I don’t think the administration has handled the Syrian situation well in recent days, but I’m glad Barack Obama is our president. He still seems to be the only adult in the room, and if he takes a hit for waffling or not being completely consistent, I’m willing to back him up for not compounding his mistakes. I think his critics should try to spend a week in his shoes and then they can talk.
I haven’t seen one person, including myself, give him any advice that wouldn’t expose him to legitimate second-guessing. There are no good options for Syria. There just aren’t.
It will certainly make for an interesting congressional session. I guess Benghazi is finally off the committee hearing schedule books?
I don’t see anything adult about being willing to commit an act of aggressive war against a country based on speculation.
I now have the same visceral revulsion at the sound of Obama talking that I used to have when Bush talked.
Well, how did we get into this situation?
Obama issued a threat that was intended to protect Syrian civilians.
Is there something wrong with trying to dissuade Assad from gassing Syrians?
Principally by being the number one arms manufacturer and distributor in the world, supporting dictators with those arms, fomenting coups against democratically elected governments (Iran, Chile, etc.), and participating in covert operations facilitating the initiation of civil wars (Vietnam, Libya, and yes, Syria, to name but three).
Right there!!!
Thank you.
AG
Oh, come on! Since when is threatening an aggressive act of war in order to protect civilians considered grown up? It sounds impetuous, poorly, if at all, thought out, and rather immature to me.
Booman. Please!!!
“Obama issued a threat that was intended to protect Syrian civilians?”
Why Syrians?
Why not the people of the Congo?
Why not the people of Detroit or Chicago or Camden, NJ or…
Oh.
Wait a minute!!!
I forgot.
Sorry.
My bad.
Yore freind…
Emily Litella
If you are going to play the resource card, you are doing it wrong. Not oil. The Qatar to Nambucco pipeline that provides Europe an alternative to Russian natural gas.
But “Oil!” is a much classier rallying cry than “Gas!”
And “Natural Gas!” sounds too much like a description of Congress.
How about “Resources!!!”
Soon it will be water.
Watch.
A few more hot, hot summers.
W/in a decade.
Watch.
Instead of taking care of business on a rational level…scaling back the enormous waste that almost defines the American Empire, really trying to control population growth both domestically and worldwide and also control the ill effects of human existence on the planet in general (other of course than killing as many civilians as possible in as many wars as possible)…we just keep on gobbling up the earth and playing
musical chairsresource roulette with the rest of the humans on this planet.Fixed resource roulette, where we both load the revolver with more than one bullet and spin the cylinder.
This continuing act is eventually going to backfire worse than 9/11.
Blowback.
It’s what’s for dessert.
Watch.
AG
Syria has less oil than Louisiana.
Right.
I just knew you’d write something this stupid, Booman. I knew it when I posted this.
Yes, Syria “has less oil than Louisiana.”
Therefore it doesn’t matter in the overall Great Game thing that has been in progress throughout the Arab world since T. E.. Lawrence…an intelligence asset (at least at the beginning) if ever I have seen one…was deployed to keep the region safe for
monarchy…errr, ahhh, democracy.New York City has no fucking oil either. Is it strategically important to the PermaGov? How about Israel? Are we spending trillions there to safeguard its orange groves?
Please.
Give me a break!!!
How come the U.S. is not bombing the Congo today? How come it did nothing when the Rwandan genocide took place in 1994 under the mighty Democratic
cocksmanPresident Wild Bill Clinton?C’mon, man. Throw away the talking points and get real. DemRat or RatPub, the PermaGov works by its own rules.
Bet on it.
WTFU.
AG
Threats are almost always ill-considered. Fon’t threaten: If there’s reason to attack, attack; If not, don’t.
Go back to when the “red line” threat was issued: it signaled what it would take to get the US to attack Assad. “Hey, you rebels, Mossad, CIA, just stage a CW attack that could be blamed on Assad, and bombs away!”
And, of course, if Assad actually does a CW attack and does not get “punished”, that’s a problem too.
Better to step up the humanitarian aid and anti-gas gear (masks, suits, detectors) and hope that the survivors can deal with issues of justice and punishment once the fighting is over.
Or to quote the Eli Wallach character in “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”, “If you’re going to shoot, shoot! Don’t Talk.” This right after he shoots a man who was telling him how and why he was going to shoot him (Eli Wallach).
On the position of the AIPAC lobby regarding this issue and their likely influence with Congress?
I see the comparisons to Bush have started early in this thread.
I eventually ended up thinking we shouldn’t take any action in Syria, but that doesn’t mean I can’t tell the difference between our last two presidents. Anybody who makes that comparison so glibly is fundamentally unserious.
Xantar, I am disappointed that you were unable to make an argument without resorting to an ad hominem attack.
For the record, I did not make a comparison to Bush, I reported that my emotional reaction to Obama has become similar to my emotional reaction to Bush. I am sorry you were unable to discern that.
So you didn’t make a comparison to Bush, you just made a comparison of your emotional reaction to Bush.
Right. Got it.
Ok, I’ll make the comparison then. Feel free to blast away with my blessing.
There is no speculation that nerve gas was used to kill over 1,000 Syrians. None. And there is no “speculation” as to who did it – that would be the Syrian regime led by Assad.
It makes a lot more sense for the rebels to have done it. It makes no sense for Assad to have done it. Not saying he didn’t, but it would have been very stupid for him to do and very smart (albeit ruthless) for the rebels.
There are no good options for Syria. There just aren’t.
And despite that some people still want to get involved?
From Wikipedia, emphasis added:
Just sayin’. This wouldn’t be the first occasion I’ve wondered if my collection of early 20th century history would be coming back into current relevance.
And your point is what? Are you trying to equate Assad with Hitler?
No. Maybe Mussolini. Heh, just kidding, I get a bit frustrated sometimes.
‘Collective security’ is pretty much the premise behind the chemical weapons ban enforcement of the UN. The Baldwin quote describes exactly the situation where Great Powers are unwilling to undertake the near-term risk for long-term security.
Aw, just forget it… Sometimes I wonder if anyone actually reads any of this crap anyhow and there’s plenty of evidence they don’t. TL;DR could be the epitaph of much we learned in the past by hard lessons.
Among the “no good options” is the option of not getting involved.
McCain wants “boots on the ground”. That’s a direct quote.
Despite all the confusion, and possible mistakes, I felt proud of the Prez today. When the going gets tough he always seems to lead with his integrity. I’m sorry more people in this country don’t recognize that.
POTUS today:
This makes you proud? You must have been delighted with GHWB and GWB as well because they followed a very similar script.
Marie, there is a critical related part of his speech that you are not including:
The two statements would seem to be at odds. If he has decided to commit an aggressive (and illegal under international law) act of war against Syria, why is he bothering to go to the Congress for authorization unless he is 1) expecting a rubber stamp from Congress, 2) willing to bully Congress into giving him a rubber stamp, or 3) hoping Congress will save him from his own foolishness, and refuse to give its approval. It seems to me that number 3 is the least likely. If he were hoping to lose the vote in Congress, why would he have announced that he has already decided to attack Syria?
Man, if some other leader of some other country (or even a US president you don’t love) mobilized for war and sent his ministers or secretaries out to cry apocalypse and then called time out to shore up parliamentary/congressional support and firmer commitment from the international community, you would not be saying that. You might be relieved, but we would all consider that an entirely odd (and even inappropriate) management of the situation.
There’s so much upside to the chill pill:
But all of that that is true today was just as true last Monday. So we are left with the troubling possibility the government was operating on tilt and needs to get a grip on itself. War is murder on behalf of the state. America has a responsibility to articulate readily achievable objectives and not just play politics to compensate for a lack of vision or confidence.
One of your best comments.
Well since this was in fact my suggestion, I am glad he took my advice and am supportive of this.
