MISSION ACCOMPLISHED....or something like that---Obama

didn't watch the speech.
did see a 'breaking news' on my homepage at one point tho, where obama said 'syria represents danger to our national security'.

i don't suppose he explained how? still haven't seen an explanation on that one. saying it doesn't make it so.


http://news.msn.com/us/analysis-obam...-publics-trust

'trust me'.

seriously? i always look askance at someone when they say 'trust me'. or 'you can't miss it' for that matter...at any rate, why would anyone trust obama at this point? hey, mr pres, lay it all out. don't just say 'chemical weapons, we need to strike'. give details. why do we need to strike? how is it a matter of our national security? why do you keep pushing this, when no one else is?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._congress.html

President Obama’s address about his Syria policy felt like the policy itself at times. He went ahead with it just because he promised he would. The purpose of the East Room address was to rally the country and members of Congress to support a military strike against Syria, but the Congressional vote to do so has been postponed while a possible diplomatic solution is pursued. So the president’s speech was like delivering a locker room speech after the rain delay had been called.

But in keeping with the apparent rule that every aspect of this policy must have a contradiction, the president argued that the threat of military force must remain credible to keep diplomacy alive. Assad will give up chemical weapons only if he believes he’ll receive Tomahawk missiles if he doesn’t. But the only way that can be done at present—since Obama has made it clear he won’t act without Congress—is with a Congressional vote supporting military strikes. But that vote has been postponed—at the president’s request—while diplomacy is pursued. Because the president was almost certain to lose such a vote, not having Congress weigh in was the best way to keep the pressure on.

So if I'm clear, killing 100's of thousands of people, mostly civilians and children with guns and bombs is totally cool, but gassing them is what is keeping Obama up all night.

2 years into this and now he needs to preempt "The Bachelor - Funniest Moments" to plead his case?! Has he no shame?!!

Maybe that's why we haven't intervened in Africa yet - no nerve gas. Makes complete sense now.

And from the White House News Agency (RE: MSM), much like a vampire from True Blood "glamming" his victims, 61% of Americans now magically support his position. LOL.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0....html?hp=l3_b1

When they took the poll last night at dinner, wonder whether it was Sasha, Malia or the butler that did not support the position?

And by the way which position are we talking about? Supporting the attack before not supporting the attack? Geez a bit of deja vu going on here.

yeah, apparently bombs are civilized. why it matter how one dies when caught in crossfire is beyond me.
their civil war has gone on for years, we don't need to get involved. do i feel bad for the innocent victims? yes, just like i do for innocent victims everywhere else. but how this is somehow involving our national security is beyond me. what tests does it meet that other areas of the world don't?

Apparently we have drones that can sniff out coffee can-sized canisters of Sarin gas and obliterate them with sidewinder missiles without causing any damage or injury/death to civilians.

Then they can go back to killing each other the old fashioned way.

hey, i saw the squidbillies episode with the drones.....they aren't as good as we think they are. :D

http://news.msn.com/world/us-russia-...emical-weapons


deal reached!

:tro: Good start..

To what? :zz:

Pretty much sums it up.

http://communities.washingtontimes.c...nd-al-zawahri/

Post by John Cole, balloon-juice's site owner.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2013/09/17/long-overdue-3/

Good stuff about the way media will spin things.

Cole, by the way, served in the first Iraq war, and used to be very, very right-wing (which is when I first started reading him).

EDIT: This is not to say that I generally love the US's foreign policy, as I don't. But I think the military industrial complex is bigger than any one person, unfortunately.

yes, it is very large.
and when you say 'shrink the military' people freak out. i don't think they realize how big that albatross is that we have hanging around our collective necks.

as for the foreign policy...it's been off the rails for decades. i think since ww2, before it ended really.

To most people "Shrink the Military" means we will be invaded.:zz:

DHS which never even existed 12 years ago, is the 2nd largest funded cabinet dept after DoD, costing us 60 billion dollars a year.

Sixty Thousand Million dollars.

A year.

For "Homeland Security".

Anyone else feel like they're getting their money's worth? :zz:

Strange that when Bush was President the military wasn't described as bigger than one man yet under Obama it suddenly is.

I forgot it was Obama's military when bin-Laden was killed and only became bigger than one man when the Nobel Peace Prize recipient started performing a solo on his war drum. :wf

Dell, I'm confused.... shouldnt you be happy that we are not bombing Syria at the moment?

He was for Not bombing Syria when it looked like we were going to Bomb Syria. Now that cooler heads prevail he is for bombing Syria. Really easy to follow as he is the Yang to Obama's Ying.

I have a cartoon for that..btw, if the Russian disposal plan works, guess who will be next years Nobel Peace Prize winner:zz: