Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

[vt]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

What we are seeing is also the American people becoming more and more disenchanted with the current leadership.

The decline started with the fight over Obamacare. However worthy the cause, the process to implement the law is developing into a bureaucratic mess.
The 2010 midterms scared the hell out of the Obama team, and may have been behind the still evolving IRS scandal.

Remember Obama was not elected by a landslide, and he won partially because of weak Republican candidates.

The NSA revelations broke open the dam to public mistrust of government. Further evidence of government invasion of privacy continues to arise.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2535482

We are now naked with no privacy of our personal records and our communication.

The potential for a third war in 12 years, amid this growing mistrust of everything the government is doing, finally has broken the public will to support this President. Maybe this is the reason EJ is looking for to explain the drop in consumer sentiment.

The coming fight over immigration, the debt ceiling, and defunding Obamacare threatens to make Obama a long term lame duck. A neutered leader of the free world is problem in a dangerous region like the middle east.

[charliebrown]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Trying to remove my American Blinders, in this whole escapade, I see Obama as a warmongering bully invading / bombing another Muslim country and Putin being the statesman / leader. Now if I'm Iran, am I going to go to Putin for a deal?

[LorenS]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

And Egypt continues to work out so well:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...am-or-pay-jiz/

Notice that the rebels in Syria are emulating this behavior. Why are we backing the rebels???

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

And Egypt continues to work out so well:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...am-or-pay-jiz/

Notice that the rebels in Syria are emulating this behavior. Why are we backing the rebels???

Your question is smart and fair, and the answer is ugly.
We will back a new and different bunch of awful people because it gives us and our friends some small advantage.
Local bloodshed is irrelevant, except for its advertising value.

[c1ue]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

The best victory one can have is when your enemy thinks he has won.

Yes, the best victory is when your enemy draws a red line, then backs down.

And the enemy's 'best buddy' gets roundly rejected in a political vote.

The reality? The US' credibility in the Middle East has taken a severe body blow. Even US allies cannot rely on the US bumbling its way into 'mission accomplished' any more, much less living up to grandiose statements by US Presidents in Cairo.

In case you don't remember:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/NewBeginning/

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

yeah, right.

Do we really think Assad will say "Hey, I'll give up my chemical weapons, come and collect them" if everything that happened in the last 10 days didn't happen?

Given that the US still possesses chemical weapons - I am amused to see that somehow it is illegal/immoral for Assad to possess them.

I'm not even talking about white phosphorus/depleted uranium/cluster bomb/napalm/thermobaric type weapons, I'm referring to straight out nerve gases and what not:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...-weapons_x.htm

The Pentagon has extended its timeline to destroy its aging chemical weapons arsenal until 2023, despite concerns by Congress and watchdog groups that the stockpiles raise the risk of an accident or theft by terrorists.

The new schedule, outlined in Pentagon documents obtained by USA TODAY, means the military won't eliminate its stock of deadly nerve gases and skin-blistering agents until 11 years after the 2012 deadline set by the international Chemical Weapons Convention. The U.S. government had already asked for a five-year extension from an earlier 2007 deadline.

I'll further note that the US is signatory to the Chemical Weapons agreement - while Syria is not.

Israel has 'signed' it, but this was never formally ratified there - so technically they are also non-compliant. Much like the Israeli nukes...

Of course, whether Assad really does that is another matter so the story has not ended. Obama will probably want to keep his gun cocked in the meantime.

Something is cocked, but it isn't Obama's gun.

Yes, of course the pope won't ask for war, we're no longer in the crusader era, but you can't take all that I've said at face value.

No likelihood of this happening.

[c1ue]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

More sign of the whole disastrousness of this entire Syria business for Obama:

posted in the San Francisco Chronicle today

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/...of-4804232.php

FACT CHECK: Obama's Syria case still lacks proof

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama voiced his conviction Tuesday night that Syrian President Bashar Assad was to blame for deadly chemical attacks against civilians, but again he offered no proof.

A look at his remarks to the nation, seeking support for a military strike against Syria, and how they compare with the facts as publicly known:

OBAMA: "We know the Assad regime was responsible. ... The facts cannot be denied."

THE FACTS: The Obama administration has not laid out proof Assad was behind the attack.

The administration has cited satellite imagery and communications intercepts, backed by social media and intelligence reports from sources in Syria, as the basis for blaming the Assad government. But the only evidence the administration has made public is a collection of videos it has verified of the victims. The videos do not demonstrate who launched the attacks.

Administration officials have not shared the satellite imagery they say shows rockets and artillery fire leaving government-held areas and landing in 12 rebel-held neighborhoods outside Damascus where chemical attacks were reported. Nor have they shared transcripts of the Syrian officials allegedly warning units to ready gas masks or discussing how to handle U.N. investigators after it happened.

