MannyGoldstein
MannyGoldstein's JournalSorry, I'm confused by the President's speech.
What I think I heard was:
1. I've decided to attack Syria.
2. I *will* attack Syria
3. I'll give Congress the opportunity to agree with me before I attack.
Is that right?
If so, then it's a lot like his last speech about Spy On Everyone.
WTF? Obama, Assad to meet?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/QUESTION FROM VOTER: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses...
Why thwart the UN inspection? Why the rush? Does this smell right?
UN inspectors are leaving Syria a day early, apparently because the White House needs to bomb stuff right away. So they will be unable to complete their planned mission.
Why?
After pulling a string of garbage ranging from the Iraq War, to providing refuge for war criminals, to forcing down the plane of an elected head of state, to spying on everyone, the US doesn't exactly have a trustworthy reputation these days.
Wouldn't it make sense to wait a few days for the UN to do its job, and build back a little goodwill? Instead, we're flipping off the rest of the world yet again. Perhaps there's a reason to thwart the UN mission, but I can't think of a good reason, and I've not heard one articulated yet.
This has a bad odor about it.
I'm a little scared. I need some hugs tonight.
This Syria stuff has me a little unnerved to begin with, with all of the people getting killed and the indisputable fact that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. But now I find it's worse than I thought: I just read that our president believes that we might be next on Assad's list to be gassed!
This is very scary. I don't know what to do, where to turn. I don't even know what a Syrian gas bomb would look like if I saw one on my neighbor's porch: is it shaped like a jawbone?
I fixed some tea and pulled my children close to me under a quilt, it's times like these that help us to remember how vulnerable we all are in these dangerous times of terror, and how President Obama has kept us safe. I do know that our President is looking out for us, and once he bombs the shit out of Syria - hopefully before the meddlesome UN has a chance to write their fucking bullshit report investigating the gassing - we'll all feel a lot better.
Sincerely yours,
Government Sock Puppet Manny
Why are we still in the UN?
Doesn't seem like we really give a crap what other countries think any more.
Might as well free up the real estate in Manhattan, let Trump build something on the site.
5 living presidents: the body language is... interesting
I was reminded of this picture while listening to today's commemoration.
Well... Syrian WMD have finally taken the focus off of Spy On Everyone
Hopefully we don't totally forget about it.
I confess: if the Syrian army used gas against its own people, I think
they should be taught a lesson. A serious, serious lesson.
The general ban on using chemical weapons, which has basically held for the best part of a century, is a good thing. Hopefully it can serve as a precedent for other weapons bans such as nukes, land mines, etc. One day, perhaps all weapons can be banned.
I'm fine with the US and its allies inflicting great pain on the Assad regime if they gassed heir own people. Not troops on the ground, not a war, but some sort of strike to let them know that we care. Bullies understand nothing less than a 2x4 to the head, as I learned growing up.
Here's the problem: I don't believe a #%*@ing word coming out of Washington, unless it comes from the mouth of a very select few. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, perhaps Al Franken and Ron Wyden, and that's about it - let me know if I've forgotten any. The lying has become so flagrant and ubiquitous... well, I've never imagined that it would be like this, not in my country.
But here we are.
Who did it? Who knows. At this point, it could be Halliburton drumming up some business, for all we know.
"It’s too early to consider a President Elizabeth Warren, but..."
From the Raleigh NC News & Observer:
It’s too early to consider a President Elizabeth Warren, but it would be good if the freshman U.S. senator from Massachusetts and scourge of the financial industry could set the Obama administration’s priorities for a few months.
Maybe then Americans would start to see action on two big gaps in the president’s record. No. 1 is the failure to vigorously prosecute the villains behind the financial crisis that blew up the U.S. housing market and vaporized many Americans’ home equity, savings and jobs. No. 2 is the failure to put in place the regulations and oversight needed to keep it from happening again.
...
“Despite the progress we’ve made since 2008, the biggest banks continue to threaten the economy,” Warren said in a statement announcing the new bill. “The four biggest banks are now 30 percent larger than they were just five years ago, and they have continued to engage in dangerous, high-risk practices that could once again put our economy at risk.”
That risk needs the tough approach to oversight that Warren is not afraid to advocate.
Cross-posted to Elizabeth Warren Group
"It’s too early to consider a President Elizabeth Warren, but..."
From the Raleigh NC News & Observer:
It’s too early to consider a President Elizabeth Warren, but it would be good if the freshman U.S. senator from Massachusetts and scourge of the financial industry could set the Obama administration’s priorities for a few months.
Maybe then Americans would start to see action on two big gaps in the president’s record. No. 1 is the failure to vigorously prosecute the villains behind the financial crisis that blew up the U.S. housing market and vaporized many Americans’ home equity, savings and jobs. No. 2 is the failure to put in place the regulations and oversight needed to keep it from happening again.
...
“Despite the progress we’ve made since 2008, the biggest banks continue to threaten the economy,” Warren said in a statement announcing the new bill. “The four biggest banks are now 30 percent larger than they were just five years ago, and they have continued to engage in dangerous, high-risk practices that could once again put our economy at risk.”
That risk needs the tough approach to oversight that Warren is not afraid to advocate.
Cross-posted to Good Reads
Profile Information
Name: Manny GoldsteinGender: Male
Hometown: Greater Boston
Home country: USA
Current location: Remulak, as far as I can tell
Member since: Tue Aug 30, 2005, 09:44 AM
Number of posts: 34,589
