Kerry: This is our Munich moment, or something

posted at 8:41 am on September 3, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Great news: the Nobel Peace Prize-winning President has sent his chief diplomat out to Capitol Hill to make the hard sell on war.  For the moment, John Kerry has his focus on Democrats, who aren’t exactly rushing to grant Barack Obama super war powers, and that has Kerry warning his own party that the US faces a “Munich moment”:

Secretary of State John Kerry told House Democrats that the United States faced a “Munich moment” in deciding whether to respond to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

In a 70-minute conference call on Monday afternoon, Kerry derided Syrian President Bashar Assad as a “two-bit dictator” who will “continue to act with impunity,” and he urged lawmakers to back President Barack Obama’s plan for “limited, narrow” strikes against the Assad regime, Democratic sources on the call said.

Three writers at Politico try to make sense of the Munich analogy:

Kerry’s derisive comments on Assad and his reference to the 1938 Munich agreement between Adolf Hitler and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain — after which Chamberlain infamously declared it would lead to “peace for our time” — showed the hard line the White House is taking in its drive for congressional approval of the Syrian resolution. Top administration officials argue that a failure by the United States to respond to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime will only lead to more violence and instability in the region.

It’s difficult to choose a starting point to deconstruct this claim.  The only context in which this makes any sense at all is as a warning against weakness, but Western weakness in the 1930s didn’t start at Munich; it was just its nadir.  The same is true here, with Obama alternately shooting his mouth off about “red lines” and then failing to do any work to prepare Congress to respond once they were crossed.  In fact, it goes back further all the way to the Iranian Green Revolution in 2009 and Obama’s refusal to back it, up through his vacillations in the Arab Spring and his 30,000-foot intervention in Libya that helped create a failed state.

Otherwise, this has no parallel at all to Munich.  The people of Czechoslovakia, which Britain and France traded for a few months of peace with the Nazis, aren’t analogous at all to the al-Qaeda-dominated Syrian opposition.  Furthermore, this isn’t a negotiation for peace, and Assad isn’t looking for lebensraum by invading and occupying nations to his East.  Assad is a brutal dictator, but one Kerry himself has wined and dined, and one this administration at one time embraced as a “reformer.” This is a civil war between two sides that are both hostile to the US, and Kerry wants Congress to authorize military action on behalf of the side that has declared war on the US, which would be at least slightly more like bombing Prague on behalf of Germany in 1938.

Kerry has a tough sell with Democrats, but it won’t get much easier with Republicans.  Byron York has five reasons the GOP isn’t likely to give Obama a war authorization, but these two are the most compelling (via Instapundit):

3) The nature of the Syrian opposition. Many Republicans will never be convinced the U.S. can come to the aid of good rebels in Syria without also helping bad rebels in Syria. It’s just too complicated, they believe, and there are simply too many bad guys. Why risk aiding al Qaeda or its affiliates? These Republicans remain unconvinced by arguments from fellow GOP lawmakers like John McCain, who point out that in the Libyan operation the U.S. essentially set up a safe area for good rebels in Benghazi. Given what happened later in that Libyan city, the skeptics will remain unconvinced.

4) The lack of confidence in Barack Obama. There’s no doubt the president has been extremely reluctant to take action in Syria. He also showed terrible judgment by painting himself into a corner with his 2012 “red line” comments on chemical weapons. For those reasons, and more, some Republicans will argue that they simply cannot entrust special warmaking powers to a president who they believe is not competent to use them.

The fourth is probably the real deal-killer on Capitol Hill, but the third should be the real reason why the US stays out of the fight.


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

Comment pages: 1 2

libfreeordie on September 3, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Really? I’d give praise for comments that put you in your place on nearly every subject, not the least of which is history. But then, that’s all I’d do here. Any single conservative commenter here is brighter than you. Presents better arguments than you. Simply knows more than you. You’re opinionated. You offer nothing else. And you still can’t bring yourself to admit your golden calf is an abject failure and so completely wrong.

smoothsailing on September 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Face it libby, your party is a cult of death, supporting unlimited abortions, rationing health care so more people die due to fiats by Obama & Sebelius, and supporting slaughters of innocent people all around the world by bloodthirsty dictators & rebels. It’s really bad to be you, isn’t it?

Once again, this thread will be over soon and you’ll have to face the reality that you are you. Not a pleasant thought, bub.

22044 on September 3, 2013 at 10:46 AM

I said GOP and Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. When we supported a range of activities, including the use of chemical weapons, only to randomly reverse themselves in the 90s and 2000s. Learn your history…

libfreeordie on September 3, 2013 at 10:31 AM

*snort*

The history perfesser has spoken.

Why did we support Iraq in the 80s Dr. John C. Calhoun II? Why was there no longer any value to supporting Iraq in the 90s Dr. John C. Calhoun II? Why won’t you speak to recent events instead of attempting to change the subject Dr. John C. Calhoun II? Isn’t 313 hours a long enough wait for a response to the following Dr. John C. Calhoun II?

Here’s a simple question for you. Which of the founding fathers did not subscribe to the communitarian ethos Calhoun deploys to rationalize slavery? *sets sundial*

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

None. They weren’t nascent Commies like John C. Calhoun, and full blown Commies like you. Don’t you think you need to provide some proof for such a ridiculous smear there Mr. Calhoun? You’re a history perfesser, right?

NotCoach on August 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Oh dear God….hold on, give me 10 minutes.

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:45 AM

I would tell you to learn your history, but we all know that ain’t gonna happen Dr. John C. Calhoun II, Super Knowledgeable Perfesser of History.

NotCoach on September 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM

liveenslavedthendie,

And, what exactly did the Democrats call for after Saddam’s atrocities in 1980s?

Resist We Much on September 3, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Your argument is that Obama is just as bad as the Reagan and Bush administrations….well if you insist…..

libfreeordie on September 3, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Nope, my fact is that you and the rest of liberal America soiled yourselves in ecstasy when Bark was elected and then given the Nobel, you used that award as a cudgel to remind all of us “flyover mouth breathers” that things were a-changin’ and the adults were in charge again. No more cowboy diplomacy, no more shootin’ from the hip, no more alienating the world through going-it-alone warmongering.

And now that Dog Eater is busy crafting a reason to bomb and kill and destroy and vaporize and burn people in a “little nation on the other side of the Earth that can’t possibly harm us”, you have conveniently forgotten your anti-war hysteria from the Dubya years.

Just as bad? Bush went to war with Congressional support including demorats, and he at least took his case to the almight U.N. You remember the U.N., the organization that we were supposed to ask permission of before any military action was taken, where is Bark’s presentation to that august body so he can have some legitimacy?

Bishop on September 3, 2013 at 10:50 AM

What’s the point of this strike? Kerry is saying WWII could have been prevented by lobbing a couple of mortars at a German pasture and then signing the Munich Agreement! Total BS.

PattyJ on September 3, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Madness.

coldwarrior on September 3, 2013 at 10:52 AM

99% of people on this site are putting the national security of the United States in grave danger just because you want to screw Obama… The excuse is that that the rebels are mostly terrorists… That is a lie people… The vast majority of the rebels are not terrorists and not affiliated with Al Qaeda… On the other hand we know for certain that Assad is a terrorist regime that has bloods of US troops on his hand as he made Syria the main conduit of Al Qaeda terrorists during the Iraq war… We know for a fact that Iran terrorist regime is the main ally of Assad and their Hizballah terrorist group is fighting for him in Syria… If we do not strike the Assad regime then our enemies (Iran, Syria, Hizballah, Al Qaeda, Russia, China) will be emboldened beyond belief and we will pay very heavily for this in the future not just in the Middle East but all over the world…

Moreover I trust Israel judgment on this matter… Israel wants a heavy blow to Assad terrorist regime…

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 10:54 AM

NotCoach on September 3, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Isn’t it fairly well eststablished that he is not really a perfesser? I don’t think he’s intelligent enough. He’s been caught lying through his teeth at nearly every turn, He spends nearly every waking moment here. He doesn’t have time to teach college. I’d say maybe some easy community college night course, but that’s when he’s turning tricks in the train station lavatories.

He isn’t a real professor. I’d bet my paycheck on it.

smoothsailing on September 3, 2013 at 10:56 AM

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 10:54 AM

This commenter is a paid operative or Free Syrian Army information merchant. He has only ever hawked attacking Syria and uses his account for nothing else.

smoothsailing on September 3, 2013 at 10:59 AM

99% of people on this site are putting the national security of the United States in grave danger just because you want to screw Obama…

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 10:54 AM

How?

The excuse is that that the rebels are mostly terrorists… That is a lie people…

Speaking of lying; you continue to misrepresent what most have said around here in your attempt to propagandize your desired outcome. We know that most of the rebels are Islamists. We see no benefit to supporting Islamists. Why do you continue to lie about what we say? Why are you so dishonest?

Moreover I trust Israel judgment on this matter… Israel wants a heavy blow to Assad terrorist regime…

You keep saying that, but you haven’t once pointed to any official position by Israel concerning the rebels and Assad. When did Israel say they supported the rebels over Assad?

NotCoach on September 3, 2013 at 11:01 AM

This commenter is a paid operative or Free Syrian Army information merchant. He has only ever hawked attacking Syria and uses his account for nothing else.

smoothsailing on September 3, 2013 at 10:59 AM

You are a low life conspiracy theory nut and a liar… Are you a paid operative of the Iran/Hizballah/Assad? See, it is very easy to make up lies and conspiracy theories isn’t it?

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 11:01 AM

[mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 10:54 AM]

Even if all else you say is true, how does not giving Obama the authority to punish Assad, now, put the country in grave danger?

Dusty on September 3, 2013 at 11:02 AM

How many pictures are there of Kerry and Pelosi dining/drinking/meeting with Assad over the past 5 years… sheesh.

MT on September 3, 2013 at 11:03 AM

*pop popcorn*

libfreeordie on September 3, 2013 at 9:34 AM

You’ll burn it. You are such a screw up.

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 10:54 AM

No appetite for burned popcorn.

Bmore on September 3, 2013 at 11:03 AM

He isn’t a real professor. I’d bet my paycheck on it.

smoothsailing on September 3, 2013 at 10:56 AM

He’s an ignorant moron with about as much knowledge of history as a dead slug, but that doesn’t preclude him from being a history professor in today’s screwed up educational system. Too many history schools have been turned into propaganda units for wymyns/race/gay studies. Pay attention to his perspective. Everything he posts about is an attempt to rewrite history as some sort of long string of racist/sexist/homophobic events.

NotCoach on September 3, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Let’s remember what you will never hear from liveenslavedthendie and his revisionist historians. He will tell you that it was Reagan that taught Islamic terrorists that they could attack the US with impunity. As is usually the case, he presents cherrypicked data.

Islamic terrorists learned from Carter that they could do whatever they like without being forced to pay a price. Other than a too small-to-work disastrous rescue mission, for 444 days, Jimmy Carter did nothing.

A few weeks after 11 September 2001, Berkeley professor and journalist, Mark Danner, wrote a piece for the Los Angeles Times predicting America’s defeat in Afghanistan. His aim was to erode the resolve of Americans. He did this by reminding them that they should be afraid and demoralised. American foreign policy, he said, was a story of “bluster and flight and uneasy forgetting.” To demonstrate the accuracy of his admonition, he cited the following examples:

1) The Bay of Pigs (Kennedy)

2) Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and congressional Democrats who refused to enforce the peace treaty)

3) The Iranian Hostage Crisis (Carter)

4) The Beirut embassy and barracks bombings in 1983 (Reagan)

5) The abandonment of Mogadishu, Somalia, after the deaths of 18 American service members (Clinton)

His examples were meant to drive fear into the hearts of Americans telling them that their country could not follow through, would be the oppressor, and would leave in humiliation at an indescribable cost in blood and treasure. (He turned out to be basically correct, but for other reasons.)

Apart from the withdrawal of troops from Lebanon, all of these foreign policy debacles occurred under Democratic presidents. Even Lebanon was a policy with deep Liberal support because US troops were part of an international peacekeeping force (no bullets) created in 1982 and sent there to oversee the withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

Soon after American barracks were bombed, Liberals in Congress set to work drafting a joint resolution demanding that Reagan pull the Marines out of Beirut.

‘We must not lose sight of the fact that the Lebanese problem cannot be solved by itself, but must be tackled in the context of a wider accommodation between Syria and Israel, which the United States should actively mediate.’

- Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser calling for retreat

In keeping with their preemptive surrender monkey policy, all seven Democratic presidential candidates urged that the troops be removed from Lebanon.

They weren’t alone either.

‘IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF THE TROOPS. THERE IS NO LONGER ANYTHING REMOTELY APPROACHING A BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS TO LET THE MARINES STAY FOR 18 MONTHS.’

- Senator Joe Biden

‘The Marines don’t know why they’re there and the American people don’t know why they’re there.’

- Speaker Tip O’Neill saying that the Lebanon policy had failed

‘The latest thing in Lebanon proves absolutely that it’s futile and hopeless to have these people stationed in Lebanon. There’s no possible way we can achieve stability.’

- Rep. Mike Lowry (D-WA)

‘THE LONGER WE DELAY, THE WORSE THE TIME GETS.’

- Rep. Ted Weiss (D-NY)

‘What concerns me is that while we have withdrawal of the Marines, we’ll have an increase in the firing.’

- Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-RI), claiming that the military’s use of force was a total shock

Evidently, he thought the primary role of the military is humanitarian in nature.

Reagan had said that he wasn’t going to listen to the ‘This War Is Lost’ Party,” but he did. Reagan began to withdraw American troops, while simultaneously bombing Syrian-controlled areas that were firing into Beirut and on US service members. Democrats complained about that, too.

Democrats had voted for deploying American troops to Lebanon, but claimed they didn’t know that this meant American forces were authorised to fight back. (Yeah, I know! I know! The United States is such an evil country that, in the interest of reciprocity and atonement, it must lose so that others can be victorious).

Speaker O’Neill denounced Reagan’s policy of bombing Syrian artillery positions, saying the bombing was “absolutely not” within the authorisation Congress granted Reagan under the Lebanon War Powers Resolution. Typical of the “This War Is Lost” Party: They were for it before they were against it.

They were for the Korean War before they were against it.

They were for the Vietnam War before they were against it.

They were for the Shah of Iran before they were against him.

They were for the Ayatollah Khomeini before they were against him.

They were for the Lebanon War Powers Resolution before they were against it.

They were for the Persian Gulf War before they were against it.

They were for the Afghanistan War before they were against it.

They were for the Iraq War before they were against it.

They were for Qaddafi (see Obama’s visit, for one example, and his becoming the first American President to shake the hand of the Lypsynka of Libya, for another) before they were against him.

They were for Mohammed Morsi and the MoFoBros before they were against them (although, to be fair, some still support both).

They were for Bashar al-Assad before they were against him.

It should come as no surprise that the Democratic Party, which passed the Case-Church Amendment while American troops were in the jungles of Vietnam, would call for retreat. Danner’s entire summary of Vietnam in the aforementioned article is:

‘the panicked retreat from Saigon in 1975.’

He also seemed to forget that the Vietnam War did not start in 1975. Like many, he made much hay about of the fact that the surrender and retreat happened on Gerald Ford’s watch; yet, he omits the fact that Liberals had demanded that withdrawal and denied funds much earlier.

Liberals will ALWAYS treat a war started by Kennedy, lost by Johnson, ended by Nixon, and last troop removed by Ford as a ‘Republican’ war. Since the Korean War, Liberals will ONLY take credit for conflict when the troops are building playgrounds and passing out chocolates. In other words, for ‘humanitarian reasons.’ Such wars are incapable of being lost because, they will argue, ‘It would have been worse if we had done nothing.’ (Bullets? Surely, you jest. We don’t need no stinkin’ bullets. Send daisies!). To prove this point, let’s recall what Biden said:

‘I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.’

Of course, he also ‘bet his Vice-Presidency’ that Iraq would agree to a new SOFA that would leave up to 30,000 American troops there. We know that Biden isn’t a man of his word since he failed and has not resigned.

Obama opposed the Iraq War and Biden voted against it. They were against it before they were for it when it began to look like a victory and a great humanitarian effort. ‘Bush’s Bad War’ has become ‘Obama’s Good War’ and will become ‘one of the great achievements of the Obama administration (except now it is heading toward civil war).’

Afghanistan was ‘Obama’s Good War.’ Since it hasn’t been going well, ‘Obama’s Good War’ has become ‘Bush’s Bad War.’

Lost or possibly lost war: They will be for it before they are against it.

Won or winning war: They will be against it before they are for it.

Fortunately for the surrender monkeys, if their red (Socialism) flags get washed with their white (Surrender Monkey) flags, they will have pink flags to use at the next CodePink protest because THOSE COLOURS DO RUN!

Resist We Much on September 3, 2013 at 11:06 AM

The fourth is probably the real deal-killer on Capitol Hill, but the third should be the real reason why the US stays out of the fight.

No. The real reason we should stay out of the fight is because we have no interest at stake. Nothing. At all. Zip.

GWB on September 3, 2013 at 11:10 AM

He’s an ignorant moron with about as much knowledge of history as a dead slug, but that doesn’t preclude him from being a history professor in today’s screwed up educational system. Too many history schools have been turned into propaganda units for wymyns/race/gay studies. Pay attention to his perspective. Everything he posts about is an attempt to rewrite history as some sort of long string of racist/sexist/homophobic events.

NotCoach on September 3, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Exactly, good summary.

22044 on September 3, 2013 at 11:11 AM

NotCoach on September 3, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Not coach, I don’t doubt that we have many unqualified liberals teaching just because their liberal peers put them there. I simply cannot believe libfreeordie is a professor at any school though. The man just spends too much time here to do anything else. I think k he’s someone else’s wife with a big imagination. And a penchant for under aged boys it seems.

smoothsailing on September 3, 2013 at 11:12 AM

You keep saying that, but you haven’t once pointed to any official position by Israel concerning the rebels and Assad. When did Israel say they supported the rebels over Assad?

NotCoach on September 3, 2013 at 11:01 AM

http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-unleashes-horror-in-jerusalem/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/02/us-syria-crisis-israel-saudi-insight-idUSBRE9810CE20130902?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Its highlarious listening to msdnc anchors they’ve all become hawks…… why won’t congress support the president on this limited strike

ROFL

cmsinaz on September 3, 2013 at 11:14 AM

For the life of me I can’t figure out why Republicans won’t give Obama a bank check. After all, he ended the war in Iraq and he got bin Laden. /s

OTOH, some cynics suggest that detachment from reality is the reason for a lack of support when we all know that those who don’t support this real American are racist. /s

Basilsbest on September 3, 2013 at 11:16 AM

99% of people on this site are putting the national security of the United States in grave danger just because you want to screw Obama…

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Not really.

It’s more on the order of two sides that both hate us gassing and killing each other.

Why we should be protecting al-Qaeda from Assad, or Assad from al-Qaeda, is quite beyond me. Neither can afford to lose, neither is going to withdraw, and they’re both going to go at it until they kill each other.

northdallasthirty on September 3, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Al Qaeda calling the shots in Syria.

smoothsailing on September 3, 2013 at 11:19 AM

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 11:12 AM

I’m having trouble finding an official Israeli position in your links.

NotCoach on September 3, 2013 at 11:20 AM

YouTube has quite a few movies to choose from, Dog Eater’s people will find a suitable one to blame and lock up its producer; Blaming Bark’s ineptitude on an innocent person takes time, you know.

Bishop on September 3, 2013 at 9:55 AM

He already has this covered…

MaxSplinters on September 3, 2013 at 11:22 AM

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 11:12 AM

One would have thought if you were trying to prove Israels official position, you would have provided links to, er, Israels official position.

smoothsailing on September 3, 2013 at 11:23 AM

I said GOP and Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. When we supported a range of activities, including the use of chemical weapons, only to randomly reverse themselves in the 90s and 2000s. Learn your history…

libfreeordie on September 3, 2013 at 10:31 AM

I remember how, during the 1980′s, the Leftists brought Kurdish refugees onto campuses to hold seminars and give talks about the horrors of living under Saddam and his use of CWs.

I attended a few of those and understood what was going on.

The Left ‘wanted something done’ right up until GHWB proposed that Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait to loot the place should not stand. In a heartbeat, in less than a week, the Left forgot about the Kurds, forgot about doing something about Saddam Hussein and, instead, touted him as an INNOCENT and that he did nothing worthy of starting a conflict over. The vehement anti-Americanism came to the forefront so that instead of chastising the US for not doing the right thing, it demonized the US when IT DID the right thing, at least up to a point.

I remember the Shia betrayal by the US promising to help them overthrow Saddam and then doing nothing because those who had been demonizing Saddam and then loving him made sure that nothing WOULD BE DONE to support the overthrow of the genocidal tyrant.

Oh, yes, I did, indeed, learn much history by living it in the 1980′s.

And the stunning betrayal of the Left to leave the poor and innocent at the mercy of a genocidal tyrant is NOT FORGOTTEN.

ajacksonian on September 3, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Allah’s back in the house. Wasserman lies again thread…

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Kerry “Ich bin ein horse’s azz”.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Breaking Politics @breakingpol

Speaker Boehner on Syria: ‘I’m going to support the president’s call for action’ – @guypbenson, @frankthorpNBC

sentinelrules on September 3, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Learn your history…

libfreeordie on September 3, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Learn your hypocrisy. To watch the left is utterly schadenfreudig. Pretzels are selling very well, leeches and weasels.

The Congo
Sudan
Rwanda

…D presidents did exactly nada…multi-million dead….yeppers, we are the “racists”. If hypocrisy could hurt we’d need ear mufflers.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Yeah, those articles seem to convey that the Israelis were mostly just concerned that Obama isn’t a strong leader.

blink on September 3, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Exactly. His wishy-washiness emboldens all the bad actors in that region. We have a big mouthed buffoon parading around as president who has left us with zero good options. The only logical choice at this point is to let the thugs kill each other.

NotCoach on September 3, 2013 at 11:30 AM

You are a low life conspiracy theory nut and a liar… Are you a paid operative of the Iran/Hizballah/Assad? See, it is very easy to make up lies and conspiracy theories isn’t it?

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 11:01 AM

The rebels are not anyone’s heroes. They are every bit as ruthless as Assad. The internet is filled with their prisoner execution videos. To include a man eating the heart of a dead Syrian soldier. I get you wanting them supported. They’re your people. But just don’t come here acting like a Hot Air regular making some objective argument on our and Israels behalf under the false premise it has anything to do with our national security. This is the first time in your entire life you were forced to act like you cared at all what happens to Israel. Admit you don’t give a crap what happens to the US or them. You just want your FSA to win.

smoothsailing on September 3, 2013 at 11:36 AM

I said GOP and Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. When we supported a range of activities, including the use of chemical weapons, only to randomly reverse themselves in the 90s and 2000s. Learn your history…

libfreeordie on September 3, 2013 at 10:31 AM

And that is relevant how?

Yes, the U.S. has been in bed with terrible dictators, but at least there was a purpose – advancing a U.S. interest. In the case of Iraq in the 80′s, it was to off=set Iran and keep a balance of power in the region, among other things. In hindsight, was what we got out of keeping Iran somewhat in check worth it? That’s debatable. But at least there was an argument to be made that it was being done to further U.S. interests.

Here, there is no such argument to be made and Obama is simply bubbling around like he always does hoping the media will somehow save him yet again from his own incompetence.

I remember when the left thought such actions as Obama is proposing here was “warmongering” and such. I guess the left’s principals shift with whoever is in power.

Now, you will argue the reverse is true, that we would have supported strikes on Syria if a republican were president. Perhaps (of course, you would deeply oppose it on all kinds of grounds). But, I think the opposition has more to do with actually learning something over the last 10 years regarding the middle east and being to meddlesome in other countries affairs, particularly when there is no clear U.S. interest and no clear goal or mission.

Before the Lybia debacle, the Egypt debacle and Benghazi, I might have been on board with such strikes. But now, what exactly will we accopmlish?

I, for one, am not convinced Assad used WMD. It is just as conceivable AQ rebels did to try and force the U.S. to help them.

I also don’t see what aiding AQ rebels does for the U.S. How will an AQ led Syria be better for the U.S. than an Assad led Syria. If anything, it will be worse for U.S. interests.

I also don’t see what ineffectual, limited, missile strikes will accomplish anyway. It won’t prove America’s resolve or power. It will instead demonstrate the opposite. Plus we get to look like we are being ordered around by France, which is always a plus I suppose.

Obama is past the point on the Syria issue where he can save his image. The entire world sees him as bumbling and easy to take advantage of. When the English won’t back you, the Russians and Chinese are laughing at you, and the French are ordering you around, it is pretty hard to claim any competence.

As in everything else he does, Obama has no clue. And, having that idiot Kerry involved is no help.

Monkeytoe on September 3, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Indeed…because the rebels are full of terrorists, Quaida.

I bet that obama will negotiate with Asaad some day.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Admit you don’t give a crap what happens to the US or them. You just want your FSA to win.

smoothsailing on September 3, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Again you furthermore prove that you are a low life liar… I care for the US much more than you do… Are you going to side with the Assad/Iran/Hizballah against our US military when we start the war against this axis of evil?…

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 11:51 AM

The only context in which this makes any sense at all is as a warning against weakness, but Western weakness in the 1930s didn’t start at Munich; it was just its nadir. The same is true here, with Obama alternately shooting his mouth off about “red lines” and then failing to do any work to prepare Congress to respond once they were crossed. In fact, it goes back further all the way to the Iranian Green Revolution in 2009 and Obama’s refusal to back it, up through his vacillations in the Arab Spring and his 30,000-foot intervention in Libya that helped create a failed state.

Ed is right on the mark with this paragraph.

It was Stanley Baldwin’s naive fundamental mistake – enacting a policy around Britain’s ‘unilateral disarmament’ that step in motion a series of demonstrations of weakness and bad decisions / reactions which led to Chamberlain’s even more naive failure at Munich.

