Obama needs to justify Syria action, says … Donald Rumsfeld

posted at 9:21 am on August 29, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The emphasis on Donald Rumsfeld’s name in the headline is for our friends on the Left, whose heads must be exploding right now.  For eight years, they screeched about the warmongers of the previous administration, with Rumsfeld the warmongeriest of all the warmongers.  Neil Cavuto asked the former Secretary of Defense whether action in Syria was warranted at this time, and Rumsfeld told him … no one knows, because Barack Obama hasn’t bothered to make a case as to why intervention serves our security interests:

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the Obama administration has not yet justified an attack on Syria.

“There really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation,” Rumsfeld told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto on Wednesday.

“If you think of what’s really important in that region, it’s two things,” he added. “It’s Iran’s nuclear program and the relationship between Iran and Syria, the Assad regime, with respect to funding terrorists that go around killing innocent men, women and children including Americans.”

Critics of the Bush administration’s war in Iraq may scoff, but George W. Bush scrupulously made the case for military intervention in Iraq.  The Bush White House produced a detailed, sixteen-point justification outlining American interests in going to war with Saddam Hussein (of which WMD was a small subset), including the grotesque human-rights violations of the Saddam regime.  Bush went to Congress and received authorization to use military force.  He then went to the UN and at least made the case for intervention — based largely on Saddam’s refusal to abide by the 1991 cease-fire and seventeen subsequent UN Security Council resolutions.

In contrast, Obama is barely talking with Congressional leadership about this military strike, and the only justification he’s offered for action to the American people is that Assad may feel emboldened to use chemical weapons against the US. That’s a rather laughable assertion, as Assad has no ability to reach the US with his artillery shells, and he’s got much more pressing fights at home.

Rumsfeld is also “mystified” by the chatter coming out of the White House about timetables and proposals for the extent of the action.  “I can’t imagine what they’re thinking,” Rumself tells Cavuto.  The LA Times has a glimpse into that, actually (via Twitchy):

One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

“They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic,” he said.

Jeffrey Goldberg has an answer to that strategy:

There’s nothing like acting out of an acute fear of mockery to get you mocked, I suppose. Remember“leading from behind”? This quote ranks up there in the did-someone-actually-say-that category. …

If this is indeed the goal of the Obama administration — to look tough without being tough, to avoid threatening the existence of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and to avoid angering Iran and Russia — then, really, let’s not bother with this attack at all. For other reasons, I’m opposed to this sort of attack on Syria — please see yesterday’s post on the subject. But if the goal is merely to save face in light of President Barack Obama’s (morally and politically appropriate) drawing of a chemical-weapons red line, then this forthcoming attack is a very, very bad idea.

That may be why Obama isn’t providing a justification for it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

VP Biden: Why would we attack a small nation on the other side of the world which can’t harm us?

Libfree: Is this the Hope or the Change?

Nobel Prize Committee: Feeling pretty stupid right about now?

Bishop on August 29, 2013 at 9:26 AM

This country is in imminent danger—OF BARACK OBAMA.

hillsoftx on August 29, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Good on Rummmy…

OmahaConservative on August 29, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Iraq – Syria. Apple and Oranges.

Otherwise, start posting all those pics of Kerry, Pelosi et al meeting with the great reformer Assad.

Much more recent than the Rumsfeld Saddam pics the left loves.

Ben Hur on August 29, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Unfortunately you sometimes have to go to war with the CINC you’ve got.

rhombus on August 29, 2013 at 9:30 AM

That’s a PEACE PRIZE!

Someone cue the Crowder!

Free Indeed on August 29, 2013 at 9:32 AM

There’s nothing like acting out of an acute fear of mockery to get you mocked, I suppose. Remember“leading from behind”? This quote ranks up there in the did-someone-actually-say-that category. …

Yup. It’s the Steve Urkel Presidency, all right.

Myron Falwell on August 29, 2013 at 9:32 AM

War for oil was better than war for obozo’s ego.

