may be the source of them and that’s why the WH is so sure of what happened. Another thing that bothers me is Russia has a big dog in this fight and I’d think that they’d welcome the UN in with open arms to inspect if there were no gas attack. Their dawdling and blocking at the UN level creates suspicion leading me to believe they’d rather have suspicions than facts – why?

        Like

      • John Galt says:

        I think the Muslim Bros should hire Zack Snyder (director of 300 movie) to direct.

        Like

  20. Be Ge says:

    Since when is the US national security about being an airforce for Al Qaeda and bunches of donkey-screwing terrorists and lovers of chopping heads off some of “opposing” (e.g., Christian) shoulders with dull knives aka Syrian opposition (videos are online, viewer discretion required — halal sheep slaughter is more humane as they use sharper knives and make the animal lose consciousness very quickly)? Is this guy Barry a hidden Muslim trying to help his Al Qaeda bretheren? Why not call things with proper names — e.g., a Syrian “opposition” a bunch of “Islamofascistic terrorists”.

    Two enemies of the civilized part of the world, bloody dictator Assad and bloody islamofascists from Al Qaeda are fighting. Normally, you’d expect a Westerner to say — Hey! Fine! Bring in some pop-corn and cola! Not so much this time.

    There really are people in Syria who are neither pro-Assad nor Al-Qaeda, like Syriac Christians. They suffered from the actions of the Assad family, they are suffering from actions of the Islamofascists. Airstriking Assad does not help these fellas a bit — just gets them closer to being beheaded with dull knives when the “opposition” wins.

    We all remember how the government has lied to us about “bomb-grade uranium” and other “weapons of mass destruction” that Saddam had — so that they can send in some troops to kick some keister (and profit just a tiny little bit off the war)? Why should anyone trust even remotely trust them for a word or a shopped satellite picture? I am not saying Assad surely did not gas his own people — both daddy and sonny Assad have a record of orders that killed more people in a single act than the chemical attack in question — and that sort of shit is entirely possible. It is likewise possible the braindead AlQaeda screwtards have done it — they’re also perfectly capable to do whatever killing in the name of All@h the most Merciful and Mohammad his prophet. After all, their spiritual bretheren in the Gaza strip routinely place their children under Israeli fire in order for them to die in front of the cameras so that more agenda about hellish baby-murdering jewish racial kikes (whom nobody likes, at least in their wishes) be pursued.
    Yes, you should enforce international laws that ban sarin. But, as we long know, ‘per se, nihil verum est, nisi in hoc instanti’, though, and that the eternal ‘quo bono’ question should always be thoroughly investigated. And the circumstances of the particular moment are such that airstriking Assad (which he long deserved as a summary of his actions) w/o sufficient proof of his guilt and the due process kinda makes that ‘quo bono’ party to be Al Qaeda. This, plainly, is a blasphemous insult on the memory of the very people that they, Al Qaeda and their allies, have murdered in 9/11 and follow-up attacks, such as the infamous Madrid bombing of 9/11/04

    p.s. if you take out a gun — you should fire that gun. Obama is very bad at playing a cowboy or a bad cop.
    p.p.s. It would be interesting a thing to see Obama approval ratings within the African American community after this story is over. I bet it simply does not change a bit — the black voters will still be 95+% happy about the activities of their black president.

    Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      They are his subjects. He is their King, Royalty. Whatever he does is OK with them.

      Like

      • He’s more like their god (I intentionally do not capitalize the “g”.) I’ve heard many refer to him as “their Savior” – as blasphemous as it is and as much as it pains me to even type that. He has been referred to as that and more. Wow. How simply disgusting. But, then again, I’ve heard many, many educated and supposedly Christian blacks claim that America’s God is not their God. That America’s God is a “white racist”.

        Like

    • sangell says:

      The problem here is ‘firing a gun’ just to show you are serious has consequences and maybe not the ones you want. This is the middle east and its a tough neighborhood. It has been reported that this ‘chemical attack’ was done in response to an earlier attack on Assad’s motorcade in Damascus. The Syrian rebels have good intelligence and they have placed bombs in the conference room of the Ministry of Defence and blown up the minister and his staff. They have kidnapped and executed the Syrian version of Walter Cronkite so everyone from Assad on down already fears for their life. If they lose this war they know they will be executed. We have a Hitler in the bunker problem here and firing some cruise missiles at the regime leadership may generate a ‘scorched earth’ response.

      Like

      • Tracker 3 says:

        Barack seems to be taking advice from the Vice President. Whereas he is going with the crazy Joe Biden advice of standing up on his (Barack’s) balcony and firing off two cruise missiles to scare off the bad guys. Hey if it works with shotguns it has to work with cruise missiles ~ Joe Biden was overheard saying (sarc).

        Like

  21. Scott says:

    Ironic that Obama’s “participation” in the civil wars in Egypt and Syria might very well be contributing factors to the one brewing right here at home.

    Like

  22. Chewbarkah says:

    Call me old-fashioned, but successful foreign policy, and especially military action, has traditionally involved analysis of national interests, strategic objectives, realistic possibilities, unintended consequences, and a clear idea of the result you want to end up with. Obama seems oblivious to these concepts. Amateur hour indeed.

    In recent decades, it has become a U.S. tradition also to seek a domesic concensus, build support in Congress, balance objectives with resources, and work through international institutions before taking unilateral military action. Obama seems oblivious to these concepts.

    What is left? Anti-colonialist ideology formed in Obama’s youth 40 years ago. Cynical domestic politics (“Congress needs to shoulder responsibility”…for his job.) Ego (I’ll have “my military” hold my umbrella).

    Like

  23. Putin said something that makes a whole lot of sense – and he’s calling Obama out. Here’s his take on the U.S. findings that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against the rebel forces:

    “Common sense speaks for itself: the Syrian government forces are on the offensive, and they have encircled insurgents in some regions, and it would be utter stupidity to give up a trump card to those who have been regularly calling for military intervention. It defies any logic, especially on the day when UN monitors came there,” he told reporters.

    And, of course, the expected reaction to Obama’s announcement in the Rose Garden yesterday, from the Syrian government sponsored newspaper:

    http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-state-run-daily-calls-obama-move-retreat-083126900.html

    Like

    • judy says:

      Totally believable….

      Like

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      Is “Syria Danny” anything like “Baghdad Bob”?

      Like

    • I’m not surprised at all – propaganda is a well used tactic to gain political traction among “the people” for military actions.

      I was always suspicious of the “toppling” of the Sadam statue and the public celebration that ensued. Those people in Iraq were so thoroughly terrified of Sadam and his regime that I doubted then (and still do) that any of them would be seen “celebrating” his fall for fear that when the regime rose again they and their families would be targeted for torture and death. Those lifelong, inbred fears do not magically disappear overnight. I doubted they felt secure enough, especially at that time, that if not Sadam himself, family members, henchmen, etc. would come back into power.

      Like

  24. whiteradish says:

    Uh oh. My comment had photo links and disappeared. Jawbone’s head was transposed on a salamander. Here is comment without the photos.

    New name for Jawbone is Salamander-Boxed-in-a-Corner. Looking at him (UGH) in that speech and video, he has morphed with God’s help into a strange-hue salamander, not black…… and with an Arab Islamic facial configuration. One wonders truly who the heck the father was. Salamander does not look part black, more middle eastern, especially with those purple lips.

    Like

  25. myopiafree says:

    Obama “wakes up”.

    http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/31/20273128-the-white-house-walk-and-talk-that-changed-obamas-mind-on-syria?lite

    No one has the right to “shoot explosives” a nation, and kill innocents – with no review by congress.

    Like

  26. rashomon says:

    Obama’s doing just what he did when he was an Illinois senator…he voting “present”.

    Like

  27. CoffeeBreak says:

    I told myself I’m not going to listen to that Rose Garden speech but I went and did it anyways just now. Wowsee wowsee woo woo (Flintstones? I can’t remember). I just have few words at the moment other than I’m really embarrassed these people ever reached this level of power. It really shows to go ya that deceit runs long and deep in this world. It’s not just an American problem. He got in with the help from America-haters within and out. While we were earning a paycheck and relying on our elected officials to protect us, they were busy finding new and exciting ways to jam us up. Since the youtube videos of gassed citizens didn’t do the trick, he will facilitate something within our borders that will make everyone instantly forget their opposition to going in. This charade has nothing to do with helping the common man.

    Like

    • Josh says:

      B Hussein O’s presidency says more about the American citizen than it does about him.

      “While we were earning a paycheck and relying on our elected officials to protect us…” 😦

      Like

  28. west1890 says:

    God help us. We have amegalomaniac in charge of the country. A true madman who is worshipped and fawned over by idiots because of the color of his skin.

