Obama’s (proposed) War of Convenience

Should the United States go to war with Syria.

The proponents of the notion must answer the following questions:

  1. Are our vital national interests at stake?
  2. Are we supporting a friendly power or party by going to war?
  3. Is American intervention likely to actually improve the situation?
  4. Has the current Administration demonstrated military and Diplomatic competence?
  5. Has the current Administration demonstrated persistence?

In my estimation the notion fails on all counts.

'New York Times': Nixon Tapes Prove That Conservatives Should Give Up Principles
Duck Dynasty: We're Using Hollywood to Spread Christian Values
  • Lawrence Westlake

    Did a Paulbot write that post? Geez. Spare me the melodrama. Shooting a few Tomahawks and dropping a few bombs is not “going to war” with anyone. It’s a minor police action. Like Grenada or Panama. A notch or two less than Serbia or Kosovo. If a lucky shot happens to end up where Assad’s sun doesn’t shine all the better. Other than Carter and perhaps other than Clinton pre-1994 wipeout no president in any of our lifetimes wouldn’t under these circumstances engage here in a limited military intervention. You’ve got a hostile regime (for decades) and a pawn of Iran (the worst terror state in the world), in the world’s worst neighborhood, gasing its own people. Sorry, Cochise, but when you’re America you can’t sit around in response with your thumbs up your ass, listening like sheeple to AM talk radio, counting your trust fund money, especially when you’ve already said that chemical weapons are a red line that you won’t allow to be crossed. Under those circumstnaces you simply have to act: you must open at least a small can of whup-ass. That’s how things work in the real world. Otherwise you’ve already become a banana republic. P.S. – The Internet’s chattering classes’ demographics truly are a farce.

    • ATQFs

    • 1. What vital national interests of the United States are at stake in Syria?

      2. What friendly state, power, or group are we supporting by going to war with Syria?

      3. Is American Military Intervention likely to improve the situaion? If so, in what way?

      4. Has the current Administration demonstrated sufficient Diplomatic and Military competence to make YOU confident of a positive outcome?

      5. Has the current Administration demonstrated persistence such that YOU believe they will see this endeavor through to a satisfactory conclusion?

      We await your answers to these questions…

      • Commander_Chico

        I agree!

    • Vagabond661

      If a few tomahawks and dropping a few bombs is police action, maybe Obama should do that with Iran first.

    • Cat got your tongue?

    • Did a gutless and unresponsive non-entity write this comment?

      It would appear so.

  • LiberalNightmare

    All I know is that its a crappy time to work the night shift in a Syrian aspirin factory

  • France says we should.

    Isn’t that enough?


    • Strikes me as an excellent counter argument.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Obama’s looking for his accordian.

        • And there I thought he couldn’t add less value…

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You should hear him and Urkle do “Lady of Spain.”
            [EDIT] I denounce myself, again!!!!

          • I just lack imagination when it comes to tasteless depravity, it seems…

          • Walter_Cronanty

            In that respect, Whoson and I are two peas in a pod.

          • You are self deprecatingly funny…

  • Hank_M

    From the LA Times….

    “One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he
    believed the White House would seek a level of intensity “just muscular enough
    not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from
    Syrian allies Iran and Russia.”

    This is all about Obama, nothing more. He drew the red line, it was crossed. Now he has to save face.

    • Not a good enough reason.

      • Hank_M


    • Say, isn’t this what we tried in Vietnam? A ‘proportional response’?

      History replays itself.

      Shit. Expect a draft within two years…

    • Jwb10001

      If I had a face like that I’m not sure I’d want to save it….

  • Momazon

    It seems to me that if the President wants to “open a can of whoop-ass” he should have opened it on the Terrorist who killed the four Americans in Libya last September!

  • Paul Hooson

    Yesterday I wrote on Wizbang Pop about some Syrian elements who are using electronic terrorism to bring down some U.S. media Websites. That’s unacceptable. There has to be some consequences for a regime that’s already at war with the U.S. by using electronic terrorism to bring down U.S. Websites that report negative news about the Assad regime. – And you can’t put other acts of terrorism past this Assad guy either. Sooner, than later, the U.S. needs to stand up to this guy with a strong response. What happens when his supporters hack out military or banks, or shut down our economy with Wall Street hacking. – Assad needs a strong reaction from the U.S.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      “Yesterday I wrote on Wizbang Pop about some Syrian elements who are using electronic terrorism to bring down some U.S. media Websites. That’s unacceptable.” You mean like when China hacks our government computers?

