Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:27 PM Sep 2013

That 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.

536 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
That was pretty goddamned incoherent, frankly. (Original Post) WilliamPitt Sep 2013 OP
It was disorienting to say the least... PrestonLocke Sep 2013 #1
I'm cutting him a lot of slack - he has to play all sides right now reformist2 Sep 2013 #372
"We won't be sure of his true intentions until all this is over" MNBrewer Sep 2013 #385
You sir, are correct. I mean you are not wrong. Safetykitten Sep 2013 #2
Summary: "Assad, I'm not bluffing. Take the deal." JoePhilly Sep 2013 #3
Exactly. joshcryer Sep 2013 #18
And the less obvious sub point ... there for those paying attention ... JoePhilly Sep 2013 #27
Yeah, that was pretty impressive, too. joshcryer Sep 2013 #37
Obama expected the American people to back him. former9thward Sep 2013 #50
I don't think so. joshcryer Sep 2013 #63
After the Shit that W pulled, Mr.Bill Sep 2013 #92
+1 davidwparker Sep 2013 #288
Five years between Vietnam and Reagan's election "to make America strong again" bananas Sep 2013 #369
The correct position? former9thward Sep 2013 #97
That is a bold faced lie. 90% is destroyed. joshcryer Sep 2013 #108
I expect you will be making excuses in 2023. former9thward Sep 2013 #121
We have 365 tons of Sarin + VX and 500 tons of mustard gas. joshcryer Sep 2013 #143
You are an apologist for American bullying. former9thward Sep 2013 #210
They have to build facilities. joshcryer Sep 2013 #214
So they built facilities for 90% of it former9thward Sep 2013 #423
Bush cut the funding for 8 years! joshcryer Sep 2013 #510
US on the right side of this issue? former9thward Sep 2013 #520
Rachel was just talking about this. The US HAS destroyed nearly all its stockpiles. Hekate Sep 2013 #237
Ohh and that building is going to take at least 10 years to build..... former9thward Sep 2013 #420
go ahead. tell me I'm an apologist for American bullying. cali Sep 2013 #394
Ignorance is bliss heaven05 Sep 2013 #411
some people are so mad at the country for various things they'll be in denial about stuff like this. dionysus Sep 2013 #422
And some people have facts. former9thward Sep 2013 #425
^ proves my point dionysus Sep 2013 #427
not something in your possession in this case. n/t cali Sep 2013 #435
Another chemical weapon expert on DU! former9thward Sep 2013 #424
Please Read this Article on the Storage of Chemical Weapons. CherokeeDem Sep 2013 #405
So a MIC jobs program! former9thward Sep 2013 #426
I suspect.... CherokeeDem Sep 2013 #439
Please explain why it was not complex to destroy 90% of the stockpile... former9thward Sep 2013 #443
Although I am a scientist by education... CherokeeDem Sep 2013 #451
Thank you for your comments. former9thward Sep 2013 #456
I take nothing at face value... CherokeeDem Sep 2013 #462
Good Article Gothmog Sep 2013 #449
Wow this is good to hear. felix_numinous Sep 2013 #499
Interesting, this aspect. Smarmie Doofus Sep 2013 #138
Not the UN, it's a separate entity cooperating with the UN. joshcryer Sep 2013 #153
I agree with you. Cheviteau Sep 2013 #403
So what's the shelf life of some of these chemical weapons? YOHABLO Sep 2013 #232
Sarin, mixed, very short. Mustard gas, very long. HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #249
The stuff we gave Saddam had a maximum shelf life of 8 to 10 years. RC Sep 2013 #252
Yeah, Saddam buried his stuff. joshcryer Sep 2013 #272
He also did destroy most of it. RC Sep 2013 #280
If I remember correctly, he agreed to allow the UN inspectors back in... Blanks Sep 2013 #389
Actually, the decision was made well before that. RC Sep 2013 #407
Of course you're right on the timeline... Blanks Sep 2013 #438
PNAC also targeted Syria. bvar22 Sep 2013 #452
check this out Skittles Sep 2013 #344
Seen it. joshcryer Sep 2013 #345
what were they saying about Putin when Snowden..... Skittles Sep 2013 #346
I state only facts. joshcryer Sep 2013 #347
hey, I hear you Skittles Sep 2013 #348
Oh, OK, Russia is already against a UN plan: joshcryer Sep 2013 #349
the plot thickens Skittles Sep 2013 #350
+1,000 nt MADem Sep 2013 #442
"I state only facts," you say, just before blaming Russia for all of Syria's dead. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #460
Had Assad gone the Bahrain route there would be no civil war. joshcryer Sep 2013 #509
In that case RainDog Sep 2013 #80
Why would he expect that? Explain that arguement please. JoePhilly Sep 2013 #86
He said so. former9thward Sep 2013 #104
I asked WHY he would expect the American people to support it. JoePhilly Sep 2013 #117
He was bluffing. former9thward Sep 2013 #128
Congress has a lower approval than VD.... MADem Sep 2013 #445
He also said he needs Congressional backing. joshcryer Sep 2013 #122
He never said that at the beginning. former9thward Sep 2013 #136
And he never said he doesn't have the power to act unilaterally. joshcryer Sep 2013 #162
So how is that a rejection of the Unitary Executive doctrine? nt Llewlladdwr Sep 2013 #178
Because he said he'll listen to Congress. joshcryer Sep 2013 #185
Sorry joshcryer but I'm just not seeing it. Llewlladdwr Sep 2013 #197
No President would ever do that. joshcryer Sep 2013 #200
I agree with you that no president would do that. Llewlladdwr Sep 2013 #216
The NFL? mimi85 Sep 2013 #269
You cannot be serious... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #106
Yet another person who does not follow the news. former9thward Sep 2013 #191
I don't? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #198
So you are saying the American people backed him? former9thward Sep 2013 #204
No...did I say that? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #207
Every post you make, makes a little less sense. former9thward Sep 2013 #212
I think Vanilla Rhapsody mimi85 Sep 2013 #279
There is generally a good precedent that you let them know that all options are on the table CAG Sep 2013 #192
And Obama is the "everything's on the table" President. joshcryer Sep 2013 #195
Yes, funny thing is........ George II Sep 2013 #231
I think it is very strange that... Ferretherder Sep 2013 #294
^ THIS ^ mac56 Sep 2013 #410
Thank you, my friend... Ferretherder Sep 2013 #504
During a GOP Presidential Debate, cynzke Sep 2013 #458
EXACTLY! Ferretherder Sep 2013 #505
I love you LukeFL Sep 2013 #43
Oh puke!!! U4ikLefty Sep 2013 #66
Lol! Jamastiene Sep 2013 #170
A little too obvious with that one... WorseBeforeBetter Sep 2013 #413
What I can't agree with my fellow DUer? LukeFL Sep 2013 #519
You noticed the Unitary Executive thing, too? He was directly referencing the Youngstown decision, msanthrope Sep 2013 #76
Bingo. nt JoePhilly Sep 2013 #96
That it went right over the head of the OP is understandable, but regrettable. He did something msanthrope Sep 2013 #101
WTF? Llewlladdwr Sep 2013 #87
You are unfamiliar with the Youngstown decision? nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #111
No, I'm familiar with Youngstown. Llewlladdwr Sep 2013 #139
When he said that he had the authority to act, but believed that this authority was msanthrope Sep 2013 #149
I disagree. Llewlladdwr Sep 2013 #156
We will have to agree to disagree. nnt msanthrope Sep 2013 #164
Agreed! Llewlladdwr Sep 2013 #169
That's the second time I've heard that from his lips: Unitary Executive, GOP wetdream since Nixon... Hekate Sep 2013 #234
Yes, it's so important to read between the lines to really understand this president. gtar100 Sep 2013 #365
Exactly LukeFL Sep 2013 #35
Obama needs this deal as much as al-Assad. Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #42
Assad needs it WAY more. JoePhilly Sep 2013 #58