    Like

  29. myopiafree says:

    Everyone says – shoot explosives into Syria. That sounds wonderful – until you get pictures of dead women, children and babies killed by AMERICA bombs. The ALL the Arabs will rise up againt AMERICAN killers. It would be truly stupid to do that – mark my words. But, let Congress vote on it, “up or down”. Or maybe Obama will “wise up” and take the subject off the table. He never should have shot his mouth off – in the first place. (Just like thug-Trayvon). But if there was a Assad “crime”, then that goes before the United Nations. If Obama wished to make that “pitch” there – then he must contact, Samantha. But wait – she is still “skipping” around the world – NOT doing her job. (We need some SERIOUS people in the UN, not this flake.)

    Like

  30. Sharon says:

    It’s too bad people weren’t paying attention when they voted him in last year — again.

    An easily bought off and ignorant electorate really complicates the business of running a Republic.

    Like

  31. myopiafree says:

    What bothers me most about Obama – is that he declares that our, “National Security” is under THREAT. That is a lie. Further if there there WERE any “gas attack”, this issue MUST go to the UN, since they alone represent, “international law”. So who is “developing this international law issue”. Your incompetent Samantha Cabinet Minister. Further, after Obama tells us the critical nature of our “National Security”, he goes off for a pleasant, “round of golf”. (Pardon me while I barf.) Don’t ask me to vote for an “act of war” on Syrian – any more.

    Like

    • sangell says:

      We need to remember there is a country over there with excellent intelligence and a perfectly capable air force that , when it comes to their ‘national security’, they do not hestitate to use. Israel! They have in recent months twice sent their planes into Syria to take out weapons systems they do not want the Syrians to have. Once to take out some SAM missiles they did not like and, most recently, some anti- ship missiles Mr. Putin had tried to deliver to Assad. Prior to that they even took out a nuclear reactor facility Assad was trying to build. I have no doubt the Israeli’s would do whatever was necessary to destroy Assad’s chemical weapons if they felt their ‘national security’ was imperiled by them.

      Its hard for me to believe that if Israel can live with Assad’s chemical weapons ( they aren’t new) then the United States national security is on the line here. Chlorine gas is a ‘chemical weapon’ and anyone with a swimming pool and a some drain opener can manufacture a potent ‘chemical weapon’. The problem is you can’t aim it very well and are as likely to kill yourself fooling around with this stuff as your target. If it arrives via a ballistic missile or jet fighter bomber its origins are known and that isn’t good if the nation you are attempting to poison has nuclear weapons.

      Thus we can deplore Assad’s use of these substances ( and I do believe his forces did commit the deed) but there is little we can do to stop him from using them on his own territory against his own people without toppling his regime. We can’t do that with cruise missiles and air power without a major and sustained bombing campaign which Obama has ruled out. So if we aren’t prepared to topple the regime exactly what is it that Obama is seeking to do?

      Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      The prog’s are all atizzy about International Law. They think it superior to US law. Those wonderful Citizens of the World infest the Media too.

      Like

  32. myopiafree says:

    Rand Paul spells out WHY we must not become involved in the Syrian war.
    Probably vote – 50/50. Here is what he said:
    1) Cant bomb chemical site – creates more poison.
    2) Rebels – Al-Quida
    3) One “shot” will not do it – then more shots.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032608/vp/52898985#52899002

    Rand Paul – is correct. No authorization for an attack. Let us not be stupid about this.

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      4) Obama is a liar and can’t be trusted.

      Like

    • Be Ge says:

      You don’t often see some right-winged folks typically accused of being bad cops, texan cowboys, warmongers and lovers of problem solving via “can-we send-in-some-troops-to-kick-some-keister” methods — all trying to persuade a seemingly pacifist leftie and Nobel Peace prize winner to not start a war, do you…

      Since I am not in a habit of consuming consciousness-extending chemicals — pinch me somebody, I must be dreaming.

      p.s. Let’s remember the leftists really are responsible for world’s worst massacres. Prominent commies Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Salot Sar aka Pol Pot and the lovely Kim family have shortened the lives of close to 100M people in the 20th century alone — more than all the world wars + whatever colonial wars taken together. As Lenin and Stalin loved to say, (in)famously (mis)quoting Machiavelli

      * il fine giustifica i mezzi*

      The cause justifies the means.

      I am apt to suspect the belief in the verity of the above statement is a common trait of the vast majority of all lefties out there.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s