The First Communicator seizes the Saturday of Labor Day weekend to announce what normally would have been buried on a Friday afternoon - he will seek Congressional authorization to wrist-slap Syria.
The decision to seek congressional authorization is a departure from the administration’s decision to intervene in Libya in 2011. Though the president said he thinks he has the authority to order a military strike, he made clear he will ask Congress to vote on the issue.
“I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” the president said. He added: “I’m also mindful that I’m president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”
I am not sure where the votes will come from. This is the anti-war President of the anti-war party, so folks on that side of the aisle won't feel any pressure to get behind this.
And on the right, what is the likely support for yet another foreign adventure led by a guy - OK, with Kerry, make that two guys - who will turn against this if/when the going gets tough? An adventure, let us add, undertaken without the political cover of Democratic votes? And when a majority of House Democrats reject an authorization, will Obama blame the Republicans? (Well, of course he will, but will it make any sense?)
There ought to be some value to the Kosovo analogy, where the House Republicans just couldn't get behind Clinton on the bombing, although funding was never held up. From the CRS:
As the situation in Kosovo turned away from peace talks and toward enforcement action, Congress reviewed proposals that supported or disapproved of the NATO air operation; the Senate, but not the House, endorsed the air strikes. Congress later considered but did not agree to resolutions that invoked the War Powers Resolution in an effort by sponsors to assert Congress’ role in authorizing the military action. Some Members of Congress challenged the President’s authority under the Constitution to engage U.S. armed forces in military operations in the Balkans without congressional approval. A greater number of others, however, abandoned or rejected options that might have dictated a forced removal of U.S. armed forces from Kosovo operations.
In spite of some serious misgivings about the NATO air operation in Kosovo, most Members of Congress strongly supported providing full funding for Department of Defense expenditures in the Balkans, out of concern for perceived budgetary shortfalls in the U.S. military. Thus, even Members who vehemently opposed Operation Allied Force voted to substantially increase funds for U.S. military forces participating in the operation. The same kind of support was not evident for meeting the Clinton Administration’s request for emergency supplemental funds for civilian reconstruction and regional financial stabilization efforts. On these matters, Congress established spending limits and cut back on requested funds for regional stabilization assistance.
LET IT OUT... Here is a vigorous tirade about the utter stupidity of our abandonment of Iraq. To which I say, as I have with Afghanistan, if you elect a guy committed to losing you need to expect to lose.
Didn't hear the speech but not surprising. I think myself and others the last 2 days, or just after the Brits shot down intervention, speculated he would back track. The WaPo articles on the views of the intel community and the ex-Generals led the way to reconsideration if not planted to offer a soft landing today.
DuDa must be devastated that his mock hero has decided to challenge his own self-serving legitimacy and give the other guys a chance to chicken out so he doesn't have to. Boehner should refuse to accept a resolution for vote and tell Obama to just do what he thinks is best for him, his ego and ValJar's cheekbones.
Posted by: JIB | August 31, 2013 at 03:15 PM
The most interesting part of the speech to me was how angry he was. I thought he was angry because he had to wear a suit and postpone his golf game.
I still might be right.
Posted by: Jane-sun - the squaw | August 31, 2013 at 03:20 PM
The man has absolutely no shame.
Posted by: glasater | August 31, 2013 at 03:25 PM
Kosovo was a major mistake which has yet to be acknowledged. Unless you consider blowing up the Chinese embassy a success.
Posted by: Captain Hate on an iPhone | August 31, 2013 at 03:30 PM
After the speech giving Congress the ball, The One and The Two went to Ft. Belvoir to play golf. Of course they did. Reggie Love was pre-occupied shuffling the card for the next game of hearts.
Posted by: JIB | August 31, 2013 at 03:34 PM
In negotiations with Congress, Obama has made concessions that will preclude the US from launching a military strike against Syria in exchange for Boehner bringing up a bill that will re-name 34 post offices as the Barack Hussein Obama Post Office.
