Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1 Obama Votes "Present" Again 
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Obama draws a red line in the sand regarding chemical weapons use. Bashir Assad crosses that line. Twice. Then, Obama tries to hem and haw his way out of committing to what he had threatened. Now, Obama has punted the whole thing to congress. Why? The answer is obvious. Obama doesn't want to actually do anything about Syria, but his inaction is making him look bad domestically. Even Democrats are starting to get fed up. So, what's a dilettante with no interest in foreign policy and no understanding of how to make things work in the real world to do? You set yourself up for failure. You punt the whole thing to congress, and then go golfing. If congress votes to use force, it's not Obama's war, it's, well, congress' war, and you know who has the majority in the house. And if they don't, well, sorry all of you Syrian chemical weapon victims, but we tried. It was those nasty Republicans who wouldn't let America do the right thing. But, no matter which way it goes, he's off the hook. This is how a president votes "present."

    BTW, I'm not arguing for or against bombing Syria. At this point, anything that we do is going to fail, because the leadership isn't there. A pinprick bombing won't hurt Assad (and actually helps him by letting him claim that he's defied the might of the US), a sustained campaign requires leadership that Obama cannot and will not exercise, and taking no action makes us look feckless and weak.

    No matter what action the US takes, we cannot win. That's what comes of voting "present" instead of leading.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,775
    It occurs to me that this whole situation Obama has gotten us into vis-a-vis 'Red lines' and other such rhetoric with Syria is kind of a trap, and Syria actually has the upper hand at the moment. If he takes no action, everyone is left with the vague aftertaste of failure whether they thought a strike made any kind of sense or not, and since Assad seems to be slowly gaining the upper hand in the civil war, it strengthens him. On the other hand, if we do endorse Obozo's vaguely-formulated, but limited to a non-crippling scope, attack plan, that can work for Assad too...he becomes a hero on the Arab street (No matter what kind of asshole he is otherwise) because we attacked him, and any attack on Assad will be seen as endorsing the rebels, no matter how many disclaimers of that the Western press may spew, which will tend to de-legitimize the rebels.

    I believe our man in DC has created a perfect storm of lose-lose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,332
    I wish we could trade Obama in for Putin or maybe a fence post.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    I wish we could trade Obama in for Putin or maybe a fence post.
    Either would work.

    Sic hacer pace, para bellum.
    Sent from my android.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Obama draws a red line in the sand regarding chemical weapons use. Bashir Assad crosses that line. Twice. Then, Obama tries to hem and haw his way out of committing to what he had threatened. Now, Obama has punted the whole thing to congress. Why? The answer is obvious. Obama doesn't want to actually do anything about Syria, but his inaction is making him look bad domestically. Even Democrats are starting to get fed up. So, what's a dilettante with no interest in foreign policy and no understanding of how to make things work in the real world to do? You set yourself up for failure. You punt the whole thing to congress, and then go golfing. If congress votes to use force, it's not Obama's war, it's, well, congress' war, and you know who has the majority in the house. And if they don't, well, sorry all of you Syrian chemical weapon victims, but we tried. It was those nasty Republicans who wouldn't let America do the right thing. But, no matter which way it goes, he's off the hook. This is how a president votes "present."

    BTW, I'm not arguing for or against bombing Syria. At this point, anything that we do is going to fail, because the leadership isn't there. A pinprick bombing won't hurt Assad (and actually helps him by letting him claim that he's defied the might of the US), a sustained campaign requires leadership that Obama cannot and will not exercise, and taking no action makes us look feckless and weak.

    No matter what action the US takes, we cannot win. That's what comes of voting "present" instead of leading.
    This is no different from how Obama has been handling almost everything of major importance. He doesn't openly "champion" or "ask for" anything. Everyone else takes the blame.

    NDAA:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SEG46ln63w

    “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

    “It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levine, emphasizing, “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

    Obama asked the Senate not to exempt US citizens from NDAA, then made a big show in the media of wanting to veto the bill if it included American citizens, and then signed in as planned with his language in it. Not his fault. 4th amendment destroyed. No fingerprints.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •