Skip to main content

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Florida Senator Marco Rubio
Since becoming one of the 14 Republican senators to vote in favor of comprehensive immigration, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio hasn't exactly been a beacon of resolve.

Almost immediately after his vote, word leaked that he'd try to mend fences with conservatives by taking the lead on abortion ban legislation, but almost as quickly, he backed away those reports, then said he wanted to take the lead, but that maybe he wouldn't, because maybe someone else would like to take the lead, in which case he'd be willing to selflessly step aside, thank you very much.

Meanwhile, as Rubio was meandering all over the place on abortion, he tried really hard to avoid commenting on his immigration reform vote. Ultimately, when forced to confront it, he hedged by claiming that he was only trying to stop President Obama from unilaterally legalizing undocumented Americans, and that he'd be willing to support a security only bill in any event—even though such a bill represents the exact opposite of the bill he actually voted for.

Given the way things were going for him on abortion and immigration, it's not a shock that he spent much his summer vacation trying to take ownership of Ted Cruz's doomed scheme to defund Obamacare, but when he returned to D.C., Rubio came face to face with yet another issue that he wanted to dodge: whether or not the U.S. should attack Syria. Sure, Rubio had long been a champion of military action in Syria and had repeatedly criticized President Obama for failing to act, but now that Obama was acting, Rubio's old position was no longer politically expedient. So, when the issue came up before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rubio flip-flopped, and voted no.

Yesterday, however, Rubio finally saw an opportunity to change his image from a calculating political hack to that of a true statesman: responding to Russian President Vladimir Putin's ridiculous op-ed in the New York Times. He didn't waste any time; within hours of the publication of Putin's piece, Rubio had penned an op-ed of his own:

In this morning’s New York Times, Russian president Vladimir Putin argued that America is not exceptional, and that American leadership does not make the world safer. I could not disagree more strongly.
Wow! He disagrees with Putin, and strongly. Bold. Courageous. Leader. Exceptionally tough words, no! For example:
In his op-ed, President Putin said that action in Syria without the authorization of the United Nations Security Council would “constitute an act of aggression.” I believe that while we should always work to build international coalitions and consensus, we cannot place all of our faith in or compromise our sovereignty to the international community.
Well if that's not a stiff uppercut to Mr. Putin's lips, I don't know what is. Sure, Rubio used to support a military strike on Syria, and now he opposes it, which means he flip-flopped to being on the same page as Vladimir Putin. But Rubio completely disagrees with Putin's argument in favor of their shared position, and he's not afraid to write an op-ed about it.

To be fair, just because two people share the same position doesn't mean the reasons for their positions aren't important, but if someone wants you to believe that's their explanation, it would be helpful for them to have a track record that demonstrates a commitment to principles, and that's not something that Marco Rubio has. It wasn't long ago that people were touting him as the Republican savior, but with every passing day, it's looking more like he's just another Republican failure.

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

  •  Exceptionalism: We're #17 (8+ / 0-)

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:03:54 PM PDT

    •  Putins Op-ed was true. I do not see, how the truth (0+ / 0-)

      can be ridiculous. The United Nations are the only mechanism accepted by the international community to wield force. Putin is completely correct in that a military act without UN approval is an act of aggression.

      Putin was of course not telling the whole truth, leaving out the part about him enabling Assads atrocities. But what he said, was true. Even the part about American exceptionalism - what he says is what people outside of the US think about that claim, mostly.

      He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

      by Sophie Amrain on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:11:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Putin left out more than that... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tekno2600, annieli

        Putin is one of the world's greatest liars and hypocrites, especially on human rights, civil liberties and international law.  He talks out of several sides of his mouth at once.  If you want his real views on sovereign authority to act outside UN authority, Google Chechnya and Georgia.  If you want Putin's real view on human rights, check into how he has presided over Russian laws that basically are hunting licenses on gays and ethnic migrants.  If you want how Putin practices his love of civil liberties, check on the cases of the people he has tossed into jail on trumped or imaginary charges, some of whom then "commit suicide" on dubious facts.

        As far as the UN, think on this: the UN has sanctioned and protested against acts of massacre and genocide before.  However action requiring force means a big power (or someone with a big wallet) has to act.  When the big powers are taking opposites sides (as they are in Syria), the UN becomes less useful.  So long as Russia or China wield their veto, Assad can do anything.

