Only a fool would imagine that the President makes every decision in government. Congress is insisting. Got nothing to do with Syria. I've debunked your hatred of poor people before. More nonsense without substance. It's getting really hard to take you seriously about anything.
Hatred of poor people? I have no hatred of poor people. Just the lazy good for nothing sob's that choose to live off the govt, I feel sorry for the ones that look but can't find a full time job. And the families that are struggling because companies cut their hours. Damn straight congress is insisting they're trying to keep Barry from starting WW3.
He's not engaging congress because they insisted or that he even gives a damn what they think. He's spend a lot of time and effort creating this stinking pile of shit known as Obama's Middle East Foreign Policy. And then in the last couple of weeks he tossed a couple of turds of stupidity on the shit pile. Now he's afraid that if he jumps in by himself and he's the only person who stinks, he won't have anyone else to blame. Next to campaigning, blaming other people for his problems is what he does best.
You don't know this. You mean getting us out of Iraq on schedule, getting us out of Afghanistan on schedule, killing bin Ladin and Awlaki, deposing Qadaffi, isolating Iran, killing Somali pirates, hitting terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen, and strengthening Israel? All of that is successful Obama Middle East Foreign Policy. I am on record as opposing military action against Syria but it's not because of disastrous Obama foreign policy. It's because it won't win us anything except embarrassing Assad, reminding Iran of our capabilities, demeaning Russia, enhancing Israeli security, and helping the Syrian resistance. I think we have already made our point in all those areas. We should let Syria stew in its own juice. That conflict doesn't threaten us. You don't have a clue what Obama thinks. Both Bushes sought to seek authority from Congress and to form allied coalitions before going to war. It's the smart play. Obama is just doing what smart Presidents do. Obama is blaming Assad for this. WTF are you talking about? Be specific.
whats this red :http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/US-reroutes-aircraft-carrier-for-possible-help-with-Syria-325010
Red to call President Obama's ME efforts successful is a stretch. You have cited events that he can take credit for (as all Presidents do) however as we have seen over the past 12 years tactical success doesn't translate into strategic success. Note I include W as well. In fact the supposed reconnection with the ME the president talked about was at best ephemeral. The IS has markedly less influence and impact today than when Obama took office. Ask for cites well CNN just did a piece and there have been opinion pieces from places such as the Brookings Inst (hardly a right wing soul there) also public statements by ME commentators and politicians back my contention up. In terms of putting a strong coherent policy together he has failed. Is the mess in the ME his fault? No and to be fair he could only effect the margins. However he has shown no long term goal short of avoiding leadership and taking responsibility and that has made the whole situation worse. In many ways I agree with you about Syria and commiting our forces in the ME again. However Assad and his generals need an object lesson. I would take my time a get a fix on his position then I'd target him with a drone cruise middle as Reagan did Kadaffi or hit them from the air as Clinton did Serbia. BTW if he that without congressional approval I'd support him. Also he would rise in my estimation. Right now Assad and his generals feel they are winning and with Putin's help are safe. They need to be shown differently and Putin is a bully who needs his ass kicked ( metophorically).
That . . . is stacking the deck. If you are going to rattle sabers, rattle a big fucking sabre. I kind of expected this, as soon as I heard that the Limeys were sitting this one out. Their base on Cypress could have provided air cover. The Falkland Islands taught us that you can never put major naval vessels into a fight without air cover, not even against a pipsqueak opponent, if that opponent has modern aircraft and anti-ship missiles. If that carrier moves into the Mediterranean along with those two big-deck amphibious warfare ships, there will be air cover. Those mud Marines are just for show, not for a sea assault. But those helicopter carriers not only can carry more anti-submarine helicopters, but Harrier jets, too. Plus, where the carriers go, so go the fleet submarines to join whatever others are already in the Med. Both the carrier and the subs can attack Syria from the relative safety of the Red Sea if they have overflight rights on the Sinai from Egypt. Good thing we own the Egyptian military. A Morsi-led Egypt might deny this or even transit of the Suez Canal. And the big amphibious ships will have a huge air-sea and combat rescue capability. Which is interesting . . . You know, everybody is talking about limited naval cruise missile strikes, but no one in the administration or Pentagon has ruled out a more substantial bombing campaign. You have to figure that an effort of this size will include Air Force assets. Heavy bombers can hit Syria with cruise missiles directly from their bases in the US and Diego Garcia. Count on it. They can also carry the big GPS bombs that can really make a mess of Syrian military bases. We already have F-16's openly in Jordan, to defend them we say. However F-16's are mostly used for strike missions these days. We have access to allied air bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Italy and Oman. If we start hearing about F-22 and F-15 deployments to any of these bases, then this thing is on. There is still a chance that Obama is just speaking softly and swinging the Big Stick, but I don't know . . .
I hope he hits Assad and his forces hard. Again an object lesson needs to be given about the use of WOMDs. (I bet he got them from Iraq and Saddam in '03). I have generally supported staying out of Syria when the foreign fighters came in. As I think Gyver said (I think)let them kill each other and let God sort it out. However go after Assad and make him and his flunk ies pay.
Nice try, but political rhetoric can't match the real successes that I have already listed. Many commentators have also praised the Presidents policies. The right really wants Obama to be bad on foreign policy (see the Benghazi witch hunt) but the fact is, he has had remarkable success. What actual strategic failures can you note that are Obama's responsibility? How? How has he "avoided leadership"? He took it in Libya. He took it in Afghanistan and the fight against Al Qaida, etc. etc. He's taking it now. Time to be specific, the rhetoric is just more right-wing propaganda. What goal are you expecting? We are supporting our allies in Israel, Saudi, the Gulf States, NATO, Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait. We are isolating our enemies in Iran and Syria. We are taking no shit at all from Pakistan. We are staying out of the Israeli/Palestinian tar baby until both sides get more serious. We are depriving the Chinese and Russians of the influence in the region. What more do you want? Jesus to return and establish world peace with Obama at his side? I'm being cynical, but I'm serious. How can you make a case for him "avoiding leadership" and having no "long-term goal"? I don't think we will be targeting Assad. Taking him down would only make the situation more chaotic and force us to get even more involved. It could also fail, as did Clintons two attempts to kill bin Ladin and Reagan's attempt to kill Quadaffi. I think the object lesson is going to be directed at Assads military assets. The rank and file Syrian army is composed of conscripts that are subject to losing heart in this fight and leaders who are subject to changing sides if the balance is tipped. I imagine that Assda and his general have serious doubts about their ability to win this--especially if the US gets involved. Putin can't get involved militarily here, he just doesn't have the assets. He's going to muck it up elsewhere for us, though. We have to be careful. There are Russian advisers and technicians on the ground wherever their equipment is. We take a risk of killing Russians with air strikes.
You are so full of shit on this one Red. We have not supported Israel. Our other partners are feeling so secure about the Obama leadership that they are just falling right in behind him . . . .oh but they aren't are they. And I was impressed with how all of those allies he has been taking care of really lined up behind him on this one; he's got the French - and they have conditions. You need to ship them some of that Obamaaid you're guzzling. . OH yea, and Iran and Syria they act like they are sooo afraid of big bad Barak. He really has them behaving themselves. He mishandled the relationship with the Egyptian Military but at least he seems to be trying to catch back up there. So its good to know he can learn. He didn't lead in Libya, he dithered. Decisiveness is not in his toolbox. And then he and his team responded so stupidly to the Benghazi debacle that they pissed off the new Libyan leadership to the point that we couldn't get our FBI in there for weeks. By then anybody else that wanted to had already been through the crime scene. I guess you better call the new Libyan leadership and tell them they need to stop listening to right wing propaganda. Obama is indecisive on big decisions both domestic and foreign. And everyone in the Middle East considers him weak, friend and foe. Obama's red line in the sand has turned into a farce. If he goes in for the pre-advertised limited bombing - Assad ends up looking stronger and wins - and when he wins Iran wins - and Russia wins. So his leadership has now put us in a position where we have to do twice much as we would have with a surprise attach just because of the run up of expectations. And what do you think Assad going to be doing? He already has a very effective anti air defense. Putin has already told Obama to piss off, you think he won't supply Assad with some intel or ordinance. Obama has done some good things, but ME policy isn't one of them. And as Fareed Zakaria (he's a commentator, hardly right wing) said Sunday "this is a lesson on how not to conduct a Foreign Policy". He just really doesn't have the level of leadership qualities needed to be an effective President. He campaigns well, he speaks well, but falls short when it's time to act.
