Unfortunately — and this is the cynic in me talking — that will probably turn once, say, John Boehner pulls his best Bernie Bernbaum, squirts a few crocodile tears, and explains the political repercussions of not acting to sanction Obama’s attempt to wag the dog and save face on an ill-timed remark about red lines that of course he never made, and even if he did, it wasn’t him.
Everything in the contemporary milieu of federal government bickering is base political calculus, with the various trajectories played out on some bald “architect’s” white board.
The bottom line is, there is no reason to engage in military adventurism in Syria — not to aid Al Qaeda (who may have been responsible for the chemical attacks, if you can believe Russia’s Pravda over our own, and I tend to, sadly), and most certainly not so that, as Eleanor Holmes Norton worries, the President may look embarrassed otherwise.
Dead Syrians or especially the potential for dead American soldiers are not a price I’d be willing to pay for Obama’s saving face. No one takes him seriously in the international community now. And having made explicit his intention here to do no real damage, while backing up his earlier red line pledge, isn’t going to convince them he’s any more serious or competent.
David Axelrod is trying to convince Boehner and the GOP that a cagey Obama has them backed into a political bind: if they don’t act, and Assad gasses his people, Obama will point to the “obstructionism” that prevented him from saving those poor Islamic extremist souls. If they do act, they take equal responsibility for Obama’s “tailored” [read: feckless, symbolic, and deeply cynical and self-serving] demi-war with the hope that our progressive press will spin whatever dramatic failures or impotence Obama affects as the brilliant ploy of a steel-spined war time President.
At which point they’ll say, “Don’t forget about us! We allowed this!” Which is so profoundly sad and needy I can’t begin to express my disgust over it.
Perception. That’s what the politicians seem to care about. At least in the leadership. John McCain — who couldn’t bring himself to criticize Obama — is now ready to unleash the dogs of war, and he stands at the GOP forefront in support of reckless and dishonest political theater. Backing up Obama yet again.
And I fear that, with enough arm twisting, just the required number of GOP professional pols will be swayed by the arguments over political calculus and liability to join with the lockstep Dems (erstwhile anti-war zealots-cum-brayers for blood) at the expense of those who, yet again, would like to see the GOP leadership stand on principle and reject Obama’s latest vanity project.
I guess time will tell.
Given that the O has dug this hole himself, and everyone in the world can see it, it is incomprehensible that the Pubs would seriously consider jumping in with him. Further, the steps proposed against Assad are specifically not designed to depose him, but to “punish” him. Even if he considers himself chastened for having used gas, what’s to keep him from just bombing the crap out of the little rebel kids instead?
I’m thinking that Obama drew that red line so that he’d have a pretext to further help his allies among the “rebels.”
After all, Benghazi was about sending Qaddafy’s arms to them via Turkey, and this is also the same project: oust a secular tyrant so that the MBs can expand their caliphate.
He draws the line, his pals cross it.
Voilà! Instant causus belli!
I believe it is critical to the outcome that we people of America keep up the pressure on our putative Representatives in Congress: calling, writing, confronting in town halls, or in whatever other opportunities may arise.
The meat of the question simply is, are we the people of America sovereign over our government or not? Since I think we are so long as we act the part of sovereigns, rather than the part of subjects, it is up to us to lead our Representatives to the proper conclusion: Vote no on authorization to go to war.
Jeff Sessions is holding a TH meeting with constituents on CNN right now.
By the way, that especially goes for the moronic people of California, whose Senatress Diane Feinstein has publicly declared that she will not listen to you despite that she understands you oppose The Disaster’s war aims running 10 to 1, and that she prefers the United States be understood as a Monarchy, with herself in the role of courtier-counselor to the King, The Disaster.
Obama Dismisses UN Process as ‘Hocus Pocus’
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
The Man With The Silver Tongue can’t even get “hokum” right.
The Phone Lines Melt
And inboxes are inundated, as people urge their congressmen to oppose military action in Syria.