If the choice is between looking foolish and starting a third war in south-central Eurasia the first is much the better risk.
All’s I’ve got to say on this subject can be summed up quite simply.
How well we have been trained by the PermaGov and its media!!! A sitting president has actually asked Congress for permission to commit war, and we are amazed.
Unbelievable.
From the U.S. Constitution-the War Powers clause.
Who does he think he is, this president? Some law-abiding citizen!!!???
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!
We in Wonderland now, alright.
Bet on it.
AG
We have a statement from the President that is all assertions, no logic, and little evidence. We have had Presidents who have done that before. Lots of them. Even well-respected ones. A little police action here. A little support a struggling democracy there. Each and every one of them has ended in death, destruction, and not much advancement of policy–and those have been the successes. The others have been utter disasters.
Having Barack Obama as president is preferable to most other folks on the political stage at the moment, I will grant you.
But that is cold comfort considering that he is depending for information and action on a lot of folks who have never in their careers been in anything but disasters of US foreign policy, who have been schooled in near neo-con orthodoxy, and who, even in civilian departments like State, have a reflexive bias toward using military solutions first. And who as a result have never seriously developed diplomatic skills that could lead to permanent settlements, peace, and prosperity but have looked for the quick victory, the showy cheerleadable moment, the false unity of war and “support the troops” and the total subservience to US-based transnational economic interests.
The failure to be specific about what US national interests drive this decision lead to the unescapable conclusion that they are “nationaL interests” that the US public at large would not support.
The only useful purpose I see of a limited strike on Syria is providing an excuse for cleaning house in the national security and intelligence community institutions after that move no only fails but puts our “national interests” in a more vulnerable position. Neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia nor Qatar care one whit about the best interests of the American people. It is time to stop letting them drive US foreign policy in the Middle East. And time to expose the former members of Congress and other shills (hi Lanny Davis) who are lobbying for them.
The President’s speech yesterday vitiated the carefully laid arguments about defending the Chemical Weapons Convention and preventing additional chemical weapons proliferation by returning to a vague “national interests and our allies” formulation. Again, I say that the President needs to fire his communications staff; they are awful.
Any determination of great integrity depends on what the private memos disclose to historians, if historians ever get to see these now classified documents. It is the actions that show integrity and the actions when no one can see them are more telling than the public actions.
So I am back to wondering what exactly is the national interest that is driving the President’s rush to war. And who exactly is telling him that the situation is such that it justifies him acting alone, without international, public, and Congressional support? Whoever it is, they are as dangerous as Alexander Haig.
Unlike some recent stuff, this is a rant. One has to let one’s peace hysteria vent some way or other when the handbasket marked “Hell” has you strapped in the seat and you can see exactly where you are going and no way of stopping the catastrophe.
Presumably “stopping” (haha) the spread of CW is the unspoken “national security interest”, supposedly to be advanced via pinprick bombing of Syrian chem units (unless the real plan is an extended rebel-supporting air campaign to destroy most gub’mint military assets and logistics and unseat Dr. Assad Jr). Of course every US national interest can get upgraded to an actual “security interest” if desired (except climate change, naturally)
But as you say, most ordinary schmoes wouldn’t regard Syrian family dictator Assad’s chemical units as a “national security interest” worth going to war over. But the fear-based corporate media propaganda campaign has yet to begin….
Ironically, there is a pretty strong consensus among nations to not use chemical weapons. The main reason for that is that they are militarily problematic for the current style of warfare. If technology ever evolves back to permit massed formations to be effective, that could change.
Which is why there are only five holdouts: Angola, Egypt, North Korea, Somalia, and Syria. And two countries that have signed but not ratified: Israel and Myamar. Ratification requires implementation, which first requires declaration of stocks of chemical weapons.
The threat of chemical weapons spreading is not huge. The larger threat is of non-government groups using Schedule 3 (legal) chemicals as chemical weapons or as precursors.