        We have seen what that means.  Putin, in the face of the evidence, still claims the rebels gassed their own neighborhoods.  And we are supposed to rely on his judgement of what is right and wrong, legal or illegal?

        People are so anti-war, so (rightfully) feeling betrayed by George W. Bush and his actions, that they have overdone it.  We have jumped the shark when people are lining up behind Putin over Obama.

        On American Exceptionalism, not sure why people are cheering Putin on this.  America has done many wrongs.  But we have done a lot right and we have a lot to be proud of - things that make us exceptional, such as having one of the world's oldest continuous democracies.  We should not apologize for promoting the good values we have on things like women's rights, gay rights, aspiring to combat racial bigotry, have a more just society, etc.    If you mine down, it is in Putin's interest to throw dirt on the idea that America has anything to teach  Russian citizens about democracy.

        "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

        by FDRDemocrat on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:57:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If rebels had poison gas they'd use it on Assad, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        not gas their own people. Assad had been repeatedly trying to clear that neighborhood of rebels. Then, all of a sudden, the Syrian Army sent out orders to stop operations and put on gas masks. Then, the neighborhood was hit by rockets gas canisters that originated from Syrian Army territory. So, it is very clear what happened and that Assad was responsible.

        Mr. Putin is clinging to a bizarre conspiracy theory (not unlike what I have heard from several so-called Liberals here at dkos) about Syrian rebels. I have also heard people here advancing Assad and Putin's theory that all the rebels are terrorists and jihadists. This is absurd. Although people here may think that they are preventing "war" by stopping strikes on his chemical weapons infrastructure, these misguided pacifistic policies are actually protecting Assad and enabling him to keep killing about 5,000 people per month for many years to come. Mr. Putin is hurting is already very low credibility with his bizarre statements and support of murderous dictators. I am really puzzled when I hear people at dkos siding with him on anything.

        Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

        by tekno2600 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:37:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Your map is essentially correct, but Hawaii part (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, BPARTR, tekno2600, Cordyc

      of the United States? Where'd you get that idea? It's some exotic locale Kenyans go to for holiday, not as bad as France, but still...

    •  Most Awesome Map (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Especially the way "more evil-doers" is an island down south, far away from "communists" and "tvs and cameras" but not too close to "they make our stuff" and "Viet Nam ".

      And my kids love our trips to "cruise ships go here".

  •  Wow! Marco diasgrees with Putin. Who says he (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes, annieli, Jeff Y, mspicata, Matt Z

    doesn't take controversial stands? Actually, ever since college I've found the concept of American exceptionalism rather absurd, and more or less a corallary to Manifest Destiny, an illogical, but conveniently comfy ideology for repeatedly pushing back and worse to Native Americans. The essence of American exceptionalism is the City on a hill, based on conservative Protestantism starting with the Puritans and the Pilgrims.

    •  Ahem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The SHINING city on the hill. We always shine, therefore we are exceptional.

      Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

      by skohayes on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:12:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rachel was touting "American Exceptionalism" just (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      yesterday.  She was doing it in regards of the US leading the effort to secure loose nukes, even without bothering to go to the UN about it.

    •  I have never understood (0+ / 0-)

      why we laud "American Exceptionalism" at the same time as choosing mediocre people for our government.  The same people who say we are exceptional, smugly disparage college educations and science.  We are exceptional, but we must all come from log cabins and pull ourselves up by our bootstraps.

      Personally, I would rather hire the brightest and most educated to lead us.  Unfortunately, they tend to be atheists and scientists (or both), and Americans would rather choose someone who doesn't threaten their self-esteem ( ie someone they would ike to have a beer with, ie someone who has a beer gut, tells dirty jokes and farts.)

      As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

      by BPARTR on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:13:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have a practical suggestion (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeff Y, annieli, mspicata, Matt Z, Palafox

    for Senator Rubio.  Take another sip of water.

    With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:09:57 PM PDT

  •  If nothing else, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mspicata, annieli, Matt Z

    all the flip flopping that Rubio will be doing during the GOP primaries might rival that of Mitt Romney!
    He's fallen so far out of favor, I'm beginning to wonder if he'll even run.

    Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

    by skohayes on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:11:39 PM PDT

  •  6 of 1; half-dozen of another. (0+ / 0-)

    Rubio = Republican savior.

    Rubio = Republican failure.

    Same.  Damned.  Thing.

    Proponents of gun violence own guns. Opponents of gun violence do not own guns. What part of this do you not understand?

    by Liberal Panzer on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:14:41 PM PDT

  •  Watch Rubio catch the train (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to Weenieville!

