Do I Really Need To Say This?
Okay. If McCain/Graham/Boehner et al. are reading this by any chance (they're obviously not, but whatever), then NO. We do not need to go and launch military strikes on Assad's regime. Yes, he's a horrible person (though apparently not so horrible that our leading politicians can't have lengthy dinners with him); that's not a good reason in and of itself. Is his staying in power a clear and present threat to us? Can't say; he probably won't like us if he hangs on and wins, but that's assuming the rebels are more humane and peaceful than he is. Which looks kind of shaky in the light of stories like this. And this. And, well, this.
And by the way, Kerry's claim before Congress that the rebels are not only largely moderates, but becoming more so every day? Yeah, Reuters crapped all over that this morning. Look--historically, when moderate and radical groups make an alliance for whatever reason, and then win, it tends to not work out well for the moderates. Or anyone else, for that matter.
Barack Obama's Greatest Enemy
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by...armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.I would ask you who said those words, but you already know, don't you?
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks...to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power....
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world....I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
And of course it doesn't matter--he denies what he said a year ago; why wouldn't he deny what he said a decade ago?
Meanwhile....
Proof That We've Fallen Into An Alternate Universe
I've given up trying to understand how so many (though hardly all) liberal, anti-militarist, "No Blood For Oil!" Democrats can now justify military action in Syria under the existing circumstances. Sometimes I think it's sheer partisan loyalty/hackery; sometimes I think they've concluded war is all right if it's done on humanitarian grounds. But so far, we've got John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean, plus pretty much all of MSNBC--basically the entire anti-war "Who's Who" of the mid-'00s--all in for the bomby stuff, with lots of second-stringers, such as Sheila Jackson Lee, either on board or definite maybes. (As HotAir's Allahpundit noted yesterday, "Once Cindy Sheehan decides she's on board with a bombing run too, it'll be time to close down the site and declare the era of political blogging over.") How do you explain all this? I don't think you can, unless you conclude that we've somehow really been sucked into Earth Three from DC Comics.
Although I suppose there's an alternate, simpler explanation: Obama's base really is that gullible.
As you may recall, a few months ago I wrote that it was inevitable, once they concluded Lady Gaia took precedence over human life, that leftist environmentalists would assume the same power over plant and animal life as well. Back then, domesticated critters were coming under fire; now, it's the poor, poor, panda bears. Yup--this guy at Bloomberg admits that, sure, they're adorable and cuddly-looking and all, but they're kind of an evolutionary dead-end, all they eat is bamboo, so they're not very adaptable, and they don't even seem that interested in reproducing. Conclusion: "Look, Darwinism isn't for crybabies. And conservation requires making tough choices."
Eh, if they're gonna die out they're gonna die out. But I remember as a kid when National Geographic and all those other publications I used to read had slapped on their cover all these endangered species (including pandas) that were going to die unless we protected their environment. I guess that's no longer important if they've been deemed "a hopeless and wasteful species."
Apparently, Papa Hemingway Was Another Useful Idiot
Via the Daily Caller so I have no idea if this story is true. Probably a coin toss. And yet, it tallies somehow with what I already know of the guy. Hemingway was a guy who liked to romanticize events, not give an accurate account of them, particularly where left-wing revolutionaries like Castro and European Communists were concerned, and the lack of feeling suggested by disinterestedly watching executions makes some sense, too, if you know anything about his personal life. (Spoiler alert: Not fun for the people in it.) Reminds me of a little maxim I developed a few years ago: Intellectuals, such as Hemingway, tend to be lovers of humanity in general and absolute jackholes towards actual individual humans.
Well, consider that your end-of-week fix. Read, comment, whatever. Just remember--it's after Labor Day now, so don't type in white font.
70 comments:
Here are my concerns on Syria:
1. Our credibility as a nation depends on us backing up the President when he makes a foreign policy decision. With the way the left treated Bush and now what is happening, I fear that the US will not be taken seriously in the future.
2. Connected to that, I fear that our foreign policy will become a series of political paybacks, which will cost American lives.
3. I think we are about to have a constitutional crisis that will drive us further toward either an Imperial Presidency or an Impotent Giant. Neither result will be good for us.
4. I think there is a real ugliness to a lot of the conservative opposition that will shift this issue away from Obama's incompetence to conservative "hate." Even if you are Obama-deranged, STFU about it and find a Syria related reason to oppose intervention.
5. Syria was a meaningless sh*thole, but now will become something important. Unless we invade and take over (which would be a nightmare) we are either handing the country to terrorists or to China/Russia.
BTW, This is why panda's need guns.
Also, I thought it was pretty well known that Hemingway was a communist-sympathizer?
Andrew, I suppose it's possible that conservative fury could become the issue, but I don't see that happening, mainly because the MSM is itself divided. MSNBC may have become the latest pro-war cheerleaders, but the NYT, CNN--outlets like those are not taking a firm stance either way. They're careful not to catch Obama in his own hypocrisy, of course, but they're admitting there are about 18,000 ways this could screw up. And it's glaringly obvious Americans don't want to be involved in another war. So a lot would have to happen for that to become an issue.
As for actual policy regarding Syria....bleh. Go back and read through that Reuters article. Right now, the jihadi wing of the rebel forces is in control, and that doesn't seem likely to change any time soon. Therefore, if they do succeed in overthrowing Assad, what replaces him will be no better from our (or Israel's) point of view, and probably worse. Which is why, for most of this conflict, Israel has been quietly backing Assad--despite his own unsavory ties to groups like Hezbollah. So unless you're justifying it on humanitarian grounds, or on the grounds that "we" made a commitment not to allow use of chemical weapons and need to show our determination, I really don't see what the benefit is in intervening here.
But more narrowly, I object because of the open-ended nature of what Obama & Co. are proposing. General Dempsey of the Joint Chiefs told Congress this week that he couldn't say what our specific goals are; and Kerry has noticeably failed to definitively rule out a more large-scale involvement. This is seriously reminiscent of the Keystone Kops. As bad as inaction might be, you don't go into war without some clear idea of what you want to accomplish.
Gun-toting pandas, eh? I would pay to see that. Should probably make sure there's no bamboo in the stock or anything, though.
It's "known" that Hemingway was a communist-sympathizer in the sense that you can find it out if you specifically go out and look for it, but generally, no, it's not known. Like I said, he was kind of an unsavory character--hated his mother because she wouldn't support him indefinitely, ran through women like nothing and wrecked several of them, etc.
But he does have a nice home for six-toed cats in Key West, though. So I guess there's that.
T-Rav, On the "conservatives," the problem will come once the MSM starts to need a scapegoat -- that's when they'll start digging up quotes from the weirdos who are trying tie all of this to bringing down Obama. This really is an issue where our side should simply be silent, step back and let the Dems rip each other to shreds.
On the policy itself, I concur. Truthfully, the only good outcome to this is... "And that's how all the Syrians killed each other off." There is no good outcome that involves us... except maybe arming both sides. Unfortunately, Obama has put our credibility on the line with his idiocy. And I am worried that this will make the world more dangerous for us.
I am also worried what this does to our next overseas problem. What happens when Iran and Saudi go to war (or Russia and ___) and our Congress and President are split? We seriously need to depoliticize foreign policy before (more) Americans get hurt.
Personally, I'm think the best thing the Republicans could do would be to lay out the reasons we shouldn't be there, how Obama's failures have brought us here, and then announce they will abstain on the vote and let the Democrats decide if they want to back Obama.
T-Rav, I'm sure a training course could be offered for pandas. :)
You could be right about Hemmingway. I've known he was communist-symp from my first English lit class (7th grade) so I've never really thought about whether others know it... it seemed kind of obvious from his work. Still, I do like his work... I just dislike and disrespect the man.
"Still, I do like his work... I just dislike and disrespect the man."
Its that way with a lot of artists.
Syria - lose lose.
Naturally, the temptation to meddle in such situations is simply irresistible for nanny state progressives.
Kit, Yep. Too many to count.
K, Lose, lose is right. I still think our best bet is to drop a Syria-shaped asteroid on the whole country.
Parties are more inclined to trust their leaders than the other party's leaders. Furthermore, many Republicans are probably more hostile to Obama (who they know and is a powerful figure in their lives) than Assad (who they don't and is a remote figure).
While parties are always more willing to trust their leaders than the other party's leaders, as I've stated before I believe most liberals will join conservatives in voting down an attack on Syria.
Its worth noting that public opposition to an attack on Syria is generally high and is higher in both wings and the public has much higher (domestic) priorities so neither liberal nor conservative politicians would pay a price at the ballot box for opposing Obama (indeed, the opposite is probably true).
What I find interesting is this:
How many of Obambi's senior advisors are chicken hawks? (Someone pushing for war who's never even served) Why don't we hear that term from the usual suspects now?
