War with Syria

Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,485
73,568
I wouldn't say he totally saved face. He just changed the dialog. He still looks weak in a lot of people's eyes for not acting with his full authority to perform what he thinks is right. He is passing the responsibility for intervention to Congress, which imo is where it should be since this isn't an immediate national security issue.
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,518
583
Simas_sl said:
I know its cynical to talk about politics in all of this, but politically this was a great move by Obama, and one I did not expect.
Click to expand...
Credit where credit is due. It was a very nice move.

Obama "I'm against killing babies, what about you Congress? Are you against killing babies? Don't tell me you're _for_ killing babies. A vote against bombing Syria is a vote for killing babies"

Congress will vote for the bombing. 2 points for Obama.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Nah, they won't. Congress is just fine with killing babies. Congress is not even ashamed of killing babies.

The Syria hawkish minority is very loud but otherwise not very impressive. It won't be like 95-0-5 or anything stupid like that, but it's not gonna pass the Senate. It stands even less chance in the House just because it would be Obama who was allowed to order it.

Edit: I don't mean he pulled a Slick Willy. I mean that speech makes him come off about as well as he can possibly come off barring a time machine and changing his statement of "red line = u git bombed" to "red line =" well, basically anything else. And you know, there's still not even much consensus that it was Assad's regime that crossed that line to begin with. So if the UN reports come back that it wasn't Assad, that speech makes him look strong instead of weak. If I was a little more of a conspiracy theorist that would make me wonder if maybe Barry knows something that he's not letting on.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,485
73,568
Iannis_sl said:
Nah, they won't. Congress is just fine with killing babies. Congress is not even ashamed of killing babies.

The Syria hawkish minority is very loud but otherwise not very impressive. It won't be like 95-0-5 or anything stupid like that, but it's not gonna pass the Senate. It stands even less chance in the House just because it would be Obama who was allowed to order it.

Edit: I don't mean he pulled a Slick Willy. I mean that speech makes him come off about as well as he can possibly come off barring a time machine and changing his statement of "red line = u git bombed" to "red line =" well, basically anything else. And you know, there's still not even much consensus that it was Assad's regime that crossed that line to begin with. So if the UN reports come back that it wasn't Assad, that speech makes him look strong instead of weak. If I was a little more of a conspiracy theorist that would make me wonder if maybe Barry knows something that he's not letting on.
Click to expand...
I think if they had hard evidence that Assad ordered the attacks they'd show it. So I'm assuming Pres. Obama knows they don't have hard evidence.
 
Burnem Wizfyre

Burnem Wizfyre

Log Wizard
11,857
19,779
Jait_sl said:
It could just as easily devolve. Here I'll play a member of Congress....

So you're saying you LIKE chemical weapons attacks??? A vote against a strike, is a vote for terrorism!
Click to expand...
AQ and the rebels were found to be responsible for the chemical attack, a vote to strike is a vote to support terrorist, terrorist aligned with those that took out the towers!
 
Falstaff

Falstaff

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,313
3,169
Tuco_sl said:
I think if they had hard evidence that Assad ordered the attacks they'd show it. So I'm assuming Pres. Obama knows they don't have hard evidence.
Click to expand...
Who knows what these guys are getting in their classified briefings. He could be playing them directly against the American people saying, "You know you can't deny the shit we are showing you, but I dare you to try".

Of course it's classified so members of Congress don't even have to acknowledge what's in them to their constituents.
 
Borzak

Borzak

Bronze Baron of the Realm
24,703
32,093
Take an issue with really low public approval, send it to congress. If congress goes along with it and it goes bad blame it on congress. If congress doesn't do anything and it goes bad blame it on congress for inaction. That's how this works.
 
Jait

Jait

Molten Core Raider
5,035
5,317
Iannis_sl said:
This is not passing the buck. This is exactly what the Presidentshoulddo when considering military action which could spark a larger conflict.
Click to expand...
Right. Which is why he did it weeks ago, and not after the House of Commons voted no. Which is insanely ironic considering our origins as a nation.
 
vGrade

vGrade

Potato del Grande
1,680
2,579
What is it called when your life is so shitty you hope for things like war and huge natural disasters to wreck people lives thus bringing them down to your level so you can feel a little better that day/a little more equal
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,485
73,568
vGrade_sl said:
What is it called when your life is so shitty you hope for things like war and huge natural disasters to wreck people lives thus bringing them down to your level so you can feel a little better that day/a little more equal
Click to expand...
evil?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
vGrade_sl said:
What is it called when your life is so shitty you hope for things like war and huge natural disasters to wreck people lives thus bringing them down to your level so you can feel a little better that day/a little more equal
Click to expand...
Being Paul Krugman?

rrr_img_42117.jpg
 
Jait

Jait

Molten Core Raider
5,035
5,317
Famm_sl said:
Schadenfreude?
Click to expand...
That's just taking pleasure from others misfortunes, aka "a hater". That word gets tossed around way too much as a generalization. All of us have Schadenfreuden.

People who actually want disaster to strike because of their shitty lives? Someone too cowardly to off themselves, I guess.
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,518
583
Borzak_sl said:
Take an issue with really low public approval, send it to congress. If congress goes along with it and it goes bad blame it on congress. If congress doesn't do anything and it goes bad blame it on congress for inaction. That's how this works.
Click to expand...
Which is why the better move was for him to annouce he wasn't going to do anything about Syria beyond econmoic sanctions or whatever today. The best outcome is us not bombing Syria. I think he's confident he can get Congress to approve the measure and, as noted, I think he's right. So at the end of the day, we're still bombing Syria.
 
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,787
213,124
this is like the shcool bully telling the little kid that him and his friends are gonna beat him up after school. then the little kid says, what friends? the bully turns around and sees all his friends have ditched him and gone to their classes. then the bully says, uh ill still get you! then after school and the little kid waits around for the bully and when he sees him the bully says, you're lucky i have to help my mother around the house. ill still get you this week..... or a month from now. you just dont know when!
 
Borzak

Borzak

Bronze Baron of the Realm
24,703
32,093
tad10_sl said:
Which is why the better move was to for him to annouce he wasn't going to do anything about Syria beyond econmoic sanctions or whatever today. The best outcome is us not bombing Syria. I think he's confident he can get Congress to approve the measure and, as noted, I think he's right. So at the end of the day, we're still bombing Syria.
Click to expand...
it's a weenie political move when he also says he could do it without congressional approval, but then turns around and seeks congressional approval. He's looking for an easy out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.