Obama loses momentum in Syria debate
Last night, the British Parliament voted against a proposal to take military action in Syria leaving the Obama Administration twisting in the wind on that rope, the “Red Line”. The President has said that military operations against the Assad regime must be approved by the community of civilized nations, and he can’t seem to get that. The United Nations Security Council is hamstrung by Russia and China, and their own slowly turning wheels of an investigation into the sarin gas incident last week. And now the UK is out of any coalition the president is trying to assemble.
The Obama Administration is quick to deny any similarity with the Bush Administration to their dilemma according to Fox News;
White House spokesman Josh Earnest also rejected the notion that the current situation was in any way similar to the run-up to the Iraq war under the George W. Bush administration.
“I think that there are some very important differences. What we saw in that circumstance was an administration that was searching high and low to produce evidence to justify a military invasion, an open-ended military invasion of another country, with the final goal being regime change,” he said.
“What we have seen here, tragically, is a preponderance of evidence available in the public domain that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against innocent civilians. And we don’t have to search high and low for that evidence.”
Um, in 2003, every nation in the world was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, everyone knew that he was supporting terrorists (remember the $25,000 bounty he was paying to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers), Hussein’s air defense batteries were taking pot shots at our pilots who were enforcing the UN-mandated no-fly zone. There was no “searching high and low” for evidence. However, there are serious doubts about who actually used those chemical weapons in Syria – and oh, by the way, why isn’t anyone discussing the fact that those chemical weapons probably came from Hussein in the first place?
The Germans are saying that they don’t plan to take part in any operations in Syria and the French say they’re up for anything, so it’s really looking up for the Obama Administration, isn’t it? The French, who wanted no part in the Iraq war, are ready to pound on Syria, so that’s a real feather in our cap, huh?
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War
The French will be “full partners” in this new military coalition; they’ll provide an LNO and the table wine for the mess; we’ll have to provide everyone and everything else…
And the survey says: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20256971-nbc-poll-americans-skeptical-of-us-intervention-in-syria?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1
Looks like the majority of AMERICANS don’t want anything to do with this mess, either.
Hey! Stupid over there in WDC!! You paying any attention???
Naw, I didn’t think so.
B. Hussein 0bama is going to do whatever he wants, consequences be damned ( those that dissent with his wannabe majesty are automatically racist extremists the moment they speak!).
Then he goes golfing unless he has an important fundraiser or vacation!
And, according to NBC News/The Today Show (yeah, I know, eye roll), during a White House meeting last night with senior leadership regarding the “Syria problem’, our esteemed Commander In Chief was not in attendance. He must have been having a slow round of golf.
And they called Bush a “cowboy” for supposedly going alone? Bitches, please!
I’d like to see just one reporter at one of these WH pressers correct the moron on the podium, by disputing everything he says, with backup. I know – that would be the one and only time and that reporter wouldn’t be allowed back in to disturb the ‘even strain’, but it would be refreshing.
I don’t know what’s worse – our staunchest ally saying they’ll give this one a miss or the French saying they’ll help.
Plus we actually found those chemical weapons in Iraq, contrary to some in the media might believe
LebbenB: well, pretty much the same thing happened in Vietnam too. Except in Vietnam, the French figured out that winning was more costly than it was worth (if not outright impossible) and cut their losses about 20 years before we did.
David Cameron, during the debate in the House of Commons said something to the effect of “We will not approve the use of military action in Syria because it does not reflect the interest of the British people.” It appears lawmakers there are representing their people and their interests, understanding there is no value of intervention.
It’s unlikely Barry will ever get the message that he was elected to do the very thing for the U.S..
One more little gem.
Chuck Hagel said, “”It is the goal of President Obama and our government to whatever decision is taken that it be an international collaboration and effort. … Our approach is to continue to find an international coalition that will act together.”
Yeah, but the U.S. and the French doesn’t make up much of a coalition.
@10. I wouldn’t hold the British parliament up as a body that listens to it’s electorate. Against popular opinion, it unilaterally took private gun ownership away from it’s citizens. (Not trying to turn this into a 2A discussion, just using it as an example.)
But in this instance it did the right thing, I agree.
@12 – I agree with you on that. Parliament has been known to run rough shod over their people – as you point out – which reminds me why I’m glad to be a citizen of this country. I understand where you’re coming from.
Understatement of the month, if not the year, there, Jonn! “Loses momentum” that he never had, indeed.
Still waiting to hear what the strategic goal is, what is the endstate? Why are we doing this?? And the French are on board?? Well thank goodness. I was worried we were going to have to do this alone….
The citizen protests against this are starting. I have pictures.
If this cranks up and the hippies don’t try to take it over (although I would not be surprised if they did), I might go downtown and get some pictures for you guys.
I don’t like this brain-dead approach. Maybe ‘brain-dead’ is the wrong term. Maybe I should be using the term ‘spoiled brat’, meaning ‘I’m going to have my own way, no matter what’. It almost seems to be turning into that.
If the French want to do something, let them. It just means lower prices on Beaujolai Villages pour moi-meme.
The French are great allies, I mean c’mon guys the French are really tough fighters, I mean they were able to sink the “Rainbow Warrior” and kill a couple of Greenpeace activists in process and they have those great fighter aircraft that they don’t allow to fly over an actual war zone…
Like the Ebay ad said: “French WWII Combat Rifle, never fired in anger, dropped once”.
Like the leftytards asked GW Bush, “What is the exit strategy?”. Hell, what’s the strategy, PERIOD?
Gee let’s review the bidding. Iraq was believed to have chem weapons and they could not be found. Numerous members of that pack sought refuge in Syria including someone’s kids. Now Syria is using chem weapons that most would say Santa gave them. However, since they don’t believe in Santa, I wonder where the chem weapons magically appeared from?
It seems that Bodaprez, our bodacious leader, is planning to go it alone. I kid you not.
http://news.msn.com/us/us-readies-possible-solo-action-against-syria
I sincerely wish the Navy would pull up its 16s and refuse to participate, ditto the Marines, Army and USAF.
If protests start to pick up in downtown Chicago and they aren’t hijacked by the hippies, I might pop for a roundtrip train ticket and go get some photos.
The only legal basis for an American Officer to refuse Presidential/CinC orders is that the orders are unlawful or UnConstitutional.
Unlawful orders would be based on the target and the (international) Laws of Warfare. Attacking civilian targets would be an unlawful order.
An Un-Constitutional order would be a war that was not authorized by Congress. Military Officers have already demonstrated (Libya) that they are not prepared to refuse orders based on this criteria. And General Dumpster was sitting beside SecDef Panetta when Panetta told Congress that the Administration had no intention of asking or telling Congress anything if the POTUS decided to attack Syria.
With Congress neutered and powerless to do ANYthing to stop the chief politician, the SCOTUS now a partisan supporter of increasing executive and federal powers and incapable of enforcing what little resistance it offers to that, and Military Officers unwilling to refuse orders, he will do whatever he wishes.
Meanwhile, the American Electorate continues to blindly support partisan politics, and exhibits greater loyalty to party than Nation, remaining completely ignorant of the US Constitution, and why the Founders put those limitations in place.
Things will get worse.
Coalition of the Unwilling, as I have called it.. MIC just confirming yet again what a moron he is – dangerous in his stooopidity…
http://assolutatranquillita.blogspot.ca/2013/08/obamas-coalition-not-so-willing.html
I’m no political pundit nor a Constitutional scholar, but can someone offer whether or not Barry’s plan to go at Syria unilaterally might bring about some sort of legal action – specifically, set in motion some charges and articles of impeachment?
Of course, should that ever happen, it would mean Biden would assume the post. That ain’t good, either.
It’s looking like we’re screwed either way.
