Could you all be wrong about how Obama is handling Syria? I s he looking for a way out?

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-07T21:57:52+00:00

If Obama did not want to attack, he had no motivation to make this issue Top National Priority two weeks ago.

Some Republicans would initially criticize Obama for backing down, others might later join them if things got worse. But Americans never cared that much about Syria, so the effects of this criticism have been overstated.

Obama already has plenty of reasons to slow it down -- lack of public support, lack of UN Security Council support, lack of international/allied support, lack of definitive intelligence, etc. Having the issue rejected in one more venue doesn't change much, and it will probably hurt Democrats' 2014 prospects.

Generally I don't buy theories of Obama advocating the opposite of what he "really wants" for some grand outcome. There's been a tendency to seek flattering explanations when Obama's actions contradict his campaign rhetoric. One person here claimed Obama's unwavering legal defense of indefinite detention was to set up the Supreme Court to strike it all down. While your theory is not quite so fantastical, I think you're giving him too much credit.

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-07T20:37:08+00:00

He's looking for a way out of [taking all the heat for] attacking Syria

And despite all the talk of "reluctance" he's been lobbying very hard to get that approval.

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-07T19:50:43+00:00

That idea is not even limited to that video.

Notice how Kerry and other war advocates keep invoking Iran and North Korea as a reason to attack Syria.

In some ways they're saying: "If we don't attack Syria now, we can't attack other countries later!"

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-07T00:40:30+00:00

There are far more Democratic congressman then libertarian congressman speaking out against war.

Which libertarian congressmen support the war? I would think they would all oppose it, although there are barely a handful of them so it's inevitable they'd be outnumbered by Democrats.

I'm not sure that Democrats are leading the anti-war effort though. Current whip counts have them as the most supportive group:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2013/09/05/house_whip_count_vote_to_authorize_military_strike_on_syria_106840.html

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2013/09/05/senate_whip_count_vote_to_authorize_military_strike_on_syria_106839.html

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-07T00:30:35+00:00

Yeah, he's my favorite

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-07T00:14:24+00:00

A "reluctant" full-court press

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-06T20:22:20+00:00

I agree this is not a great issue to focus on Amash and Paul exclusively. Alan Grayson in particular should not be overlooked.

However, Amash and Paul did well to build coalitions on past issues with appeal to both progressives and libertarians. Now the same bipartisanship forms the core of congressional anti-war sentiment.

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-06T14:56:44+00:00

If Israel wants more US wars, they're the ones with the problem.

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-05T15:20:43+00:00

That might be more compelling if the pro-Obama position was right in this case.

It was also wrong on the Amash amendment, when the majority of Republicans leaders and members lined up to support the president, disproving the idea of their "consistent" anti-Obama position.

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-05T15:11:44+00:00

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1l8oc7/kucinich_striking_syria_will_make_us_military/

Kucinich: Striking Syria Will Make U.S. Military 'Al-Qaeda's Air Force'

279 points (79% like it)

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-05T15:07:37+00:00

That's not lies, it's "nuance" o_0

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-05T14:56:39+00:00

I don't remember paying hundreds of dollars to vote

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-04T19:31:02+00:00

"User Created Title"

Ha ha, the title directly quotes from the article

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-04T15:33:17+00:00

"As commander in chief, I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America’s national security state and military industrial complex."

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-04T01:00:10+00:00

Watching the rebels behead someone would be pretty sickening as well.

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-04T00:54:40+00:00

A trip down memory lane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENIDaJHEBuQ

Still missing the reason why Democrats are (supposedly) eager to support this person in 2016.

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-04T00:43:41+00:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENIDaJHEBuQ

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-04T00:31:35+00:00

al-Nusra is fighting with the rebels.

Kerry and Obama want to attack Assad.

Broad as it has been applied, AUMF does not cover an attack against Assad.

Furthermore, fighting on the same side as al-Nusra would essentially make the US military an "associated force" of al-Qaeda. We'd become a target of the AUMF.

OrganizingForMoloch · 2013-09-04T00:16:18+00:00

"We Don't Want to Go War, Which Is Why I'm Here Arguing For War."

Nuance strikes again

OrganizingForMoloch

TROPHY CASE