General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe White House's handling of Syria is *historically* crazy
Last edited Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:52 AM - Edit history (1)
I can't recall anything so weird. The President and his staff:
- threw the UN out of Syria early so we could bomb
- then suddenly turned to Congress for a non-binding vote (which will certainly fail thanks to House Republicans)
- have put forth all sorts of easily-refutable information, ranging from the number of gas deaths to the number of Islamic crazies in the Syrian opposition - you know, the opposition who are on video executing and eating the internal organs of their enemies?
- are waging the most powerful and comprehensive campaign since his election to win a fight he can't possibly win, and to make damned sure that the 80% of Americans who disagree with him on this issue know that he thinks they suck.
Obama's going to tape 6 interviews with the major news anchors? Really? How about doing those interviews on the obliterated middle class, homelessness, world hunger, or something else more actionable then the Syria disaster?
This will go down in history as a very bizarre and self-ruinous episode, sort of the Pickett's Charge of American politics.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jsr
(7,712 posts)Just watch. Obama will win big, financially speaking.
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)multi dimensional multi universe intergalactic chess...........with a Cherri on top 
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I don't know why someone in their right mind would be so aggressively pushing for a move that has every possibility of igniting a catastrophic regional war and further inflaming tensions between two of the top oil producers in the gulf.
Unless they were buying into PNAC's agenda, of course.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"This will go down in history as a very bizarre and self-ruinous episode, sort of the Pickett's Charge of American politics."
...followed the lead of other Presidents, and just do it. Still, I think you're wrong.
By Steve Benen
<...>
Over the last several days, members of Congress have spoken out with a variety of opinions about U.S. policy towards Syria, but lawmakers were in broad agreement about one thing: they wanted President Obama to engage Congress on the use of military force. Few expected the White House to take the requests too seriously...Because over the last several decades, presidents in both parties have increasingly consolidated authority over national security matters, tilting practically all power over the use of force towards the Oval Office and away from the legislative branch. Whereas the Constitution and the War Powers Act intended to serve as checks on presidential authority on military intervention abroad, there's been a gradual (ahem) drift away from these institutional norms...until this afternoon, when President Obama stunned everyone, announcing his decision to seek "authorization" from a co-equal branch of government.
It's one of those terrific examples of good politics and good policy. On the former, the American public clearly endorses the idea of Congress giving its approval before military strikes begin. On the latter, at the risk of putting too fine a point on this, Obama's move away from unilateralism reflects how our constitutional, democratic system of government is supposed to work.
Arguably the most amazing response to the news came from Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterintelligence & Terrorism, and a member of the House Intelligence Committee:
"President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents. The President does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria."
This is one of those remarkable moments when a prominent member of Congress urges the White House to circumvent Congress, even after many of his colleagues spent the week making the exact opposite argument.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/31/20273174-congress-be-careful-what-you-wish-for
Crash Course: A Guide To 30 Years Of U.S. Military Strikes Against Other Nations
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/crash-course-a-guide-to-30-years-of-us-military-strikes-against-other-nations.php
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)
tblue37
(68,436 posts)the sort of thing the Constitution was designed to prevent, and allowing the president to behave like an emperor has done great harm to this country. We don't want Obama to behave like Bush!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Congress appears unwilling to do its job.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023622649
bobduca
(1,763 posts)the mask is slipping ProSense...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)without Congressional approval, complaining because he took the case to Congress and complaining that he's making the case to the American people, it's not my "mask is slipping."
Some people evidently love complaining.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)That supposition is at least as baffling as the White House's handling of Syria.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023622649
It has long been clear that some members of Congress would rather not go on record.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Is one saying the President is inherently wrong, the other that the President is mishandling the situation?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Is one saying the President is inherently wrong, the other that the President is mishandling the situation? "
One (King) is an asshole, and the other is proposing that no vote be held because there isn't support.
That's not a good enough reason for Congress to shirk its responsibility, especially after demanding that the President engage Congress.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)So I'm not sure how McGovern's looking to shirking his responsibility. I don't think the Constitution calls on Congress to advise the President on war.
If I were in Congress, I might refuse to vote unless it was binding.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023609333
...will not, but that could likely change with UN backing.
"If I were in Congress, I might refuse to vote unless it was binding."
That's not for the President to decide. Congress decides if it's binding.
Refusing to vote is shirking their responsibility.
Sanddog42
(117 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)He should have told Congress he would abide by their decision. This way the only decision Congress has to make is to be seen as supporting him or not. The Republicans will vote no.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)is just not adding up, not smelling right.
marew
(1,588 posts)I said something very similar earlier today. This is more out of whack than usual.
And we are talking about using weapons and probably killing more people while nothing is being said about sending immediate emergency humanitarian aid for refugees who- according to S. Gupta- desperately need our help right now. I also feel strongly something "is just not adding up" here.