al-Assad could have taken the military hit. Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #114
He lost on the strike. TWICE. Obama's stuck. DirkGently Sep 2013 #160
And ONLY to public pressure. Beer Swiller Sep 2013 #227
"dick-waving macho "don't call me a wus, Bill Clinton," crap?" brush Sep 2013 #395
Exactly. somethingshiny Sep 2013 #415
Pootie desperately needs the situation to be status quo ante bellum or he's out a small fortune. MADem Sep 2013 #213
Obama's in a box now. But he's handling it. DirkGently Sep 2013 #118
I think everyone will be happy - Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #152
My thoughts also brush Sep 2013 #391
That's it. Pretty clear to me, too. Not at all "incoherent." nt MADem Sep 2013 #64
When he started talking about 'pinpricks' AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #475
He didn't lose me. There was a method and a reason in every word he uttered. MADem Sep 2013 #477
He needs to stop reacting to their idiocy AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #485
He's not reacting, he's just acknowledging their existence. MADem Sep 2013 #521
He is reacting to their idiotic statements AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #522
How do you legitimize stupidity? MADem Sep 2013 #523
By reacting to it as if it is legitimate AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #524
There was no drama in Obama's brief remark. You're trying to create some, though, and I'm MADem Sep 2013 #525
That is rediculous AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #527
It is not "ridiculous." MADem Sep 2013 #528
You are claiming that the Tea Party are Obamas constituents? AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #529
I hate to tell you this, but even the KKK and those Stormfront nuts are Obama's constituents. MADem Sep 2013 #530
Oh, so they have his ear too? AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #532
Now you're just being combative, obtuse, and offensive. MADem Sep 2013 #533
I'm stating fact AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #534
You apparently don't understand, won't grasp what I am saying, and I'm tired of arguing with you. MADem Sep 2013 #535
I know exactly what you are saying AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #536
That's what I thought! graywarrior Sep 2013 #109
That's what I heard. mountain grammy Sep 2013 #133
I heard that too: Not bluffing, but giving peace a chance. Hekate Sep 2013 #229
You really believe this deal was Obama's idea. Beer Swiller Sep 2013 #262
Touché! Carolina Sep 2013 #296
Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #490
Awesome post! +1 beerandjesus Sep 2013 #390
So Putin gave Snowden asylum as a way to give the finger to the US Number23 Sep 2013 #432
Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #489
I take great comfort in the knowledge that the number of people that think that Putin Number23 Sep 2013 #495
I agree with everything you said...until the very last line. arewenotdemo Sep 2013 #440
Assad, I'm not bluffing, you know how much money we'll make off WWIII :) grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #270
I need some ketchup for my crow. nt awoke_in_2003 Sep 2013 #466
Military strikes in national security interest of the US. Make my children safer. The Link Sep 2013 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author Awknid Sep 2013 #48
Dubya explained all this some years back. We gotta kill them truedelphi Sep 2013 #243
It reflects the confused situation of today quinnox Sep 2013 #5
Not only was it incoherent, I had the impression that the President knew it. winter is coming Sep 2013 #6
100% correct Mr. Pitt Crimson76 Sep 2013 #7
tell you you're wrong? I THINK YOU ARE WRONG. trueblue2007 Sep 2013 #8
Like the ones killled by our own drones? Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #45
Yes. In Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now we need to Luminous Animal Sep 2013 #46
I liked his speech too but, Politicalboi Sep 2013 #69
The children we kill won't be wreathing in pain golfguru Sep 2013 #266
I hope you are kidding. nt Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #363
Yes, and I hope you noticed my sarcasm tag. n/t golfguru Sep 2013 #448
Flying body parts are better than asphyxiation. jsr Sep 2013 #293
The haters are mad there will be no US attack on Syria Cali_Democrat Sep 2013 #9
He was supposed to announce that SHOCK and AWE #2 had started. JoePhilly Sep 2013 #34
No confusion. former9thward Sep 2013 #61
Then why would Russia try to help with some deal? JoePhilly Sep 2013 #72
Russia looks like a peacemaker to the world. former9thward Sep 2013 #98
Except no one in the world believes that, no one. JoePhilly Sep 2013 #127
You are not the world. former9thward Sep 2013 #132
Only America haters think that dbackjon Sep 2013 #258
Yeah, America love it or leave it!!! former9thward Sep 2013 #418
+1,000 nt MADem Sep 2013 #159
I am ONE - maybe the only one? "America looks like a warmonger" . . . damm straight. ConcernedCanuk Sep 2013 #357
Considering Russia is arming Assad mythology Sep 2013 #242
Pootie doesn't want the USA to target any piers in Tartus, that's the real bottom line. MADem Sep 2013 #267
America has lost the "long game" and the world knows it. former9thward Sep 2013 #417
Maybe Eko Sep 2013 #103
Because Russia knew Obama was not bluffing. JoePhilly Sep 2013 #130
To keep Assad in power, which blocks the pipeline Russia doesnt want DJ13 Sep 2013 #115
Strikes weren't intend to remove him from power. JoePhilly Sep 2013 #125
Mission creep began to mention regime change DJ13 Sep 2013 #173
Um.....McCain isn't President nor does he speak for President Obama Proud Liberal Dem Sep 2013 #201
Go ahead DJ13 Sep 2013 #206
The key words being: Proud Liberal Dem Sep 2013 #377
If there's not to be any attack on Syria... Llewlladdwr Sep 2013 #39
PRESSURE! LukeFL Sep 2013 #49
If the President wants to apply pressure... Llewlladdwr Sep 2013 #59
Ugh!!!!!!!!!!!! LukeFL Sep 2013 #67
Well, I'm having a hard time understanding because frankly, it makes no sense. Llewlladdwr Sep 2013 #102
Shhh, they're too busy looking into his dreamy eyes U4ikLefty Sep 2013 #77
Gee--I thought his detractors were too busy critiquing his eyebrows .... MADem Sep 2013 #189
Bwahaha! Still trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! How many lost on popcorn stock? freshwest Sep 2013 #455
I don't think a lot of the detractors on this thread are going to like the home page today either... MADem Sep 2013 #457
Woot! Let me go take a peek and be back. Thanks, MADem! freshwest Sep 2013 #459
Actually no iandhr Sep 2013 #93
Applause! LukeFL Sep 2013 #180
PBO asked Congress in May. Guess what the focus was at DU then? freshwest Sep 2013 #479
Please get off that kick. It is asinine. Jackpine Radical Sep 2013 #54
+1,000 jackpine suffragette Sep 2013 #90
+1 sarcasmo Sep 2013 #268
How far from reality must you be to even conceive of such a thing? Cal Carpenter Sep 2013 #140
Well said. Thank you. -The Sane DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2013 #292
That's pretty much what I was thinking. nt laundry_queen Sep 2013 #326
it's a sick suggestion and that indicates what kind of a brain comes up cali Sep 2013 #396
Oh stop that. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #182
Excellent Carolina Sep 2013 #264
^^^This post is right on target^^^ DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2013 #297
You have learned something CountAllVotes Sep 2013 #433
+1000 burnsei sensei Sep 2013 #484
I don't need anything related to Syria to bash Obama. Tiredofthesame Sep 2013 #211
People who feared Persian Gulf War III (if not WW III) are "haters"? Peace Patriot Sep 2013 #218