      • That’s not the point! It’s all about Whoson…

        • Paul Hooson

          You need spellcheck….

          • Yeah, I dropped the r and the e…

          • Paul Hooson

            But, more seriously, the Obama Administration has acted way too soft core here and allowed this outlaw regime too much leeway here. And some conservatives are sounding even more wimpy today, echoing those limp-wristed types that kept cautioning Roosevelt not to challenge Hitler and the Axis until Japan bombed us at Pearl Harbor during WWII. – Assad is the type to use terrorism, not only electronic, at both the U.S. and Britain. – At some point we need to act against this guy before he acts against us. – He’s a thug and only thing he’ll understand is being brought down, which is unfortunately far less than these Obama Administration military efforts seem willing to do here.

          • Commander_Chico

            Again, “because Hitler!”

          • [citation required]

          • Commander_Chico

            I am citing Paul’s comment above.

          • That explains it. WWIDR.

        • Paul Hooson

          I do understand that the Syrian opposition is unpredictable as well, but the U.S. and West needs to co-opt and stand behind some reliable democratic group here that promises reforms in the country, that are moderates that will have reasonable relations with Israel. – The Assad regime presents a constant danger to Israel, with the possibility of chemical weapons which it received from Iraq’s Saddam Hussein regime besides developing it’s own arsenal. These chemical weapons are like the poor man’s nuclear weapons, and a great regional threat to both Israel and Turkey.

          • “but the U.S. and West needs to co-opt and stand behind some reliable
            democratic group here that promises reforms in the country, that are
            moderates that will have reasonable relations with Israel”

            Good luck with that. Our current ‘leadership’ doesn’t seem to like anyone that might promise that sort of stability – and will vary on a whim who they might support.

      • Paul Hooson

        Is it clear who exactly in China is doing this? Is this some freelancers or part of the Chinese military or intelligence. In Syria, it appears to be more clearly part of terrorist acts that can be laid at the feet of Assad as a form of warfare from their country.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          “BEIJING – Hackers at a secretive unit of the Chinese military have stolen huge amounts of data from 115 companies and organizations in the U.S. since at least 2006, a U.S. computer security firm said in a research report released online Tuesday.

          The details made public by Mandiant Corp. add weight to arguments that Chinese authorities are increasingly targeting foreign firms, institutions and government agencies. Beijing denies such charges and says China too is a victim of cyberattacks.”


          Of course that’s nothing compared to your statement that: “…it appears to be more clearly part of terrorist acts can be laid at the feet of Assad….”

          • There you go with your implicitly racist fact based arguments/criticisms again…

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I denounce myself!!!
            [psssst…just between you and me – am I being racist against the Chinese, our African American President, or is this a two-fer?]

          • My tongue was planted firmly in my cheek as I replied to you above…

          • Paul Hooson

            Certainly continued good trade with China must be tied to talks to prevent hacking of this sort, along with good firewalls meant to protect military secrets. – I have no doubts that some in Chinese business and the military look for shortcuts by using hacking to knockoff U.S. products and military wares. A few of the Chinese cars even look like a real ripoff of other products like the Mini Cooper. Look at this Lifan 320. It’s a close enough copy of that car.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            So, if I get your argument, Syrian hacking, which supposedly brings down some US media sites, warrants bombing the shit out of Syria, but Chinese hacking, which steals our intellectual property and military secrets, warrants … what … a strongly worded protest concerning our continued “good trade” relations?

          • No doubt he’ll consult our soi disant cognoscenti to get the phrasing just right…

          • Paul Hooson

            Chinese hacking is meant as a development shortcut with their business and military. Syrian hacking actually brings down news or other Websites, and could be used to wreck financial damage on our country such as bringing down Wall Street. The two are quite different.

          • jim_m

            Chinese hacking is meant as a development shortcut

            Wrong!! Jeez are you ignorant!!!! Chinese Hacking Team Caught Taking Over Decoy Water Plant

            A Chinese hacking group accused this February of being tied to the Chinese army was caught last December infiltrating a decoy water control system for a U.S. municipality, a researcher revealed on Wednesday.

            The 74 attacks on the honeypots came from 16 different countries. Most of the noncritical attacks, 67 percent, originated in Russia, and a handful came from the U.S. About half the critical attacks originated in China, and the rest came from Germany, U.K., France, Palestine, and Japan.

            So Syria doesn’t even show up on a list of the top threats to national security and you think we should do something about their hacking while there are a host of real enemies that you are saying we should appease. Thank you Mr Chamberlain.

          • Paul Hooson

            There are certainly high level attempts to stop this sort of hacking attempts from a number of governments or individuals who simply live in these countries. – But, in the case of Mr. Assad, he’s not allowing opposition elements any voice in his country compared to even a country like Iran where there are at least elections and there is some degree of opposition among the candidates. Mr. Assad has chosen to tear his own country apart, bomb his own people, and now use banned chemical weapons on his own people after he was given warnings by the the international community that some forms of civil control like this exceed what is acceptable police action to maintain public order. Further, as an act of war he is allowing or promoting electronic attacks on the news media in the the U.S., Britain and al Jerzeera, where other Arab states oppose his actions. – All of this requires some response from parties like the U.S. – I’m for a strong response here, as opposed to Rodney and some others. That is much the opposite of the acts of Neville Chamberlain, which unfortunately has been much more like this administration and the U.N. here. – Way before violence had risen to this level, the UN and nations like France involved themselves in a police action in the Ivory Coast for example, because cocoa exports were being threatened. The UN actually has many areas of the world where peacekeeping duties are preventing open conflict right now. UN inspectors looking at the possibility of chemical weapon use is sort of weak when peacekeepers from many nations including, Russia which is a client state of Syria should actually send in peacekeepers to maintain public order. Syria is becoming like another Lebanon, with an open civil war and anarchy as different elements jokey for power. Because of the loss of life of American Marine peacekeepers during the Reagan Administration in Lebanon, the U.S. and other countries are now hesitant to use peacekeepers in Syria.

  • Brucehenry

    Rodney is absolutely right on this.

    Not only should Obama NOT bomb Syria, he should tell Kerry to tone down the rhetoric.

    Rodney is also right when he says that Obama’s injudicious use of the “red line” phrase, and the embarrassment not taking military action might cause him personally, is not a good enough reason to take any lives, American or Syrian.

    On the other hand Assad has written an op-ed for the Onion:


    • Retired military

      Bruce agrees with Rodney.
      Watch out for the coming apocolyspe
      I believe we should stay out of it. Have a press conference and declare that this issue is one the UN should solve and that the US will not interfere in any way shape or form as if we did we would be accused of interfering in other nation’s affairs, encouraging people to join terrorist causes, and would earn the disapproval of nations like Iran, China and Russia.
      Let them eat cake..

      • Even the blind can hear thunder…

        [Edit] The self absorbed (Whoson!) less so.

  • Brett Buck

    What I haven’t seen or heard is any goal or desired end result. What is the purpose of bombing Syria. In Iraq, there was a clear desired result, ousting Saddam, and it was efficiently taken care of. You can argue that it wasn’t a good goal (I think it was one of the best things the US has done in years) but at least there was a desired end result. In this case, they have said over and over they don’t want to trigger regime change, they aren’t going to end the Syrian army’s ability to fight the rebels, there is no stated goal. With no goal, how do you define the means and when do you know you are done?

    • jim_m

      The goal is deflection of criticism at home and distraction from scandals in the news. Nothing else. obama is not able to conceive of a goal that does not include his own personal interest.

      • Not a sufficient reason.

        • jim_m

          It is for obama and that is all that counts.

          • Actually, I believe there is a way to short stop this.

            Let Congress propose, and then defeat, a Declaration of War.

          • jim_m

            I think you are very deceived if you think that there is anything in Congress or the law that obama will recognize as a limit to his power.

          • Bring on that Constitutional crises then.

          • jim_m

            What crisis? Do you honestly believe that the GOP would stand up to him? Do you think that the GOP would dare cross the media, who will almost certainly defend any action obama takes no matter what?

            There will not be any crisis, just the quiet death of the constitution.

          • Yes, I do.

            And should they fail in that duty then may God damn them.

    • Retired military

      “What I haven’t seen or heard is any goal or desired end result”
      First rule of combat.
      No plan survives past the first second of engagement with the enemy.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Obama’s “plan” hasn’t survived the run-up to the first engagement with the enemy

        • No one I know has ever accused him of competence..

          …beyond race baiting.

  • jim_m

    Are our vital national interests at stake?
    Only in the sense that if we do nothing we confirm to our enemies and allies alike that the US will never stand behind it’s threats and will never hold true to its word. How damaging is that?

    Are we supporting a friendly power or party by going to war?
    By assuring that a secular democracy replaced Assad we would assure a better relationship with Israel, possibly moderate the islamist tendencies over the border in Turkey, and stop the advancement of Iranian hegemony in the Middle East.

    Is American intervention likely to actually improve the situation?
    Not at this point. Had obama acted over a year ago there might have been a way to intervene that would not have thrown the nation to islamist fundamentalists but that is all but assured now.

    Has the current Administration demonstrated military and Diplomatic competence?
    Yes, if you compare them to a bunch of high school burnouts. Otherwise they have demonstrated a high degree of incompetence at every opportunity.

    Has the current Administration demonstrated persistence?
    Yes, they have been persistent in ignoring the issue and hoping that it will go away.

    So in my estimation, while there is some degree of national interest there is little to no possibility that this incompetent administration could act successfully to promote that interest. Given that this admin’s own interests lie in almost direct opposition to those of the United States it is probably best to do nothing.

    • Are our vital national interests at stake

      To which jim_m replies:

      Only in the sense that if we do nothing we confirm to our enemies and allies alike that the US will never stand behind it’s threats and will never hold true to its word. How damaging is that?

      That ship sailed with our abandonment of Vietnam.

      Are we supporting a friendly power or party by going to war?

      To which jim_m replies:

      By assuring that a secular democracy replaced Assad we would assure a better relationship with Israel, possibly moderate the islamist tendencies over the border in Turkey, and stop the advancement of Iranian hegemony in hte Middle East.

      Name the party or group which has declared the intent to form a secular government on a democratic basis.

      Is American intervention likely to actually improve the situation?

      To which jim_m replies:

      Not at this point…

      Then we’re done here, aren’t we?

      • jim_m

        Name the party or group which has declared the intent to form a secular government on a democratic basis.

        I did not claim that there was one. Although I would bet that were there an administration that strongly promoted such things you could find groups within Syria interested in that outcome. But with a President who has wet dreams of being the US version of Robert Mugabe, this is never going to happen.

        And if you thought I wrote to endorse military action in Syria you are mistaken.

        • Commander_Chico

          Nice weaseling there, jim.

          Yesterday, it was “When there is evil it is our business and we are stronger when there is democracy instead of Baathist dictatorship.” and “because Hitler!”

          • jim_m

            No weaseling.

            I believe that something should have been done a long time ago. Tell me where I have not said that.

            I believe that obama is completely incompetent and unqualified to successfully lead any military action. Tell me where I have not said that.

            I believe that obama has painted himself into a corner and politically his little choice but to intervene militarily and has know this for months and has been trying to find a way out of it but lacks the foresight, intelligence and competence to do so. Tell me where I have not said that.

            There is a difference between saying that something ought to be done and the acknowledgement that those responsible for doing that something are utterly and completely incapable of doing it.

            What you are upset about is that I do not fall into your 5th grade understanding of politics and am not being the warmonger you want me to be so you can go ahead and call me a chicken hawk.

            We would be stronger with a democracy instead of a Baathist dictatorship and the Baathists DO trace their history back to the Nazis. Are you willing to contest those points? then please present your argument and try not to blame everything on Bush and the Jooos.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Obama keeps this up and he may not get that second peace prize.

  • LiberalNightmare

    “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following, and robs terrorists and dictators of the argument that these rules are simply tools of American imperialism.”
    Barack Obama

    • Which Barrack Obama?

      The State Senator?

      The U. S. Senator?

      The Presidential Candidate?

      Or the foresworn President?

      All they seem to have in common is a name and a body.

      • Retired military

        As far as titles go you left out a few.
        Community organizer
        Da Won
        His eminence
        His majesty
        Oh soother of oceans.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Sorry to be so crass – but arm both sides to the teeth, then shoot the last terrorist standing.

    • Sounds like a plan to me.

      • Olsoljer

        ………..and a damn good plan it is!!!

  • Commander_Chico

    It’s going to happen even though most Americans are against it.

    The Powers That Be are planning for regime change in Iran, maybe including military action. Getting rid of Assad is a first step. These things get decided without any public debate.

    I think there is a better-than-even chance the chemical weapons were fired by the rebels or their allies – to create a “false flag” incident.

    Or, in “because Hitler!” terms, the Reichstag fire or the “Polish attack” on Gleiwitz.

    • Soi disant cognoscenti and prophet…

    • Two years on, things have certainly gone to hell, no U. S. Ground Forces committed.

      Failure of soi disant cognoscenti prediction.

  • GarandFan

    All because The Chosen One opened his mouth and drew a ‘red line’.

    Why didn’t we intervene in Rwanda? Darfur? I’m sure there are other places as well. Why don’t we get rid of Mugabe? The list is endless.

    Didn’t King Barry castigate us for ‘getting involved in the affairs of other nations’?

    Jug Ears should take another swill out of that bottle of hypocrisy.

    Stay the hell out of it. Let ’em kill each other.

    And for those wanting to BOMB Assad’s chemical weapons – WHO is going to clean up the resultant environmental nightmare? The French?

  • Paul Hooson

    To answer some of your questions here, Rodney. Yes, america’s national security interests are clearly at stake here because this Assad regime can use the same chemical weapons to threaten our important friends and allies in Israel and Turkey, or other friendly nations like Jordan or Saudi Arabia. We are acting in support of our important allies to weaken the military of Assad, but we also need to co-opt some trustworthy democratic opposition group at some point to prevent al Qaeda or other radicals from gaining more power here. – In terms of damage to al Qaeda this administration has done an excellent job. Much of this terrorist organization’s top leadership worldwide has been neutralized with drone strikes or other actions. However, Assad represents much of the same dangers that al Qaeda does. He could certainly finance or use secret police units in his nation to strike at U.S. targets because he is a desperate guy, who ruthlessly wants to hold on to power. – It was pretty clear when George W. Bush sent soldiers over to Afghanistan it was to protect the U.S. from an unstable Taliban controlled government who allowed terrorism. Assad is worse yet. He actively encourages it and is a potential great threat to both the U.S., and Israel and Turkey as well as Britain and France. all of these powers have a great national interest in seeing this guy go. – My biggest fear here is that any Obama action will be too weak of a response when a much stronger response is needed.

    • Commander_Chico

      How does that Kool-Aid taste? Grape flavor?

      You don’t even know if Assad was the one who used chemical weapons, if anyone did. Funny that nobody’s wearing chem suits around these victims of persistent nerve agents.

      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin#Degradation_and_shelf_life

        In the wild, so to speak, it’s not that persistent. Dryness and heat, as I recall from CWD briefings, breaks down the stuff fast – in as little as a day. And it’s volatile, it won’t persist more than an hour or two on clothing. A good breeze will dilute it.

        Not something you want to spritz around as a perfume, but it’s not as persistent as you might think.

        • Rather depends on the agent…

          • Yeah, but Sarin’s not that persistent. It’s even got a short shelf life – it’s not a terribly stable molecule.

            Guess you gotta find the good about shit like that where you can.

      • Paul Hooson

        Assad could have stepped up a long time ago when there appeared to be significant opposition to him in his country and allowed political parties to form and offered his nation some roadmap to democratic reforms or a voice to opposition in some sort of elected parliament. Not many leaders would choose to tear their own country apart, bomb their own country or use chemical weapons on their own people. – These nerve agents could be dropped from a plane or fired from long range cannon shells. Even those Scud type misslies have up to a 500 mile range because they were designed as battlefield weapons by the old Soviet Union. – The point that the Russians and others seem to be missing here is that Assad isn’t offering opposition elements any voice at all in his country in his one ruler country and could prevented all of this bloodshed by offering up some reforms in the first place. Even Iran long ago accepted that some form of elections need to be held with some semblence of candidates representing the conservative clergy or some semblence of reform that is acceptable to the ruling clergy.

    • All of the “important friends” and “other friendly nations” you name have asked us to sit this one out.

      You hand wave as to “friends” amongst the factions in Syria.

      Vital National Interests not demonstrated.


  • 1. None that I can see, except stability of ME, and I’m not sure our intervention will actually do anything to help that.

    2. Flip a coin – you’re likely to be right either way.

    3. 20% chance, if we were really competent and analytical about what we were doing. However, our current leadership doesn’t strike me as either. Chance is essentially 0%, at present.

    4. Military competence, yes. Political? Hell, no. Give them a pair of chrome steel ball bearings and they’d lose one and break the other.

    5. Persistence? If it doesn’t look good, they’ll disavow it. “Ain’t our fault! We didn’t do it, nobody saw us do it, you can’t prove anything!”

    I don’t see this ending well.

    • jim_m

      Careful, JLawson. Commissar Chico will accuse you of being a weasel because you failed to be a complete warmonger.

      • LOL. I’m a PRACTICAL warmonger – there needs to be a reason, not just a ‘Oh, we need to DO something for the children’ sort of thing. Sure, there’s a miserable mess there – but I don’t think we’ve got the ability to straighten out what’s essentially a civil war there.

        That’s something they need to settle between themselves. Our intervention just gives them an external focus to be pissed at, and keeps them from addressing the real problems they have with each other.

    • Two years on it’s headed for the crapper at warp speed.

  • Jwb10001

    This is clearly a very big issue and our press is completely failing us. I saw recently a headline that said “attack Syria even if it’s illegal.” I’m of the opinion that our political class is lead around by the press not the other way around. If the press says Obama is good on this our weak willed political leaders will sit on their hands. If the press would give this situation 1/2 of the critical coverage Bush would get we might see a completely different attitude. I’m convinced classic liberals (Bruce’s comments here are a great example) are furious over this. If the politicians grew a pair the press wouldn’t matter but clearly that’s asking way too much.
    Some folks would never engage, some folks would no matter, most folks only want to engage if it’s clear and certain that is HAS to be done (not to save credibility but to save lives and protect real national interests.) We’re not going to have that debate sadly, because Obama is convinced he can do anything he wants and get away with it.

  • Michael Lang

    Just let the Syrians, Al Queda, Hezbollah, etc…. kill each other. It is in our national interest to let that keep happening.

    • Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.

      N. Bonapart

  • 914

    Mr. Nobel is doing a masterful job showing how he deserved the award. After Syria there is no more peace to promote? Where then?

    Israel perhaps? His real goal I suspect.

    • jim_m

      Nah. He will commute Hassan’s death sentence as an overture to the Taliban and al qaeda for peace talks.

      • 914

        And then ascend the Temple Mount and proclaim himself God!

        He would if he but could.

  • jim_m

    Once upon a time George W Bush invade Iraq with 40 allies and it was denounced by the left as a “unilateral action”. Today obama is about to intervene in Syria with no allies having alienated every nation on earth so badly that even the British, who have supported nearly every military action the US has undertaken since WWI are refusing to lend their aid.

    The Obama administration said the president is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria without the assistance of allies after the British Parliament rejected a preliminary vote authorizing action.

    Earlier Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that his country would not get involved in a military attack.

    Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino also said Thursday that her country would not join the military action without a United Nations mandate. Russia has said that it would block any attempt to secure a Security Council vote for intervention.

    I can’t wait to hear Chico and Bruce explain how it is OK when obama does it and how Bush acted unilaterally but obama had the consent of the world.

    Get ready, Chico’s savior is going to precipitate a war with Russia.

    Russia is sending two warships to the east Mediterranean, Interfax news agency said on Thursday, but Moscow denied this meant it was beefing up its naval force there as Western powers prepare for military action against Syria.

    BTW, How crappy of a President do you have to be to alienate both England AND Canada?

    • Commander_Chico

      Maybe the Brits and the rest of the world learned something from Iraq.

      I’ve already said, if Obama does this without a vote from Congress, he should be impeached. If Congress votes for it, they should be thrown out.

      • 914

        He should have been impeached already regardless. It’s a matter of national security now and he is the threat.,

      • jim_m

        I win!!! Chico manages to Blame Bush in his first response. Thanks for playing Commissar Chico

        However, it is more likely they have learned the lesson that obama has been sending for 5 years: he is not to be trusted as an ally and will abandon anyone if the opportunity presents itself.

        This is not about Bush no matter how much you desire it to be.

        • Commander_Chico

          Bush’s fuck-ups will linger for a long time, no doubt.

          At least the Brits had some sense this time – they learned a lesson.

          • jim_m

            It’s about the leader. Your dear leader , whom we all know you really voted for and support wholeheartedly, is the reason that no one will follow him. His feckless leadership on this and other issues is what is coming back to bite him. In the case of the UK it is his insistence that they are wrong on the Falklands that is probably the point here. That and the repeated snubs he has given to their PM and Queen.

