Skip to main content

View Diary: Did anyone else notice this? Obama just said that it may have been an unauthorized strike, here: (40 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sounds to me like he's saying that they have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, joe shikspack

    given Assad chances to restrain himself and he hasn't done it, therefore we're going to bomb the hell out of the country and maybe put 75K troops in country to secure the chemical weapons which are now supposedly scattered all over the country in children's schools and so this country will go looking for those WMDs, again.
    Well maybe not quite but.

    •  Sounds to me like he said they don't know Assad (5+ / 0-)

      ordered the chemical attacks, and that it might have been the military acting without authorization.

      As for the rest of the likely scenario of the outcomes of a "limited strike", it could get significantly worse than even that.

      Here we go again, but with EMPHASIS . . .

      •  They haven't presented solid evidence that (5+ / 0-)

        Assad did it that's for sure.  The statement about skepticism here and at that meeting says something, Obama didn't challenge that.  So he's not having great success with his evidence at the G20.
        Libya was just supposed to be a no fly zone and it turned into an all out bombing campaign.  People forget about that.  So limited strikes has to be taken with a meteor sized grain of salt.

        •  Obama has offered Assad a Get Out of Jail Card.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Assad needs to have an 'investigation' and find the officer that ordered the CW attack, have a trial, and then execute that officer proclaiming that this officer disobeyed orders and that such actions will not be allowed.

          Then Assad will be off the hook.

          Until it happens again....

          The general that makes many calculations will prevail over the general that makes few calculations. Be prepared and stay calm, if you panic you die.

          by Josiah Bartlett on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 04:45:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It actually says the opposite (0+ / 0-)

        It says he, or at least his generals, have been known to restrain themselves. It suggests that there may have been times Assad wanted to use CW, but some of his generals reined him in, or refused to comply.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 01:52:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I agree, "or generals under his charge". (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leveymg, WisePiper, joe shikspack

        That could indicate they believe Assad may not have ordered it directly.  

      •  couple points (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hey338Too, Jon Says, bobatkinson

        And I make these points despite not supporting military action.

        a) as far as I know, no one has suggested trying to assassinate Assad.  Any punitive strike would be against the military more than it would be against Assad.  So in that context saying the military took this action independent of Assad becomes irrelevant.

        b) Generals are surely part of the 'regime'.

        c)  If you don't approve of the use of chemical weapons, you shouldn't have them in a useable state.  It is sort of like a couple of bank robbers go to rob a bank.  The leader says not to shoot anyone.  In the heat of the robbery one of robbers shoots and kills someone.  The leader is still going to be charged with murder.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site