Well, Syria. Sure.
I'm not sure what I'd say for something that doesn't matter. I may have missed some silly hype about something over the holidays, but barring that...how about the talk that whatever happens between Congress and the president over Syria will be precedent-setting and either constrain or empower future presidents? I'm not convinced.
But perhaps you have more. What do you think mattered this week?
I'll go along with your point on the precedent not mattering, along with the whole notion that the Iranians won't be deterred if Obama goes to Congress or if the bombing of Syria is delayed by a week, but would have been otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the bombing of Syria will just be one more point for those Iranians who argue that it's foolish to give up nukes.
Jonathan, we'd like to invite you to become one of our Authors in Alexandria. This invitation has been extended to you by email as well.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to posting on anything you wish, as you desire, you may of course mirror posts you've already written from here or elsewhere to gain a different or additional audience or for any other reason that appeals to you.
If you think you might be interested, contact me through Alexandria or by return email via this comment and I'll forward our formal invitations for you to look over and return if you decide to proceed.
Come contribute your perspectives and opinions to the ongoing conversations there on Syria and many other things or, even better, start some new - and different - ones of your own.
I look forward to hearing from you.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Well, Obama's excellent Libyan adventure certainly established a new precedent for unilateral presidential action. But the current chaos in Libya, as well as the slaughter of those 4 men by the very islamofascists the US was aiding there, and the ensuing coverup of same, now being uncovered, has shown that newly minted precedent's creation to have been a massive blunder, knowledge of which is now bearing directly on the Syrian situation.
ReplyDeleteHere's what doesn't matter this week: the incessant crybaby whining of retard FOXNEWS zombies, who would be giving Seig Heil salutes if it were a Republican suggesting that we bomb someone.
Deletepurusha, can't you do any better than calling him a Fascist Zombie? I hear that his mother wears combat boots.
DeleteNot that I agree that much with Anonymous, but your response doesn't reflect well on the intellectualism of the pro-Obama camp.
Different Anon here. Obviously, the Benghazi! fiction is a joke. But I want to call foul on purusha for use of "retard." Not okay.
DeleteSorry, when I see FOX ditto-heads vomit moronic and hypocritical anti-Obama talking points, my instinct is to punch the fascists right back twice as hard.
DeleteIt's increasingly looking like public opposition might actually stop the war. That by itself is fairly unprecedented and unexpected, particularly when you consider the natural inclination of many Congressmen to blindly follow the President.
ReplyDeleteGreg Sargent has an interesting piece on the unusual congressional alliances that have formed against party leadership: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/06/alliance-of-tea-party-libertarians-and-anti-war-dems-looks-like-the-real-thing/
Stopping the war would be a blow to presidential power and a huge boost to the anti-war factions in both parties. Going forward with the war seems like it would hurt Obama with his base and perhaps have electoral consequences for Hillary down the line. There could perhaps be even more profound political shifts, as it's hard to imagine policy remaining so profoundly misaligned with public opinion for very long.
What war would public opposition stop, exactly? The war is Syria is going to continue regardless of US action and public opinion, so congratulations need to be more precise than that.
DeleteMP - The President is trying to take us to war with Assad's Syrian government, against the clear wishes of the American public.
DeleteSo you assume that Obama's words about a "limited strike" are meaningless. You don't even seem to acknowledge that's what he said. We could have a reasonable discussion about whether a strike could actually be limited, but that means you have to acknowledge that Obama's goal might not be all out war. So far, you don't seem to admit there's a difference.
DeleteIt's hard to have a discussion with people who ignore facts and/or make up their own set of facts.
MP, I don't know why you're being so hostile and accusatory. I said nothing about the scope of the war -- I'm happy to take Obama at his word that he intends to conduct a limited engagement.
Delete"It's hard to have a discussion with people who ignore facts and/or make up their own set of facts."
DeleteYou owe me an apology for this.
If my criticism of you isn't clear, I'm unsure why. But I'll explain. You wrote:
Delete"...public opposition might actually stop the war"
"...going forward with the war..."
"The President is trying to take us to war with Assad's Syrian government..."
In two posts, you ignore the difference between a limited strike and "going to war" to enhance your argument that it's "war" if we have an airstrikes, without noting that it's still war if we don't.
No, I don't owe you an apology. You used argumentation that ignored a helluva lot of context, and that's poor argumentation. I wouldn't hesitate to make an apology if I thought I was wrong, which sometimes I am.
MP, I was obviously talking about the US debate over taking our own forces to war. I even clarified which "war" I was talking about in my followup comment.
DeleteI also think it's fair to say that anyone reading this knows that there's already a war going on in Syria. I didn't state this explicitly because it's assumed that my reader already knows it. To accuse me, on the basis of this omission, of ignoring and/or making up facts is truly bizarre.
If there were a prize for the most trivial straw man argument, I'd submit your posts here as an entry.
I stand by what I wrote. It wasn't a trivial complaint as internet exchanges go, but it's certainly been a long enough thread jack for it to end now.
DeleteWell, then I have to question your good intent -- because there's no other way to account for why you would make a straw man out of my obviously innocent phrasing.
Delete