House Republican staffers tell us that several key members are unsatisfied so far by the classified briefings from the administration. A top aide said the administration has failed to make a compelling case “beyond spasmodic moral outrage.”
"Nobody has really heard how this is going to either improve the situation on the ground in Syria, improve the situation for pro-democracy groups, not play into al-Qaeda’s hands, not play into Russia’s hands, not play into China’s hands,” the aide said. “Members felt the administration hasn’t made a case about how this is going to stop it from happening again. They’re putting a lot of chips on: ‘We have to do this for Israel,’ or, ‘We have to do this because it’s unacceptable.’”
५ सप्टेंबर, २०१३
"Republicans and Democrats alike feel the Syria resolution would not pass today, even after party leaders endorsed it."
Says Politico, "[b]ased on talking to the smartest members and aides we know."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३८ टिप्पण्या:
"Spasmodic moral outrage” would make a good name for a band.
Ed Morrisseymakes a good point, that the administration is using arguments that are internally inconsistent. On the one hand Congress is being asked to reestablish credibility by agreeing to back up Obama's rhetoric with action. On the other hand, that very credibility has to be taken for granted with respect to the intelligence on use of WMD by Assad's forces.
Bottom line: Obama is a fool and now virtually everybody knows it. Especially Mr Putin and Al Qaeda.
Meanwhile, correct me if I'm wrong - but has the left been saying in so many words that we have to make allowances for Obama, essentially that he's intellectually hobbled by virtue of his blackness? That we must support him for the sake of the office, and the country? That there are very good reasons we have Affirmative Action, and Obama is certainly one of them?
Is that what the left is saying. Or should I say; is that what the present-day war mongers are saying?
The ugly truth is, it is in the interest of the United States and Syria's Alawites, Christians, Druze, Jews and secular Arabs that Assad remain in power. He has not handed out WMDs to his allies, and he has controlled sectarian violence. If the rebels win, then WMDs will become widely available and all the non-Sunnis will become victims of vicious pogroms. Using poison gases on the rebels (assuming Assad did it, remember Sarajevo) is simply a cost of government in the Middle East.
Obama has managed to make this all about him, and with total confusion as to what the administration may or may not do with respect to Syria and thus, of course, also what the results might be.
Congress should not touch this tar baby; just hand it right back to him and tell him he does not need their prior approval to conduct foreign policy, and they reserve their right to express their opinion about the results, whatever may come out of it.
The GOP has not gone brain dead like the media. It smells the use of assumptions that only Assaad had sarin gas and rockets, while the al Qaeda side has access to them too thanks to Lybian arms that Obama shipped to them through Benghazi agreements.
Alqaeda also wants the moderate Syrian rebels who were the ones gassed to die along with Assaad's Army. It looks like a typical Obama lie based trick assuming an untruth and never looking back.
"The ugly truth is, it is in the interest of the United States and Syria's Alawites, Christians, Druze, Jews and secular Arabs that Assad remain in power."
That is not even an issue. The Obama people have promised that this is not about "regime change." Don't you believe them? Good heavens !
Nor do I buy this about "America's credibility being on the line." The United States have been around for a while now, and just about everybody in the world have relatives in this country.
It is more like a large corporation that that is in temporary difficulties due to the sitting management mistakes. But managers can be replaced, and the corporation will recover if "the fundamentals are sound," as they say on Wall Street.
And the fundamentals of this country are sound enough; I think just about everybody knows that.
The administration seems to be making the argument:
Something needs to be done.
Bombing Syria is something.
Therefore, let us bomb Syria.
sykes.1 said...
"The ugly truth is ..."
Spot on....
"Smartest members", Politico claims. Not convincing me.
tradguy, I heard on the radio that it could have been AQ. I'd read earlier that rebels would not have gassed their own people. AQ has no qualms about that, so far as I can tell, so I'm open to that argument.
Obama cannot be trusted to abide by any congressional resolution on a Syrian intervention. A "yes" vote will be carte blanche for Obama to do anything he might want to do in Syria.
Considering that the Obama foreign policy has from the start been predicated on left-wing foreign policy cliches (and the results drearily predictable), doing nothing in Syria is preferable to allowing Obama's foreign policy amateurs to make the situation even worse than it already is.
Where the US stands now:
Obama is a worldwide laughing stock, especially in Jihadist circles.
Egypt is sliding rapidly into civil war, with the jihadists likely to emerge as the dominant political force.
Iraq has been handed over to jihadists by Obama.
Afghanistan, Obama's "forgotten war," will soon be abandoned to the jihadists.
Libya is descending into chaos as a result Obama's inept policy – an example of what an Obama-led Syrian intervention would bring.
Obama cannot put ANY coalition together to accompany him into Syria. As a contrast Bush jr. had 48 coalition members to assist him in the deposing of Saddam. But of course Bush had competent foreign policy professionals for advice and implementation instead of the coterie of useless ideologues employed by Obama.
The PFJ correctly observed that while they had their grievances against the Romans, at least they ppreserved order. "Let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this."
Arabs need dictators because they preserve order. They are incapable of democratic rule (W's fatal flaw) because the majority do not accept the concept of individual rights or liberty. So they can have order but no freedom, which beats the alternative -- chaos without freedom, like central Africa.
So our national interest is in supporting the side that can at least preserve order. The civil war rages and the situation is chaos, so we wait until someone emerges who can preserve order, then we deal with that person and convince him not to cross us. I doubt that will be the rebels.
Barry is in so far over his head. Confused and indecisive. He just wants to eat his waffles and smoke a J and get ready for some football. He has a fantasy team to manage.
Leave Barry alone!
Yeah, "smartest" is a funny concept.
I've been in a lot of rooms where the "smartest guy" (or gal) "in the room" -- not that I was sure exactly who it would have been -- would be a terrible idea.
These are the people you want to corral into academia where they won't do too much damage.
But sometimes they do bust loose and get into politics.
And I don't really mean Obama. He wasn't a big academic. He just had a sojourn in a law school while preparing for politics.
I mean more the Cass Sunstein and Samantha Power types.
It's really best to back off a bit from that actual geniuses to get to some decisionmakers.
Almost Ali - "Is that what the left is saying. Or should I say; is that what the present-day war mongers are saying?"
==============
It is a nasty combined cabal, not just Obama supplicants on the left. You have the Israel-Firsters and old Neocon Cabal full of the usual suspects like Kristol, Rubin, McCain joining them. You have the Clintonistas that became Samantha Powers humanitarian interventionist boosters as way of "atonement" for Clinton (wisely) not inserting America in the middle of the Rwandan Civil War. You have certain Republican corporatists and right-wingers fed by Saudi money wanting America to go into war. (While the Arabs themselves want to sit on the sidelines like Belgian poodles so they can be free to scream about evil Americans killing "innocent civilians" and demanding US soldiers face atrocity trials.)
All I know is you can't have a Civil War without "killing your own people" be you in government or on the rebel side. So that Bushist moral exortation that "there is nothing worse than tyrants/terrorists killing THEIR OWN PEOPLE" - is about as stupid as you get.
All I know is that any foreign power that inserts itself into another people's civil war almost always regrets it and is almost always hated through history by that people for intervening.
All I know is the rebels have pledged to make Syria Islamist and "wipe out every Christian, Alawite, and Shiite in country"...which as a nominal Christian, makes me wonder if McCain, Obama, Israel, the left and Neocons are on my people's Protector...or Assad and Putin are the protectors of Christian and other religious minorities.
(And before dismissing it and Putin ...the Russians served for centuries as the protectors of Christian peoples near them -against the Turks and other Muslims. When Russia was tied up in War, the Muslims were free to kill Greeks, Armenians, Serbs, etc. )
History will not be kind to us for allowing- twice!-this fellow to be president.This is the shame of the current adult generation.
The British, who could have greatly benefited from recognizing the CSA managed to resist until the Emancipation Proclamation made it too late. I think we should resist the temptation as well, for I see very little, if any, potential benefit from becoming involved in any way in Syria.
I was confused when Obama tossed this to Congress. I couldn't decide whether he really wanted action or just another possible way to beat up on the Rs. I believe that reality is that he is too weak to make a decision.
It's a given that Obama will not carry the lefties, as a result he is dependent on the Rs to provide the balance of votes needed to pass a resolution. I think Boehner has been smart in providing support so that no one can accuse the Republican leadership of undermining Obama.
With the delays that are inevitable in Congress opposition is likely to increase as the heat goes out of the charges being made and doubt-raising information - true or false - becomes available. People are tired of listening to Obama so a campaign style approach to selling Congress has a limited chance to succeed and I don't think he has it in him to work that hard.
