Friday, September 06, 2013


The news lately is all-Syria-all-the-time.  Ed Schultz, over at MSNBC is down on the Republicans for foiling Obama's plan to be the super-president.
The Republicans, they don’t hate war. They hate this guy: Barack Hussein Obama. They just cannot stomach the fact that they might be agreeing with him, ’cause they’d have a lot of trouble back home. They have fought this president, obstructed this president, their whole focus is to make him a failure. How in the world can they support him on going up against Syria? The level of spite in conservative hearts for this president is the only reason they are against war for the first time ever.
No, Ed, the problem is not that we hate this President.  The problem is that he got himself in trouble running his mouth about a red line, and no one sees any benefit in bailing him out.  The mission does not have an identifiable objective, he's lost the element of surprise,  The White House doesn't have a plan, and they're changing the target list daily.
Even as Congress considers President Obama's push for military strikes on Syria, the details of that plan continue to change by the day -- with one source telling Fox News that military officials have been asked to revise their plans 50 times since the Pentagon first began considering a “limited” action.
Still to be resolved is what method of attack the U.S. would use. While missile-equipped ships are at the ready in the Mediterranean Sea, a senior defense official told Fox News that the possibility of launching military aircraft strikes was one of the range of options presented to Obama.
The official said the choice the president makes will depend on what he wants included in the target list – and that seems to shift daily.
So, the White House doesn't know what it wants to do, it doesn't know what targets it wants to hit, it doesn't know what platforms to use, and it's lost the element of surprise.

Does that sound like a reason to go to war in Syria?  It doesn't sound like a very good idea to me.

Our President has never served in the military, and I'd bet that his closest advisers don't have a dozen combined years of military experience.  Lets not forget that in many circles, his SecState, Kerry, is considered an incompetent, lying, traitorous slacker.  That should tell us all we need to know about the White House military experience.

We've got no mission in Syria,
We've got no plan for Syria,
Whoever we bomb, we'll be helping our enemies.
No matter what happens to Syria, it's bad for the United States.


JoeMama said...

No upside.

All downside.

No clear, definable good guys.

There is no confidence that the rebels will stay their hand and never attack US citizens.

Spite has nothing to do with the resistance to playing Superpower in Syria.

Obama reminds me of a Three Stooges skit where everybody in the house adds salt to the soup and they end up with a toxic mess. Obama does not have the humility to believe that problems can be worked out without his input.

I fear that we shall end up with a toxic mess if Obama gets bullheaded and pulls an Executive Order out of his nether regions.

Anonymous said...

It is way, way, way past time to shit-can the "GOP Establishment" morons. Cut them out of the discussion. If they try to remove the money strings, crack/hack the accounts, and re-assign the money. Make the "old dogs" scared......make them very very scared.....

Rivrdog said...

Hack Article One of our Constitution? While the Founders couldn't have forseen the possibility, they still could decide what to do with such a miscrean: lumber, rope, nails...some assembly required to build a gallows, Anon.

In the overall scheme, let's not forget that Russia has promised a "missile shield" and Hezbollah has promised counter-attacks if we strike. Whtever you think about those threats, they ARE viable, believable to some extent.

Anonymous said...

As said on another forum, BH's plan for Syria is like calling Pearl Harbor a limited air strike with no boots on the ground.