Carper undecided on “humanitarian” war – sounds surprisingly like an actual human
WDDE Reports that Tom Carper, unlike Chris Coons, is still undecided on bombing Syrian weddings and funerals. The surprising thing in the story is that Carper calls out Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld directly and sounds kinda like a human being doing so.
We got hoodwinked once about ten years ago by an earlier administration on bad intelligence that alleged that the Iraqis — Saddam Hussein — had used chemical weapons. It turned out not to be true,” said Carper. “In this case, we want to make sure that the assertions, the allegations are indeed true.”
Then he tips his hand and allows that he is probably going to vote “yes” anyway.
“Do I trust Barack Obama? Do I trust Joe Biden? Do I trust John Kerry to keep us out of a war? I do. They’re not guys anxious to start a war. They’re not trigger-happy,” said Carper. “Having said that, I trust them, but we need to verify and we need to verify and make sure the intelligence — what does the intelligence really say.”
For what it is worth, I agree with Carper about Obama/Biden/Kerry not being as bloodthirsty as the psychotic freaks who preceded them. And, credit where credit is due,
he does manage to point out once again that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were trigger happy.
Jason, I think you and I often find ourselves on the same page in regard to Obama and his motivations and whatnot.
If The President is the person I voted for in 2008, I want to know why such an intelligent pragmatist would even let himself LOOK LIKE he was going to start a middle east war, the same year the Iraq fuck-up turns 10, without UN, ally, Congressional, or populist approval.
Is this Obama trying to motivate an uninspired electorate and an inept Congress? Does he not actually WANT to bomb Syria but knows if he says so, the GOP would be calling for impeachment because “MUSLIM SYMPATHIZERS!!!!!!”?
It is a good point. Obama is clearly smarter (and less driven by vanity) than Bush, so what’s up with the similarities?
I think he has probably seen compelling intelligence. But he is in a kind of defense advice bubble that crowds out other options. There was a “Missiles of October” exhibit at the national archives once that used the actual oval office meetings tapes of the Cuban missile crisis. The pressure on Kennedy to go to war with the Russian was extraordinary. The hawks in the room in this kind of situation WAY outnumber the level heads.
But again, I feel like CANDIDATE Obama was aware of exactly what you were talking about.
In fact, Im pretty sure a lot of his campaign was about how he would change the presidential information bubble so he wouldnt be open to exactly THIS scenario.
I dunno. Screw it, I give up.
YEah. Sucks.
Expansion of illegal surveillance – check.
Tax cuts for the rich – check.
Unpopular war ostensibly over WMDs in the Middle East – check.
Is Obama TRYING to become Bush?
Puck, c’mon. Obama is MUCH better at being Bush than Bush was.
I found this comment on Charlie Pierces’ site, it makes perfect sense to me . Although time will tell.
“I suspect Barry is trying to play history here. He needs to be seen as standing up against the use of chemical weapons by the history books, or he’ll really be seen as weak. But he doesn’t really want to bomb Syria – he can read polls as well as anyone, and he knows there aren’t any “good” sides here. So? So he asks Congress for their go-along, knowing full well the nutsos in Congress will be against anything he’s for. And when they do say no, the history books will record him as having TRIED HIS DAMNEST.” Elfranko Wessels · New York, New York
I like that he had you believe he thought about it…but still went with yes. Classic. That way he can say he gave it real thought this time, unlike last time where he didn’t. Then pulls out the Bush card and says Obama is no bush. Except when it comes to imprisoning people forever and killing children at weddings, yes Obama is so different.
At least Coons isn’t trying to have it both ways
Peace not War ~~> Syria
We must not get involved in this Civil War. Our security & freedom has not been challenged by Syria. I am not in favor of spending our money to help rebels who hate America.
Thank you,
Rose Izzo
Anti-War Conservative
“Anti-War Conservative” That’s a laugh. Luckily, being intellectually honest is not considered a virtue among wingnuts.
BTW, I hope this means that Ms. Izzo is going to be the GOP’s standard bearer.
The use chemical weapons must have consequences. If the rest of the world ignores this us, should the U.S. also ignore their use or should we take it upon ourselves to effect military consequences? If we were to agree to do that, what is an appropriate response? What is our level of commitment to that response and what is our exit strategy?
No one wants another Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, whatever and if any response on our part creates significant risk of that happening, then we should question that response. I also do not believe that arming opposition forces is likely to be our best interests since history is replete with examples of those same arms being used against us. The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend and we have no reason to believe that the opposition would be any better than the current regime. In fact, I think there is evidence that they would be equal to or worse.
The crisis in Syria is a no win situation for everyone, including the Syrians. So the crux of this (at least for me) is how to respond to the use of chemical weapons to adequately demonstrate that the use of such weapons will not be tolerated? In my view, it must be to exact a penalty for those who authorized and effected the use of the weapons and to eliminate the means of producing those weapons, if possible, using stand off weapons. No less and no more.
“…should the U.S. also ignore their use or should we take it upon ourselves to effect military consequences?”
There is an assumption embedded in this topic that there are only two choices.
“(our) respond to the use of chemical weapons …must be to exact a penalty for those who authorized and effected the use of the weapons…”
Then what?
“There is an assumption embedded in this topic that there are only two choices.”
I’m not sure there are any other choices. Do something or do nothing. I suppose there are some political choices that does not involve the military, such as sanctions, but I really did not consider those choices viable. What else am I missing?
“Then what?”
Then nothing. Exact the penalty period. The penalty is not for using chemical weapons on their own people. It is for the use of them period. They can have their civil war, which will proceed to whatever outcome is in store for it. Our concern is the deterrence of the use of chemical weapons. Unless we have some other objective (see Iraq and Afghanistan) and I hope we, as a nation, would entertain no other objective.
We need stop Syria from using chemical weapons so the next country doesn’t use them… Just like we did with Iraq…
Dumb argument
That’s not good enough. Our track record shows that we don’t have the kind of precise control over events that we’d need to think that bombing could have some kind of deterrence effect.
Donviti said it better.
First, we did not stop Iraq from using chemical weapons. To my knowledge we did not find any (some whacks claim they were spirited into Syria, and that’s what Syria is using, but hey that’s WND for you). There’s no parallel with Syria. So, Donviti did not say it better. You did.
Second, deterrence is achieved when the consequence is so great that no one else would want to risk that consequence. Deterrence is also achieved (at least for Syria) where the means of production is eliminated.
Exact the penalty. “That’s not good enough. Our track record shows…”
If you eliminate the means of production (yes it’s a big if), Syria cannot produce such chemical weapons. Considering that certain of those weapons don’t need large production facilities, it is true that we cannot completely rule out the ability that all capability is not existent. So we are faced with less that optimum choices, looking for the most satisfactory choice.
Finally, the question of actual deterrence is whether a country would risk the consequences if it were to employ chemical weapons. Some would. Some would not. The more rogue a nation, the less they would be concerned about consequences. Perhaps we should ask the question a different way. What if there were no consequences at all? What is no one did anything? What if we just went about our daily lives and completely ignored any events in Syria (or any other place for that matter). As nations we agree to and impose limits on ours and other nations behavior (i.e. Geneva Convention). If those limits are ineffectual, why have them? I think we have them because for the most part, most nations are in agreement with those limits and establishing those limits provides at least some moral authority for other nations to act when those limits are exceeded. It’s not perfect since humans are in charge, but its better than nothing.
Bottom line. I’m in favor of a limited response (to eliminate production and exact a penalty) OR do nothing. I believe, doing nothing has the greater risk but neither choice is the optimum choice. I don’t believe we have the ability to optimize and are left with satisficing choices that meet a low threshold of acceptability.
Long rambling nonsense doesn’t make you any more right. It’s a dumb argument.
I wanted to add something to the previous discussion on this line…. “For what it is worth, I agree with Carper about Obama/Biden/Kerry not being as bloodthirsty as the psychotic freaks who preceded them.”
I have since read this… John Kerry Says Obama Can Bomb Can Bomb Assad If Congress Says No by the Huffington Post.
And I have to wonder who is more dangerous. Someone who you know is corrupt and single minded and can’t be trusted one iota.. Dick Cheney… Or someone who since his stint in the Vietnam War has taken the other side of this issue his entire political life, and suddenly, for no explicable reason, before our eyes turns into Dick Cheney…. Maybe such is normal for someone switching from the legislative to executive branch, but In the intelligence business, people like that are called compromised operatives whose information is not to be trusted.
Sec Kerry: from Winter Soldier to Summer Bombardier.
Lol.
I do like how you said we should kill syrians to “exact a penalty”
Given it’s football season, I picture a ref throwing a flag, turning on his mike, facing the camera and saying “Personal Foul, Country used Sarin Gas, America to bomb you for three days”
exacting a penalty…hilarious. Sorta like spanking a child…only killing several thousand people.
Kavips…
Mr. Kerry voted for the Iraq war, so maybe he had a little bit of that dick cheney and it was only until he had the power of being in the executive branch that the cheney in him grew and took over the pacifist bit of john kerry.
I like the short nonsense that equates “exacting a penalty” with “killing several thousand people” when I said not a single word about what the penalty should be. Of course short nonsense doesn’t make you wrong, just silly for constantly resorting to hyperbole. Hyperbole is always a dumb argument.
My concern is that doing nothing is tacit acceptance of the use of chemical weapons (which primarily target non-combatants). The range of options may be limited and hopefully smart people are examining the options. Doing nothing is one of those options.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Dear Leader has spent five years blaming Bush while emulating him every step of the way?
“For what it is worth, I agree with Carper about Obama/Biden/Kerry not being as bloodthirsty as the psychotic freaks who preceded them.”
I legit LOL’d when I read that hilarious little nugget! He’s dropping drones all over the planet – taking out innocents every step of the way – but he’s got such a friendly smile, his speeches are SO VERY moving, and, damn it, HE SLOW-JAMMED THE NEWS, so he couldn’t *possibly* be a psychotic bloodthirsty freak! *swoooon*
I don’t know what’s more fun – watching him fail at every turn, or watching you guys squirm whenever he does. Ima grab some popcorn and watch him implode (again) this week. Listen closely for my purring.
Try as he may, he’s no ‘comeback kid’ like Big Daddy Clinton. His utter lack of leadership skills and amateurish approach to the presidency have caught up to him in a big way this year.
How does it feel to have been so horribly duped….TWICE??
Beats the way you constantly barf up your bile. How does it feel to be utterly consumed by seething resentment?
All of your arguments are stupid.
To make the assumption that there are only two choices..
* Bomb innocent people
or
* Look like cowards who support chemical warfare on civilians
… is a very dumb argument.
However, to look at every situation solely from the perspective of the Iraq war is also very stupid. Yes, we have to learn lessons from our past, but we cannot continue to act as though every singular request for military action that does not follow an attack on New York or Pearl Harbor is a kin to the Iraq controversy.
The government has not done enough to rebuild its credibility. In fact, it has taken steps to make itself less transparent and credible.
Until credibility is somehow restored, the Iraq lies will continue to loom large in public opinion.