Which Gas attack did POTUS Really Really Really Mean Would be a Trigge

[B-Man]

Syria: just enough of a strike not to be “mocked”

 

The Hill is reporting something that has to go down as perhaps one of the worst justification for limiting a military mission or making an unprovoked attack on another country the world has ever seen:

 

A U.S. official briefed on the military options being considered by President Obama

told the

Los Angeles Times

that the White House

is seeking a strike on Syria “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”

 

“They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic,” the official told the paper, giving credence to similar reports describing a limited military strike in the aftermath of last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack.

 

NBC News reported earlier this week that the administration would launch three days of missile strikes, while CNN cited a senior administration official saying that the White House wanted to conclude any action before the president departs for the G-20 summit next week.

 

If, before now, you had any doubt about ego being involved in the Syria mission, you shouldn’t anymore. This is all about the ego of one man. And he’s willing to put the men and women of our armed forces in harm’s way in order to service that ego.

 

Quite simply he shot off his mouth and made a threat, those at whom he aimed his words ignored him and allegedly did what he warned them against, and now he has to back up his threat or look weak. But, being the political beast he is, he knows a “Bill Clinton and the aspirin factory” sort of response will bring condemnation and mockery. So he’s decided that he’ll just do enough to escape that sort of mocking condemnation but not enough to actually accomplish his stated goals. Apparently he thinks he won’t look weak if he does just enough to give the illusion of a real and substantial strike while knowing full well it’s a drop in the bucket of what would really be militarily necessary to back up his threat or accomplish his goal of deterrence and degradation of Syria’s chemical weapons capability. I can’t imagine a more unserious approach to this problem than this sort of response portends.

 

Of course, the reason he’s in the position to begin with is because of his lack of leadership on the world’s stage. He’s single-handedly managed to reduce the United States to a country that was at least feared and respected by our potential enemies to “paper tiger” status. Any weakness perceived is a direct result of his inability or refusal to lead. And now, as his favorite preacher would say, the “chickens are coming home to roost.” The pity is he’s playing with the lives of members of our armed forces in order to try to look tough.

 

And besides, he has important things to do. He has to party down with the G-20 and he wants this distraction with Assad and Syria over by then. He certainly doesn’t want an active military strike going on when he shows up there. Think of the protests. His fragile ego simply isn’t geared to be the focus of angry, sign-waving crowds calling him names. Don’t forget, he’s a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

[DC Tom]

If, before now, you had any doubt about ego being involved in the Syria mission, you shouldn’t anymore. This is all about the ego of one man. And he’s willing to put the men and women of our armed forces in harm’s way in order to service that ego.

 

 

Point of note: he's not going to put anyone in harm's way but Syrians. He won't do anything more than lob missiles.

 

To "punish" Assad, from what I heard this morning. Not solve anything, just administer a spanking.

[B-Man]

[Koko78]

Point of note: he's not going to put anyone in harm's way but Syrians. He won't do anything more than lob missiles.

 

To "punish" Assad, from what I heard this morning. Not solve anything, just administer a spanking.

 

Well some unlucky sailor might fall off the side of a ship firing these cruise missiles...

[DC Tom]

 

Although I don't know why Congress would bother cutting short their recess just to debate Syria.

 

As far as I can tell, Parliament's only debating it because 1) they're not in recess, and 2) the Labor Party is being a bag of dicks about it.

[/dev/null]

 

Oh those wacky Brits with their Parliament and democracy.

 

So did they vote down the Syria motion because Obama is black?

[/dev/null]

Even Hitler didn't use Chemical Weapons (per Chris Matthews)

 

In hindisght, I think the tingling leg was a misdiagnosis. More of a sympton of a massive stroke that left his brain numb

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/29/chris-matthews-makes-very-dubious-claim-about-hitler-and-chemical-weapons/

Edited August 30, 2013 by /dev/null

[B-Man]

The "Hammer" strikes

 

 

 

Shamed into War .............A demonstration strike would be useless.

by Charles Krauthammer

 

Having leaked to the world, and thus to Syrian president Bashar Assad, a detailed briefing of the coming U.S. air attack on Syria

— (1) the source (offshore warships and perhaps a bomber or two),

-- (2) the weapon (cruise missiles),

-- (3) the duration (two or three days),

-- (4) the purpose (punishment, not “regime change”)

 

— perhaps we should be publishing the exact time the bombs will fall, lest we disrupt dinner in Damascus.

 

So much for the element of surprise. Into his third year of dithering, two years after declaring Assad had to go, one year after drawing — then erasing — his own red line on chemical weapons, Barack Obama has been stirred to action.

 

Or more accurately, shamed into action. Which is the worst possible reason. A president doesn’t commit soldiers to a war for which he has zero enthusiasm. Nor does one go to war for demonstration purposes.

 

Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose.

 

The purpose can be either punitive or strategic: either a spasm of conscience that will inflame our opponents yet leave not a trace, or a considered application of abundant American power to alter the strategic equation that is now heavily favoring our worst enemies in the heart of the Middle East.

 

There are risks to any attack. Blowback terror from Syria and its terrorist allies. Threatened retaliation by Iran or Hezbollah on Israel — that could lead to a guns-of-August regional conflagration. Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.

 

{snip}

 

Would the American people support it? They are justifiably war-weary and want no part of this conflict. And why should they? In three years, Obama has done nothing to prepare the country for such a serious engagement. Not one speech. No explanation of what’s at stake.