Flange on August 29, 2013 at 9:32 AM

this is starting to get ridiculous….watching thr right try and explain to incompetence what is clearly obamas strategy. instead of starting from the premise that he means well, assume he means to destroy the US…then his actions are predictable and you dont look like charlie brown holding the football

JimBob on August 29, 2013 at 9:35 AM

In contrast, Obama is barely talking with Congressional leadership about this military strike, and the only justification he’s offered for action to the American people is that Assad may feel emboldened to use chemical weapons against the US.

Well, there you go. The reason the Administration isn’t talking anymore is because they’ve run out of lies to tell.

Dusty on August 29, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Apropos repost here, contrasting Iraq in 2003 and Syria now..

The UN gave approval in the fall of 2002. The resolution it passed declared Saddam in violation of all UN resolutions going back as far as 11 years, and it gave approval for doing all required to get him to comply, or else.

It was the French who insisted another UN resolution was needed, and who the blocked it at the last minute after telling us for months they would approve it.

GWB’s mistake was in seeking a second UN resolution and trusting the French. He already had all he needed:

1) Bipartisan Congressional approval by a wide margin;
2) A new UN resolution that gave its approval;
3) Popular support in US by a wide margin;
4) A broad coalition of dozens of countries.

Comrade O has none of this.

GWB took about six months to get all of this approval and to give Saddam a chance to comply before going to war.

Comrade O is rushing to war in a matter of weeks.

He is so friggin’ arrogant and stupid he probably believes that the planned “kinetic” actions are not clear and unambiguous acts of war. He is only “sending a message”. Where in international law is sending such a “message” without committing an act of war sanctioned?

And Comrade O had the nerve to call GWB reckless and take seriously calls to prosecute him for starting an illegal war?

George Orwell would have some trouble making up such absurdities.

And further…

Is Dear Leader claiming he fears that Assad will provide chemical weapons to Islamist terrorists who might then use them on the US? Has there ever been any substantive fear that Assad would back a chemical weapons terrorist attack on the US?

No.

Actually, it is Syrian insurgents and foreign Islamists who have infiltrated Syria and who are closely affiliated with al Qaeda and Islamist terrorist groups who are trying to topple Assad. And these are exactly the people who would like to get their hands on Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal and use it against the US. Comrade O could make it more likely that will happen by attacking Assad.

How much more backwards and inside out can this get?

farsighted on August 29, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld.

coldwarrior on August 29, 2013 at 9:43 AM

No doubt the left is having a head exploding moment here. Pure Schadenfreude. Boo!

Bmore on August 29, 2013 at 9:43 AM

The Bush White House produced a detailed, sixteen-point justification outlining American interests in going to war with Saddam Hussein (of which WMD was a small subset), including the grotesque human-rights violations of the Saddam regime. Bush went to Congress and received authorization to use military force.

Excellent point … later, liberals ignored all points other than the WMD. Good news keeps pouring in, finally! It must be murder for the leftists to see Rumsfeld in the news again – GRIN!

Karmi on August 29, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Dusty on August 29, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Reminds me of Sir Walter Scotts old phrase.

“O, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to decieve”

Bmore on August 29, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Maybe 0 should send in the harpoons.

Bmore on August 29, 2013 at 9:48 AM

War for oil was better than war for obozo’s ego.

Flange on August 29, 2013 at 9:32 AM

These are serious times, and I pray for our young folks in uniform, everywhere, daily.

I can’t help it, but, honestly, I can see a television commercial from the 70′s, a nice cosy kitchen, morning sunlight streaming through the window, a smiling neat, well-dressed Black kid sitting at the breakfast table, his Mom serving waffles…and suddenly that smug kid next door, the one with that fancy Mercedes peddle car, Ahmed, that guy, walks in to the kitchen from outside and grabs the waffle off the smiling Black kid’s plate…and suddenly I see Obama…shouting, “Let go my Ego!!!”

coldwarrior on August 29, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Maybe 0 should send in the harpoons.

