Ray Jay wrote:Brad: McCain -

Hawk under Bush/ dove under Obama
Graham - Hawk under Bush/ dove under Obama

Both McCain and Graham have been consistently pro intervention, right?

But when push comes to shove, they back off of the President's proposal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577304579054973488682120.html

They both want strikes, but look political in the way they are opposing Obama. The "dove" term is somewhat sarcastic because of their politicizing. Hence, the politicizing comment...

And to answer the callousness comment:
Politically, I do not care. Let the Arab League deal with it. It is not a direct threat to the US.

Does it represent my view of my fellow man? No.
It represents a view of the US's responsibility in this world. Let others take this one. We have done enough...

Trying to weasel his way out of this red line statement is a joke. He said it, he was clear as to his meaning and his intent.
He now claims:

"I didn't set a red line, the world set a red line," he said. "The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of world population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent." He added that "Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty."

But what he originally stated:

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

...hard to now say he didn't set the red line isn't it?
He said it, he thinks this way, he can say the 98% of the world has stated earlier they agree with him, but to try and squirm out of saying what came out of his mouth and trying to change the meaning makes him look like a first class turd doesn't it?

When Obama said he has Israel's back vis-à-vis Iran, he meant if they need chiropractic help he can do an alignment (if authorized by Congress)..

bbauska wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Brad: McCain -

Hawk under Bush/ dove under Obama
Graham - Hawk under Bush/ dove under Obama

Both McCain and Graham have been consistently pro intervention, right?

But when push comes to shove, they back off of the President's proposal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577304579054973488682120.html

They both want strikes, but look political in the way they are opposing Obama. The "dove" term is somewhat sarcastic because of their politicizing. Hence, the politicizing comment...

I don't get your drift. McCain does think that the draft is too dovish. He thinks we should have intervened 2 years ago (and given that there are 100,000 dead and 2 million out of country refugees and even more in country refugees, he may well be right).. Say what you like, but it's clear that McCain ISN'T playing politics; he's asserting his view (right or wrong). I also think it is commendable that Boehner, Cantor, and others are being statesmen about this.

Ray Jay,
Let me make it clear, and sorry for not writing it clearly enough. I am frustrated with both sides saying they either support or do not support a position that is the opposite of what they supported with the prior administration. With Bush; McCain and Graham were falling all over themselves to be the most hawkish. Not they do not support the Obama position. It makes them look political. Reid and Pelosi at the same the opposite direction.

Perhaps I am being too cynical.

bbauska wrote:Ray Jay,
Let me make it clear, and sorry for not writing it clearly enough. I am frustrated with both sides saying they either support or do not support a position that is the opposite of what they supported with the prior administration. With Bush; McCain and Graham were falling all over themselves to be the most hawkish. Not they do not support the Obama position. It makes them look political. Reid and Pelosi at the same the opposite direction.

Perhaps I am being too cynical.

Sorry, I don't get it either. McCain has been arguing for intervention in Syria (no-fly zones, etc.) for a very long time. McCain was the politician who first championed "the Surge" in Iraq. If there is an interventionist spirit in the Congress, it is consistently John McCain.

Just because you favoured or opposed one war it doesn't automatically follow that you have to do the same for another one. Those who opposed Iraq may well feel that the humanitarian case for intervention in Syria is much stronger, while those who supported Iraq might oppose intervention in Syria because they're not convinced that the national interest is strong enough to justify it.

sass

Just because you favoured or opposed one war it doesn't automatically follow that you have to do the same for another one

Nor does it mean that the actions taken are always equivalent.

ray

When Obama said he has Israel's back vis-à-vis Iran, he meant if they need chiropractic help he can do an alignment (if authorized by Congress

Israel has bombed specific weapons systems 3 times in Syria...(With no response from Syria)
Do you really think there isn't some kind of constant cooperation going on between the US and Israel?

rickyp wrote:
ray

When Obama said he has Israel's back vis-à-vis Iran, he meant if they need chiropractic help he can do an alignment (if authorized by Congress

Israel has bombed specific weapons systems 3 times in Syria...(With no response from Syria)
Do you really think there isn't some kind of constant cooperation going on between the US and Syria?

That doesn't mean Obama will do as he says.

bbauska wrote:They both want strikes, but look political in the way they are opposing Obama. The "dove" term is somewhat sarcastic because of their politicizing. Hence, the politicizing comment...

Still don't get it. I don't actually think McCain is being 'political' (not as sure about Graham), but is clearly more of a 'hawk', as he moved a stronger amendment to the wording from the Senate committee. McCain is not 'opposing' Obama, he's working with him and pushing for more.

And anyway, your point about the 'left' was still silly and crass.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:They both want strikes, but look political in the way they are opposing Obama. The "dove" term is somewhat sarcastic because of their politicizing. Hence, the politicizing comment...

Still don't get it. I don't actually think McCain is being 'political' (not as sure about Graham), but is clearly more of a 'hawk', as he moved a stronger amendment to the wording from the Senate committee. McCain is not 'opposing' Obama, he's working with him and pushing for more.

Could not agree more. If McCain had his way, there would be no-fly zones, the arming and training of rebel forces, everything we (US) could do to topple Assad.

The question remains: what is President Obama really after? Is it just to affirm his ill-spoken "red line" that he now denies drawing?

Lobbing some cruise missiles and forcing government forces to duck for a few days won't have much effect. So, what if Assad uses chemical weapons again? Do we invade? Slap him again with another "strike?"

What is the plan? What is the objective? Do the means match the objective?

Do you think Pelosi and Reid would be supporting Bush II for an attack on Syria if he were President?

I do not.

As for the McCain comment; if it causes so much angst, I will withdraw it. I consider McCain to be wavering in the wind as much as Graham on many issues. Immigration, Debt/deficit and others. They both do not have my admiration when it comes to backbone. I don't trust either one.

bbauska wrote:Do you think Pelosi and Reid would be supporting Bush II for an attack on Syria if he were President?

I do not.

It is an untestable hypothetical. However, let's look at an analogous situation - how did they vote in 2002 -3 when Bush II went to Congress on attacking Iraq?

Pelosi was against the Iraq war (Iraq War Vote in 2002: 156 Congress Members Who Voted NO),and Reid was for for it (Who voted for it...).

Ignore the politics of those two links, the lists of which Democrats voted for Iraq are from the roll calls.

Again, suggesting that the 'left' is not the homogeneous mass you assume.

Of all the various aspects we could be discussing here, don't you think this is about the least important ?

"Politician in not always acting entirely consistently shock !"