"It's a TINDERBOX." arewenotdemo Sep 2013 #450
Right-Wing Media's Love Affair With Putin Continues Over Syria Weapons Proposal freshwest Sep 2013 #290
This is a complete non sequitor but I truly needed snagglepuss Sep 2013 #441
You're welcome. Apply liberally as needed! freshwest Sep 2013 #470
If you start with "The haters..." you have conceded you have no argument. morningfog Sep 2013 #313
What about if someone calls me a cultist? Cali_Democrat Sep 2013 #327
What an assholish comment. beerandjesus Sep 2013 #393
that's the most insane thing i've read here in a long while noiretextatique Sep 2013 #488
No, you're not wrong. You pretty much summed it up. forestpath Sep 2013 #10
I dont think he even really neede to give the speech..unless we were bombing tomorrow NightWatcher Sep 2013 #11
It was scheduled on the eve of the Senate vote, and I believe it was originally intended winter is coming Sep 2013 #60
I missed it, but assumed it would be whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #12
Yep, that would be my call too. truedelphi Sep 2013 #245
I'm with you tom_kelly Sep 2013 #13
It was an awful speech that focused more on bombing than diplomacy Bjorn Against Sep 2013 #14
It was pretty damn simple, actually. joshcryer Sep 2013 #15
The whole world was watching or listening. Every word was deliberate and had purpose. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #16
Well said. But still, some miss 'the beloved pair' running the country: freshwest Sep 2013 #472
Transcript, for those inclined to read it struggle4progress Sep 2013 #17
Words. Me. Am. Not. Able. To. Read. joshcryer Sep 2013 #23
Yeah, that's about right. n/t cigsandcoffee Sep 2013 #19
Chris Hayes nailed the fundamental contradiction. DirkGently Sep 2013 #20
Yes, he did nail it, as usual. winter is coming Sep 2013 #26
Best way I've ever heard it put. 1awake Sep 2013 #123
I give you permission to quote Chris Hayes! DirkGently Sep 2013 #135
ha... yea i know, but you caught it not me so... thanks! n/t 1awake Sep 2013 #150
This needs to be its own post! Thanks! n-t Logical Sep 2013 #220
+1,00000000000000000000000 grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #273
Excellent description. jsr Sep 2013 #304
THAT as the BIG one. avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #319
Bang on. snagglepuss Sep 2013 #444
I think he is setting up the 'diplomacy' for failure merbex Sep 2013 #21
No, actually he is setting up Assad and Congress quaker bill Sep 2013 #166
Pul-eeze...He nailed it !! jessie04 Sep 2013 #22
Can You Cram A Few More Cliches In Your Post? HangOnKids Sep 2013 #311
You aren't wrong, Will. In_The_Wind Sep 2013 #24
That's pretty much what I heard, too. Arkansas Granny Sep 2013 #25
I heard the man ask for some time to continue to pursue a diplomatic solution to completion. Skidmore Sep 2013 #28
don't talk about balls, Will. nor incoherence. Whisp Sep 2013 #29
The glory days are no more, and peace is bor-ring. Speaking of the rule of balls: freshwest Sep 2013 #474
Betty White has something to say about 'balls'. Whisp Sep 2013 #476
Yes, you are totally correct. RebelOne Sep 2013 #30
I think you're wrong. Avalux Sep 2013 #31
But he certainly reminded us he can take action if he choses. snappyturtle Sep 2013 #53
You're embarrassing yourself at this point. DevonRex Sep 2013 #32
This message was self-deleted by its author DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2013 #305
Yeah, I apologize for that. DevonRex Sep 2013 #310
Thanks. DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2013 #316
You're welcome. DevonRex Sep 2013 #322
+1 tallahasseedem Sep 2013 #421
You are wrong. Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #33
Some posters on this site know only one gear. And they crank that gear right into a tree. nt bluestate10 Sep 2013 #506
It made perfect sense johnd83 Sep 2013 #36
I agree. I understood what the President was doing. Diplomacy with a big stick at the ready bluestate10 Sep 2013 #507
Can't believe you don't know him yet LukeFL Sep 2013 #38
cut and paste rewrite.... Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #40
OK: YOU'RE WRONG. jazzimov Sep 2013 #41
It was perfectly clear to me. phleshdef Sep 2013 #44
It was perfectly clear if you didnt have your fingers in your ears going VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #190
-1,000,000 Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2013 #511
Looks like one of the la la la group has chimed in VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #512
Ha...looks like the one who almost got blocked today who people say is rude ALL Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2013 #513
blocked? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #517
Thanks for the summary version. I wasn't about to sit through the whole thing. BlueStreak Sep 2013 #47
Of course not... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #193
I give him credit for the good things that he has done. BlueStreak Sep 2013 #221
that made me laugh out loud... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #223
I flipped through the first 15, and all of them BlueStreak Sep 2013 #238
No you didn't say...you said NOTHING. VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #244
I said "I give him credit for the good things that he has done." BlueStreak Sep 2013 #257
No it has NOT.... where the hell do you people get this stuff? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #263
so good to hear someone acknowledge that. bigtree Sep 2013 #51
Sorry, but you're wrong. It was pretty succinct to me. n/t Darkhawk32 Sep 2013 #52
1745 Dimensional Chess NoOneMan Sep 2013 #55
.... davidpdx Sep 2013 #158
He's an embarrassment Shampoobra Sep 2013 #56
Freshly Painted Eyebrows? otohara Sep 2013 #94
Sorry, that wasn't very clear Shampoobra Sep 2013 #199
Black POTUS Has Always Had Black Eyebrows otohara Sep 2013 #224
Your links show that they weren't, as I had thought, "freshly painted" Shampoobra Sep 2013 #255
Very weird observation. Reagan dyed his whole head at 80+ and PBO is going gray at 50-something Hekate Sep 2013 #228
It's That Bad Here At DU otohara Sep 2013 #265
I was feeling low down after reading all the fighting Enthusiast Sep 2013 #341
What's most disheartening is we are wasting so much time and effort on this Snake Plissken Sep 2013 #57
+1000 forestpath Sep 2013 #75
+1000!!! This endless bullshit in the middle east decade RKP5637 Sep 2013 #202
Oil and Israel, it is what's for dinner... forever. harun Sep 2013 #217
We have become the Middle East's CountAllVotes Sep 2013 #431
Well, I think you're wrong, but you're looking for approval here, so I'll leave it at that. MADem Sep 2013 #62
LOL! n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #68
I couldn't help myself.... MADem Sep 2013 #112
"He never said 'I want to attack.' You should listen more closely." WilliamPitt Sep 2013 #79
Not the same as "I WANT TO ATTACK" ..... genius. MADem Sep 2013 #119
"There is a contingent who love to see him fail and hate to see him win." ProSense Sep 2013 #157
I saw that utter mess....and I just walked away. MADem Sep 2013 #171
I don't think Pitt has hair... Whisp Sep 2013 #253
Here he is begging for money.......... 4bucksagallon Sep 2013 #331
This video Summer Hathaway Sep 2013 #353
Someone said he had no hair...... 4bucksagallon Sep 2013 #356
My "beef" Summer Hathaway Sep 2013 #358
So you and a maybe a couple hundred others are members of his "fan club" big deal. 4bucksagallon Sep 2013 #366
Summer hathaway is right: you ought to delete this. Raine1967 Sep 2013 #388
Your reading comprehension Summer Hathaway Sep 2013 #482
That's pretty asinine. Those of us calling you out all disagree with the OP.... Hekate Sep 2013 #531
+ a million, Summer. I 100% agree with MADem that this OP is nothing but a Will Pitt "look at me!!" Number23 Sep 2013 #434
I'm with you and MADem on the OP Summer Hathaway Sep 2013 #483
Naw, he nailed it. bravenak Sep 2013 #65
Help me out here, what exactly is 'it'? Snake Plissken Sep 2013 #81
Making the case against chemical weapons. bravenak Sep 2013 #126
We are going to buy Assad's cooperation, just like we always do and call it a 'diplomatic solution' Snake Plissken Sep 2013 #161
I don't remember him saying that. bravenak Sep 2013 #179
Russia is nothing but the broker of this deal, Snake Plissken Sep 2013 #196
No they aren't. They have a direct and DIRE interest in averting missile strikes. MADem Sep 2013 #256
That is a tiny port not capable of handling aircraft carriers, it's basically a re-supply depot Snake Plissken Sep 2013 #274
Excuse me? You need to KEEP UP with the latest, there, Snake.... MADem Sep 2013 #286
Yes, Russia had a lot to lose. So they put the squeeze on Assad. What's so hard to understand? freshwest Sep 2013 #518
you are wrong. I'll tell you now instead of you waiting Whisp Sep 2013 #70
OUCH. MADem Sep 2013 #124
lol orenbus Sep 2013 #155
Jeez. Who the hell are you and what is that thing? Hekate Sep 2013 #278
That's Palpatine Dash87 Sep 2013 #409
That's hilarious! n/t DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2013 #308
Could care less about this argument, but that picture made me LOL Dash87 Sep 2013 #408
It's a malady of the those who have intelligence without wisdom: a tendency to jump to their alcibiades_mystery Sep 2013 #284
so...were we supposed to "do something" now? nashville_brook Sep 2013 #71
His eyes got a bit of a "glint" mentioning we don't do "Pinprick Strikes." KoKo Sep 2013 #73
Kindly explain this 'glint' you see in his eyes. I'm fascinated by this. nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #83
No you're not. U4ikLefty Sep 2013 #88
Yes--I am. On a batshit insane thread, I find the poster who sees a 'glint' in the President's msanthrope Sep 2013 #95
LOL! Glint Easwood talks to empty headed 101st Chairbornes. Whisp Sep 2013 #146
The we "don't do pinprick strikes" thing obviously refers to the fact that America has such an arewenotdemo Sep 2013 #454
I had no problem, following it at all. quaker bill Sep 2013 #74
I wish I could rec your post. Avalux Sep 2013 #89
What friggin' complexity? truedelphi Sep 2013 #240
^^^^THIS post makes this trainwreck of an OP worthwhile. I wish I could rec this post of yours.^^^^^ MADem Sep 2013 #145
I just do what I can, when I can.. quaker bill Sep 2013 #181
Thank you for this post. JohnnyLib2 Sep 2013 #154
Best post of the thread. Craploads better than the OP. nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #205
Agreed. QB should make it an OP. n/t FSogol Sep 2013 #376
+1, Quaker Bill. See, all you people who wished you could Rec this, I just did! :-) nt Hekate Sep 2013 #271
Magnificent reply. Thanks for that. Number23 Sep 2013 #436
I understood it perfectly iandhr Sep 2013 #78
I didn't listen to it myself bhikkhu Sep 2013 #82
The President has never taken the position we must act immediately struggle4progress Sep 2013 #131
Oh thank god. noamnety Sep 2013 #84
"he had no shame in explicitly identifying and defending American exceptionalism" winter is coming Sep 2013 #137
Did he actually mention American exceptionalism by name? truedelphi Sep 2013 #248
He ended by saying America is "exceptional." noamnety Sep 2013 #370
Ew-w-w. truedelphi Sep 2013 #493
..the exact word I was thinking of earlier today after reading.... Tikki Sep 2013 #85
Sorry I disagree Beaverhausen Sep 2013 #91
"And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would... embolden Iran" - Obama grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #99
I thought it was a short speech without much substance. Mr.Bill Sep 2013 #100
Hey, we want you to stop using chemical weapons while tsuki Sep 2013 #105
Gobbledygook is what I heard also but....... Little Star Sep 2013 #107
Yeah, cuz you expected, what, exactly? Old and In the Way Sep 2013 #110
+1,000 nt MADem Sep 2013 #184
I felt like it was Bush talking and I really hated that feeling Generic Other Sep 2013 #113
Bush talking? Hell, it wasn't *that* incoherent. winter is coming Sep 2013 #142
LOL. True enough Generic Other Sep 2013 #188
Agree with you Carolina Sep 2013 #287
You are wrong. rury Sep 2013 #116
I think it reflects the fuzziness of the situation. BlueCheese Sep 2013 #120
As it was put up thread... 1awake Sep 2013 #129
The one thing the President got wrong was suggesting that the 'Right' support our military Snake Plissken Sep 2013 #134
The POTUS IS CONFUSED. rsmith6621 Sep 2013 #141
he is not conused at all quaker bill Sep 2013 #194
He is in no way, shape, or form confused. Tiredofthesame Sep 2013 #226
"Tell me I'm wrong". Okay you're wrong. nt 4bucksagallon Sep 2013 #144
Oh my...indeed! eom Purveyor Sep 2013 #147
Was a little mixed . . . another_liberal Sep 2013 #148
He wants to attack them, but his buddy, Putin, Jamastiene Sep 2013 #151
Obama got himself suckered into a schoolyard standoff King_Klonopin Sep 2013 #359
He doesn't have a clue LittleBlue Sep 2013 #163
And let's not forget the reason he is 200 votes short in the House - 72% of all American voters truedelphi Sep 2013 #254
Exactly LittleBlue Sep 2013 #260
frankly william..... chillfactor Sep 2013 #165
It is this way from forcing the facts to agree with the narrative. Rain Mcloud Sep 2013 #167
Yeah erpowers Sep 2013 #168
I've sat through it twice, and it was poorly done. Savannahmann Sep 2013 #172
Thank you. GeorgeGist Sep 2013 #208
Thank you. woo me with science Sep 2013 #219
"vile propaganda cherry on top" arewenotdemo Sep 2013 #461
I read and re-read your post 3 times. Well done and thanks. russspeakeasy Sep 2013 #235
K&R Carolina Sep 2013 #291
Thanks You... haikugal Sep 2013 #330
Good post. nt laundry_queen Sep 2013 #337
That was very eloquent. Thank you. And it had totally truedelphi Sep 2013 #352
An anecdote about land mines... Maedhros Sep 2013 #486
May I offer you a friendly hump day truedelphi Sep 2013 #492
Thank you! Maedhros Sep 2013 #494
Spot on. Celefin Sep 2013 #361
Well said, thank you! beerandjesus Sep 2013 #397
marvellous, thoughtful post Supersedeas Sep 2013 #464
Thank you Savannahmann. sibelian Sep 2013 #481
I didn't watch, crim son Sep 2013 #174
+1 newfie11 Sep 2013 #175
No, it wasn't. madamesilverspurs Sep 2013 #176
I find Whisp Sep 2013 #177
That was campaign Obama Marrah_G Sep 2013 #183
Cue the hyperbole. JaneyVee Sep 2013 #186
They Call the Wind Maria Whisp Sep 2013 #187
LOL. arewenotdemo Sep 2013 #463
Why do you invite people Summer Hathaway Sep 2013 #203
Gobldeygook (aside from being hard to spell) fadedrose Sep 2013 #209
Ha. It's incoherent to understand the desire to stop a dictator from gassing people? GEEZ nt Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2013 #215
Exactly what the Bush fan club said about Saddam Doctor_J Sep 2013 #225
Are you serious? Hardly the same. Bush and Cheney were lying and making shit Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2013 #282
Thats why they said it.. iamthebandfanman Sep 2013 #355
And what about Kerry's claim that Syria's chemical weapons are a threat to the US? Doctor_J Sep 2013 #381
Why yes--coming from the head of a country that is the chief weapons supplier to the world eridani Sep 2013 #360
circumstances required an entire new speech and he seemed to keep half of the old one carolinayellowdog Sep 2013 #222
The situation is pretty fluid LuckyTheDog Sep 2013 #230
You have been so exactly right on the mark. dkf Sep 2013 #233
Did Obama write this speech? kentuck Sep 2013 #236