Creutzfeldt-Jakob: Catch It!™
Obama Dismisses UN Process as ‘Hocus Pocus’
First accurate observation he’s made in what, 30 years?
Indeed, di. And nobody knows hocus pocus like Nobel Prize Winner Barack Obama knows hocus pocus.
This is a situation in which he might have some “Stalin” in him. It is the one thing on the line that he cares about more than any other, his vanity, face. He may waffle his way into war just to save that which he lost right at the beginning.
“Shotgun-Joe” Biden however doesn’t seem to realize that ramrods are manufactured straight but can be easily bent crooked and are then quite useless.
Add that to the endless list of things about which Joe Biden Know Little.
BHO: Just give me twenty-four hours to come up with a brilliant idea to save face. Just twenty-four hours, that’s all I ask.
American people: [in unison] No!
BHO: You’d do it for Ronald Reagan.
American people: [reverently] Ronald Reagan…
American people: [singing in the fashion of a church choir] RONALD REAGAN!
John McCain/John Boehner[in unison]: All right, Mr. President. Twenty-four hours.
American people: [reverently] Ronald Reagan…
American people: [singing in the fashion of a church choir] RONALD REAGAN!
Is it just me, or is Jonah basing his opinion on the assumptions that Obama’s presenting and none else?
That is to say, that Assad dropped the chemicals, that such behavior indisputably must be punished, and that our “credibility” is the only thing at stake?
WTF, Jonah? WATCH THE OTHER HAND. It’s not rude and it’s not imprudent and it’s definitely not unreasonable to suspect that Obama is lying about the whole situation, including AND and THE.
Would Obama and the NSA lie to us? Come on now, they’re truthy-tellers.
They made this as a movie back in the 80s. “Wrong is Right.”
It’s long been my opinion that Jonah wishes to be PJ O’Rourke and can’t quite get there. He has his moments when he gets it, but more often than not he focuses on the distraction.
Dicentra’s link to Goldberg (I hope).
That’s weird. I coded the link right: <p>Is it just me, <a href=”www.nationalreview.com/corner/357834/moral-hazard-jonah-goldberg” rel=”nofollow”>or is Jonah basing his opinion</a> on the assumptions
We need to save our money, such as it is, for in case we have an actual national security emergency
These frivolous symbolic disciplinary actions do not pass any cost/benefit analysis I’ve yet to see
Here’s what Meghan;s coward daddy is saying:
The problem with this is that Meghan’s coward daddy is a momo child. They did something to his brain.
There’s no fucking difference between using chemical weapons with impunity and using chemical weapons after factoring in the likelihood that brokedick failmerica might take symbolically punitive but not decisive action as a consequence of your decision.
Send a signal. Fuck you Meghan’s coward daddy you can send a signal on your own fucking dime.
There’s another bit of silliness in Goldberg’s little piece there (my emphasis): “. . . letting Assad get away with this mass murder . . . ”
Is, of course absurd, for the Syrians who intend his ouster intend nothing of the sort. He’s not “getting away” with anything. He’s a dead duck already, only hasn’t been killed yet. His is coming, regardless of what the United States may do or not do.
Gremlins, di. I was had by them a few days ago too.
Obama Don’t Know Much About History
If The Disaster can’t remember his own life history, which after all is the Sacred Ground on which He Walks, who in their right mind would think he could remember the history of anyone else?
Happy, treasury bonds are set to yield 3%. It’s over, man.
Di: you need the “http://” bit in your URL, otherwise it’s just specifying an absolute (an nonexistent) path on Jeff’s server.
‘and’
Why do you people always leave out the http://?
Or conversely, why can’t WordPress recognize “www.” or “.com” (etc.) as indicating a remote URL rather than a local path?
That falls into the category of “computers are stupid and only do what we tell them to do,” McGehee.
As opposed to “congressmen are stupid and never do what we tell them to do”?
For some reason, I just can’t visualize him yodeling…
And much like ‘Network‘, it was considered over-the-top farce at the time.
I saw “Network” for the first time within the last year or so. It played almost like a documentary.
I felt the same way when I watched “Wag the Dog” last summer.
WaPo whip count: 224 likely no votes in House on Syria now, enough to kill resolution
Hmmn, 224 is nice, but 280 or 320 is nicer. Press ’em hard, press ’em often.
Network, Wrong is Right
What I saw at the Coup it’s all relevant.
Di: you need the “http://” bit in your URL, otherwise it’s just specifying an absolute (an nonexistent) path on Jeff’s server.
I blame Firefox. I copied the URL and used an add-on to invoke a link. It usually works (the HTTP gets copied even when it’s not showing in the address bar), but this time not.
Technology is our friend.
“It’s hard to find a precedent for a president imploding on something this big,”
Ha!
oh man the yield has doubled since May
doubled means it’s increased 100% if I remember stats class right
this will have Profound Ramifications and the trend line shows no sign of leveling off
Obama fucked us all to hell
I feel violated. I feel anxious.
And these fagholes in Washington want to pansy around with Syria as if our own fascist piece of shit country had some kind of supreme moral authority?
I would say LOL but it’s not funny it’s pathetic.
“It’s hard to find a precedent for a president imploding on something this big,”
Would that be the Rich Lowry who leads the National Review editorial board as editor of the magazine? The National Review editorial board that endorsed granting The Disaster the authority of the American people to go to war with Syria? The editorial board that can’t distinguish a moron from a hole in the ground punched out by a bunker buster bomb?
Huh. Funny thing The Disaster would implode like that, ain’t it? Inconceivable, Lowry must be saying to himself.
I don’t think that word means….
Aw heck. Done to death.
Joseph Shattan: Unintended Consequences
Jeffrey Lord: John Kerry’s Bright Shining Lie
Obama’s all out of confidence. He hardly seems to believe the things he says himself, as if whistling past the graveyard, making noises to make it seem as if he had company. It seems an absurdity to forge ahead under these circumstances, to start a war — or whatever you want to call it — when Obama himself has declared an utter disinterest in its outcome, regime change, or even in taking sides.
Is this trip really necessary?
link
The Disaster has put himself out of his misery.
Obama hints he may abandon Syria strike
Free Beacon: Report: Obama ‘Vetoed’ Israeli Strike on Iran [during election campaign season in 2012]
Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?
diana west
The Rebuttal: Part One
An earlier chemical attack and Russia presents evidence to the UN that Sarin was used by the rebels there.
Of course once you have major countries intelligence services bringing “evidence” any actual truth becomes difficult to find. Smoke, mirrors, and strobe lights are the “norm.” Disco Inferno the world court edition.
Pope Tweets Against Syria Strike, Writes Putin, Plans Saturday Vigil
CBS slammed the Holy Father earlier for “religious street theatre”.
Obama’s Brother, Malik Obama, Wanted On Egypt’s Terror Watch List For Muslim Brotherhood Leaders
effin’ puty putin the leader of christendom
Something a little different for a Friday night: some French beauty to pair up with Syrian butchery.
A Sicilienne, a Pavane, a Flaxen Haired Girl, and a Pavane.
true believers
Smart power? Obama’s team thought US might win Iran’s support against Syria
Hoy, 140th game of the year and finally somebody (soft)tosses a complete one, 4 zip, no less. The Disaster’s hometeam should hang its head in shame.
How about a Rigaudon in celebration?
Don’t mind if I do, thanks.
Here’s another happy story: She got a baby with no kidneys (for now). But as Uncle Si might say, “Hey! She got a baby.”
The Republican congresswoman from Washington was five months pregnant when she found out that her baby had no kidneys, and therefore was producing no fetal urine.
20 weeks and sanfrannan called
Col. William Barack Prescott Obama at the Battle of Bunker Capitol Hill
Don’t fire until you see the whites .??.??. But we should not understand this as a racial issue. We should not understand this as a partisan political issue. We should not understand this as a national issue. This is an international issue. Don’t fire at General Howe’s troops until you see international support. And it doesn’t count if it’s just France.
link
if only more people would click on the right youtubes then bam we could have an awesome little war and this way Obama won’t look bad
Denn alles fleisch es ist wie gras
“Red-Line?” That’s your problem. Nothing to do with me.
newsrouter@7:40
It just makes him look even more gay. NTTAWWT
Breitbart:
*** State Department Deputy Spokeswoman Marie Harf was put on the defensive Friday after she asserted that a vote to authorize military action from Congress would be America speaking with “one voice” concerning military action in Syria. Associated Press reporter Matt Lee questioned if that the reverse would also be true — asking if the Congress voted “no” would that be America speaking in “one voice.” Harf said no because the President would still believe that action in Syria would be necessary. “What I think it would show to the rest of the world,” Harf explained, “is that America is not willing to stand by what it says. And when we say we need to take action to protect international norms that the United States’ Congress isn’t willing to stand by that.” ***
“. . . what it says.”
So “it” is the United States. In the person of The Disaster. He says, “We” speak.
But ought not “our” speech be our considered judgment? If, upon reasonable consideration, we the people, speaking through our representatives say — “No. We are not willing to make war on Syria”, we the people may be in error in our judgment, but we will not be in error “that” this [possibly mistaken, possibly not] judgment is our judgment.
Who is in error on this latter question, and why? And of the two distinct questions, the first, the possible error of judgment on the question to go to war with Syria, and the second, the certain error on the question that we the people make our own judgment and that this judgment differs from our temporary ministerial functionary, The Disaster, which of these two is the more significant, the more damaging to our politics?
Isn’t this latter question precisely the kind of question which has made the Syrian Civil war to exist? But our Dept. of State, and our Disaster, do not see this distinction?
Seems to me this latter sort of error leads to killing, if we only look at Syria.
“Boy let me tell you what:”
Quoting gvanderleun, at Mead’s Via Meadia:
“No Blood For Ego.”
Anonymous against Obama: #OpSyria
Seem elements of Outlaw! are involved. Not all anons are left-wingers. Who knew?
viva la french
Two-thirds of French oppose Syria action
Reid faces double-digit defections on Syria strike measure
Who Is Going To Buy The US Debt If This War Causes China, Russia And The Rest Of The World To Turn On Us?
Yeah, that god thing may be overstating the case a bit, but the important thing is the past tense of the thing.
Nothing like going to work for a Marxist, muffing Bengasi, and being forced to resign in disgrace over an affair to lose a tad of credibility.
This move now just makes me wonder what else Obama and the NSA have on the shmuck…
Nakoula Bassley Nakoula’s book ‘Innocence’ goes on Amazon
mark levin at reagan library 9:00 pm est/6:00 pm pst
link
poison gas propaganda push
Obama’s Syria Media Blitz
Mark Levin’s appearance at the Reagan Library is masterfully persuasive, beyond compare with any appearance I’ve seen him make to date. He’s teaching his message at the top of his form.
speaking of the us constitution
Source close to administration: WH might accept Senate-only approval of Syria strikes. Top WH official says source is “just guessing.”
>The pre-1968 totalitarian regime in Czechoslovakia demanded
that everyone act in conformity with aims it laid down itself. Nonparticipation
was an expression of disagreement that weakened the
totality because it prevented it from achieving its mission, whiclrwas
to embrace everything, bring everyone together, represent a single
will, in short, to be total. The totalitarianism of today has given up
its former goal, and now demands precisely the opposite: a total
vacuum of civic will, a perpetuum silentium, passivity and quiescence.
Quiet disagreement is no longer considered an act of civic
resistance and has corne to be generally accepted by the regime.
There is no forum in which to express one’s discontent, and silen
disagreement is one of the pillars of totalitarian power.