The White House has declined to explain where it came up with the figure of at least 1,429 dead, including 400 children — a figure far higher than estimates by nongovernmental agencies such as the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has counted only victims identified by name, with a current total of 502. In his remarks, Obama more generally accused Assad's forces of gassing to death "over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children."

___

OBAMA: "So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security to take this debate to Congress."

THE FACTS: Obama's statement that he has the authority to launch military action is par for the course for presidents, and historically disputed by Congress. The issue never gets settled.

The Constitution delineates power between the president, who serves as commander in chief of the armed forces, and Congress, which has the ability to declare war. Over time, however, questions arose over where the president's authority ends and where Congress' begins.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution sought to end the debate, but it has only fueled arguments between Republican and Democratic administrations alike and those who consider themselves constitutional purists.

The law gives the president the power to act without congressional approval in cases of national emergency for up to 60 days. In such a case, the president must consult with Congress. And if the deadline passes without congressional authorization, the president has 30 additional days to remove troops.

But what constitutes a national emergency and what consultation means remain subjects of continued disputes.

___

AP writers Kimberly Dozier and Bradley Klapper contributed to this report.

ouch

[DSpencer]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

The best victory one can have is when your enemy thinks he has won.

Do we really think Assad will say "Hey, I'll give up my chemical weapons, come and collect them" if everything that happened in the last 10 days didn't happen?

Of course, whether Assad really does that is another matter so the story has not ended. Obama will probably want to keep his gun cocked in the meantime.

Good grief. You're really trying to make it seem like this was Obama's grand scheme all along? We won't know what Assad really does, even after he does it. That's why this is such a joke anyway.

I thought the narrative was that they broke the rules and must be punished and made into an example?

[touchring]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Good grief. You're really trying to make it seem like this was Obama's grand scheme all along? We won't know what Assad really does, even after he does it. That's why this is such a joke anyway.

I thought the narrative was that they broke the rules and must be punished and made into an example?

Yes, it's part of the plan. By now, it's obvious, the whole thing is choreographed and all parties are acting along, Kerry's "gaffe". Russia's proposal and Syria agreeing to it. All a show. As for the use of gas, I believe Assad didn't personally approved it, Assad ain't that dumb! An idiot in his inner circle made that mistake. Obama didn't factor that in his red line proclamation.

[shiny!]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Yes, it's part of the plan. By now, it's obvious, the whole thing is choreographed and all parties are acting along, Kerry's "gaffe". Russia's proposal and Syria agreeing to it. All a show. As for the use of gas, I believe Assad didn't personally approved it, Assad ain't that dumb! An idiot in his inner circle made that mistake. Obama didn't factor that in his red line proclamation.

I, too, think Kerry's "gaffe" was too convenient, too big a gift to the Russians to have been an accident.

Kerry's "gaffe" adds weight to the theory that Obama is a Manchurian Candidate. To damage the U.S. so thoroughly and completely, he'd either have to be a perfect idiot or a Manchurian Candidate. When I see a guy with almost no political experience, plus a history of being a Marxist with a Communist mentor, come out of nowhere to become president... When I see him destroy our best interests as precisely has he has, I think it's fair to suspect deliberately orchestrated sabotage. I'm certainly not going to discount the theory out of fear of being ridiculed.

While I try not to believe in things I can't prove, I'm leaning more and more towards Manchurian Candidate rather than "bumbling amateur". Villians don't wear name tags saying "Hi! My name is so-and-so. I'm a villian!" The best villians look sincere and innocent. I've got a pretty good nose for passive aggression, and Obama reeks of it.

[Fiat Currency]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

Well put fiat, the relationship between the macro, country level and the personal, us!

Thanks. I gave you my perspective. Now Canadians speak ...

Nanos Number: Fewer Canadians Want Closer Security With U.S.

Twelve years after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, fewer Canadians say the U.S. and Canada should move towards closer cooperation on national security.

A survey by Nanos Research and the State University of New York at Buffalo, conducted as the United States looks to its allies for support for a military strike against Syria, found support among Canadians for closer cooperation on national security with the U.S. was down significantly from just one year ago.

Respondents were asked, "In terms of national security (i.e. NATO, the United Nations), should Canada and the U.S. be moving towards greater and closer cooperation, or should they be maintaining separate national security policies and priorities?"

Forty-five per cent of respondents said Canada and the U.S. should move towards greater cooperation. That's down nine points from 2012 and 19 points from 2005.

Twenty per cent thought policies and priorities should stay the same, while 32 per cent want separate policies, up 10 points from 2005.

The Nanos-UB North American Monitor Tracking Study was made up of 1,000 randomly selected Canadians recruited by telephone using live agents who then administered an online survey. It was conducted Aug. 18 to 22. It is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

"The further away we get from 9/11, the less appetite to cooperate with the United States on national security issues," Nik Nanos said on CBC News Network's Power & Politics Wednesday.

Nanos said the other striking thing about the numbers is the rise in Canadians who want to see separate security policies, which could be good news for the New Democrats. In the past, the party has maintained that Canada needs to "chart its own course" on security.

