General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThat was pretty goddamned incoherent, frankly.
I found that address to be an eloquently delivered ball of fundamental incoherence.
The rub: Gas sucks, dead children are terrible, so I want to attack, but we're working on a diplomatic solution, yet if you're on the right and love the military, or if you're on the left and love human rights, you totally have to look at the dead kids on YouTube and get behind me on attacking Syria even though I've asked Congress to suspend the vote and we're pursuing diplomacy so there won't be an attack, or something.
Gobldeygook. Tell me I'm wrong.
PrestonLocke
(217 posts)Maybe we take his gas and bomb him anyways?
reformist2
(9,841 posts)We won't be sure of his true intentions until all this is over, but every day there is no bombing, no invasion, is a good day.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)That's starting to sound like "loose cannon"
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)"Oh, btw ... the Unitary Executive doctrine, is dead."
I can see how some had trouble with this speech ... they had predicted that Obama would be announcing "Shock and Awe" had started, and a 2nd Iraq war like invasion was underway.
When that didn't happen, they were a little lost.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)One can't be too bothered by those troubled by the speech, they always expect the worst. So many failed predictions by Obama detractors it's hard to take them seriously.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)They didn't, big time. It is hard to take those seriously who can (or more probably won't) see that.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)I think he expected the international community to back him, though, since chemical weapons are banned by 98% of the world community. I am sure he knew the American people wouldn't back him.
I think what caught him off guard is that other countries backed down the rhetoric.
I think he full well would've struck had the EU states been on board, with or without congress, but because they weren't he decided the "do nothing" approach was better and has been backing down gradually ever since.
Obama has held the morally consistent and correct position the entire time.
Mr.Bill
(24,031 posts)it will be a long time before anyone backs us in a military action again. That damage is done and we will live with it for decades.
Fool me once .... shame ... shame ... fool me ... won't get fooled again.
bananas
(27,509 posts)and to "overcome the Vietnam Syndrome".
former9thward
(31,684 posts)The Chemical Weapons Treaty, which we signed, said the U.S. had to destroy its chemical weapons by May 1, 2012. We refused and now say we intend to destroy them by 2023. When it comes to morals and consistency regarding chemical weapons we don't have a leg to stand on.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)You have to build facilities on the storage sites so that you don't have to move the chemicals to another facility, through communities, through counties, cities. You destroy it on site. The last two remaining sites will have their facilities completed soon. This is a financial and priority thing but the US has been destroying its weapons. The US didn't "refuse" to destroy the weapons.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)The U.S. still has far more than Assad could ever dream of.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)They have 1,000 of chemical weapons that is our best estimate.
Why are you being an apologist for Syria's chemical weapons program? They're producing the stuff, we're destroying it.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)"our best estimate" Who are you, in charge of the program? Do you really think they are giving accurate information? You claim 90% destruction. Then why wait another 10 years for the final 10%?
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)How hard is this to grasp? You could in theory ship it to a facility to get rid of it but states wouldn't allow that (just look at how nuclear disposal isn't going anywhere). So it's quicker, in reality, to just build the facilities on site and destroy the weapons on site.
Bush cut the program's funding which is why it slipped so badly. It would've been done already had Bush not cut it.
If "American bullying" is what got Russia and Syria to decide on destroying Syria's chemical weapons, then fuck yeah I'd be proud to be an "apologist" for that.
There are very few conventions the US is on the right side of. Chemical weapons is one of them. The US is still on the wrong side of mines, cluster munitions, and incendiaries.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)but just can't find the time to build for the last 10%. It will take at least 10 years for the last facility! Maybe its the sequester! Yeah, that's it! The things people believe....
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)What the fuck.
The last two facilities were the smaller ones, they were saved for last, because you have to justify on paper building two entirely different facilities to destroy chemical weapons in two separate locations equaling under a thousand tons of material.
It's better to get rid of the largest stockpiles first. This is so easy to understand I don't know what your problem is. The US is on the right side of this issue whether you like it or not.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)What exactly is this issue? The U.S. happily uses chemical weapons that for some magical reason are not banned such as Napalm and Agent Orange. Please tell me why does it feel better to die with indiscriminate flaming gasoline thrown on you rather than gas? For that matter why is better to die of a bullet that has exploded in your gut than gas? Military technology has passed by chemical ban treaties long ago and always will. That is why I think it is a BS issue.
Hekate
(89,977 posts)The US DOES have to build a special building on site to finish it off, and that building is under way.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)The things people post on DU expecting people to believe it.
cali
(114,904 posts)that would be amusing. I double dog dare you.
Josh is correct re U.S. chemical stores. We hardly deserve an award for it, but he's right and you're demonstrating your ignorance.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)former9thward
(31,684 posts)That others turn their heads away from.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)former9thward
(31,684 posts)Who knew the intellectual riches we have!
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)I live in Lexington, KY and the Bluegrass Army Depot in nearby Richmond, KY, is a storage site for Sarin and VX gas... a site for the destruction of the nerve gas is underway. This article should provide you with accurate informtion regarding the intentions of the US when it comes to destroying these chemical weapons.
~snip~
Blue Grass Army Depot will be the last of nine sites to destroy its chemical weapons. The task is harder there because, unlike other sites, the chemicals are loaded in explosive M55 rockets and corroding projectiles that were meant to be shot out of cannons. The plant under construction will make heavy use of robots and other automated assemblies to separate the explosives and metal from the chemicals. Even with that automation, it will employ about 1,000 people.
Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/09/09/2812927/chemicals-allegedly-used-in-syria.html#storylink=cpy
former9thward
(31,684 posts)That is why it is going to take at least 10 years! At least I can accept that as an excuse instead of the "we must build facilities" bullshit.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)you don't truly understand the complexities of destroying these horrid weapons, which we should have never created in the first place.
The cynicism running rampant on this board leads me to believe that instead of having the best interest of the American public at heart, many only like to hear themselves rant without having any knowledge of what they are ranting about.
There is no doubt that the military-industrial complex is powerful, but when the government is trying to do something right, even with all the bureaucratic idiocy, it would be nice for people to at least acknowledge the effort.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)Which is what the U.S. claims, but it is ohhhh so so complex to destroy the last 10%.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)and have had numerous chemistry classes, I do not know the process of how these chemicals are destroyed.
As for why 90% are already destroyed and 10% are not, I can only speculate. There may have been other types of chemical weapons in other locations that were easier to destroy; I don't know. Mustard gas is stored at the Army Depot here and will be disposed of in another manner from the Sarin/VX gas.
I would imagine there are numerous considerations. In Central Kentucky, the dangers posed by the chemical weapons, both in storage and in destruction, created a very vocal and lengthy debate, as did the securing of a location to build a facility to destroy the weapons. For years there was talk of moving the containers from this area and but the safety of moving the sarin and VX, which had been leaking in storage until the bunkers were repaired, created a controversy on its own. Decisions were pushed back as the public voiced their concerns.
There is also the issue of the viability of the Bluegrass Army Depot...rumored to be closing at one point. We would all be naive if we thought that the politics of revenue and jobs didn't play a part in this. As for the jobs created by destruction facility currently under construction...well, if you lived in that county, you might be grateful for a job that could last for a few years.
Again, I fully recognize the mistakes of our government, and the fact that many, many issues get pushed aside for political reasons. But let me say again, the fact is 90% of the gas, which you admitted, is destroyed, and plans are underway for the remaining 10% to follow.
I am thankful for that.
One last comment, if you are in some way speculating the remaining 10% is being kept for more sinister reasons, so the military will have such weapons to use, I don't buy that premise. The debate to remove and destroy the weapons at Bluegrass AD has been going on for way too long, extended by the public. The community wanted assurances the destruction of the gasses would be safe.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)However it seems much of your assumptions rely on taking at face value what the military says. I don't. You said: 90% of the gas, which you admitted, is destroyed. I admitted no such thing. That is why I put the word "claims" in italics.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)However, I do know the track record of the Depot and the community on this particular cache of weapons. Is the military telling us everything? Only a fool would believe every thing they hear from the military or the government, since it's all about spin. Are all the members of the community working for the betterment and protection of the community? I seriously doubt it... some may have agendas, especially the business community who wants to keep the jobs and the revenue in their area.
The fact is nothing is perfect, including me. I apoligize for missing the fact you said 'claims.'
Gothmog
(143,654 posts)Thank you for posting. The destruction of chemical weapons is difficult enough to begin with and these weapons are attached to explosives. This is from the article
Blue Grass Army Depot will be the last of nine sites to destroy its chemical weapons. The task is harder there because, unlike other sites, the chemicals are loaded in explosive M55 rockets and corroding projectiles that were meant to be shot out of cannons. The plant under construction will make heavy use of robots and other automated assemblies to separate the explosives and metal from the chemicals. Even with that automation, it will employ about 1,000 people.
The Army plans to heat the VX and sarin in chemical reactors to destroy them. The resulting hydrolysate will contain no detectable toxins. (While no final decision has been made, the mustard agent might be destroyed in a different process.)
Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/09/09/2812927/chemicals-allegedly-used-in-syria.html#storylink=cpy
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)Could use a bit of good news about now.
Thankyou CherokeeDem,
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Do you have a link handy?
Also... how do we *know* 90% is destroyed. I mean does the UN send inspectors to Nevada, or wherever?
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)OPCW: http://www.opcw.org/
CMA controls the destruction of our chemical weapons (and yes the OPCW inspects our sites and reports to the UN): http://www.cma.army.mil/
The reason the deadline got pushed up is because Bush delayed funding for the program: http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-chemical-weapons-disposal-slippage-no-surprise-expert-says/
Cheviteau
(383 posts)But best of all I like your tag line.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I don't know about VX and others...probably inbetween.
RC
(25,592 posts)The use by date, was long past when we invaded Iraq. And we acted as it there was no expire date. Most of what was left was basically harmless.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)And the inspectors said that while it wasn't disposed of properly it was still effectively destroyed / harmless.
RC
(25,592 posts)But neglected to do the proper paper work to prove it. That proved to be a bit short sighted.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Just shortly before we attacked.
What kind of a moron would brag about having destroyed all of their weapons - when they have hostile neighbors?
He was railroaded, there wasn't anything Saddam Hussein could do. The decision to attack Iraq was made when the Supreme Court ruled that Dubya won in 2000.
RC
(25,592 posts)William Jefferson Clinton winning the Presidency, messed up their plans. One of the reason the Saddam's WMD were out dated and useless, by the time the Neocons got their chance again, eight years later.
You are correct Saddam was railroaded. We helped put Saddam in power to maintain stability in the region. Of that he did do a good job. Baghdad was safe at night. Women could drive, teach in the universities, hold high positions in both government and private enterprise. Saddam suffered terrorists poorly. There were no terrorist in the areas Saddam controlled. Baghdad was the medical center of the Middle East. Their hospitals were the best in that part of the world. You didn't need insurance either. And don't forget the World Class Museum, housing artifacts tens of thousands of years old. They were either destroyed or reside in private collections or rich people, around the world now. Our invading army stood by and watched as the museum was being looted. However, we did guard the Oil Ministry building, to prevent any damage to it or it's contents.
Why the Raa, Raa, Raa, USA, USA,USA! by some, is beyond me.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)...and they (the neo-cons) were very transparent about their intentions in the Middle East. Dubya talked about attacking Iraq during the 2000 debates.
I wonder how many (if any) of the people who were so insistent that we attack Iraq still believe it was necessary and a good idea. I'm amazed that my 'friends' on Facebook think that Dubya was a good president. I would have thought, on the twelfth anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center - that his pure unadulterated buffoonery was evident to everyone.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Several original signers of the PNAC letter, Will Marshall for one,
were also the original founders of the conservative Democratic Leadership Council using Koch Brothers money.
Skittles
(152,918 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Putin should be so lucky that the US allowed them back to the table. They're the ones causing the issue to begin with, delaying action for years.
Skittles
(152,918 posts)aw never mind.....not EVEN worth it
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Russia has been stopping diplomatic action for the past few years. They're to blame for the 100k dead Syrians, particularly as Russia is selling arms to Syria.
Skittles
(152,918 posts)I was being sarcastic
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Skittles
(152,918 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Nothing about Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the CIA?
I tend to blame countries who gin up and arm and finance rebellions, too.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Of course, there are ignorant posters on this forum who consider Bahrain the utter epitome of authoritarianism despite that less than 100 have been killed. A lot arrested, yes, a whole shit ton arrested and jailed for a long time, but if you're a brutal dictator, and you don't want a civil war, that's what you do. Look at Cuba. It's not a big deal.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)The unitary executive would not have been dealt a blow.
In fact, it would've been revivified.
Maybe Obama expected people to object to the use of force w/o congress putting themselves on the line for such decisions. It's pretty predictable that certain factions will immediately assume the "no attack" side of the issue from both democratic and republican sides of the aisle - and both sides will have those who go along with such attacks.
I don't participate in these DU fights - but both sides will spin it to continue to support the position they held before the outcome was known. At least that's what it looks like to me.
Personally, diplomacy seems like the better option whenever possible - because that's where all sides will end up anyway. Why not take some of the horror out of the process?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Why would Obama think that the American people, on the week the NFL kicks off a new season, would want an attack on Syria?
Well?
former9thward
(31,684 posts)He said he expected Congress to back him in the vote. Don't you read any news?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Congress and how they vote is not a direct reflection of the American people's support, in fact, Congress has a lower approval than VD.
Again ... why would the American people support attacks on Syria? I doubt that factored into the President's decision.
A year ago he said using chem weapons was a red line, he meant that. He was not bluffing.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)Assad will keep his weapons under cover of an international monitor. Again ... why would the American people support attacks on Syria? You should ask that question of Obama not me. I have no idea why Americans would want another mid East war.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You're on fire in this thread--that's one of the best lines in this mishmash!
Bravo!
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)That's why JoePhilly noted the end of the Unitary Executive Doctrine.
If Obama says he needs Congress then he must say he expects Congress to vote with him.
Otherwise his threat of force is hollow.
He can't go "I'm going to blow shit up but I don't think my Congress will let me." It'd be stupid.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)Another person who does not follow news.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)See how that works? He still maintains he doesn't need Congress even though he's going through Congress.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)He didn't say he will or will not do what Congress said.
But it's implied.
You just can't know until he does it.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Had the President rejected the use of military force without Congress' approval then yeah, you'd be right. This kind of mealy-mouthed "maybe I will, maybe I won't" rhetoric is hardly a rejection of the Unitary Executive doctrine.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)But it's obvious that the President is waiting for Congressional approval and he'll water down whatever it is he can do to the point where he'll get it (ie, I won't attack unless 100k people die from chemical weapons" or something atrocious like that).
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Which is why I don't see this as a rejection of the UE doctrine. The President isn't giving up any of his prerogatives.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)You somehow compare the NFL season vs an attack on Syria? Do men ever grow up?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)former9thward
(31,684 posts)In a prime-time speech that followed two weeks of high-stakes drama, President Obama asked the American people to support a military strike against Syria.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/10/221154902/live-blog-obama-addresses-the-nation-on-syria
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)thats funny...Everyone I know would disagree with you since I have it on at my house nearly 24 hours a day!
You forgot "if Syria doesn't cooperate"...there fixed that for ya!
former9thward
(31,684 posts)LOL. You may have the news on 24 hours but that does not mean you are understanding it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I don't think I did....
Because you cannot put words in my mouth....doesn't mean I don't understand the news either does it?
former9thward
(31,684 posts)Word salad I think they call it. Have a good night...
mimi85
(1,805 posts)makes perfect sense. I think you might have a problem communicating with women. Assuming Vanilla is a woman of course. And assuming you are male. If I'm wrong in either case, I apologize. I truly think more women should be in positions of power. Our maternal instincts really do influence our personas. For the better, in most cases.
Although I honestly understand your POV and you're most certainly entitled to it. I believe Americans take so much for granted. We are extremely lucky to live in the U.S. And I'm not one of those people who put a flag on my car after 9/11. I was against war then (and before with Vietnam) and I am now. That will never change.
CAG
(1,820 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)It defines him.
George II
(67,782 posts)...Obama basically announced that he isn't going to do what "everyone" didn't want him to do. So now those who DIDN'T want us to attack are criticizing him. Un-fucking-believable!
Ferretherder
(1,445 posts)...we now have, after the 8 miserable, misbegotten, god-forsaken years that was the bush presidency, a leader of this country who, I believe, tries his damndest to do what is right and just (in nothing more than this case, at the very least) - and I truly feel that Assad, if he did not directly order the gas attack, at least approved of its implementation - AND in the course of trying to gain a credible coalition of domestic and foreign support for his intended actions, has listened to the voices of EVERY faction, for and against his proposition, and has decided to give diplomacy more time to gain the objectives he seeks, because he saw so many are against a military solution and is bowing to their will in this matter; a very intelligent, articulate, and again, I feel, a very considerate and caring individual, that so many of us on the left side of center (and yes, I consider myself quite left-leaning...really) are now condemning him as some kind of war-mongering scoundrel who is foaming at the mouth to bomb somebody just for the hell of it - the world and their opinions be DAMNED!
I know many of you will say I am rationalizing or trying to equivocate in this comparison, but I truly shudder to think of what might be happening, right now, were we to have a certain insanely wealthy Mormon in the white house at this time...and would THAT individual even be considering the 'will of the people', the approval of congress or international accord. I know where I stand...
...I'm with the man who spoke to the people who elected him to be their president, and who, to my mind, LISTENED to those people, and to the world-at-large, and decided to to let cooler minds have another chance to achieve the goal of destroying another dictators ability to use chemical weapons on the field of war.
If I didn't believe this man to be sincere, I would not hold this position.
mac56
(17,557 posts)Ferretherder
(1,445 posts)...for your recommendation.
cynzke
(1,254 posts)Paul Ryan stated that if Assad crossed the line and used chemical weapons we should respond with a military strike. Not boots on the ground, but a military strike none the less. Now he and GOP cohorts who would be cheer leading Romney on are against military action.
Ferretherder
(1,445 posts)You are so right!
LukeFL
(594 posts)You and I speak HIS LANGUAGE
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)My sentiments exactly. Reading some posts is like reading Tiger Beat.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)dontchathink?
LukeFL
(594 posts)I got from the president speech exactly what he did.
All of you amateurs should just sit back and my president use his " bick stick"
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and I have a feeling that Lindsey Graham heard that and went a little green. John McCain heard it, and will go green when someone explains it to him.
That was a pretty masterful and deft way of invoking those responsible for Article 1 to actually be responsible.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)pretty earth-shaking there.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)The President has been very consistent in saying that he has the authority to launch a military strike on Syria however Congress votes and reserves the right to do so without Congress' support. He repeated this during tonight's speech. That doesn't sound like a rejection of the Unitary Executive doctrine to me.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)I just don't see where this speech was a rejection of the Unitary Executive doctrine.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)best expressed with the concurrence of Congress, that was a direct rejection of the Unitary Executive doctrine.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Had the President rejected taking action without the approval of Congress I would agree with you, but he didn't go that far.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Hekate
(89,977 posts)... is dead if Obama has anything to say about it.
I didn't think this speech was incoherent at all. How about "good save"? or "he's giving negotiation a chance"? or "How about them unitary executives? Wait-what?"
gtar100
(4,192 posts)You just shouldn't take him at his word, or you miss what's really going on. Did I get that right?
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)I have never thought O wanted to strike Syria. I think the chem attack forced him into a corner and he sees the new proposal as a way -- a very good way, I might add -- out. The punt to Congress was also a search for a way out/buy for time, IMO.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Also ... do you actually think the US diplomatic corps have not been working on Syria's Chemical weapons LONG before Assad used them? You don't think, at a minimum, after the "red-line" question a year ago, they didn't engage counter parts around the globe on exactly that issue? What do you think those folks do all day.
As for Congress ... Obama didn't punt. He's forcing this do nothing congress to take an actual position, not shout from the sidelines, but actually take a position.
Tonight, in his speech, Obama knocked some of the elements of the Unitary Executive theory off the table. Very smart. Needed to be done.
Obama could have performed limited strikes, and he's be fine. Assad on the other hand, might be dead.
Assad needed a deal far more urgently.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)And been back in the bombing business fairly quickly with the help of his good friends, Vlad. Plus, he could have gotten a lot of mileage out of the Standing Up To The Great Satan thing.
Considering that chem weapons have been used repeatedly in Syria by both sides during the conflict, it appears there wasn't a great deal of urgency to put a stop to it. The latest attack was just too big to continue to be ignored.
If O had ordered strikes on Syria without the OK of the Congress he would be looking at never getting another thing done for the rest of his term. He's not that stupid.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)What's he going to threaten now -- to strike after failing to get the support of the public or Congress?
This wasn't sabre rattling. It was an attempt to draw the sword, and the sword broke.
Assad's still got reason to compromise -- chemical weapons are of little use, and international pressure is building.
But we wouldn't be here if America had answered the call to be the World Police again.
Kudos to the administration to recognize it needed an immediate course correction to save face though. They're doing to right thing, thanks to the public pressure.
Beer Swiller
(44 posts)Maybe military as well. After all, who wants to risk Americans potentially shooting at Russians and vice-versa, as could happen if this dick-waving macho "don't call me a wus, Bill Clinton," crap continues? Think either the American or Russian military wants to risk THAT?
Don't get me wrong; I fundamentally agree with you. And the sword started breaking when the Brits said, "Not this time, mate."
brush
(53,331 posts)Don't you mean dick-waving macho "he tried to kill my daddy, Bush/Cheney," crap?
That would be much more accurate a comparison if that was what O is about. But IMHO it's not.
He never wanted to intervene at all, thus the flipping of script by throwing it to Congress, plus the behind the scenes talks with Putin at the 2012 G20 (that info just came to light) and the talks with Putin at the most recent G20.
Kerry's mention of it in his presser was no accident (it just seemed that way to many, even some in the press).
The Russians and Syrians jumped at the chance to negotiate a surrender of the chem weapons.
Another way of putting it is "they blinked."
And not a small part of that blinking was how O handled Bin Laden. You can bet that was in the back of Assad's mind.
somethingshiny
(31 posts)Agreed 100%. It surprises me how few seem to be able to grasp this. And I believe that Kerry's description of a strike being "unbelievably small" was a veiled warning to Assad that he could personally be our "unbelievably small" target.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And he's strategically fucked when it comes to blue water power projection!
Never mind the billions of debt he "forgave" al Assad in exchange for a Gitmo-like deal to use the port of Tartus.....
Never mind that, without Assad, there's no Tartus for Pootie...
And without Tartus, there's no homeport for a Russian carrier in the MED, no resupply/berthing for submarines and other vessels....and no blue water glory for Pootie Poot!!!!
Never mind the fact that Syria is one of the countries that keeps the Russian weapons manufacturing business, the Pootie-MIC, humming, either....
Pootie doesn't want to lose a customer! For all these reasons...and more!
Here's the tune he's singing:
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)The public doesn't back a strike.
Congress isn't backing a strike.
Can't strike unilaterally, or he'll look like a maniac and the Dems will get beaten with the Unwanted War.
In fairness, though, backing the hell down was exactly the right thing to do.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)if this is pulled off. I know I will.
O isn't forced into a strike and al-Assad stays in power. Win win win for the US, al-Assad, and Russia.
I think it's the best that we can hope for.
brush
(53,331 posts)He flipped the script on all the MIC, their congressional puppets (the neo du), and the war drumming corporate media by sending it to Congress.
And just the restrained way he handled Libya and Egypt should tip everyone off that he didn't want to intervene, as should the fact that the surrender of the Syrian chem weapons has been being discussed since the 2012 G20, not just the most recent G20.
But the way he handled Bin Laden also tips off Assad and Putin that "he ain't playing around" if it comes down to it.
They basically blinked and jumped at Kerry's "accidental" mention of a negotiated surrender of the weapons.
IMHO the President, Kerry and Rice have all understood that they had to appear to be all in on the intervention in order to get the Syrians to the negotiating table on the chem weapons.
It worked, it was well played, and the Obama bashers have to quiet down a bit although there are still some who refused to understand that this president is not W Bush being pushed by Cheney. This president actually things thinks out, considers many options and appears to use game theory in his decision making.
MADem
(135,425 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...he somewhat lost me. Why even bother acknowledging the loonie right? Nothing he can say will ever placate them. He needs to get over their pitiful nonsense.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He basically told the loonie right to STFU. It was like "I see you idiots over there in the corner, don't think your shit is passing me by, but I know what I'm doing and you don't."
As for the "pinpricks" there was a very specific reason for that--this is a bit long-winded but the situation isn't simple. He needed to send a couple of messages.
What he said was, we prefer to not do this, but if we do take the decision to do this, we are going to hit al-Assad in ways that cause PAIN to him.
Killing civilians, or military personnel, would not "hurt" al Assad. He comes from a culture that believes that earthly existence sucks compares to the afterlife. I know many people like this, who often express a lack of what I regard as "healthy fear" when it comes to leaving this earth too soon! There would be no "pain" in Bashir's mind from causing damage to his population, either military or civilian. In fact, he'd USE their martyrdom to bolster morale.
The way to hurt al-Assad is to deliberately spare his people and take away his toys--his fixed wing and helicoptor aircraft (that he's still paying for), his tanks, his APCs, his rocket launchers, his ammo depots, his oddball factories way out on deserted desert roads, his AIRFIELDS, his piers in his ports---all the things he uses to prosecute his civil war and resupply it.
Obama's audience wasn't just al-Assad with that comment, either. Pootie has a "Gitmo deal" with al-Assad to use the port of Tartus at a mega-bargain price; in exchange for the forgiveness (twenty some odd cents on the dollar) of a shitload (we're talking billions) of old USSR debt. Since the Turks don't like warships of a certain capacity to bypass their straits, if Pootie wants to build a presence in the Med he needs something south of Turkey to do it. He's already dredged the port sufficiently to accommodate his cruiser-ish aircraft carrier, and he had big plans to really fix the place up. He has exclusive use of one end of that port, and he's been using it. He does have dreams of a glorious Russian Navy, but thus far, it's pretty much dreams (though he IS working on it--make NO mistake--he's increased recruiting and show-the-flag cruises).
Further, if, just supposin', al Assad fails and the Sunnis take over, there are a shitload of Russians in Syria, "helping" the regime in this way-n-that....kind of how the Cubans "help" Venezuela. Those people will need to be gotten OUT, quickly, because some of the assorted Sunni 'opposition forces' might regard them as lucrative ransoms, or worse, as infidels whose heads need to be lopped off on YOUTUBE to incite the morons who support them against the "infidels" (anyone they don't like, i.e.) who oppose them.
In any event, Pootie will NEED Tartus to do a non-combatant evacuation operation. If the piers at Tartus are crushed with Obama's "pinpricks-plus," or there's a hazard to navigation--like some big ass old barge or what-have-you---blocking the port, then Pootie will have to rely on air assets to help his people escape....and if the airfields are pockmarked like a spotchy teen's face, he'll have trouble on that end, too.
Pootie knew it was in his best interest to stop with the snark and start contributing to a solution. That does not make Pootie a hero or a peacemaker, it makes him a pragmatist who understands his own self-interest.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)IMHO
MADem
(135,425 posts)No flies on him, no skin off his nose. He knows who he is, he's the leader of the free world, and he's president of all the American people--including those idiots, even if they don't like it!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...in a very public way. Doing so legitimizes their stupidity.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He's just saying "OK, you morons, I see you. You and your dumb asses are part of the American tapestry."
And, like it or not--they ARE that.
You obviously had enough insight to realize they are stupid.
See? No harm, no foul.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Reacting to the reaction = drama
MADem
(135,425 posts)sorry, most people aren't seeing it that way.
It was a cursory nod to a group that, like it or not, as POTUS, is part of his constituency.
His beliefs and philosophies are Democratic, but his charge is to be president to the entire nation. All he was doing was acknowledging their existence, nothing more.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The GOP is not part of Obama's constituency. His constituency are the people who elected him.
That is the biggest problem with his presidency, that he feels obligated to placate his enemies. Stockholm syndrome.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Obama is the President of all Americans.
When he goes abroad, when he speaks to the nation, when he appears at national events, he represents everyone, not just Democrats, not just those who voted for him.
If you believe otherwise, there's nothing really more to say. We are very far apart.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Obama represents the Tea Party? You must have him mixed up with Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann, Louis Gohmert and Steven King. Those people represent the Tea Party, not a Democratic president.
Oh wait, you must be referring to the 'halfpublican' Third Way nonsense.....
MADem
(135,425 posts)He's President of the USA...not President of the Democrats and Independents and odd crossovers-who-voted-for-him. As a servant of the people, he was elected to serve "WE, The People." That doesn't mean "Just the people YOU happen to like."
This has nothing to do with "Halfpublican" or 3rd Way, and there's no need to be rude.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)A constituency are the people who vote you into elected office. Not your political enemies. More ridiculous Third way nonsense.
MADem
(135,425 posts)One does not have to "have the ear" of a politician to be represented by that politician.
The President represents all of us. If you don't like that, too damn bad for you. It's how it works, so just get used to it, get over it, deal with it.
You're making a spectacle of yourself with this foolishness.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Democratic presidents don't carry out Republican policies, sorry. You see, Republican policies are the cause of most of our problems as a nation. You cannot include the problem as part of the solution and expect anything good to come of it.
You should stop wasting time with your petty attempts at personal attacks and take a basic course in political science.
MADem
(135,425 posts)No one is demanding Obama "carry out Republican policies, sorry" -- but like it or not, he's President of all the American people, not just the ones you like.
If I were to "personally attack" you, you'd know it, but I don't play those foolish games.
You go on and have a nice life, now--I'll make an effort to remember your name so I can avoid you in future, because I don't care for your combative attitude.
Have the last word, now, I'm sure that will please you.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And you are wrong. Democratic politicians are elected to implement Democratic policies and quash damaging RW policies, not adopt them.
A good example of this is Obama offering up damaging budget cuts to the GOP in spite of the fact that economists say they will only damage the economy. That is third way adoption of RW policies. Including the cancer as part of the cure. It is madness, and many are unfortunately blinded by it.
I liken it to Stockholm Syndrome where torture victims begin identifying with their tormentors. It has been sad to watch it unfold and it has pretty much ruined the Democratic party.
graywarrior
(59,440 posts)mountain grammy
(26,553 posts)Hekate
(89,977 posts)Beer Swiller
(44 posts)Wow. Just wow. Well, take comfort in your fantasy.
My take, and you'll never agree with it, is that Obama wanted a war of his very own. Very badly. As a distraction from the NSA scandal, from the declining standard of living of most Americans(of whom I'm sure you are not one of, or you wouldn't be saying what you do on a daily basis), from the impending cut in Food Stamps effective October 1, from the growing realization that the lack of cost-controls in the Affordable Care Act is nothing but a mandatory bonanza for the health insurance corporations, from the impending bursting of the student loan bubble, and gods know what else. There's a whole lot going really, really wrong with our economy, you know. And Obama has done absolutely nothing to make it better. Nah, even if you know it, you'll never admit it. Too bad.
And you back this guy because he has the Democratic Party label. If he were Republican, I doubt you would be saying the same things; oh, yes, I doubt that very much. But you have to cheer for your Blue Team.
Well, cheer away. Vladimir Putin just gave Barack Obama the chance to save his political life from his own unnecessary and foolish Red Line, not because Putin likes Obama, but because Putin doesn't want to risk a nuclear war with America, old KGB colonel that he is. And somebody in Washington told Obama that he'd better take that deal, or else.
This wasn't umptidimensional chess. This whole thing about attacking Syria was sheer stupidity on the Obama Administration's part. Not to mention completely unnecessary, dangerous, and foolish.
If I were you, I'd send Vladimir a Christmas card. I know I will. And I don't even like the SOB.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)Welcome to DU and thanks for your excellent response to some of the real 'swill' that is littering this thread.
Response to Carolina (Reply #296)
Name removed Message auto-removed
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Although I really don't believe Obama's motivations were quite as craven as you make them out to be....
Number23
(24,544 posts)but according to you, Putin decided to give Obama an out for reasons of pure goodness and benevolence and to "avoid a nuclear war?"
What in the world?
Response to Number23 (Reply #432)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Number23
(24,544 posts)"outmaneuvered" the President on this issue are few, small and dwell primarily in this forum.
Your assessment of Putin's behavior on Snowden makes a lot more sense.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)I love the mother.
Also, let's not forget Libya. But Obama wasn't content with overthrowing the Libyan regime and killing Qaddafi, he was on the move again. He's been waging a covert war against Syria and Assad for the last two years. He's been exceedingly reckless when one considers the volatility of the Middle East and the fact that he's been targeting Russian allies.....sorry, client states.
And when it gets down to it, we have the American people and, largely, Republican Congressional representatives to thank for putting the brakes on his foolish rush to yet another war.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)The Link
(757 posts)Huh?
Response to The Link (Reply #4)
Awknid This message was self-deleted by its author.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Over there, so they don't kill us over here!
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I think it was a pretty good speech, all in all. But things are in flux right now, so that was reflected in the speech, good or bad.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)It was a turd-polishing attempt to appear on top of what's happening.
Crimson76
(79 posts)trueblue2007
(17,111 posts)IT WAS A GOOD SPEECH.
i am still thinking of the hundreds of children - women - men writhing in pain and then dying horrible death.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Are you ready to get a war on over them??
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)kill Syrians to stop Syrians from killing Syrians.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)What about the children we kill? I guess those children are just too bloody to show on TV. How can the US EVER talk about the killing of children. Like somehow a gas death is worse than a bombing death. I'm glad we are going to wait and see for now. I hope and believe by his talk about specific targets, we WON'T have ANY children killed or ANY innocent people killed.
I want to trust our President, but hypocrisy doesn't suit him well.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)The chemical poisons deliver painful death lasting hours.
Our Cruise missiles will decapitate the children instantly. They will not know what hit them! /Sarc
I was at first for punishing Assad with missile strikes, but now I have made a 180 deg turn. I think we are better off not attacking Syria, no matter how small the strike. It results in no gain and much pain.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)golfguru
(4,987 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)They desperately wanted to use it to bash Obama. When a diplomatic solution becomes reality, the haters won't know what to do.
It'll be like watching chickens run around with their heads cut off.
Good times.
Good times.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And then go on to describe the ground invasion.
When that didn't happen, some were confused.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)The American people just said NO!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Why not leave Obama dangle?
Come on ... explain why Russia decides to save Obama because the American people said "No".
I'll try to save you some time ... you can't explain it. (But please feel free to try.)
former9thward
(31,684 posts)America looks like a warmonger. Pretty simple really.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)former9thward
(31,684 posts)Even though you think you are.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)former9thward
(31,684 posts)Where have I heard that before????
MADem
(135,425 posts)ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
And I do not hate, nor even dislike USAmericans - lived there - liked most, even loved a few.
My first room-mates were vets from Vietnam, so I do have a bit of an idea about USAmerican atrocities.
The USA/MIC/PNAC has been bombing the shit out of other people's countries as long as I've been alive.
Trying to remember how many countries have bombed North America . . . .
CC
mythology
(9,527 posts)the guy gassing his own citizens, how in the blue hell does Russia appear to be a peacemaker?
I think Russia realizes that they are going to lose the long game on this and so are trying to save some face. Putin knows he can't win a military showdown with the U.S. and this lets him avoid having to back down from that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That's why he's suddenly decided to be "helpful" instead of being a smarmy little shit, like he usually is.
He's spent a fortune getting that port up to snuff so he can park his warships and subs there.
If that port was damaged, he'd have to find new digs. About the only place where he might be welcomed is Lebanon--and stuff goes BOOM there a lot.
Also, if al-Assad took a powder as a consequence of overthrow, that deal he has to use Tartus would disappear, too--that deal is worth billions, he doesn't want to lose it.
Anyone who thinks that Pootie is in the catbird seat here doesn't understand the Naval challenges the Russians have when it comes to power projection. They have a NEED for Syria if they want to be a viable Naval power. It is in their interest that we don't lean too hard on al Assad.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)That is why Obama could not build world support for his aggression. No one wants to be on the losing side. As far as "the guy gassing his own citizens" I will await the UN report. You may trust the agenda driven U.S. intelligence services but I don't. The UN said the rebels used sarin gas in May and the U.S. turned its head. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
Russia was trying to save Assad.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)DJ13
(23,671 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)DJ13
(23,671 posts)McCain included it in the Senate resolution that passed.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,338 posts)I'll settle for what President Obama has been saying. Never for one moment have I believed that he was talking about regime change (I'm sure he wants it but is not wanting us to do it)
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Just be aware that he would have had authorization to go for regime change if he wanted it.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,338 posts)If he wanted it
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)what was the point of this speech?
