Reviews in for Obama speech: “Incoherent,” “disingenuous,” “nothing new”

posted at 10:41 am on September 11, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier today, I wrote a review of President Obama’s speech, which was hardly complimentary. Other reviews make it look positively warm in comparison.  Take for instance this long and pointed criticism from John Harris at Politico, which frames the speech as coming from two different Obamas and then concludes with by calling the entire effort “disingenuous”:

Two weeks of zig-zag foreign policy by President Barack Obama — marching to war one moment, clinging desperately to diplomacy the next — culminated Tuesday night, appropriately enough, in a zig-zag address to the nation that did little to clarify what will come next in the Syria crisis but shined a glaring hot light on the debate in the president’s own mind. …

Zag finished the sentence with a jeering reminder: “But chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.”

Zig noted that recent diplomatic activity is at least tentatively promising, thanks to “constructive talks that I had with President Putin. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitting that it has these weapons and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.”

This led to perhaps the most disingenuous line uttered by either Zig or Zag in the 16-minute speech, with the president claiming that he had asked Congress to postpone the vote that he earlier requested authorizing use of military force in Syria in order to let the latest diplomatic moves play out. But just a minute earlier he had asserted that a main reason diplomacy was gaining traction was because of the “credible threat of U.S. military action.” Presumably, any further diplomacy would be even more effective if Congress sent a message that it was giving Obama all options to act if the talks fail. The more plausible rationale for congressional delay is that the administration would lose the vote if it took place now.

The Associated Press knocked out the key strut undergirding his call to action:

OBAMA: “We know the Assad regime was responsible…. The facts cannot be denied.”

THE FACTS: The Obama administration has not laid out proof Assad was behind the attack.

The administration has cited satellite imagery and communications intercepts, backed by social media and intelligence reports from sources in Syria, as the basis for blaming the Assad government. But the only evidence the administration has made public is a collection of videos it has verified of the victims. The videos do not demonstrate who launched the attacks.

Administration officials have not shared the satellite imagery they say shows rockets and artillery fire leaving government-held areas and landing in 12 rebel-held neighborhoods outside Damascus where chemical attacks were reported. Nor have they shared transcripts of the Syrian officials allegedly warning units to ready gas masks or discussing how to handle U.N. investigators after it happened.

The White House has declined to explain where it came up with the figure of at least 1,429 dead, including 400 children — a figure far higher than estimates by nongovernmental agencies such as the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has counted only victims identified by name, with a current total of 502. In his remarks, Obama more generally accused Assad’s forces of gassing to death “over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.”

That’s actually what many Americans would have expected last night — an accounting of the proof that the administration claims to have.  Even an explanation of how the proof was assembled and how it relates directly to the Syrian military would have been helpful, especially with Obama making a public case for military action on prime time.  Members of Congress have been briefed on the proof, but those briefings are convincing more lawmakers to oppose military action than support it, which may be why the White House hasn’t bothered to share more of the evidence with the public.

Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie offers four reasons why the speech failed:

The invocation of American exceptionalism caused gales of snark and criticism on Twitter last night in real time, and is a point I forgot to include in my own remarks.

Dana Milbank tried to be more charitable, but still noted that the course of American diplomacy most resembles a cork bobbing in the water:

It may turn out that the Russian proposal gives Obama, and the United States, a face-saving way out of an unwanted conflict. It may even be that the possibility of a U.S. attack spurred the Russians and Syrians to act. But it feels as if the ship of state is bobbing like a cork in international waters. This was to be the week the president rallied lawmakers and the public around military action. But in a series of TV interviews Monday and in Tuesday night’s address, he instead explained why any such action is on hold.

Obama’s leadership, particularly in his second term, can most charitably be described as subtle. But he is so subtle that he sometimes appears to be a bystander. He left immigration up to Congress, which put the issue on ice. Congress also buried gun control and efforts to replace the sequester. Obama, meantime, has been reacting to events — Egypt, the National Security Agency revelations — rather than shaping them. He launched a fresh push to sell Americans on the merits of Obamacare — yet more than 4 in 10 remain unaware that the law is still on the books. …

Obama joined in Tuesday night, saying the Russian proposal came in part from “constrictive talks that I had” with Vladi­mir Putin. Obama said, “This initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force.”

Yet moments earlier, Obama told Americans that he decided “it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.”

Which one is it? Ask again in a couple of days.

The Telegraph’s Nile Gardiner called the speech “an incoherent mess,” and suggested that Obama has surpassed Jimmy Carter as the most feckless US President in foreign policy:

Billed as a game-changer on Syria, the President’s White House addresslanded with a thud that could be heard as far away as Damascus. Barack Obama has a huge credibility problem on Syria and on foreign policy in general, and Tuesday night’s speech will do nothing to help that. As Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer put it on Fox News, it was “one of the most odd presidential speeches ever delivered,” with no clear-cut strategy laid out, while urging Congress to delay a vote on the use of force against Assad’s regime.

In effect, Obama farmed out US foreign policy in the Middle East yet again to the Russians, appealing for time to consider the Russian proposal for securing Syria’s chemical weapons, a ruse described accurately by the Telegraph’s Con Coughlin as “a massive red herring.”He also used his address to take swipes at the Bush Administration over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which it should be noted, were waged with the backing of Congress and the American people, as well as large international coalitions on a scale that the Obama administration can only dream of. …

In essence, and this was amply displayed tonight, Barack Obama has no big picture strategy on Syria, or the wider Middle East, and is bereft of a clear game plan. His speech was also a sea of contradictions. He talked about deploying American military might but has no intention of delivering a decisive blow. He paid lip service to the ideal of American exceptionalism, but is happy to kowtow to Moscow. He urged Congress to support his approach, but wants them to wait before they vote. For these were the words of an exceptionally weak and indecisive president, one who seems to be making up policy on the hoof, as he stumbles and bumbles along on the world stage, with his hapless Secretary of State in tow.

How different to the halcyon days of Ronald Reagan, a man who led the world’s superpower with strength and conviction. The Gipper knew the meaning of American leadership, especially at times of crisis. Unfortunately President Obama can only dream of holding a candle to Reagan’s achievements, and at present is even outperforming Jimmy Carter as the most feeble US president of modern times.

Jimmy Carter says, Not so fast …

The only way to be assured that Syrian chemical weapons will not be used in the future is not through a military strike but through a successful international effort.

Regardless of the postponed congressional vote regarding the use of military force, other actions should be taken to address the situation in Syria, including an urgent effort to convene without conditions the long-delayed peace conference the United States and Russia announced in May. A resolution in the U.N. General Assembly to condemn any further use of chemical weapons, regardless of perpetrator, would be approved overwhelmingly, and the United States should support Russia’s proposal that Syria’s chemical weapons be placed under U.N. control. A military strike by the United States is undesirable and will become unnecessary if this alternative proposal is strongly supported by the U.N. Security Council.

If fully implemented in dozens of sites throughout Syria, this effort to secure the chemical weapons would amount to a cease-fire, with a large U.N. peacekeeping force deployed. In the best of circumstances, this could lead to convening the Geneva peace conference, perhaps including Iran, that could end the conflict.

Some have predicted catastrophic consequences to the credibility of President Obama and our country if Congress were to reject his request for approval of military action against the Assad regime in Syria. These dire predictions are exaggerated.

Hey, at least Carter’s coherentMaureen Dowd complains that it’s amateur hour at the White House, but Obama’s current predicament is the fault of … guess who?

Now, when it is clear Obama can’t convince Congress, the American public, his own wife, the world, Liz Cheney or even Donald “Shock and Awe” Rumsfeld to bomb Syria — just a teensy-weensy bit — Pooty-Poot (as W. called him) rides, shirtless, to the rescue, offering him a face-saving way out? If it were a movie, we’d know it was a trick. We can’t trust the soulless Putin — his Botox has given the former K.G.B. officer even more of a poker face — or the heartless Bashar al-Assad. By Tuesday, Putin the Peacemaker was already setting conditions.

Just as Obama and Kerry — with assists from Hillary and some senators — were huffing and puffing that it was their military threat that led to the breakthrough, Putin moved to neuter them, saying they’d have to drop their military threat before any deal could proceed. The administration’s saber-rattling felt more like knees rattling. Oh, for the good old days when Obama was leading from behind. Now these guys are leading by slip-of-the-tongue.

Amateur hour started when Obama dithered on Syria and failed to explain the stakes there. It escalated last August with a slip by the methodical wordsmith about “a red line for us” — which the president and Kerry later tried to blur as the world’s red line, except the world was averting its eyes.

Obama’s flip-flopping, ambivalent leadership led him to the exact place he never wanted to be: unilateral instead of unified. Once again, as with gun control and other issues, he had not done the groundwork necessary to line up support. The bumbling approach climaxed with two off-the-cuff remarks by Kerry, hitting a rough patch in the role of a lifetime, during a London press conference Monday; he offered to forgo an attack if Assad turned over “every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community” and promised, if they did strike, that it would be an “unbelievably small” effort.

So it’s Obama’s fault, right?  After all, he’s been in office for four-plus years and quarterbacked the surge in Afghanistan.  Not really, Dowd argues, because that darned George W. Bush ruined interventionism for everyone:

Obama cried over the children of Newtown. He is stricken, as he said in his address Tuesday, by “images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor” from “poison gas.” He thought — or thought he thought — that avenging the gassing was the right thing to do. But W., once more haunting his successor’s presidency, drained credibility, coffers and compassion.

While most Americans shudder at the news that 400 children have been killed by a monster, they recoil at the Middle East now; they’ve had it with Shiites vs. Sunnis, with Alawites and all the ancient hatreds. Kerry can bluster that “we’re not waiting for long” for Assad to cough up the weapons, but it will be hard for him to back it up, given that a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll indicates that Joe Sixpack is now a peacenik; in 2005, 60 percent of Republicans agreed with W. that America should foster democracy in the world; now only 19 percent of Republicans believe it.

Well, Dowd wrote a passably realistic half of a column, which is half more than we usually see.


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

which may be why the White House hasn’t bothered to share more of the evidence with the public.

All the transparency of a 3-foot thick sheet of lead.

Bishop on September 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Hey, at least Carter’s coherent.

True enough.

ted c on September 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Leave it for Dowd to go into the Bushes.

Steve Eggleston on September 11, 2013 at 10:46 AM

All the transparency of a 3-foot thick sheet of lead.

Bishop on September 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM

And all the weight of a feather.

Steve Eggleston on September 11, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Carter, at least, was able to say that US interests were in keeping the flow of oil open from the Persian Gulf.

It was shortened to: Blood for Oil.

Carter was way more sophisticated, coherent and rational than Obama is and has been.

ajacksonian on September 11, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Notice Obama mentioned WWI and WWII and other cases when chemical weapons were used to kill innocents. Noticeably absent was Saddam Hussein in Iraq gassing the Kurds. Wonder why that was.

cat-scratch on September 11, 2013 at 10:48 AM

What was the point of the speech? That using chemical weapons is bad, and if someone uses them, well, we’re going to get all diplomatically?

Members of Congress have been briefed on the proof, but those briefings are convincing more lawmakers to oppose military action than support it

That’s all I need to know to oppose any military action.

rbj on September 11, 2013 at 10:48 AM

But it was a good speech.

libfreeordie on September 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM

happytobehere on September 11, 2013 at 10:48 AM

But W., once more haunting his successor’s presidency, drained credibility, coffers and compassion.

Ronald Reagan laughs from the grave……and then pats ol’ Jimmah Carter on the back.

ted c on September 11, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Count me in as a Peacenik…

NO MORE WAR!!