Regard who he's putting out there as his spokesdrones.....Kerry (Vietnam Lt.), Hagel (Sgt) and....and.....I guess that's about it. The only ones with any military experience to speak of.
Why not members of his "foreign policy" team. like Samantha Power (to plead the case to the UN), Susan Rice (In charge of our intelligence apparatus), The VP Biden (Cheney was supposedly the big war-monger for Bush II). He can't because his team is made up of policy wonks or just plain doofuses who would be exposed as the idiots they are if they had to try and explain this child President's foreign policy.
So put the 'real men' out there (military vets) to stave off any criticism of the total incompetence and complete and utter naivete of these chicken hawk fools.....with the CINC has the biggest fool of all.
Andrew.....Regarding your point above:
"1. Our credibility as a nation depends on us backing up the President when he makes a foreign policy decision. With the way the left treated Bush and now what is happening, I fear that the US will not be taken seriously in the future."
Totally disagree. I think the 'world' has a measure of this American President and the left in this country. They are not idealists but pragmatists. Once this fool is gone, and a real President is elected, then the rest of the world will go back to respecting America's role in the world, and its military strength. I give you A) Carter/Reagan and Iran, and B) Qaddafi/Bush II WMD's.
I read an article somebody shared by Thomas Friedman on why we should "act" in Syria. I recommend reading it for a chuckle. He is one of those guys who sounds like he knows what he is talking about, but when you digest what he is saying, you realize how full of b.s. he is
Jed, Friedman is an utter hack who's just smart-sounding enough to pass himself off as an expert on the talk-show circuit. I've had about as much respect for his intelligence as I have for his colleague, Mr. Krugman. Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't suggest letting the Chinese deal with it; he thinks they're just awesome.
Andrew, I read in a book from Stephen Ambrose once that during WWII (when both were war correspondents), the front-line GIs loved reading the dispatches from Ernie Pyle and hated the ones from Hemingway. "Papa," on the few occasions when he could be bothered to submit stories, was always off somewhere with the French Resistance, rhapsodizing about how heroic and romantic the whole thing was, rather than hanging with the actual soldiers and talking about the fighting itself.
And of course, many if not most of those Resistance guys were leftists/Communists, so that just goes along with the rest of his life.
I have yet to be convinced either way on Syria. What of the rumors that it was the rebels and not Assad who deployed chemical weapons? I know it comes mainly from Russia, but can we trust anything out of Syria any better? The only thing that seems certain is that people were gassed. If the plan were to seek out and destroy all chemical weapons regardless where they're found or who's holding them, I could maybe get on board. Right now, the weapons serve only as a pretext to toppling Assad, and I can't see why that's necessary from a US perspective--other than our esteemed leader shot his mouth off.
Meanwhile, every day since intervention talk started, Limbaugh is on the radio pooh-poohing humanitarianism and extolling the virtues of blood-for-oil. He's drawing equivalency between militarism and capitalism, praising iron-handed dictators as "market stabilizers." If there was any doubt left that Rush has become conservatism's own worst enemy, this should end it. Through his words, he's basically confirming every slanderous thing Marxists have ever said about free markets. With him bloviating like that, it's going to make it very hard for any conservative Republican to make the case that the term "American interests" isn't code for economic imperialism.
On Cuba, it's fairly well established that liberals find moral equivalence in all things (meaning they're basically amoral, but that's another topic) so I'm sure they see the differences b/w the US and Cuba as being "merely" ideological. As such, I'm sure they think the value of Cuba is that it is right off our coast keeping the US in check. (Don't get me started on the cognitive dissonance arisen by the idea of equivalent moralities holding each other in check.) You know, since we get to have Israel as an ally on that side of the world, our foes get to have Cuba on this side. Never mind that we do our best to hamstring Israel at every turn while no one would do anything to stop Cuba from spinning out of control like a cartoon Tasmanian devil, were it possible.
Anyway, I love the picture of the war-hawk hippie. LOL!
Truthfully, the only good outcome to this is... "And that's how all the Syrians killed each other off."
Andrew, indeed. Of course, you can't say that if you're a public figure, but everyone with half a brain following this knows that's the case.
I think most people would also agree (up to a point) with your comment that Obama has put our credibility on the line here. But they wouldn't, from that, conclude it was necessary to potentially put our soldiers in harm's way just so Obama can avoid looking like a fool. If I were sitting in Congress right now, what I would say is something like this: "The deaths in Syria are horrible. No one denies that. But I cannot, in the final analysis, vote to endanger our soldiers in a mission which I do not believe will strengthen our security, and will probably do the opposite." If there's a significant chance of Al-Qaeda and friends taking over a post-Assad Syria, that trumps how foolish the POTUS might look.
As for the Republicans sitting back and all, that's not an option. Not in a matter of committing to military engagements. Passing the buck to the Democrats would immediately be seen as a political maneuver, and that would put the heat on our side. Plus, the McCain-Graham wing of the GOP is going to jump into this thing with both feet regardless of what the rest does, so it's a non-starter anyway.
Patriot, nobody, but nobody, is going to rely on Joe "Trains" Biden to make the case for something as serious as a military action. Maybe for a Pepsi-Coke dispute, but that's about it. And folks like Power simply don't have the reputation or clout necessary to carry the day, so yep, we're getting Kerry and Hagel.
And unfortunately for them, I don't think they'll be nearly enough. Hagel is one thing, but Kerry's terribly compromised by his prior friendliness with Assad and his constant waffling on military endeavors. And the issue isn't really them, it's the case they're making.
K, someone made the argument once that of the (many) progressives/liberals who have launched overseas wars, they have usually been the extension somehow of domestic crusades. FDR gave us the New Deal, and then World War II. LBJ's escalation of Vietnam flowed out of his Great Society programs. And so on. I'm not sure how far I believe it, but it is interesting.
tryanmax, that's already one of my favorite pictures, ever. :-)
I think it's likely that both sides have used chemical weapons. I certainly wouldn't put it past the rebels, or Assad--although a persistent theory floating among some who've seen the evidence is that the most recent attack may not have been launched by him but by a subordinate who went rogue. Either one's possible, though the latter would make more sense to me. I suppose a consensus could form around just going in and eliminating all chemical weapons, period; but that would require a much more direct presence than anyone's talking about now, and it would probably become an exercise in futility.
On Cuba, yeah. They're a huge deterrent to us. Not.
T-Rav: I agree with that theory. If someone will meddle with their own countrymen, then that moral imperative will extend overseas as well.
It also predicts the Tea Party. A Republican had never started a war - prior to Bush the Elder. An indication that the progressive disease had spread to moderate Republicans, who for all intents and purposes are Democrats.
T-Rav, I think your response is a good one. I'm just not sure what the long term consequences are to any of this. I still think that letting Obama have his authority with Democratic votes (or almost entirely Democratic votes) is probably the best thing. I am worried about what happens the next time and I don't like the idea of weakening our power to use the military as needed.
That said, I see no valid reason for doing anything except to maintain our credibility... which should never have been put on the line in the first place.
tryanmax, There was a Tea Party woman on television the other day who suggested trading a yes vote for a repeal of Obamacare. That's a really stupid thing to say. Politics is about horsetrading, but the lives of US soldiers is not.
Patriot, That doesn't wash. Outside of talk radio land, Obama is still seen as the president and he is seen as speaking for the country. And overseas that's even more true.
And if the ability of the president to wage war comes down to partisan politics, then that is a huge sign to the rest of the world that we are not to be taken seriously in the future except when the President's party also controls the Congress.
Well, technically K, a Republican did start the Spanish-American War (McKinley). But you do kinda have to go back a while for that.
Andrew, that's straight-up disgusting. This is not a good subject to try scoring political points on. The best one can hope to do is not get too dirty. When it's all over and done with, then they can point fingers at who got the dirtiest.
Andrew, in the first place, if Obama had to rely on Democratic votes, this would absolutely go down in flames. Large swathes of the Left are absolutely up in arms over this. I've talked to some people, and it's really coming home to them how completely they've been taken in by Obama. The party leaders in DC will fall into line, but they've as good as admitted they can't/won't make the rank-and-file do so. Besides, a lot of those Congresscritters were hoping for an overwhelming "no" vote from Republicans, so they could vote yes to please Obama and then blame defeat on obstructionist conservatives, blah blah blah.
So yes, from that angle, an abstention or whatever makes some sense, because it would put all the burden on the Dems. But if, as you say in your reply to tryanmax, horsetrading for ObamaCare would be a terrible idea in this situation, simply sitting it out would be equally stupid. It would instantly make the story about GOP maneuvering to embarrass Obama, and that wouldn't play well. In any case, the base doesn't want abstention; it wants the party to take an active stance against this. We have more to lose than to gain from not being active.
tryanmax, That's the problem. Obama has created a true clusterf*ck here and I think there are no good answers. But the one thing that is guaranteed to blow up on you is to be seen as trying to exploit this or to make it about "getting" Obama. People will not forget or forgive behavior that isn't in the national interest at times like this.