 

On the contrary. Last year Obama told us repeatedly that the tide of war was receding. This year, he grandly declared that the entire War on Terror “must end.” If he wants Tomahawks to fly, he’d better have a good reason, tell it to the American people, and get the support of their representatives in Congress, the way George W. Bush did for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

 

It’s rather shameful that while the British prime minister has recalled Parliament to debate possible airstrikes, Obama has made not a gesture in that direction.

 

If you are going to do this, Mr. President, do it constitutionally. And seriously. This is not about you and your conscience. It’s about applying American power to do precisely what you now deny this is about — helping Assad go, as you told the world he must.

 

Otherwise, just send Assad a text message. You might incur a roaming charge, but it’s still cheaper than a three-day, highly telegraphed, perfectly useless demonstration strike.

 

 

[DC Tom]

Even Hitler didn't use Chemical Weapons (per Chris Matthews)

 

In hindisght, I think the tingling leg was a misdiagnosis. More of a sympton of a massive stroke that left his brain numb

 

http://www.theblaze....emical-weapons/

 

The gas chambers at Auschwitz were no more "chemical weapons" than the gas chamber in Arizona or California. "Gas" and "chemical weapons" are not the same thing.

[John Adams]

 

why would this administration suddenly begin to respect the constraints of the US constitution? it's not like it's ever mattered to them before.

 

Presidents have not had respect for this Constitutional provision for 50 years. There is no imminent threat here, of course, and if this gets debated in Congress, we may well follow the UK lead. No one cared about the first 99,000 people who died in Syria. The latest 1,000 won't sway people that much.

[Keukasmallies]

If POTUS would (could) just do something...anything. Not necessarily a military move, just come up with a response that serves notice that chemical weapons are unacceptable. Of course, having a range of options from weaponry to diplomacy requires that a great deal of foreign policy groundwork, planning, understanding and cooperation with allies be done long before the options are actually needed.

 

Oh, sorry POTUS, you haven't done anything and are reaping the harvest of having a big mouth loaded with neither efficient nor effective actions in hand.

[Gary M]

the French support it, so now we know its' the wrong thing to do.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/syria.html?exprod=myyahoo&_r=0

[/dev/null]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-britain-idUSBRE97R1BD20130830

 

First time a British Prime Minister lost a war vote since 1782 when Parliament voted to stop fighting the American Revolution

[Azalin]

Presidents have not had respect for this Constitutional provision for 50 years. There is no imminent threat here, of course, and if this gets debated in Congress, we may well follow the UK lead. No one cared about the first 99,000 people who died in Syria. The latest 1,000 won't sway people that much.

maybe I should have been more clear - I was referring to ANY constitutional provisions, not just this one.

[dayman]

Congress won't debate this b/c they are cowards. It is fiction that--as a body--they want to be responsible for this type of decision. Obama is also a coward b/c he won't just come out and say it isn't our problem Bottom line, if we had any brains or leadership (in any body of government) we would just say "no UN action? then that is it." Partisan hacks will drum up this whole "we need to flex to show power" angle..which means nothing more than "we need to be stupid b/c that's our usual policy."

[Azalin]

Congress won't debate this b/c they are cowards. It is fiction that--as a body--they want to be responsible for this type of decision. Obama is also a coward b/c he won't just come out and say it isn't our problem Bottom line, if we had any brains or leadership (in any body of government) we would just say "no UN action? then that is it." Partisan hacks will drum up this whole "we need to flex to show power" angle..which means nothing more than "we need to be stupid b/c that's our usual policy."

congress isn't in session right now.

[dayman]

congress isn't in session right now.

 

What is your point? They can get on a plane at any point they want and fly back in. "Oh...we're not in session...if we were we would weigh in on this really important issue that may or may not bring the nation into a war but sorry we're on vacation."

[Azalin]

 

 

What is your point? They can get on a plane at any point they want and fly back in. "Oh...we're not in session...if we were we would weigh in on this really important issue that may or may not bring the nation into a war but sorry we're on vacation."

my point is that they're not there. whether or not you, me, or anyone else believes they should haul their butts back to washington is irrelevent. it's like yelling at a security guard because he wasn't there to prevent a burglary on his day off.

[DC Tom]

Congress won't debate this b/c they are cowards. It is fiction that--as a body--they want to be responsible for this type of decision. Obama is also a coward b/c he won't just come out and say it isn't our problem Bottom line, if we had any brains or leadership (in any body of government) we would just say "no UN action? then that is it." Partisan hacks will drum up this whole "we need to flex to show power" angle..which means nothing more than "we need to be stupid b/c that's our usual policy."

 

No one thinks they want to be responsible. But the Constitution makes them responsible - that's not fiction.

 

If Congress wanted to be responsible, they wouldn't do stupid **** like vote to "authorize" the invasion of Iraq, then try to disown their votes with the "Oh, we didn't really approve, we just gave permission" argument.

[blzrul]

We didn't care when Saddam gassed his own people, so I find it hard to believe we give a damn about the Syrians. In any event it seems like there was a delay while the samples were collected and analyzed to be sure that the rumors were true, with the empty time filled in of course by sabre-rattling. Then we're waiting for the rest of the "civilized' world to weigh in, so more sabre-rattling is called for. Now we hear there won't be any troops sent in (yet) which is good, but I don't see what can be done. Who the heck do you bomb? I vote for sabre-rattling. It's just as effective as anything we can do, and fewer people will die. No matter what we do, or don't do, those poor slobs are toast.