@23: No worries on that front. If the GOP-controlled House impeaches Dearest Leader, the demonrat-controlled Senate will never EVER go along and ratify the impeachment with the vote to ouster. It will be exactly like the situation in 1998, when the House impeached slick willie, but the senate voted not to oust him…
Did the world really have consensus about Iraq having WMDs? I think the wisdom of President Bush was that he didn’t set our effort up for failure with the UN. We had that coalition of the willing constructed outside of the UN. I generally support reprisals against Syria, but I believe this administration has fumbled, and the jab at the previous administration over intelligence was just dirty pool.
As far as the Syria’s-using-Iraq WMDs assertion: it’s fun to indulge, but it’s not borne out by facts. First, the shelf life of Iraqi sarin was well-known to be low. They were producing it and using it in real-time in Iran in the late 80s, so had no reason to use the binary delivery methods. They worked on binary delivery later, but it was never clear, even by our own intelligence, that their sarin stockpiles wouldn’t have degraded beyond usability within 5 years. Same holds true for tabun, and I don’t recall reading that Iraq had ever gotten beyond the development phase of VX production. Mustard has a long shelf-life, of course, but then…
Aside from the science, there’s the fact that Syria has, since the 1980s, been known to have it’s own program. Western and Israeli intelligent called their capabilities significant even back then, and in 2007 during some tension, Israel stated that Syria had industrious production capabilities of their own for sarin, mustard, and VX. Why wouldn’t they? After 1982 Lebanon-Israel war, and the tacit acknowledgment of an Israeli program, a chemical program would have seemed like a decent deterrent, given the downwind threat posed to the majority of Israel.
Again, I’m supportive of reprisals, but it reinforces for me that this administration doesn’t have ulterior motives, just really amateurish foreign policy. By making a red line, by having to adhere to it, and now having to go alone, I am worried that this will be less about reciprocity and more about our face-saving. He never should have positioned us, knowing full well Russia and China would not be on board, to seek Security Council approval.
Ah, well…interesting times…
Anybody have any idea what France gets out of bombing Syria?
Well, TN, Bodaprez is losing the support of the ‘demonrats’ in Congress, because they, too, are questioning his intent with regard to ordering the military to launch a strike against Syria and want ANY actions delayed.
http://news.msn.com/us/white-house-to-congress-no-doubt-on-syria-chemical-weapons
Maybe the Democrats who are not hard-core Obama syncophants can think for themselves. Don’t assume that just because they are Democrats, they’re completely stupid. I agree that some of them are, and five of them come to mind right away, but the rest – not so much.
“loses momentum” why not, he never had any credibility either
OK, just heard the sKerry. Nothing but blah-blah-blah, lie-lie-lie. So because so many children died, we MUST do something. Kill people, any people, apparently, because it makes our betters FEEL better.
No. Not good enough. (Sure am thinking that he was posturing to replace the first couple in line. Spooky when that dawned, toward the end of the speech.)
btw, is sKerry a racist for referring to Assad as a thug??
Wow, OWB, good intuition.
@26.
Their rockets don’t work so maybe a chance to see if they have been fixed?
@30 OWB, is it racist to refer to Obama as an idiot, if you said the same thing about Carter?
PintoNag: The French will get, our son’s and daughter’s lives, mental wellness, blood, misery and death.
Our Bombs, our aircraft, and our pilots.
The status of being able to blame the whole shebang on the US and Obama when it goes tits up.
let’s not forget the gold we will spend.
The French unbelievably will actually be able to say they won in Syria.
Even if the US loses.
Which is what the French wish for most of all.
The French stand to gain what ever could be gained and do not stand to lose anything.
I say we talk Obama into bombing the French also for being French and being war mongers with other nations soldiers.
OWB: Kerry must kill children to save them.
As in Obama bans guns to save children while planning to kill children by bombing them for something FSA and Al Queerdoo did by gassing their own and blaming Assad.
The only folks who stand to gain from this is the same Islamofags who attacked NYC on 9/11 you know Barack Hussein’s allies.
HEY! Only native Georgian can refer to Jimmy Carter as a complete idiot, everyone else must call him stupid.
Obama? We call Him the first black democommunist president of the United States and let it go at that.
“… now the UK is out of any coalition the president is trying to assemble.”
After the way he dissed them when he became POTUS, what did he expect?
PH, I lost faith in any sizeable number of independent thinking “Democrats” a long time ago. A lot of that had to do with the Pelosi House, and the (now extinct) Blue Dog Democrats voting for everything she demanded.
For that reason, the ONLY Congressional Democrats from TN are from Memphis and Nashville, though in 2008, the Representatives were split pretty evenly. Cooper, the Dem from Nashville is fairly well entrenched, but about as Blue Dog as they come anymore, i.e. he’s a little more fiscally responsible than his fellow partymembers, but he still votes with the party in almost every scenario.
In the current Senate race, our entrenched Senator is getting serious primary challenges, as he is out of touch and leans too far Dem himself. Fact is, Lamar Alexander is probably left of what a Blue Dog Dem was, except he is weak on Defense, and has a terrible record on Veterans’ issues, or even responding to a Veteran.
There was a time, when I thought the DNC could be salvaged. There was a time, when I thought the RNC could be counted on for some things. There was a time when I thought the American Electorate would wake up to Federal abuses and politician largesse, but I’ve concluded that the people are willfully ignorant, and the politicians are enjoying their legal corruption.
So, was sKerry against it before he was for it?
The vote by the Brits is the first time Parliament has voted against a Prime Minister’s call for intervention in a conflict since 1782, or, as Jonah Goldberg put it, since they “got tired of the avalanche of fists they were getting from the 13 colonies”. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
At least half of my ancestors are Scots. Nothing good every came to the Scots by depending on the French (see, Flodden Field, the Jacobite rebellions, etc.). Just saying…
@36 – a la Zimmerman, that is “President who refers to himself as black”
Worryingly HM’s government only lost the vote on whether to go to war by a handful of votes.
The government’s position was that we needed to attack Assad to show that there are consequences for using chemical weapons and that failing to do this would result in increasingly frequent use of chemical weapons in the future, inevitably leading to their use on British forces.
Other than general unwillingness to follow our political masters into another war I think that the British public were under awed by the evidence presented by HM’s government and wanted to wait until the UN weapons inspectors had reported their findings. I think that there was also a complete lack of faith that the Syrian people would be grateful for any action taken by British forces and concern that we would be helping Britain’s Muslim enemies to seize power in Syria.
Personally I am very happy with the result. I do not want the honour of the Royal Navy blackened by providing NGS to Al Qaeda, and frankly if Muslims were attempting to v seize control of my country I would have zero moral objections to hosing them all down with as much sarin as I could get my paws on.
PintoNag – France usedta run Syria between the world wars, is still a trading partner, and Wikipedia says that shitloads of Syrians study in France.
@41 I’m Scottish and I had come to the same conclusion. Although to be fair an allied Scottish force once lost the French a battle by being too keen to close with the English. :p
I forgot to mention in my post above that I think it would be seriously unwise for my country to pursue any course of action advocated by President Obama. So there’s another reason why I’m glad that the parliament voted against the government’s plans.
@45 Kenneth
“… I think it would be seriously unwise for my country to pursue any course of action advocated by President Obama.”
IMO, it would seriously unwise for any country, including the one he supposedly leads, to follow that honor-less cur.
@24 – I had mostly forgotten all the details about the Clinton impeachment debacle. I guess my mind shut down those 2 1/2 weeks because in the back of my mind I never really thought he’d get impeached in the first place.
Thanks. I’m a little more smarter now.
It does not matter one whit which side in Syria actually used those chemical weapons. They were used, and a lot of people died as a result, while others were sickened and may not recover.
The real problem is that not one person in a position of government leadership in any Western government (UK, USA, France, etc.) has even remotely considered the possibility – nay, probability – that the use of chemical/gas weapons was done as a means of drawing any and all Western military into a war again.
And not just another war — this time, an all-out, go-for-broke, slaughter.
It’s more disturbing to realize that not one of them has thought that might be the case. Right now, I think they’re all so dimwitted, they should all be fired and sent home without severance pay.