There is no way Kerry can be sure that military action would not make things worse. No way!
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)The whole thing is "off".
reformist2
(9,841 posts)It's not a dictatorship we live in (no need to be alarmist), but it is more precisely an oligarchy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have have turned out to have been funneled to them by extremely questionable sources and have already been undermined as far as their legitimacy all over the world.
They THOUGHT they could sell this quickly by using fear and horror and quickly assigning blame to the desired target. They knew once it began the objections would fade away, so the game is to 'do it quickly'.
But they didn't count on the fact that people now know the LIES that were told to get us into Iraq. That people remember Curveball and all the other propaganda that led to that enormous tragedy.
So they used it again and appear to be stunned that it all still sounds so familiar.
And the British Parliament, still hearing from their constituents about the lies told by Blair, Blair still being called to account periodically there, who will probably go down in history as a 'puppet' of the US, were not about to go blindly into another fiasco.
They are still using the made-up numbers eg, which reveals that their 'intel' is FALSE.
I have come to the conclusion that the US is just the Police Force for the Global 1% and that our elected officials will always try to accommodate their bosses.
The only problem with that if true, is that we the people were not part of that decision or even aware of it.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)
Raksha
(7,167 posts)As usual, you summed up the situation perfectly.
Re "They THOUGHT they could sell this quickly by using fear and horror and quickly assigning blame to the desired target. They knew once it began the objections would fade away, so the game is to 'do it quickly'.
But they didn't count on the fact that people now know the LIES that were told to get us into Iraq. That people remember Curveball and all the other propaganda that led to that enormous tragedy.
So they used it again and appear to be stunned that it all still sounds so familiar.
And the British Parliament, still hearing from their constituents about the lies told by Blair, Blair still being called to account periodically there, who will probably go down in history as a 'puppet' of the US, were not about to go blindly into another fiasco.
They are still using the made-up numbers eg, which reveals that their 'intel' is FALSE."
How they expected to recycle the SAME lies that got us embroiled in Iraq--and get away with it!--is beyond me.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)I've never heard that lies have a certain smell, but I suppose they could be said to smell like three day old fish.
They are lying to us.
They are lying to us.
They are lying to us.
They are lying to us.
They are lying to us.
They are lying to us.
They are lying to us.
They are lying to us.
They are lying to us.
They are lying to us.
They are lying to us.
They are lying to us.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)WMD were used in Syria, so they don't want Iran to assume acquiring/using WMD ensures their safety from Western forces. However, since no one has invaded N. Korea this pretty much shows that a message can't be really be sent. Chemical weapons are much lower in human and ecological destruction than nuclear weapons....not even close.
delrem
(9,688 posts)The question is whether the average US citizen, cocooned in the MSM, knows.
I want to give a big shout out to all the DUers who're investing time and energy into out-shouting the massive pro-war propaganda (inevitable in every war, esp. wars of aggression).
I think we, as an interconnected community, are making our voices heard.
LukeFL
(594 posts)Scratching my head
leftstreet
(40,669 posts)Obama was for limited strikes
Kerry gets sent out to make a case
UK votes 'uh, I don't think so'
Obama changes his mind and says he'll go to Congress
wandy
(3,539 posts)This is not typical of Obama. How many time have we wanted him to be more aggressive? Now this?
John Kerry...
Are you sure this is John Kerry?
More, what a place to pick a fight. I can see no way that the purposed involvement in Syria will not do more harm than good.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)The President threw the inspectors out of Syria three hours early?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Originally supposed to leave on Sunday:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/un-inspectors-leave-syria-early
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)I agree, Barack Obama is history's worst monster.
Come. On.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I think you're better than putting words in people's mouths.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)I don't either, for the record.
Now. This foolishness of saying Obama threw the inspectors out of Syria. When are you going to quit that bullshit, Manny?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The UN is keeping mum, AFAIK. In fact, because of this surprise move, they were unable to visit the sites that originally brought them to Syria.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/un-inspectors-are-leaving-syria-early/68928/
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)This is a link within your link. It says they left because Ban ordered them out so they could report directly and immediately to him. The chain of custody rules they use are very strict. Mailing the evidence is not possible. The evidence has to remain with the inspectors at all times.
The Guardian article also says they spent three unscheduled days at the August 21 site. Since they were in the country to go to those other sites, why did they go there instead? Because the August 21 attack happened while they were in the country. They made the right decision to go to the new attack site and concentrate their efforts there. Once they were done there, the UN would have enough evidence one way or another to say what was going on. Though initial sites had not been sampled, they were no longer necessary. The primary importance was getting the evidence safely out of Syria then.
Ban also wanted a quicker interim report. According to the Guardian article, the US had already agreed to wait for a second debate in the UK. There was still some question of the US acting with France or striking alone, though. The situation was in flux. So the quicker the UN could get a report out, the better. Having enough evidence with the August 21 attack investigation (something they could have cut short and gotten to those sites), the team left earlier so they could get the report out that much earlier.
And as further argument they did not leave because of an imminent US strike: over 1,000 UN humanitarian workers remain in Syria this very day. If the UN had been tipped off to a US strike, they would have pulled everyone.
So, back to my question to you, Manny: when are you going to quit with this bullshit?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)(Reuters) - The United Nations on Saturday vehemently rejected suggestions that the world body was somehow stepping aside to allow U.S. air strikes on Syria and said its humanitarian work in the conflict-ravaged country would continue.
"I have seen all kinds of reporting suggesting that the departure of the chemical weapons team somehow opens a window for military action of some kind," U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky told reporters.
"Frankly, that's grotesque, and it's also an affront to the more than 1,000 staff, U.N. staff, who are on the ground in Syria delivering humanitarian aid and who will continue to deliver critical aid," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/31/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE97U0AD20130831
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023570049
JI7
(93,615 posts)that Obama told them to leave so he could strike before leaving .
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)
Well.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Why are folks so adamant about believing in President Obama when things don't seem to make sense? Please, admit that this seems like a series of weird, weird moves.
You know, common sense is not such a bad thing. I haven't seen such great results from 11 dimensional chess so far.
Occam's Razor anyone?
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)Since the President didn't throw the inspectors out, it could not be the beginning of a series of weird moves, now, could it?
What is your Occam's razor telling you about what's going down?
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)It's rank bullshit to say Obama threw them out a day early. Can you not hear yourself or is the joy at turning Obama into Bush that intoxicating?
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)But they left a day early because before the UK vote, Obama signaled clearly that we would strike in that region and in that time frame.
Their choice was leave early or risk getting blown up by our so-called surgical strikes.
The rest of your post is not worthy of my time or effort.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)It's rather disingenuous of you to forswear the OP when that is what I've been responding to.
So the UN pulled the inspectors because of imminent strikes but didn't pull the over 1,000 humanitarian workers they have in Syria? A likely story.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)vlakitti
(401 posts)was the perfect alalogy for this ballsup. Accurate! And damned elegant, too!
pkdu
(3,977 posts)then 2 more in last 90 days
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)means more than words.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)is elegant, whether or not that person is a troll because of their low post count, which, btw, isn't the only way to assess for trolls.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)make sense.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)is what wasn't thought through here. Or that it's comparable to what Bush did in Iraq.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)The Congress could reject the military intervention, which would be historic and put back some much needed faith into our political system. In my humble opinion. Of course, the cynical side of me says that they still might approve it, because this emotional manipulation seems to be just getting started of showing ghastly videos of the chemical attacks, and "Think of the children!" could be a powerful tool to sway the general public.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I won't believe it until the vote is passed.
Obama can still ramp up the rhetoric until then as backing down before a vote would be silly, he's already got his foot in his mouth. After a vote he can come off as extremely willing to listen to the constituents, to the people, and actually turn it into a glorious win.
I'm thinking of Chained-CPI and the Health Care debate here, where Obama put everything on the table, every-fucking-thing except what we want, of course. And it's like he's doing it. Again. Only this time bombs are involved.
CrispyQ
(40,969 posts)"No matter how cynical I am, I can't keep up." ~Lily Tomlin
tavalon
(27,985 posts)and give humanitarian aid to the third of Syrians who have been run out of their homes and we should put the screws to the leaders of that wretched country, no more. How is bombing the shit out of a country going to help the children one whit? I know, preaching to the choir.
wilsonbooks
(972 posts)
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Not worth the time for Dave Gregory to pull on his Spanx and plug in his hair dryer. Bombing brown people, THAT is hawt!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)to fight for something and this is what he choses?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)forgetting that at heart he would be presiding over an imperialist system, a system which generates its own internal logic (ginning up humanitarian bullshit propaganda as a pretext for military aggression being only the most obvious iteration).
I include myself in those temporarily seduced by Obama. For me, the 'tell' came when Obama announced he was looking forward, rather than backward, an insult to any sentient being who understands that all criminal culpability must of necessity take place in the past.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)And how it will leave an INDELIBLE mark or stain on Obama's presidency.
The predictions always crack me up.
delrem
(9,688 posts)His legacy will be a seamless transition GWB(R) -> BHO(D), regarding the PNAC agenda, an extremely hawkish and imperialist US military foreign policy that's been spelled out many times.
BOGers are betting that the PNAC agenda will, over sufficient time, prove beneficial to the USA, so they are foursquare behind Obama's escalation of the NSA/MIC advances made during GWB's admin (and before). Obama *of course* absolved the GWB admin of every one of its crimes, however heinous, however murderous and cowardly and contemptible. That's all part of moving forward to implement the identical PNAC agenda, never looking back at culpability, at questions of morality.
But then you and I disagree, don't we...
loudsue
(14,087 posts)It's amazing how some people EVEN on DU have short memories about that little policy paper that happens to run our country.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)into the crapper.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Not only did he come to office after one of the worst presidencies in US history, but he offered so much hope for millions. He ran as the "anti Bush", yet he has followed many of his policies. Had he just lived up to his rhetoric, Obama could have been one of our greatest presidents. I wonder if he'll ever realize that.
Triana
(22,666 posts)
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)by doing this he`s forcing the house and senate to listen to the will of the people. if they come back with a no vote then he has two choices.he either stands by his decision to go to war or he will seek another solution.
it`s going to be a very interesting next few weeks in the history of our republic
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Obama does not need Congressional okay for airstrikes, however he does need need Congress's okay for boot on the ground
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Which article and section is that from?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past, for example, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for alleged violations.
This page was last modified on 8 September 2013 at 20:36.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
so IOW I was wrong the POTUS can indeed send ground troops in without Congressional okay but only for a limited time
pscot
(21,044 posts)Millions more Americans could be working now. If he'd showed this much energy on health care, we could have single payer now. And he hasn't made 5 speeches on climate and energy in the 5 years he's been president. His priorities are showing.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)I have no surprise left in me about the nature of this President.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)if the gop can claim credit for turning this away it breathes life back into them nationally and makes them look like the good guys
this is a major down for democratic party candidates in 14
now they will either have to run as backing the action against the will of the majority or opposing the president on it
the gop has an opportunity to make a lot of political gain from this and coming away with clean hands however it falls out
delrem
(9,688 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Politics is and always has been a gutter fight. Just sayin'.
Response to HangOnKids (Reply #47)
Post removed
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)action vs. inaction toward WMD warfare, America's role in the world, future challenges regarding dictators and states using WMD's (specifically Iran), and how much he's going to allow rivals like Russia and China to poke the US in the eye and tie up the UN. He has a responsibility, he thinks, to keep America at the forefront of international issues and enforcement of treaties and humanitarian causes--doesn't want to have US influence wane on his watch. RWers mocked Obama for "leading from behind" in Libya, but when he decides that it might be worth taking the lead on this, everyone including Repubs suddenly shit their pants. It's not that puzzling if you take it at face value that maybe he really believes he's doing the right (if unpopular and scary) thing.
delrem
(9,688 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)and if they do, they certainly didn't use them, it's a hoax...and Obama's just serving his MIC masters, $$$, oil, gas pipeline, etc. etc.
delrem
(9,688 posts)It, and you, don't merit further thought.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)retaining control over Defense, I opposed the IWR yes voting Hagel. You desired this war, you pushed for a Republican to be in charge of this war.
You got Hagel and bombing, you should be thrilled.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The Obama "Limited" Intervention has changed Libya from a largely secular state with the highest standard of living in North Africa into a factionalized HELL dominated by Islamic Fundamentalists that have just voted Sharia Law as its new constitution.
Libya, and North Africa, was much better off BEFORE we got involved smashing things and killing Libyans.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD27Ak01.html
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)post of yours offers a really compelling and non-judjmental look at how Obama may perceive things and why he is behaving the way he is. As such, you might want to consider fashioning it into an OP to counter Manny's equally compelling OP here.
There's a paradox at play here, though, accepting your argument. To wit, in attempting "to keep America at the forefront of international issues," Obama may be showing that the Emperor has no clothes, that our days as enforcer of a post-1945 global pax Americana have permanently waned.
Definitely a thought-provoking post, though. My sincere compliments.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)can understand why Obama might want to do it. I disagree with intervening in the civil war aspect, and arming the rebel forces. Wish we weren't doing that.
dkf
(37,305 posts)
FourScore
(9,704 posts)Maybe this is the only way he could do it. I've never seen the right and the left so unified!
bobduca
(1,763 posts)In Opposition
Chaco Dundee
(334 posts)We had irak,horrible.afghanistan and how many other wars,us,the beacon of freedom.have you ever really seen war? Its not pretty.it does not matter if its missiles,bombs or boots on the ground.when your enemy,who you have no personal problem with is burned to a crisp and still sreams when you think it should long be over and his best body ,his spotter is screming and trying to put his guts back into his stomach cavity knowing its not going to work but he can't go and will have to deal with that possibly for a day or two you become a hero for taking those two out.the following day your best Buddy at this time gets taken out that way and you can't look away. Ups,I should have never mentioned that litlle inconvenience.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)There are still craters in some European cities where the WWII bombs hit. Even young people there have had a talk or two with older adults who let them know that war is to be avoided whenever possible.
Those older people can explain how war is blood, and guts, and gore, and terrible smells, and rationing and hunger. Loved ones being killed, the fear that at any moment you could be killed yourself,. Losing loved ones. And more fear.
90% of Americans have nothing to base an aversion to war on. Even after Nine Eleven, our President at the time told everybody, "Just keep shopping!"
Chaco Dundee
(334 posts)You figured out that I'm european.I got stuck with the real thing twice.did not make me a hero.whorshipping war is what makes me thick.there are reasons for war,if you have to defend your country,unilateral agression is always wrong.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)The Man He Killed
Had he and I but met
By some old ancient inn,
We should have set us down to wet
Right many a nipperkin!
But ranged as infantry,
And staring face to face,
I shot at him as he at me,
And killed him in his place.
I shot him dead because--
Because he was my foe,
Just so: my foe of course he was;
That's clear enough; although
He thought he'd 'list, perhaps,
Off-hand like--just as I--
Was out of work--had sold his traps--
No other reason why.
Yes; quaint and curious war is!
You shoot a fellow down
You'd treat, if met where any bar is,
Or help to half a crown.
****************************
Your post deserves to be emblazoned across DU's Front\Home page.
Chaco Dundee
(334 posts)That poem says it all.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Dover Beach
The sea is calm to-night.
The tide is full, the moon lies fair
Upon the straits;--on the French coast the light
Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand,
Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
Come to the window, sweet is the night-air!
Only, from the long line of spray
Where the sea meets the moon-blanch'd land,
Listen! you hear the grating roar
Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
At their return, up the high strand,
Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
The eternal note of sadness in.
Sophocles long ago
Heard it on the Aegean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.
The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.
Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
*********************
I've always thought the final three lines (and the final stanza in whole) could serve as a motto for the 20th Century and our own.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)He titled his book about the Vietnam anti-war movement "Armies of the Night."
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)writer.
Until Heller's Catch 22, I think Mailer's The Naked and the Dead may have been the best World War II novel (at least in English). Jones' From Here to Eternity is also great but ends with Pearl Harbor.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)- threw the UN out of Syria early so we could bomb
- then suddenly turned to Congress for a non-binding vote (which will certainly fail thanks to House Republicans)
- have put forth all sorts of easily-refutable information, ranging from the number of gas deaths to the number of Islamic crazies in the Syrian opposition - you know, the opposition who are on video executing and eating the internal organs of their enemies?
- are waging the most powerful and comprehensive campaign since his election to win a fight he can't possibly win, and to make damned sure that the 80% of Americans who disagree with him on this issue know that he thinks they suck.
When did he throw out inspectors?
Do you believe he'll fire missiles even if Congress votes no? I don't.
If the number of gas deaths and "Islamic crazies" is "easily refutable information" then do so. Show me where the administration got is wrong and you can prove what's right. Sorry, but no, I don't take your word for it.
How has the President led you to believe he thinks you suck? Frankly, it seems like some people have a victim-complex. Perhaps the President is doing what he believes is right and isn't thinking specifically of you at all. He has a difficult issue to deal with and despite the conspiracy theories that abound, it's quite possible he simply feels an obligation to do something in light of the chemical attacks in Syria.
David__77
(24,727 posts)It is one of the weirder chapters in the country's politics.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)present any sort of common sense look at the future, should we do a military attack.
Kerry's brain worm on the issue:
The rebels are now moderates, or at least not totally crazy, says Kerry. And just because until like three weeks ago, anyone who understood that area understood the rebels to be Al Queda, well, surely we can trust Al Queda. At least if they are "Syrian" Al Queda. After all, it's all about "leaning forward," and forgetting the past.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)I just can't wrap my mind around the actions and rhetoric of Kerry and Obama.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Beartracks
(14,591 posts)Actually, I think that movie came out about 10 years ago. I remember seeing it before.
=======================
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...then all the rhetoric will have some bit of backing as he can legitimately say "Hey, I tried everything in my power but the US people didn't want me to do anything. I'm willing to do whatever it takes, but the UN is going to have to sign off on it. I suggest hard sanctions as well as a demand to destroy the chemical weapons."
I'm not arguing for N-dimensional chess here, but I don't think he's stupid, and if he backs down after all this campaigning for it then he's going to look very weak and his advisers are already making that clear I'm sure.
Then, a weak seeming US military (one beholden to the people as opposed to the plutocrats) might be what the world needs right now. But to think of that scenario is taking N-dimensional chess to a level never before conceived and I am not arguing that right now.
Otherwise I agree that it's ass-backward unless it really is intentional and Obama does realize he's got nothing.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,685 posts)Imagine
polynomial
(750 posts)Talk about insane, incredible turn around for President Obama and his advisors. What happens to the evidence, the real stuff that determine truth in this Syrian civil war. As an example; that the truly weird mental breakdown of America’s News Journalist Group is happening right before our eyes.
Many can remember MSNBC going to the public with free clinics that helped make a survey in the needs of many Americans in the south especially New Orleans. Then to address what is needed to solve the problem. It seemed that the media finally saw the power it has to resolve problems in society. But now America observes a replay on the flip side to notice the war mongering is in full throttle. So Americans are punked again. This switching is getting obnoxious as Arabs are deciders for our war. Game switching as such sounds very Persian.
It is very possible with not much effort to give medical aid and material to Syrian hardship situations. But, it is in uncommon sense to lobe bombs into areas that likely will cause collateral damage. Besides very intended consequences by Soviets, Chinese, and especially the Republican Arab Bush Cheney Halliburton Carlyle group all lined up ready to strip President Obama for fooling around in Syria. This is a lose lose battle for Democrats and a win win secret derivative Cayman Island SnowMan ( part Snowden and part Manning) profiteering convention for the Republican Al Qaeda.
The Cayman island bankers are dizzy making free speech money…
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,847 posts)If he wasn't fully committed to a military response to the use of chemical weapons he should have never made that commitment in the first place. If he made the commitment and then thought better of it he should have never referenced the commitment when chemical weapons were used and said he would act militarily. Then having said he would act militarily he should have never thrown it to Congress where they are not going to give him authorization. Now that he knows he's not going to get authorization he's doing everything he can to bring as much light as possible to this fact.
It's profoundly disappointing. His legacy, his agenda, and the short term future of the Democratic party is at risk. You can bookmark this post. Even with the caveat that November of 2014 is a a long time away we weren't in particularly good shape going into the 2014 mid terms. 2016 should be ok because presidential elections are high turn events. Mid term elections are lower turn out events where the most passionate vote and the passion is on the side of the anti-Obama forces.
Again, I wish he never referenced a red line and didn't refer to it when it was crossed.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)On Friday, and pointed out to the comments' line operator that this go to war stance ruins the Democrat brand.
But I think there are two mitigating factors about this particular military stance:
One: the whole Brouhaha over Syria has removed Benghazi, the IRS tax scandal, and the NSA totalitarian surveillance state from the headlines.
Two: Who will we ever get to vote for? IF we don't vote a Democratic ticket, as far as the President, then we get the women should be barefoot and pregnant crowd of nutso Republicans in office.
So the public is rather backed into a corner.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)I heartily concur with you otherwise.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)know that he thinks they suck."
He'll blame it on us liberals. Just watch him.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)first CoS (Rahm) did prior to the 2010 mid-terms, after which it was patently obvious who was fucking retarded.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Otherwise why build this political death trap and stand inside it?
America's not buying it.
Congress won't approve it.
So now the options are backing down or acting unilaterally and dealing a crushing body blow to himself and the party.
Makes no sense, but it could result in the destruction of the premise that U.S. Presidents can wage war on their own.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)?!
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)Immediately brought up bad memories of Iraq. That sealed it for most people.
The rest is just icing.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)They want war but dont want to support him. If they vote no, they will be able to say they didnt support Obama and yet still get the war they love.
The Congressional Democrats are screwed. If they vote no and he bombs anywayz, they will look like they didnt support their Democratic leader in a time of war. If they vote yes, then they clearly will look like they support war which is not popular with Democratic voters.
If Congress votes no and he bombs anyway, he will be strengthening the Unitary Executive Theory that the conservatives are drooling for.
So it looks to me like a win-win-win for the Powers To Be and their Republican army.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)how one man could almost single-handedly rescue a decrepit party from the brink of historical oblivion.
Sorry for the mixed metaphors. Still trying to wrap my head around the consequences of this debacle.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Hestia
(3,818 posts)votes against Obama, I think it will help in 2014 - that We Aren't the Party that Wages War. The GOP was/is going along with us because we stand for a principal not against a person. Oh, maybe in the beginning they'll gain a bit of traction but then they'll open their mouths and all doubt about who and what they are will once again rear its ugly head. There's lots of time for the players to be sorted out by Nov. 2014.
To me -- we are seeing the curtain slip on the major stage - all the countries making their stand but at the same time we are given a peek at their real game plan, which appears to be US against Russia and oil and another pipeline. [sidebar] It's all TPTB know and it's all that they can throw at us. They have nothing else - because like the dark/evil side of life, they cannot create, they can only destroy and they can only do it for so long before their glamour melts. They cannot honestly keep this up forever because it takes too much energy to keep it going. They'll burn themselves out. It's inevitable if we keep on fighting for goodness and justice and truth and beauty.
Maybe Obama understands the whole Russia, Bandar, pipeline, who knows, he certainly doesn't let us as a party know what in the hell is going on - but let's say, for arguments sake, that he does and inwardly he's against bombing Syria. UK voted against it, our Congress votes against it - he can shrug his shoulders and tell Bandar, oh well, I tried, now it's time for diplomacy and sanctions, which have been working against Iran. He will lose absolutely nothing if this happens because actually people will respect him more for not being sucked into their little game plan.
As an adult, I do hope that is what he is thinking - not getting us into *another* war we can't win. Afterwards, hold his feet to the fire regarding Global Warming, Homelessness, Hunger, Poverty, Joblessness. In a way, it'll be our win and let's go further than just Syria; keep the momentum going. If not, well, the 1% win again and that just.really.can't.happen. Not if we all want a country that we can live with.
As always, YMMV
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Ocelot
(227 posts)We'll be fortunate if this doesn't go down as World War 3 AND The Great Depression on Steroids. Obama is a danger to the American people and the entire planet.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)He's a madman.
Ocelot
(227 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Maybe the President just knows what he's doing. I mean, everytime the hyperbole begins to fly, he proves the wrong. Maybe this time will be different?
Ocelot
(227 posts)I won't be waiting for that to happen.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Just a few more days, and the statute of limitations is up!
Sincerely yours,
America's Bankers
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/obamas-loyal-opposition_b_186025.html
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)is, whose side is he on? Seems all his advisers are Republicans or ultra conservatives.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)if the man in the Oval office isn't crazy himself.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Maybe someone needs to stop him before he destroys the world.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)The strike on Syria is insanity and so are its primary promoters imo.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)the oligarchs have bought access to Kerry & Obama's NSA files, it may have nothing to do with craziness, and everything to do with self preservation.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)inept
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)He should have done half that many for a single-payer healthcare plan!
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Vanje
(9,766 posts)
tavalon
(27,985 posts)That alone deserves a rec for the wreck that was Pickett's charge and the wreck that is this bizarre weenie wag.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)A lot of people don't understand just how completely corrupt the U.S. is now. Here's why it makes sense:
Law means nothing, absolutely nothing.
Profits mean everything.
People are units of production, not living things.
Atrocities are useful for propaganda only.
The rich and powerful will tell you what matters.
It's Orwellian at best and purely evil at worst, war is peace, freedom is slavery.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...is that he is Teeing Up the Ball for a Republican sweep in 2014.
What a shame to waste his Presidency & his Legacy on something like this.
John Kerry too.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Dejá vu.
Sanddog42
(117 posts)Do you really believe Barack Obama is deliberately advancing the Republican agenda?
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)zentrum
(9,870 posts)...political displays I've ever seen. It's as if he felt desperate---and yet there was no outside reason for this. What is really afoot?
indepat
(20,899 posts)thereby virtually assuring RW control of all three major branches of government.
alsame
(7,784 posts)next.
This afternoon I saw interviews with Bob Casey and Eliot Engel and both immediately shifted from Syria to Iran and Hezbollah and how they can attack us here.
Casey went into detail about the botched attempt to kill the Saudi ambassador in a DC restaurant a few years ago. Hezbollah can kill Americans if we don't bomb Syria!!
Engel talked about Iran's nukes possibly being used here if we don't bomb Syria!!
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)“This is not a court of law. And intelligence does not work that way,” White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said during his five-network public relations blitz Sunday to build support for limited strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad.
“The common-sense test says he is responsible for this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-working-to-rally-lawmakers-american-public-behind-obamas-push-for-syrian-strike/2013/09/08/66cfb932-1868-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html
*******************
I swear, you cannot make this shit up!
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)"The White House asserted Sunday that a “common-sense test” dictates the Syrian government is responsible for a chemical weapons attack that President Barack Obama"...
A "common sense test"?
I'm sorry, but didn't they start this saying they had "irrefutable evidence"?
Now, all they have is "common sense"?
WTF?
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)Do the equivalent of dressing his lines halfway across the field, but I hear ya Manny.
I've found the aggressive pursuit of a goal refreshing, but the aim has been disappointing.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- Perfect.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)signature?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I'd be happy to review, as long as you provide links to them.
School Teacher
(71 posts)There is no convoluted thinking here. Obomba wants to bomb Syria as an excuse to start a major war in the reason and to create another stepping stone for the PNAC agenda. It is that simple. Kerry is on board. When all the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Iran are dead then we can get all the mineral resources and Israel is safe. Get over it and fight it like hell. Forget figuring them out,
just look at WHAT THEY DO. Remember: "We create our own reality!"
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)Our media are global companies who have no allegiance to the US. They will say or do anything to get ratings. PBO never said he wanted to invade Syria. He said he wanted to eliminate their ability to gas their people AGAIN. This type of operation does not require ground troops. It may require spec ops to identify and paint the target and verify the success of the operation but it is NOT a ground forces operation. This is what spec ops guys do. I get why PBO is going on all the network shows and making a big deal about his request for congressional approval but I'm not writing that here. It is both amusing and frustrating to watch the public react to something that was never going to happen with or without congressional approval, e.g. an invasion of Syria.
Sanddog42
(117 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)The USS Harry S Truman relieved the USS Nimitz last week from the duty in the Persian Gulf. This was a routine replacement of one Carrier by another. When Relieved I expected the Nimitz to go via the Indian and Pacific Ocean to its base in Everett Washington. Instead the Nimitz is sailing up the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. Given the Nimitz is to large for the Panama Canal, and its home base in on the West Coast. There is only one explanation for this, someone wants a Carrier in the Mediterranean.
There are two quick way for the Nimitz to its home base in Everett Washington. First is via the Indian and then Pacific Oceans. Second is south along Africa, around the cape of Good Hope then through the Straits of Magellan. Go via the Mediterranean does NOT mean it is on one of those two routes. If the Panama Canal could take the Nimitz, then the Mediterranean may be a third option, but since the Nimitz can NOT go via the Panama Canal AND the Northwest Passage is open only along the Siberian Side, someone wants the Nimitz in the Mediterranean. It may be for show, it may be the Captain wants a tour of the Mediterranean, but I have other suspicions.
NATO has bases in Turkey, Greece and Cyprus, but all are dependent in Iranian Oil, and the best replacement for Iranian Oil is Russian Oil. Since Iran and Russia BOTH oppose a US Attack on Syria, I seriously doubt those bases are usable by Allied Aircraft.
Thus the nearest base is in Sicily, at the maximum range of the F15 and beyond the range of the F-16s, F-18s and A10s, thus all will have to be refueled in the air if any attack is ordered. The US has the in-flight refueling capacity but it is easier to fly F-18s off a Carrier without refueling if you want to hit Syria over and over again.
On a previous post I pointed out the US Ships in the area had among them just under 500 missiles launchers. Modern US Navy missile launchers can fire anything from torpedoes, anti-submarine torpedoes, Anti-Ship missiles, anti-aircraft missiles AND cruse missiles, but are limited to what they have in their launchers right now. You do not fire Anti-aircraft missiles at ground targets, but you have to make sure each ship can engage and defend itself from Submarine, Aircraft and surface vessel attacks. Thus while there is a total of 480 launchers, how many of them are Cruise missiles is unknown, but it will be less then the 480 total launchers.
Some History. When missiles replaced guns on Ships, flexible launchers were invented and these could be loaded from whatever was in the hold of the ship, just like Guns were loaded from the hold of the Ship. Starting in the 1980s the US Navy replaced these launchers with tubes loaded into the deck itself. In effect the hold and the launcher became one and the same. These launchers are pre-loaded before the Ship sails and there is no way to replace those missiles at sea (it was planed but never done). These missiles are launched from where they are kept.
I bring this up for while the five ships have 480 possible launchers between them, they may only have 200-250 Cruise missiles among themselves. Thus the need to get the Carrier AND ITS ESCORTS into the Mediterranean. That should double the launchers and double what ever the number of Cruise missiles in addition to what ever bombs and missiles the Carrier has on board.
Sorry, I think the delay is called by the US Navy when it said it did not have the number of missiles on hand to do the job and needs the Carrier and its Escorts to be able to do a decent attack. The US Air Force, I fear, has said given the Political situation in Greece and Cyprus using the bases in Cyprus is a recipe for disaster and thus can support the Navy, but that is about all given the distance involved. The US Army says, that the Cyprus Army has enough howitzers to make the air bases unusable for 2-3 days if they act like untrained idiots, if the Cyprus Army operates anywhere near competency they could keep those air bases out of action for weeks (and the Air Force agrees with them, thus want to use Sicily for any attack). Sooner or later the Artillery and mortars will be destroyed by the US Air Force and Special Forces but by then the attacks on Syria would be long over.
Thus the delay is best explained by military necessity, i.e. not enough cruise missiles in the Eastern Mediterranean to do the job. Thus Obama's decision to delay any attack till enough force is in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Another factor is the Group of 20 meeting. Obama does not mind tensions with the Russians, but it is being held in Russia, and Putin can tell everyone to leave as part of any protest about Syria.
Arleigh Burke class destroyer, the Five Destroyers the US has in the Eastern Mediterranean"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer
US Carriers locations:
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=217811069988644259786.000489a6f745d8c886913
The Ticonderoga class can carry 130 different missiles, including Tomahawks and Harpoons (It is Aegis Combat System Equipped).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser
US Destroyers can carry up to 96 Missiles.
One of the problem is these missiles are pre-loaded and pre-loaded with not only Tomahawks, but Harpoon anti-Ship missiles, anti-aircraft missiles OR even anti-submarine missiles/Torpedoes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_41_Vertical_Launch_System
The Virginia Class Attack Subs can fire only 40 Tomahawk Cruse missiles,, the Older Seawolf can carry 50 (Like surface ships this number includes Anti-Ship, Anti-submarine and maybe even Anti-Air Missiles).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_class_submarine
The Group of 20 meeting was Thursday September 5, 2013 to Friday September 6 2013, so it is over