And an emerging issue is that of actually broadening the list of banned chemicals to include crowd control chemicals and incendiaries like napalm and white phosphorus.
Cynicism is warranted, but this is one of the few areas in which nations have found it to their advantage to walk the walk. Because it uncomplicates military action.
A cautionary tale.
Allison Beth Hodgkins, Obama’s Eden Moment
George W. Bush transformed American power. The Village has not quite grasped that fact.
Media Industrial Complex Has Meltdown Over Constitutional Government (Andrea Mitchell Haz a Sad)
Saturday, August 31, 2013 | Posted by Spandan C at 6:12 PM
Did you watch Andrea Mitchell today? Oh, boy. Did she ever get a case of teh sad after President Obama’s address in the Rose Garden. She – and notably, this Ret. Col. Jack Jacobs, commentator on MSNBC – had a total meltdown. Together, Mrs. Greenspan and Mr. Jacobs cooked up theories ranging from an Obama-Kerry discord to a “reversal” that Mitchell kept referring to on the part of the president, to executive weakness to stabbing the Syrian rebels in the back.
Jacobs was beside himself that for some bizarre reason, John Kerry could no longer be trusted by world leaders as speaking for the president (because somehow, some way, Jacobs imagined a part of Kerry’s speech yesterday where he said that the president had made up his mind to order a strike without Congress’ buy-in, though Kerry actually said just the opposite) Mitchell a potshot at the president for going golfing after making the speech. Yeah, how dare that mulatto go golfing after messing up all my war reporting plans?
They – and media hanchos everywhere – cooked up every theory they could think of, except one: that when the president, and Sec. Kerry, and everyone else in the administration were telling you bumbling fools in the media that the president hadn’t yet made a decision, they were telling the truth (I know, I know, gasp!). It never even seems to register with the talking heads. No, even when they are being told clear as day that the president hasn’t made a decision, they know that the president really has, and it’s the decision they think he’s made, and if that doesn’t pan out, OMG, reversal!!!!!!
I mean, God forbid you actually believed the president when he told you he hadn’t made a decision and he was really looking at all options on the table. God forbid you actually believe the President of the United States when he told you that this response is meant to be a response to the use of chemical weapons, not a helping hand to one side of the Syrian civil war. God forbid you actually believe the president when he says that as a Constitutional scholar, he wants the Congress to have buy-in. God forbid you actually are forced report the real news rather than figments of your imagination. God forbid. Right?
Look, I get it. After all, President Obama just screwed up Mitchell’s own R&R plans. She and her studio was all ready to report war theater for the next week – with much of the graphics and rhetoric already written and the guests already booked – and now they have to change that. They have to cover – horror of all horrors – a national and Congressional debate about military action and the grotesque conduct that Syria engaged in. Heck, she probably even had to rework her script today. Why does the president insist on making pillars of our media do actual work to earn their millions in salaries while they pretend like they are just like the rest of us? How very annoying of this president.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/08/media-industrial-complex-has-meltdown.html
Cruise missiles are not the answer but the threat of them may make Assad think. Obama may have wiggled out of his redline self-inflicted wound.
There are no good options except humanitarian ones.
This clip is from one year ago most of these people are probably dead or refugees. Just to remind us these are real people when we comment.
I was very moved by this its incredibly sad. Syria’s people have incredible spirit. Watching them rally in a narrow alley to avoid snipers.
Children and widows rallying. It takes you from the depths of despair to hope to the depths of despair.
But humanitarian options are somehow not worthy of the mighty United States. It’s irresistible, so I must also note that this is the corner that violence paints you into. The salutary effect may be the staggering notion that the dirty fucking hippies have been right all along, and that maybe – just maybe – it’s not too late to start doing the right thing.
We’ll see if the U.S. is capable of learning.
It was very good political move. If the House rejects intervention, Obama can say, “I wanted to intervene, but Republicans in Congress stopped me.” If they approve, then it is a bipartisan measure with the added benefit that they will have to answer to the Tea Party for agreeing with Obama.