In all honesty absolutely nothing in Syria is different than it was last week. Assad stll has his chemical weapons and all the time he needs to hide them now. If they even need hiding. I've yet to hear a clear explanation of exactly how Syria putting their chemical weapons under international control is going to work. Are the weapons going to be destroyed? Removed from Syria? Monitored in place?
This is a long way from over...
LukeFL
(594 posts)Duers MUST learn to read between the lines
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)shouldn't he be pushing for a vote on AUMF? Once he has that in hand he'll be much more credible. Postponing the vote takes the pressure off.
LukeFL
(594 posts)Didn't you hear the ..... Postponing, seeking, diplomacy?
Why is this SO hard even for his do called supporters to understand him?
I really give up
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Are we applying pressure by threatening the imminent use of military force or are we backing off the threat of force in order to give diplomacy a chance? The President seemed to be trying to have it both ways in this speech.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)and reading his mind to answer.
MADem
(135,425 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)They're upset because we won't be bombing Syria and everyone will follow international law. What, no WW3? Bor-ring!!!
'What about my furrows of worry? I have a lot invested in this! It just has to be real!'
Oh, no, please, don't give credit to diplomacy!
Singing 'give peace a chance' my ass! And all the while spewing hate and everything but love.
Gotta keep that energy going! Peace doesn't sell books and airtime!
MADem
(135,425 posts)The waiter in this place serves up one helluva meal!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)EDIT: The Earl sure does! And I love the name of that server, 'Betterment.'
iandhr
(6,852 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:14 PM - Edit history (2)
If diplomacy fails the President can come back to congress and the American people and say.
"The United States has made a good faith effort to resolve the situation diplomatically. Unfortunately these efforts have come up short. I now ask congress to authorize the use of force"
If that happened I think many Americans who are currently against would change their minds.
Bingo
freshwest
(53,661 posts)By Matt Sledge - 05/23/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/obama-aumf-repeal_n_3328667.html
Obama Calls for Repeal of "Perpetual War" Law
Published on May 24, 2013
An interesting part of Obama's speech that many seem to be looking over is that he called for the repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the "Perpetual War" law...
Mention of this at DU only produced the sound of crickets. Obama asked Congress to take AUMF war making powers away for himself and future presidents.
To learn what the man is about requires actually listening to the man. The bills didn't make it far because of the GOP.
Obama can't push them to do anything as some may think. The view on him here goes from being omnipotent to helpless dumbass. Usually from the same posters.
Where was the push at DU to press Congress when Democrats had introduced these bills?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I've seen no indication that very many people want to see a strike on Syria. What the ones you call "haters" have hated is the prospect of the US going it alone again into another Middle East quagmire in what would be a very dangerous and likely futile effort to police the world. These "haters" are, as far as I can tell, cautiously hopeful that there will be no strikes. If Obama is the prime architect of a peaceful resolution, then let us salute him. What matters is the humanitarian end, not the distribution of credit for the outcome. It couldn't happen without Obama getting on board the liferaft (whether or not he built it in the first place), and it couldn't happen without Putin (despicable as he may be) joining the effort. Whatever Putin is, he is not crazy. Let us all thank our lucky stars that both the US and Russia had the good sense to back down, just as JFK and Kruschchev did a half-century ago.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)What the fuck.
You think people desperately want innocent civilians halfway across the planet to be killed by US bombs just so they can complain about the president?
How the fuck does your brain come up with shit like that?
What does that say about *you*?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)such shit.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I really, really, really fucking wish the Obama personality cultists would stop making this about how people view him or who is going to be next on the persona non grata list for not fawning over every decision he makes.
Let be me absolutely fucking clear: we don't want a damn war. The cultists cheered it on for a long damn time because Obama was behind it, and then when the anti-war crowd managed to pressure him into going to Congress, they all of suddem switched course and were suddenly behind diplomacy. The rest of us are grown up enough to put bullshit personality and ego stroking aside to realize this isn't a goddamn game.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)response... The cultists have been all over the map to justify BHO's actions, words, whatever.
But the rest of us have always maintained that this is serious, that we are opposed to yet another war for the1% and that this is not a game, nor is it about being humanitarian!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)CountAllVotes
(20,849 posts)It is called Power to the People.
When the people act as a unit and in a way that demands attention, attention is had.
I wrote to my senators and the message was simple.
NO WAR IN SYRIA NO WAR IN SYRIA NO WAR IN SYTRIA
Understand?
Maybe they don't understand but they didn't cross that line with the American people that want nothing at all do with another damned war to add to other damned wars that are already going on around the world and such wars are being paid for by you and me already. Enough already a long long time ago!
Peace!
burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)nt
Tiredofthesame
(62 posts)I have an exceptionally long list from the past 5 years, to do all the bashing I would like. I would say most people you claim are "hating", would rather not see any military intervention whatsoever. I for one, am completely against ANY military intervention at all. And I am no stranger to bashing the President.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)That's ridiculous. Obama was looking every ounce "the Decider" who couldn't find the WMDs under the Oval Office rug, but, hey, what's a hundred thousand innocent people slaughtered to take out target #2 of the "Project for a New American Century"?
That's what it looked like, and you can love Obama or hate Obama, but THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE.
Sending Cruise missiles into the tinderbox Middle East COULD trigger nuclear war. At a MINIMUM, it would inflict more slaughter and suffering in Syria. And then there are all the grades of disaster beyond that, including a potential U.S. ground war and nuclear war, with Israel having nuclear weapons, Pakistan having nuclear weapons, India having nuclear weapons, and both Russia and China having big arsenals of nuclear weapons. And all kinds of other really bad possibilities, one of them being strengthening Al Qaeda among the "rebels" in Syria and the region and another being a spreading ground war among various countries and their "rebels" and tribal and religious factions.
It's a TINDERBOX. You don't send missiles into a tinderbox unless you are willing to deal with the conflagration that you may ignite.
When the President of the United States starts saber-rattling, we're not supposed to object? Who knows if he's serious? He said he was. He said he had the power to attack Syria without anybody's agreement, here or around the world.
It's not a matter of hating Obama. It's a matter of hating WAR.
I find it amazing that people who want PEACE somehow get turned around into "bad guys" and "haters." I've seen it in a number of threads now, and it's "Alice in Wonderland" insane.
Please stop doing this. It is so unfair. Furthermore, this situation is NOT over. Here we are poised yet again over unilateral U.S. military action, nervously awaiting the outcome of diplomatic efforts and UN weapons inspectors. We don't know what's going to happen next. And we are going to be faced with this again and again, as our "military-industrial complex" manufactures yet more reasons for its existence and profitability. We are in fact engaged in a "Forever War." Realizing this has nothing to do with hating anybody. It has to do with wanting THIS country to become a PEACEFUL country.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)"You don't send missiles into a tinderbox unless you are willing to deal with the conflagration that you may ignite."
I'll just add: he was a FUCKING FOOL for even suggesting it.
He had already overthrown a Russian ally in Libya, killing the Head of State there, all under the guise of R2P and "humanitarian intervention".
And he has been waging a covert war against the secular Assad regime in Syria for two years, arming and training Islamists/jihadists.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)By SAMANTHA WYATT
September 9, 2013
Right-wing media have rushed to heap praise on Russian President Vladimir Putin for a proposal to allow Syria to avoid U.S. air strikes by surrendering all of its chemical weapons to the international community, despite the fact that Russia was responding to statements by Secretary of State John Kerry and that President Obama supports the solution.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/09/09/right-wing-medias-love-affair-with-putin-contin/195803
Surrendering all of its chemical weapons to the international community brings Assad to acting within 'international norms' as PBO said he had to do, detailed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention
This is a victory for us who want lives saved and nothing to complain. But it's not good enough for some and that's just sad. Save life, not face. EOM.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)to see that lolcat in you post. Nothing sums up better the frame of mind I am in. Thanks for the much need laugh.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)The rest simply verifies that.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Does that mean they have conceded they have no argument?
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Worthy of a teabagger.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)seriously.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)It was pretty vague and since they are going to try the diplomatic route the speech seemed kinda awkward.
and No, I'm not going to watch all the videos. Sure kids died, but kids will just as sure die in any war, or strike, or conflict...
Nothing was really accomplished by talking for a few minutes to the US tonight. No news broke, nothing was determined.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)to sell the country on intervention, to put pressure on Congress. Apparently, it was decided that re-purposing the speech would be a better idea than canceling it, so we got this strange amalgamation of "Syria bad... must bomb" and "diplomacy".
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)IF I was as concise as you.
Well Done.
tom_kelly
(946 posts)This whole thing is getting more strange with each day.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)To push bombing right after such a major diplomatic breakthrough is destructive, this speech could seriously damage the talks with Russia. Obama had a couple good days and he completely blew them with this speech.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Obama says "I disagree with the use of chemical weapons and so does almost everyone in the world. I have decided to blow shit up to take care of those chemical weapons. A diplomatic solution now exists thanks to my decision to blow shit up*. I'm taking it to the UN and asking Congress to delay the vote until that point. Meanwhile, have a look at the videos, because, you know, this whole position I have against chemical weapons is the morally correct position."
*(yes he literally said that)
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Where it was coherent, it was deliberately so.
He was speaking to different constituencies AND to Russia and the Syrians.
Obama provided a few solid points, like his commitment to have Congress involved, amid a palate of shadows and tones, leaving it to the viewer to read between the lines when needed.
He's not going to paint himself into a corner, show his entire hand.
This is how it's done.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Those were the days of glory for some here. For me, not so much. I welcome the change in leadership.
struggle4progress
(117,949 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)So. Confusing!
cigsandcoffee
(2,300 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)An appeal to upholding "international norms" by a unilateral act that is illegal under the same international norms.
Essentially: American exceptionalism entitles America to be the World Police, when and where it chooses.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)I guess we're supposed to believe It's Okay If You're An American.
1awake
(1,494 posts)gonna borrow that if it's okay.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)1awake
(1,494 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)merbex
(3,123 posts)He asked to postpone the vote - clearly he knew he didn't have the votes.
Now, he wants to see if the 'compliance will work'.....what if our 'compliance demands' are unrealistic?
He AGAIN asserts he has power to use military without Congress....
Overall, you are correct. Appealing to emotion asking us to watch youtube - that has to be a first. TRUST the internet says the POTUS.
Weird speech
quaker bill
(8,222 posts)Game this thing out.
Say Mr. Assad breaks into the massive stockpile again next week, and kills a few thousand more.
Where do you think the votes in Congress will be then? (answer: if there are enough dead children on CNN, even the T-party wackaloons will be on board)
Where do you think Mr. Assad thinks the votes will be if he does this?
Remember BHO only put the saber back into the sheath, but it is still parked just offshore and could pay Mr. Assad a visit in 30 minutes...
After a dozen years of war, do you really think anyone in the Middle East thinks we are not capable of going crazy stupid with all that firepower on a whim?
Do you think anyone over there does not fully comprehend the massive technical advantages we possess against every scrap of military equipment they possess?
He is not setting diplomacy for failure. The Secretary of State is on his team. He is setting up Assad and Congress, if Assad acts.
jessie04
(1,528 posts)He held out his hand for peace but would not back down.
An IRON fist in a velvet glove.
I'm sure the RW social media are praising your thoughts.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)I don't think you put in enough:
1. hand out for peace...check
2. would not back down...check
3. iron fist in a velvet glove...check
4. nailed it...check
5. RW social media praising...check
Can you add a few more? Pul-eeze doesn't count and I am just not satisfied with only 5. Thanks
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,476 posts)I thought I must have missed something, but maybe not.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)I also didn't get the impression that this is open-ended either and I do think that he was asking for people to come together to give thought and support to a reasonable solution to the problem of chemical weapon stockpiled in Syria. AND when I see those dead kids, I understand that, had the Iran-Iraq war gotten more lopsided back in the 80s and similar weapons used on the western edge of Iran made it to Tehran, those could have been my kids. We all need to give a tinker's dam about reducing this type of weaponry in the world and we definitely should care about those they have been used against. There were more than dead kids from that attack, there were survivors too who will live with the injury and disability brought on by a ruthless man's disregard for part of his people whose existence had become inconvenient for him. I really find it intensely disturbing to hear these deaths dismissed as a nuisance to be acknowledged.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)o man. you wrong. you wrong and you mad bro.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I don't miss 'the beloved pair.'
Whisp
(24,096 posts)RebelOne
(30,947 posts)I am against war and he did not convince me. I love Obama, but I disagree with his stance on any attack on Syria.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)If Obama wanted to attack - if he was like Shrub - chomping at the bit to bomb, he would do it. He wouldn't be working on a diplomatic solution.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)He may be working on a diplomatic effort but he's keeping
the military in place 'if needed'. This whole speech was so
full of loopholes no matter what he does do, he covered it.
imho
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Maybe study the Cold War in depth. Really study. Game theory.
Response to DevonRex (Reply #32)
DisgustipatedinCA This message was self-deleted by its author.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)I should never have acted that way.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)I'm not usually such a witch. (apologies to actual witches)
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)It's mind boggling! Imagine what they would say about Kennedy...
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)He is getting attacked both by the right and the left so he had to speak to both sides. If you really can't distinguish between the two different arguments then it may have sounded incoherent to you.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)johnd83
(593 posts)It is the carrot and the stick. He just spent most of time pointing out that he was ready to use the stick.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)if it is needed.
LukeFL
(594 posts)What do you think he was trying to do there?
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)not enough time for new rehearsals...
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)Far from "gobldeygook". I thought he was dead-on.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)la la la la la...I can't hear you...
like some here did.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)the time chimed in.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)so...hitting back with equal force is "rude"? GMAFB
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)figures "but you don't hate Obama" right?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)He just hasn't dome very many of them lately.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)from from 2009-2010.
I am more interested in the recent moves. It is clear that the second term is the time he pays back the people who funded him.
As I said, I give him credit for the 2009-2010 stuff, and that's a hell of a lot better than we would have gotten from McCain.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I happen to have met the young lady who created that site. Yeah she hasnt updated...but it was enough to debunk YOU and your "Obama has done nothing".
You sounded very much like the teabaggers who claimed Obama had no credentials to be President. I used to carry around a long list of them in my wallet to pull out whenever they made that claim
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)What is hard to follow about that?
Most of those good things were in his first two years. Since reelection, it has been a hard right turn. Out best scenario is to keep him in check another three years and hope for somebody a little less right wing in 2016.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you oppose anyone who is not left of Kucinich...and then you are disappointed by Obama...and that means everything he has done is Right? (Since the second election....I think Gay people would beg to differ with ya).
bigtree
(85,813 posts)Darkhawk32
(2,100 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I read it. Yeah. Strange. But I've been told its all part of a top secret masterplan only smart people could understand.
Shampoobra
(423 posts)I get so upset whenever I hear descriptions of what sarin does to its victims (and even more upset when I hear people try to downplay its effects with comments like, "Hey, killing is killing," as if death by a bullet is somehow as bad as the torturous effects of sarin) that I find myself wanting to side with the strike-Syria crowd.
Can't, though. None of the strike-Syria crowd seem to know what that is supposed to accomplish. And then the president comes on the screen with his freshly-painted eyebrows and pretends he has a message of some sort. It's embarrassing.
otohara
(24,135 posts)Really?
Shampoobra
(423 posts)I was still a little steamed when I wrote the above. No, his eyebrows should not be an issue. I just don't see why he needs to dye them jet-black.
otohara
(24,135 posts)http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/19/nation/la-na-adv-inaug-fever-20130120
Your horns are showing - stop it.
Sounds like something Michele Bachman would say...back track and say the same
thing differently.
Shampoobra
(423 posts)What's really going on here is, I broke my own most important rule (when it comes to online activity). I posted when I was in a rotten mood.
So if I offended you, or any one else with my comment about his eyebrows, I apologize. Bringing physical appearance into an argument is unnecessary, and never bolsters one's point.
Hekate
(89,977 posts)Obama's beard and sideburns may be black as well. The men in my Irish family keep red beards (or stubble) and sideburns after the hair on top their heads is gray and vanishing.
otohara
(24,135 posts)going after the grey haired presidents eyebrows.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)and arguing on this thread. Then I came to your post with the kitteh GIF. It made me laugh. Thanks.
Snake Plissken
(4,103 posts)when there are so many more important issues which need to be addressed.
I'm so sick of our country being the Middle East's little lap dog.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)RKP5637
(67,008 posts)after decade is sucking the life blood out of the US. Eventually, there will be great unrest in this country as we expend all of our resources, money and energy running around the world. Obama says we are not the policemen of the world, but I'll be damn, that's all I've seen my whole long life starting with the Vietnam war where many of my friends died.
Meanwhile, the US sinks lower and lower on the world stage, while other countries take their money, resources and energy to improve the lot of life for their citizenry, while we wage war, and they sit back.
Our foreign policy has always sucked, always!
harun
(11,347 posts)CountAllVotes
(20,849 posts)deranged pit bull IMO as sad as that is.
I certainly cannot disagree with you but I feel that actions like this draw a lot of attention while the big things that are significantly far more important to the American people seem to just slip-away in the dead of the night.
again ...
MADem
(135,425 posts)I thought he explained the issues quite clearly.
He never said "I want to attack." You should listen more closely.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I have a very short fuse when it comes to people taking a matter of major national import, a major policy speech that explained POTUS's thinking to the nation, coming here on DU and making it about THEM. This ain't a time for "Me, me, meeeee." IMO.
I suppose I should be more understanding, but I can't fathom anyone who would be so desperate to make a "sale" that they couldn't understand what Obama said in that speech. Joe Philly summed it up brilliantly--al-Assad needs to take the damn deal.
It's obvious this president isn't a "warmonger." He's a thoughtful, intelligent leader who gives a shit. His nuance and depth weren't too much for me to sort out--I had no difficulty sorting out what he was saying--I feel the same way he does.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Rilly?
"And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regimes use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike."
Five paragraphs down, genius.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-president-obamas-sept-10-speech-on-syria/2013/09/10/a8826aa6-1a2e-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story_1.html
MADem
(135,425 posts)If he really "wanted to attack" those cruise missles would be flying already.
Genius.
It's not always about YOU, you know.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"There is a contingent who love to see him fail and hate to see him win."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023638905
Issues!
MADem
(135,425 posts)Working the big stirring spoon overtime with that one.
I suspect what is happening with these pontifications has less to do with POTUS than the poster.
Enough, already. It's DU, not Meet The Press. No one gets paid to be a "personality" here.
You'd never know it, reading some of this overly-dramatic "fired for effect" stuff, though...
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I think that's a clue.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)Is that you Mr Pitt?
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Truthout, and Will's association with it, are not at issue here. Nor are Will's efforts to raise funds for an entity he believes in, and very strongly so.
If you agree/disagree with Will's OP, please feel free to weigh-in.
If you are trying to disparage the man personally because you disagree with him politically, you might want to consider maturing a bit before you post again.
I would appreciate it if you deleted your post. It is totally irrelevant, and has no place in this discussion thread.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)This proves he does, hey it's out there on you tube so how is this disparaging the guy. Maybe this will get him and his group more exposure and money who knows. So what is your beef? Oh and I did tell him he was wrong if you would read further down.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)is that your only reason for posting this video was to put Will in a bad light:
"Here he is begging for money ..."
Is that the title on the "hey it's out there on you tube" link?
Or did you think that editorial comment was necessary to prove he has hair?
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)I am not a hero worshiper never have been. The video provides "proof" that Mr. Pitt at least when the video was made, had hair. Not just on you tube the video is also on truthout. So you better get your high horse and get on over there and tell them to remove it pronto. Oh and Mr. Pitt is still wrong so don't fall off your high horse. Giddayup.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)It doesn't matter if one agrees or disagrees with the OP, this is a personal attack on the person as opposed to his argument.
Please consider deleting this.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)is as lacking as your reasoning.
My reply to Will's OP (Reply #203) makes it clear I am not a "fan".
The video provides 'proof' that he has hair? Who asked for proof? Who fuckin' cares?
You posted the video as a personal attack on someone whose political opinion you don't agree with. If you think anyone here believes you posted it in response to some off-handed remark about Will's hair, you must also believe that the people seeing this are as stupid as you are.
You posted the clip with the caption, "Here he is, begging for money." THAT was the point you wanted made. And you wanted to make that point because, yet again, you are stupid enough to think that Will raising funds for Truthout is 'begging' rather than what it is - fundraising for Truthout, clear and simple.
Your persistent claims that this had anything to do with Will's hair are downright laughable - but then, I doubt you have the intellect to grasp that concept.
Hekate
(89,977 posts)... on the merits. But in a sense we also all know Will as an old-timer DU from waaaay back, and he's been a valuable contributor here.
Unlike you. Toodle-oo.
Number23
(24,544 posts)special but there is absolutely no reason to drag that video in here. What a mean spirited and tasteless thing for that poster to do.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)(See my Reply #203).
But posting that video is, as you've said, "mean spirited and tasteless'. And the poster's stated 'reasons' for doing so are laughably ridiculous.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He's pretty smart.
Snake Plissken
(4,103 posts)What is the point of this entire exercise? Does anyone actually know?
All I see is just another political circle-jerk
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Delay the vote.
Try a diplomatic solution first.
Let Assad know he means business.
Snake Plissken
(4,103 posts)this whole situation is nothing but an exercise is political drama, that has been going on for decades.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It's more like he better hand over the chemical weapons or else.
We're giving him some time to make a deal. If he follows through great we can stay the hell out of Syria. If not, our worst nightmares come true. We strike. Then he hands them over. Either way he hands them over.
It seems to me that he's prepared to hand over the weapons to Russia. Russia seems prepared to help.
Snake Plissken
(4,103 posts)one thing for certain is it will cost us far more than it's worth ... as usual,
but it the end it will be wrapped up in a pretty package with a nice bow and Americans will once again pat themselves on the back and call it a win, however the killing will continue but by then the media will have us focused on something else.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They've got an aircraft carrier "homeported" at one of al Assad's ports (and they have a sweet deal with al Assad to use it, too--it's almost free). They use that port as a resupply installation for their subs and surface ships in the Med. It's a power projection issue with them--if they don't have a place to park in the Med, they can't achieve their strategic goals.
If al Assad goes, the deal to use Tartus is dead. Pootie is then fucked and a good chunk of his Navy is locked up, and has to kiss Turkey's ass every time they want to go to sea until he finds--and fixes up--another deepwater port in the Med.
Snake Plissken
(4,103 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Russias only aircraft carrier will visit Moscows small naval base in Syria later this year, BBC Monitoring reported citing a newspaper published by the Russian government.
At the end of the year, most likely in early December, the Project 11435 heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser the Admiral Kuznetsov will set off on a long-distance sea voyage during which it will call at the Russian Federation Navy's logistical support centre located in the Syrian city of Tartus, Russias Defense Ministry said in a statement, BBC Monitoring reported on Saturday, citing a Russian-language report in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, a newspaper run by the Russian government.
The article goes on to quote a Defense Ministry staffer as saying that the route of the vessels long-distance sea voyage was already set and it was therefore unlikely to be affected by the civil war in Syria. The Admiral Kuznetsovs stopover in Tartus is in no way connected to the Syrian civil war Rossiyskaya Gazeta paraphrased the staffer as saying, according to BBC Monitoring.
The Admiral Kuznetsov is Russias only operational aircraft carrier. The article clarifies that Russia refers to the ship as an aircraft-carrying cruiser because under international treaties aircraft carriers are banned from passing through the Bosporus and Dardanelles . But this ban does not extend to aircraft-carrying cruisers.
....
Why do you think Pootie has spent so much money upgrading and dredging that facility? For shits and giggles?
He's a man with a plan...and you have to be obtuse as all hell to not see it. He doesn't want to have to leave his investment, if he can help it...Here's the "pravda" from Pootie's pals at Pravda:
http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/27-06-2013/124965-russia_tartus-0/
Russian Defense Ministry rebutted reports on the withdrawal of Russian personnel from the sustainment center of the Russian Navy in the Syrian port of Tartus, the press service of the ministry said Thursday.
Defense Ministry officials said that Tartus was still an official base for Russian vessels in the Mediterranean and continued to perform its tasks. The Defense Ministry stated that the affirmation in the reports about the withdrawal of personnel of the sustainment center was extremely incorrect from the point of view of the actual situation.
It was said that there was no one single Russian military employed at the sustainment center in Tartus. The center is serviced by civil personnel only.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)for 24 business hours.
He deserved it, though--he just called me "genius" in a disparaging way.
I guess that's because I didn't jump on the bandwagon.
Gonna dish it out, gotta be prepared to take it.
Hekate
(89,977 posts)Ew.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Dash87
(3,220 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)favored conclusion.
They can build up intricate systems that "explain things," but they never know when to apply them. Hence, "24 business hours," one hair-on-fire episode after the next, all screamy and insistent, because the system they've built demands it. It's OK for the OP, though: wisdom can come, and intelligence can cover until it does.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)It's the same kind of "glint" when he mentions drones. Other than that it was filled with death and little kids and little kids writhing on the cold floor...and watch the videos on Social Media as to why we must do something.
He did do a bit about trying for diplomacy. Sending Kerry to meet with his Counterpart in Russia and speaking personally with Putin.
But...yeah. It was really just focused on the Sarin gas...not mentioning what we've done to little children, adults and others in combat. What our drones are doing with collateral damage to little babies and kids and women and the old in the way.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)eye a fascinating study. I want to read more.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)pack up your babies and all the old ladies, HE'S GOT THE GLINT!
He's got the Glint, he's got the Glint he's got the Glint (and beat).
Glint Eastwood strikes again, talking to the 101st Chairborne.
thankyou, thankyouverymuch for this comical interlude, Koko.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)ENORMOUS DICK that you shouldn't really question that WE WILL FUCK YOU SERIOUSLY UP.
He reminds me of Little Bush giving the State of the Union more with each passing day.
quaker bill
(8,222 posts)Very few things in this world are black and white. GWB* was very good at painting them black and white, his speeches had little nuance. They were simple, clear, strongly worded, and usually pretty stupid.
In the actual world, real choices are often bad vs less bad. I do not support a strike on Syria, but I also do not support the undeterred use of chemical weapons, against anyone.
As a religious pacifist, Dietrich Bonhoffer faced the question, if given an opportunity to kill Hitler, when you fully know what Hitler is doing and will continue to do, what is a pacifist to do? He faced this question directly because he actually felt he had the real opportunity to kill the actual Hitler. He conspired with those who attempted the assassination and was executed for his role in the attempt.....
It appears to take a bit more than "shame on you" to get Mr. Assad's attention. If that confuses you, so be it.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)The complexity of this whole thing is lost on many.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Assad may have attacked some people with sarin gas. (I am betting thirty years from now we find out it was our CIA, the same CIA that used to bomb Italians back in the 1960's so that the Communist movement in Italy could be stalled.)
But anyway, Assad is being blamed for this alleged attack of his on people. Great Britain sold the sarin gas to Assad, some have said. If that proves true, then do we attack Great Britain? No of course, they are white people, and we do not attack a nation of white people.
White people don't fit our modern day criteria for our wars.
But once we make sure that Syria is a nation of brown skinned people, who also live in a region that we need to take over for a pipeline that is instrumental for one of OUR BIG OIL CORPORATIONS, and so then we realize that this oil business fits the criteria for a military strike.
And it could be a two fer - we go there to do this military strike. Obama can't quite explain the benefit to humanity of this strike, but then no wars fought since 1960 have had any benefit other than to the profit column of the guldarned One Percent.
But the way it becomes a two-fer is if the Russians still have their Naval ships in the area and one of those ships hits one of our ships with anti-ship artillery, and then the whole thing can expand into a much larger war, which is probably the whole goal to begin with.
It's time we have ourselves a great big war. The officials in charge have clearly lost their enthusiasm for little wars.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I had no trouble following it either. No one "wants" a strike on Syria. No one "wants" children gassed to death with no response, either.
It appears to take a bit more than "shame on you" to get Mr. Assad's attention. If that confuses you, so be it.
Best line of this entire discussion.
quaker bill
(8,222 posts)thanks
JohnnyLib2
(11,202 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)FSogol
(45,312 posts)Hekate
(89,977 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)The threat of force as opened the possibility for a diplomatic solution.
I will pursue diplomacy but I am letting the regime know that we aren't bluffing.
DU never disappoints. 24/7 bashing.
bhikkhu
(10,707 posts)with recent events, it would have been understandable if he cancelled the speech. But, having not cancelled it, it was bound to be a conflicted jumble of ideas. Its hard to press for the urgency of an authorization for military action after a much more promising path presents itself, and seems most likely to be taken.
struggle4progress
(117,949 posts)See:
Statement by the President on Syria
For Immediate Release August 31, 2013
Rose Garden
1:52 P.M. EDT
noamnety
(20,234 posts)I thought it was just me - I couldn't figure out what he was actually trying to say.
It was like reading high school freshman essays where they know they have to fill 3 solid pages of text, but they don't actually have a thesis for their paper or a conclusion.
I did appreciate the part though where he spelled out various atrocities by different countries but tactfully skipped the parts where we did the same. That would have been awkward.
And I caught that he had no shame in explicitly identifying and defending American exceptionalism. That was the jaw dropping moment for me.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)That surprised me, as well. And the "no boots on the ground in Syria" made me think "read my lips".
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Sorry to make you have to watch him so I know what's going on, but I can't bring myself to do it any more.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)Final paragraph from the transcript:
America is not the worlds policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. Thats what makes America different. Thats what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)What I did watch and listen to last night was this,
which you might enjoy. (Because Obama!)
Tikki
(14,533 posts)Tikki
Beaverhausen
(24,464 posts)I thought it was a good speech.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Condoleeza Rice - 2006:
"We have done a poor job of standing up to them," meaning Iran and Syria, "and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative." In fact, Secretary Rice, have our threats but lack of action emboldened Iran and Syria?
RICE: I don't believe by any stretch of the imagination that Iran and Syria misunderstand that the United States and its allies have a different vision for the Middle East than they do. And that's what has them alarmed.
That is why they are striking out, because when we succeed in a different kind of Middle East, a Middle East in which you have a stable Iraq that is democratic and multi-religious and pluralistic, when you have a different kind of Middle East in which you have a Lebanon, as it is now, devoid of Syrian forces but, in fact, stable and democratic, it's going to be a different kind of Middle East. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/condoleezza_rice_sens_allen_do.html
I just feel like I've heard all this rhetoric before....
Mr.Bill
(24,031 posts)But then, people like us on forums like these tend to be a lot more informed than 99% of the public. Some of the speech might have been news to them, but not to me.
tsuki
(11,994 posts)we sell cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. Pretty incoherent.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)This whole thing is so messed up he didn't have much to work with, things are still fluid. He did the best anyone could with the way things are, so I'll give him a pass on the substance & a 'great' on delivery.
I do like the man a lot. But I also hate bombs & wars.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Drones targeted on the UN? Invasion of Syria? Ablind eye on turning Syria into a complete chemical wasteland?
Why not tell us what you'd do Will to resolve this problem? It's easy to criticize Obama, but I find it odd that no one wants to explain just what we should be doing to stop WMD being used in Syria. You're a smart dude, give us your takeon what should be done to minimize/eliminate the war crimes happening there.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Generic Other
(28,979 posts)In fact I have already had a post hidden tonight for saying as much.
I will file this speech with the ones Kerry made, Colin Powell, Rummy, Bush, et al. I had the same reaction. They never quite level with us. They never acknowledge the truth, the real motives for their hard-ons for war. American Exceptionalism indeed. Now we are spouting Sarah Palin's line to justify our quest for empire, power and profit?
Americans are also suffering: young, elderly, sick, unemployed, homeless -- our jails filled, our futures empty. Not one politician in this country need come lecture me or try to manipulate my feelings about the horrors their class inflicts on the world.
And to suddenly be so upset on behalf of children a world away -- some of the few children over in the Middle East that we aren't responsible for having killed -- this kind of deliberate self deceptive hypocrisy undermines our actions, and I refuse to engage in debate on these terms. I also refuse to have my emotions falsely manipulated.
I am sick today, and it feels exactly like it did on the eve of invading Iraq.
They will do what they have always planned to do come hell or high water.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)It did feel like the sort of rancid reasoning regularly served up by Bush's speechwriters, though.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)It was more the feeling I had heard this before, and not from a Democrat. He tried to make me feel shame for opposing America's immoral wars. He didn't have that right. None of them do.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)completely Generic Other.
And I, too, have had a post hidden for what I felt was speaking the truth about how Bushian BHO has been acting. It seems that many here are willfully blind because this load of horseshit is being sold by a Democrat. But these past couple of weeks, this administration has acted with the same bluster as the Bush cabal. The evidence of who used the weapons is doctored, the response (cruise missiles) is absurd, the goal is unclear and the consequences (especially the unintended ones) and costs are unknown and not even considered!
Then, of course, there's the hypocrisy factor. The US is the arsenal of the world and its history is rife with violence against the weak. It has been both the user and purveyor of chemical weapons and this whole intervention reeks of PNAC and AIPAC; it ain't about dead children!
rury
(1,021 posts)President Obama was on point.
End of story!!
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)He doesn't want to commit to either diplomacy or war until we know more about how sincere Russia and Syria are. So he makes the case for every action, and it sounds muddled.
One thing he needs to explain better is why our national security is at stake, as he claims. How can we be threatened by Syria, when he's telling us they can't even do any damage to us when we go attack them? The public doesn't think whatever's happening in Syria matters to the U.S. directly-- he needs to make a better case for that.
1awake
(1,494 posts)That's exactly what it was. And still, so many people don't care because I guess the rules only apply when we want them to.
Snake Plissken
(4,103 posts)Anyone who supports our military would want to get them the fuck out of the Middle East as soon as possible, and keep them home.
What the 'Right' supports is using our military as a taxpayer funded. private security service for multi-billion dollar corporations, that is hardly support of our Military.
rsmith6621
(6,942 posts)I think this will become old news very fast and something else will replace it. I dont think POTUS will do anything at this point. I think POTUS wants this off the front page. He is confused as to what to do.
Maybe first he should listen to the voters who want no part of this.
We will hear less about this in the coming days. It will disappear.
quaker bill
(8,222 posts)it is just that what needs to be done is a bit more subtle than you seem to be used to. Sorry if that is a concern.
Tiredofthesame
(62 posts)But all of this back and forth, if you will, is to keep YOU confused. I'm not confused. In these days we live in, once the war drum is being beaten, even taking out the batteries of the energizer bunny can't stop the inevitable. I'll bet my all my dollars, everything I have, bombs will drop in Syria, no matter what. What you witnessed tonight is Act 432 in a never ending play.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I'll grant you it was a little mixed, and with segues that were not always smooth.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)came up with a diplomatic solution. Whether or not Putin means it, I don't know. I think not, because I think Putin is just trying to show President Obama up...and at least in President Obama's mind, it seems to have worked, because now he is on the fence and not sure whether to go to war over this or not. This is actually a tricky situation either way you look at it, but even more so now, because Putin has, at least under the surface, stepped in between the US and Syria(Assad) in this situation while trying to make himself look like the more diplomatic leader. There are undertones of that with Putin there, if you ask me.
I can't stand Putin and his hideous anti-gay laws, but I would much rather see diplomacy win the day and for the world community to find a non-war method to stop the hideous chemical attacks on children. That DOES need to stop ASAP.
King_Klonopin
(1,305 posts)On one side, we have Obama with his posse of coat-holders
(Kerry and McCain, et. al) who were pushing him to get into a
fight after the Republicans got him to commit to draw a "red line"
in the sand.
On the other side, we have Assad crossing that line and his coat-
holder (Putin) pushing him to defy Obama with an implicit threat
that his tough-guy friends (Russia) will have his back should they
throw down.
Problem: Obama and Assad listened to the coat-holders.
Now, after lots of tough talk, threats and bravado, one of the coat-
holders (Putin) realizes that a fight could result in an all-out bloody
brawl that includes him, he steps in like a "hero" to stop the fight.
If this is how we get to the ends of destroying the poison gas and
preventing an escalation of violence, then I don't much care which
side looks foolish.
"Kids in the schoolyard" politics at its best.
Fight! Fight! Fight!
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)He's been all over the place, and now he's twisting himself in knots trying to reconcile the resulting contradictions.
Europe must be confused, the Republicans are no doubt laughing. It's damn near impossible to bluff like this when the entire world knows he's 200 votes short in the house and the senate is uncertain.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)[h2][font color=red]
DO NOT WANT THIS WAR!
