Jump to content

Which Gas attack did POTUS Really Really Really Mean Would be a Trigge


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 391
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What Netanyahu Is Learning from President Obama’s Vacillations on Syria

By Joel C. Rosenberg

 

It is not exactly starting off as a happy New Year in Jerusalem.

 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his security cabinet are mortified by what they are seeing unfold – not in Damascus, but in Washington.

To be sure, Israeli leaders are concerned but not surprised by the horrific blood-letting that is underway between the evil Assad regime and the demonic forces of al-Qaeda and their radical Islamic partners. But the Israelis are stunned and dismayed by the vacillating, lurching, confused, and chaotic approach to decision-making of President Obama and his top advisers.

 

Officially, the Israeli government supports the Obama administration’s approach to Syria. “Israel agrees with President Obama that the use of chemical weapons is a ‘heinous act’ for which the Assad regime must be held accountable and for which there must be ‘international consequences,’” said Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador in Washington. “Israel further agrees with the president that the use of chemical weapons promotes the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and encourages ‘governments who would choose to build nuclear arms.’”

 

This should not be surprising. Israel is, after all, America’s best friend in the Middle East and most loyal ally on the planet.

 

But behind the scenes, Netanyahu and his team have never felt more alone.

 

If President Obama is so distrusted by the American people and her representatives in Congress that he cannot build solid support for limited military strikes against Syria’s chemical-weapons facilities, the Israelis are coming to the painful realization that there is no chance for the president to pull together support for preemptive military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

 

Mr. Obama cannot even persuade former defense secretary Don Rumsfeld or former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton – two outspoken hawks, ready and willing to use military force against WMD in the Middle East when necessary – to support his limited plan for action in Syria. This just shows how deeply the president is mistrusted by those who would otherwise support bipartisan efforts to take out tyrants and their most dangerous weapons.

 

That means one thing: The Israelis are on their own, and now they know it.

Edited by B-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also: Obama cancels LA trip as ‘no’ votes on Syria resolution pile up.......... Canceling a fundraiser??!! Sh*t just got real.

 

You'll know it 's real when he cancels a round of golf. Cancelling an AFL-CIO fundraiser after the longshoreman just abandoned the union because of Obamacare is probably a relief to Obama, who increasingly is finding himself with fewer and fewer friends these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good idea. Draw an inaccurate analogy to World War II, in front of a Russian audience, in frickin' Leningrad. :wallbash:

 

That's going to win over Putin. Way to have a sense of history, you idiot. Dumbest thing I've heard since Bush called the war on terror a "crusade."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Good idea. Draw an inaccurate analogy to World War II, in front of a Russian audience, in frickin' Leningrad. :wallbash:

 

That's going to win over Putin. Way to have a sense of history, you idiot. Dumbest thing I've heard since Bush called the war on terror a "crusade."

 

Well he did take down the portrait of Winston Churchill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good idea. Draw an inaccurate analogy to World War II, in front of a Russian audience, in frickin' Leningrad. :wallbash:

 

That's going to win over Putin. Way to have a sense of history, you idiot. Dumbest thing I've heard since Bush called the war on terror a "crusade."

 

Lol.......

 

 

Clear-Cut Stupidity On Syria: Everyone’s on the hook for Obama’s “red line” comments. Except Obama.

 

“Obama doesn’t believe he needs authorization from Congress to strike Syria, he just wants it.

 

He’s like a kid desperate for a prom date, but too vain to admit it.

 

In Libya, Obama had the U.N. and NATO on each arm, so he didn’t bother with asking the dog on Capitol Hill for a date.

 

But now, faced with the prospect of going it alone, he’s in effect telling Congress, ‘ Hey, it’s not like I need your company, but you’d be crazy not to go to war with me.’”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL

 

"President Obama’s toughest Syria hurdle: The calendar."

 

Oh no! Our leader, assailed by the calendar!

 

 

Obama will sit Monday for interviews for six TV news programs, which will air within an hour of what had promised to be the week’s most highly anticipated Washington event: the NFL Redskins’ season opener against Philadelphia....

 

If Monday Night Football pushed Obama’s address to the nation on Syria to Tuesday, odds are low for the president to have the nation’s attention to himself the rest of the week either.

 

The Sept. 11 anniversary comes Wednesday, the same day the Senate could vote for cloture. Yom Kippur begins Friday night.

 

 

 

Oh! That pesky September 11th anniversary, randomly popping up as a "tough hurdle" on Obama's — what's the metaphor? — race toward war!

 

And this year, it's not just the usual anniversary of the day the terrorists declared war on the United States, it's now the first anniversary of the attack in Benghazi.

 

Oh, my lord! The double 9/11 and football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so russia's trying to play world policeman by promising removal of chemical weapons. not ideal from a US prestige perspective but i'll bet they don't cross their new best friends by using them again soon. iran may be a different story but per drudge there's no link between syria and them so why worry? i jest... all in all, i think maybe a decent short term solution without dropping bombs or dropping us into the middle of another war. won't last but may reveal the true issues here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so russia's trying to play world policeman by promising removal of chemical weapons. not ideal from a US prestige perspective but i'll bet they don't cross their new best friends by using them again soon. iran may be a different story but per drudge there's no link between syria and them so why worry? i jest... all in all, i think maybe a decent short term solution without dropping bombs or dropping us into the middle of another war. won't last but may reveal the true issues here.

 

By promising international control of them, not just removal.

 

Good plan. Run with it, Obama. It's a clear indictment of your lack of leadership, but it's a far, FAR better and less embarrassing option than any other you have right now..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By promising international control of them, not just removal.

 

Good plan. Run with it, Obama. It's a clear indictment of your lack of leadership, but it's a far, FAR better and less embarrassing option than any other you have right now..

so would you trade the perception of a strong leader (in a prez in his last possible term )for a domestically quiet (for now) outcome? the markets look like they would. i would too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so would you trade the perception of a strong leader (in a prez in his last possible term )for a domestically quiet (for now) outcome? the markets look like they would. i would too.

 

Trick question. No one on the planet perceives Obama as a strong leader at this point. Or a weak leader. Or any kind of leader.

 

All I'm saying is that Obama !@#$ed up, badly. He needs to realize this is the absolute best possible outcome, handed to him on a silver platter, and he needs to take it despite the fact that it gives Assad the legitimacy that Obama so desperately doesn't want to give him, despite not wanting to admit it.

 

 

 

"Domestic quiet?" Seriously? That's even a consideration? !@#$ing moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trick question. No one on the planet perceives Obama as a strong leader at this point. Or a weak leader. Or any kind of leader.

 

All I'm saying is that Obama !@#$ed up, badly. He needs to realize this is the absolute best possible outcome, handed to him on a silver platter, and he needs to take it despite the fact that it gives Assad the legitimacy that Obama so desperately doesn't want to give him, despite not wanting to admit it.

It also further reinforces that Barry is Vlad's beyotch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also further reinforces that Barry is Vlad's beyotch.

go back to the chemical attack on assad's own people. what would you envision the best possible outcome from america's perspective? a few hundred tomahawks rained down with who knows what to follow? doing nothing? saying nothing? or russia handling the problem that no one else was in a position to handle without force? i'm liking the latter better than any other options.. did obama play it that way? nope. but that's how it's looking to work out. is the uk suddenly irrelevant because cameron was voted down. i think not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

go back to the chemical attack on assad's own people. what would you envision the best possible outcome from america's perspective? a few hundred tomahawks rained down with who knows what to follow? doing nothing? saying nothing? or russia handling the problem that no one else was in a position to handle without force? i'm liking the latter better than any other options.. did obama play it that way? nope. but that's how it's looking to work out. is the uk suddenly irrelevant because cameron was voted down. i think not.

America's best possible outcome now is to let Russia handle it. But that emasculates the US after Barry's tough talk last year. And that's not a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...