You Are a Fool mrchips Sep 2013 #239
+1 n/t wisteria Sep 2013 #247
Oh whatever. truedelphi Sep 2013 #261
Check The Profile HangOnKids Sep 2013 #317
Holocausts. Nazis. Must. Kill. Hitler. jsr Sep 2013 #301
Will is one of the "cool kids" who will lose his street cred if he ever admits he was wrong scheming daemons Sep 2013 #314
What is with the constant name calling? Other poster calls Will a fool, then you Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #416
I know who you are Skittles Sep 2013 #324
By that metric, I know of some Holocausts that you're ignoring... nt Democracyinkind Sep 2013 #364
I don't think it was as incoherent as all that. I think you're wrong on this one. nt Hekate Sep 2013 #241
One thing was clear... The Midway Rebel Sep 2013 #246
Yeah, it's clear we should watch them. arewenotdemo Sep 2013 #467
His worst speech that I can remember (n/t) Ocelot Sep 2013 #250
I had no problem following and understanding it. wisteria Sep 2013 #251
You are wrong dbackjon Sep 2013 #259
Barack rarely fails to kill it. KamaAina Sep 2013 #275
YOu aren't wrong, but we have to be less wrong than the republicans. Is this the way? Mellow Drama Sep 2013 #276
This train is never late. cliffordu Sep 2013 #277
I love the part where Assad is a threat, but obxhead Sep 2013 #281
Yes. Just like the US military "does not do pinpricks," woo me with science Sep 2013 #298
pinprick < unbelievably small < Iraq arewenotdemo Sep 2013 #471
When the wall came down and the cold war ended I thought this world police shit would stop. L0oniX Sep 2013 #283
I stopped watching it after about 4 minutes. davidwparker Sep 2013 #285
You need to watch the whole thing. Darkhawk32 Sep 2013 #300
It was muddled and pointless. jsr Sep 2013 #289
I didn't listen to it; I read it. And it seems coherent enough to me. pnwmom Sep 2013 #295
Yes Sir! You are wrong. zwyziec Sep 2013 #299
couldn't you just make an Obama is a poopy-head salad for the same results? sigmasix Sep 2013 #302
Just listened to it again nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #303
And for those promulgating the Master Chess Player Theory . . . markpkessinger Sep 2013 #306
Ahem. Summer Hathaway Sep 2013 #325
A point made in another thread . . . markpkessinger Sep 2013 #328
How did Obama Summer Hathaway Sep 2013 #332
OMG -- the delusion in this -- there are no words n/t markpkessinger Sep 2013 #333
If you are seriously suggesting . . . markpkessinger Sep 2013 #334
you might want to rephrase ... n/t Summer Hathaway Sep 2013 #335
Indeed -- done. Thank you. n/t markpkessinger Sep 2013 #336
No prob. Summer Hathaway Sep 2013 #340
Well, why don't you walk me through this Summer Hathaway Sep 2013 #339
"You know an enemy is committed when they move ammunition" adirondacker Sep 2013 #329
Hahaha, yes! beerandjesus Sep 2013 #398
Can't weigh in... had my own meeting... MrMickeysMom Sep 2013 #307
Aw, poop on that. You should read the transcript. TwilightGardener Sep 2013 #309
I have, it is just as bad. avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #318
It was coherent to anyone with a triple digit IQ and no anti-Obama agenda scheming daemons Sep 2013 #312
No. He might not have said what you wanted to hear, Waiting For Everyman Sep 2013 #315
My fellow Americans, I need some some new speechwriters. Or at least a copyeditor to make sure part avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #320
Hey Will, I think your Rec count is down a little BootinUp Sep 2013 #321
gobblygook kardonb Sep 2013 #323
And George Bush and his criminal administration are still not in damn jail! Lint Head Sep 2013 #338
K&R. Sounds like they're covering all the bases. polly7 Sep 2013 #342
You're wrong. Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #343
Your title sounds like something Newt Gingrich would say, with that "frankly" tick. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #351
No one expected it to please you, Will. iamthebandfanman Sep 2013 #354
His comment about his "friends on the left" was a real insult to us. gtar100 Sep 2013 #362
yep G_j Sep 2013 #379
Like I've said before. we know who's really running the media and the gov't in this country Roland99 Sep 2013 #387
Yet TomClash Sep 2013 #367
He should've led with the deal. rucky Sep 2013 #368
This message was self-deleted by its author michigandem58 Sep 2013 #371
Only to those who have a brainlock that Obama is a warmonger. DCBob Sep 2013 #373
Yep! "Obey international norms, or we'll violate an international norm and blow your shit up." backscatter712 Sep 2013 #374
If Obama farts it doesn't sound or smell right. 6000eliot Sep 2013 #375
Ive been here a long time WP and this is the first time I disagree with you Nightjock Sep 2013 #378
He sounded a lot like somebody who had the opponent inside his loop and can't adjust Lee-Lee Sep 2013 #380
Worst speech of his Presidency. 99Forever Sep 2013 #382
He should've had Bill Clinton write that speech for him - TBF Sep 2013 #383
interesting the level of discomfort Nitram Sep 2013 #384
You just don't understand 11-dimensional chess Roland99 Sep 2013 #386
Here's where you're wrong. Fuddnik Sep 2013 #392
Please support this effort for peace. Donate now. jsr Sep 2013 #402
Really? rtracey Sep 2013 #399
First thing I said to my wife when it was over: "I don't really know what he just said!" beerandjesus Sep 2013 #400
He don't have any friends on the left anymore. Fuddnik Sep 2013 #401
You are not wrong. LWolf Sep 2013 #404
RE: Splicing some stuff about diplomacy into an already prepared pro-war speech at the last minute. No DUplicitous DUpe Sep 2013 #480
fear hate stonecutter357 Sep 2013 #406
Hey stonecutter357, Librarian's are awesome people. They do have that nasty habit of saying shhh Autumn Sep 2013 #412
Just good ol fashion Dyslexia! stonecutter357 Sep 2013 #465
It's all good. I found it funny, in 2nd grade our Librarian Autumn Sep 2013 #468
The President Makes The Case ProSense Sep 2013 #414
So what is your end game, WilliamPitt? What is the purpose of this post? randome Sep 2013 #419
you're wrong. you heard what you wanted to hear Will. dionysus Sep 2013 #428
nope goatmilker Sep 2013 #429
Yup CountAllVotes Sep 2013 #430
It was a perfectly coherent expression of hypocritical policies... Orsino Sep 2013 #437
Hear Hear. You absolutely nail it. nt snagglepuss Sep 2013 #446
He's got a better delivery than Bush. Jester Messiah Sep 2013 #447
I guess President Obama has never seen the photos of the DEAD BABIES... bvar22 Sep 2013 #453
Or burns from the White Phosphorus we used in Fallujah FiveGoodMen Sep 2013 #473
Should have used the time to say: Syria looks like we can find a sollution.. so let me use this glowing Sep 2013 #469
Pretty god-damned incoherent RW gibberish always suck mightily indepat Sep 2013 #478
Pity you aren't President, eh? MineralMan Sep 2013 #487
Sad but true. marble falls Sep 2013 #491
Poll: 69% of Americans Viewed Obama’s Syria Speech Positively, 61% Favor His Approach Tx4obama Sep 2013 #496
I just watched it (I am always a day late) Skittles Sep 2013 #497
It reminded me of a Jerry Lewis sulphurdunn Sep 2013 #498
Noam Chomsky's commentary on Obama's Syria speech is important to hear Catherina Sep 2013 #500
"All things to all people." malthaussen Sep 2013 #501
I wish I could tell you that you were wrong... kentuck Sep 2013 #502
Thanks Kentuck Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2013 #515
Your hate runneth over n/t michigandem58 Sep 2013 #503
I don't think he'll be showing his face here again. Whisp Sep 2013 #508
Amen to the Nth degree !! thanks MD58 Laura PourMeADrink Sep 2013 #514
Wrong about Rove. Wrong about Ritter. gulliver Sep 2013 #516
You are wrong. Rex Sep 2013 #526