If it doesn’t directly affect American SOIL, or happen ON American SOIL, then we DO NOT GO TO WAR!

Scrumpy on September 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Please tell Mr. Putin that I’ll have a lot more flexibility after I am reelected…..b.h.obama

Pardonme on September 11, 2013 at 10:51 AM

As I posted earlier, the speech was like that cat toy with a rubber mouse that randomly zips around for kitty to bat at. Obama was that kitty last night. The minute the speech started going in one direction, he shifted to a completely different issue.

Chris Matthews is still atingle but he’s a fat stupid idiot.

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Bush did ruin intervention in the Middle East. His policy of bringing “freedom” to Islamists has been shown to be, at best, a waste.

Freedom is not the longing of every Islamist’s heart.

happytobehere on September 11, 2013 at 10:52 AM

they recoil at the Middle East now; they’ve had it with Shiites vs. Sunnis, with Alawites and all the ancient hatreds.

That’s about where I’m at, outside of the Kurds it seems most of the middle east is actively trying to work back towards the 10 century rather than forward.

If we had turned the citizens of Tehran into clicks on a Geiger-counter back in 1979 there would be far less of a mess in the region today.

Bishop on September 11, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Obama cried over the children of Newtown. He is stricken, as he said in his address Tuesday, by “images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor” from “poison gas.” He thought — or thought he thought — that avenging the gassing was the right thing to do. But W., once more haunting his successor’s presidency, drained credibility, coffers and compassion.

B.S.

The nation’s leading advocate for killing children both inside and outside the womb does not care one single bit for those children in Syria.

He is a stone cold political narcissist whose every move is calculated upon maximizing damage to the Republic.

On the 12th anniversary of 9/11, we have the president of the United States running arms to AQ operatives & getting an ambassador murdered (Benghazi) and threatening to strike one side in a civil war, the beneficiaries of which are AQ infused rebel groups (Syria).

WHOSE SIDE IS THIS PRESIDENT ON?

turfmann on September 11, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Reviews in for Obama speech: “Incoherent,” “disingenuous,” “nothing new”

In other words, a typical Obama speech.

Chris of Rights on September 11, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Notice Obama mentioned WWI and WWII and other cases when chemical weapons were used to kill innocents. Noticeably absent was Saddam Hussein in Iraq gassing the Kurds. Wonder why that was.

cat-scratch on September 11, 2013 at 10:48 AM

For the same reason he can give a speech on the eve of 9/11 and not point out the anniversary of an atrocity where twice the number of people were killed in a single day in America by aircraft flown by Muslims than were allegedly killed by Assad with CW. Truth can be an inconvenient thing.

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 10:56 AM

I expect prescriptions for anti-anxiety medication to spike in the US and in Europe as Our Embarrassment of a President continues to babble his incoherent moonbat lunacy.

workingclass artist on September 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Bush did ruin intervention in the Middle East. His policy of bringing “freedom” to Islamists has been shown to be, at best, a waste.

Freedom is not the longing of every Islamist’s heart.

happytobehere on September 11, 2013 at 10:52 AM

But Bush wasn’t trying for regime change in Libya, Egypt, or Syria.

And BTW turns out 73% of the casualties in Afghanistan occurred after Bush left office making it more Obama’s war than Bush’s.

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 10:58 AM

WHOSE SIDE IS THIS PRESIDENT ON?

turfmann on September 11, 2013 at 10:53 AM

His.

Barack Hussein Obama is a Saudi Sunni Whore.

workingclass artist on September 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Wow he lost the AP. That’s news right there.

But the only evidence the administration has made public is a collection of videos it has verified of the victims. The videos do not demonstrate who launched the attacks.

Are the victims actually dead?

Who are they?

Where did they live?

I read the “satellite detections” of missile launches were not “detected” by U.S. Satellites. Who performed the detection?

Show us the data and explain it or IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Is the data real or fraudulent?

Youtube video? Again with the Youtube video.

Telephone intercepts that I have seen tend to exonerate Assad and his people.

No one has yet answered my question.

WHY WASN’T US SURVEILLANCE GEAR MONITORING SYRIA? Do they have something more important to do with all that stuff?

If our government actually had their eye on the ball, they would have HD photos and video of Assads guys launching the chemical weapons. Hell, with the gear we have, we could tell what those guys had for breakfast, by the stains on their clothing.

So why is it we don’t have that?

Of course if our satellites are zoomed in to Miley’s swimming pool, they may miss what’s going on in Syria.

dogsoldier on September 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM

While most Americans shudder at the news that 400 children have been killed by a monster

Unless his name is Gosnell.

mankai on September 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Obama’s leadership, particularly in his second term, can most charitably be described as subtle. But he is so subtle that he sometimes appears to be a bystander.

No, it’s not subtle…it’s nonexistent. It would be nice if the Left finally came to grips with the fact that there is NO leadership, no surprise when you consider he hadn’t run squat before winning the White House. The fits and starts over Syria are just a few of the numerous examples in his foreign policy, and on the domestic front he leaves others to do his bidding, he doesn’t bother building the relationships on the Hill necessary to move legislation, and he lectures and browbeats instead of listening.

You’ve got a celebrity campaigner in chief parading around as leader of the free world, and it showed in embarrassing fashion these past couple of weeks.

changer1701 on September 11, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Waiting for the Drudge headline: “Putin calls Obama a pussy!”.

patman77 on September 11, 2013 at 11:06 AM

But Bush wasn’t trying for regime change in Libya, Egypt, or Syria.

And BTW turns out 73% of the casualties in Afghanistan occurred after Bush left office making it more Obama’s war than Bush’s.

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I’m not trying to say Obama’s doing a heckuva job here. I’m saying that the policy of “helping the children” or “bringing freedom” to the Islamists is a fool’s errand.

