So NOW you hate Obama for talking to congress?
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Damn it, you forgot racist again.
Like you proved a recent survey showed that Republicans are way more racists than Black people?
Taft2016
Verified User
Oh boy, there's some real mouth-breathing liberal neanderthal knckle-dragging going on up in here.
The core issue is not so much what Obama does now, it is what he did ... which was to issue an ultimatum that required a response regardless of whatever confusion may exist on the ground.
The reputation of the US Military will not be impacted if Obama does not act.
The reputation of the United States itself will not be impacted if Obama does not act.
Obama's reputation will be impacted if he does not act, so now we must put our military in harm's way to salvage this twat's personal reputation.
In 2008, both he and Biden said the president could not act militarily without Congressional approval. That went out the window in Libya. Now they can do what they want, and what they say they will. So why didn't Obama act?
Quite simply, Obama hit the chicken switch when he saw the poll numbers. Now he's hoping the Congress will get in the way and give him a plausible excuse not to act, or if they approve it, share the blame with him.
He's become an international laughing stock, moreso than ever before.
All because he chose to deliver an ill-advised ultimatum, which they teach you in State Department 101 never to do.
The core issue is not so much what Obama does now, it is what he did ... which was to issue an ultimatum that required a response regardless of whatever confusion may exist on the ground.
The reputation of the US Military will not be impacted if Obama does not act.
The reputation of the United States itself will not be impacted if Obama does not act.
Obama's reputation will be impacted if he does not act, so now we must put our military in harm's way to salvage this twat's personal reputation.
In 2008, both he and Biden said the president could not act militarily without Congressional approval. That went out the window in Libya. Now they can do what they want, and what they say they will. So why didn't Obama act?
Quite simply, Obama hit the chicken switch when he saw the poll numbers. Now he's hoping the Congress will get in the way and give him a plausible excuse not to act, or if they approve it, share the blame with him.
He's become an international laughing stock, moreso than ever before.
All because he chose to deliver an ill-advised ultimatum, which they teach you in State Department 101 never to do.
Taft2016
Verified User
I know I'm still new here, but may I be allowed to toss in; cowboy, gunboat diplomat, and warmonger?
Oh, what the hell, may as well go all in; HALLIBURTON!
tekkychick
New member
Re evidence - based on what has been presented so far, it does seem like chemical weapons have been used in Syria and that they were launched by Assad's fighters.
Now it's possible they are lying about the evidence; it's possible they read the evidence wrong; it's possible it was some rogue fighters and not Assad's policy.
But they have blood samples; they have satellite pictures of rocket launches about the time the rebels say the chemical weapons came in; etc.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57600900/u.s-has-firm-evidence-sarin-gas-was-used-in-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-sec-kerry-says/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23906913
I think probably Assad's side did use chemical weapons; looks a lot stronger than Bush's "evidence" during the Iraq war.
However - does that still mean we should intervene in a big way? Or shoot some warning missiles so Assad sticks to killing people the conventional way? or do nothing. I'm ok with the middle option or the last option, myself.
But at least now Congress has a chance to examine the evidence the administration is presenting and decide for themselves what they want to do about it.
On the page with the second link I posted, there is an analysis by Jonathan Marcus, BBC correspondent that says
I'd agree with that as the focus of anything we do - if we do anything.
Now it's possible they are lying about the evidence; it's possible they read the evidence wrong; it's possible it was some rogue fighters and not Assad's policy.
But they have blood samples; they have satellite pictures of rocket launches about the time the rebels say the chemical weapons came in; etc.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57600900/u.s-has-firm-evidence-sarin-gas-was-used-in-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-sec-kerry-says/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23906913
I think probably Assad's side did use chemical weapons; looks a lot stronger than Bush's "evidence" during the Iraq war.
However - does that still mean we should intervene in a big way? Or shoot some warning missiles so Assad sticks to killing people the conventional way? or do nothing. I'm ok with the middle option or the last option, myself.
But at least now Congress has a chance to examine the evidence the administration is presenting and decide for themselves what they want to do about it.
On the page with the second link I posted, there is an analysis by Jonathan Marcus, BBC correspondent that says
I'd agree with that as the focus of anything we do - if we do anything.
Taft2016
Verified User
Didja ever think it could be the same evidence in Syria that was in Iraq?
No? Cuz Chris Mathews duzn't think so?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Irrelevant.
So he only asked Congress after it became clear he couldn't run roughshod over them again, like he did in Libya?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Is that what you think?
tekkychick
New member
big money doesn't think. Perhaps he didn't read my post about the repubs saying the President could certainly do whatever he wanted to re Syria?
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/31/20273174-congress-be-careful-what-you-wish-for?lite
Is that what happened?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
You tell me.
I did. Try to keep up.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Which you couldn't or wouldn't answer.
Your fellow traveler Desh linked the relevant thread in her OP, and Taft reiterated nicely in this thread. Try to keep up.
Don't know wtf you're talking thingy.....Bush went to Congress...Bush never tried or threatened to go to war with Iraq without the consent of congress
My opinion didn't change an iota....