The left is starting to awaken on Syria

Now that the decision has been tossed to Congress the left is starting to be vocal. Today Allen Colmes expressed displeasure that Obama seems to be absent. After Kerry (not Obama) addressed the nation Obama went golfing and has been unavailable for comment. Many state department employees are going on record touting the competence of Hillary and how she would handle this so much better than Barry. Yes, the left is turning the prospect of war into a Hillary campaign event.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WztY-BFMMSc
Hillary calls Assad a reformer in 2011 AFTER it is pointed out that he has killed thousands of his own people.

Put Ari Fleischer in the agreeing with Obama's decision column.

By TAL KOPAN | 9/2/13 8:51 AM EDT Updated: 9/2/13 11:44 AM EDT

Former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer said Monday that President Barack Obama is right to seek congressional authorization for military action against Syria, explaining he learned from the Iraq War that such a move strengthens a nation.

“I praise the president for doing this. I think it is the right thing. I agree with the president that he has the authority to do this on his own; he is not abdicating that responsibility, but a nation is stronger — and I learned this as a result of Iraq — a nation is always stronger in a democracy when it has the people behind it,” Fleischer said Monday on CNN’s “New Day.”

Fleischer added that the move does not show weakness on the part of Obama, as some have argued, but rather “strengthens the president’s hand in the long run” — just as long as he wins the vote in Congress.

The Bush-era White House official said while the War Powers Act requires consulting with Congress, that’s different than putting military action to a vote, which Fleischer said Obama is doing voluntarily.

“Consult is not vote,” Fleischer said. “This is really a voluntary exercise where the executive has said to the legislature, ‘I want you to act.’ You can guess why President Obama’s doing that, as a political cover, I still think it’s essentially right because democracy should support, through the Congress, any determination we even use the military in an instance like this. It’s not time-exigent; we don’t have troops on the line that are under attack; and we have to fight back.”

Fleischer’s support of the president comes after initial early criticism on Twitter, where as late as Friday he was lambasting Obama for not getting multilateral support for Syrian action.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...155.html?hp=l7

So, BT, you LIKE that Obama is basically doing what Bush and his Press Secretary Ari Fleischer think is the correct thing to do? Interesting. How many OTHER policies that Bush made and Obama continued do you agree with and approve of? And how many of those same policies did you like when it was just Bush saying they were good, i.e. did you dislike them BEFORE Obama started liking them and continuing them?

The right will bitch if he does or if he doesn't Just little bitches.

The right will bitch if he does or if he doesn't Just little bitches. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You mean.. like the LEFT bitched if Bush did or didn't? Funny how that works, isn't it?

I especially love how you guys HATED so many of Bush's policies, you know, like the Patriot Act, that many marched and called the establishment of a POLICE STATE with surveillance and secret courts and all, but then.. Obama and the Dem Majority simply CONTINUED and EXPANDED the program, and all those who were against it, were suddenly silent about it. Can't imagine why they didn't bitch about it, can you Iva?

The best policy on Syria is to do NOTHING. If anything, we should be supporting Assad. Most Americans don't know this, but the rebels are now mostly Al Qaeda associates. What Obama doesn't get is that what is happening in Syria is a broader war within the Islam world. It is an extension of the Sunni/Shiite battle that has been going on for 1,500 years. Look at where the battle lines are drawn. Assad is backed by Iran and Hezbollah (both Shiite). Also, Russia backs Syria b/c Russia trusts the Shiites more b/c the Chechen rebels are associated with Sunnis. On the rebel side, you have Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia (Sunnis). We have no dog in this fight other than the specter of chemical weapons being used. Does it really matter if one side uses chemical weapons or not? I don't think so. Killing is killing no matter the method. This stuff has been going on forever. No need to stick our noses in. Let them kill each other. That means fewer nut job Muslims in the world.

holy shit. I agree we need to stay out of it, but the doesn't mean I buy into your bullshit.

The best policy on Syria is to do NOTHING. Originally Posted by Cpalmson

"do NOTHING" is saying NOTHING.

When the President of the United States shoots off his mouth about what the U.S. is going to do if X happens he has done SOMETHING ... then when he gets smacked down and humiliated by the practical leader of another world power ... his (and the U.S.) face is gone ...... then when X happens ... if he is insecure ... he will HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ...
even if it creates more problems for the U.S. and the next person to occupy the People's House.

.. what "community" did he "organize"?

You mean.. like the LEFT bitched if Bush did or didn't? Funny how that works, isn't it?

I especially love how you guys HATED so many of Bush's policies, you know, like the Patriot Act, that many marched and called the establishment of a POLICE STATE with surveillance and secret courts and all, but then.. Obama and the Dem Majority simply CONTINUED and EXPANDED the program, and all those who were against it, were suddenly silent about it. Can't imagine why they didn't bitch about it, can you Iva? Originally Posted by RedLeg505

The idea to preempt Iraq was a real winner right? No need to bitch about that..Idiot

"do NOTHING" is saying NOTHING.

When the President of the United States shoots off his mouth about what the U.S. is going to do if X happens he has done SOMETHING ... then when he gets smacked down and humiliated by the practical leader of another world power ... his (and the U.S.) face is gone ...... then when X happens ... if he is insecure ... he will HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ...
even if it creates more problems for the U.S. and the next person to occupy the People's House.

.. what "community" did he "organize"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Then 73% of Americans polled were in favor of a vote by congress had nothing to do with the decision? LMFAO

Then 73% of Americans polled were in favor of a vote by congress had nothing to do with the decision? LMFAO Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Apparently not, ...

.... since he indicated he would order missiles fired even if Congress says "no"!

Now .. do 73% of those polled believe missiles should be fired at Syria?

Just asking.

So, perhaps 73% of those polled (or a good portion of them) are hoping for a "no" vote.

Which Obaminable will ignore. So what would be his motivation for seeking approval?

Attempting to make the Republicans look bad for the 2014 and 2016 upcoming elections.

But I recognize math requires some fundamental application of the concept of 2 + 2.

FYI: Here is "a poll" ... results as published by NBC .. aka ... the Obaminable Network:

"Fifty percent of Americans believe the U.S. should not intervene in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to the poll. But the public is more supportive of military action when it's limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships — 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it."

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...-on-syria?lite

Perhaps 80% of those polled have more faith in the decision of Congress .... a dubious distinction!

So, BT, you LIKE that Obama is basically doing what Bush and his Press Secretary Ari Fleischer think is the correct thing to do? Interesting. How many OTHER policies that Bush made and Obama continued do you agree with and approve of? And how many of those same policies did you like when it was just Bush saying they were good, i.e. did you dislike them BEFORE Obama started liking them and continuing them? Originally Posted by RedLeg505

The hypocrisy of the Kool Aid sotted left knows no bounds.

The best policy on Syria is to do NOTHING. If anything, we should be supporting Assad. Most Americans don't know this, but the rebels are now mostly Al Qaeda associates. What Obama doesn't get is that what is happening in Syria is a broader war within the Islam world. It is an extension of the Sunni/Shiite battle that has been going on for 1,500 years. Look at where the battle lines are drawn. Assad is backed by Iran and Hezbollah (both Shiite). Also, Russia backs Syria b/c Russia trusts the Shiites more b/c the Chechen rebels are associated with Sunnis. On the rebel side, you have Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia (Sunnis). We have no dog in this fight other than the specter of chemical weapons being used. Does it really matter if one side uses chemical weapons or not? I don't think so. Killing is killing no matter the method. This stuff has been going on forever. No need to stick our noses in. Let them kill each other. That means fewer nut job Muslims in the world. Originally Posted by Cpalmson

+1

This is muchado about very little...

Maybe Obama should do the only honorable thing he can-- resign. Seriously, David Cameron in the UK could very well face a vote of no confidence over this issue of rushing in. It could topple his coalition government. If Cameron goes, Obama should as well. Why 60+ million MORONS voted for this neophyte is beyond me. I thought Carter was bad. Obama is 100 times worse.

Well EVA, once again you get it wrong. We had beaten Iraq in 1991 and there was no peace treaty. We had a cease fire with Hussein on certain terms. At any provocation we could have started hostilities again. Bush technically did not have to go to Congress, he already had their permission in the form of a resolution that his father got. Still Bush went to Congress and the world, he outlines Hussein's repeated failures to live up to his end of the cease fire. He also outlined that Hussein had not been fully compliant with UN weapons inspectors which was a cease fire term. Bush had 14 UN resolutions threatening force against Hussein.

Bush did not shoot his mouth off, he went down the check list and got approval. No, it was the world's greatest orator who opened his mouth and almost choked on his right leg.