This is quite a puzzle.
The British, who could have greatly benefited from recognizing the CSA managed to resist until the Emancipation Proclamation made it too late. I think we should resist the temptation as well, for I see very little, if any, potential benefit from becoming involved in any way in Syria.
I was confused when Obama tossed this to Congress. I couldn't decide whether he really wanted action or just another possible way to beat up on the Rs. I believe that reality is that he is too weak to make a decision.
It's a given that Obama will not carry the lefties, as a result he is dependent on the Rs to provide the balance of votes needed to pass a resolution. I think Boehner has been smart in providing support so that no one can accuse the Republican leadership of undermining Obama.
With the delays that are inevitable in Congress opposition is likely to increase as the heat goes out of the charges being made and doubt-raising information - true or false - becomes available. People are tired of listening to Obama so a campaign style approach to selling Congress has a limited chance to succeed and I don't think he has it in him to work that hard.
This is quite a puzzle.
Congress will make the mistake of passing something in response to Obama's request for authorization, and whatever they pass, they will find that the language they used will have more interpretations than they ever thought possible, not to mention the penumbras emanating from the act.
I'm rather curious as to why Israel would support action.
One would think that Israel would prefer Assad over a fragmented jihadist state awash with weapons. I suppose the fear is that Iran is likely close to developing nukes, and a victorious Assad would create an untenable strategic position vis a vis Iran,
but,...
I don't see how the proposed attack changes that equation. Obama isn't proposing to reverse the tide of the war (or is he?). At best we'll degrade Assad's ability to win quickly, and at worst we'll trigger a shit-ton of "unexpected consequences." What happens if Assad launches more chemical attacks? Doesn't that obligate us to react even more forcefully? What if Hezbollah launches 10,000 rockets into northern Israel? Are we ready for an Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon?
. . . whatever they pass, they will find that the language they used will have more interpretations than they ever thought possible, not to mention the penumbras emanating from the act.
Is that like in "they have to pass the resolution to see what's in it?"
"History will not be kind to us for allowing- twice!-this fellow to be president.This is the shame of the current adult generation."
History will not be kind to us. Period.
"I'm rather curious as to why Israel would support action."
Israel has for years been eager for America to attack Iran. Perhaps they hope that if we attack Syria, Iran will involve itself somehow in support of the Assad regime, thus turning our attack on Syria into the entree of a war with Iran.
"I was confused when Obama tossed this to Congress. I couldn't decide whether he really wanted action or just another possible way to beat up on the Rs. I believe that reality is that he is too weak to make a decision. "
he was a fool to take this to congress. He had to realize that congress are a bunch of milquetoast quislings. Even those in his own party. ESPECIALLY those in his own party.And of course Alan Grayson is out now talking about how Obama doctored the intelligence. Always a lefty, always the same argument.
Its just sad that so many repubs are joining the anti war left with their arguments. I blame Rand Paul for this.
And I'd be all set to support Obama on this, if he would just lead. If he wasnt acting like the standar anti war weakling. Don't be afraid to bury the regime. Let loose the dogs of war.
Stop worrying about the weaklings who are afraid of war to the point where any boots on the ground is a quagmire. That's what we have a military for. Those people a re not leaders. And overthrowing the regime regime was a legitimate goal even before Assad used Chenical weapons. If we don't strike it's only going to hurt us more when dealing with Iran.
So strike with regime change in mind. Overwhelming bombings before you even debate whether to put boots on the ground. Don't stop the bombing till there is no Air Force left and all the palaces are rubble.
Stop trying to appease the anti war crowd. They will not support you. They will call you a warmonger, just like Bush. And so what? If it has to be done, then do it. If your popularity goes down, that's, the cost of leadership.
I'd respect Obama if he at least backed his words with action. Yes, Id still call him a hypocrite for being such a jerk when he was a senator, but I could make the argument that he was humbled or saw reason once he assumed power because he realized that he can't be flip and professorial when it comes to national security like he could as a senator (and I'm directing that t Rand Paul now too, who to me is just Obama six years prior. Same arguments, same naïveté).
If you're only going to take half measures though, then why bother? If you're going to make the case that the world needs to act, but then the response is a few cruise missiles, then why bother?
