Reality Check for Obama Supporters

[BigBallinStalin]

Hi there. How's it going? How do you feel knowing that your president is as aggressive as Bush 2.0?

[oVo]

Will this President tell us lies to justify military action
like the previous administration? Guess we'll find out
soon enough. Now I have to wonder if it's actually the
Oval Office that is so hawkish or if there is some other
political mechanism in Washington behind the scene that
maintains this illogical heavy handed diplomacy soon to
be followed by war policy?

[rishaed]

Theoretically I'm not an Obama supporter, but my friends who were, are idiots...

[Symmetry]

He's not my president, he is yours. Reality check, eh?

[Frigidus]

He's not my president, he is yours. Reality check, eh?

Checkmate.

[Symmetry]

He's not my president, he is yours. Reality check, eh?

Checkmate.

You'd hope so, but I suspect the BS will go on, and on.

[oVo]

Reality check? I'm a citizen of the United States of America,
which means Barack Obama is my President.

[BigBallinStalin]

He's not my president, he is yours. Reality check, eh?

You could have owned portions of Obama's authority by contributing to his campaign, but we may have missed the deadline. I'm sure he'll have other avenues for stock-ownership soon though!

[Phatscotty]

I feel good in the fact the I voted for and elected and supported the serious people who are at this very moment standing and fighting against Obama and his everlasting military aggression and constant blundering.

[Phatscotty]

What I think it is: Obama supporters have judged and labeled any criticism of any policy of Obama's as racist for so long now that they are afraid if they oppose Obama on Syria that it will make them racist.

[Lootifer]

He's not my president, he is yours. Reality check, eh?

Wheres AoGs ostrich "Wut" meme when you need it.

[saxitoxin]

I have to wonder if it's actually the Oval Office that is so hawkish or if there is some other political mechanism in Washington behind the scene that
maintains this illogical heavy handed diplomacy soon to be followed by war policy?

Occam's razor suggests there is no conspiracy by the Illuminati/UN/Freemasons but the Obama is just a run-of-the-mill sociopath.

[oVo]

I’d say the chances of missile strikes are now less than one in ten. The sudden turn of events has already led the Syrian government to reverse its longstanding policy of denying that it possesses chemical weapons, a situation that would have Monty Python-like possibilities if not for the daily horrors. That move suggests the better possibilities of diplomacy. …

Even if the plan works, Syria will be no closer to the fall of Assad or to his negotiated departure. The killing will go on. Death by gas might be taken off the table, but children and other human beings, by the thousands, will still be pulverized in indiscriminate shelling and burned to death by incendiary devices.* There will be more to celebrate in Washington and at the United Nations than in Homs and Aleppo.

In the strange period since August 21st, when the poison gas attacks took place, the White House has seemed incapable of strategic thinking. The State Department seems incapable of coherent communication. Republicans who never raised a question about Iraq are now in full flight from the use of force because they don’t like the Commander-in-Chief. The United Nations can’t bring itself to condemn chemical weapons regardless of who’s using them. Assad’s war crime has turned into Obama’s embarrassment. Everything is upside down; nothing seems to be working as it should.

The New Yorker

*This has been going on for a couple years and it would have seemed that if the international community was going to be outraged? This was already enough to do it.

[BigBallinStalin]

When did the Syrian govt. deny it had chemical weapons?

Thousands of children and other human beings die from other means, so given some quantity of resources, what are the criteria for allocating resources between the charity/weapons to Syria and all other goods (e.g. cancer R&D, infrastructure, welfare, reduced taxes, etc.)?

And would "intentional intervention" cause more deaths or less?
*Have arms shipments into the hands of rebels prolonged the conflict or shortened it? (looks like one form of international intervention has caused more deaths). Again, it's not just about deaths; there's other moral criteria at play (If death was all that mattered, then living under a safe, secure dictatorship would pose no moral qualms...).


(That article is cunningly pro-war. If we substituted "Obama" with "Dubya," would the author have been more likely to be pro-war or less pro-war?)

[oVo]

Here's an interesting statistic for you...
Syria is currently the most dangerous place to live
with an average of 150 violent deaths daily.

What country do you think is currently Number Two

That would be the United States, averaging about 50 violent deaths daily
and 9000 gun deaths annually.

[saxitoxin]

Now Obama is peddling superstitions as health advice.

The truth about water, first lady Michelle Obama says, is that drinking more can make you healthier. Except some health experts are critical of the advice, arguing that it simply doesn't hold water.

Not so fast, experts told CNN's "New Day."

"There's no good evidence that drinking extra water is going to lead to a healthier existence," said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb of the University of Pennsylvania.

The White House "decided to sort of support some of these urban myths that have been really debunked over the years," Goldfarb said.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_c2

These people absolutely hate logic, reason and science. Next Mitch will be advocating leeches to cure infections. This really is government by the idiots, for the idiots.

[oVo]

Try drinking less water and see where that gets you.

[Lootifer]

The best thing about water is it makes you poop better

[saxitoxin]

Try drinking less water and see where that gets you.

Hey, I think it's great Obama is taking science advice from Gen. Jack Ripper. Who needs doctors with their fancy book learnin', anyway?

[Baron Von PWN]

What's interesting here is that Obama could have gone ahead if he wanted to. He has the power as president to authorize military strikes. However despite all his talk of national interest, security threats ect, he hasn't done that. Instead he brings it to congress,but says we should wait till it reconvenes and goes along with Putin's likely unworkable plan, it's as though the white house has no coherent strategy with regards to Syria.

"We need to intervene due to x,y and z, but let's wait two weeks for congress. What's this Putin has proposed some plan designed to buy Assad more time? Hold off talking about this congress, we need to pursue this. "

To me it seems like the white house really doesn't want to intervene, as they are taking any excuse to delay doing so, or are completely confused as to what to do.

[oVo]

...it's as though the white house has no coherent strategy with regards to Syria.

Nobody does. It's a mess with no simple solution.
Assad could accept political asylum and walk away
and Syria is still a mess.

[BigBallinStalin]

What's interesting here is that Obama could have gone ahead if he wanted to. He has the power as president to authorize military strikes. However despite all his talk of national interest, security threats ect, he hasn't done that. Instead he brings it to congress,but says we should wait till it reconvenes and goes along with Putin's likely unworkable plan, it's as though the white house has no coherent strategy with regards to Syria.

"We need to intervene due to x,y and z, but let's wait two weeks for congress. What's this Putin has proposed some plan designed to buy Assad more time? Hold off talking about this congress, we need to pursue this. "

To me it seems like the white house really doesn't want to intervene, as they are taking any excuse to delay doing so, or are completely confused as to what to do.

I'd say they want to invade but cannot muster the support. Usually, a president has more 'freedom' (autocratic ability) during his 2nd term since he's not going to be reelected, so to me his 2nd term activities are often a good indicator of what he himself really wants.

Another constraint is the recent US/NATO-Libyan war. Had his (un)declaration of war against Libya in 2011 not occurred, he might've been able to pull off the same thing with Syria (no congressional vote and all that).

[Baron Von PWN]

What's interesting here is that Obama could have gone ahead if he wanted to. He has the power as president to authorize military strikes. However despite all his talk of national interest, security threats ect, he hasn't done that. Instead he brings it to congress,but says we should wait till it reconvenes and goes along with Putin's likely unworkable plan, it's as though the white house has no coherent strategy with regards to Syria.

"We need to intervene due to x,y and z, but let's wait two weeks for congress. What's this Putin has proposed some plan designed to buy Assad more time? Hold off talking about this congress, we need to pursue this. "

To me it seems like the white house really doesn't want to intervene, as they are taking any excuse to delay doing so, or are completely confused as to what to do.

I'd say they want to invade but cannot muster the support. Usually, a president has more 'freedom' (autocratic ability) during his 2nd term since he's not going to be reelected, so to me his 2nd term activities are often a good indicator of what he himself really wants.

Another constraint is the recent US/NATO-Libyan war. Had his (un)declaration of war against Libya in 2011 not occurred, he might've been able to pull off the same thing with Syria (no congressional vote and all that).

So they'd like to but are afraid (domestic) of what it will do to the democratic party and (internationally) what it would do to the US relations should he just go ahead and invade?

Maybe, I think it's a bit of lack of support, and their heart isn't really into it.

[BigBallinStalin]

What's interesting here is that Obama could have gone ahead if he wanted to. He has the power as president to authorize military strikes. However despite all his talk of national interest, security threats ect, he hasn't done that. Instead he brings it to congress,but says we should wait till it reconvenes and goes along with Putin's likely unworkable plan, it's as though the white house has no coherent strategy with regards to Syria.

"We need to intervene due to x,y and z, but let's wait two weeks for congress. What's this Putin has proposed some plan designed to buy Assad more time? Hold off talking about this congress, we need to pursue this. "

To me it seems like the white house really doesn't want to intervene, as they are taking any excuse to delay doing so, or are completely confused as to what to do.

I'd say they want to invade but cannot muster the support. Usually, a president has more 'freedom' (autocratic ability) during his 2nd term since he's not going to be reelected, so to me his 2nd term activities are often a good indicator of what he himself really wants.

Another constraint is the recent US/NATO-Libyan war. Had his (un)declaration of war against Libya in 2011 not occurred, he might've been able to pull off the same thing with Syria (no congressional vote and all that).

So they'd like to but are afraid (domestic) of what it will do to the democratic party and (internationally) what it would do to the US relations should he just go ahead and invade?

Maybe, I think it's a bit of lack of support, and their heart isn't really into it.

I'm not sure if they have the Greater Good of the Democratic Party in mind, thus they would constrain themselves. It works the other way. The Democrats and--to a lesser degree--the Republicans via their constituents (to some degree) are serving as a constraint on the president's ambitions (and his NSC + other groupthinkers').

Also, it's about the 'path-dependency' of Obama's previous actions (e.g. the war against Libya, the increasingly unyielding attitude against compromise, thus incurring the loss of potential logrolling/exchange of favors, etc.). In other words, the US-Libyan war wasn't taken as well as previously expected since it caused many Obama fans to become more skeptical of the imagined greatness of Obama. So, when his fans see that Obama wants to attack another country, they would marginally scale back support/faith in the president (Of course, his members' faith still runs strong--just not as strongly pre-war + other stuff).

One implication of this is that Obama does not wish to increasingly isolate himself from his future fanbase. By retaining as large as a possible such a fanbase, he'll increase his potential streams of future income (e.g. future speeches, charity foundations, etc.--just like Bill Clinton). Obama's got post-presidential profit-maximization in mind, so if the Public doesn't like war with Syria, then Obama will opt for more future streams of money at the opportunity cost of (currently) not going to war with Syria.

The opinions of the international community--in relation to the above--don't matter as much.

[saxitoxin]

Obama may not attack because it's looking like he (and by 'he' I mean Tel Aviv) just won. I was originally receptive to the Russian plan to take temporary custody of Syrian chemical weapons. However, to require Syria adhere to the CW pact and destroy them is intolerable and shows what a hapless also-ran Russia has become.

Syria, in 1999 IIRC, offered to destroy its chemical weapons provided Israel disclose and destroy its nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Israel just laughed. Now Israel gets a neutered Syria on its border without having to dismantle a single warhead. The whole middle east just got a lot more dangerous. There is absolutely nothing to restrain Israeli military action in the Levant now - Syria's chemical weapons were the only deterrent to Israeli military action in the region.

Who needs enemies when you have spineless, bumbling friends like Putin? Kudos, I guess, to Obama/Netanyahu for achieving their goal of a Middle East where Israel can attack anyone who looks at them wrong. Sadly, I have to admit it was a masterful stroke of cunning by O&N.

Here's the US/Israel:


Here's Russia:

Nobody does. It's a mess with no simple solution. Assad could accept political asylum and walk away and Syria is still a mess.

That's a popular myth. The Syrian Army was engaged in a major and successful counter-offensive when the incident occurred. Terrorists were on the run and falling back on all fronts. If the Syrian Army is able to resume an unfettered offensive, and if the west stops supplying the terrorists, the war will be over in 6 months and the suffering of the Syrian people - 55% of whom support the government - will be alleviated. (Of course that may happen anyway and the FSA, et. al. are in for a rude surprise when the west pulls the carpet out from underneath and stops the gravy train once Syrian CW are gone.)