Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quite astute observation by a poster in the elections forum (see post 15): Biden in 2016?
And it's an observation I have not heard from any of the high-powered, 6-figure-salaried national sages and experts.
If the vote goes against him, he can wash his hands of the whole thing, spew some lofty stuff about respecting the legislative branch, and he's covered. The onus is on Congress (read: house republicans) for anything that goes bad in Syria from that point on.
If the vote is yes, then now he has a partner with whom to share blame if things go wrong. Again he's covered. If something goes wrong he can say something like: we knew there was risk going in; we knew it was not going to be easy; that's why I was careful to go through the process of getting a consensus. And now that we have a consensus, we must stay the course, and finish the job.
Much of media, even MSM, portrays Obama as a V8 firing on 4 cylinders, with no strategy, no endgame, no coherence, feckless and rudderless. Could it be that he actually knows exactly what he's doing, and is dumb like a fox?
Probably true.
He's messed this thing up either way --- he intentionally gave Assad warning that nothing at all will be done until Congress gets back and does it, Assad has plenty of time to get any targets moved before any attacks would happen.
He's also carefully explained to Assad that the attacks would be for only 60 days, and limited to only his command center, so in 60 days he can then move them back.
Obama has screwed up this war either way. Announcing a limited time to attack and just saying we'd be dropping a few bombs and where almost makes you wonder if Obama isn't on Assad's side.
He and Hillary both could not care less about the human lives involved, both are strictly politicians playing a game. Both only worried about their own popularity, nothing else matters.
The country is in a LOSE situation if we stick our nose yet again somewhere it doesn't belong. Who gives a rat's ass what politicians may benefit from that misdeed?
We're tired of war, I get that. But if we ignore Assad's use of chemical weapons, then the global community needs to re-examine its approach to such behaviour. Suddenly using chemicals isn't as bad as we once said it was.
Just who is saying Assad used chemical weapons? Why should we be world police, let Russia and China deal with it.
Just who is saying Assad used chemical weapons? Why should we be world police, let Russia and China deal with it.
Russian is probably in a better position to deal with it that we are. They have had their issues with Muslim terrorists, and have as much or more incentive to quash proliferation of WMD in the mid east as we do. They also are not as much constrained by PC as we are.
Quite astute observation by a poster in the elections forum
Quote:
Obama might be a terrible President and/or Commander In Chief but he's an excellent strategist. His Syria strategy (politically speaking) is actually brilliant. He has put himself in a win-win situation no matter how the vote goes down in Congress.
And it's an observation I have not heard from any of the high-powered, 6-figure-salaried national sages and experts.
Much of media, even MSM, portrays Obama as a V8 firing on 4 cylinders, with no strategy, no endgame, no coherence, feckless and rudderless. Could it be that he actually knows exactly what he's doing, and is dumb like a fox?
No matter what the assumptions are, the bolded area is the only thing that matters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.