• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reductio ad Obama. The logic of the president's incapacity to lead.

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
By James Taranto
Sept 6, 2013

President Obama has confirmed the suspicion that his decision to ask Congress for authorization before using force in Syria was a political ploy. "I'll repeat something that I said in Sweden," he said this morning (U.S. time) at a press conference in St. Petersburg, Russia. "I did not put this before Congress, you know, just as a political ploy or as symbolism."

"Just" is the tell.

Obama loves to speak in the first-person singular; he seems oblivious to the obnoxiousness of his habitual references (including one in today's press conference) to "my military." But suddenly it's a matter of whether we mean what we say.

As we noted Tuesday, he (Obama) scoffed in 2002 at the argument that Saddam's human-rights violations justified U.S. action, and in 2007 he suggested that it was wrong to intervene anywhere unless one was prepared to intervene everywhere.


(Excerpt)

Read more:
Best of the Web Today: Reductio ad Obama - WSJ.com

It's surprising how much this administration is tied up in knots. In fact they're using the some of the same reasoning that took us into the Iraq war.
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,731
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
By James Taranto
Sept 6, 2013

President Obama has confirmed the suspicion that his decision to ask Congress for authorization before using force in Syria was a political ploy. "I'll repeat something that I said in Sweden," he said this morning (U.S. time) at a press conference in St. Petersburg, Russia. "I did not put this before Congress, you know, just as a political ploy or as symbolism."

"Just" is the tell.

Obama loves to speak in the first-person singular; he seems oblivious to the obnoxiousness of his habitual references (including one in today's press conference) to "my military." But suddenly it's a matter of whether we mean what we say.

As we noted Tuesday, he (Obama) scoffed in 2002 at the argument that Saddam's human-rights violations justified U.S. action, and in 2007 he suggested that it was wrong to intervene anywhere unless one was prepared to intervene everywhere.


(Excerpt)

Read more:
Best of the Web Today: Reductio ad Obama - WSJ.com

It's surprising how much this administration is tied up in knots. In fact they're using the some of the same reasoning that took us into the Iraq war.



I wonder if Wehrwolfen will still be posting comments here after massive demographic change hits the GOP like a tidal wave and drives it out of business in about thirty years?

Any ideas on that?




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,731
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
By James Taranto
Sept 6, 2013

President Obama has confirmed the suspicion that his decision to ask Congress for authorization before using force in Syria was a political ploy. "I'll repeat something that I said in Sweden," he said this morning (U.S. time) at a press conference in St. Petersburg, Russia. "I did not put this before Congress, you know, just as a political ploy or as symbolism."

"Just" is the tell.

Obama loves to speak in the first-person singular; he seems oblivious to the obnoxiousness of his habitual references (including one in today's press conference) to "my military." But suddenly it's a matter of whether we mean what we say.

As we noted Tuesday, he (Obama) scoffed in 2002 at the argument that Saddam's human-rights violations justified U.S. action, and in 2007 he suggested that it was wrong to intervene anywhere unless one was prepared to intervene everywhere.


(Excerpt)

Read more:
Best of the Web Today: Reductio ad Obama - WSJ.com

It's surprising how much this administration is tied up in knots.
In fact they're using the some of the same reasoning that took us into the Iraq war.



If you supported that reasoning then, why do you have a problem with it now?

Is it because there's a Democrat in the White House who just happens to be a Black guy?

Don't hold back, tell us what you really think about President Obama.

Waiting to hear a little truth, if you have any.
 
Last edited:

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,637
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
As we noted Tuesday, he (Obama) scoffed in 2002 at the argument that Saddam's human-rights violations justified U.S. action, and in 2007 he suggested that it was wrong to intervene anywhere unless one was prepared to intervene everywhere.
Well he is right on both points in a certain way. R2P was not introduced as a norm for international behavior until 2005. And if you want a legal norm to be legitimate, it has to be enforced everywhere and every time.
But it should be done by the intentional community and not by one member. But as Bush pointed out in his address to the UN General Assembly before the Iraq engagement, if you do not act, you are irrelevant. The UN chose irrelevance.

Do we really want mass murder to be allowed? There seems to be a certain dilemma there.
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well he is right on both points in a certain way. R2P was not introduced as a norm for international behavior until 2005. And if you want a legal norm to be legitimate, it has to be enforced everywhere and every time.
But it should be done by the intentional community and not by one member. But as Bush pointed out in his address to the UN General Assembly before the Iraq engagement, if you do not act, you are irrelevant. The UN chose irrelevance.

Do we really want mass murder to be allowed? There seems to be a certain dilemma there.
For all that has been said about Bush, he did go to Congress and the UN before entering into hostilities with Iraq, and there were 40 countries that were willing and did assist. Obama has not done so, nor does he have countries willing to assist. I don't think there's one American that "wants" mass murder. The Left has claimed Bush lied to America about Iraq and other things. Just how many times has Obama been caught in lies to the American people in the five years he's been in office? Why should we trust Obama?
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,637
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
For all that has been said about Bush, he did go to Congress and the UN before entering into hostilities with Iraq, and there were 40 countries that were willing and did assist. Obama has not done so, nor does he have countries willing to assist. I don't think there's one American that "wants" mass murder. The Left has claimed Bush lied to America about Iraq and other things. Just how many times has Obama been caught in lies to the American people in the five years he's been in office? Why should we trust Obama?

It does not make it any better for the 100.000 dead, of course. But it looks as if Putin might let Obama off the hook.
Russia says it will push Syria to relinquish control of chemical weapons - The Washington Post

I wonder what, if it happens, that is going to cost us.
 
Top Bottom