Skip to main content

Let's be honest folks.  I hate to doll out the "if this was Bush" argument, but if it was, we know that there would be no diaries, ZERO, saying "I stand with W on opening up a pandora's box that we may not be able to close."  The risks of striking Syria, when Syria is involved in a civil war that has no domestic threats whatsoever, outweigh the risks of "liberating" the Syrian people.  Here are a couple of possibilities: Al Queda gets a foothold in ANOTHER Middle Eastern country, Al Queda or others gain access to gas canisters (geee, I wonder what could happen there?), or it throws a whole entire region of the world into perpetual war.  So for those who say "I stand with Obama" on this one, please reconsider your blind faith to Team Blue before you advocate for a quagmire in the Middle East.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I stand with Obama, (6+ / 0-)

    AND I hope there's no Syrian strike.

    He'll just have to suck this one up, if sanity prevails.

    And is there IS a strike, I hope it is as minimal as possible.


    That wasn't so hard, was it?

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 07:50:34 PM PDT

  •  Best to batten down the hatches (3+ / 3-)
    Recommended by:
    Dianna, Johnny Q, Sunspots
    Hidden by:
    Cedwyn, highacidity, nocynicism

    because the Bots will be shouting you down on this diary. Some days it seems as if President Obama could shoot a puppy right in the face on national television, and the slappies would cheer, and mention that he's playing 12th dimensional chess, just wait a while and you will see that it's a good thing he shot the puppy in the face, you just don't understand yet....

    It's rather depressing. We get fucked in the ass from the GOTP pols, and thrown under the bus by the Dems. We can't win.

    There are no profits in ensuring human rights so don't expect your government to do so.

    by The Green Nugget on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:03:15 PM PDT

  •  The reaction of the Minnesota delegation is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q, Sunspots, highacidity

    hilarious.  Ellison (progressive) is for war.  Bachmann (wingnut) is against.  Walz (Blue Dog in a rural swing district full of farmers who don't give a damn about the middle east) is for international community involvement.  Franken is in the send a message camp.  Klobuchar has her 'boots on the ground" talking points right on message as always.  

    All over the map making about as much sense as this intervention makes.

  •  Not true-- (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    misterwade, doroma, highacidity

    that it makes it easier to capitulate.

    i'm most definitely "team blue,"
    but am against any action there now.

    We are Democrats, and that is to say we are not going
    to agree on everything.

    We are most decidedly Not like republicans--who march
    in lockstep.

    We are Democrats, and it is in our nature--thank God!--
    to disagree about some things.

    And as sunbro said above:

    That wasn't so hard, was it?
  •  So certain are you. (0+ / 0-)

    In 2001, I despised Bush, but I thought if the Taliban was harboring OBL that was an act of war.

    Some things are, in fact, a matter of principle, not personality.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:22:46 PM PDT

  •  At this point, I don't think it's being unfair (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mama jo, FG, highacidity, Cedwyn

    to say that the GOP will be politically viable for years, maybe decades, longer than they should be because of the way the Democratic Party has bought into the way the Right and the Village have defined the limits of what is possible for a non-Conservative and for non-Conservative governance in America.

    The Democratic Party is always living in fear of the 1970's that exists in the conventional wisdom of the beltway.  

    The notion that the worst things you can do is be accused of being liberally partisan and/or ideological in a non-Conservative way, or smeared as soft on defense, or weak on national security.

    The GOP we face today is the most bad faith fueled in American history. They will call for Obama to be impeached if he bombs, if he doesn't, if he goes to Congress first, if he doesn't go to Congress first. Every outcome ends with "he should be impeached".

    It should be liberating. The bad faith is so bad, so apparent, so clear and bold-faced that it should be easier not harder to shrug off the straight jacket of what Fred Hiatt to Bill Kristol thinks is possible.

    But it's not.

    That said.

    It is not people's liberal frenemies online who are the problem.

    And if the goal is to get somebody to reconsider their views?

    Playing for "Team Blue" Makes it Easier to Capitulate to Actions Against Syria
    Yep. That'll start an open-minded discussion of differences that leads to a constructive outcome. Like screaming "Hey Fat Ass! Put down that Sammich!" at a buddy who is overweight will get them to seriously consider your next thought.
    So for those who say "I stand with Obama" on this one, please reconsider your blind faith to Team Blue before you advocate for a quagmire in the Middle East.
    Put yourself in somebody else's shoes.

    If somebody talked to you this way, would you respond thoughtfully or defensively?

    If you were the person this was directed at, or a person who tends to stand in that camp in general, would you engage this as if you had been approached in good faith by somebody who actually gave a damn what you thought? Or would you think you were being insulted and baited? 'Please reconsider your blind faith'? I mean, at that point, you might as well toss in a "might I ask you to seriously reconsider being your usual useful idiot self this time?'

    If the goal is to get people to reconsider, this is not the way to do it. It's a great way to start a circle jerking flame war.

    I am a Loco-Foco. I am from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.

    by LeftHandedMan on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:51:08 PM PDT

  •  A stronger AQ is a stronger security state (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dianna, Johnny Q

    for the homeland.

    Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

    by The Dead Man on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:37:02 PM PDT

  •  I can't stand with Obama anymore. (4+ / 0-)

    This is the final insult to all of us who supported him. He's decided not to listen to the American people or world opinion & instead chose to listen to the Washington foreign-policy consensus, in which WAR is always the first choice. Without support from the U.N. or the Arab League or NATO, he's just decided to go with another coalition of the willing. Making up a legal justification on the fly. Unilateralism. Boy, George W. Bush must be feeling sweet vindication today.

    The impending attack on Syria is just the beginning of a new round of U.S. involvement in the raging sectarian war that is consuming the entire Fertile Crescent. It appears that Obama intends to fire a few missiles & call an end to it, but assuredly this is NOT the end of it. There are so many ways this can go badly, while there is nothing to be gained from firing cruise missiles.

    What if Syria or Hezbollah retaliate? What if the missile strikes tip the civil war against the Assad regime & the rebels go back on the offensive? What if the rebels win? What if the Iranian government reacts by increasing uranium enrichment. (If I were Ayatollah Khamenei, I would.) At this point, I'd be willing to wager that the U.S. will eventually go all the way in, "boots on the ground" & all that that entails.

    I have a feeling that this (mis)adventure will humble Obama in much the same manner as Iraq humbled W. Ironic, as the decision to attack comes at about the same time in his presidency as Katrina came for Bush. For Katrina was the tipping point, after which it was all downhill for his political fortunes. It was the point at which all but the most blinkered members of his base realized that the jig was up, that he wasn't what they assumed him to be.

    Within weeks, Obama's approval numbers will be in the 30s. (I'm now a "disapprove", & I was a 2-time voter & campaign donor for him.) In 2014 the Democratic base becomes fractured & demoralized, & the Republicans will take the Senate. And in 2016 the United States will likely be mired in an unpopular war in Syria. In this situation Rand Paul could well become president.

    •  I haven't abandoned all support for... (0+ / 0-)

      ... the president, but sadly I have to support what you say about him and his behavior so far regarding Syria.

      There aren't any good decisions here, we have no business going over there. This is madness.

      I still hope for some sanity to enter the conversation, since there aren't missiles flying yet.

      Thanks for the very comprehensive comment.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site