- Joined
- Feb 6, 2013
- Messages
- 28,852
- Reaction score
- 18,983
- Location
- SW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Thank you. I'm certain the original poster actually meant that.Yes. Yes it is.
What a bunch of BS
Warmongers like you want to make me puke. Where were you when Saddam gassed tens of thousands of Kurds? Your premise is flimsy at best and not even 10% of the required justification to get involved in another unjust war.
Of course, where was anyone when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Really, no one cared. And when Saddam used gas on Iran, we were cheering him on.
Here comes the oh my Bush did it crowd.
I wonder, is it remotely poosible for you to even acknowledge the incopetence of the current loser in charge or does your illustration mean you simply accept total incompetence, lies and failure?
Of course, where was anyone when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Really, no one cared. And when Saddam used gas on Iran, we were cheering him on.
And no one has the integrity or principle to call him out on it.
He just stepped out of his own vomit and is blaming it on the world, the international community, on America, and on congress.
Has this charlatan no shame?
We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.
Q So you're confident it’s somehow under -- it's safe?
THE PRESIDENT: In a situation this volatile, I wouldn’t say that I am absolutely confident. What I’m saying is we’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.LINK
Contrary to what he says he did or didn't draw, here are his words exactly that was the inception of the use of red line in this instance:
So let me get this straight...
It's pretty clear the "We" being referenced here is the United States. Go read the transcript and see exactly how you can spin it as "Congress" or "The International Community". The fact that "we" are telling it to "every player in the region" makes it clear that said "we" can not be those players in the region because those people are being told about the red line rather than being the ones doing the telling.
Additionally, if he's suddenly speaking on behalf of the entire national community as some world wide figure head then it begs to question regarding the repeated use of "my"; when did Barak Obama gain the authority to "change the calculous" for the International Community?
No, it's blatantly clear that the "we" that was making the statement was that administration on behalf of America. The President set the Red Line in this instance. He may've set it in line with the general international feeling, he may've set it in a way that matches what other countries felt, but HE set THIS COUNTRIES Red Line for Syria at that moment when declaring it to the world. No one else. Him.
Ooof... While I haven't considered that, you may have a point.... though I don't even want to go there. The implications are just too scary.To be fair, it might not be a matter of shame. This guy might actually believe that "the world" is speaking through him whenever he graces us with his benevolent and graceful tones.
Great post. :thumbs: Thx.Contrary to what he says he did or didn't draw, here are his words exactly that was the inception of the use of red line in this instance:
So let me get this straight...
It's pretty clear the "We" being referenced here is the United States. Go read the transcript and see exactly how you can spin it as "Congress" or "The International Community". The fact that "we" are telling it to "every player in the region" makes it clear that said "we" can not be those players in the region because those people are being told about the red line rather than being the ones doing the telling.
Additionally, if he's suddenly speaking on behalf of the entire national community as some world wide figure head then it begs to question regarding the repeated use of "my"; when did Barak Obama gain the authority to "change the calculous" for the International Community?
No, it's blatantly clear that the "we" that was making the statement was that administration on behalf of America. The President set the Red Line in this instance. He may've set it in line with the general international feeling, he may've set it in a way that matches what other countries felt, but HE set THIS COUNTRIES Red Line for Syria at that moment when declaring it to the world. No one else. Him.
Contrary to what he says he did or didn't draw, here are his words exactly that was the inception of the use of red line in this instance:
So let me get this straight...
It's pretty clear the "We" being referenced here is the United States. Go read the transcript and see exactly how you can spin it as "Congress" or "The International Community". The fact that "we" are telling it to "every player in the region" makes it clear that said "we" can not be those players in the region because those people are being told about the red line rather than being the ones doing the telling.
Additionally, if he's suddenly speaking on behalf of the entire national community as some world wide figure head then it begs to question regarding the repeated use of "my"; when did Barak Obama gain the authority to "change the calculous" for the International Community?
No, it's blatantly clear that the "we" that was making the statement was that administration on behalf of America. The President set the Red Line in this instance. He may've set it in line with the general international feeling, he may've set it in a way that matches what other countries felt, but HE set THIS COUNTRIES Red Line for Syria at that moment when declaring it to the world. No one else. Him.
Of course, where was anyone when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Really, no one cared. And when Saddam used gas on Iran, we were cheering him on.
That's not true. I cared very much when Hussein gassed the Kurds, and I remember vividly the photos. I still care. And I never cheered this pig on; I was only sorry that he was crafty enough to have body-doubles and to escape heaven only knows how many assassins from multiple countries.
Reagan arranged for Saddam to get the poisonous gas and the helicopters to deploy it. He had a penchant for providing WMD to our mortal enemies. Just like he armed the Ayatolla and the Nicaraguan death squads and the jihadists in Afghanistan. In fact he seems to have supported every politically criminal organization on the planet.
And still, conservatives bow down at the altar of the Gipper. Makes you think maybe conservatism is morally bankrupt.
All he has to do is acknowledge the truth that it was the rebels that used the gas and he is off the hook. What a maroon!
Interesting how you have to go back to Reagan to try and justify Obama. I don't recall Saddam Hussein using those chemical weapons against the Iranian people in a war where Iran attacked Iraq? Were you against Truman dropping the Atomic bomb on Japan in a war? Anything to try and support Obama, suppose the red line was the international community too and not stated by Obama? Suppose all the Obama economic results are the fault of someone else? Do you or Obama ever take responsibility for anything that happens under his watch? I would say liberalism is intellectually bankrupt and an economic failure as the results show and foreign policy isn't any better. There isn't an enemy of this country anywhere in the world that is afraid of Obama
Reagan arranged for Saddam to get the poisonous gas and the helicopters to deploy it. He had a penchant for providing WMD to our mortal enemies. Just like he armed the Ayatolla and the Nicaraguan death squads and the jihadists in Afghanistan. In fact he seems to have supported every politically criminal organization on the planet.
And still, conservatives bow down at the altar of the Gipper. Makes you think maybe conservatism is morally bankrupt.
Reagan arranged for Saddam to get the poisonous gas and the helicopters to deploy it. He had a penchant for providing WMD to our mortal enemies. Just like he armed the Ayatolla and the Nicaraguan death squads and the jihadists in Afghanistan. In fact he seems to have supported every politically criminal organization on the planet.
And still, conservatives bow down at the altar of the Gipper. Makes you think maybe conservatism is morally bankrupt.
The Most Embarrassing President of My Lifetime
GOPUSA
By Doug Patton September 5, 2013 6:55 am
Congressional offices on Capitol Hill are reporting phone calls coming in at a rate of more than 200 to 1 against approving Obama’s plan to attack Syria.
Patton: The Most Embarrassing President of My Lifetime
“Speak softly and carry a big stick.” — Teddy Roosevelt
“The buck stops here.” — Harry Truman
“I didn’t set a red line.” — Barack Obama
Barack Obama is, without question, the most embarrassing president of my lifetime — and that is saying something, since my life so far has encompassed 12 presidencies, some of which have brought a lot of embarrassment to the nation. Even Richard Nixon, with his Watergate scandal, Jimmy Carter, with his malaise, and Bill Clinton, with his lewd behavior in the Oval Office, could not top this president for pure, unadulterated disgrace.
Of course, in Obama’s case, it is not a matter of personal scandal like it was for Clinton. By telling the world a year ago that he was drawing a red line in the hot desert sands of Syria — that red line being the use of chemical weapons — he created the debacle that currently threatens to engulf the Middle East. He blustered at the time that if the regime of Bashar al-Assad crosses that red line, there will be a price to pay. No one yet knows what that price will be, but from the current discussion, it appears that it will involve the destruction of at least three camels, four sheep, a half-dozen goats and an abandoned aspirin factory. That oughta show ‘em!
What it will do, in all likelihood, is unify the Islamic crazies in the Middle East and turn Assad into a regional hero, emboldening him to attack Israel secure in the knowledge that the United States has no stomach for a wider war.
Congressional offices on Capitol Hill are reporting phone calls coming in at a rate of more than 200 to 1 against approving Obama’s plan to attack Syria. Republican and Democrats alike are being bombarded with negative responses from their constituents. Still, there are those among the insulated legislative class — John McCain, Lindsay Graham, John Boehner, etc. — who have not gotten the message that the American people are about as enthusiastic about Obama’s proposed war plans as they are about undergoing a quadruple root canal. In fact the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to approve a resolution to allow Obama to use force.
Meanwhile, Facebook postings from members of our military are appearing with sentiments like this: “I didn’t join the Marine Corps to fight for al-Qaeda in a Syrian civil war.”
Yet there was the ever-arrogant Barack Obama, standing at the podium in Stockholm on Wednesday, embarrassing himself yet again (and, by extension, the fools who elected him) by announcing in response to a reporter’s question about his crumbling credibility, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”
Obama is a symbol of much of today’s generation, which accepts no responsibility for anything. Therefore, when something goes wrong among his cockamamie plans, it must be someone else’s fault. Usually, of course, it would be George Bush’s fault, but even Obama couldn’t bring himself to tell that one again, not in this case. No, this time it’s the whole world’s fault. And Congress. And America. It’s American credibility that will suffer, he told the world, not his. Unbelievable.
The questions that need to be asked are these: What is the national security interest of the United States of America in attacking Syria? Will our intervention accomplish anything more than assuaging the ego of an arrogant president who has no knowledge of military matters? Will the consequences for the wider region, and for the interests of the United States, be improved if we attack Syria? And the most frightening question: have we elected a president who so admires Islam and so hates Israel that he would deliberately aid al-Qaeda while provoking a brutal Arab tyrant to attack our tiny but crucial ally?
I fear the answers to these questions are as follows: none; no; no; and, unfortunately, yes.
That's not true. I cared very much when Hussein gassed the Kurds, and I remember vividly the photos. I still care. And I never cheered this pig on; I was only sorry that he was crafty enough to have body-doubles and to escape heaven only knows how many assassins from multiple countries.
Of course, where was anyone when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Really, no one cared. And when Saddam used gas on Iran, we were cheering him on.
Anyone watching politics when he ran for the senate knew that.Yes I saw that.
Jeesh.. this is a President with no character, no integrity and no principle.
And who in the world cares now?
Apparently no one. Though Saddam's use of chemical weapons in 1988 was touted and sold as a reason to go into Iraq in 2003. The Cons suddenly found outrage 15 years later in the circumstance. Then again, it usually takes the Cons about 15 years to catch up to reality, so I guess that makes sense.
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?