Charter 77 is a response to this development. It encourages people
to act legally and, at the same time, appeals to the legal code already
in force, refusing to .acknowledge the fact that the regime treats i
only as a stage prop a la Potemkin<
>The power of the powerless*
Vaclav Havel
To the memory of Jan Patocka
A spectre is haunting eastern Europe: the spectre of what in the West
is called ‘dissent’. This spectre has not appeared out of thin air. It is
a natural and inevitable consequence of the present historical phase
of the system it is haunting. It was born at a time when this system,
for a thousand reasons, can no longer base itself on the unadulterated,
brutal, and arbitrary application of power, eliminating
all expressions of nonconformity. What is more, the system has
become so ossified politically that there is practically no way for
such nonconformity to be implemented within its official structures.
Who are these so-called ‘dissidents’? Where does their point of
view come from, and what importance does it have? What is the significance
of the ‘independent initiatives’ in which ‘dissidents’ collaborate,
and what real chances do such initiatives have of success? Is
it appropriate to refer to ‘dissidents’ as an opposition? If so, what
exactly is such an opposition within the framework of this system?
What does it do? What role does it play in society? What are its
hopes and on what are they based? Is it within the power of the
‘dissidents’ – as a category of subcitizen outside the power establishment
– to have any influence at all on society and the social
system? Can they actually change anything?<
>One legacy of that original ‘correct understanding’ is a third peculiarity
that makes our system different from other modern dictatorships:
it commands an incomparably more precise, logically
structured, generally comprehensible and, in essence, extremely
flexible ideology that, in its elaborateness and completeness, is
almost a secularized religion. It offers a ready answer to any question
whatsoever; it can scarcely be accepted only in part, and
accepting it has profound implications for human life. In an era
when metaphysical and existential certainties are in a state of crisis,
when people are being uprooted and alienated and are losing their
sense of what this world means, this ideology inevitably has a certain
hypnotic charm. To wandering humankind it offers an immediately
available home: all one has to do is accept it, and suddenly everything
becomes clear once more, life takes on new meaning, and all
mysteries, unanswered questions, anxiety, and loneliness vanish. Of
course, one pays dearly for this low-rent home: the price is
abdication of one’s own reason, conscience, and responsibility, for
an essential aspect of this ideology is the consignment of reason and
conscience to a higher authority.<
hi ms west
I thought being the one guy who may have been willing to tell the truth about who muffed Benghazi is what led to the revelation of the career-ending affair in the first place.
Could be Ernst, but the fact is he was CIA director when it went down. Also, since the affair was revealed, what is stopping him now.
That whole Bengasi deal is so weird I can’t hardly get my head around it, except to be pretty sure there was major malfeasance at the top levels involved.
The Right Scoop links the tape of Levin’s Reagan Library appearance.
Sowell sums up the situation neatly as usual…
good allan they’ve broken out the accordians
“Kerry and French Foreign Minister Appeal Together for Strike Against Syria”
no blood for gas pipelines
Saudis sign up for Syria strike plan
No blood for Ego.
Sen. Cruz has (in part) his say.
no blood for the keeper of mecca and his baracky
trojanhorseaaron klein was discussing the competing gas pipelines tonite on his program.
EXPOSED: SYRIA’S BACKROOM DEAL WITH RUSSIA. Is this energy deal why Putin is backing dictator Assad?
Posted on June 25, 2013 at 1:40 AM EST
Of course it is.
vlad puty putin defender of Christendom
Russia calls for protection of Christian holy places in Maalula, Syria
someone tell tracy that a former kgb guy defends xtians. oh hail proggtardia!
Even I am not particularly happy about being described as a
‘dissident’, but objectively I have become one, whether I like it or
not. Subjectively, I can dress up the motives of my actions in any
honourable garb I choose, but objectively speaking I have dropped
out of that ‘majority’ who, overtly out of loyalty, though actually
out of indifference, accept things as they are. I have no idea as
to the social origin of dissidents in other socialist countries.
Unhappily, such information is not available to us and, to our
detriment, we do not do enough to seek it out. In our society,
however, dissidents are recruited chiefly from among those whom
the regime has harmed, under-rated or persecuted in some way, and
who have been denied the opportunity to lead full lives for reasons
of their origins or unconventional views.