    "Well Clarice, have the lambs stopped screaming?"

    by buffie on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:18:09 PM PDT

  •  The Republican Savior (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BPARTR, tekno2600

    tag was based entirely on him being nonwhite and lots of Republicans wanting to assuage themselves that they are Not Racist.

    Now those people have moved on to Ted Cruz.

    29, white male, TX-07 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

    by TDDVandy on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:19:01 PM PDT

  •  Saviour? (0+ / 0-)

    Rubio has been "fail" since day one.  No one is going to "save" the Republican party.  They are dying a slow, painful death - which is good.  A two-party system only creates artificial division.  We need a no-party system, with elections that are 100% publicly funded so that the best person, not the one with the most money, wins.

  •  e. e. cummings nailed Marco (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, Loge, BPARTR

    and his ilk a long time ago:

    "next to of course god america i
     love you land of the pilgrims' and so forth oh
     say can you see by the dawn's early my
     country 'tis of centuries come and go
     and are no more what of it we should worry
     in every language even deafanddumb
     thy sons acclaim your glorious name by gorry
     by jingo by gee by gosh by gum
     why talk of beauty what could be more beaut-
     iful than these heroic happy dead
     who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter
     they did not stop to think they died instead
     then shall the voice of liberty be mute?"

     He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water

    Après le thé, le déluge. -- Glenn Beck, aka Napoleon XIV

    by mspicata on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:20:43 PM PDT

  •  Ridiculous Op-Ed? (0+ / 0-)

    How is it ridiculous?  Here we have a world leader actually telling the American people the truth about their government's intentions, the rule of law and the folly of American exceptionalism.  Of course, Putin and his government are  not without sins of their own and his motives in the Syrian crisis are not pure, but it's long past time someone told Americans the truth about their nation's foreign policy.  

    I tend to believe that the chemical attack was most likely carried out by the terrorist opposition, not by the Assad government.  That would seem logical. But given where we are now, the best course of action is to defuse this crisis, stop arming both sides and get them to the bargaining table.  The first step is for the Obama Administration to admit that we have been arming, training and transporting terrorists in Syria directly and through our proxies and that we are going to stop now.  

    •  Putin is a gangster, tyrant, unelected psychopath, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and a violator of human rights and international law (including regular imprisonment of his opponents inside Russian and assassination of opponents outside Russia). The idea that that he is (1) Telling the truth; and (2) a world leader is an insult to the terms "truth" and "leader."

      Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

      by tekno2600 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:45:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Still, Rubio isn't fit (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        to shine Putin's shoes.

        Private health insurance: a protection racket without the protection.

        by rustypatina on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 06:42:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And Obama isn't? (0+ / 0-)

        The Obama human rights record is the worst in American history and the US regularly violates international law, so complaining about Putin is nonsense. Putin like Obama is a world leader because of the job he has not because of his personal achievements.

        •  "And Obama isn't?" WTF? That's absurd. No Obama (0+ / 0-)

          isn't a single one of those things. And, no, his human rights record isn't "the worst in American history." Not even close. Nixon, George W. Bush, George H. Bush, and Reagan are some of the world's all-time biggest warmongers. Obama led a NATO coalition that helped stop genocide in Libya and overthrow a crazy tyrant. The hard-Left lost their minds over that, but he was right and they were dead wrong. Obama ended the war in Iraq and is bringing troops home from Afghanistan. His human rights record is something no Republican in the last couple of generations could even come close to. Get a freakin grip.

          Putin, on the other hand, is a tyrannical thug who runs a one-party police state, regularly uses extortion, assassination, torture, and arbitrary imprisonment to get what he wants. He invades places like Georgia and Abkhazia with no concern for international law or even humane treatment of civilian non-combatants. He regularly interferes at the UN to protect dictators, enable their torture and slaughter of civilians, and prevent Democracy movements.

          Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

          by tekno2600 on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 03:14:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Democratic Blinders On? (0+ / 0-)

            A number of human rights activists have pointed out that Obama is worse than Bush so it's not just my opinion.  Try reading Chris Hedges or Glenn Greenwald instead of marinating in Democratic Party partisanship.

