Republicans Can’t Get Over Not Being Able to Thump Syria

There has already been a new term coined for the Republicans opposition to everything Obama does even if it means reversing positions they held yesterday. It's called "Blacklash"


http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/16/republicans-thump-syria.html

Republicans don’t believe in peace without war. You could say Republicans don’t believe in peace, period. But especially if you haven’t bludgeoned somebody to death, you cannot have a meaningful peace. Thus the U.S.-Russian pact on Syria is, to former UN Ambassador John Bolton on Saturday, is “death by a thousand cuts.”
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor told “Fareed Zakaria GPS” Sunday that President Obama’s actions concerning Syria were “misconceived” and “badly calculated,” and that “The president has said Assad must go without having a strategy to make him go.” Brzezinski said. “And we have now seen the consequences of that.”
For Brzezinski, Vladimir Putin’s intervention “gets us off the hook.” Bolton agreed, saying, “The president is very grateful to President Putin. He got him out of an impossible dilemma.”
We could point out that John Bolton hates the UN, hates globalization, and worse, is a New World Order conspiracy theorist. Cray-crazy barely begins to describe Bolton. Simply put, Bolton would have been an ideal Secretary of State for President Sarah Palin, or, failing that, President Michele Bachmann. But since he was prevented by the sanity of the American electorate from doing catastrophically stupid things, he now writes about them instead.

​

Brzezinski’s own resume is rather colorful and you would think his own experiences would make him more patient with foreign policy decision-making. After all, it was on his watch that the U.S. armed Afghanistan’s mujaheddin, who later became Afghanistan’s Taliban and al Qaeda after Iran became an Islamic republic on his watch. In other words, it is too soon to judge the Syria pact. And then there is the little thing about casting stones.
As Jason Easley wrote here yesterday, it is a myth that Putin saved Obama on Syria and Sarah Jones correctly pointed out that Obama got exactly what he wanted: a UN that is paying attention to what is happening in Syria. Obama’s bombing tease got the Republicans all hot and bothered, taking them to the brink of orgasm before yanking the rug out from under them.
Hell hath no fury like a Republican prevented from bombing somebody. Look at John McCain, who said he’d have had us involved in Syria two years ago and who thinks we ought already to be bombing the hell out of Syria.
Think of all the yummy donations from defense contractors thankful to be able to build more munitions. If they can’t defraud Americans using the Keystone XL pipeline and can’t defraud Americans by way of a manufactured war, what will they do?
But we have a Republican Party that refuses to pay America’s legal debts. We have a Republican Party that refuses to raise spending levels. We have a Republican Party that refuses to raise taxes on the rich.
We have a Republican Party that wants to further enrich itself and its donors by waging yet another war on the backs of the poor – who, coincidentally – would also pay the butcher’s bill when those munitions were used.
And they’re not happy about being thwarted.
Republicans claim Russia won and America lost. Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX) says the White House should “not do a victory lap.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Putin had Obama “boxed in”
But as Rep. Chris van Hollen (D-MD) told Fox News Sunday, “if outfoxing means giving the president of the United States everything they asked for and more, maybe that’s kind of outfoxing we need.”
The thing is, Syria is not a prize to be seized. Syria is innocent men, women, and children who have no say in what happens to them, either as a result of attacks from their own government or from American warplanes.
In one sense, Americans have won because they won’t have to sustain a military intervention few of them want. In another, it is Syria itself which wins as a result of the U.S.-Russian pact because the pact keeps the country from turning into a Cold War-era battleground.
But in another sense, as the Financial Times points out, the real winner is Realpolitik – as Encylopaedia Britannica defines it, “a politics of adaptation to things as they are.. a pragmatic, no-nonsense view.”
Back in May, Gregor Peter Schmitz opined in Der Spiegel that Barack Obama has emerged as Henry Kissinger’s Realpolitik heir. But though Realpolitik is often said to exclude ethical considerations as well as ideological, it is important to note that Obama’s Syria policy was motivated entirely by ethical considerations – the ethics of murdering men, women, and children with chemical weapons.
We all know how even the scent of pragmatism and common sense kills a Republican erection dead and it’s bad enough, after all, that it was a black president who pulled off this diplomatic coup.
The problem for Republicans is that they have judged Obama unworthy of the nation’s highest office and that therefore, anything Obama does must be not an accomplishment but a blow against America’s interests.
But Republicans, however little they wish to admit it, are faced with a successful President Obama, who has in one stroke drawn the world’s attention to the barbarity of the Assad regime, and put in place measures to disarm it, all without a shot fired. Most of us would consider this a victory.
For Republicans, even more out of touch with American values, it is a failure of monumental proportions.

 

There has long been a term for people like you. They are called race baiters.

 

I believe the person who is upset at not being able to attack Syria is Obama. He was made to look like a fool by Putin and Assad. Obama should have tried all diplomatic avenues before announcing his intention to bomb the hell out of Syria, but he didn't and brought us, once again, to the precipice of war. The diplomatic avenue that Obama didn't take turned out to be the one that actually worked and the irony is that it was proposed by the Russians! Putin and Assad have spat in Obama's face. Is this is what is known as "The Obama Doctrine"? If so, it's made the US the laughing stock of the world.

 

Ha Ha Ha! Armchair Commander-in-Chief. It's funny to watch you nuts twist yourselves in knots over another total foreign policy success by Obama.

 

Foreign policy success? Hahah, OK, Joe... WHATEVER.

View attachment 1984

 

The real funny part is that I will bet Teddy really believe that Syria was/will be a success for Obama.

 

Yes, a diplomatic solution is some kind of a failure in the eyes of the Right-wing nuts because a bombing campaign is a much, much better solution even though they were against it in the first place. Obama is making fools out of the entire Right-wing and they just continue to self-destruct. Blacklash!

 

Race baiter!
And, yes, when Putin generates a "diplomatic" solution, I can guarantee you that the other side got the short end of the stick.

 

You are a total idiot. Please explain exactly how we got the short end of the stick.

 

So the race baiter trusts the Russians? I do not! The only thing Putin does is for their own good and our detriment. When history reveals the facts behind the scenes, you will find out what they did.

 

BO has made himself look like a fool on the international stage.

First he calls for Assad to be removed then he draws his little imaginary red line then he calls for US strikes...NOTHING ever came from any of it. Then Putin steps in & viola! we have a diplomatic solution.

 

I find it amazing that the Russians offered a diplomatic solution when our leader was poised and more than willing to take us to war. Obama had lined up his battleships and was ready to strike when Putin offered a simple and effective solution. Why didn't Obama think of it?

However, Obama stated that the military strikes would be for retribution AND punishment. Now that the "retribution" aspect has dissipated, what about the "punishment" aspect? Is Obama still seeking to punish Assad? It doesn't appear so. The American people were totally against warhawk Obama's decision to take us to war against Syria especially when all avenues of diplomacy had not been tried. Doesn't it seem ironic that the one avenue of diplomacy that worked was proffered by Putin? Indeed, it does.

As much as I don't like Obama, I hate to see an American president made a fool. Obama nearly took us to war again, but thankfully level heads prevailed.

View attachment 1986

 

What an idiot! Obama never called for Assad to be removed. Find that quote for me please.

We only have a diplomatic solution thanks to Obama using a big stick. YOU guys look like the fools here. Funny.

 

Because you're an idiot too. Plain and simple.

 

All three of you idiots are blacktracking again.

 

Was Obama not willing to take us to war against Syria? Did Putin not offer a solution? Please, dispute any of that.

 

You're just whitewashing the facts.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/world/middleeast/19diplo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Now what?

 

Your stupidity seems to have no end. That was 2 years ago and obviously had nothing to do with the current "crisis".

That's what dummy!

 

I said BO called for the removal of Assad. You said it was a lie. I proved to you it wasn't.
My post was a simple timeline to show how inept BO is in this matter. Check & mate!