Because they probably don't even have it. There are multiple reports showing that the rebels backed by al-qaida used the chemical weapons and not Assad. All obama has done is make himself like an even bigger moron.
Why is the "evidence" that proves Assad launced the weapons being kept a big secret? I can not see how that info is vital to our countries security that it can not be released to the people but the pinheads in the house and senate get to see it? lol what a joke.
Libertarians are just embarrassed republicans.
Because they probably don't even have it. There are multiple reports showing that the rebels backed by al-qaida used the chemical weapons and not Assad. All obama has done is make himself like an even bigger moron.
As negotiations to avert a U.S. strike against Syria ramped up last week, so, too, did the action on the ground. Warplanes dropped bombs over far-flung Syrian towns that hadn’t seen airstrikes in weeks, government forces went on the attack in the hotly contested suburbs of Damascus, rebels launched an offensive in the south, and a historic Christian town changed hands at least four times.
At the close of a week hailed in Moscow and Washington as a triumph of diplomacy over war, more than 1,000 people died in the fighting in Syria, the latest casualties in a conflict that has killed more than 100,000 people and can be expected to claim many more
This. This is the best outcome for which Obama could hope. The nation is unified against striking Syria, Congress was not going to give him the power (and was probably going to specifically prohibit him from striking Syria), he'd take a huge hit in domestic capital if he managed to strike anyway, and he'd have made little or no dent in Syria's ability to use WMD. This way he is saved from striking, the people who love him can continue to love him, the people who hate him won't hate him any more, and the people who don't care won't be irritated at him for having war bulletins interrupting their sports and soaps. If it works, he can claim that he got rid of Syria's WMD with some validity and either the terrorists don't get WMDs or Assad no longer has them. If it does not work, he can blame Putin with some validity and neither the terrorists nor Assad will have any more WMDs than absent this action. Frankly I see little down side here for either the country or for Obama. What little down side exists lies in Russia increases its Middle East influence as ours is damaged, but most of us want less American involvement in the Middle East anyway. That inevitably leaves a vacuum which we all know will be filled at least partially by Russia and/or China. At least this way we may get something in return.This IS a bullet dodged rather than a masterful coup. However, the thing is, the outcome is what will be remembered here. It's all about perception. And on that score, no one but persistent Obama critics, mostly in the US, will continue to bash Obama over this, not in the long run.
And Shira is correct. It's obvious that people like the OP will criticize Obama no matter the decision or outcome, and will criticize for opposite reasons when the context changes. It's also obvious that Obama critics here are butthurt that this may work out well because they clearly weren't rooting for a positive outcome.
I think this administration has done reasonably well with foreign policy given a series of rather difficult decisions they had to make. In this particular case, they definitely made more than one error in the process leading up to this. However, in the real world outside P&N punditry it's outcome that matters, not process.
So keep on with the Obama bashing. It's won't make a darn bit of difference that people who have hated Obama for years are saying he was incompetent here. Only the outcome of this diplomatic process is going to matter. If it works, it's going to look like the admin's military saber rattling pressured Syria to give up its chemicals without us having fired a shot. The fact that the admin fumbled its way toward this outcome is a historical footnote at best.
- wolf
That's part of what I said above, conservatives pretending to be libertarians. And of course, liberals exacerbate this by conflating the two, paying attention more to the areas where libertarians diverge from liberals than where they diverge from conservatives.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...03b068-1cb3-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_print.html
Obama removes the threat of force from Syria if it doesn't destroy its chemical weapons.
not only that but it seems like Russia will be taking the weapons and destroying them? LOL. Yes those super trust worthy Russian will destroy there buddies weapons.
What a fucking worthless leader. Even a 3rd world ruler Assad is able to outplay him.
Doesn't look like this agreement has really done anything to protect the people of Syria, in fact it appears the fighting continues as if nothing was done.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...055736-1e3a-11e3-8459-657e0c72fec8_story.html
Well, there isn't really a liberal group in the US. With the democrats being middle/right and the country being the most rightwing first world country, mentioning "liberals" is really a waste of time.
no surprise since this had nothing to do with the war itself.
I have no idea where you thought it would.
It was bluffing. Do you not understand the point of bluffing? You try to get someone to do something you want by pretending. If it works, you get something for free. If it doesn't, no harm done, but there was still a chance it would work.
Have you ever played cards?
Well from the comments on this thread...
Republicans seem to be cheering for Assad and Russia
Libertarians are still maintaining their opposition to US intervention, which is a reasonable viewpoint.
Note, Teabaggers are not libertarians.
Yeah I was kind of surprised that Republicans would compromise on their values and side with Russia and Syria, but I guess if it means opposing the Kenyan Muslim Nazi Socialist "Obamma", the evil dictator who rules with an iron fist, then they'll side with damn near anybody so long as that viewpoint is told to them through Faux News.
I find it funny that they constantly deride Obama for being a tyrant and a dictator, and then side with an actual tyrant and dictator against him. I guess that shows just how deranged the right has gotten about Obama.
Sometimes I wonder what will happen in the future if Clinton gets elected. I mean by all measures I'm aware of Obama has been an extremely moderate president and yet the right has just utterly lost their minds over him. Imagine what they will do with Hillary in office. They will work themselves up into such a paranoid frenzy as I believe America has not seen in any of our lifetimes.
So now foreign policy is like playing porker?
That you say this despite the fact that the right was more against an attack than the left is unfortunate. Obama wanted to attack, except par excellence he doesn't stick his head up, so went to congress for permission, and they were not for it. He was the one who wanted to strike Syria and his side supported it more than the other.Obviously, what he's done wrong is not bombing the crap out of Syria to prove how "strong" he is. The fact that this would have accomplished nothing and likely been detrimental to US interests? Well, that doesn't matter nearly as much as "not appearing weak".
Most of the strident right is stuck in the high school locker room stage of development. Their actions make complete sense when you keep that in mind.
Truly unbelievable. You are reinventing history and it's still fresh. Again, the left was in support of this more than the right. Pre polling of Congress showed this as fact. It was very possible Obama was going to get senate support and not House. There are hawks on both sides, particularly McCain for the right. You forgot your third source of the push for war: Obama.In the case of Syria, the push for war is coming mainly from two places: neocons who have never seen a war they didn't like, especially if they think it will help Israel (even though this probably wouldn't); and the ignorant, locker-room reactionary far right who care more about flag-waving and "looking strong" than doing what makes sense, and who will oppose anything Obama does simply because Obama did it.
I try not to see the world in such simple terms that I would presume by virtue of being a tyrant that one's views on a matter are automatically incorrect.I find it funny that they constantly deride Obama for being a tyrant and a dictator, and then side with an actual tyrant and dictator against him. I guess that shows just how deranged the right has gotten about Obama.
That you say this despite the fact that the right was more against an attack than the left is unfortunate. Obama wanted to attack, except par excellence he doesn't stick his head up, so went to congress for permission, and they were not for it. He was the one who wanted to strike Syria and his side supported it more than the other.
Truly unbelievable. You are reinventing history and it's still fresh. Again, the left was in support of this more than the right. Pre polling of Congress showed this as fact. It was very possible Obama was going to get senate support and not House. There are hawks on both sides, particularly McCain for the right. You forgot your third source of the push for war: Obama.I try not to see the world in such simple terms that I would presume by virtue of being a tyrant that one's views on a matter are automatically incorrect.
Guess you haven't been paying attention to the cheerleaders in this thread and the MSM, they're the ones claiming what a great victory this is for Obama and Putin.
Again, there IS NO LEFT. There is middle/right democrats vs extreme right republicans. Our democrats are more right wing than every conservative party from every other first world country. Stop repeating what your right wing masters have trained you to fight against.. a fantasy group.
Yes, in a way. Do you understand what bluffing is? The purpose behind it? I don't think you seem to understand it.
Obama bluffed. Assad called, and won.
I think you are the one confused.
If there is a right there has to be a left. the question is how far left.