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

[IDBillzFan]

I've repeatedly referred to Obama as the worst employee in your office. Points fingers, passes blame, and constantly saying things that defy logic.

 

Today he is embarrassing beyond words.

 

Speaking at a press conference in Stockholm, Sweden, ahead of a global economic summit in Russia where he will seek to rally support for a U.S. military strike against Syria, Obama said the “red line” he set a year ago against Syria’s use of chemical weapons isn’t his, but an international standard.

 

“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility’s on the line."

 

Gutless piece of schitt.

[B-Man]

 

David Burge @iowahawkblog

Remember reporters yelling "WHAT ABOUT YOUR GAFFES?" at Romney? Good times, good times.

about 5 hours ago

 

 

 

 

 

Never. Gets. Old.

 

As Twitchy reported, President Pass-the-Buck said Wednesday that it is Congress’ credibility on the line in regards to Syria

 

 

Also:

 

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog 5h

How many times will Obama use "I" "me" "my" in selling this war?

 

 

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog 5h

I think we should bomb Syria with styrofoam Greek columns.

 

 

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog 3 Sep

After Obama's masterful handling of this Syria problem, that Afghanistan withdrawal is gonna go totally smooth.

 

 

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog 14h

Just to be safe, I think we should bomb everybody who has ever double-dated with the Kerrys.

 

.

[Dorkington]

I don't hold Obama responsible much for the red-line thing. There's two big no-no's the international community has put out there... chemical weapons and nuclear weapons. Either is used, developed or whatever, the international community usually goes nuts with outrage. For whatever reason no one cares that Assad is using chemical weapons. For whatever reason Obama does.

 

Personally, I don't feel like getting involved unless we really feel it's necessary to protect our interests over there (but frankly, I wish we wouldn't have interests in that region, heh).

[Chef Jim]

I don't hold Obama responsible much for the red-line thing. There's two big no-no's the international community has put out there... chemical weapons and nuclear weapons. Either is used, developed or whatever, the international community usually goes nuts with outrage. For whatever reason no one cares that Assad is using chemical weapons. For whatever reason Obama does.

 

Personally, I don't feel like getting involved unless we really feel it's necessary to protect our interests over there (but frankly, I wish we wouldn't have interests in that region, heh).

 

He's not responsible for the world drawing a red line in the sand with regard to chemical weapons however he brought it up now he's stuck with it. Now it's out there and he's created a huge no win situation. Something a good leader never does. He looks like a fool at this point and the world is watching.

[birdog1960]

I don't hold Obama responsible much for the red-line thing. There's two big no-no's the international community has put out there... chemical weapons and nuclear weapons. Either is used, developed or whatever, the international community usually goes nuts with outrage. For whatever reason no one cares that Assad is using chemical weapons. For whatever reason Obama does.

 

Personally, I don't feel like getting involved unless we really feel it's necessary to protect our interests over there (but frankly, I wish we wouldn't have interests in that region, heh).

i don't think it's that they don't care, i think many feel a "punitive" attack won't help or will make things worse. heard a military expert discussing such strikes in history. most successful was at the end of the first gulf war and we all know how that "ended" with another war a few years later. in that attack they killed senior leadership of the republican guard and he said syria would have a similar target. but there's never been a similar attack that completely stopped what it was meant to. then, of course there's the russian sabre rattling and the chinese...finally, there's the markets in a fragile economy. they didn't respond well to the threat of an imminent attack.

Edited September 4, 2013 by birdog1960

[Dorkington]

He's not responsible for the world drawing a red line in the sand with regard to chemical weapons however he brought it up now he's stuck with it. Now it's out there and he's created a huge no win situation. Something a good leader never does. He looks like a fool at this point and the world is watching.

 

Yeah, I don't think he expected everyone else to be so silent on the situation. Miscalculation.

[Chef Jim]

Yeah, I don't think he expected everyone else to be so silent on the situation. Miscalculation.

 

I thought he was a lawyer. Don't they do their research before speaking on the record? Hmmmm, quite the leader we have here huh.

 

Miscalculation??

[Doc]

So the message is: it's okay to kill your own people, just as long as you don't use chemical weapons.

[Nanker]

Is there proof that the government did the gassing, or is there doubt that the B Team bad guys might have copped some of the stuff and staged it to make Assad look guilty.

Are we sure that blowing off some V2s in the desert towns of Syria is going to change things? Just what exactly? Will it limit their stockpiles or manufacturing capabilities? Will this stop the slaughter?

What a **** storm. The time to act was two years ago. Now he's being dragged to action as he's being hoisted on his own petard. Change we can hardly believe is what we're supposed to believe in.

[B-Man]

It's a hoot-a-minute with this bunch. Too bad it's deadly serious problem.

 

Secretary Kerry on the Hill today: There are 34 countries ready to back us up on our bombing..............

 

Rep Salmon: and who are those countries ?

 

Sec. Kerry: Uhhhh, I don't have a full list here with me today.

 

 

 

 

 

I think that he's padding the list... of those 34 countries, 57 are really just States....

 

Why not just ask the NSA? They should have the list.

 

 

.

[Doc]

The more I think about this, the more I think this is a "wag the dog" type of situation. Sure Barry made the "red line" statement, but there are conflicting reports over who actually used the chemical weapons, giving him the perfect out. Instead he is the one pushing to strike. And the question is: why?