Hagar wrote:
Nor do I buy this about "America's credibility being on the line." The United States have been around for a while now, and just about everybody in the world have relatives in this country
of course our credibility is on the line. We're holding Iran to account for their nuclear program and we've laid out various red lines as to what we will and will not accept. Now, Iran knows we won't back up our words with action. How is that not a ding on our credibility.
Sykes wrote:
The ugly truth is, it is in the interest of the United States and Syria's Alawites, Christians, Druze, Jews and secular Arabs that Assad remain in power. He has not handed out WMDs to his allies, and he has controlled sectarian violence. If the rebels win, then WMDs will become widely available and all the non-Sunnis will become victims of vicious pogroms. Using poison gases on the rebels (assuming Assad did it, remember Sarajevo) is simply a cost of government in the Middle East.
that's crap.
Grackle wrote:
Considering that the Obama foreign policy has from the start been predicated on left-wing foreign policy cliches (and the results drearily predictable), doing nothing in Syria is preferable to allowing Obama's foreign policy amateurs to make the situation even worse than it already is.
Where the US stands now:
Obama is a worldwide laughing stock, especially in Jihadist circles.
Egypt is sliding rapidly into civil war, with the jihadists likely to emerge as the dominant political force.
Iraq has been handed over to jihadists by Obama.
Afghanistan, Obama's "forgotten war," will soon be abandoned to the jihadists.
Libya is descending into chaos as a result Obama's inept policy – an example of what an Obama-led Syrian intervention would bring.
I said to my left wing compadres who were calling a bush a warmonger and demanding that we pull out of Iraq and calling the war the worst foreign policy debacle ever to be really careful. Because they might actually win the White House one day soon and their guy would then have to deal with the mess. If they got us to withdraw too quickly their president would then have to deal with the mess of their withdrawal. Ad it came to pass that way. Why did we pull out so early, and give up all our gains which we earned through much blood and treasure. Imagine if we still had forces in Iraq and Syria acted up. We'd have soldiers right on their border. They probably wouldn't have even engaged in chemical attacks because of the potential for us to attack them. But this is what happens when we get weak and war weary and all the senators sound like Alan Grayson, Barack Obama and Rand Paul (yes, he is a lefty).
So now I'll make the same argument to my republican brethren. Be really careful about not becoming the anti war lefty party. Because YOU might win the White House very soon and you're going to have to deal with all the shit left by Obama. And why is it shit? Because Barack is a milquetoast anti war quisling, and this is what happens when you put people like that in power. And what are the hawks going to say when Iran or Syria next uses chemical weapons or Iran is on the verge of having their nuke program and we've done nothing to stop,them.
Barack Obama was an idiot. He should never have been elected because he's an anti war moron who doesn't understand the world. rand Paul may be more intelligent than Grayson and Obama, but he's articulating the exact same arguments. And they were stupid when made by the dems. Why should republicans adopt those same arguments? I'm shaking my head looking at republicans getting into bed with the anti war lefties on this.
John McCain is actually right on this one.
"Israel has for years been eager for America to attack Iran. Perhaps they hope that if we attack Syria, Iran will involve itself somehow in support of the Assad regime, thus turning our attack on Syria into the entree of a war with Iran."
A more reasonable assumption is that Israel is happy with the war, and understands that obama's blunder will nay make things worse. Israel had already bombed Syria 4 times this year, and clearly stated that it does not a side in the Syrian civil war. The anti-Israeli firsters clearly don't understand the region or don't care about the facts,
The last time there was this much bipartisan-ness, we were denouncing the IRS and talking about delaying the ACA.
OK, jr565: after Assad goes, then what?
No US air force for Al Queda.
Kirk Parker wrote:
After Assad goes then what?
Then, a regime that is not a proxy for Iran. Or, alternatively a country that is temporarily in control by Al Qaeda. And THEN a country where we take the fight to Al Qaeda and decimate it further rather than killing off one at a time with drone strikes. A country where Al Qaeda has to divert its resources to attempt to control, and that is what AL Qaeda is not good at.
Since its already been established that Syria is secular, we will have plenty of allies who will fight to remove Al Qaeda. And THEN we'll have the regime that is not a proxy for Iran. But we have to remove Assad to get there.
What else will we have? A weakened Iran. The world recognizing that we are not a paper tiger and that these regimes that are doing whatever they want because they think we won't respond having to tread lightly.
We might even be able to checkout the Bekkha valley and see if those chemical weapons we thought were moved from Iraq are there and that Bush and the UN were in fact right all along.