So you can oppose intervention or agree with it (I probably oppose, but am undecided), but you have to be very careful about how you do it. This cannot be seen as a vendetta or opportunism... which is unfortunately, what it is for a lot of people.
And on your point about Rush, I agree. He's embracing all kinds of liberal boogeymen imagery lately and confirming all their rhetoric to the moderates. It's stupid.
Incidentally, this is what Obama had to say about why he's taken this matter to Congress in the first place. Via the press conference in Russia today, he said he could have simply ordered a strike had Syria done something to threaten us, but he
“could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States.”
So until/unless Syria does do something to directly threaten us, we're either intervening on humanitarian grounds, or (more likely) because Obama doesn't want to lose face, as backed up by his reported comment the other day that he wants just enough of a response so as not to be mocked. Got it.
T-Rav, I'm not sure what the political effect would be of abstaining. But how about this instead -- a hidden abstention. Announce that the Republicans are split 50/50... half yes, half no. That throws all of this on the Democrats without making it about the Republicans.
Then the Republicans can take two positions simultaneously:
1. The one you mention. And
2. Obama is a sh*t who has brought us to a horrible place here with his incompetence, but I'm voting yes because I believe the President needs to be able to back up his threats.
Best of both worlds.
T-Rav, Intervention has always been an ideological issue. The left wants the US to intervene when "war crimes" are being committed -- unless the US can benefit from intervention. This is the perfect test case for that for them... clearly, they don't have the stomach for it.
Andrew...I must respectfully call you on your statement that "Outside of talk radio land, Obama is still seen as the president and he is seen as speaking for the country. And overseas that's even more true."
Was he speaking for the country when he returned the Churchill bust? When he gave QEII a tape of HIS speeches?
Was he speaking for the country when he bowed to foreign leaders on his first world tour? President's don't bow to royalty, or is this how all future President's must act when meeting foreign royalty/leaders?
Was he speaking for the country when he stated in France in 2009: “So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we’ve allowed our alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there’s something more that has crept into our relationship.” “In America there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world, instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive of you.” That is not a dignified, respectful accounting of our country's President. That is a direct slam on his predecessor as American President and his European policies while in a foreign country. Not cool.
Was he speaking for the country when he made the claim that an anti-Muslim video was the cause for the Benghazi attack?
And need we reference the numerous instances where Obama and the Dems blamed Bush for all the domestic and foreign ills?
With the thinking that everything a President does comes down to partisan politics (where did that concept come from I wonder?), yeah, the rest of the world might get that impression and not take this President seriously.
I stand by my comment that this American President is looked upon singularly, just as every American President before him has been by the rest of the world. I think they recognize what a weak, vacillating and pompous ass he is and how he has diminished this country's image and prestige in many of the major countries leaders and people.
I leave you with Obama's first speech to the UN as the American President: "I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. A part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies and a belief on, on certain critical issues, America had acted unilaterally without regard for the interests of others.And this is has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism which, too often, has served as an excuse for collective inaction. After all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and point fingers and stoke divisions. Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anybody can do that."
Oh....And I predict that Obama will forego the Syrian "intervention."
"Obama is a sh*t who has brought us to a horrible place here with his incompetence, but I'm voting yes because I believe the President needs to be able to back up his threats."
I disagree with this position. It is not congress' job to save the president when he screws up. Our system is based on balances and the president cannot just go to war on a whim. He isn't a dictator but rubberstamping it would make it seem like he is. He is already doing damage control when it doesn't pass. He won't attack if it doesn't.
Deals can be made but should only be in association with the request. For example, a clear goal, public support from allies in the region. Since the military was hit hard with sequestration, one could argue about over turning it or fund shifting from Obamacare to the military. Gotta pay for them bombs and men, Mr. President. Not enough money for both.
I agree with Patriot.
Although it could be used against them, being against going to war here because of Obama is not being unreasonable. He is untrustworthy. His speech on Iraq vs. his actions in Syria prove that. He won't even acknowledge the contradiction. If I can't trust him to be consistent in terms of going to war, how can I trust him to have the best interest in our troops? How can I trust him not to escalate our involvement?
I am generally against getting involved with another country's civil war. There are far better ways to help. Economic blockade, help with refugees, make a case at the UN where both Russia and China would look bad supporting this regime.
Patriot, Yes, he speaks for us. That is how countries work. Their leaders speak for the people. And our leader is our President. The President speaks for us... whether we like it or not.
And I'm sorry, but outside of talk radio land, people just aren't deranged about him. All that hate you feel for him... the public doesn't share it. The people in foreign countries don't share it.
Koshcat, Your first statement is a good one and is true. It is not Congress's job to rubber stamp a President. And that's what makes this a difficult issue. I think it's clear that we should not be involved here. But are we hurting our credibility by not letting him use the military when he's already said he would do it? More importantly, are we exacerbating a problem that is politicizing the use of the military which will make us completely unreliable in the future?
That brings me to your second statement. While I agree with you that we should avoid getting involved in civil wars (like Afghanistan), the idea that we should punish Obama for not admitting that he's acting in a contradictory way to his Iraq statements is a horrible, horrible idea. When the right of the President to use the military comes down to Congress scoring political points, then we might as well give it up as a country.
That is what Pelosi tried to do to Bush and let me out that conservatives at the time where screaming bloody murder that Congress should not play politics with the use of the military and that ideological dislike of Bush was an obscene reason to oppose "national security objectives the President has outlined." So what changed?
Their leaders speak for the people.
That goes tenfold for elected leaders.
On top of that, Obama campaigned in large part on a platform of making America more popular abroad. Heck, he campaigned abroad. So everything he does as President is seen through that lens, as well.
So now instead of America being seen as stupid and arrogant, we are now seen as stupid, arrogant, and cloying.
The only caveat I'll render is this: Brits tend to give Americans the benefit of the doubt about our leaders, b/c they have a similar relationship with theirs. I don't know if the same can be said about other peoples, though.
tryanmax, I can't find any poll results right now, but Obama remains surprisingly popular overseas in most countries.
Andrew, it's a great "what if" but you're never going to enact a play like that. Under the existing circumstances, there is no way a majority of Republicans could be made to support this. Whatever you might think of it, the public opposition among their constituents is such that right now, the safe option is to vote no.
Out of curiosity--because this question has popped up in a couple places--does anyone actually want to bomb Assad? I mean, forget the difficult circumstances and so on; if there wasn't any direct or indirect loss to be suffered by bombing, would we want to bomb him just for being a jackass? I really can't say.
Andrew and Patriot--agreed. The public here doesn't hate Obama, much like the overseas public. Which is why I loathe all of them about as much as I do TOTUS.
T-Rav, Outside of neocon ranks, I would say no... nobody cares about Syria.
As for being possible, it's definitely possible. The Republicans are breaking down into three groups. Those running for President are voting no. Those running for Senate are voting yes. Those running for House are all over the place... some want to hurt Obama, others want to show how tough they are.
Between those three groups, it should be fairly easy to achieve a net 0 effect. Certainly rhetorically even if not in the final vote. And since rhetorically is all it takes to toss this onto the Democrats, that's what this takes.
BTW, I don't know what the answer is to this dilemma. I do know two things though...
1. Put national security first... always.
2. Don't let this mess become about the Republicans, leave the focus entirely on Obama and Pelosi. Make them do all the dirty work, which ever way it goes.
Sorry, I've been in a place where the inter-webs don't exist. Who'da thunk it?
T-Rav - Great article! I was just reading (now that I am back in 2013) that Obama/Kerry are considering backing off of intervening in Syria. G-20 didn't go so well of the Big O and no one seems to be be particularly interested.
So we've gone from Obama's red-line to Obama didn't have a red-line, to beating the war/not war drums, to maybe not. I don't see any confusion or mixed messages, do you? I think next up will be Obama/Kerry blaming Bush/McCain/anyone standing around not Obama/Kerry for pushing any intervention...
Bev, you gotta get up pretty early if you want to beat liberals blaming Bush for things. James "Gollum" Carville has already made the case for why the Syria situation is Bush's fault. It's because W was so "incompetent" in Iraq that liberals have lost the taste for war.
Not sure if that's a Carville original or not, because other lefty pundits have gone further to say that Obama would've intervened in Syria two years ago if he didn't have to tread so cautiously b/c of Bush's "lies."
Interestingly, Bill Press credits opposition to Syrian intervention to a "Bush Hangover"--just shy of calling it Bush Fatigue. Maybe b/c that would be too close to saying Obama's chikinnnnnnnns are coming hommmmmmmme to roost!
Bev, Tax prison?
tryanmax, That's a really good point. This is clearly Bush fatigue. After all, Bush fatigue is what stopped Obama from continuing the war in Afghanistan, striking in Yemen and Pakistan and Somalia and then bombing Libya. Yep, just isn't willing to bomb anyone... because of Bush.
Andrew - No, Long Island! I believe tax prison has all the amenities of a 4-star hotel...except you don't have to pay and you can't leave. Internet, spas, pressed linen sheet and down pillows, gourmet meals, and a platinum healthcare plan. Kind of like a cruise on the QE2 without the sea sickness! Hey, if Martha Stewart can survive, then so can I, right?
Bev, That is my understand too. :)
Kind of funny that Tax Prison has internet, but Long Island doesn't. LOL!
Bev, the reason Martha Stewart survived is because the skills to make a decorative lamp shade from papier mâché easily translate into making a shiv out of toilet paper.
Tryanmax - I fancy myself just as crafty as Martha Stewart! I can fashion a shiv out of water and freezer! With the extra added bonus of it melting in my cocktail before the prison guards can even know. Hey, I'm preparing for my retirement! I'm watching "Orange Is The New Black" and taking notes...I'm working a pocket distillery! ;-D
BTW, don't tell anyone, okay?
Tryanmax - I fancy myself just as crafty as Martha Stewart! I can fashion a shiv out of water and freezer! With the extra added bonus of it melting in my cocktail before the prison guards can even know. Hey, I'm preparing for my retirement! I'm watching "Orange Is The New Black" and taking notes...I'm working a pocket distillery! ;-D
BTW, don't tell anyone, okay?
When do we get to claim "Obama fatigue"?
You are right that holding Obama, or any politician, accountable to what they said is like nailing jello to the wall. The safest statement is that the administration hasn't provided sufficient information to support military action. It is non-specific enough to not say anything but leaves the door open if new information is available.
It not that Obama is an ass that I wouldn't support him and allow women and children to be gassed. I wouldn't have supported Bush if he wanted to do it either. Not supporting Obama because he is an ass who shot off his mouth like a freshman congressman is just gravy.
Bev, No time like the present. :)
A pocket distillery, huh?
Koshcat, I agree. I think the key to remember is that the public does not look kindly on people who play political games with national security and the lives of Americans. You can certainly oppose an action if you have solid national security reasons, but too many are simply offering their hate of Obama as a reason and that is guaranteed to blow up on us... when this whole thing should be blowing up on Obama.
And as an aside, it's looking more and more like Obama is going to scream Uncle before the vote even comes up.
Bev, you feel free to claim "Obama fatigue" any time you want to be called a racist.
By the way, won't a pocket distillery make your pants reek of booze?
Oh, and thanks for your compliments, Bev! I'm just glad you could safely return from the benighted, blog-less past.
I'm skeptical of the prospect of Obama retreating. He'd lose a ton of credibility--but then, he's in a position where he'll lose it no matter what he does, so who knows? If he does, you can be sure McCain will be left in the cold, condemning the rest of the GOP for being too cowardly to "do the right thing."
I feel kind of sorry for him. (not really)
Excellent post, T-Rav!
IMO, Obama has already lost credibility. Not just for the idiotic posturing and ill-advised threats, or his past rhetoric, which is atodds with his present rhetoric, but also for flat out denying he even said anything about a red line to begin with!
The World said it! Yeah, that's the ticket. Obama was just repeating what the World said. Natch.
Perfectly understandable to be misunderstood by virtually everyone inthe world under those trying circumstances.
Now that we know our ears deceived us I guess we can all jest hit the reset button and call it a day. Good thing none of our troops had to die as a result, huh? That would've been awkward, plus it would've made Obama look bad.
Incidently, if push comes to shove, I would much rather have an impotent giant than a tyranny of fools.
Besides, I would not bet on Putin blinking before Obama, and really, is helping the (mostly) terrorist rebels worth it to salvage an already lost credibility?
Frankly, I don't see how.
Ben, The problem is this. You're making the faulty assumption that the rest of the world sees this the way talk radio does... "We're a strong and unified country who will stand up to whomever, except on this particular issue because everyone thinks Obama is a fool. So while we are mocking him now, woe-betide anyone who messes with the next President."
That's not how life works.
When your enemy has shown an unwillingness to stand up for what it claims it will fight for, countries like Russia and North Korea and China consider that evidence that the country lacks courage and unity. They aren't going to assume that somehow everything resets with the next President -- they will see this as a new permanent state of being where the US is no longer good for its word... especially as this is already forming a pattern after the way the left acted with Bush.