The problem in the Middle East is not dictators or lack of “freedom”. The problem is Islam. Terrorists don’t arise from poverty. They don’t arise from dictatorships. They’re not “protesting”. They are driven by religion. They come from places like London. They are well-educated. They are not driven to terrorism by dictators. They are driven to terrorism by Islam. As long as that fact is being ignored we should completely disengage from the area.

happytobehere on September 11, 2013 at 11:07 AM

All I heard him say was blah blah blah, but did you notice how the backs of his hands were constantly falling to the podium? A tell that he is at wit’s end.

Akzed on September 11, 2013 at 11:08 AM

While most Americans shudder at the news that 400 children have been killed by a monster

how many were killed by poison gas at Waco? I forget.

Akzed on September 11, 2013 at 11:09 AM

While most Americans shudder at the news that 400 children have been killed by a reformer monster

Akzed on September 11, 2013 at 11:10 AM

As Ace noted, he was gratuitously nasty to Republicans. What a loser.

MTF on September 11, 2013 at 11:10 AM

And BTW turns out 73% of the casualties in Afghanistan occurred after Bush left office making it more Obama’s war than Bush’s.

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Yep. Here are the numbers – though you would think that no one died in Afghanistan under Barky if you went by the MSM:

Total U.S. Combat Deaths in Afghanistan

2001: 5
2002: 30
2003: 31
2004: 49
2005: 94
2006: 87
2007: 111
2008: 151


2009: 303
2010: 497
2011: 494
2012: 294
2013: 91 (From Jan. 1, 2013 to Sept. 10, 2013)

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on September 11, 2013 at 11:11 AM

I was about half way through the MoDo column when I knew that she would have to throw Barry a bone by the end of it. Lord, but that woman is a miserable shrew.

BettyRuth on September 11, 2013 at 11:12 AM

But it was a good speech.

libfreeordie on September 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM

..dunno if this was scraped from another thread, but liverspotsordie has got to have the intelligence of a mouldering pile of pig afterbirth. (If he is not a pile of afterbirth himself.)

In general, one is constantly amazed at how political speeches are dissected and evaluated. It’s as though those acts of bloviation, in and of themselves, are fait accompli and not mere words uttered by some assshole politician usually followed by an implied demand that some common sacrifice — raised taxes, giving of a life for a cause, or contributions be cast into coffers — is to follow.

And yet, talking heads inspect and analyze these as though they were the Lord’s act of Creation itself.

The War Planner on September 11, 2013 at 11:13 AM

As Ace noted, he was gratuitously nasty to Republicans., even while whining for support What a loser.

Even Democrats are starting to understand why letting this guy start a war, even an “unbelievably small” one, is a terrible idea. He’s a waffle and Valerie is incapable too. Who would lead, as go into unbelievably small war? Crazy Joe? Queen Hillary? Please.

MTF on September 11, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Eventually he will come to realize only his sycophants care what he says. He’s pretty much lost the country.

DanMan on September 11, 2013 at 11:13 AM

From the President we get:

- Syria is no threat to us

- We won’t escalate attacks

- The regime is in no danger from our attacks

You would think that all of those critics of Iraq would jump on this stuff.

ajacksonian on September 11, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Count me in as a Peacenik…

NO MORE WAR!!

If it doesn’t directly affect American SOIL, or happen ON American SOIL, then we DO NOT GO TO WAR!

Scrumpy on September 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Pretty much what RP has been saying for a long time…

PatriotRider on September 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM

As Ace noted, he was gratuitously nasty to Republicans. What a loser.

MTF on September 11, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Barky ALWAYS is, even when the GOP turds are working for his treasonous plans. Barky has not one iota of good faith in his whole pathetic body. He is a nasty, evil, stupid person who should have been impeached and tossed out of office years ago – he should have been tossed out fo the 2008 race … but too many were scared of being called “RAAAAACISTS”, which Barky has called them pretty every day, anyway.

This is why I didn’t even bother to watch this ridiculous speech. Barky has only a few templates for action and we’ve all seen the whole playbook already. It isn’t hard to predict what Barky is going to say or do about anything – though one never knows how he’ll mangle the English language or American history in the process.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on September 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Freedom is not the longing of every any Islamist’s heart.

happytobehere on September 11, 2013 at 10:52 AM

More accurate.

Best American policy — do the opposite of what Jugears wants.

platypus on September 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM

The New Republic: On Obama’s Syria policy:

‘This is an UNMITIGATED CLUSTERF*CK.’

#SmartPowerFAIL

Resist We Much on September 11, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Obama’s speeches..Obama’s presidency
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c8XLJ9MEhk

Marco on September 11, 2013 at 11:17 AM

From Ron Fournier, ‘Syria Tells You Everything You Need to Know About Barack Obama’:

The Good News:

‘We’re not at war.’

The Bad News:

‘… almost everything else about President Obama’s handling of Syria – the fumbling and flip-flopping and marble-mouthing – undercut his credibility, and possibly with it his ability to lead the nation and world.’

Indeed.

Resist We Much on September 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM

But it was a good speech.

libfreeordie on September 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM

It’s the purest act of optimism to pose this question in the first place, but here goes…

If O’s threat of military action is the supposed cause of Russia taking over the ME (as if that’s an awesome outcome), why call off the vote giving O the authority for said military action?

Can’t you see you’re being played here? [rhetorical question]

mankai on September 11, 2013 at 11:19 AM

I’m not as tough on Obama as some of these pundits that Ed quotes above. Obama is accomplishing what he wants to accomplish, which is to create chaos and instability all over the world. At heart, he’s less a statesman than a community activist, and it appears he’s taken his special personal skills and applied them around the globe.

I sympathize with Obama’s dilemma. Only a few of the most extreme radicals in our country will go along with his real campaign which is to put al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and various other Middle Eastern radical groups in charge, so he has to pretend to be just bumbling along. That’s why his speeches such as the one he gave yesterday seem to lack candor and logic. Meanwhile, Libya is a mess, Egypt is a mess, Syria is a mess, Iraq is a mess, Afghanistan is a mess: all positive results from Obama’s point of view. As a side bonus, he’s turned the U.S. into the laughingstock of the world which is, from his point of view, probably delicious vengeance. In short, he’s making a fundamental transformation just as he always wanted and when he leaves office, I’m sure he’ll feel proud of what he’s done.

Burke on September 11, 2013 at 11:20 AM

I dunno…the sentiment that 8 years of George W. Bush has turned America off to interventionism has some basis in reality, like it or not. At the same time, that perception was also propagated by shrieking anti-Bush leftists protesting against the war, most of who are now conspicuously absent in protesting interventionism under a Democrat president.

neoconservative-style interventionism aside, none of this has anything to do with Obama’s lack of leadership, or…pretty much anything required of a world leader….or even a middle management cog in the private sector, and attempting to connect one to the other is the kind of lazy thinking we’ve come to expect from people like Maureen Dowd, and whoever wrote the op-ed that the idea sprung forth from.

mintycrys on September 11, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Putin’s unofficial reaction was along the lines of:

TASS Correspondent: “Mr. Putin, did you listen to Mr. Obama’s speech last night?”

Putin: “Durak Khezal’nik Obama?

TASS Correspondent: “Yes, Mr. Putin, President Obama. Have you anything to say to Mr. Obama?

Putin: “Da. Na kaleni, suka.”

TASS Correspondent: “That is it? Nothing else?”

Putin: “Ehto vsyo, chto nuzno bilo skazat.”

coldwarrior on September 11, 2013 at 11:22 AM

“limited” and “punitive”

Bwahahahahahahahah

12 years ago 4 planes attacked America and it was a Big effin deal..

Barry wants to rain down 400 cruise missiles and this is “limited”

Chuckie Hagel says the action will cos tens of millions of dollars….

Bwahahahahahahaha

Missiles alone are a million dollars a pop….

pay attention kids….

The point is that the White House and Pentagon are preparing for a full-scale war, not some kind of limited, punitive action.

The Congressional resolution will give Washington a 90-day period to strike Syria at will. The resolution also contains provisions for indefinite prolongation of the military attacks and for sending in US troops under the guise of “search and rescue missions.”

While on the one hand the White House talks about “very limited, targeted punitive strikes to deter chemical weapons” in order to con Congress to vote Yes, on the other hand the evidence and the White House’s own words speak of an all-out war on Syria.

Four US Navy destroyers off the coast of Syria are equipped to launch 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles. On its way to Syrian waters are the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and another battle group of three destroyers.

Media reports say that the US is planning to deploy long-range B-52 and B-2 bombers from North America, as well as B-1s based in Qatar in the Persian Gulf. All of these aircraft are capable of launching cruise missiles from outside Syrian airspace to avoid Syria’s defense systems.

But this is just limited…… day 1 we bomb and kill…. day 2 we talk.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on September 11, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Same Chit..Different Day

Sums up the obama presidency pretty well.

HumpBot Salvation on September 11, 2013 at 11:23 AM

But it was a good speech.

libfreeordie on September 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Why am I not surprised that you find an incoherent and inconsistent speech ‘good’?

Old & Busted:

‘The world owes me a debt of gratitude for preventing Assad from using nuclear weapons.’

- Obama, speech

New Hotness:

‘The Syrian military couldn’t harm us. It doesn’t have the capability.’

- Obama, same speech

Got that?

‘You should thank me for preventing Assad from using nuclear weapons that he doesn’t have and whose ability to produce them was taken out by the Israelis, but, don’t forget, the Syrian military couldn’t harm us anyway.’

- What President Obama said – DISTILLED

I know, I know! You thought it was ‘good’ because he didn’t spend the entire 15 minutes stuttering with ‘ers,’ ‘ums,’ and ‘uhs.’

‘I wuvs me my SCoaMF soooooo much!’

- liveenslavedthendie

Resist We Much on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

As Ed illustrates, Obama’s plea to the right to remove the blinders fell on deaf ears. The American right has now officially come out as Assad supporters. As dedicated as they are to opposing whatever Obama might support, in this case their desperation to rationalize that position has them parroting b.s. Russian propaganda that Assad didn’t use these weapons. (At least they’re not still doubting he has them – but only because Assad only now admits that.)
Who would’a thunk?
I suppose we’ll be seeing some clips from Putin’s RT channel here soon.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

But, but, but Andrew Sullivan said, that he couldnt imagine a better speech!!11!

(Seriously)

Valkyriepundit on September 11, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Obama’s ‘This-Is-How-I-Really-Feel’ Old & Busted:

MY military.’

Obama’s Convenient New Hotness:

OUR military.’

Resist We Much on September 11, 2013 at 11:26 AM

coldwarrior on September 11, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Seriously, folks, it sounds sooo much better in the original Russian.

But…Bing it, or Google.

Worth a chuckle…and you will be able to say more than “Merci, beaucoup,” too.

coldwarrior on September 11, 2013 at 11:26 AM

mintycrys on September 11, 2013 at 11:20 AM

So, on this day of all days, you’re suggesting that going into Afghanistan after the 9/11/01 atrocities was the wrong course of action? Just what you have done on 9/12/01 were you GWB? Write a sternly-worded letter?

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 11:27 AM

The claims that Bush’s failures have made intervention more difficult has some merit in the sense that the public has accepted the Democratic Party’s use of its MSM allies to create the image of bumbling George Bush. They have poisoned the well that they must now drink out of.

You cannot execute a military operation without mistakes. The side that wins is the one that makes the fewest mistake not the one that is perfect. By harping on the less than perfect execution instead of presenting a balanced view of military operations the lackies in the MSM created the impression that perfection is the only standard by which intervention can be judged as successful. Now the public will only support intervention when it is exectuted flawlessly, in other words never.

The Democrats rule or ruin strategy is characterized by a short sighted one step ahead thought process that ends up painting themselves into a corner when they gain power. Not even a full court press by their MSM allies can get them out of that corner.

jerryofva on September 11, 2013 at 11:28 AM

You can’t foster democracy in the world with a totalitarian dictator in the Whitehouse.

petunia on September 11, 2013 at 11:29 AM

I can’t wait for Barky to be asked to grade his own speech:

“I give it a solid B+.” — King Admiral Emperor Barky

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on September 11, 2013 at 11:32 AM

The American right has now officially come out as Assad supporters.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

I’d be really careful about just how much you spew this lie. The thin-skinned rat was handed a lifeline from the quagmire of his own making. But it comes at a price because Russia (not the American right) is going to demand a “solution” that keeps Assad in power. Shortly, the Kerry who dines with Assad and Clinton or Pelosi who called Assad a reformer will return to the podium.

Bottom line sport, your side is about to change their story once again so you’d better keep up with the talking points.

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 11:33 AM

‘I forgot he was black tonight for an hour 15 minutes.

He was sooooooo clearly awesomely A-W-E-S-O-M-E!’

- Chris Matthews

Resist We Much on September 11, 2013 at 11:34 AM

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Nah, READ ~>

Democrats: Victims of Their Own Success

46 reasons.

Resist We Much on September 11, 2013 at 11:35 AM

“While most Americans shudder at the news that 400 children have been killed by a monster …” Mourning al Doweed, NYT

Oh? Are we also “mourning” the prospective terrorists and their breeders? King Barry stepped all over his “incredibly small” maleness. As did Jean Kerée, but that’s what he does TOO.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on September 11, 2013 at 11:36 AM

how many were killed by poison gas at Waco? I forget.

Akzed on September 11, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Dude, really?

none

cozmo on September 11, 2013 at 11:37 AM

According to idiot libs; not wanting to support alqeda equals wanting to help Assad…what idiots.

cozmo on September 11, 2013 at 11:39 AM

The American right has now officially come out as Assad supporters.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

I’d be really careful about just how much you spew this lie.

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 11:33 AM

FP makes the case pretty well.

“There is evidence — mounting evidence — that the rebels in Syria did indeed frame Assad for the chemical attack,” conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh told his audience on Sept. 3. “But not only that, but Obama, the regime, may have been complicit in it. Mounting evidence that the White House knew and possibly helped plan the Syrian chemical weapon attack by the opposition!”

I guess some will keep up with Assad’s talking points…

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:39 AM

I’d be really careful about just how much you spew this lie.

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 11:33 AM

I guess some will keep up with Assad’s talking points…

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:39 AM

The idiot ain’t…but then he’s one of the better known idiots here.

He has his reputation to uphold.

cozmo on September 11, 2013 at 11:42 AM

The American right has now officially come out as Assad supporters.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

And what about the Dems? In the Senate for example. Obummer wasnt able to whip up 50 votes in a chamber which his party dominates. Are they Assad supporters too now?

Well maybe I should strike away the “now“. According to the American left Assad is a “reformer“, right?

Valkyriepundit on September 11, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Obama’s leadership, particularly in his second term, can most charitably be described as subtle. But he is so subtle that he sometimes appears to be a bystander.

Ironically, these lines written by Dana Milbank can most charitably be described as understatements.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 11, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Resist We Much on September 11, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Worth noting a contrast can only be drawn by equating a full scale ground invasion with a limited missile strike.
Which for me means there is no comparison.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM

The American right has now officially come out as Assad supporters.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

And what about the Dems? In the Senate for example. Obummer wasnt able to whip up 50 votes in a chamber which his party dominates. Are they Assad supporters too now?

Valkyriepundit on September 11, 2013 at 11:43 AM

You won’t find folks supporting Assad’s and Putin’s claims and positions there – and you’ll find that a’plenty from cons and the right.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:47 AM

The American right has now officially come out as Assad supporters.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

That would be the “reformer” Assad (c)Hillary Clinton

And if I had to choose, I’d choose Assad and Mubarak over Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The way I see it, I choose neither. The Left wants to arm Al Queda… as they did in Libya.

mankai on September 11, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Which for me means there is no comparison.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Bless your heart, partisan Koolaide drinker to the end.

cozmo on September 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM

The way I see it, I choose neither.

mankai on September 11, 2013 at 11:47 AM

This is one of those times I choose to let Allah decide.

cozmo on September 11, 2013 at 11:50 AM

You won’t find folks supporting Assad’s and Putin’s claims and positions there – and you’ll find that a’plenty from cons and the right.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Then that would make them racists for not siding with 0bama?

cozmo on September 11, 2013 at 11:51 AM

While most Americans shudder at the news that 400 children have been killed by a monster

Unless his name is Gosnell.

mankai on September 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Maybe not the overall thread winner, but a really strong contender, only losing a few points for pointing slightly off topic.

bofh on September 11, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Worth noting a contrast can only be drawn by equating a full scale ground invasion with a limited missile strike.
Which for me means there is no comparison.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM

There is no such thing as a limited missile strike. That’s what stupid idiots say when they think they know about military operations. There may be a limited number of targets, but that is another thing entirely. Sorta like not understanding the difference between a magazine and clip.

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM

The American right has now officially come out as Assad supporters.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Name them.

I’ve written extensively on the Assad regime’s work on shipping black market arms globally, about their complex for creating chem/bio/nuclear weapons… I have no love for this regime.

The ‘rebels’ are no great shakes and the Administration cannot say how much of the ‘rebels’ are AQ backed.

I don’t see how doing anything in the midst of a civil war is our fight, our duty or our obligation to anyone.

So, please, tell us who is spouting off for Assad’s regime.

Name them.

ajacksonian on September 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Loved the lies like this one (paraphrased):

‘Unlike George W Bush, I am actually deigning to seek the authorisation for military force from Congress and the United Nations.’

Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed the House 420-1-10 and the Senate by a 98-0-2 margin and was signed into law on 18 September 2001.

Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution passed the House 297-133-3 and the Senate by a 77-23 margin and was signed into law on 16 October 2002.

Bush DID go to the United Nations and obtained 6 resolutions, which were added to 14 previous resolutions passed during the Bush I and Clinton administrations.

Obama is a despicable liar.

Resist We Much on September 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Worth noting a contrast can only be drawn by equating a full scale ground invasion with a limited missile strike.
Which for me means there is no comparison.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM

‘Cuz, like, um, ya know, Libya has turned out so well.

Why don’t you ask Vietnam veterans about best laid plans and ‘good intentions’?

‘We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.’

- President Lyndon Baines Johnson, October 1964

Eisenhower recognised the problems with ‘limited airstrikes’:

‘Employment of airstrikes alone…would create a double jeopardy: IT WOULD COMPRISE AN ACT OF WAR AND WOULD ALSO ENTAIL THE RISK OF HAVING INTERVENED AND LOST.’

– Pres Eisenhower on intervening in Vietnam on behalf of France

Resist We Much on September 11, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Sorta like not understanding the difference between a magazine and clip.

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Oh let’s not start that, please?
As my point was there is a huge difference between what Bush sought support for and what Obama seeks support for, an we agree that is indeed true?

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:01 PM

He needs to go play golf or play cards or something before anything serious happens. Idiot liberals…… a community organizer (a failed and corrupt one at that) does not a president make…. I laugh at stupid liberals every day.

ultracon on September 11, 2013 at 12:01 PM

While most Americans shudder at the news that 400 children have been killed by a monster

Unless his name is Gosnell.

mankai on September 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Imagine what we could accomplish if we had videos of the 3,288 babies that are killed in a SINGLE day in America for the convenience of liberal mothers, all laid out in rows, wrapped in white sheets.

slickwillie2001 on September 11, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Oh let’s not start that, please?

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:01 PM

You spew lies nonstop, but plead to ignore facts.

You can tell when even the libs are down over their messiah, when only the idiot Koolaide drinkers show up to defend him.

cozmo on September 11, 2013 at 12:06 PM

The ‘rebels’ are no great shakes and the Administration cannot say how much of the ‘rebels’ are AQ backed.

I don’t see how doing anything in the midst of a civil war is our fight, our duty or our obligation to anyone.

ajacksonian on September 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM

If anything, Obama’s speech was pretty clear as to what the objective was. Is your position is that because they are in the middle of a civil war, Assad should be allowed to gas civilians with impunity?

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Oh let’s not start that, please?
As my point was there is a huge difference between what Bush sought support for and what Obama seeks support for, an we agree that is indeed true?

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:01 PM

And Archduke Ferdinand was just one guy. What harm does it to send a message to Serbia?

What the thin-skinned rat is asking for now (unilateral permission to bomb the crap out of a nation with nothing in the national interest) may not be what he needs when he screws things up more. There is no clear end state. No clear purpose for killing innocent Syrian women and children with American missiles to send the message that it is wrong to kill Syrian women and children with CW. And no clear “Plan B” when CW is used again. Bottom line, the thin-skinned rat really can’t guarantee that there won’t be boots on ground or further operations since those assumptions are based on the idea that Syria (and Russia) would let us bomb without any sort or retaliation.

And, again, there is no such thing as a limited missile strike.

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 12:07 PM

If anything, Obama’s speech was pretty clear as to what the objective was.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:06 PM

I watched the speech. What was the objective?

cozmo on September 11, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Is your position is that because they are in the middle of a civil war, Assad should be allowed to gas civilians with impunity?

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:06 PM

How about going to the signatory Nations of the CWC FIRST before trying to intervene and leverage multinational power from the signatory Nations that want to stop this sort of thing?

That requires no military power.

It does require diplomacy which is in the President’s court and should have been started the day AFTER his red line speech.

Before anyone even gets to ‘intervention’ why not try other options FIRST?

ajacksonian on September 11, 2013 at 12:09 PM

‘We cannot just turn away…’

Why not? We do it every day.

When Obama starts speaking out against the oppression, torture, rape, and slaughter of Christians in the Middle East and Africa, then I’ll start listening to him with regard to the deaths of 400 children.

Studies: Christians Are At Present The Most Persecuted Religious Group Worldwide

Outside the denominational media, two individuals have done more than anyone else to cover this phenomenon: Paul Marshall (of the Hudson Institute) and Brian Grim (of the Pew Research Center). All the data I have seen indicate that Christians are at present the most persecuted religious group world-wide. Grim recently testified about this before the European Parliament: He stated that Christians are directly harassed by governments in 102 countries and by “social actors” (read lynch mobs) in 101 countries. There has also been decent coverage by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, the independent agency set up with government funding, in addition to the bureau within the State Department that reports on religious freedom worldwide every year.

In its 2013 report the Commission has a list of 8 countries (which include China) designated “countries of particular concern” (CPCs, who are reported as such to the President and the Congress, for possible US government actions). The 2013 list includes 3 Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. There is an additional list of countries heading toward CPC status, including 4 Muslim-majority or heavily Muslim countries: Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria (its northen part), and Pakistan. It is fair to conclude that Christians have most to be afraid of from actions by Muslims, be it by courts, government policies, or by mobs of enraged Muslims encouraged by police inaction.

Resist We Much on September 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM

You won’t find folks supporting Assad’s and Putin’s claims and positions there – and you’ll find that a’plenty from cons and the right.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:47 AM

You should debate that with Alan Grayson and his friends, since they bleat about dishonesty of the Obama administration and faulty intelligence all the time.

Try again.

Valkyriepundit on September 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM

I dunno…the sentiment that 8 years of George W. Bush has turned America off to interventionism has some basis in reality, like it or not.

mintycrys on September 11, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Oh, dear, you are a funny American. So isolationism and opposition to intervention started with Bush? Not even Hitler was bad enough for you to step up to. Go ahead, look it up and see how much support there was in the States to intervene in Europe at that time.

yubley on September 11, 2013 at 12:12 PM

How about going to the signatory Nations of the CWC FIRST before trying to intervene and leverage multinational power from the signatory Nations that want to stop this sort of thing?

That requires no military power.

ajacksonian on September 11, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Which is more or less where we are now.
Would we be here if Assad had no fear of consequences?
Will such diplomatic efforts succeed if he remains unconcerned?
Military power is most definitely required. Actual use of it…maybe not.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:18 PM

I watched the speech. What was the objective?

cozmo on September 11, 2013 at 12:07 PM

To save Obama’s rear end.

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Military power is most definitely required. Actual use of it…maybe not.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:18 PM

You don’t use military power to send nuanced messages. And you have to be prepared to follow through if you lay down threats to try and coherce a given solution. That’s why real Presidents don’t speak in terms of red lines.

Happy Nomad on September 11, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Military power is most definitely required.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:18 PM

It would also be illegal under American and international law.

Remember when you screamed about ‘illegal’ wars?

Resist We Much on September 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Oh let’s not start that, please?
As my point was there is a huge difference between what Bush sought support for and what Obama seeks support for, an we agree that is indeed true?

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Actually, there isn’t.

Resist We Much on September 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM

The American right has now officially come out as Assad supporters.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Dems & Syria: Hawk Nose On; Dove Nose Off

Resist We Much on September 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Which is more or less where we are now.
Would we be here if Assad had no fear of consequences?
Will such diplomatic efforts succeed if he remains unconcerned?
Military power is most definitely required. Actual use of it…maybe not.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:18 PM

So, Peace through Strength is the line?

Are you willing to back that in all instances, in all circumstances, against all comers?

Right now Obama has said that the Regime will not be put in danger by military strikes… bad news, that. It undercuts the military action line all to hell and gone.

Diplomatic efforts can hit him in the pocket book, considering that the proposed oil pipeline has to go through Iraq and Iraq signed on to the CWC, the cutting off of negotiations on that until Syria gives up its CW and probably BW industry would definitely hurt on the trade front. So would other CWC holders stopping overflights to and from Syria.

Strikes have no guarantee of working, but are an Act of War and you had better be able to back that up to the hilt and completely.

Diplomacy keeps things on a civilized level and allows the Nations and rulers involved to analyze their positions.

You tell me if either will be a lock solid guarantee of disarming Syria of its CW capacity.

Tell me why strikes are superior.

Tell me how they won’t get the US dragged into a civil war.

If Obama had backed his moral convictions when he set his red line, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation because he would have set diplomacy in action LAST YEAR and changed the course of events.

But, he didn’t do that.

So now I doubt his convictions and rationale behind what he has done calling for strikes, first, then backtracking to diplomacy. That is a cart-horse order arrangement problem, and by backing down he has made the position worse, not better.

I am still at Option #2 for Syria: use diplomacy as they are not a friendly Nation but no threat to the US.

Option #3 is war. And any military strikes are just that. And when you threaten them you had better be prepared to use them when you are defied on your objectives. Going to Congress showed that Obama was not serious on the threat. He was bluffing. It was called by Putin who raked in the chips.

Obama did not have to threaten ANYONE to achieve pressure towards his objectives and by not prepping the ground with the CWC is now scrambling to figure out what he should do.

That is lacking in moral conviction from the START.

His threats didn’t get him to this point.

His weakness did.

And Putin has his chips and knows Obama is the Mark.

Remember I have no love for the Assad family or its Regime.

When I see ‘rebels’ slaughtering Christians because they are Christians and not on any ‘side’, then I really do question who is the worst actor in this affair. And the moment the ‘rebels’ over-run any stockpile of Assad’s weapons, then they are also armed with them.

Do you want Obama to bomb both sides, just to be sure?

How about diplomacy, first, before you threaten anyone. Then threats are an escalation of the diplomatic end of things. You never start with threats and then back away from that: it is a guarantee of disaster which is just where we are headed.

ajacksonian on September 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Leave it to Carter to think that a worthless UN resolution will solve the problem.
Meanwhile Obama is considering dropping plane loads of shoes on Syria to show them that we really, really, really mean business this time….well at least left shoes…small ones…actually very few, with soft rubber soles and only in desert areas…if it gets environmental approval from the Sierra Club…

Don L on September 11, 2013 at 12:39 PM

The American right has now officially come out as Assad supporters.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

You have always been, and continue to be, nothing short of a full-on f*cking idiot.

Midas on September 11, 2013 at 12:39 PM

The American right has now officially come out as Assad supporters.

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Name them.

ajacksonian on September 11, 2013 at 12:43 PM

King Barry give ‘an accounting’?

I’m still waiting for the ‘accounting’ for Fast and Furious and Benghazi.

GarandFan on September 11, 2013 at 12:44 PM

ajacksonian on September 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM

So, Peace through Strength is the line?

100%

You tell me if either will be a lock solid guarantee of disarming Syria of its CW capacity.

A ‘lock solid guarantee’ is required? That’s a silly as ever thinking anything is a ‘slam dunk’. I think Obama (and Bush) both know there’s no such thing.

If Obama had backed his moral convictions when he set his red line, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation because he would have set diplomacy in action LAST YEAR and changed the course of events.

I agree his understandable (by all here , right?) reluctance to get involved has complicated things. But we are here now, and this recent CW attack was brazen…and a game changer.

And Putin has his chips and knows Obama is the Mark.

Eff Putin. He is now in the position if either really backing a CW disarmament or not. If he calls for this to go through sans any enforcement options, then he’s a clear bullsh*tter, instead of a sublime one.
And let’s not forget, because it seems many have, he’s on the wrong side.

Remember I have no love for the Assad family or its Regime.

I remember.

ajacksonian on September 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM

verbaluce on September 11, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2