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
372. I'm cutting him a lot of slack - he has to play all sides right now
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:32 AM
Sep 2013

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)
385. "We won't be sure of his true intentions until all this is over"
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:10 AM
Sep 2013

That's starting to sound like "loose cannon"

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
27. And the less obvious sub point ... there for those paying attention ...
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:37 PM
Sep 2013

"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

(62,269 posts)
37. Yeah, that was pretty impressive, too.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:39 PM
Sep 2013

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

(31,947 posts)
50. Obama expected the American people to back him.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:43 PM
Sep 2013

They didn't, big time. It is hard to take those seriously who can (or more probably won't) see that.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
63. I don't think so.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:47 PM
Sep 2013

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

(24,253 posts)
92. After the Shit that W pulled,
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:55 PM
Sep 2013

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.

bananas

(27,509 posts)
369. Five years between Vietnam and Reagan's election "to make America strong again"
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:28 AM
Sep 2013

and to "overcome the Vietnam Syndrome".


former9thward

(31,947 posts)
97. The correct position?
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:56 PM
Sep 2013

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

(62,269 posts)
108. That is a bold faced lie. 90% is destroyed.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:00 PM
Sep 2013

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

(31,947 posts)
121. I expect you will be making excuses in 2023.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:04 PM
Sep 2013

The U.S. still has far more than Assad could ever dream of.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
143. We have 365 tons of Sarin + VX and 500 tons of mustard gas.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:10 PM
Sep 2013

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

(31,947 posts)
210. You are an apologist for American bullying.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:43 PM
Sep 2013

"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

(62,269 posts)
214. They have to build facilities.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:48 PM
Sep 2013

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

(31,947 posts)
423. So they built facilities for 90% of it
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:35 AM
Sep 2013

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

(62,269 posts)
510. Bush cut the funding for 8 years!
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:30 PM
Sep 2013

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

(31,947 posts)
520. US on the right side of this issue?
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 08:59 AM
Sep 2013

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

(90,564 posts)
237. Rachel was just talking about this. The US HAS destroyed nearly all its stockpiles.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:17 PM
Sep 2013

The US DOES have to build a special building on site to finish it off, and that building is under way.

former9thward

(31,947 posts)
420. Ohh and that building is going to take at least 10 years to build.....
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:30 AM
Sep 2013

The things people post on DU expecting people to believe it.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
394. go ahead. tell me I'm an apologist for American bullying.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:47 AM
Sep 2013

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.

dionysus

(26,467 posts)
422. some people are so mad at the country for various things they'll be in denial about stuff like this.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:34 AM
Sep 2013

CherokeeDem

(3,709 posts)
405. Please Read this Article on the Storage of Chemical Weapons.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:23 AM
Sep 2013

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

(31,947 posts)
426. So a MIC jobs program!
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:40 AM
Sep 2013

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)
439. I suspect....
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:28 AM
Sep 2013

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

(31,947 posts)
443. Please explain why it was not complex to destroy 90% of the stockpile...
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:46 AM
Sep 2013

Which is what the U.S. claims, but it is ohhhh so so complex to destroy the last 10%.

CherokeeDem

(3,709 posts)
451. Although I am a scientist by education...
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:22 PM
Sep 2013

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

(31,947 posts)
456. Thank you for your comments.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:35 PM
Sep 2013

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)
462. I take nothing at face value...
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:53 PM
Sep 2013

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

(144,945 posts)
449. Good Article
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:07 PM
Sep 2013

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
 

Smarmie Doofus

(14,498 posts)
138. Interesting, this aspect.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:09 PM
Sep 2013

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

(62,269 posts)
153. Not the UN, it's a separate entity cooperating with the UN.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:15 PM
Sep 2013

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/

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
249. Sarin, mixed, very short. Mustard gas, very long.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:24 PM
Sep 2013

I don't know about VX and others...probably inbetween.

 

RC

(25,592 posts)
252. The stuff we gave Saddam had a maximum shelf life of 8 to 10 years.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:25 PM
Sep 2013

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

(62,269 posts)
272. Yeah, Saddam buried his stuff.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:39 PM
Sep 2013

And the inspectors said that while it wasn't disposed of properly it was still effectively destroyed / harmless.

 

RC

(25,592 posts)
280. He also did destroy most of it.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:47 PM
Sep 2013

But neglected to do the proper paper work to prove it. That proved to be a bit short sighted.

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
389. If I remember correctly, he agreed to allow the UN inspectors back in...
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:31 AM
Sep 2013

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)
407. Actually, the decision was made well before that.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:34 AM
Sep 2013

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)
438. Of course you're right on the timeline...
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:24 AM
Sep 2013

...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)
452. PNAC also targeted Syria.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:22 PM
Sep 2013

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.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
345. Seen it.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:30 AM
Sep 2013

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.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
347. I state only facts.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:32 AM
Sep 2013

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.

 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
460. "I state only facts," you say, just before blaming Russia for all of Syria's dead.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:39 PM
Sep 2013

Nothing about Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the CIA?

I tend to blame countries who gin up and arm and finance rebellions, too.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
509. Had Assad gone the Bahrain route there would be no civil war.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:27 PM
Sep 2013

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)
80. In that case
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:51 PM
Sep 2013

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)
86. Why would he expect that? Explain that arguement please.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:52 PM
Sep 2013

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?

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
117. I asked WHY he would expect the American people to support it.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:03 PM
Sep 2013

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

(31,947 posts)
128. He was bluffing.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:07 PM
Sep 2013

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)
445. Congress has a lower approval than VD....
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:49 AM
Sep 2013

You're on fire in this thread--that's one of the best lines in this mishmash!

Bravo!

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
122. He also said he needs Congressional backing.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:05 PM
Sep 2013

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.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
162. And he never said he doesn't have the power to act unilaterally.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:18 PM
Sep 2013

See how that works? He still maintains he doesn't need Congress even though he's going through Congress.

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
185. Because he said he'll listen to Congress.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:28 PM
Sep 2013

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)
197. Sorry joshcryer but I'm just not seeing it.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:33 PM
Sep 2013

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

(62,269 posts)
200. No President would ever do that.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:35 PM
Sep 2013

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)
216. I agree with you that no president would do that.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:52 PM
Sep 2013

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.

former9thward

(31,947 posts)
191. Yet another person who does not follow the news.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:31 PM
Sep 2013

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)
198. I don't?
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:34 PM
Sep 2013

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

(31,947 posts)
204. So you are saying the American people backed him?
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:39 PM
Sep 2013

LOL. You may have the news on 24 hours but that does not mean you are understanding it.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
207. No...did I say that?
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:40 PM
Sep 2013

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?

mimi85

(1,805 posts)
279. I think Vanilla Rhapsody
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:47 PM
Sep 2013

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.

George II

(67,782 posts)
231. Yes, funny thing is........
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:10 PM
Sep 2013

...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)
294. I think it is very strange that...
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:11 AM
Sep 2013

...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.

cynzke

(1,254 posts)
458. During a GOP Presidential Debate,
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:35 PM
Sep 2013

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.

LukeFL

(594 posts)
519. What I can't agree with my fellow DUer?
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 12:30 AM
Sep 2013

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)
76. You noticed the Unitary Executive thing, too? He was directly referencing the Youngstown decision,
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:50 PM
Sep 2013

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.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
101. That it went right over the head of the OP is understandable, but regrettable. He did something
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:59 PM
Sep 2013

pretty earth-shaking there.

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
87. WTF?
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:53 PM
Sep 2013

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.

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
139. No, I'm familiar with Youngstown.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:09 PM
Sep 2013

I just don't see where this speech was a rejection of the Unitary Executive doctrine.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
149. When he said that he had the authority to act, but believed that this authority was
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:12 PM
Sep 2013

best expressed with the concurrence of Congress, that was a direct rejection of the Unitary Executive doctrine.

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
156. I disagree.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:16 PM
Sep 2013

Had the President rejected taking action without the approval of Congress I would agree with you, but he didn't go that far.

Hekate

(90,564 posts)
234. That's the second time I've heard that from his lips: Unitary Executive, GOP wetdream since Nixon...
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:13 PM
Sep 2013

... 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)
365. Yes, it's so important to read between the lines to really understand this president.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 04:45 AM
Sep 2013

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)
42. Obama needs this deal as much as al-Assad.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:40 PM
Sep 2013

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)
58. Assad needs it WAY more.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:46 PM
Sep 2013

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)
114. al-Assad could have taken the military hit.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:02 PM
Sep 2013

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)
160. He lost on the strike. TWICE. Obama's stuck.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:17 PM
Sep 2013

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)
227. And ONLY to public pressure.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:06 PM
Sep 2013

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

(53,743 posts)
395. "dick-waving macho "don't call me a wus, Bill Clinton," crap?"
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:50 AM
Sep 2013

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)
415. Exactly.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:14 AM
Sep 2013

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)
213. Pootie desperately needs the situation to be status quo ante bellum or he's out a small fortune.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:46 PM
Sep 2013

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)
118. Obama's in a box now. But he's handling it.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:03 PM
Sep 2013

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)
152. I think everyone will be happy -
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:13 PM
Sep 2013

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

(53,743 posts)
391. My thoughts also
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:37 AM
Sep 2013

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.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
475. When he started talking about 'pinpricks'
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:54 PM
Sep 2013

...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)
477. He didn't lose me. There was a method and a reason in every word he uttered.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:28 PM
Sep 2013

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.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
521. He's not reacting, he's just acknowledging their existence.
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 01:34 PM
Sep 2013

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)
522. He is reacting to their idiotic statements
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 01:35 PM
Sep 2013

...in a very public way. Doing so legitimizes their stupidity.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
523. How do you legitimize stupidity?
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 01:43 PM
Sep 2013

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.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
525. There was no drama in Obama's brief remark. You're trying to create some, though, and I'm
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 02:55 PM
Sep 2013

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)
527. That is rediculous
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 09:46 PM
Sep 2013

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)
528. It is not "ridiculous."
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 09:49 PM
Sep 2013

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)
529. You are claiming that the Tea Party are Obamas constituents?
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 09:55 PM
Sep 2013

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)
530. I hate to tell you this, but even the KKK and those Stormfront nuts are Obama's constituents.
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 10:01 PM
Sep 2013

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)
532. Oh, so they have his ear too?
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 10:08 PM
Sep 2013

A constituency are the people who vote you into elected office. Not your political enemies. More ridiculous Third way nonsense.


MADem

(135,425 posts)
533. Now you're just being combative, obtuse, and offensive.
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 10:11 PM
Sep 2013

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)
534. I'm stating fact
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 01:51 AM
Sep 2013

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)
535. You apparently don't understand, won't grasp what I am saying, and I'm tired of arguing with you.
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 01:58 AM
Sep 2013

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)
536. I know exactly what you are saying
Fri Sep 13, 2013, 03:07 AM
Sep 2013

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.

 

Beer Swiller

(44 posts)
262. You really believe this deal was Obama's idea.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:31 PM
Sep 2013

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)
296. Touché!
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:11 AM
Sep 2013

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)

beerandjesus

(1,301 posts)
390. Awesome post! +1
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:35 AM
Sep 2013

Although I really don't believe Obama's motivations were quite as craven as you make them out to be....

Number23

(24,544 posts)
432. So Putin gave Snowden asylum as a way to give the finger to the US
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:02 AM
Sep 2013

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)

Number23

(24,544 posts)
495. I take great comfort in the knowledge that the number of people that think that Putin
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 05:31 PM
Sep 2013

"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)
440. I agree with everything you said...until the very last line.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:41 AM
Sep 2013

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.

Response to The Link (Reply #4)

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
243. Dubya explained all this some years back. We gotta kill them
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:20 PM
Sep 2013

Over there, so they don't kill us over here!

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
5. It reflects the confused situation of today
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:30 PM
Sep 2013

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)
6. Not only was it incoherent, I had the impression that the President knew it.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:31 PM
Sep 2013

It was a turd-polishing attempt to appear on top of what's happening.

trueblue2007

(17,194 posts)
8. tell you you're wrong? I THINK YOU ARE WRONG.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:31 PM
Sep 2013

IT WAS A GOOD SPEECH.

i am still thinking of the hundreds of children - women - men writhing in pain and then dying horrible death.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
46. Yes. In Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now we need to
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:42 PM
Sep 2013

kill Syrians to stop Syrians from killing Syrians.

 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
69. I liked his speech too but,
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:48 PM
Sep 2013

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)
266. The children we kill won't be wreathing in pain
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:34 PM
Sep 2013

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.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
9. The haters are mad there will be no US attack on Syria
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:31 PM
Sep 2013

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)
34. He was supposed to announce that SHOCK and AWE #2 had started.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:38 PM
Sep 2013

And then go on to describe the ground invasion.

When that didn't happen, some were confused.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
72. Then why would Russia try to help with some deal?
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:49 PM
Sep 2013

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.)

 

ConcernedCanuk

(13,509 posts)
357. I am ONE - maybe the only one? "America looks like a warmonger" . . . damm straight.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 03:38 AM
Sep 2013

.
.
.

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)
242. Considering Russia is arming Assad
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:19 PM
Sep 2013

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)
267. Pootie doesn't want the USA to target any piers in Tartus, that's the real bottom line.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:35 PM
Sep 2013

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

(31,947 posts)
417. America has lost the "long game" and the world knows it.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:27 AM
Sep 2013

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

DJ13

(23,671 posts)
173. Mission creep began to mention regime change
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:21 PM
Sep 2013

McCain included it in the Senate resolution that passed.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,396 posts)
201. Um.....McCain isn't President nor does he speak for President Obama
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:35 PM
Sep 2013

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)

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
39. If there's not to be any attack on Syria...
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:39 PM
Sep 2013

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...

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
59. If the President wants to apply pressure...
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:46 PM
Sep 2013

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)
67. Ugh!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:48 PM
Sep 2013

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)
102. Well, I'm having a hard time understanding because frankly, it makes no sense.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:59 PM
Sep 2013

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.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
455. Bwahaha! Still trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! How many lost on popcorn stock?
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:32 PM
Sep 2013


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)
457. I don't think a lot of the detractors on this thread are going to like the home page today either...
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:35 PM
Sep 2013
http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/1017144684

The waiter in this place serves up one helluva meal!

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
459. Woot! Let me go take a peek and be back. Thanks, MADem!
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:38 PM
Sep 2013

EDIT: The Earl sure does! And I love the name of that server, 'Betterment.'

iandhr

(6,852 posts)
93. Actually no
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:55 PM
Sep 2013

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.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
479. PBO asked Congress in May. Guess what the focus was at DU then?
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:31 PM
Sep 2013
Obama Call To Repeal 'Perpetual War' Law Contradicts Pentagon

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)
54. Please get off that kick. It is asinine.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:44 PM
Sep 2013

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.

Cal Carpenter

(4,959 posts)
140. How far from reality must you be to even conceive of such a thing?
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:10 PM
Sep 2013

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*?

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
182. Oh stop that.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:26 PM
Sep 2013

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)
264. Excellent
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:33 PM
Sep 2013

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!

CountAllVotes

(20,867 posts)
433. You have learned something
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:09 AM
Sep 2013

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!

 

Tiredofthesame

(62 posts)
211. I don't need anything related to Syria to bash Obama.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:44 PM
Sep 2013

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)
218. People who feared Persian Gulf War III (if not WW III) are "haters"?
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:53 PM
Sep 2013

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)
450. "It's a TINDERBOX."
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:07 PM
Sep 2013

"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)
290. Right-Wing Media's Love Affair With Putin Continues Over Syria Weapons Proposal
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:07 AM
Sep 2013

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)
441. This is a complete non sequitor but I truly needed
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:45 AM
Sep 2013

to see that lolcat in you post. Nothing sums up better the frame of mind I am in. Thanks for the much need laugh.