[/h2][/font color=red]
(They don't want it even if it is called something else, like "daisy chain-making by toddlers who wub their Mummies and Daddies."
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)If he had 71% support and certain victory in congress, then he could effectively bluff.
chillfactor
(7,564 posts)I think you have a real problem understanding English...too bad...you missed a marvelously crafted speech
Rain Mcloud
(812 posts)Flashback to 2003 when Saadam crossed a thin red line in the sand and used the WMDs that Rumsfeld brokered in Gulf War 1.
Somehow those WMDs did not exist,yet 100,000+ Iraqis lost their lives so that we might save the people from a horrible monster.
Just like Assad.
I expect the Republicans to lie to me,i do not like it but i have come to expect it.
Eisenhower was the sole exception.
Now the so-called Democrat President is repeating the missteps of virtually every President since Ike.
He tried to warn us about the military industrial complex and apparently he was right all along.
Will we have 280 prosecutions as under the Reagan regime?
My guess is that those days are over and Nixon was right too,"If the president does it then it can't be illegal."
I do not believe that the people will be much swayed by tonight's plea bargain.
erpowers
(9,350 posts)He did not really give a clear decision or plan. I would have preferred if the President had given a firm decision one way or the other and then given a plan for how his decision would be carried out. I think it is a bad idea to wait to make a decision.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)First the logic. Estimates are that more than 100,000 are dead from the Civil War. We've seen videos of Executions, and brutalities for the entire civil war. But somehow, 1,400 dead from Chemical Weapons are the only thing that matters. Now, I'm no Mathematician, but by my calculations, roughly 1 in 71 dead have died from suspected CW attacks. So 1.4 % of those dead are from suspected CW attacks. And I'm not supposed to really concern myself with the dead adults from CW attacks, but the Children, the children are what Assad must answer for.
Indeed, I'd ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way?
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/10/20427421-full-transcript-of-president-obamas-remarks-on-syria?lite
So I'm supposed to ignore 98,600 deaths because those were proper deaths. Death from shrapnel, and shock from explosives is fine, even it is children being bombed. Deaths from machete's in far away lands is no skin off our nose, even if children are hacked to death, that's an acceptable death. Death from starvation is just fine, because when you're starving you're too weak to writhe on the ground and nobody has videotaped that. Oh and bullets are the best way to die, because bleeding out is a perfectly acceptable way to be taken into the next life. No parent has ever held a child who was shot and beg them to live.
That was asinine, and it was childish, and it was even worse than amateur.
Look Mr. President. Let's be honest here. Syria is not in violation of international law, because they did not sign the CW treaty. You can't hold me responsible for a credit slip I didn't sign. Nobody does that. But you are claiming a violation of international law based upon a treaty that Syria hasn't signed. Will you allow yourself to be held accountable for landmines which are banned by nearly every other country but we haven't signed it? No of course not. That would be silly. But that is the standard you are trying to hold Syria to.
The even worse was the stretching of the imagination to the breaking point in trying to explain how this was a necessary action for the American National Security. I write fiction, and in creating a story you have to make it believable enough to suspend disbelief. Mr. President, you failed to get me to suspend disbelief on that one.
In 2011, 32,367 deaths occurred on our highway. Many of those people writhed as they died, it's a terrible thing to watch someone die, because only in Hollywood is it clean as they bravely stare off to space. Should I be more upset if 1.4% of those people died in Fiat's than if they had died in Ford's? Are Ford deaths any more dignified than deaths in some other kind of car?
That is what we are reduced to debating Mr. President. That the deaths by Gas that affected 1.4% of those killed in this war are somehow more offensive than the 98,600 who died by bombs, bullets, bladed weapons, gang rapes, bludgeoning.
You can't promise that no retaliation is going to happen. Russia has a Naval Base there. Unless Putin has assured you in writing that no retaliation will come from them, and even then I'd be suspicious, especially with all the Naval Deployments Russia has to the region, you can't promise no retaliations.
Three million Syrians are living in refugee camps, but that's fine too, because starvation and disease in a refugee camp is a proper death that is morally acceptable to the worlds oldest constitutional democracy. Asinine.
From amateur to ridiculous. This speech had it all. I love the Democratic Party, but I'm supporting other Democrats for this one gang.
GeorgeGist
(25,293 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And the obscene bid for Americans to go watch youtube videos of the writhing was the vile propaganda cherry on top.
Thank you for saying so clearly and directly what needed to be said here.
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)Thank you.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)Carolina
(6,960 posts)Savannahmann. "From amateur to ridiculous" well said!
haikugal
(6,476 posts)beautifully put and to the point. We don't want this ... NO!!!
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Slipped my mind about the land mines. Land mines are a tremendously brutal way to die, or to be injured. And then there is the nasty little habit that land mines have, that they don't suddenly dissipate into nothingness when a war ends, but blow up years later when someone is out plowing their field or digging a ditch, or just hiking through the country side.
We really have more gall than any other "civilised" nation in existence.
but s far as retaliation, we had two Talking Heads from USA today letting everyone know that although Russia makes some noises about the situation, Russia doesn't count. Not a thing Russia can do to us, the Talking Head explained.
I guess younger people have no concept of the meaning of 1,500 nuclear warheads armed and prepped for that slip of the switch.
With another 3,000 warheads that could be prepped and ready to go within 96 hours.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Back in the late 90's I attended a concert at the Washington Park Rose Garden in Portland OR - Joan Baez, Dar Williams and Bruce Cockburn. I went to see Bruce, but Joan put on a nice show as well. The concert goers were your typical Portland-area upscale Liberals (with a capital L), conspicuously festooned in various tie-dyed garments as they re-lived the glorious days of their hippie youth before they became investment bankers, attorneys and art dealers.
At the time, Bruce Cockburn was very involved in the International Land Mine Ban effort (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty) and had brought along a team of volunteers who were tabling behind the venue, urging people to sign a petition asking that the United States become a signatory on the treaty. Being a grass roots activist at the time, I was very supportive of the effort and signed the petition. I was impressed that Cockburn took on the expense of bringing the activists along on his tour.
However, there was much grumbling among the tie-dyed Capital L Liberals who were apparently offended that they were subjected to politics at a music event. The feathers of quite a few were ruffled because the literature being distributed was calling out President Clinton for failing to push for U.S. approval of the treaty. One person (and only one) dropped a disparaging remark about Cockburn's Canadian citizenship and how he had no business "preaching" to "us."
I learned something that day about certain Democrats and "Liberals."
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I know those "L"'s all too well. I enjoyed your portrayal of the scene that day. (And I love Cockburn.) In fact, I have found that the backwoodsy Republicans I rub shoulders with now that I have left SF Bay area can be far more supportive of many things, if you know how to bring up a subject.
There were far too many Bay area liberals who didn't think their fair share of taxes was worth paying, but still wanted social programs galore. They never saw the disconnect between that. (I guess the reason they liked so many government programs was that way they didn't need to concern themselves about charity.) Meanwhile someone in my middle class bracket was expected to pay the taxes for those programs.
I should point out I fully support many social programs, but the tax code needs a definite overhaul.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I saw the concert with a friend, and as we were walking back to the car after the show we found ourselves in one of the most upscale and most liberal neighborhoods in Portland. I remarked to my friend that the people living in those $1 million+ homes didn't realize that all of that prosperity came at the expense of someone else having to scratch out an existence from nothing. The world is a closed system, and the more we hoard in our luxurious little corner of it the less there is for everyone else. I surmised that the attitude we observed earlier at the show reflected the base hypocracy of Establishment Liberalism: human rights for everyone! (unless it impacts my portfolio).
Celefin
(532 posts)The implied insignificance of all the other kinds of agonizing deaths, at lot of them caused by land-mines and cluster-bombs, are A-Ok because the US didn't sign those treaties is nothing short of repulsive apart from being dishonest in the extreme. Breaking international norms to uphold international norms is where it gets tune-out-ridiculous. Shame.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)crim son
(27,462 posts)being under no illusions about political speech. Sounds like he's keeping his options open which I guess is better than being determined to strike. If there's a difference in his mind.
I do know that if I'd watched it, I'd have the same thoughts you do, Will.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)I agree
madamesilverspurs
(15,774 posts)He didn't say exactly what I wanted him to say. But he was measured and concise, hardly incoherent.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)to tell you you're wrong, when you never admit it when you are?
According to your FB page, you'd already decided this afternoon that you were trying to 'wrap your head around what he was going to say' - long before he said anything.
"Will he just read the Great Gatsby like Andy Kaufman?"
Sounds like you went into this speech with your mind already made up. It was going to be 'gobledygook' no matter what he said - because you've taken your position, and you're always right.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)is the only language one can use when there is no answer to the problem. Every item depends on another action that depends on another country who is protected by another country and is feared by several countries and another country wants to attack the first country and a couple of the other ones.
Makes perfect sense.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Hopefully you cheered Operation Iraqi Liberation too
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)up. Even me, with zero WMD knowledge and experience knew it was bullshit.
And, by the way, comparing a DUer to those in the Bush fan club is probably the shittiest thing
you could say to someone here.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)to just insult you...
don't expect someone who only wants to be lock step with a certain crowd here to be able to give you an intelligent, personal, and thoughtful reply.
they know theres a difference.
how could they not?
to not is to disrespect all of us who were against Iraq when we heard the drums for war in 2002...
unless folks on DU have really forgotten that Iraq was based on a plan from the 90s by people in his administration, was completely based on blatant lies that were in turn loosely based off of 10-15 year old intelligence and a computer drawing of a chemical truck.. whatever the hell that is.. nor do they like to bring up that Iraq had a congressional vote, and we all know how that turned out.. as if congress matters, especially the one we currently have...
no no no, this war is EXACTLY the same... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. and then you woke up.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)This whole thing is a rerun of the show from 2002. Luckily the president came to his senses before jumping into another quagmire. But his justifications for an attack, and the cheerleading from the fan club, are practically identical. If you don't want to be compared to a Bushie, then don't act like one
eridani
(51,907 posts)--which refuses to join the world bans on cluster bombs and depleted uranium, both of which have killed more people than chemical warfar.
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)and just updated the rest-- that's how the incoherence reads from an editorial POV, IMO
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)Obama might have wanted to postpone his speech.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Huge k and r.
kentuck
(110,916 posts)It seems like too important of an event to let some dumbass write it for you? He is a better writer than that.
mrchips
(97 posts)You either have no understanding of history or you are just so blinded by your desire to pretend ideological purity that you are totally ignorant of the necessity to actually hold bad actors in the world accountable. You don't need to fire a shot to deescalate military confrontation by making sure the despot knows you have the capacity and the will to act. There is a reason Syria is after two years of civil war finally willing to negotiate an agreement it has refused to sign. What exactly is it that you do not understand? Chemical weapons use is a crime against humanity. Staying silent is how holocausts develop. I guess you're ok with that.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)A President and any citizens who support him using the manufactured outrage over Chemical Weapons, when our nation is the Number One Arms Dealer, and also has killed more people with illegal Chem Weapons and Radioactive Weapons than Syria even has, really need to examine the definition of hypocrisy.
There is also the matter that China might get rather tired of loaning us money to blow up things inside their ally's territory.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)I laughed out loud when I did, oh and the bad actor comment.....
jsr
(7,712 posts)scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)add 'cool kids' and some snark about 'street cred' but not a word about the content of either his OP or the President's speech.
I simply do not understand the reliance on name calling and personal attacks.
Skittles
(152,918 posts)your bad writing gives you away
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Hekate
(89,977 posts)The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)He wants us to watch those videos. How many times did he mention them?
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)Apparently it's not quite as important that we see the intel that implicates Assad.
Ocelot
(227 posts)wisteria
(19,581 posts)I get it.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Could it be that he's not 100 percent convinced himself?
Mellow Drama
(47 posts)The worst thing that could happen is for the Republicans using this issue to vote against ACA and Immigration reform. That is more important than going to war.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)obxhead
(8,434 posts)he can't harm our military significantly and is not a threat.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)although Kerry promises the strikes will be "unbelievably small."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023628199
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)Now how hard was that?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)davidwparker
(5,397 posts)He planned the speech before Kerry let out Putin's deal to take back the chemicals. Then, he was stuck. Had he cancelled, he would have looked more foolish that he already has.
Darkhawk32
(2,100 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)pnwmom
(108,915 posts)But life is complicated and so are the decisions a President has to make.
Not sure what you were expecting.
zwyziec
(173 posts)sigmasix
(794 posts)Of course you are wrong, but then you dont seem to care about questions of right and wrong- just partisan and extremist narratives filled with Obama Derangement Syndrome apologia.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)To try to make heads or tails. It is carrot and STICK to be fair.
And damn, that American myth exudes as well as empire.
markpkessinger
(8,366 posts). . . seems to me they have to reconcile their notion that this was his plan all along with the fact that he continued, in his speech, to make the case for why he believes missile strikes are justified. There's . . . ahem . . . just a bit of a contradiction there! I mean, this wasn't a speech by a man who had confidence in a diplomatic solution, which True Believers insist was his plan all along.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)This isn't a done deal yet.
And until it is, you want to let the guy on the other side of the world know that, "Holy shit, this fucker is serious."
There was no contradiction. YOU weren't the only person hearing that speech. There were other parties listening, and some of Obama's comments were very obviously directed at them.
Did you think he was "assuring" the US public by stating, "We don't DO pin-pricks," and then detailing what damage he was prepared to do? That wasn't directed at the Smiths in Indiana. That was meant for other ears.
markpkessinger
(8,366 posts). . . by DisgustipatedinCA, is that if this was all pre-planned, the President has some serious explaining to do to David Cameron:
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)"knowingly deceive Cameron"?
Did he force him to do anything, or say anything at any particular time?
Is Cameron stupid enough to think that a diplomatic solution wasn't being pursued all along, or that should one come to fruition, Obama would refuse to pursue it?
markpkessinger
(8,366 posts)markpkessinger
(8,366 posts). . . that the President would allow the head of government of the United States' closest ally to twist in the wind like that . . . wow.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)markpkessinger
(8,366 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)I was pretty sure what you meant, but didn't want to assume in case I was wrong.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)as you seem to be so well-versed in the matter.
Diplomatic avenues are always being pursued behind-the-scenes in these matters, despite the saber-rattling that takes place in public view.
Cameron has to know that. He had to know that a diplomatic course might at any time become viable, and that if that opportunity presented itself, Obama would pursue it.
Did Obama tell Cameron, "You've got to stand with me on this," thinking he'd leave him 'twisting in the wind' in the end? I sincerely doubt it. In fact, that idea is prepostoris.
Did Obama tell Cameron that he was pursuing, and was hopeful about, a diplomatic solution, but asked for Cameron's public support to make it clear to all concerned that he WASN'T fucking around should all diplomatic avenues be exhausted?
Thing is, I don't know what Obama told Cameron - or vice versa. And neither do you.
You want to assume that Obama left Cameron to swing in the wind - an act which would make absolutely NO sense whatsoever, and would be much to Obama's detriment.
The more common sense assumption is that Obama and Cameron BOTH know what's going on behind closed doors, and worked in concert to further a goal mutually beneficial to both.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Someone who worked in counter terrorism in the ME was on the local NPR show this afternoon and used that quote to describe the President's intention.
http://wamc.org/post/vox-pop-open-forum-91013-syria
13-20min is the caller I am referring to. It was an interesting discussion.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Now let's see how giving an incoherent speech fit into the master plan he's had all along....
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I had my own distraction that included getting beat up as a local official (neanderthal stories will come after this year's over)...
But, I'll no doubt look at it tomorrow and weigh in...truthfully.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Will was looking for a reason to bash it.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)but it was clear. If you want to criticize him, at least come up with something that is legitimate.
I thought the speech was very good, and I have come around to supporting him on this in the last week or so. But as far a negatives about the speech...
For me, the weakest part of the it was connecting Syria to our national security. The connection he made is there but it is a bit indirect. IMO the Syrian conflict destabilizing the region, impacting our allies and interests, would've been a much better argument... seen already in the spillover of 2+ million refugees into neighboring countries.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)part 2 of speech doesnt contradict part 1.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/09/10/president-obama-addresses-the-nation-on-syria/
BootinUp
(46,852 posts)on this one.
kardonb
(777 posts)you ARE wrong ! I am telling you .
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)The lies regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, torture and disregard for people in our own country has made the majority suspicious and leary of anything when it comes to knowing what is the right thing to do when world leaders murder innocent people.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Because we all know that no matter what Assad does or doesn't do, they're gonna get their precious war on!!!!
Will they show pictures of all the little dead children after the strikes? Maybe they'll make their own YouTube channel just for little maimed bodies.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)What you experienced as goobletygook was actually your defense mechanism to resist the President's reasoning. The speech itself is quite coherent and well-written. But your investment in arguing for no strike whatsoever in Syria will not let you acknowledge this, which is a pity. I think both sides could use a good hour long time-out where they genuinely tried to understand the other side and their reasoning.
DU is not going to be the place where something like that happens, though. Too many poster-bearers on both sides of the issue.
SunSeeker
(51,302 posts)And yes, you're wrong. The President was not incoherent. Your post deliberately misquotes Obama. He wants support for the strike so that he can use it as leverage to get Russia and Syria to follow through on their promises to get rid of the CW...promises they never would have made but for the threat of a strike.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)Youll have to be sure to write him a letter so that next time he can better catter to your needs , so as to coddle you and clense you of fear.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)I'd like to know who he spoke to that said, 'oh please mr. president, don' hurt anyone, don't do anything!' Actually, all I heard in that comment was a condescending straw man argument. As if bombing Syria was our only option for stopping a dictator from killing more innocent children. If that's his understanding of his "friends on the left", then he doesn't really know us at all.
that didn't feel so good, but nothing new.
Roland99
(53,342 posts)and it sure isn't anyone w/even the slightest bit of a liberal or progressive bent.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)If the diplomacy works and Syria gives up its chemical weapons, the outcome is the best anyone could possibly expect. Sometimes the threat is better than its execution.
rucky
(35,211 posts)But I suspect that the American people weren't really the intended audience for this speech.
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
michigandem58 This message was self-deleted by its author.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Makes sense to me!
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)Jesus, I'm sick of the Obama contrarians on here.
Nightjock
(1,408 posts)No way I want to hurl bombs into Syria even after his speech but he has to play all sides. Maybe cut the Prez a little bit of slack on last night?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)There is a concept called the OODA loop, it first came out of jet fighter pilots. It really is applicable to about anything, and politics is a great place to use it. I describes any course of action as a loop.
Observe
Orient
Decide
Act
And all actions are a constant repeat of this cycle.
The theory is that you have to move and react fast enough to "get inside" your opponents loop, reacting faster than they do in ways they don't expect, you short circuit their process and gain an advantage.
He seemed a lot like a man who, and his team, had people inside his loop reacting faster than they could, throwing them off their game. Once someone is inside your loop you end up just reacting to them, and not shaping events around you.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)At the end of it, I found myself less likely to believe a word he says.
Weasel words, disappointing weasel words.
TBF
(31,892 posts)Clinton was wicked good at dumbing everything down.
When I went through FB this morning half the conservatives (idiots) on the board were talking about how confused they are and can't figure out what he's doing.
Putin jumped quickly at the deal and I would imagine he'll find a way to explain it to Assad.
Nitram
(22,614 posts)with ambiguity, shifting events, complex relationships, incomplete information and conflicting moral imperatives among many at DU. I suspect there are not many good poker players among those who think the post we're responding to has merit.
Roland99
(53,342 posts)if you did, you'd see it was a WONDROUS speech!
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)rtracey
(2,062 posts)hmmm, I must have watched a different address. I basically saw President Obama, explain that gas bombs killed the civilians, including children, that gas bombs are illegal under international rules, that a limited strike is possible, and that he is going to wait and see if diplomacy will work first, and told congress to wait until the diplomacy goes further. So what was incoherent?
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)It was incoherent. I do kind of feel for his speech-writers.
And the bit about "to my friends on the left" was pretty patronizing.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)I used to love his speeches. Now I change the channel as fast as I did when W came on.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Splicing some stuff about diplomacy into an already prepared pro-war speech at the last minute.
No DUplicitous DUpe
(2,994 posts)That's how I viewed it, too.
stonecutter357
(12,678 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)
fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear
hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate
fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear fear hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate The Libertarians way
Autumn
(44,686 posts)every time people get rowdy in a library though, but that's to be expected. But I can respect that.
stonecutter357
(12,678 posts)May be the pain meds.
Autumn
(44,686 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2013, 03:59 PM - Edit history (1)
instilled fear in our hearts. She was truly terrifying.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Gobldeygook. Tell me I'm wrong."
The President Makes The Case
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023644730
randome
(34,845 posts)Say that 90% of DUers agreed with you. Where would you go with this? Simply revel in the idea that you have company to keep you unhappy?
How does your expressed unhappiness help anyone or anything?
It appears as if a diplomatic solution has been found for Syria. Where else do you want to take this issue? In your book, what comes next?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
dionysus
(26,467 posts)goatmilker
(29 posts)I cannot say you are wrong sadly.
CountAllVotes
(20,849 posts)'Twas turning into a bunch of gobbledygook real quick. I am sad to have to say this but, I turned the teevee off.
Yes I did.
Was listening to Mike Malloy afterwards and he agreed and then some I'd say. *sigh*
& recommend.
Thanks Will.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...that are nuanced at best.
There is more than one thing in Syria, hence multiple reactions being understandable. At or near the heart of things is America's feigned outrage at the use of WMDs. We are not only capable of tolerating such things; we also commit chemical attacks, and use conventional arms to perpetrate even greater horrors.
How the fuck else was the president to be even remotely honest with us without sounding a tad contradictory?
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Too bad he's delivering the same goods. I know there's a lot that Obama has done that Republicans would not (ACA and the end of DADT come to mind) but right now it's obvious where the differences end and the similarities begin.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...caused by his Drone Strikes.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)glowing
(12,233 posts)time to announce to the American people who are all forced to watch in the middle of their nightly line up at 9pm tv time, that I'm going to use all my will and force that I tried to muster for this "war" to now try and fix America. You know all the crumbling bridges and wage declines and shitty lack of vacation, sick time, or maternity and paternity leave... and fix those things.. And if you can call congress like you did against the attack on Syria and ask them to tax the wealthy people, Big Oil, Big everything, then we will have more than enough money to do the "fixing" we want done here...
NOW, that would have been genius.
indepat
(20,899 posts)MineralMan
(146,116 posts)I'm sure you'd have done much better at the speech...as a man of many words, I mean.
marble falls
(56,029 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Poll: 69% of Americans Viewed Obamas Syria Speech Positively, 61% Favor His Approach
President Obama has been fighting an uphill battle to win support for an authorization to strike Syria in retaliation for an Aug. 21 Sarin gas attack, but a CNN/ORC poll taken following Tuesday nights East Room address shows good news for the Presidents Syria policy. In that speech, Obama made the case for the necessity of a limited strike, but also for allowing time to let a burgeoning diplomatic solution play out. CNNs poll found that 61% of Americans favor the approach to Syria that Barack Obama described in his speech.
Additionally, 69% of respondents said they felt very positive or somewhat positive about the speech. If you drill down on the poll results, though, it appears that approval for the Presidents approach relies heavily on the possible success of the diplomatic solution that suddenly became possible on Monday.
-snip-
http://www.mediaite.com/online/poll-69-of-americans-viewed-obamas-syria-speech-positively-61-favor-his-approach/
Skittles
(152,918 posts)it wasn't as polished as his other speeches but we already know it had been re-written - certainly if these recent events were part of a "master plan" it would have made much more sense
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)telethon, do it for Jerry's kids, pitch. In fairness, Jerry never suggested that we needed to kill the kids in order to save them and he actually did some good. Even more so, the President shook the same pom poms that Bush waved on his rush to war. It is small wonder that carny barkers like PT Barnum and Elmer Gantry became rich and famous in America. Maybe, there really is a sucker born every minute.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Chomsky starts at 3m59s.
malthaussen
(17,024 posts)I've been thinking that should be Mr Obama's epitaph.
-- Mal
kentuck
(110,916 posts)...but I truly do not know. But here's a song for you:
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)michigandem58
(1,044 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)In this thread.
I've seen this scene many times.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)gulliver
(13,142 posts)If it's possible to be unerringly wrong, you are that.
Rex
(65,616 posts)There, happy now?