This Administration, since gaining office and seeking to ‘undo’ the ‘mistakes’ of the prior Administration, started off by making numerous naive fundamental mistakes in how they looked at the world, at allies, at friends, at enemies, and then because of the feckless and narcissistic nature of our President – doubled and trebled down on these mistakes because they never could admit or see that they were mistakes. Each of these missteps compounded the challenges faced….but they never amended their flawed world view or accepted what the reality of the situation really was.

In the past five years, the feckless and weak Obama has not undone the ‘mistakes’ of the prior Administration, but brought the US to a point where it is more despised and distrusted on the international stage than it has ever been in its history.

Our allies know that Obama is feckless and weak.
Our friends know that Obama is feckless and weak.
Our enemies know that Obama is feckless and weak.

The only one’s who don’t know this are the vapid ideologues who are as clueless as Obama – and gestures like the one he is trying to make to ‘save face’ will not change the fact that Obama is feckless and weak.

Only an admission by the President and his team of their errors over the past 5 years will start that process, and the narcissist in chief cannot and will not do that.

Athos on September 3, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Again you furthermore prove that you are a low life liar… I care for the US much more than you do… Are you going to side with the Assad/Iran/Hizballah against our US military when we start the war against this axis of evil?…

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Such a lovely attempt to smear your opponent there.
NO. AMERICAN. INTEREST.

GWB on September 3, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Again you furthermore prove that you are a low life liar… I care for the US much more than you do… Are you going to side with the Assad/Iran/Hizballah against our US military when we start the war against this axis of evil?…

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 11:51 AM

LOL.

Why, should we side with the al-Qaeda rebels?

Why don’t you tell us how you and your fellow Barack Obama sluts are going after al-Qaeda terrorists?

Show us the videos of your rebel friends murdering and killing al-Qaeda terrorists, then we might care.

But for now, Assad/Iran/Hizbollah is killing al-Qaeda terrorists, and al-Qaeda terrorists are killing Assad/Iran/Hizbollah.

Win-win, as far as the US is concerned. The moronic idiot Obama is trying to intervene because in his twisted mind he has to stop his fellow Jew-haters from killing each other.

northdallasthirty on September 3, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Operation Egofark

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 12:16 PM

We need to send the EPA in first to do a 3-yr baseline !! like in the Keystone XL.

KenInIL on September 3, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Again you furthermore prove that you are a low life liar… I care for the US much more than you do… Are you going to side with the Assad/Iran/Hizballah against our US military when we start the war against this axis of evil?…

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Traitor, along with McCain, Flake, Boehner, Ms. Lindsey, Cantor, Peter King.

obama doesn’t give w rat’s azz about the US or the dead in Syria.

Two things he always/only cares about – internalize this, deeply:

1. Himself

2. His Muslim Brotherhood and Qauida.

Soon he’ll negotiate with Asaad, mark my word…because Asaad, the dictator, will be the better alternative for the US. The others are even worse.

Your RINOism is terrible for the US. They are all bad in Syria and all want the US down and dead. Think – that’s what brains are for.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM

I care for the US much more than you do…

Congratulations – this is one of the stupidest comments on HA…since who are you to designate who cares more about the US? How truly moronic!

Are you going to side with the Assad/Iran/Hizballah against our US military when we start the war against this axis of evil?…

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 11:51 AM

There is NO US interest in starting anything. It won’t be what you typed in this quote.

Are you going to be for the US/AlQauida? The entire discussion about this is silly. All in Syria want you dead, with NO exceptions except a few rag tags who have NO influence.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM

“Ich bin ein stupid”

And we were supposed to elect this poseur President?
Thank You, Swift-boat Vets for allowing us to dodge that bullet.

Another Drew on September 3, 2013 at 1:07 PM

My, my . . . how things can change! Remember several years back when President Bush was criticizing Assad, and a group of senators on the Foreign Relations Committee were running interference for the dictator? Obama, Kerry, Hagel and Biden?

Like four peas in a pod!

And, notice that the Number One promoter of the stupid claim that Bashar Assad was really a secret “reformer” back not so long ago, was none other than Senator John Kerry. That was back when he was arranging his, “It’s Just Lunch” dates with the sob.

In fact, Johnny boy was still singing Assad’s praises until just a little over TWO YEARS ago!

The Obama national security team that wants to go to war with Syria and demonizes President Bashar Assad is the same group that, as senators, urged reaching out to the dictator.

As a bloc on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, President Obama, Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Vice President Joseph R. Biden all opposed the George W. Bush administration’s playing tough with Mr. Assad.

None grew closer to Mr. Assad and promoted him in Washington more than Mr. Kerry.

“President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had,” Mr. Kerry, as a senator from Massachusetts, told an audience at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in March 2011. He predicted that Mr. Assad would change for the better.
. . . .

Generous? How so, Sec’y Kerry? Generous in what way? Did he pay for lunch, or was it better than that?

And, how’d that prediction work out for you, John? That predictive “ability” of yours sure makes us feel comfy now that you’re the Sec’y of State . . . NOT!

Trochilus on September 3, 2013 at 2:11 PM

If we do not strike the Assad regime then our enemies (Iran, Syria, Hizballah, Al Qaeda, Russia, China) will be emboldened beyond belief and we will pay very heavily for this in the future not just in the Middle East but all over the world…

Why don’t we attack “our enemies (Iran, Syria, Hizballah, Al Qaeda, Russia, China)” then?

Moreover I trust Israel judgment on this matter… Israel wants a heavy blow to Assad terrorist regime… mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Well then join the IDF and fight for the nation you are truly interested in assisting. Just don’t ask my sons and me to fight for “Israel.” We don’t care.

Akzed on September 3, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Are you going to side with the Assad/Iran/Hizballah against our US military when we start the war against this axis of evil?…

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 11:51 AM

I’m not going to side with AQ, who attacked us on 9/11 and because of whom I have had too many civil liberties taken away, or the rebels, who rip out their opponents’ hearts AND EAT THEM.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that there are ‘good guys’ in Syria. There are not. It is not only a civil war, but a sectarian one with Islamists on both sides. Iran v Saudi Arabia, Sunni v Shia, AQ/AN v SFA/MoFoBros.

It is way past time that the Middle East start policing itself and I’m not going to cheerlead every time an American President decides to pick sides in the ME. You can, but I will not. I don’t fit the definition of insanity.

Resist We Much on September 3, 2013 at 2:45 PM

As happens all too frequently in the ME (see: Iran v. Iraq), this is another conflict that we wish both sides could lose.

Another Drew on September 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM

99% of people on this site are putting the national security of the United States in grave danger just because you want to screw Obama…

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Which, very obviously, explains why I opposed the Afghan ground war and the Iraq war.

By the way…

ABCNEWS-WASHPOST POLL: 59% oppose…

PEW: 29% support…

Resist We Much on September 3, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Again you furthermore prove that you are a low life liar… I care for the US much more than you do… Are you going to side with the Assad/Iran/Hizballah against our US military when we start the war against this axis of evil?…

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Well, first you’d have to prove to me that you’ve served longer in the military than me. Which if you’re really serious about the FSA winning you might want to consider. Them, not the US military, I mean. Then you’d have to prove you’d been deployed, been shot at, had a mortar or two dropped on you or been close enough to an VIED to make your Bradley sway a bit. Till then I’m not sure I believe you care for the US more than me.

I have ground snuffs still serving who I call friends. I don’t want to see a single one lost because people like you are too chickenshit to fight your own wars. You get back with me once you make it through your first firefight. I understand most of your boys are sneaking in through Turkey of that helps.

smoothsailing on September 3, 2013 at 3:29 PM

… if that helps …

smoothsailing on September 3, 2013 at 3:31 PM

This is our Munich Jenghis Kahn moment, or something

FIFY

smellthecoffee on September 3, 2013 at 3:48 PM

99% of people on this site are putting the national security of the United States in grave danger just because you want to screw Obama…

mnjg on September 3, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Liar and liar

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Personally I feel our Munich moment was when Obama was elected…this, this feels more like Sarajevo, June 28th, 1914 to me.

Rogue on September 3, 2013 at 8:01 PM

Ich Bin Ein Stupid!

dont taze me bro on September 3, 2013 at 8:49 PM

No way is this personal against Obama, for me.

If he was going to bomb the chemical cache, fine, I’m with you 100%. A meaningless gesture? No way. You know Assad will pose 10 dead children we supposedly killed, kids he grabbed from the morgue for propaganda.

PattyJ on September 3, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Why we should be protecting al-Qaeda from Assad, or Assad from al-Qaeda, is quite beyond me. Neither can afford to lose, neither is going to withdraw, and they’re both going to go at it until they kill each other.

northdallasthirty on September 3, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Fine by me…

jimver on September 3, 2013 at 11:10 PM

Dear President Putin,

As you are probably aware, most Americans outside of the federal enclave are against further mindless meddling in the middle east, so could you please keep the retaliatory strike small enough so it doesn’t go further west than, say, Arlington.

Thanks,
Concerned VA citizen.

S. D. on September 3, 2013 at 11:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2