Nanos says these numbers show a drift in Canada's most important foreign policy relationship.

"One of the challenges with the Harper government is that it's been tactical and not strategic, focussing on specific things as opposed to focussing on the broader relationship and making sure it works," Nanos said.

The past few years have seen a series of irritants and disagreements in the Canada-U.S. relationship, from delayed approval of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, to the border and trade, and these numbers reflect that, Nanos said.

Canadians are also feeling distance from the U.S. when it comes to human rights.Respondents were asked which country is closest to Canada in terms of human rights;

27 per cent ranked the U.S. as their number one response. That is down 22 points from last year.

Britain was first with 44 per cent, 14 per cent listed Germany as closest to Canada on human rights and 9 per cent said France.Nanos called these results a "statistical punch in the gut" for Obama, and believes Syria has been a "trigger point."

The crisis in Syria and Obama's response has been something the U.S. president has had to own, and these latest numbers show his approach is having a negative impact on how Canadians see the United States on human rights, Nanos said.

Nik Nanos digs beneath the numbers with CBC News Network's Power & Politics to get to the political, economic and social forces that shape our lives. Recognized as one of Canada's top research experts, Nanos provides numbers-driven counsel to senior executives and major organizations. He leads the analyst team at Nanos, is a Fellow of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association and a Research Associate Professor with SUNY (Buffalo).

[flintlock]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

I agree with the passive agressive part. He has some serious resentment of this country. He wants to "change" a lot of things that aren't broken. Repayment for childhood slights? Redressing 1000 years of oppression? Who knows. A shrink could probably have a field day analyzing him.

[touchring]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

I, too, think Kerry's "gaffe" was too convenient, too big a gift to the Russians to have been an accident.

Kerry's "gaffe" adds weight to the theory that Obama is a Manchurian Candidate. To damage the U.S. so thoroughly and completely, he'd either have to be a perfect idiot or a Manchurian Candidate. When I see a guy with almost no political experience, plus a history of being a Marxist with a Communist mentor, come out of nowhere to become president... When I see him destroy our best interests as precisely has he has, I think it's fair to suspect deliberately orchestrated sabotage. I'm certainly not going to discount the theory out of fear of being ridiculed.

While I try not to believe in things I can't prove, I'm leaning more and more towards Manchurian Candidate rather than "bumbling amateur". Villians don't wear name tags saying "Hi! My name is so-and-so. I'm a villian!" The best villians look sincere and innocent. I've got a pretty good nose for passive aggression, and Obama reeks of it.

I beg to differ. Obama appears to have a genuine mission even if we don't like it, but at the least Obama didn't go to war because a dictator said bad things about his dad?

From a third party perspective, I see what Obama did in the last couple of years is to guide the US and it's allies back onto where it's strategic interests lies - alliance with the Sunni Arabs against the Axis - China, Russia, the Persians and their proxies (Hezbollah, Assads, etc). As for Al Qaeda, they are a nuisance but as important as in the past.

[verdo]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

I beg to differ. Obama appears to have a genuine mission even if we don't like it, but at the least Obama didn't go to war because a dictator said bad things about his dad?

From a third party perspective, I see what Obama did in the last couple of years is to guide the US and it's allies back onto where it's strategic interests lies - alliance with the Sunni Arabs against the Axis - China, Russia, the Persians and their proxies (Hezbollah, Assads, etc). As for Al Qaeda, they are a nuisance but as important as in the past.

my thoughts exactly +1

[c1ue]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

I beg to differ. Obama appears to have a genuine mission even if we don't like it, but at the least Obama didn't go to war because a dictator said bad things about his dad?

From a third party perspective, I see what Obama did in the last couple of years is to guide the US and it's allies back onto where it's strategic interests lies - alliance with the Sunni Arabs against the Axis - China, Russia, the Persians and their proxies (Hezbollah, Assads, etc). As for Al Qaeda, they are a nuisance but as important as in the past.

Goodness - you really should stop saying things which destroy your own credibility.

China and Russia are historical rivals. The only reason they're cooperating to any degree now is because of US antagonism.

Thus your 'success' is an utter strategic failure by any other definition.

Equally Iran is historically a rival to Russia. This was true even just 40 years ago - it was one reason why Iran was flying US made F14s against Saddam's Russian Migs.

If you cannot understand what's going on - at least do a little reading on what happened in the past.

As for 'Sunni Arabs' - how fond do you think the Sunnis in Egypt are after they got squashed by the Egyptian military, with nary a squawk out of the US?

[flintlock]

Re: Poll- Do You Favor Obama's Syria Plan?

The US is never going to make any real friends in the Muslim world until they convert to Islam. Until then, these are just temporary alliances. Its foolish to think there will be any feelings of loyalty to the US from the Syrian Rebels if they prevail, just because Obama sends some weapons. Osama Bin Laden ring a bell?