freeman3 wrote:What I find funny is DF's claim that he opposed the Iraq War. If he did he was quiet as a church mouse about it on Redscape.

Now, RJ was right it probably was wrong to go to the Congress because he should have known that there are many Republicans who would never fail to take an opportunity to embarrass the president.

Ray Jay wrote:Freeman:

Now, RJ was right it probably was wrong to go to the Congress because he should have known that there are many Republicans who would never fail to take an opportunity to embarrass the president.

Because Democrats who oppose the war have consciences and principles whereas Republicans who oppose the war are vindictive and ruled by ODS?

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.

A State Department spokeswoman walked back Kerry’s first slip, but once the White House realized it was the only emergency exit sign around, Kerry walked back the walking back, claiming at a Congressional hearing Tuesday that he did not “misspeak.”

The president countered Kerry’s second slip with NBC’s Savannah Guthrie Monday night, declaring that “The U.S. does not do pinpricks,” which Kerry parroted at the hearing Tuesday, declaring that “We don’t do pinpricks.” For good measure, Obama, in his address to the nation Tuesday night, made sure the world knew: “The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.”

Where the mindlessly certain W. adopted a fig leaf of diplomacy to use force in Iraq, the mindfully uncertain Obama is adopting a fig leaf of force to use diplomacy in Syria.

While the Russians are already cutting deals and drumming up promises from the Syrians—with whom, as they've insisted for years, they have no leverage—and as the world lines up on the off-ramp, the White House was still marshalling its case for a military strike, trotting out National Security Advisor Susan Rice, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and poor Tony Blinken, who was left making the case for two mutually exclusive things: "We'll talk to the Russians," he kept repeating even as he hammered on the intelligence and the need to degrade, deter, et cetera, et cetera.

Last night, President Barack Obama, who, just over a week ago, had said he was ready to act, tells the nation's cable watchers that he's now discussing this bogus plan with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and that he's "going to take this very seriously" while also not letting up on the drumbeat of military strikes while. On Tuesday, Syria said it had accepted Russia's proposal and France said it would seek the UN Security Council's backing for the proposal.

This, in other words, is no light at the end of the tunnel. This, to borrow a phrase from a Congressional staffer at his wits' end, "is an unmitigated clusterf***."

What happened was Kerry went off message and, as has been his wont as Secretary of State, off the reservation, and violated the cardinal rule of official press conferences: He answered a hypothetical question in a hypothetical way. He blurted out a pie-in-the-sky, hyperbolic idea—getting rid of "every single bit" of the chemical weapons scattered across Syria "in the next week"—but everyone seized on it as a realistic proposal. It's not.

freeman3 wrote:Well, this article cites three kinds of Republicans in the Syrian debate: (1) those who are pro-interventionist (like say Senators mcCain or Graham), (2) anti-interventionist libertarian side of the party, and (3) the throng of Republicans eager to undercut the president politically. http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... looms?lite
Sounds right to me. Whereas I don't see why liberal democrats would oppose the president except based on their conscience.

freeman3 wrote:For all this praise of Putin I don't think he is playing a smart game at all. He thinks he is going to embarrass the president but he has involved himself heavily in this Syrian issue. If we don't get complete cooperation from Syria we will launch military strikes. Putin will be humiliated. Is he going to strike back against a vastly more powerful US? He would have been better served by letting Congress say no to Obama. Now he has ramped up the stakes and Obama cannot back down...hmm maybe be time for a visit to the survivalist store for some supplies....

and Obama can't back down

GMTom wrote:FYI, I had asked why it was ok to attack Syria
the reply given was
1. Moral
2. Political
3. Strategic
But the same trio of reasons were in play for Iraq, yet why do you claim that was wrong?
Iraq had greater moral reasons, greater political reasons and greater strategic reasons yet it was wrong...why is Syria so different? Why was Libya so different? Why is the Congo not added to your list of places to be involved in? Again, your reasons are not sound and not applied evenly to all are they? How could anyone actually support the Presidents "red line" statement while not accepting what Bush had done/said? Could this be in fact political partisanship?

Ray Jay wrote:Please Tom; you are confused. I'm the one who provided the 3 reasons, and I'm not an Obama partisan. In fact, I voted for Romney.