Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama makes the right choice and will present his case on Syria to the whole Congress for a vote (521 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Pardon me (19+ / 0-)

    But let us not pretend the evidence is equal

    We have eye witness reports, reporters on the ground, prior info about chemical weapons, and apparently satellite info about the rocket launches that corroborate the eyewitness accounts, phone intercepts and the targets list all supporting the theory that Assad did this.

    On the other hand we have some loose conspiracy theories that either the Israelis (George Galloway) or the Saudis (zerohedge) have some rebels chemical weapons to launch a staged attack.  There is no particulat evidenc supporting either theory. No answers where they got the rockets.

    So, yes at this point at minimum a preponderance of the evidence supports strongly the idea that Assad did this. There virtually none supporting any other possibility.  And if you don't by the CT that Kerry and Obama are making it up, the evidence is overwhelming.

    •  I never said that an outside group attacked (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Treetrunk, Nailbanger, Laconic Lib, HCKAD

      Yes, the most obvious answer is Assad.

      But excuse me if I don't buy the whole argument hook, line, and sinker. And I'm sorry that I don't believe we should be playing big brother to the world.

      There are other atrocities happening daily by brutal regimes, but we don't threaten war against them because there is no geopolitical reason to do so.

      So please cut the crap and quit acting like this is a humanitarian mission, that we're talking about war because we're outraged about deaths abroad.

      We are not and we never have been.

      And let's not pretend that this won't end in war no matter what. The drumbeat has started and it's all but written in stone.

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 11:59:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Will you apologize.... (0+ / 0-)

        ....if it doesn't?

        Some people here were equally sure Obama wouldn't dare to consult Congress. They now have egg all over their faces.

        "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

        by sagesource on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:24:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RuralLiberal, RainyDay, Laconic Lib

          I won't apologize for being anti-war.

          I won't apologize for fearing that the worst will happen.

          I will apologize for a lot of things, but I won't apologize for not believing in the ability of the MIC to do the right thing.

          And I won't apologize for believing that Obama is ready to go to war. He is already making his fucking case, what further proof do you need? Do you think he's acting like someone who doesn't want to go to war right now? If so, what gives you that impression?

          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

          by BoiseBlue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:34:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm confused (4+ / 0-)

            with the attitude that Obama wants to go to war. I feel I listen to most politicians with a critical, and sometimes cynical ear. If you actually listen to what he has said he specifically says he does not desire to go to war. And he is cognizant most of the US citizens do not want more conflict. The dilemma seems to be What is the proper response to war time atrocities? Personally, I do not know. It's hard for me to believe killing anyone in retribution is the answer. But then, what is the answer? Doing nothing seems very wrong.

            you get what you give

            by chicagobleu on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:55:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Who then, Martians? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lawrence, AaronInSanDiego, Yasuragi

        If it isn't Assad an it isn't the rebels then who?  If it is the rebels (again despite the absolute lack of any evidence) where the hell did the rockets and chemical weapons come from?  

        I know very few progressives advocated for action in Darfur or Rwanda or even Sri Lanka as I did (not our problem, it's only brown people), but fuck yes it is about the weapons and this stupid geopolitical CT nonsense is utterly defeated by one clear fact. President Obama has been absolutely opposed to getting involved and has done only the minimum for years here and ONLY gets interested after chemical weapons are used

        Speaking of cutting the crap, lets stop pretending that this new found rigor for evidence has anything to do with a commitment to the truth and just be honest that it is only a cover for more liberal knee jerk anti government stuff.   There is absolutely no moral foundation to these objections whatsoever

        •  There is no moral foundation? (0+ / 0-)

          No moral foundation for being adamantly opposed to another "no boots on the ground" conflict war?

          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

          by BoiseBlue on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 01:38:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There certainly isn't (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            For disingenuously stick broccoli in ones ears in an effort to fend of any call to take action to address preventable evil because one can't be bothered.  A lot of options exist besides full invasion, as you know.  Obviously, a judicious estimation that some other response is the best way forward is wise.  A full scale abandonment of any responsibility is much less so.

            I wasn't very clear, and I'm probably still not

    •  And... (0+ / 0-)

      we have the NSA ...
      Can't imagine anyone would think Obama needs to lie about this.

    •  Israel HAS been trying to goad the U.S. (0+ / 0-)

      . . . into intervening in Syria for the better part of a year now. To the question of "who benefits" from U.S. intervention the answer is clear: Israel & Saudi Arabia. To point out this obvious fact is not in & of itself conspiracy-mongering.

    •  It's a great shame this diary has been (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      angry marmot

      commandeered by CT loonies. It would have been interesting to have had a discussion of Obama's decision to require Congressional approval.

      In my view that decision was brilliant and goes some way towards rehabilitating Obama's reputation, which had been damaged recently by his apparent complacency on NSA surveillance and by his incautious language about chem weapons being a "red line" requiring US retaliation.

      I think Obama greatly regretted being boxed in by his "red line" remark and actually dreaded the consequences of a US retaliatory strike (which can accomplish nothing positive but could make matters considerably worse). I think his behavior over the past few months shows he was very reluctant to involve the US in the Syrian mess. He won a Nobel peace prize; I think he's sufficiently self aware to realize a true peacemaker does not engage in "humanitarian bombing" just to save face and silence political critics. I think Parliament's refusal to David Cameron suggested to Obama the desirability of obtaining Congress' refusal to approve a dangerous strike on Syria.

      So Obama decided to put the question of intervention in Congress' hands, knowing that Congress is deeply divided and that most Republicans will automatically oppose whatever proposals come out of the Obama Administration. Crash McCain and Huckleberry Graham are likely to vote "no" for example. Many Dems are likely to vote no. The ensuing debate could reveal that "humanitarian bombing" would accomplish nothing and might raise huge new risks. American voters could help shape the debate by writing to their reps in Congress. And the whole episode could help reverse the Presidential monopoly of war powers that has been accumulating for decades; we could finally restore war powers responsibility to Congress where it belongs (especially given the division in Congress, which means it will be less likely in the future that the US can jump blindly and unthinkably into dangerous foreign adventures.

      It's also going to be gratifying to see McCain's bluff called and McCain forced to vote against an action he so desperately wanted escalated into full-scale war.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site