            You’re an ass to think this has anything to do with Iraq.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah, you’re right – like one disastrous war in the Arab world based on “weapons of mass destruction” would cause any reluctance to jump into another one on the same pretext.

          • jim_m

            It was not based solely on WMD and you know that what you just wrote was a lie.

          • It was one of more than a dozen stated causes. It was emphasized far more by the Press than it was by the Bush Administration.

          • jim_m

            And it is something that has been discussed multiple times here and the links to the resolution and its contents posted multiple times. It really demonstrates a deliberate dishonesty in argumentation for this person to make this claim.

          • Brucehenry
          • jim_m

            Truly bizarre. It’s like a lefty parody site, but it is done so well it is difficult to tell who is serious and who is simply being a lefty.

          • Brucehenry

            I knew you’d appreciate it.

          • One can lead a soi disant cognoscenti to knowledge, but no one can make him think.

          • Commander_Chico

            Can you list the “more than a dozen stated causes?” I mean, stated by the Bushies. “Blood for oil” stated by protestors does not count.

          • jim_m

            Jeez, you have the memory span of a freaking goldfish.

            The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

            1) Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.

            2) Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”

            3) Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”

            4) Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.

            5) Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

            6) Members of al-Qaeda,an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

            7) Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

            8) Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.

            9) The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.

            10) The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

            11) The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.

            12) Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

          • Commander_Chico

            All redundant, bullshit, or having nothing to do with the security of the USA.

          • jim_m

            It was of sufficient importance for Congress to put it in the resolution. When you lie about the reasons we went to Iraq you are making up your own history and ignoring the facts about what really happened.

          • Iraq’s ongoing violations of the cease fire did indeed have a lot to do with the security of the United States.

      • Hawk_TX

        How is this any different than Obama’s actions in Libya? He did that without a vote from Congress or an imminent threat. Not only did he not get impeached but he did not even get bad press for it. It’s arguable that the current crisis in Syria was precipitated by Libya.

        The left denounced Bush for his “unilateral war” and “imperial presidency”. Clearly they were just projecting what they would do if they were in power.

        • Commander_Chico

          It’s not any different in law.

          Syria could actually touch off World War III, though. The Russians, Chinese and Iranians did not give a shit about Ghadaffi.

    • Paul Hooson

      I’m not sure what message the Russians are trying to send here with those war ships, but the only helpful one would be for them to urge their client, Assad, that he’s stayed well past his welcome, and it’s time for him to go.

      No government should want to stay in power so bad that children are killed and piled up like sticks of wood. Power is never worth that human cost. Assad needs to be a man for the first time in his life and step down and avoid his country more death and offer a path to democracy much like Egypt has experimented with when Mubarek stepped aside. True, Egypt is very troubled right now, but it needs to give democracy another chance as soon as possible.

      • jim_m

        No government should want to stay in power so bad that children are killed and piled up like sticks of wood.

        Have you read no world history? The pages of history are littered with people who were happy to rise to power and maintain that power by standing on piles of corpses. Just in the last century alone communist governments have exterminated millions in the name of “the people” which really means in the name of the party, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or Stalin, etc.

  • Commander_Chico

    Pat Buchanan speaks the truth:

    Will Boehner Stop Our Rogue President?

    The next 72 hours will be decisive in the career of the speaker of the House. The alternatives he faces are these:

    John Boehner can, after “consultation,” give his blessing to Barack Obama’s decision to launch a war on Syria, a nation that has neither attacked nor threatened us.

    Or Boehner can instruct Obama that, under our Constitution, in the absence of an attack on the United States, Congress alone has the authority to decide whether the United States goes to war. . . . .

    Why this rush to war? Why the hysteria? Why the panic? . . . . . .

    . . . . Does Obama really want to start a war, the extent and end of which he cannot see, that is likely to escalate, as its promoters intend and have long plotted, into a U.S. war on Iran? Has the election in Iran of a new president anxious to do a deal with America on Iran’s nuclear program caused this panic in the War Party?


    • Brucehenry
      • jim_m

        That’s right. obama has nooooo problems on this issue It is the GOP that’s in a bind. Nice deflection.

        I think sticking with “obama’s an incompetent ass and this will end in disaster no matter what he does” is a sufficient response.

  • Plinytherecent

    Obama isn’t going it alone – he might get France involved. He’s going hunting with his accordion.