Misleading AP headline: "Obama has bipartisan support for Syria strike"

[David Krout]

By reading the title, most readers would not know that the AP is referring only to Republican and Democrats leaders, who represent a tiny minority of all Congress members. The "leaders" rarely pass on opportunities to kiss Obama's ass, as we have seen in the NSA controversy.

It's also worth pointing out that the Congress members who usually get more $$$ from the military/defense lobby are these same leaders.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's call for a military strike in Syria won significant momentum Tuesday, with leaders of both parties in Congress announcing they are convinced that Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own people and that the United States should respond.

Both pro-war and anti-war sides have bipartisan support, so AP might as well have said, "Obama has bipartisan opposition". The question is how much bipartisan support they will gather at the end.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-03-12-45-52

[JRLeft]

1. You know what convinced them?

[shenmue]

3. Or, it could be they give a damn about the kids in Syria.

We don't do as much business with Syria as we do with many other countries. I don't see money as the prime reason. We're probably going to lose money if we go in, i.e. spend it, not earn it.

Could be they want to act on proof that the leader of Syria is gassing civilians to death.

[JRLeft]

5. What about the previous 5000 deaths a month for 2 years?

Please, I wasn't born yesterday and won't by our governments propaganda. Especially when it comes too war. Children are being slaughtered in multiple countries and we aren't doing shit.

You need to wake up my friend and smell the profit margin when it is available.

[DirkGently]

2. Seems like Republican-appeasement-palooza lately.

First standing against NSA reform, now for a new military engagement in the Middle East.

The White House and top Republicans, shoulder to shoulder. Again.

What are we supposed to run on in 2016 -- "The New Democrats: We do the things Republicans like?"

[leftstreet]

4. Pretty creepy. Appeasing a party the voters annihilated

2006 and 2008 saw the GOP, and its failed alliance with Reaganomics and the Religious Right, decimated as a party and a platform

But...they're back!

[cthulu2016]

6. AP is correct

Boehnner and Pelosi are both for it, and are the leaders of their respective parties in the House.

And that means a great deal.

[SidDithers]

7. AP headline seems accurate...

Based on what think progress is reporting.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/09/02/2561371/congress-support-military-action-syria-thinkprogress-whip-count/



Sid

[karynnj]

8. The media referred to bipartisan passage of a bill when we got a handfull of Republicans

to not filibuster back when we had 59 Senators and the House.

If they said Obama has majority support then your outrage would be more correct.

[pampango]

9. "The leaders rarely pass on opportunities to kiss Obama's ass ...". I've seen Boehner and McConnell

accused of a lot of things, rightly so, but this is the first time I remember them being accused of "rarely pass on opportunities to kiss Obama's ass".

I agree that both sides have bipartisanship. The partisan split on the vote will be interesting, but so will the tea party caucus vs. "moderate" republicans and the Progressive Caucus vs. "moderate" Democrats. To date the tea party caucus is 20-No, 1-Yes, 3-Undecided; the Progressive Caucus is 18-No, 10-Yes, 7-Undecided.

[RobertEarl]

10. Boehner is kissing Obamas ass

Can you believe it? All this time he has been opposed to Obama but when it comes to spying and bombing, Boehner climbs in bed with Obama!

[SidDithers]

11. Bipartisan support...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023596711

Sid

[Supersedeas]

12. and also bipartisan opposition