Monday Open Thread 9.9.13
The strongest point President Obama has in launching a military strike on Syria in retaliation of Assad using chemical weapons is the following statement, made in his press conference at the G-20:
THE PRESIDENT: My goal is to maintain the international norm on banning chemical weapons. I want that enforcement to be real. I want it to be serious. I want people to understand that gassing innocent people, delivering chemical weapons against children is not something we do. It’s prohibited in active wars between countries. We certainly don’t do it against kids. And we’ve got to stand up for that principle.
It is the point that sways me a little, but then the President says something further about the aftermath (i.e. if we attacked and then Assad used the chemical weapons again) that puts we back in the no-intervention witness:
THE PRESIDENT: Is it possible that Assad doubles down in the face of our action and uses chemical weapons more widely? I suppose anything is possible, but it wouldn’t be wise. I think at that point, mobilizing the international community would be easier, not harder. I think it would be pretty hard for the U.N. Security Council at that point to continue to resist the requirement for action, and we would gladly join with an international coalition to make sure that it stops.
And let’s say that happens, and the international community is swayed to get involved. What is the goal of further action? It is obvious, to get rid of Assad and to get his chemical weapons. How do we do that? Invasion.
Boots on the ground.
No, Mr. President. No. It is time for America to stop being the world’s policeman. Two prolonged wars in the Middle East in one century is enough.
NATIONAL–SYRIA–CNN/ORC International: “[E]ven though eight in 10 Americans believe that the Bashar al-Assad regime gassed its own people, a strong majority doesn’t want Congress to pass a resolution authorizing a military strike against the regime.”
“More than seven in 10 say such a strike would not achieve significant goals for the U.S. and a similar amount say it’s not in the national interest for the U.S. to get involved in Syria’s bloody two-year long civil war.”
NEW YORK CITY–MAYOR–Public Policy Polling: Bill de Blasio 38, William Thompson 19, Christine Quinn 13, Anthony Weiner 9, and John Liu 5.
NEW YORK CITY–MAYOR–Quinniapiac: De Blasio 39, Thompson 25, Quinn 18, Weiner 6, and Liu 4.
There will be no boots on the ground. There will be no missile strikes. There will just be a suspenseful media show with a countdown to Syria turning over it’s chemical weapons. It’s going to be magnificent.
Obama will be the Nobel laureate that he was destined to be, and Putin won’t look so bad either. Zip-a-dee-doo-dah. I’m going to set up my Obama shrine again!
Benghazi? What’s a Benghazi?
Somewhere, Hillary Clinton is smiling right now.
The problem is that the President hasn’t articulated an actual strategy or goal because he doesn’t have one. I can’t see the Congress approving sending in Tomahawk cruise missiles just to slap the back of Mr Assad’s hand, but the next step is actually deposing him.
Well, we were supposed to help the rebels, but, according to The Wall Street Journal:
Emphasis mine.
So, what does the President want to do? Helping the rebels win isn’t something we want to do, and letting President Assad win isn’t something we want, either.
As for me, I am still wondering how the 1,429 people the US claims were killed by chemical weapons are somehow deader than the 100,000 who died from bullets or bombs. Is it really so very different that we can stand by and watch 100,000 people get killed by “conventional” means, and do nothing, but 1,429 get killed with sarin gas and the whole world is up in arms?
Hey, what do you know. Hillary is speaking on live TV right now. Sweet, and she is setting her own red line.
Gotta love it.
I agree this Dana that the President’s life would be easier (in the short run) if he didn’t give a fuck about outcomes.
The Republican model has one merit. Simplicity.
Jason, just what outcome do you think our President has in mind? If you know, please tell us, because the Administration sure hasn’t.
Jimmy Carter, and the Shah of Iran….”Those who forget history blah,blah,blah doomed to repeat it”.
Jimmy Carter’s mistake was to listen to Kissinger and let the Shah into the U.S.
1, you turned “are” into 3 blahs. blahs are meant to shorten a long sentence.
2 a republican us president helped overthrow a democratically elected president of Iran and installed a dictator (the Sha) and Jimmy Carter got to deal with the obvious result of such a stupid idea. (To Eisenhower’s credit, he stopped being a war-hawk and would be flayed alive by today’s GOP for some of the things he said about war and money.)
FBH, really champ…. if you’re gonna try and make your case using history, make sure you know what you’re talking about.