"There are times that a President must be willing to stare down a murdering dictator, even against the polls or opposition party. However, it was evident that I was not up to it," President Obama said in his prepared remarks in the club house before teeing off for his weekend round.
"The fact is that bombing a country like Syria wouldn't accomplish much, was never going to poll well, and could even be used to mock me for not being muscular enough, those being in reverse order of importance. In fact, it would be long forgotten even just one year from now. As it is, these post offices will still be around for generations to come and will inspire today's youth and even their children and grandchildren just by bearing my name."
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | August 31, 2013 at 03:44 PM
Well, he looks like an ass, but it's good he backed down. He evidently CAN be mocked out of a power move, however, so the sooner January 2017 rolls around, the safer we'll all be--
Posted by: Laura White | August 31, 2013 at 03:48 PM
I'm not sure what a "constitutional democracy" is but assuming the US is one, wasn't he president of it when he intervened in Libya as well?
Posted by: Ignatz | August 31, 2013 at 03:54 PM
Well, since Syria didn't work, what do you all think will the next diversion from all the phony scandals?
Posted by: JIB | August 31, 2013 at 03:55 PM
...will be....
Fat finger syndrome.
Posted by: JIB | August 31, 2013 at 03:55 PM
If congress votes no, he wouldn't dare proceed with a strike. If he does, he'll be impeached (but not removed).
Posted by: Danube on iPad | August 31, 2013 at 03:56 PM
Who thinks the ring-knockers at the Pentagon said we can't do jack without more money and while you are at it get a authorization too? And he has to face Putin, that ugly bastard, smirking at his pissy ass this week too. Happy Labor Day Backtrack.
Posted by: Bob | August 31, 2013 at 03:56 PM
This is Barry hoping congress will lay themselves down on the floor so he can walk out of the corner he painted himself into without getting dirty; nothing more nor less.
Posted by: Ignatz | August 31, 2013 at 03:59 PM
BTW, off to bed. Early rise tomorrow. Driving into Antwerp to catch the Thalys for Paris and Frederick's birthday. Hard to believe he is already into double digits. Life speeds up exponentially when you turn 40. It's Warp speed at 60:)
Posted by: JIB | August 31, 2013 at 04:00 PM
TM, Hit, take a bow.
Posted by: Clarice | August 31, 2013 at 04:03 PM
Congress should move that no attack on Syria can happen without an approving vote in the Security council.
Pass the hot potato to the UN, and make Barry blame internationalism for holding him back. Won't that set some heads to exploding.
Posted by: Soylent Red | August 31, 2013 at 04:08 PM
At least one (DoT) has shown no equivocation on whether Obama should bomb Assad to the Stone Age. He said simply succinctly, "No"
Tom Maguire is still on any fence which might not result in ODS.
Posted by: Puttenesca | August 31, 2013 at 04:10 PM
People sometimes use the "constutional" qualifier because Great Britain is an older democracy, but it has no written constitution.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | August 31, 2013 at 04:10 PM
Soylent!!! Hi! Great idea BTW
Posted by: Clarice | August 31, 2013 at 04:13 PM
Soylent--Wonderful idea! I was thinking that Obmaa would try to get the approval from Congress and then blame them. If Congress will pass it on to the UN--perfect!
Posted by: daisy | August 31, 2013 at 04:18 PM
Obama--
Posted by: daisy | August 31, 2013 at 04:18 PM
Bo likes to use the word democracy because he is committed to achieving John Dewey's definition.
It has a lot to do with getting around those darn negative liberties and getting to the Second Bill of Rights definition of citizenship.
It is we who owe the government and our fellow man duties.
Gag.
Posted by: rse | August 31, 2013 at 04:19 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/
Jane, drink something alcoholic before reading this to keep your blood pressure down.
Posted by: Clarice | August 31, 2013 at 04:22 PM
Dana stakes out and defends a firm position on an issue about once a month. But he leaps to criticize anyone else who fails to take a stand immediately. It's how he rolls.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | August 31, 2013 at 04:39 PM
@ 4:10 p.m. - Really? Fortunately for you, and what puts you in good company here, too, is that 45% of Brits don't know what the Magna Carta and its addendums are either.
Posted by: Lloyd | August 31, 2013 at 04:41 PM
The dolt seems to be arguing that we need to do something because no one else will.
So, are we exceptional? Which is it.
At least he gets to partake in his two favorite pastimes, voting present and slicing it into the woods, over the holiday.
Posted by: Skoot | August 31, 2013 at 04:43 PM
if you elect a guy committed to losing you need to expect to lose
Well, yeah, but I didn't want him elected, and just because it's predictable doesn't mean people ought to just shut up about it. Obamacare was predictable too.
Posted by: Porchlight | August 31, 2013 at 04:44 PM
The Magna Carta is not a constitution.
Wiki: "Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single constitutional document. This is sometimes expressed by stating that it has an uncodified or 'unwritten' constitution. Much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions (as laid out in Erskine May) and royal prerogatives.
"Historically, 'No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea.'"
Posted by: Danube on iPad | August 31, 2013 at 04:48 PM
I told you he would back down.I like the idea of involving the UN. Bammy once again has demonstrated that his supposed "Midas touch" turns everrything to crap.
JIB:
your vacation sounds wonderful and your comments are spot on. A commentator on Fox has said the Syrians are celebrating a victory over Obama in making him back down. It's lonely at the top. It couldn't happen to a more feckless guy.
Posted by: maryrose | August 31, 2013 at 04:49 PM
Where ya been Soylent? We've missed you.
Posted by: Jane-sun - the squaw | August 31, 2013 at 04:49 PM
Did Dana let us in on how he felt about that Libyan intervention?
Posted by: Ignatz | August 31, 2013 at 04:50 PM
TM: We continue to lose with Obama because he is a loser. Too bad all the LIV"s backed a loser.I am glad Romney is well out of all this. He is too nice of a guy to get dragged down in this crazy jihad experience of the Mideast.21st century or the Middle ages? Decisions decisions...Voting present is what preezy does best. Why am I not surprised? Also Lib polling and bad tweets probably was the ultimate convincing argument for him"Mr. Popularity," himself.
Posted by: maryrose | August 31, 2013 at 04:54 PM
"Jane, drink something alcoholic before reading this to keep your blood pressure down."
Poured my vodka, chocked on the latest. But not surprised at all.
I do think Obama is in complete descent. Not everyone has noticed, but it's time to kick him down the hill. (Figuratively NSA, figuratively)
Posted by: Jane-sun - the squaw | August 31, 2013 at 04:55 PM
I think they'll need a congressional enactment to do t favor for the unions. They won't get it.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | August 31, 2013 at 04:59 PM
That should make it easier to repeal it, DoT. Nobody likes it.
Taranto asks us to imagine how Obama would vote on the war resolution of McCain were president. HEH
Posted by: Clarice | August 31, 2013 at 05:01 PM
Sen. Cruz Statement on President Obama's Remarks on Syria
Contact: [email protected] / (202) 228-7561
Saturday, August 31, 2013
WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) today released the following statement regarding President Obama's remarks on Syria:
I commend President Obama for listening to bi-partisan calls for him to seek congressional authority before any possible use of force against Syria. Given that the President did not request an emergency session of Congress, that must mean that he agrees there is no imminent threat requiring the Commander in Chief to act without consulting the representatives of the American people.
I remain concerned that the mission proposed by the President is not in furtherance the vital national security interests of the United States. To date I have heard a great deal from the administration about punishing Bashir al-Assad for violating an “international norm” through the use of chemical weapons, and that this is why we must act against him. Abstract notions about international norms should never displace U.S. sovereignty to act, or refuse to act, for our national security.
Assad’s murderous actions have claimed the lives of more than a hundred thousand of his own people, which is a humanitarian tragedy. But our chief strategic concern should not be international norms; it should be preventing the chemical weapons from falling into the hands of al Qaeda or other terrorists who might use them against us and our allies.
It is now incumbent upon President Obama to make his case and persuade Congress that his plan is necessary, and the best course to preserve our security and protect our liberties. Like the President, I welcome this debate and I agree this is an issue of the highest seriousness that transcends partisan politics.
Posted by: Clarice | August 31, 2013 at 05:07 PM
Ignatz; your position on FP is consistent.
On Libya; "Obama went in, I'm agin' "
Posted by: Puttenesca | August 31, 2013 at 05:07 PM
Jane:
He is always mad when he doesn't get his way. See the debt ceiling and gun debate and vote reactions from Obama. We are called his enemies and that we are holding hostage everything he wants to {destroy} do.
Meanwhile according to Niles Gardiner he has become a laughingstock on the world stage.
I love how he throws Kerry under the bus not 24 hours after his phony rhetoric and impassioned plea for intervention. He really is hopeless and doesn't learn from his mistakes{Libya} IRS targeting, NSA spying FandF and Benghazi.
Posted by: maryrose | August 31, 2013 at 05:10 PM
"Did Dana let us in on how he felt about that Libyan intervention?"
Offhand, I can't think of a single issue about which he's taken a position. He contributes nothing but noise.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | August 31, 2013 at 05:13 PM
So he's going to Russia next week. So let's pretend Putin has him arrested for that body language remark.
Would anyone do anything?
(I'd send Michelle over to be with him.)
Posted by: Jane-sun - the squaw | August 31, 2013 at 05:14 PM
PUTT:
Can you explain how one man,Obama can be consistently wrong in every move he makes? Please do not cite his most recent flip-flop as evidence he gets it. He did that today to save his own arse.
Posted by: maryrose | August 31, 2013 at 05:15 PM
Jane, send Reggie Love with him... Putin can jail them both for playing " spades".
Posted by: henry | August 31, 2013 at 05:16 PM
--Ignatz; your position on FP is consistent.--
The above is in response to my question about your position on Libya. Didn't you write this on a previous thread? - "You have an interesting way of avoiding questions"
As a matter of fact I am consistent on FP, but not in the way you misrepresent it. Why do you constantly do that? Because debating reality is a losing proposition?
Posted by: Ignatz | August 31, 2013 at 05:16 PM
Well Jane, we certainly couldn't negotiate to get him back since we don't do deals with terrorists. Unless they are Muslim Brotherhood or Islamists.
Posted by: maryrose | August 31, 2013 at 05:18 PM
American military presence in has maintained since WWII peace and established prosperity in the Far East and Europe.
QED:
Isn't the Middle East the largest region in the world without a thriving middle class economies?
Have not the post-WWII Far East (post Vietnam) and the Sub-Continent and Europe been without military conflicts?
Posted by: Richard | August 31, 2013 at 05:19 PM
henry:
Your comment wins best one of the day in my book! Playing spades,I wonder if he cheats?
Posted by: maryrose | August 31, 2013 at 05:20 PM
"Why do you constantly do that? "
Ask questions? Let me ask again..
Should we bomb the crapola out of Syria or not? It's really not that complicated a question, is it? Maguire's not sure what the hell to do other than critique what Obama does. Is that the problem.
Posted by: Puttenesca | August 31, 2013 at 05:24 PM
Any military adventure with this guy as C in C would be a disaster so absent a necessary response to an attack on us or an ally, I'd vote NO.Maybe we need a regent appointed for the remainder of his term if we don't impeach him.
Posted by: Clarice | August 31, 2013 at 05:30 PM
Naw Henry, Reggie would make him happy. Michelle will keep him miserable. Let reggie write a tell all book.
Soylent, I tweeted your idea.
Posted by: Jane-sun - the squaw | August 31, 2013 at 05:31 PM
"Should we bomb the crapola out of Syria or not? It's really not that complicated a question, is it?"
What's your answer, then? I say no, because we risk bringing third parties into the war and things escalate out of hand, and because I don't see who the real good guys are there who will take over.
Posted by: jimmyk | August 31, 2013 at 05:32 PM
--"Why do you constantly do that? "
Ask questions?--
No, be an asshole who misrepresents what people say.
That you equate that with innocently asking questions says all there is to say, doesn't it?
Posted by: Ignatz | August 31, 2013 at 05:33 PM
I'd add Clarice's 5:30 to my 5:32.
Posted by: jimmyk | August 31, 2013 at 05:34 PM
Iggy:
No, be an asshole who misrepresents what people say.
That you equate that with innocently asking questions says all there is to say, doesn't it?
...said the frog to the scorpion.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | August 31, 2013 at 05:37 PM
Roll Tide.
BeamerBummer Ball.Wow
Posted by: Stephanie | August 31, 2013 at 05:37 PM
The Chinese must be laughing their assess off.
Posted by: Extraneus | August 31, 2013 at 05:40 PM
"No, be an asshole who misrepresents what people say. "
Holy hell, you haven't said anything,
Now that the path has been safely cleared, take a chance.
Bomb Syria, or No ?
Posted by: Puttenesca | August 31, 2013 at 05:41 PM
And their asses, too.
Posted by: Extraneus | August 31, 2013 at 05:42 PM
Can you guys help?I've misplaced JFKerry's "global test"?
Posted by: Clarice | August 31, 2013 at 05:44 PM
"What's your answer, then?"
You're asking in vain, jimmy. This shitbird lacks the courage to take a position and defend it. He would prefer to be mocked as a coward, as I have been doing for years, rather than take a stand.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | August 31, 2013 at 05:51 PM
Bush rips Kerry on "global test" remark
Posted by: Extraneus | August 31, 2013 at 05:52 PM
"What's your answer, then?"
My answer's the same as it was during the run-up to Iraq,
What's the hurry? Let the UN determine the source. Too many are convinced it's Assad without examining the evidence. If they determine Assad, fine. I agree you can't allow the CW genie out and pretend it's still in the bottle. But the Bum's rush is the same Circus and Puppet show.
Posted by: Puttenesca | August 31, 2013 at 05:56 PM
LET ALLAH SORT IT OUT
* President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war.
* We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require “too much of a commitment.”
* President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be?
* The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?
* We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.
* Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.
* Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons.
* As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.
- Sarah Palin
(posted Friday night, 30 Aug)
Posted by: Sandy Daze | August 31, 2013 at 06:01 PM
Roll Tide is particularly appropriate since their pass rush looks like videos of the Japanese tsunami. To Beamer's credit he never shirks playing the beasts of Div 1. To his discredit they never seem to be particularly well prepared compared to when they play, say, Maryland.
Posted by: Captain Hate on an iPhone | August 31, 2013 at 06:02 PM
I still don't think I've seen or heard one opinion from Sarah Palin that I didn't agree with.
Posted by: Extraneus | August 31, 2013 at 06:07 PM
So Sarah is an Isolationist, now?
Posted by: Puttenesca | August 31, 2013 at 06:09 PM
I still don't think I've seen or heard one opinion from Sarah Palin that I didn't agree with.
...and I agree with you, Ex.
Posted by: Sandy Daze | August 31, 2013 at 06:16 PM
and with The Sarah.
Posted by: Sandy Daze | August 31, 2013 at 06:17 PM
Ext:
I still don't think I've seen or heard one opinion from Sarah Palin that I didn't agree with.
"I endorse John McCain for re-election as Senator representing the great state of Arizona."
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | August 31, 2013 at 06:18 PM
Ouch.
Posted by: Extraneus | August 31, 2013 at 06:20 PM
Soooo the WaPo has some skeezer who approves of school teachers raping students? Good to know.