We can set the line that if you use chemical weapons we will bury you. And if it turns out that Al Qaeda used the chemical weapons and not the Assad regime, well then well still have to deal with Al Qaeda having chemical weapons won't we? So then, bombing them would be the response. But Assad's regime would still be a proxy for Iran, and for that alone they need to go.
In short, we don't have to accept the Assad regime OR al Qaeda in Syria. Our military is capable of utterly decimating them if we simply let it do what its good at. There's no reason why, if Assad fell and Al Qaeda rose that we couldn't deal with Al Qaeda the same way.
If its simply a matter of limited, targeted strikes as opposed to a full on regime chane we can still do alot. if we simply decimate Syria's Air Force with targeted strikes it makes it harder for Syria to deal with the rebels, some of whome we want to back against Al Qaeda. Arm the rebels we like, make it hard for Assad to wage war against them by destroying his Air Force then let them fight Assad and Al Qaeda. Ad if they win, great. And if it seems like they are losing we step in and drop bombs on whoever they're fighting until they cry uncle.
And if after helping them they start leaning towards electing a group like t the Muslim brotherhood we tell them in no uncertain terms that what happened to their enemies could happen to them too, so, again tread lightly.
Our military can destroy Syria's army in short order. The problem is, the commander in chief is not a hawk and is running it like an anti war politician would. And so, he takes nothing but half measures and quarter measures, rather than dealing with the issue head on. And so were losing all of these areas in the ME because of weakness.
Perhaps the hawks are weary of war because of how Obama is actually waging it, so it seems like we are more ineffectual than we should be. But the gripe is that Obamas foreign policy lost Egypt and lost Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya. But that's because he is a weakling not because military options can't work. And some republicans are now buying into the same arguments that Obama was making when he was a senator. What makes the Rand Paul's of the world think that their weakness is any less weak? His father, Ron Paul was as weak if not weaker then Dennis Kucinich and Code Pink, and for all his smarts it seems like The apples don't fall far from the trees for Rand Paul.
Blue@9 wrote:
What happens if Assad launches more chemical attacks? Doesn't that obligate us to react even more forcefully? What if Hezbollah launches 10,000 rockets into northern Israel? Are we ready for an Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon?
Israel is holding back because its waiting for us to respond and it doesn't want to necessarily go it alone on dealing with Iran. But is having us in a standoff where Iran is growing stronger due to our inaction a good place for us to be? And can that stand off last forever? at some point its going to reach a tipping point, and then something will change. As usually when it gets to those points the consequences are far worse than if we didn't deal with it NOW when the consequences are bad but not as bad.
Back when We dealt with Iraq in the first gulf war, we didn't go into Baghdad and remove Sadaam. We then had to deal with close to ten years of a festering and failing containment that only caused the US to realize that regime change was the only thing that would stabilize the situation. And then we had war anyway.
Imagine if we had dealt with Sadaam back when we destroyed his army the first time. Imagine if we didn't remove troops from Iraq recently. Would Syria have dared using chemical weapons with us on their border? If we hadn't wimped out but kept up the pressure,on Iran after removing Sadaam would we now be dealing with an Iran that thumbs its nose at us at every turn and keeps on with its nuclear program?
Stop with the half measures.
Blue@9 wrote:
What happens if Assad launches more chemical attacks? Doesn't that obligate us to react even more forcefully? What if Hezbollah launches 10,000 rockets into northern Israel? Are we ready for an Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon?
Israel is holding back because its waiting for us to respond and it doesn't want to necessarily go it alone on dealing with Iran. But is having us in a standoff where Iran is growing stronger due to our inaction a good place for us to be? And can that stand off last forever? at some point its going to reach a tipping point, and then something will change. As usually when it gets to those points the consequences are far worse than if we didn't deal with it NOW when the consequences are bad but not as bad.
Back when We dealt with Iraq in the first gulf war, we didn't go into Baghdad and remove Sadaam. We then had to deal with close to ten years of a festering and failing containment that only caused the US to realize that regime change was the only thing that would stabilize the situation. And then we had war anyway.
Imagine if we had dealt with Sadaam back when we destroyed his army the first time. Imagine if we didn't remove troops from Iraq recently. Would Syria have dared using chemical weapons with us on their border? If we hadn't wimped out but kept up the pressure,on Iran after removing Sadaam would we now be dealing with an Iran that thumbs its nose at us at every turn and keeps on with its nuclear program?
Stop with the half measures.
We also need to weaken Russia. At every turn they are blocking out actions for their own benefit. We need to go over there heads and let them know in no uncertain terms that we will not let them block us from achieving our goals.
Mitt Romney was right when he said Russia was one of our biggest foes.
Our foreign policy should not be to strengthen our enemies hand because we don't want to offend them. They have no problem offending us, and blocking us. So at the end of the day because of our weakness we have to accept Syria gassing its people and Iran strengthened, Russia strengthened and us over a barrel? Because we don't like being called warmongers?
bullshit.
Of course Obama is a weakling who's idea of smart diplomacy is going on apology tours and begging our enemies for forgiveness while shitting on our allies.
So do I think Obama will in fact do a strike on Syria that is effective? No.
And if not, then I'm vacillating on whether I would support him at all. I'm in Mccainsposition camp on this. A response is necessary. But a half measure is worse than doing nothing, so if that is the extent of what's planned then why bother?
I just don't want to hear republicans turn into anti war wusses saying we have to tolerate regimes like Syria which we can wipe out in a weeks time get away with using chemimical weapons because they now agree with left wing talking points. Grow some balls republicans.
Grackle wrote:
Considering that the Obama foreign policy has from the start been predicated on left-wing foreign policy cliches (and the results drearily predictable), doing nothing in Syria is preferable to allowing Obama's foreign policy amateurs to make the situation even worse than it already is.
true about the cliches. But if republicans fall to those same cliches in objecting to dealing with Syria aren't they then guilty of the same thing?
Yes, the ME is in shambles because Obama is such a weakling. But you have people on these boards saying that despotic regimes using chemical weapons is the cost of,business in the ME. And others saying essentially if we bomb them we'll just create more terrorists? Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, from Obama.
So if the response from the republicans who are accusing OBama of being a weakling is the same weakness, then really what would they do differently were they in charge? That's the real fear for me. Well just replace one brand of weakness for another and adopt it as our own. Its still weakness. Only now its ours.
I don't want to follow Obama down the road in engaging in policies that make our enemies stronger and ourselves weaker.
Yes Obama is a hypocrite in being a warmonger, and yes he's going to fuck up the response by not making it strong enough (and thus continuing with his weak policies that only strengthen our enemies while making us look ineffectual) but its not the targeting of Syria that is the weakness. Its the we cant do anything and we just have to accept chemical weapons in the hands of Assad or al qaeda that is the weakness.
My question is, why wasn't this done months ago? Years ago? why did we let it go so far?
I heard a bunch of people at a town hall tell John McCain that he needs to come up,with other ways to get Syria to stop with the chemical strikes absent war. And I heard Dennis Kucinich saying, yet again, that we need to work with the international community and Russia to hold Syria to account.
For fucks sake, Russia is arming the regime. And is a permanent veto on any of our actions because they sit on the security council. So there goes dealing with the international community and Russia.
In fact, by saying we should deal with the International community Dennis is essentially arguing that we should let Russia engage In Foreign policy that affects its own interest at our expense. is that leading to peace? Well no, because more than 100,000 are dead in Syria, regardless of whether Syria uses chemical weapons.and there is a refugee crisis affecting the entire ME right now.
Is it leading to American strength? well no, unless Russia having veto power over our actions while arming the regime is an example of our strength.
So we will never solve these crises in the International community unless we kick Russia off of the security council or call Russia's bluff and recognize that there is not a reset with Russia and hasn't been.
And then Obama gets dinged for letting Russia walk all over us. well yeah. Doesn't Dennis realize that he's only strengthening Russia,s hand on this?
Putin must think that Obama is the worlds biggest chump. And while I do take a certain degree of joy in watching obama flounder, even I recognize that Obama can't do anything about Russia if he doesn't do anything about Russia.
Russia and Syria sure understand that War is beneficial to their cause which is why they re engaged in it.they and their allies, the useful idiots are preaching that our weakness is somehow a strength.
No, its a weakness. At the end of the day Syria is going to be stronger, Russia is going to e stronger and we are going to look like idiots. War will not be averted. In fact war with chemical weapons will be the norm. Even that will not be enough to get us to act.
Us becoming isolationists just makes Russia the dominant superpower at our expense. Why do we insist in letting ourselves e the sap of the world every time?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा