Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

If Congress says no, and the American people say no, and we don't really care about Syria to begin with, what possible reason would he have to strike?

And don't give me any of that nonsense about using this to surround Iran that some other weirdoes are doing. If that was the purpose, then Congress would be selling it also.

Because he has made clear he believes he can and should strike regardless of Congress' views, and because he doesn't want to look "weak?" He's talked himself into quite a hole, as has Kerry.

 

[Tamanon]

Because he has made clear he believes he can and should strike regardless of Congress' views, and because he doesn't want to look "weak?" He's talked himself into quite a hole, as has Kerry.

When has he ever had a concern with "looking weak"? That's what you get after him for half the time you bitch about Obama!

I want an actual reason, not an emotional reason.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Eh? He's going to order an attack regardless of what congress says.

And immediately get impeached.

Dunno if he feels that's worth it.

 

[remist]

And immediately get impeached.

Dunno if he feels that's worth it.

They aren't going to move to impeach him. He did the same thing with Libya and no one did anything.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Because he has made clear he believes he can and should strike regardless of Congress' views, and because he doesn't want to look "weak?" He's talked himself into quite a hole, as has Kerry.

Since when does Obama put effort into projecting strength? He's done so in neither domestic nor international policy since his 2008 election. As Tamanon said that's not a real reason.

It may be that Obama simply really believes what he says, that he meant his red line, and that he's prepared to go alone despite being isolated on the issue internationally and (potentially) in Congress. But I'd wager that if Congress votes against it, then he won't go over their heads.

They aren't going to move to impeach him. He did the same thing with Libya and no one did anything.

We had a vote on Libya?

 

[Tamanon]

They aren't going to move to impeach him. He did the same thing with Libya and no one did anything.

Congress voted against Libya?

There's a difference between striking without authorization and striking when specifically being denied authorization.

 

[remist]

Congress voted against Libya?

There's a difference between striking without authorization and striking when specifically being denied authorization.

There's no constitutional legal difference.

 

[Tamanon]

There's no constitutional legal difference.

When has that mattered for impeachment? The Impeachment process is driven by desire, not constitutionality.

 

[remist]

When has that mattered for impeachment? The Impeachment process is driven by desire, not constitutionality.

Yeah, but they aren't going to make themselves look stupid by impeaching without a clear legal basis. You don't think Republicans desired Obama's impeachment during Libya? Half of them are on record in support of this type of executive power and democrats certainly aren't going to do anything.

 

[The Librarian]

Heh

This was my favorite part: "The White House held an hourlong conference call Wednesday with the 76-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest subsection of congressional Democrats, to persuade them to back the president on Syria. But reports after the briefing and TPM’s conversations with staffers indicate the call was dominated by tough questions for the administration from the caucus members, and nobody seems to have left with their mind changed in favor of action."

 

[PhoenixDark]

Sounds like the White House has utterly failed to sale this to anyone. It's like a pattern with the administration: an inability to communicate.

Since when does Obama put effort into projecting strength? He's done so in neither domestic nor international policy since his 2008 election. As Tamanon said that's not a real reason.

It may be that Obama simply really believes what he says, that he meant his red line, and that he's prepared to go alone despite being isolated on the issue internationally and (potentially) in Congress. But I'd wager that if Congress votes against it, then he won't go over their heads.

Normally I'd agree with you, but this is a completely different case. The United States' credibility, as well as Obama's, are (allegedly) on the line due to the red line comment as well as the enforcement of the chemical weapons standards. If Obama does nothing, it will be seen as a sign of weakness given how much shit his administration has talked over the last month (especially Kerry). When I look at the record of statements, I simply cannot believe Obama will stand down if Congress votes against this. Which is why I never felt going to Congress was some clever move: he's going to attack regardless, unless every sign his administration has sent is somehow a ruse.

Which is why I'm upset with this. Saudi Arabia has been pressuring us on Syria for some time now, as our hawks and interventionists within the administration like Susan Rice and Samantha Powers. I don't think Obama has the courage to back down here. Instead I think he is being pressured into a stupid attack that will achieve little outside of making the situation worse - in order to allegedly save his credibility. He probably does believe that Assad has crossed the final line and needs to be taken out, but I just can't see the Obama of the last few years deciding to launch an attack with little international or domestic support. Something else is at play here

 

[Wilsongt]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/gay-issues/anti-gay-group-selling-not-equal-stickers

Absolutely fucking disgusting.

 

[Chumly]

I'm just stating the now known information that they knew about the attack, and that it happened. That events like this have to happen to take us to war, is also a documented method drafted in paper by policy makers in the past. That economic history highlights who profits and benefits from these conflicts, is also well documented.

I'm not making a statement on the moral authority (or lack thereof) of the US. We can all come to our own conclusions.

Nothing you have said so far has any factual basis. You have your own preconceived agenda and just try and force or make up things to fit that agenda.

 

[Angry Fork]

I'm not even upset at this Syria shit. Like it's so unbelievably arrogant and ill-timed that it's going to backfire wonderfully if they go through with the strikes. I don't want them to do it for obvious reasons but if it did happen it's going to work out fine for further left dems and libertarian repubs.

 

[Oblivion]

Seriously though, why is Obama pushing so hard to get involved in Syria?

 

[Tamanon]

Seriously though, why is Obama pushing so hard to get involved in Syria?

Is he really pushing that hard? He gave a speech with the decision, then went to Congress. He's also been pushing hard to ensure it's a very limited response and not an actual engagement.

 

[Diablos]

Since when does Obama put effort into projecting strength?

He's working with a corrupt, whiny Congress with bad intentions, keeping this economy only a couple steps away from complete collapse again. It is economic terrorism. It sounds sensationalist but that's really what it is. The debt ceiling crisis made me fully realize who and what they are.

Everyone drew their line in the sand as soon as he was sworn in. I don't know how Obama 'projecting strength' is going to change the GOP's minds about anything.

Democrats in Congress pre-2010 election didn't exactly do a great job combating the opposition either...

 

[Angry Fork]

Seriously though, why is Obama pushing so hard to get involved in Syria?

He probably has a buddy who he thinks helped him get elected more than the dirty proles who voted for him and he's being loyal. That's how he operates. There's no thought given to common sense or reasonable ideas it's just i scratch yours you scratch mine.

It's also an empire thing obviously, the US has to get involved heavily militarily in at least one country every decade or else the point of our defense budget becomes criticized and questioned. There's no real reason to do any of this shit except to justify US dominance everywhere. This has nothing to do with human rights or any red line bullshit.

Is he really pushing that hard? He gave a speech with the decision, then went to Congress. He's also been pushing hard to ensure it's a very limited response and not an actual engagement.

He went to congress because the UK parliament gave him the middle finger. To strike on his own would suggest he doesn't care what the US representatives think. He was gung-ho as fuck before the UK limped his dick. Everything since then has been back pedaling and lobbying.

This limited response stuff means absolutely nothing btw. It doesn't even need an explanation obviously everything starts off limited but that's not even the big argument. People keep ignoring the fact that the UN exists for a reason, that bombing another country for reasons other than self defense is supposed to be an act of war not some peekaboo scare tactic shit, that we have no moral authority to do anything like this when we've allowed/ignored worse in the past when it's convenient for us and so on. There is no moral goal here, it's to proxy war with Russia and try to get our companies milking Syria for whatever it's worth.

 

[Wilsongt]

He probably has a buddy who he thinks helped him get elected more than the dirty proles who voted for him and he's being loyal. That's how he operates. There's no thought given to common sense or reasonable ideas it's just i scratch yours you scratch mine.

It's also an empire thing obviously, the US has to get involved heavily militarily in at least one country every decade or else the point of our defense budget becomes criticized and questioned. There's no real reason to do any of this shit except to justify US dominance everywhere. This has nothing to do with human rights or any red line bullshit.



He went to congress because the UK parliament gave him the middle finger. To strike on his own would suggest he doesn't care what the US representatives think. He was gung-ho as fuck before the UK limped his dick. Everything since then has been back pedaling and lobbying.

This limited response stuff means absolutely nothing btw. It doesn't even need an explanation obviously everything starts off limited but that's not even the big argument. People keep ignoring the fact that the UN exists for a reason, that bombing another country for reasons other than self defense is supposed to be an act of war not some peekaboo scare tactic shit, that we have no moral authority to do anything like this when we've allowed/ignored worse in the past when it's convenient for us and so on. There is no moral goal here, it's to proxy war with Russia and try to get our companies milking Syria for whatever it's worth.

Should change your name from Angry to Salty Fork, or maybe ConspiracyTheoryFork.

 

[Chumly]

Sounds like the White House has utterly failed to sale this to anyone. It's like a pattern with the administration: an inability to communicate.


Normally I'd agree with you, but this is a completely different case. The United States' credibility, as well as Obama's, are (allegedly) on the line due to the red line comment as well as the enforcement of the chemical weapons standards. If Obama does nothing, it will be seen as a sign of weakness given how much shit his administration has talked over the last month (especially Kerry). When I look at the record of statements, I simply cannot believe Obama will stand down if Congress votes against this. Which is why I never felt going to Congress was some clever move: he's going to attack regardless, unless every sign his administration has sent is somehow a ruse.

Which is why I'm upset with this. Saudi Arabia has been pressuring us on Syria for some time now, as our hawks and interventionists within the administration like Susan Rice and Samantha Powers. I don't think Obama has the courage to back down here. Instead I think he is being pressured into a stupid attack that will achieve little outside of making the situation worse - in order to allegedly save his credibility. He probably does believe that Assad has crossed the final line and needs to be taken out, but I just can't see the Obama of the last few years deciding to launch an attack with little international or domestic support. Something else is at play here

The only way that Obama somehow does this against congress is if the senate overwhelming approves it and the house rejects it. If both disapprove especially if the house overwhelmingly disapproves I think there is 0 chance that Obama will go ahead. It will be his out. (Or if there is more gas attacks).

 

[Angry Fork]

Should change your name from Angry to Salty Fork, or maybe ConspiracyTheoryFork.

Stunning rebuke. What conspiracy theory are you talking about?

 

[TacticalFox88]

Should change your name from Angry to Salty Fork, or maybe ConspiracyTheoryFork.

I'd prefer PutAForkInIt

 

[CHEEZMO™]

At least change your avi, Fork. Creeps me out, gawsh.

 

[The Librarian]

Seriously though, why is Obama pushing so hard to get involved in Syria?

He isn't really pushing that hard. In fact, his whole "push" is so bad, one could theorize he doesn't really want to get involved in Syria.

 

[jamesinclair]

Seriously though, why is Obama pushing so hard to get involved in Syria?

Republicans cant go more than a year without a new war

 

[Giant Panda]

Stunning rebuke. What conspiracy theory are you talking about?

"It's also an empire thing obviously, the US has to get involved heavily militarily in at least one country every decade or else the point of our defense budget becomes criticized and questioned. There's no real reason to do any of this shit except to justify US dominance everywhere. This has nothing to do with human rights or any red line bullshit."

"There is no moral goal here, it's to proxy war with Russia and try to get our companies milking Syria for whatever it's worth."

 

[ClassyPenguin]

He isn't really pushing that hard. In fact, his whole "push" is so bad, one could theorize he doesn't really want to get involved in Syria.

No way, don't you see he is trying to start WWIII to get the order for Agenda 21!
Sheeple.

 

[Angry Fork]

"It's also an empire thing obviously, the US has to get involved heavily militarily in at least one country every decade or else the point of our defense budget becomes criticized and questioned. There's no real reason to do any of this shit except to justify US dominance everywhere. This has nothing to do with human rights or any red line bullshit."

"There is no moral goal here, it's to proxy war with Russia and try to get our companies milking Syria for whatever it's worth."

That has been US foreign policy since WW2. I don't know what you think is conspiracy there.

 

[The Librarian]

He probably has a buddy who he thinks helped him get elected more than the dirty proles who voted for him and he's being loyal. That's how he operates. There's no thought given to common sense or reasonable ideas it's just i scratch yours you scratch mine.

I'm a dirty prole? Being called a prole I can handle, but I'm not even pretty?

 

[Tamanon]

I'm a dirty prole? Being called a prole I can handle, but I'm not even pretty?

Dirty and pretty aren't dependent variables.

 

[zero shift]

So I am in the part of Wisconsin in which is testing the privatized emissions tests. Basically you go to certain car mechanic places and they test your car there.

It took longer than usual, but the place was closer to where I was at. I was surprised in that they seemed to be testing my car a lot. Like starting and stopping it a lot. Saw that they started scamming some people.

Does this shit even save money? Its suppose to save $500,000, but we all know how Walker's plans often plan out.

 

[The Librarian]

Dirty and pretty aren't dependent variables.

Shut-up, you dirty prole!

 

[ClassyPenguin]

So I am in the part of Wisconsin in which is testing the privatized emissions tests. Basically you go to certain car mechanic places and they test your car there.

It took longer than usual, but the place was closer to where I was at. I was surprised in that they seemed to be testing my car a lot. Like starting and stopping it a lot. Saw that they started scamming some people.

Does this shit even save money? Its suppose to save $500,000, but we all know how Walker's plans often plan out.

California has this as you can get an emissions test anywhere that has the equipment and license. We have rolling emissions in Cali now, like DUI checkpoints too.
http://www.bar.ca.gov/03_barprograms/smog_check.html

 

[Angry Fork]

I'm a dirty prole? Being called a prole I can handle, but I'm not even pretty?

lol sorry, I meant it as the way rich people see Obama voters not that they were genuinely sub-human (or maybe you were joking too which I think is the case in which case disregard this).

 

[Oblivion]

Is he really pushing that hard? He gave a speech with the decision, then went to Congress. He's also been pushing hard to ensure it's a very limited response and not an actual engagement.

He isn't really pushing that hard. In fact, his whole "push" is so bad, one could theorize he doesn't really want to get involved in Syria.

But doesn't he still want to go in, regardless of what congress' final vote is? Isn't that what everyone's been saying?

 

[ivysaur12]

So, is anyone going to buy's Rush's children's' book?

(I'm so thankful that Syria looks like it won't pass the House. I only more Dems vote No than Yes)

 

[Tamanon]

But doesn't he still want to go in, regardless of what congress' final vote is? Isn't that what everyone's been saying?

He was asserting the power of the executive branch states he could go in.

 

[KingK]

But doesn't he still want to go in, regardless of what congress' final vote is? Isn't that what everyone's been saying?

If he was going to go in regardless of how the vote turns out, why call on Congress for a vote in the first place?

My guess is the administration came to the conclusion after much deliberation that there are no good options at all, including doing nothing, and that the least bad option was to use limited military intervention (I would disagree and think that doing nothing is in fact the least shitty option here).

There's a high chance that the outcome of Syria will be shitty, regardless of what we do or don't do, so Obama wanted Congress to vote so they would share the blame for any future shitty outcomes in Syria. However, at the same time he's reaffirming his authority to act without Congress, I'm assuming for the event that more chemical weapons are used in the future or something.

 

[The Librarian]

lol sorry, I meant it as the way rich people see Obama voters not that they were genuinely sub-human (or maybe you were joking too which I think is the case in which case disregard this).

Not sure I entirely believe that. Given what else is in your post, you seem to be talking about your own view of Obama voters.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Not sure I entirely believe that. Given what else is in your post, you seem to be talking about your own view of Obama voters.

How could you possibly arrive at that conclusion after reading his post?

 

[Giant Panda]

I guess I'm one of the few Poligaffers that supports a Syrian strike. If Congress votes against it that will be that, but I really hope they approve it. It seems like it's becoming clearer that we should have intervened long ago against Assad back when the rebels were mostly moderate. So many lives would have been saved, and maybe the violence wouldn't have spilled over to Iraq as badly as it has now. But hindsight is 20/20.

At the rate things are going I wouldn't be surprised if we have to intervene eventually anyway. The chemical weapons are going to need to be secured or destroyed if Assad starts to use more of them or if he looses control of them. Additionally it seems unacceptable to me that Assad could retain power after the crimes he has committed. I figure if we intervene now the sooner the conflict ends and hopefully a negotiated solution can be forced upon Assad so that he gives up power to a transitional government.

 

[kingkitty]

I would be less hesitant towards a strike against Syria if we could at least have gotten some UN love and support. But it seems like the only big supporter left is France.

Man, I wish I could take a peek at the classified video/phonecall/etc evidence. Quickly, someone light the Assange/Snowden-Signal!

 

[R10Neymarfan]

Should we even care? Most of GAF doesn't.

 

[The Librarian]

How could you possibly arrive at that conclusion after reading his post?

Hm? That's the way I read it. Could be bad wording, that's why I said "seem."

 

[ivysaur12]

In today's awful political article of the day making rounds on Facebook:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/was-mitt-romney-right-about-everything

Ten months after Mitt Romney shuffled off the national stage in defeat — consigned, many predicted, to a fate of instant irrelevance and permanent obscurity — Republicans are suddenly celebrating the presidential also-ran as a political prophet.

From his widely mocked warnings about a hostile Russia to his adamant opposition to the increasingly unpopular implementation of Obamacare, the ex-candidate’s canon of campaign rhetoric now offers cause for vindication — and remorse — to Romney’s friends, supporters, and former advisers.

“I think about the campaign every single day, and what a shame it is who we have in the White House,” said Spencer Zwick, who worked as Romney’s finance director and is a close friend to his family. “I look at things happening and I say, you know what? Mitt was actually right when he talked about Russia, and he was actually right when he talked about how hard it was going to be to implement Obamacare, and he was actually right when he talked about the economy. I think there are a lot of everyday Americans who are now feeling the effects of what [Romney] said was going to happen, unfortunately.”

Of course, there is a long tradition in American politics of dwelling on counterfactuals and re-litigating past campaigns after your candidate loses. Democrats have argued through the years that America would have avoided two costly Middle East wars, solved climate change, and steered clear of the housing crisis if only the Supreme Court hadn’t robbed Al Gore of his rightful victory in 2000. But a series of White House controversies and international crises this year — including a Syrian civil war that is threatening to pull the American military into the mix — has caused Romney’s fans to erupt into a chorus of told-you-so’s at record pace.

The real, astounding, hard-hitting journalism occurs when he asks Jennifer Rubin if she feels vindicated about Romney. I'm sure that was a really difficult quote to get. Kudos.

 

[The Librarian]

^^^ Brian Beutler was having a field day with that article.

 

[ivysaur12]

^^^ Brian Beutler was having a field day with that article.

Conservatives think that Romney would have been a better president?! What?!

 

[ClassyPenguin]

“I look at things happening and I say, you know what? Mitt was actually right when he talked about Russia, and he was actually right when he talked about how hard it was going to be to implement Obamacare, and he was actually right when he talked about the economy. I think there are a lot of everyday Americans who are now feeling the effects of what [Romney] said was going to happen, unfortunately.”

 

[zero shift]

California has this as you can get an emissions test anywhere that has the equipment and license. We have rolling emissions in Cali now, like DUI checkpoints too.
http://www.bar.ca.gov/03_barprograms/smog_check.html

So California was the real testing ground. How has it worked?

 

[PhoenixDark]

He isn't really pushing that hard. In fact, his whole "push" is so bad, one could theorize he doesn't really want to get involved in Syria.

Or maybe he's, you know, bad at selling things to the public. Healthcare, NSA, the stimulus, etc comes to mind.