            The Obama attack on Libya was a human rights disaster in every possible way. It was based on a lie (that Gaddafi was about to commit genocide) and has decimated the lives of the Libyan people.  As for Iraq, it sure took him long enough and he is still not out of Afghanistan and there's no reason (other than his statements) to believe he will follow through on this.  He still hasn't closed Guantanamo and is still torturing the prisoners there.  Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers more viciously than any other President.  Every expansion of executive power by Bush has been expanded further under Obama.  Just because he is a Democrat is no reason to give him a free pass.  When we have to defend a Democrat by saying that a Republican would be worse, we have already lost.

            If you are concerned about Georgia, then you will realize that the Obama Administration's rush to get them into NATO so that US missiles can be stationed there and aimed at Russia would quite naturally cause concern in Moscow.  You also have to acknowledge that the US has vetoed every UN Security Council measure to protect the Palestinian people and their land including the February 2011 resolution on Israeli settlements.  

            Let's try to be real here and not partisan.  

    •  If the rebels had gas, they'd use it on Assad. See (0+ / 0-)

      my comments upthread on this. Only Putin is still peddling this asinine conspiracy theory that speculates without a shred of evidence that somehow some unnamed rebel group carried out a huge and highly coordinated chemical weapons strike. There is nearly universal agreement that Assad did it. It is sad to see people on dkos still clinging to this or praising Putin for anything.

      Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

      by tekno2600 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:54:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Asinine? (0+ / 0-)

        What possible reason would Assad have for using chemical weapons? None. The rebels have a great reason - getting the US to bail them out. There are well trained groups supplied by the Saudi government who could certainly have carried out the attack. We don't have conclusive evidence and may never get it.

        If we are able to praise Obama when he does something good, why not praise Putin? Are we teabaggers here who see everything in black and white?

        •  "Asinine" is perhaps the kindest word for the (0+ / 0-)

          type of groundless conspiracy drivel Putin is promoting. This isn't about conjecturing why Assad used the chemical weapons. When you try to guess someone's motives, you will probably be wrong 99% of the time. Sometimes dictators make bad decisions. Sometimes they are just outraged at the thought that their subjects are disobeying them. But, there is ZERO evidence to show that any known rebel group has access to chemical weapons, much less the delivery system and training to pull of a very large scale and precisely timed attack like this. However, there are mountains of evidence that show that intercepted communications from the Syrian army were discussing the use of chemical weapons, telling their troops to pull back from these neighborhoods and telling them to put on gas masks. There are even satellite pictures of the rockets being launched from Syrian army territory and landing in these rebel controlled neighborhoods. Even the direction the rockets pointed when they landed and the amount of fuel consumed show that they were launched from government territory, not rebel territory. So, we actually do have quite strong evidence and Putin appears to be hoping that he can prey upon peoples' unawareness about this information to advance his kooky claims. I also have trouble trusting that someone who was purveying an asinine conspiracy theory a few minutes ago will truly follow through will the commitment to dismantle Syria's chemical weapons. I think it will be a nightmare dealing this he will continue killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people.

          Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

          by tekno2600 on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:31:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Groundless conspiracy theories (0+ / 0-)

            When it comes to excuses for war, our government almost always uses groundless conspiracy theories to convince us that we should attack another nation, whether it's Iraq's WMD or the threat posed by Grenada, or the "absolute fact" that Assad ordered the August chemical weapons attack.  There is independent data that supports the idea that the "rebels" were supplied with chemical weapons by the Saudis and that the US provided training to them in how to handle it.

            Whenever the US government tells us it has an airtight case for going to war, we need to be very, very skeptical.  Can you name one instance since WWII when the government did not lie to get us into a war?  The record is clear and we have to acknowledge that war is very good business for those who lavish money on our politicians.  

            The question we need to ask, is not about which side is responsible, but about how best to defuse this situation in such a way that the people of Syria, the children of Syria, the Syrian refugees, can most rapidly return to life of peace and security with the minimum loss of life and limb.  Attacking Syria will make matters worse.  Pretending to enforce international laws that we break with impunity should be seen as the lie it is and always has been.  If it takes a Vladimir Putin to point that out, then so be it.  Lord knows now politicians in Washington are stepping up to tell the truth.

            •  Zerohedge is full of conspiracy theories, which (0+ / 0-)

              apparently you are not skeptical about, but you are skeptical of things involving physical evidence.

              By the way, we have not been lied into every war since WWII. The Korean war was pretty clearly a case where they launched a pre-meditated sneak attack. We then fought them under the UN banner. There are many other examples of conflicts that we did not get lied into. In the first Gulf War, even though I think it could have been avoided and was largely created through the incompetence of Bush and Ambassador Glassby, for whatever reason, Saddam went ahead with his attack. You could also say that it didn't make sense for him to do this or that he could have just left and suffered no consequences. That may be true, but dictators get a certain type of sickness after years of absolute tyranny. They no longer think like normal people. Kosovo was also no based on a lie. In fact, it was a NATO operation that involved no gain to the US. It also showed the world that we were not anti-Muslim and, in fact, we would stand up against genocide, even if the UN, and the liberal fringe in the US lost their minds over it (and were dead wrong, as usual). Libya is another example of a NATO operation where Obama was right and the hard-Left was dead wrong.

              But, what sickens me the most is hearing people who are enabling Assad to continue slaughtering 5-10,000 people per month for years to come say they care about peace or care about the children in Syria. I am in favor of a large scale attack on Assad because I believe that would bring this tragedy, which was caused by isolationist pacifist thinking, finally to an end. However, that is not what Obama proposed. He had the courage to open debate in Congress about the stopping the genocide in Syria and the leftwing and rightwing loonies savaged him (with peace).

              You do not have the right to say that things would get worse in Syria with the limited intervention that WAS (but no longer is) being proposed. That is a ridiculous and groundless claim. First, you have no evidence of that. The Libya campaign is a good counter example to your point. Second, it is hard to be WORSE than someone who has killed 100,000 of his own people, displaced a third of his country, and every sane person in the world knows that he used sarin nerve gas on a civilian neighborhood, killing hundreds if not thousands of non-combatants. In the absolute worst case imaginable, US attack would never kill even a fraction of the innocent people Assad has killed and there is 0.0000000% chance that a jihadist rebel group could ever take control of Syria or that a country with thousands of years of pluralistic religious and multi-ethnic traditions would ever support such a group. The FACT is, NO ONE is worse than Assad. So, just keep watching the slaughter in Syria and saying, oh what a shame, but there's nothing we can do. You made sure of that and you should be ashamed.

              Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

              by tekno2600 on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 11:53:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Lies (0+ / 0-)

                All the wars since WWII were unconstitutional and all were avoidable and none had anything to do with defending the US from attack.  All of them were elective wars and aside from Korea, all were in violation of international law as well.

                It's really interesting that you use Libya as an example of a good intervention by the US.  What did we do there?  We overthrew a stable regime that had the support of a large number of the populace with a collection of jihadi terrorists who still haven't been able to form a coherent government.  We took a nation which was a model for the continent in terms of social programs and education and turned it into a cesspool of warring factions.  Is that what would happen in Syria - yes, almost certainly.

                Also let's understand that Assad was not killing people any more than his contemporaries in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia before the jihadi violence that marred the Arab Spring in Syria.  No government faced with an armed opposition is going to sit idly by and let them take over.  But we can stop the slaughter in Syria and the quickest way is for the US and its proxies to stop aiding the terrorist "rebels".

                •  The fact that you would defend Gaddafi and (0+ / 0-)

                  actually praise the "stability" of his government tells us all everything we need to know about you and your views. He regularly visited schools to decide which school girls he wanted to kidnap and rape. He traveled with a group of slaves whom he regularly beat in public. He was outraged when Swiss authorities caught him beating his servants at a hotel and demanded he stop. He killed people at whim and often asked other people to kill someone for him as a sign of their loyalty. This included telling children to kill their parents.

                  But, you say that helping his people overthrow him and moving away from dictatorship under one of the most brutal and psychotic tyrants of all time was a bad thing because you don't like the factions and that came after him (which you arrogantly and ignorantly call jihadi terrorists). That's how Democracy works. It's not up to arrogant, self righteous people like you to impose your idea of order on another country. The people get to decide how their government will look and how the transition toward life after a tyrant will be. Just because you think a tyrant is convenient or keeps things looking orderly from the outside doesn't mean people should have to live under his brutality. You haven't the fainted clue what a government in Syria will look like after Assad and his thugs are defeated. But, he has already established himself as the most viscous and evil leaders in Syrian history. So, whoever comes after him would automatically start out less bad...and again, it's not your choice. You don't get to decide to selectively enforce the international treaty on genocide--which obligates member nations to act to stop it when they see it happening, even without UN authorization of force--just because you happen to like a certain dictator or arrogantly want to control who comes next when his brutal reign of terror ends.

                  Your other assertions about all wars being illegal and unconstitutional are just as ignorant as your claims supporting brutal tyrants. At least I schooled you a little on Korea. But, I learned long ago dealing with so-called peace activists (including a number of Quakers) that they are neither gentle, peace-loving, or even nice people. They can actually be some very mean, self righteous and conniving people, just in a passive aggressive way. They are simply fanatically devoted to the proposition that anything involving military force is automatically bad, even if it would save lives. If the Holocaust happened again, right in front of their eyes, they would oppose any intervention to save innocent people (just as they did oppose WWII). They'd claim the situation would be "worse" if we intervened. They'd say Hitler wasn't such a bad guy. They resort to all kinds of lies and excuses, because they think the ends justify the means. In that way, they have a self-righteousness that is a lot like anti-abortion activists. They are so convinced they are right, despite their highly flawed and twisted ideology, that they think practically anything they do is ok in the service of their goals. Well, to hell with that and all the other fake peace advocates who have blood on their hands through their sins of omission: Failing to stop slaughter right before their eyes and even making excuses for it.

                  Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

                  by tekno2600 on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 06:26:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not worth the trouble (0+ / 0-)

                    Someone as misinformed as you and as dedicated to the religion of the Democratic Party and our noble and ever truthful government is simply not worth the trouble to argue with.

                    Don't bother to compare Gaddafi or Assad to the leaders of Bahrain or Saudi Arabia,  major US allies in the region.  Don't bother comparing the situation for the mass of people in Libya now to what is was under the Gaddafi government, or look at any of our other success stories in the region like Afghanistan or Iraq.  No, just swallow the government's narratives whole and don't bother examining the facts.  That's how you can be a good Democrat and continue to piss of the right wing nuts.

                    •  There you go again saying Gaddafi was better than (0+ / 0-)

                      the current situation in Libya. I know people in Libya right now. This isn't just theory for me. You think you know things, but you are utterly full of crap. You read conspiracy website and then tell people who actually know what is happening over there that we are misinformed? You're a freakin piece of work! And the rulers in Saudi and Bahrain are aholes, but not remotely the kind of psycho that Gaddafi was or Assad is.

                      Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

                      by tekno2600 on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 06:47:28 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  So who does Putins eyebrows? nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

    by nailbender on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:49:05 PM PDT

    •  Kaepernick and Wilson (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RENTON, Wash. -- For the record, no one will be shaving an eyebrow Sunday night. Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson said the eyebrow bet between him and San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick was just a pretend thing for a TV commercial.

      "It's just having fun and joking around," Wilson said Thursday. "It's not real."

      In a commercial for "Madden NFL 25," the two quarterbacks agree to make a bet. The loser in the game Sunday night between their teams has to shave off an eyebrow. They shake on it, and Kaepernick says, "All right, I hope you don't like your eyebrow."

      Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

      by annieli on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:51:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And the circle is complete (0+ / 0-)

    Daily Kos is now pimping Vladimir Putin. Jesus Loves You.

    by DAISHI on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:01:58 PM PDT

  •  It has been exceptionally fun (0+ / 0-)

    to listen to Republican/right wing talk show hosts trying to find a position from which they can be outraged.

    Roger Hedgecock ( Rush wanabee in San Diego) has been tying himself in knots.  Yesterday he was trying to explain why although he had previously argued against action in Syria, a position he already found very ackward, since by definition war is good and Democrats are soft on terror and, and..., it turns out that Obama is against bombing Syria FOR THE WRONG REASONS.  And, this is really just a win for Putin and Russia and it's really about IRAN and not Syria anyway and- and then he gave up and started ranting about Bengazi.

    Clearly, Rubio is havig the same problem.  They were for bombing Syria until the President was for it.  Then they were against bombing Syria until the President was against it and now they can't figure out what position to take.     So the problem is that he isn't agaisnt bombing Syria for the correct reasons. and Bengazi!

    As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

    by BPARTR on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:06:43 PM PDT

  •  Mean letter to follow. (0+ / 0-)

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:40:31 PM PDT

  •  Ofcourse Putin is a conservative hero.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ..he doubts American exceptionalism, persecutes gays and dissenters in his country, is big on Oil and Gas, caters to the far right wingers and religious nuts in Russia, is anti-immigrants.

    Why wouldn't he be a hero of the GOP/Tea Partiers?

  •  Is the British Parliament (0+ / 0-)

    "on Putin's side" too, since they voted NO on attacking Syria?

    Gimme a break.

    "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

    by Superpole on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:33:29 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site