[IDBillzFan]

The more I think about this, the more I think this is a "wag the dog" type of situation. Sure Barry made the "red line" statement, but there are conflicting reports over who actually used the chemical weapons, giving him the perfect out. Instead he is the one pushing to strike. And the question is: why?

 

It's not like there's an anniversary coming up of a phony scandal where four Americans were left to die.

[Doc]

It's not like there's an anniversary coming up of a phony scandal where four Americans were left to die.

That's what I'm thinking. I fully expect the drones "collaterally damage" Syrian rebel stockpiles of US weapons.

[birdog1960]

The more I think about this, the more I think this is a "wag the dog" type of situation. Sure Barry made the "red line" statement, but there are conflicting reports over who actually used the chemical weapons, giving him the perfect out. Instead he is the one pushing to strike. And the question is: why?

there's little doubt that assad used chemical weapons. the people killed and injured were in an area sympathetic to the resistance. assad did it because it's war and he's trying to destroy and break the will of his enemy. no mystery. and what exactly should have been done 2 years ago? enter another mid east war overtly? by most reports we've been involved covertly. it's a terrible situation: we can't condone the use of chemical weapons and we must respond in some manner to show it won't be tolerated. the rest of the mid east, especially israel and the saudi's know this. gthey're not worried about a chemical weapon attack on them as this is only likely to be used on weak opponents without the ability to effectively retaliate. they're worried about precedent and emboldening their enemies. remember that syria is allied with hezbellah(supporting the shiites) and iran . this is serious,exceedingly complex, grim business and there are no easy answers. a punitive strike with tomahawks is the easy answer but is it the right one? that's the question facing obama and he's right to deliberate imo. he needs international cover and it's dwindling for the same reasons american support is. maybe the burden should be placed on those with the most to lose (other than the syrian people): israel, saudis, jordan, emirates, kuwait etc. making political hay out of this is counterproductive and stupid. if he acted yesterday, the criticism from you all might even be louder especially if things went down poorly. he's wise and strong to ignore the objections and cat calls. Edited September 4, 2013 by birdog1960

[Alaska Darin]

there's little doubt that assad used chemical weapons. the people killed and injured were in an area sympathetic to the resistance. assad did it because it's war and he's trying to destroy and break the will of his enemy. no mystery. and what exactly should have been done 2 years ago? enter another mid east war overtly? by most reports we've been involved covertly. it's a terrible situation: we can't condone the use of chemical weapons and we must respond in some manner to show it won't be tolerated. the rest of the mid east, especially israel and the saudi's know this. gthey're not worried about a chemical weapon attack on them as this is only likely to be used on weak opponents without the ability to effectively retaliate. they're worried about precedent and emboldening their enemies. remember that syria is allied with hezbellah and iran. this is serious,exceedingly complex, grim business and there are no easy answers. a punitive strike with tomahawks is the easy answer but is it the right one? that's the question facing obama and he's right to deliberate imo. he needs international cover and it's dwindling for the same reasons american support is. maybe the burden should be placed on those with the most to lose (other than the syrian people): israel, saudis, jordan, emirates, kuwait etc. making political hay out of this is counterproductive and stupid. if he acted yesterday, the criticism from you all might even be louder especially if things went down poorly. he's wise and strong to ignore the objections and cat calls.

Now pretend he's a Republican.

[birdog1960]

Now pretend he's a Republican.

i did. we'd likely be at war with boots on the ground with the minority isolationist republicans screaming but not listened to and the gullible public stirred into a frenzy of support by propaganda. Edited September 4, 2013 by birdog1960

[B-Man]

Obama’s Redline Problem — and Ours

By Jonah Goldberg

 

Obama’s statement just now about how it’s not his red line will get recycled a lot over the next few days. He said “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.” He also said, “My credibility is not on the line. International credibility is on the line.”

 

If you actually watch Obama’s August 20, 2012, statement about red lines, it’s pretty obvious he’s not telling the truth now. If you need a moment to hie thyself to a fainting couch to deal with the shock that Obama would say something untrue, I will wait a moment.

 

Now, in the cable news and twitter cycle, this will be fodder for a lot of psychoanalysis about Obama’s political persona and his refusal to take responsibility. And that’s all fair game as far as I am concerned. I think Ramesh pretty much nailed it on twitter:

 

“So we’re going to go to war to defend the credibility of a comment Obama won’t take responsibility for.”

 

What bothers me — and what I think gets to the core of the White House’s poor messaging — is the degree to which these guys think the best arguments are those that hang all this on the “international community.” I certainly understand that Obama can’t go around saying “save my credibility!” or “please, Congress, cover the check my mouth wrote!” But given the mood this country is in, selling this as a mission for the “international community’s” credibility probably hurts more than helps. As I keep saying, I don’t think America is in an isolationist moment. I think America has had it to here [my hand is at my forehead] with the Middle East (save for Israel), and while they understand why chemical weapons are bad and should be banned, they want an answer to the question “Why does it have to be us?”

 

You can’t answer that question with “it’s not about us, it’s about the international community” — no matter how creative you get.

Edited September 4, 2013 by B-Man

[Chef Jim]

i did. we'd likely be at war with boots on the ground

 

So what will you say when this escalates to that?

[DC Tom]

“So we’re going to go to war to defend the credibility of a comment Obama won’t take responsibility for.”

 

Yep. Isn't that pretty much what the Republican leadership is saying, too?

[birdog1960]

So what will you say when this escalates to that?

i don't think it will but if it does i'd say obama's doing everything he can to avoid it and is willing to take a beating for it. bush did precisely the opposite.