“Our administration never would have gotten this done in 48 hours,” one former senior official of the Obama administration told me. “It’s a complete indictment of Obama.”
“I feel like finally we have done the right thing,” Anne-Marie Slaughter, who served as Obama’s first-term chief of policy planning at the State Department and long publicly urged a more forceful response to Assad’s horrific attacks on civilians during the six years of war that have wracked Syria, told me. “The years of hypocrisy just hurt us all. It undermined the U.S., it undermined the world order.”
Slaughter, now the head of the New America Foundation and a major backer of Trump’s defeated opponent Hillary Clinton last November, tweeted, “Donald Trump has done the right thing on Syria. Finally!! After years of useless handwringing in the face of atrocities.” I later asked her if it was awkward to be cheering for Trump now. “I’m just glad to see it,” she said. “It was the right thing.”
Find the Kristol, Friedman, etal. pom-pom shakers on your own.
Helbo:
Literally no one thinks Trump has any plan for improving the situation in Syria. That would be crazy. Why would you be heartened to see someone blowing things up without any plan? Why would the sight of huge gouts of American hellfire ever seem like a heuristic indicator of increased human welfare?
Yes he is. Or at least has consistently been since 2002 when I first started reading his blog.
The video seemed apt for this moment to me. Words aren’t having any impact on all those cheering on the new emperor’s who is now satisfying their need for blood and guts.
on April 10, 2017 at 8:32 am
After the Iraq War it became easy to forget the split between the hawks and the doves in the Party because everyone agreed Iraq was a disaster.
But it was hiding in plain sight in the primaries – though Syria wasn’t discussed much and it has become apparent once again.
Forget? More like too easy an acceptance of the Democratic Iraq War hawks claim that they had been duped and therefore, regretted their error. In the short run, it’s not possible to assess whether they had learned anything and/or were sincere in their regret. I’m a don’t tell me but show me that you’re sorry type of person. Thus, all the identifiable war hawks remained on my suspect list as did those that supported those politicians. Time would tell. And it has.
Democrats nominated a freaking all war ticket in ’04 which was a tell. Rejecting HRC in ’08 was a hopeful sign. Libya was a huge tell. Also revealed that not all the Iraq War opponents had been sincere but had been partisan. Interesting how few of those regrets were valid. Glenn Greenwald is on of those few.
I am old enough to remember when you were accused of being pro-Saddam Hussein if you thought going into Iraq could end up badly
Glenn’s response:
The toxic smear formula of “oppose US war with Regime X” = “you support Regime X” never dies. It was used for Libya, too. And the Cold War:
A pro-war feminist and pro-war progressive are oxymorons because guns steal from the butter. Guns and regime change in foreign countries aren’t humanitarian regardless of how much those creeps dress it up as such. They are authoritarians and under the right circumstances, all authoritarians are fascists.
Those “With HER” are now being honest. Honestly supporting the nincompoop and fully revealing how disgusting they are. (Not that the ease with which they called those like me Putin lovers wasn’t transparently telling.) Snakes are always more difficult to deal with than overt enemies.
It was as brief moment in time, really, but a bit like the Iraq war runup on fast forward. Suddenly the crisis in Libya was the most important thing ever. Smug, condescending “liberals” (and, really, fuck all of you) lectured the hippies about humanitarianism, and about how this time would be different, and about how Obama would do a good war unlike Bush (the Iraq “incompetence dodge” was a dodge, did we forget that?), and don’t you care about women and children and why are you so racist that these lives don’t matter to you, blahblahblah.
[…] Trump’s action has gained support from Democrats that was never available to Obama from Republicans. In the fall of 2013, even the hawkish Marco Rubio — who had long called for action in Syria against Assad — nevertheless opposed Obama’s request for authorization to do just that. Rubio’s explanation focused on the flaws in Obama strategy and commitment. “I remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work … I believe that U.S. military action of the type contemplated here will prove counterproductive.”
Rubio’s points surely had some validity. Surely they apply even more forcefully today — yet Democrats from Chuck Schumer to Nancy Pelosi to even Elizabeth Warren have offered support for Trump’s actions. Pelosi praised the action as “proportional.” Schumer went further still: “Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do.”
And a bonus:
We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO
Boom Boom cheerleaders:
Find the Kristol, Friedman, etal. pom-pom shakers on your own.
Helbo:
thanks for the link (Atrios, not the video).
Atrios is smart. Democratic hawks drive me crazy.
Yes he is. Or at least has consistently been since 2002 when I first started reading his blog.
The video seemed apt for this moment to me. Words aren’t having any impact on all those cheering on the new emperor’s who is now satisfying their need for blood and guts.
After the Iraq War it became easy to forget the split between the hawks and the doves in the Party because everyone agreed Iraq was a disaster.
But it was hiding in plain sight in the primaries – though Syria wasn’t discussed much and it has become apparent once again.
Forget? More like too easy an acceptance of the Democratic Iraq War hawks claim that they had been duped and therefore, regretted their error. In the short run, it’s not possible to assess whether they had learned anything and/or were sincere in their regret. I’m a don’t tell me but show me that you’re sorry type of person. Thus, all the identifiable war hawks remained on my suspect list as did those that supported those politicians. Time would tell. And it has.
Democrats nominated a freaking all war ticket in ’04 which was a tell. Rejecting HRC in ’08 was a hopeful sign. Libya was a huge tell. Also revealed that not all the Iraq War opponents had been sincere but had been partisan. Interesting how few of those regrets were valid. Glenn Greenwald is on of those few.
Trita Parsi tweet
Glenn’s response:
A pro-war feminist and pro-war progressive are oxymorons because guns steal from the butter. Guns and regime change in foreign countries aren’t humanitarian regardless of how much those creeps dress it up as such. They are authoritarians and under the right circumstances, all authoritarians are fascists.
Those “With HER” are now being honest. Honestly supporting the nincompoop and fully revealing how disgusting they are. (Not that the ease with which they called those like me Putin lovers wasn’t transparently telling.) Snakes are always more difficult to deal with than overt enemies.
Related:
Adam H Johnson tweet:
Glenn’s response:
Atrios
Obama avoided this particular quagmire. Sad to see some of his advisers supporting Trump.
Seven Lessons From Trump’s Syria Strike
And a bonus: