Wednesday Open Thread 9.11.13

Wednesday Open Thread 9.11.13

Regarding the President's prime time speech last night, I agree that the speech probably should not have been given, but it had to be given to maintain the credible threat of force that is driving the diplomatic negotiations. So the speech itself, in my mind, was less important than reactions to the overall situation. And I think Andrew Sullivan and Booman best describe my thoughts: Andrew Sullivan:
That was one of the clearest, simplest and most moving presidential speeches to the nation I can imagine. It explained and it argued, point after point. Everything the president said extemporaneously at the post-G20 presser was touched on, made terser, more elegant and more persuasive. [...] I’m tired of the eye-rolling and the easy nit-picking of the president’s leadership on this over the last few weeks. The truth is: his threat of war galvanized the world and America, raised the profile of the issue of chemical weapons more powerfully than ever before, ensured that this atrocity would not be easily ignored and fostered a diplomatic initiative to resolve the issue without use of arms. All the objectives he has said he wanted from the get-go are now within reach, and the threat of military force – even if implicit – remains. Yes, it’s been messy. A more cautious president would have ducked it. Knowing full well it could scramble his presidency, Obama nonetheless believed that stopping chemical weapons use is worth it – for the long run, and for Americans as well as Syrians. Putin understands this as well. Those chemical weapons, if uncontrolled, could easily slip into the hands of rebels whose second target, after Assad and the Alawites and the Christians, would be Russia. This emphatically does not solve the Syria implosion. But Obama has never promised to. What it does offer is a nonviolent way toward taking the chemical weapons issue off the table. Just because we cannot solve everything does not mean we cannot solve something. And the core truth is that without Obama’s willingness to go out on a precarious limb, we would not have that opportunity. The money quote for me, apart from the deeply moving passage about poison gas use at the end, was his description of a letter from a service-member who told him, “We should not be the world’s policeman.” President Obama said, quite simply: “I agree.” And those on the far right who are accusing him of ceding the Middle East to Russia are half-right and yet completely wrong. What this remarkable breakthrough has brought about is a possible end to the dynamic in which America is both blamed for all the evils in the world and then also blamed for not stopping all of them. We desperately need to rebuild international cooperation to relieve us of that impossible burden in a cycle that can only hurt us and the West again and again.
Tuesday Open Thread 9.10.13

Tuesday Open Thread 9.10.13

Sarah Palin, September 9, 2013.
Enough of this foreign fiasco distraction. Get back to work. It is time to bomb Obamacare.
I will now refer to Sarah Palin as a potential terrorist. Potential Terrorist Sarah Palin said today that she wants to bomb hospitals and medical clinics across the country, and she wants to bomb all those with preexisting conditions who can now get affordable health insurance. Potential Terrorist Sarah Palin wants them all dead. Now, back to that foreign fiasco distraction... So it seems that the Obama Administration has found itself a diplomatic out at the last minute, and it is one that they should take. In fact, come inside to find out why I am now a yes vote.
Will Syria vote hurt Carper, Coon or Carney (henceforth “C-cubed”)?

Will Syria vote hurt Carper, Coon or Carney (henceforth “C-cubed”)?

Latest "whip counts" are trending away from supporting the President's call for a humanitarian bombing of Syria to kill just the right number of civilians to send a message to Assad and evil doers everywhere. Firm Nay's continue to mount while firm Yeah's are still few and far between. If and when a vote finally comes, will a "Yes" vote from the Delaware delegation, that does not represent the feelings of Delawareans, hurt "C-cubed" on election day? C-cubed has been fairly transparent about its intended votes. this Washington Post item is FireDogLake's source for listing Delaware as:
Coons: Firm Yes Carper: Leaning Yes Carney: Leaning No
(I think they've misread Carney, but if he isn't putting out any statements to clarify his position, who knows?)
Monday Open Thread 9.9.13

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.
Ed Reform Isn’t About Education

Ed Reform Isn’t About Education

Yes, I've written about this before, but in case you've forgotten, Ed Reformers have changed their motto from Charter Schools offer a superior education (compared to public schools) at less cost to Parent Choice!  Which is really convenient since it allows them to ignore failing schools by claiming these schools are what parents want.  Oh, ed reformers are quick to point out failing public schools in the name of supporting charters, but are mum on schools like Moyer Academy and Pencader. Which brings me to an interesting article in the News Journal on Sunday...