Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Noonan is right to a degree. But, Obama is not the central issue, or he wasn't until he attempted to lead a nation and world where it did not want to go. And, it isn't a deflection to Bushii, even though his failure led to the rise of isolationists in the gop.
McCain and Graham have been making the talking show circuit for months, calling Obama weak for not supporting the brave rebels, when in fact the only rebels apparntly with military capability are our enemies ... and Assad for all his loathsomeness has never called on muslims to attack the US. McCain and Graham are losing cred in the gop, which hasn't the appetite for military strikes anymore than the left wing of the dems.
Egypt happended on its own. Libya was really a push by the Italians and French for us to support their forary. I think Noonan's error is to assume the American public will not support fighting aggression aimed at us or an ally, such as S.Korea. We simply don't have dog in this fight.
Obama made a politically expedient move to draw a line, that he had no intention of drawing, to appease McCain and the neocons. He should have stayed true to the man who opposed Iraq in 2003
Ah, I don't think Obama will bomb now. But, he did fail to lead in that he should have openly confronted McCain over the fact that destabilizing assad helps al queda, and he should have pursued a global political consensus more actively to condem Assad on chemicals. Of course, the RWers would have pounded him, and the TP isolationists would have sat back an let him take the pounding because it woudl have been politically expedient.
The end result will be the same. Obama is truly now a lame duck with no power to lead.
Reports indicate that the president is having a very difficult time winning supporters for the Syria, particularly in the House, and especially among House Republicans, whose motives, surely, are pure and not in any way political.
If Obama loses, and agrees to abide by the results of the vote, the master media narrative will be that this was a humiliation for him, weakening him for the rest of his presidency.
But you know who's not going to go along with that narrative? The public.
If we get to that point, and the press (as it surely will) begins talking about a mortally wounded presidency, it will just be a continuation of a media narrative we've heard all year, with one pundit after another after another looking into the dire state of Obama's "mojo." Sequestration, Benghazi, the IRS, Edward Snowden ... is the recovery of Obama's "mojo" even possible?
<snip>
The public wants what it wants -- in this case, to avoid war -- and will be pleased if war is avoided. Obama's standing will stay roughly the same because enough people still see him as right, or more or less right, on a wide range of issues (unlike George W. Bush at roughly this point in his presidency, who'd proved to be utterly wrong on everything, from Iraq to Katrina to Terri Schiavo to Social Security).
What the public doesn't care about is the Beltway's obsession, which is the power ranking of public officials. The public won't care that losing makes Obama look weak.
Noonan is right to a degree. But, Obama is not the central issue, or he wasn't until he attempted to lead a nation and world where it did not want to go. And, it isn't a deflection to Bushii, even though his failure led to the rise of isolationists in the gop.
McCain and Graham have been making the talking show circuit for months, calling Obama weak for not supporting the brave rebels, when in fact the only rebels apparntly with military capability are our enemies ... and Assad for all his loathsomeness has never called on muslims to attack the US. McCain and Graham are losing cred in the gop, which hasn't the appetite for military strikes anymore than the left wing of the dems.
Egypt happended on its own. Libya was really a push by the Italians and French for us to support their forary. I think Noonan's error is to assume the American public will not support fighting aggression aimed at us or an ally, such as S.Korea. We simply don't have dog in this fight.
Obama made a politically expedient move to draw a line, that he had no intention of drawing, to appease McCain and the neocons. He should have stayed true to the man who opposed Iraq in 2003
McCain & Graham are 100% in favor of helping vile Islamists take over Syria, but yet it's Obama's fault if they do. Go fig.
Noonan is right to a degree. But, Obama is not the central issue, or he wasn't until he attempted to lead a nation and world where it did not want to go. And, it isn't a deflection to Bushii, even though his failure led to the rise of isolationists in the gop.
McCain and Graham have been making the talking show circuit for months, calling Obama weak for not supporting the brave rebels, when in fact the only rebels apparntly with military capability are our enemies ... and Assad for all his loathsomeness has never called on muslims to attack the US. McCain and Graham are losing cred in the gop, which hasn't the appetite for military strikes anymore than the left wing of the dems.
Egypt happended on its own. Libya was really a push by the Italians and French for us to support their forary. I think Noonan's error is to assume the American public will not support fighting aggression aimed at us or an ally, such as S.Korea. We simply don't have dog in this fight.
Obama made a politically expedient move to draw a line, that he had no intention of drawing, to appease McCain and the neocons. He should have stayed true to the man who opposed Iraq in 2003
McCain & Graham are 100% in favor of helping vile Islamists take over Syria, but yet it's Obama's fault if they do. Go fig.
It's somehow McCain and Graham's fault because they agree with Dear Leader? In the sheeple's mind, nothing is ever Dear Leader's fault. Nothing sticks.
SO? Thank God he is backpedaling. Just vote freaking NAY and leave it there.
Do the idiots like McCain and Graham need to label themselves as idiots every time there is a possibility for that?
JUST VOTE FREAKING NO!
Let Obama make an idiot of himself - and let save the country from another war.
Obama can back pedal till the cows come home. The question he refuses to answer is: will he go ahead with the strike if congress votes no? I am leaning toward his answer being 'yes'. Hope I'm wrong. Stay tuned.
McCain and Graham need to be put out to pasture.
agree.
but if he decides to do that himself AGAINST the will of Congress, without allies and against the UN ( which I do not think he will) - then HE is going to be liable both in domestic and international courts for illegal wars and war crimes.
McCain & Graham are 100% in favor of helping vile Islamists take over Syria, but yet it's Obama's fault if they do. Go fig.
Please. Obama drew the red line and now backpedals saying "it's not me, it's you", waffles his answers on questions such as 'if congress votes no will you strike anyway'?, changes the battle plan 50 times, says no boots on ground without having a clue if striking Syria will cause WWIII .... and nothing, but NOTHING is ever his fault! Tell me, did you drink your kool aid, deep fry it, or mix it with alcohol for some fruity umbrella drink?
I'm thinking he doesn't much care how the vote goes in Congress. Once he saw what the public thought, he likely wanted a way out. Congress voting no is the best of all outcomes. He doesn't piss off 80% of the country and blames the GOP when talking to the 20% that wants to bomb Syria. Win/win situation from what started out as a blunder.
McCain & Graham are 100% in favor of helping vile Islamists take over Syria, but yet it's Obama's fault if they do. Go fig.
It's somehow McCain and Graham's fault because they agree with Dear Leader? In the sheeple's mind, nothing is ever Dear Leader's fault. Nothing sticks.
Nothing sticks to Obama because the voters compare him to his predecessor, who was probably the worst President in American history. Get over it.
Curiously, Noonan never acknowledges that just this past April she was in favor of a U.S. attack, and was angry at Obama because he was sure he wouldn't drop bombs:
... there is growing evidence that Mr. Assad is the first known leader to use chemical weapons since Saddam Hussein murdered his own people in the Kurdish city of Halabja in 1988. The Syrian attack violates red lines Mr. Obama personally laid down. And now the Administration will ... go to the U.N.?
At Turtle Bay, the U.S. will need permission from Syria's protectors in Moscow and Beijing merely to begin an investigation. If such a probe does get launched, it is unlikely ever to reach the site of the attacks in safety. At which point -- several months, if not years, down the road -- proof of the attacks will be all-but impossible to come by. Surely Mr. Obama and his military advisers know that it is impossible to gather from a battlefield the kind of proof needed beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom....
Mr. Obama has strived mightily to avoid intervening in Syria, despite his repeated demands that Mr. Assad "must go." The Administration's U.N. gambit looks like one more way to avoid doing something it promised it would do if chemical weapons were used. Presidents who are exposed as bluffers tend to have their bluff called again and again, with ever more dangerous consequences.
Yes, a right-winger is a hypocrite on this issue. I'm sure you're shocked.
McCain & Graham are 100% in favor of helping vile Islamists take over Syria, but yet it's Obama's fault if they do. Go fig.
It's somehow McCain and Graham's fault because they agree with Dear Leader? In the sheeple's mind, nothing is ever Dear Leader's fault. Nothing sticks.
Nothing sticks to Obama because the voters compare him to his predecessor, who was probably the worst President in American history. Get over it.
It's somehow McCain and Graham's fault because they agree with Dear Leader? In the sheeple's mind, nothing is ever Dear Leader's fault. Nothing sticks.
Nothing sticks to Obama because the voters compare him to his predecessor, who was probably the worst President in American history. Get over it.
That and the tea party forces the gop so far right. However, I think Obama took a fatal hit in political terms.
I think it shows he cannot get a maj of his own party to support him. Similar to Bushii on immigration. If a dem doesn't support an issue on the merits, they are now free to ignore his plea, or threat, for support.
The failure of McCain to get his own party in line (and McConnel and Boehner as well) will also have consequences for gop leadership.
McCain & Graham are 100% in favor of helping vile Islamists take over Syria, but yet it's Obama's fault if they do. Go fig.
It's somehow McCain and Graham's fault because they agree with Dear Leader? In the sheeple's mind, nothing is ever Dear Leader's fault. Nothing sticks.
Nothing sticks to Obama because the voters compare him to his predecessor, who was probably the worst President in American history. Get over it.
Get over it.
McCain & Graham are 100% in favor of helping vile Islamists take over Syria, but yet it's Obama's fault if they do. Go fig.
Please. Obama drew the red line and now backpedals saying "it's not me, it's you", waffles his answers on questions such as 'if congress votes no will you strike anyway'?, changes the battle plan 50 times, says no boots on ground without having a clue if striking Syria will cause WWIII .... and nothing, but NOTHING is ever his fault! Tell me, did you drink your kool aid, deep fry it, or mix it with alcohol for some fruity umbrella drink?
I'm thinking he doesn't much care how the vote goes in Congress. Once he saw what the public thought, he likely wanted a way out. Congress voting no is the best of all outcomes. He doesn't piss off 80% of the country and blames the GOP when talking to the 20% that wants to bomb Syria. Win/win situation from what started out as a blunder.
It's somehow McCain and Graham's fault because they agree with Dear Leader? In the sheeple's mind, nothing is ever Dear Leader's fault. Nothing sticks.
Nothing sticks to Obama because the voters compare him to his predecessor, who was probably the worst President in American history. Get over it.
Uh, no. That would be because Obama can't let Bush go, can't stop blaming him, can't stop blaming Republicans for all the ills and wrongs in his presidency, and takes zero responsibility for anything that is negative. Obama shouts "Bush" and the lemming leftists say "Hmm, hmm, hmmm, Barack Hussein Obama".
Nothing sticks to Obama because he ducks, dodges, blames, lies, or just plain ignores anything that is unfavorable.
It's somehow McCain and Graham's fault because they agree with Dear Leader? In the sheeple's mind, nothing is ever Dear Leader's fault. Nothing sticks.
Nothing sticks to Obama because the voters compare him to his predecessor, who was probably the worst President in American history. Get over it.
You know what, I've never been a big GWB fan and I was always highly critical of him. I didn't shed any tears when his term was over. That being said......I do indeed miss him. As bad as Bush may have been, Obama is a tenfold major clusterfuck and is absolutely the worst president in American history.....no probably about it. True story!
PS Nothing sticks to him because to accuse or criticize makes you an automatic.......RACCCCCCIST!
Nothing sticks to Obama because the voters compare him to his predecessor, who was probably the worst President in American history. Get over it.
Uh, no. That would be because Obama can't let Bush go, can't stop blaming him, can't stop blaming Republicans for all the ills and wrongs in his presidency, and takes zero responsibility for anything that is negative. Obama shouts "Bush" and the lemming leftists say "Hmm, hmm, hmmm, Barack Hussein Obama".
Nothing sticks to Obama because he ducks, dodges, blames, lies, or just plain ignores anything that is unfavorable.
You really don't realize how big a failure Bush was as President, don't you. He was probably the worst President of all time, failing at domestic and foreign policy. Blaming Bush this far into Obama's Presidency is right, because Bush was in office for 8 long disastrous years, and it will take a lot of time to undo his mistakes and gaffes.
Conservatives thought that anything that went wrong would be automatically Obama's fault as of 2009. Conservatives thought they'd get some "payback" for all the hammering that Bush got over the economy and the Iraq War fiasco. Too bad for you, that's not how it works, idiots.
Bush was THAT BAD.
Noonan is right to a degree. But, Obama is not the central issue, or he wasn't until he attempted to lead a nation and world where it did not want to go. And, it isn't a deflection to Bushii, even though his failure led to the rise of isolationists in the gop.
McCain and Graham have been making the talking show circuit for months, calling Obama weak for not supporting the brave rebels, when in fact the only rebels apparntly with military capability are our enemies ... and Assad for all his loathsomeness has never called on muslims to attack the US. McCain and Graham are losing cred in the gop, which hasn't the appetite for military strikes anymore than the left wing of the dems.
Egypt happended on its own. Libya was really a push by the Italians and French for us to support their forary. I think Noonan's error is to assume the American public will not support fighting aggression aimed at us or an ally, such as S.Korea. We simply don't have dog in this fight.
Obama made a politically expedient move to draw a line, that he had no intention of drawing, to appease McCain and the neocons. He should have stayed true to the man who opposed Iraq in 2003
McCain & Graham are 100% in favor of helping vile Islamists take over Syria, but yet it's Obama's fault if they do. Go fig.
Obama made a politically expedient move to draw a line, that he had no intention of drawing, to appease McCain and the neocons.
