Syria

[carlfense]

Interesting. So, you are claiming the officals were wrong? The quote from your article was plural, meaning there was more than one administration official claiming Obama believes he has the power to bomb away with out Congress's approval.

I don't know. You're the one assuming that these anonymous sources are correct.

[carlfense]

Carl- You are really starting to lose any credibility you might have had.

 

Are you really going to continue to defend Obama's mishandling of this situation?

Any specifics? Should he have struck without Congressional approval? (OBAMA THE TYRANT WAGES WAR WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. HE OWNS THIS FAILURE.) Should he have asked Congress? (OBAMA THE WEAK KNEED CHILD CAUSES AMERICA TO LOSE FACE. OUR COUNTRY IS LESSENED BY THIS FAILURE.)

 

There is literally nothing that Obama could do that would make a certain faction (including the 'baggers) voice approval. Nothing. Even when he embraces Republican ideas they immediately become tyrannical socialism.

 

 

It is plain to see that Obama's current position on use of force in the Mideast is contradicting what he claimed Bush should do in similar circumstances.

Are you comparing this to Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

On top of that, he is looking totally inept.

Now he looks inept. Before this you guys thought he was doing great.

[rawhide]

http://news.yahoo.co...-140227751.html

 

 

“As commander in chief, I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America’s national security. I do not believe that I was required to take this to Congress,” Obama said.

“But I did not take this to Congress just because it’s an empty exercise; I think it’s important to have Congress’s support on it,” Obama said at a press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.

The president expressed confidence that Congress will ultimately give him its green light for military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces, whom Washington accuses of massacring civilians with chemical weapons on Aug. 21.

“I believe Congress will approve it,” he said.

“We can send a very clear strong message in favor of the prohibition against using chemical weapons. We can change Assad’s calculus about using them again. We can degrade his capabilities so that he does not use them again,” Obama said.

 

Isn't calculus all about changes??? So is he saying that the US(we) can change Assad's change?? Me no understand his strategery.

 

I do think that no president should have to go it alone. The Executive and Legislative branch should look to the USA's best interest(nonpartisan yeah right or left) and with a concurrence decide what is best.

This should be no different than when Hussein gassed Kurds in northern Iraq. I feel for the family's of the 100k that have died prior to this despicable act. But genocide or attempted genocide has happened before and probably will happen again.

[carlfense]

“We can send a very clear strong message in favor of the prohibition against using chemical weapons. We can change Assad’s calculus about using them again. We can degrade his capabilities so that he does not use them again,” Obama said.

 

Isn't calculus all about changes??? So is he saying that the US(we) can change Assad's change??

I think that he is using "calculus" in the decision making system sense.

[JJ Husker]

Carl- You could have saved a lot of time and effort with your selective editing if you would've just acknowledged my last five sentences. I guess it feels better to ignore what I had already acknowledged instead of admitting that you will defend him to all ends. It is a fact, he is in a no win situation at this point. If he acts against the will of the American people, he loses. If he fails to follow through with his threats, he loses. Don't blame me, I didn't make his bed.

[BigRedBuster]

Carl- You could have saved a lot of time and effort with your selective editing if you would've just acknowledged my last five sentences. I guess it feels better to ignore what I had already acknowledged instead of admitting that you will defend him to all ends. It is a fact, he is in a no win situation at this point. If he acts against the will of the American people, he loses. If he fails to follow through with his threats, he loses. Don't blame me, I didn't make his bed.

 

 

 

[carlfense]

Carl- You could have saved a lot of time and effort with your selective editing if you would've just acknowledged my last five sentences.

It wasn't selective editing so much as I didn't have any comment on your last five sentences. Sorry.

 

If you'd like me to leave the remainder in a quote at the end of my post I'll try to do that in the future.

 

I guess it feels better to ignore what I had already acknowledged instead of admitting that you will defend him to all ends. It is a fact, he is in a no win situation at this point. If he acts against the will of the American people, he loses. If he fails to follow through with his threats, he loses. Don't blame me, I didn't make his bed.

Sometimes I think that all foreign policy is a no win situation.

 

My red line in Syria would be the point where American lives are put in danger. Up to that point . . . eh.

[Junior]

 

 

 

 

 

His defense? "Occasionally I get a little bored." What a guy. Thousands of lives at stake, and he gets a little bored.

[rawhide]

RINO

 

prolly a free phone too

 

 

and the left says:

 

http://www.theminori...on-syria-video/

 

but ignores the cell phone gambit

[carlfense]

His defense? "Occasionally I get a little bored." What a guy. Thousands of lives at stake, and he gets a little bored.

Worse than Watergate.

[Conga3]

Carl- You could have saved a lot of time and effort with your selective editing if you would've just acknowledged my last five sentences. I guess it feels better to ignore what I had already acknowledged instead of admitting that you will defend him to all ends. It is a fact, he is in a no win situation at this point. If he acts against the will of the American people, he loses. If he fails to follow through with his threats, he loses. Don't blame me, I didn't make his bed.

 

I disagree with this. History remembers the winner's version of events. If Obama leads our nation to war with Syria, removes Assad - it'll be a win, just like we won the Iraq war. While we might remember Obama as a POTUS who fumbled the decision to go to war with Syria, it's how it turns out that matters most.

 

The only option he can choose that will lead to failure is to not follow through with his threats and allow Assad to remain in power to commit the next atrocity. How far he goes is up to him, but it must be significant - and successful.

 

----

 

Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3

 

This is dangerous IMO.

[JJ Husker]

Conga- you make a good point in the long view but, he would lose short term in the court of public sentiment. It would be pretty hard for the dems to continue playing the "not George Bush" card if Obama goes it alone without a coalition of countries and the American people backing his actions. But you're correct, in twenty years it might look like a good thing.

[JJ Husker]

And my absolute last concern is Obama saving face. I would much rather see him viewed as weak than to drag us into war/actions that serve no purpose for our national security. If he starts lobbing missiles in support of no one who likes us anyway, what can we gain?

[walksalone]

“As commander in chief, I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America’s national security. I do not believe that I was required to take this to Congress,” Obama said.

“But I did not take this to Congress just because it’s an empty exercise; I think it’s important to have Congress’s support on it,” Obama said at a press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.

The president expressed confidence that Congress will ultimately give him its green light for military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces, whom Washington accuses of massacring civilians with chemical weapons on Aug. 21.

“I believe Congress will approve it,” he said.

“We can send a very clear strong message in favor of the prohibition against using chemical weapons. We can change Assad’s calculus about using them again. We can degrade his capabilities so that he does not use them again,” Obama said.

 

Isn't calculus all about changes??? So is he saying that the US(we) can change Assad's change?? Me no understand his strategery.

 

I do think that no president should have to go it alone. The Executive and Legislative branch should look to the USA's best interest(nonpartisan yeah right or left) and with a concurrence decide what is best.

This should be no different than when Hussein gassed Kurds in northern Iraq. I feel for the family's of the 100k that have died prior to this despicable act. But genocide or attempted genocide has happened before and probably will happen again.

 

"Preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America's national security"

 

F*cking really? The POTUS needs to pull his head out of his ass. Does he think launching a couple cruise missiles at Syria is going to make them go, "oh sh*t, it's the Americans, we'd better stop what were doing or they're going to be very cross with us"

 

Obama needs to get his mind out of f*ckin' candyland if he thinks this sh*t is going to work. This tip toeing through the tulips sh*t isn't going to work and it's gonna bite us in the ass later on...

[zoogs]

In what sense will it bite us in the ass?

 

They might not respect American power and decide to do whatever they want?..........if that's the case, how is doing nothing a better alternative?