Ok, you get 2 or 3 liters of vodka, or whatever you like, and proceed as follows:
Drink a shot every time the President says "I". .... No, wait, that would kill you.
How about this: Drink a shot every time the President says "make no mistake". Mmmm - that would result in pretty severe alcohol toxicity as well.
Oh, heck. Just get blasted before the speech starts. That's more to the point.:2razz:
He just ****ed up by blaming a potential loss in support of his resolution on the "right". This speech should have been totally nonpartisan...
He just ****ed up by blaming a potential loss in support of his resolution on the "right". This speech should have been totally nonpartisan...
If you say the "right" is the GOP, the President is correct. Without a strong hand from Congress that Obama "may" attack, the GOP ties Obama's hands and gives Putin and Assad the win. The coalition that defeated the Amash/NSA amendment must stay intact...
This is the most nonpartisan I have seen him in a while and shows how we come from such different directions in so many respects. Why did Assad finally admit he had CW???
My Repub Congressman has been with the POTUS all along. We don't cotton to this kind of bull^^^^ politics on foreign policy in Illinois. Btw, how many Dead soldiers and costly weapons so far?
With one large exception (which you mentioned), I thought this was the best speech he has ever made.
He went down each point that a President should explain to the people.
And then there was the partisan stuff. He made it sound like the last 10 years of war was the fault of a previous President (past decade of Presidential war power growing unchecked / or something to that effect).
Plus the "to my friends on the right" comment.
All that aside, I still think it was a very good speech, where he explained his position very well, and very clearly.
On may points, no, most points, I agreed with him. He's correct regarding the risk to the US and the world. He's also correct that we cannot just stand on the sidelines, and watch such atrocities occur.
He didn't convince me that we actually have a plan, or that we understand what step two will be, or three, or four...
He didn't convince me that we know for sure that the Assad regime ordered the attack; although it appears that we have evidence that Assad's troops may have in fact been the ones that attacked.
Summary: 1) Very good speech explaining the why, and 2) should have been non-partisan, and 3) did not explain what we should expect if the planned attack doesn't change the dynamic, and lastly 4) what happens if the Russians or Chinese or Iranians (or anyone else) respond against us.
A good analysis, but no one will respond but Assad, and if he's willing to use CW on his own citizens (although not proven), then there's no telling what his response might be...
My guess is that any vote will be bipartisan against intervention, otherwise he would still be pressing for an immediate vote. He's looking for blame as is the norm...
Unfortunately there are too many people in this country, and more than is comfortable for me in our government, that actually think that a poison gas attack by a terrorist cannot happen here. That's it's too hard, or too technical.
They're wrong.
Unfortunately there are too many people in this country, and more than is comfortable for me in our government, that actually think that a poison gas attack by a terrorist cannot happen here. That's it's too hard, or too technical.
They're wrong.
There's no good plan or way to do so. First, the CW's are in the middle of an active war zone, therefore there's no way to safely get rid of them. Second, Al Qaeda would love to get their hands on the delivery systems alone, much less the chemicals. Third, to actually collect the weapons would take months, and to safely dispose of them would take years, maybe decades. But then we get back to my first point... It's in the middle of an active war zone for God's sake. I wouldn't want to be the guy standing in the middle of the weapons cache when a mortar hit when I was trying to move the chemicals around outside.The problem I have is that we have no coherent plan to contain the CWs in Syria even if the President decides to strike.
Unfortunately you can. Or at least a variation of it that is still just as dangerous. It's basically an organophosphate pesticide with other chemicals added to it to aerosilize it (make it into a gas) when the warhead explodes. In fact, you don't even need a warhead, just a multi-sectional glass container to keep the chemicals separate until the glass breaks.You can't just make serin gas weapons in your basement like you can bombs.
That's very true.It would be a lot easier to affect a city's water supply.
My point is that if we are not "in it to win it" with any strike, we should do nothing...
He just ****ed up by blaming a potential loss in support of his resolution on the "right". This speech should have been totally nonpartisan...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?