Bmore on August 29, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Maybe someone needs to send O some tampons?

coldwarrior on August 29, 2013 at 9:51 AM

In contrast, Obama is barely talking with Congressional leadership about this military strike, and the only justification he’s offered for action to the American people is that Assad may feel emboldened to use chemical weapons against the US.

Did he actually say this? Did BHO, POTUS, actually say that if we don’t attack Syria, they might use chemical weapons on the US?

Can you impeach a man for gross stupidity? Is gross stupidity a high crime and/or misdemeanor?

JohnGalt23 on August 29, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Can’t we just a have a couple of his Cabinet members hold him back as he pretends he wants to fight.

“You want a piece of this Assad? Huh? You’re lucky the’re holding me back or I’d give you what I like to call the Tomahawk sandwich.”

WisRich on August 29, 2013 at 9:52 AM

coldwarrior on August 29, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Earrings? Lolz!

Bmore on August 29, 2013 at 9:53 AM

My grandson served 3 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is tired as I imagine all of our service men and women are. Who are the good guys? The Middle East has been at war for thousands of years. Now we want to join in the fun of that mess? Most Americans say “no thanks”!

Herb on August 29, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Cue Peter, Paul and Mary …

Where have all the Sheehans gone, long time passing?
Where have all the Sheehans gone, long time ago?
Where have all the Sheehans gone?
Obama’s tricked them, everyone.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

TXUS on August 29, 2013 at 9:58 AM

rummy needs to back off. if 0bama doesnt strike syria it will make him look weak! that just cant be allowed.

chasdal on August 29, 2013 at 9:59 AM

War for oil was better than war for obozo’s ego.

Flange on August 29, 2013 at 9:32 AM

There was no “war for oil”. I was with a helicopter battalion at COB Basra at the end, and units there were charged with protection of the Soutern oilfield. We did transport oil company people in the area working to enhance extraction from what was estimated to be the potentially second-most productive field in the world. This was for the benefit not of the oil companies per se, but for the benefit of the Iraqi government. We flew a lot of State Department folks and foreign diplomats as well. Most interesting were the arguments between Her Majesty’s Royal Consul, Alice Walpole and the field head of BP over the value of restoring the southern marshes. It got a little feisty.

While this was going on the Chinese were flying in engineers by the passenger jet-ful … on to airfields we (you the taxpayer) built … that we defended. This was because we actually did allow the Iraqi government decide who they were going to do business with and we applied no pressure other than debt repayment. The oil is Iraq’s, and they now sell most of it to China.

Some war for oil.

M240H on August 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM

“You want a piece of this Assad? Huh? You’re lucky the’re holding me back or I’d give you what I like to call the Tomahawk sandwich.”

WisRich on August 29, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Sorta like Martin Lawrence in National Security?

coldwarrior on August 29, 2013 at 10:02 AM

4500 soldiers dead….23,000 wounded, 500 amputees, 360,000 brain injuries….Thanks Rummy, we’re all safer now…..

repvoter on August 29, 2013 at 10:02 AM

A song dedicated to Obama’s contemplated war on Syria

“They’re Coming To Take Me Away, A-Ha”— Napoleon IVX

MaiDee on August 29, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Crickets from the lsm

Unstinkingbelievable

cmsinaz on August 29, 2013 at 10:03 AM

OR
He’s made is argument last night on PBS….that should suffice
-lsm

cmsinaz on August 29, 2013 at 10:05 AM

But if the goal is merely to save face in light of President Barack Obama’s (morally and politically appropriate) drawing of a chemical-weapons red line, then this forthcoming attack is a very, very bad idea.

Bombing a country to maintain street cred is a really bad strategy.

I wonder if Obama is going to put a third notch on his peace prize for shooting across the bow.

Happy Nomad on August 29, 2013 at 10:05 AM

A song dedicated to the coalition of nations Obama is building to attack Syria:

“One (Is The Loneliest Number)” Three Dog Night.

MaiDee on August 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM

coldwarrior on August 29, 2013 at 9:49 AM

That’s funny. I was thinking more like a commercial where obozo tells everyone how vapor lock is the third leading cause of engine failure, and if we don’t stop Assad now it may become the second leading cause.

Flange on August 29, 2013 at 10:09 AM

at least Britian is having a debate in Parliament.

Obama? Nope

WisRich on August 29, 2013 at 10:09 AM

That may be why Obama isn’t providing a justification for it.

Providing a justification to Congress or the American people puts a different level of ownership. A different level of responsibility. President plausible deniability doesn’t do accountability.

Happy Nomad on August 29, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Did he actually say this? Did BHO, POTUS, actually say that if we don’t attack Syria, they might use chemical weapons on the US?

Can you impeach a man for gross stupidity? Is gross stupidity a high crime and/or misdemeanor?

JohnGalt23 on August 29, 2013 at 9:52 AM

If he actually said that it is news to me.

If so I doubt he will repeat it, unless he is even more stupid than we already know he is.

farsighted on August 29, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Some war for oil.

M240H on August 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM

I was just throwing that out there because the left loved saying it. However, oil would be a better reason to go to war than obozo’s ego.

Flange on August 29, 2013 at 10:11 AM

this is starting to get ridiculous….watching thr right try and explain to incompetence what is clearly obamas strategy. instead of starting from the premise that he means well, assume he means to destroy the US…then his actions are predictable and you dont look like charlie brown holding the football

JimBob on August 29, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Say what?

rplat on August 29, 2013 at 10:15 AM

and you dont look like charlie brown holding the football

JimBob on August 29, 2013 at 9:35 AM

That would be Lucy holmes, unless you are playing some lostmotherland boystown thing.;/

Murphy9 on August 29, 2013 at 10:18 AM

But if the goal is merely to save face in light of President Barack Obama’s (morally and politically appropriate) drawing of a chemical-weapons red line, then this forthcoming attack is a very, very bad idea.

Doublethink. Actually, triplethink.

Going to war to save face is a bad idea.

But if drawing a red line is “morally and politically appropriate,” then going to war when it’s crossed would also be appropriate.

Yet, going to war over it is a “very, very bad idea.”

That’s incoherent.

Akzed on August 29, 2013 at 10:20 AM

rplat on August 29, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Murphy9 on August 29, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Glad I wasn’t the only one that didn’t get that. ; )

Bmore on August 29, 2013 at 10:20 AM

At the end of the day you can have your Bush, your Cheney,
your Whoever…..I’ll take Rumsfeld….

ToddPA on August 29, 2013 at 10:25 AM

That may be why Obama isn’t providing a justification for it.

Here is Teh One’s “justification”…

He warned Assad not use use chemical weapons. He says Assad did. Hence, Comrade O is justified in bombing Assad’s Syria for about three days, provided it is done right, in a way that is…

“just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

There is no other justification.

There has been no other case made until now, after the fact that Assad did something Comrade O told him not to do. Any other justification they try to put forth ex post facto is window dressing else it would have been presented long ago.

My guess is O’s minions are furiously combing thru his past remarks in an effort to create by cut and paste some other justifications. That’s how they operate.

farsighted on August 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Coming soon to a Hardball episode…

Rumsfeld the warmonger doesn’t agree with Obama’s wars. Therefore, all criticism of this war is clearly racist.

Chris of Rights on August 29, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Going to war to save face is a bad idea.

But if drawing a red line is “morally and politically appropriate,” then going to war when it’s crossed would also be appropriate.

Akzed on August 29, 2013 at 10:20 AM

I disagree with Goldberg that drawing the red line was morally and politically appropriate. To me, that seems like needless saber rattling. A real leader would have been able to denounce the use of chemical weapons without calling it a game changer in the US position.

Now we’re in the situation where people are going to die so that Obama doesn’t lose face. He should have kept his options open and not drawn that line in the first place. If he had, then he could have assessed the chemical attack last week without worrying about threats he made last year. What a shame that innocent people are going to lose their lives because of Obama. I guess I should say more innocent people after the Benghazi massacre that has been covered up because of the lies the administration told to save face ahead of an election.

Happy Nomad on August 29, 2013 at 10:33 AM

France: political solution the ultimate goal for Syria

LOL.

Are the French are changing their tune again? À propos de visage!

Could it be that the socialist running France has decided to give Comrade O an out?

After all, we can’t do anything the French do not approve of, and Comrade O is looking for a way to save face.

farsighted on August 29, 2013 at 10:40 AM

The emphasis on Donald Rumsfeld’s name in the headline is for our friends on the Left, whose heads must be exploding right now.

“laughing hysterically” is more like it.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Bombing a country to maintain street cred is a really bad strategy.

Happy Nomad on August 29, 2013 at 10:05 AM

It also makes it easy to provoke and manipulate Barry “McFly” Obammy in the future. Ya’ chicken McFly?

farsighted on August 29, 2013 at 10:49 AM

“laughing hysterically” is more like it.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM

No doubt, laughing at 0 can be a full time gig. My sides hurt.

Bmore on August 29, 2013 at 10:52 AM

The emphasis on Donald Rumsfeld’s name in the headline is for our friends on the Left, whose heads must be exploding right now.

“laughing hysterically” is more like it.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Like this, illustrating the Left’s new evolving relationship with Warmonger O.

farsighted on August 29, 2013 at 10:54 AM

“laughing hysterically” is more like it.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Kind of like what the response is here from everyone when
Your screen name appears…

ToddPA on August 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM

RUMSFELD!!!

potvin on August 29, 2013 at 11:11 AM

No carriers in the area, so this will have to be land based… with political ramifications…

Khun Joe on August 29, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Kind of like what the response is here from everyone when
Your screen name appears…

ToddPA on August 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Squiddie? Yep, always good for a laugh.

slickwillie2001 on August 29, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Um….Donald Rumsfeld????? Just call it what it is – this is political grandstanding at its finest.

Rumsfeld. Pahlease.

KMC1 on August 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Kind of like what the response is here from everyone when
Your screen name appears…

ToddPA on August 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM

i’m delighted to know. it’s a more worthy contribution than 99% of comments here.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 12:09 PM

No doubt, laughing at 0 can be a full time gig. My sides hurt.

Bmore on August 29, 2013 at 10:52 AM

try some painkillers (medical marijuana will probably not help).

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 12:14 PM

i’m delighted to know. it’s a more worthy contribution than 99% of comments here.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Yes, Laughter is the Best Medicine….at least according
to Reader’s Digest…

ToddPA on August 29, 2013 at 12:32 PM

(of which WMD was a small subset)

Oh good god. Bulls**t revisionist history. I guess that whole Colin Powell yellowcake uranium thing was no big deal, right? Just a minor presentation that had no influence on going to war…LOL

Funny how the whole WMD thing gets seriously downplayed and labeled a “small subset” once it was found to be completely erroneous, and then out come all these other reasons to justify the Iraq War. All of a sudden the right is a big proponent of “human rights”! LOL

cornfedbubba on August 29, 2013 at 12:40 PM

The emphasis on Donald Rumsfeld’s name in the headline is for our friends on the Left, whose heads must be exploding right now.

“laughing hysterically” is more like it.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM

This should have you in stitches then, Laughing Boy!

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., (Aug. 20, 2013) — In court papers filed today, the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law.

Are you laughing yet? Holder and your Cult Leader are now saying that Rummy and the others are not War Criminals.

Want some help lighting your fuse?

Del Dolemonte on August 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Oh good god. Bulls**t revisionist history. I guess that whole Colin Powell yellowcake uranium thing was no big deal, right? Just a minor presentation that had no influence on going to war…LOL

Funny how the whole WMD thing gets seriously downplayed and labeled a “small subset” once it was found to be completely erroneous, and then out come all these other reasons to justify the Iraq War. All of a sudden the right is a big proponent of “human rights”! LOL

cornfedbubba on August 29, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Not good to drink Everclear for lunch, Teen Spirit.

Have you actually had the intellectual curiosity to read the 2002 Authorization that Congress signed off on? It lists well over a dozen reasons they authorized Bush to go into Iraq, and WMDs were only one of many.

Do your two remaining brain cells a favor and read it. I’ll even give you the link:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

And then click on the link I just shared with squiddy. Bet your head will explode too!

F-

Del Dolemonte on August 29, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Oops, I forgot to include the Reich-Wing link to the story about how Holder and O’bama are saying Bush and Rumsfeld, among others, are not war criminals.

http://warisacrime.org/content/obama-doj-asks-court-grant-immunity-george-w-bush-iraq-war

Del Dolemonte on August 29, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Not good to drink Everclear for lunch, Teen Spirit.

F-

Del Dolemonte on August 29, 2013 at 12:44 PM

LMAO!!

ToddPA on August 29, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Oh good god. Bulls**t revisionist history. I guess that whole Colin Powell yellowcake uranium thing was no big deal, right? Just a minor presentation that had no influence on going to war…LOL

Funny how the whole WMD thing gets seriously downplayed and labeled a “small subset” once it was found to be completely erroneous, and then out come all these other reasons to justify the Iraq War. All of a sudden the right is a big proponent of “human rights”! LOL

cornfedbubba on August 29, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Like – 550 metric tons of “yellowcake”?

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program – a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” – the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment – was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

Karmi on August 29, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Are you laughing yet? Holder and your Cult Leader are now saying that Rummy and the others are not War Criminals.

Del Dolemonte on August 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM

of course, rummy & co. have no immunity from being known forever as utter morons.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Are you laughing yet? Holder and your Cult Leader are now saying that Rummy and the others are not War Criminals.

Del Dolemonte on August 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM

of course, rummy & co. have no immunity from being known forever as utter morons.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Says the dude whose Party lost the college graduate vote in 2012 while increasing its already-record share of the high school dropout vote from 61% in 2000 to 80+% in ’12.

BTW, Rumsfeld got his degree from the same school (Princeton) as Michelle “Finally Proud of my Country” O’bama, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Using your “logic”, that makes them all morons too.

Overwhelmingly weak “response”, even for you.

F-

PS, why would such an intelligent guy like O’bama pardon a bunch of morons?

Del Dolemonte on August 29, 2013 at 2:59 PM

PS, why would such an intelligent guy like O’bama pardon a bunch of morons?

Del Dolemonte on August 29, 2013 at 2:59 PM

the answer is the it’s you who’s not very intelligent. otherwise you’d understand that being a moron is not a prosecutable offense (unfortunately).

also, i never said anything about educational attainment, so i’m not sure whose logic you’re referring to.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Hey sesquipedalian, I wonder, are you in the silenus family?

Did Rumsfeld graduate neat the top of his class at Princeton?

Might you care to speculate where Obama’s ranking might lie in any comparison with the likes of Condoleezza Rice or perhaps Wolfowitz (who actually has an educational relationship to the University of Chicago). Tell you what … Let’s see some transcripts for King Putt. How about a SINGLE publication from Preezie Choombro … You know, the initiator of 3 wars (and leaning into a 4th) was NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER.
Now THAT’S FUNNY.
How about some paperwork in support of your Savior, President 2X Downgrade Kardashian Soetoro.
How about it multi-syllabic?

Missilengr on August 29, 2013 at 4:58 PM

I think Obama can’t make a decision. Everyone is telling him to make the case to the American people. Gee, folks. He can’t. Someone would have to tell him how to do it and so far no adult thinks lobbing one over the border is a good idea. The Brits and France are backing down because of intel. It’ll be easy to ignore this as the press will do it for him. The only problem is that there is getting to be too much to ignore and that lump under the carpet is getting to be several stories tall.

BetseyRoss on August 29, 2013 at 5:07 PM