The end result will be an increased belief that the US won't back up it's words. Thus, China, North Korea, and Russia are more likely to do something in places like South Korea or Taiwan or Poland or Georgia or somewhere like that which can start a war.
In other words, the real issue here isn't Syria or Obama, nor is it whether or not we would actually fight to defend those places... it's the perception that we might not. And that makes war more likely in the future if this is mishandles. That's the issue to worry about.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to prevent that at this point. Obama has really fucked this up big time and he seems determined to keep making it worse.
I get what you're saying, Andrew, and I agree, to some extent, but Obama has already said he wnts to take limited action only, and for what purpose?
Clearly, not to stop Assad because that would require much more than a limited action. Thus he has lready said, in effect, he is bluffing and wants to save his own face above all else, which is no longer necessary if, as Obama said, he didn't say what everyone already heard him say.
"The fundamental purpose of our government, is to uphold and protect the Rights, Property and Safety of We The People of the United States of America, any 'limited military action' (War), that is not directly, directly, rooted in that purpose, is not an action that is justifiable for our government to undertake."
BTW,I'm not questioning Obama's power to bomb Syria. Clearly, he can do so, for a limited time anyways.
I'm questioning the wisdom to do so and whether it affects our credibility, based on what Obama has said, and based on his his unprincipled actions in that regard.
He hasn't explained why it's worse to tas a few hundred rbels as opposed to gunning down and blowing up tens of thousands of rbels, or if tbe rebs are worse than Assad, and it looks like they are.
I could go on and on but IMO, Obama has already lost all credibility IRT Syria, unless the case can be made they are a clear and present danger to us, first and foremost.
Gas, not tas. Doh!
Ben, Two points.
First, what you mention is what the debate should be -- does this make sense, what are the goals, can it achieve its goals, etc. Unfortunately, the debate has largely become "I hate Obama, let's embarrass him." That's disastrous for the country... and it won't play well with the public either, who simply don't share the right's obsessive hatred of Obama.
In this, there is another problem here too. The Democrats were just as nasty with Bush (though they did vote yes). We are building a track record here as a country, which keeps getting worse, that the military can't be used without the opposing party first getting to smear and humiliate the president. That is a rock stupid way to run a country and is guaranteed to lead to a nasty war that takes a lot of American lives.
We need to find a way to solve that. And the best solution right now, in all honesty, would be for Republicans to work with Obama to find a way to stand together while backing off an attack. I'm not sure how to do that, but unity is important when dealing with the world, i.e. we need to defuse the idea that our military is a toy for party politics.
The second problem is the political optics. Obama looks like a fool. The world is kind of shocked by what he's done, the country is not happy by this either, and he's exposed the lie at the heart of liberal doctrine about when the military should be used. In fact, this is a perfect instance for when liberals claim the military should be used, yet they are running away scared. Their ideology has failed and Obama has humiliated himself and his party.
The problem is that so long as this is about the Republicans/conservatives, the damage being done is to us, not the Democrats. In other words, the more we scream and act like children and make this about ourselves, the more cover we are providing Obama and the Democrats. And right now, there are a great many "conservative" groups who are making this about themselves.... and as usual, they are attacking the Republicans rather than Obama. That's the political tragedy here. All we need to do is stop screaming and Obama sinks himself, but our side won't stop screaming because they obsessed with him. We have become our own worst enemies.
I concur that there are conservatives who are not helping and are downright hurting us, and do wish they would think about what they are saying.
The biggest problem conservatives have at the moment is lack of good leadership and a clear, unified vision.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of factions opposed to each other as well as Obama.
We had many of those same factions in the past, but Reagan was a strong enough leader to get us to see past our differences and focus on what really matters most.
Ben, Leadership is A problem, but it's not THE problem. The problem right now is that the conservative establishment is catering to a tiny fringe of people who were never conservatives before Obama got elected and don't actually believe in conservatism now. They are paranoids who have become addicted to friendly fire who have no ideas except the expression of hate. They are not conservatives. They are political concern trolls.
BTW, Let me be clear on this, I'm not saying we need to attack. What I'm saying is we need to find a solution that doesn't result in making us seem like a country with no resolve anymore.
In fact, the more I've considered this, the more I tend to think that an attack would only make us look impotent... except for maybe dropping a bomb on Assad himself. That would probably solve the issue actually.
Post a Comment