Posted by: Captain Hate on an iPhone | August 31, 2013 at 06:20 PM
Thzt was Nicolle Wallace, before she turned evil, sort of like Gloria Loring on a cheesy Saturday morning TV show, Loring the mother of Robin Thicke,
Sarah was more trusting, back before she saw how our force's brave efforts were squandered by curtailing the surge, and having endorsed the one if Afghanistan, she received insight into how that was squandered as well.
Posted by: narciso el taino | August 31, 2013 at 06:25 PM
I actually did agree with her endorsement, but not with McCain's candidacy. It would have been quite disloyal not to endorse the guy who made her the VP nominee, even though what happened to her after that was largely his fault.
Posted by: Extraneus | August 31, 2013 at 06:37 PM
Let me get this straight: if you're opposed to making war against a country that has not harmed us and poses no threat to us, you're an isolationist.
Note that Dana still hasn't answered the question. He says he's willing to let the UN determine the source (which it has said it will not attempt to do), but is silent about what he would do if it determined the source to be the Syrian government.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | August 31, 2013 at 06:39 PM
So according to the dolts current schedule, the most likely scenario is the house votes down the authorization on 10 Sep, and at 0500 on 11 Sep the VX starts flying on the outskirts of Damascus.
Brilliant!
Posted by: Skoot | August 31, 2013 at 06:51 PM
"Note that Dana still hasn't answered the question. He says he's willing to let the UN determine the source (which it has said it will not attempt to do), but is silent about what he would do if it determined the source to be the Syrian government."
Omg. You are so much better at simple declarative sentences.
Please confine yourself to 'yes' or 'no' in the future.
Posted by: Puttenesca | August 31, 2013 at 07:00 PM
Looks like someone wanted to call himself 'Whorish' in Italian but couldn't quite spell 'Puttanesca'.
Posted by: Michael Hendry | August 31, 2013 at 07:12 PM
--Bomb Syria, or No ?--
What a jerk. You have participated in discussions here where I already made it clear days or weeks ago there was no justification for going into Syria and yet you pretend like you don't know this.
Despite occasional feints, you lack good faith, so are useless to engage.
Posted by: Ignatz | August 31, 2013 at 07:13 PM
" You have participated in discussions here where I already made it clear days or weeks ago there was no justification for going into Syria and yet you pretend like you don't know this."
You are full of rocky mountain oysters. You can't substantiate the claims of my participation. But, I assume you can give us the location of your personal views, which you have been unable to duplicate here.
Posted by: Puttenesca | August 31, 2013 at 07:18 PM
I agree with Sarah--Let Allah sort it out.
"I still don't think I've seen or heard one opinion from Sarah Palin that I didn't agree with."
Agreed!
Also agree with Extraneus that it was necessary to endorse McCain since he was running.
Posted by: pagar----- | August 31, 2013 at 07:19 PM
"You can't substantiate the claims of my participation"? If you didn't participate, say so. This looks like the kind of thing total weasels write to imply that they are denying something without actually denying it.
Posted by: DoctorWeevil | August 31, 2013 at 07:25 PM
"Can you guys help?I've misplaced JFKerry's "global test"?
Posted by: Clarice | August 31, 2013 at 05:44 PM"
Wasn't there a picture of it on the wall in some museum in Hanoi? Where they had all the stuff from their American helpers.
Posted by: pagar----- | August 31, 2013 at 07:27 PM
useless to engage
By Jove, I think you've got it, Iggy.
Posted by: Extraneus | August 31, 2013 at 07:28 PM
"By Jove, I think you've got it, Iggy."
you need all the engagement you can get.
Posted by: Puttenesca | August 31, 2013 at 07:32 PM
The Fierce Moral Urgency Of Manana
Veni, vidi, vaycay.
Posted by: Elliott | August 31, 2013 at 07:33 PM
Our clever president is probably just lulling the Syrians into a false sense of security now. Soon they'll be tasting nothing but bunkerbusters.
Just kidding. He doesn't have the guts.
"Kate? Are you coming back after vacation, honey? Kate?"
Posted by: Extraneus | August 31, 2013 at 07:50 PM
Following The Arc From "Yes We Can" To "You Sit Thinking, 'You Know, Maybe. I Don't Know. I Guess I'll Ask Congress.'"
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | August 31, 2013 at 07:51 PM
@ 3:3:30 PM - and/or unless you consider the murder of 25,000 unarmed, defenseless civilians from 25,000 feet a victory, and unless of course you consider allowing the real villains to escape and to murder again all over the world a Clintonesque virtue. IMO, there are A LOT of veterans from that war who are also war criminals, starting at the top with President Bill Clinton and General "Weasely" Clark. Don't be surprised if the liberals strive to let Obama get away with becoming a war criminal, too.
Posted by: trollsrus | August 31, 2013 at 07:54 PM
Penetta speaks
Posted by: Extraneus | August 31, 2013 at 07:55 PM
Love that, elliott..*thwoop* It's stolen.
Nice work, too, hit.
Posted by: Clarice | August 31, 2013 at 07:59 PM
"starting at the top with President Bill Clinton and General "Weasely" Clark. Don't be surprised if the liberals strive to let Obama get away with becoming a war criminal, too."
Did you want to stop there? BTW, I won't be surprised if the answer is yes.
Posted by: Puttenesca | August 31, 2013 at 08:00 PM
"You can't substantiate the claims of my participation."
Ofcourse not, you gutless coward. You change your name every 72 hours or so. But you'll always be Dana Gilbert Ward of Pitzer College, now in the twilight of a distinctly mediocre career.
Let us know when the U.N. identifies the source. Fool.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | August 31, 2013 at 08:14 PM
I see from the simple and highly compromising expedient of searching the database of NSA strategic corporate partner G**gle that others had already twisted the familiar quotation. I suspect "Operation Desert Sturm und Drang" is already taken as well.
Posted by: Elliott | August 31, 2013 at 08:17 PM
" But you'll always be Dana Gilbert Ward of Pitzer College,"
Further emphasizing your disconnectivity. Really, get some assistance through your government assisted Medicare Plan.
I'm not kidding, man. Are you starting to believe in Santy Claus once again.
Posted by: Puttenesca | August 31, 2013 at 08:21 PM
This is much more entertaining than a birther thread.
Posted by: Threadkiller | August 31, 2013 at 08:34 PM
Dana is an utter bore. Typical liberal. He goes on and on and on and never says anything,
Posted by: Jane-sun - the squaw | August 31, 2013 at 08:38 PM
If I thought it would help with the delusional amongst us, I would provide an acceptable proof of life for me as someone other than the Danube (snort) believes me to be, but the stoopid is strong with this one.
So, the birthers have that going for them.
Posted by: Puttenesca | August 31, 2013 at 08:46 PM
Rick, I know you'll love this one.http://www.france24.com/en/20130831-france-former-ambassador-boillon-caught-350000-euros-cash
Posted by: Clarice | August 31, 2013 at 08:57 PM
It's a bit of a shame really;
When I arrived in Baghdad, I had three axes and I have implemented decisively theses axes: building trust, because sorry for French pride but not everyone has loved our position in 2003. Iraqi leaders told me "It is not thanks to France we are here" Strengthen the rule of law and citizenship. And the last line of my report, it is economic. I was reduced to that and it is maybe my fault. I'm not only an economic ambassador but in 2010, it exported $ 800 million, almost three times more than in 2008. And for me the word enterprise is not an insult. (...) Mission accomplished! With a staff of 10, it was as well ... that the U.S. embassy, where they are 3000!
Posted by: narciso el taino | August 31, 2013 at 09:10 PM
And this was him in Le Figaro in 2010:
Iraq is the true laboratory of democracy in the Arab world. It is there that the future of democracy in the region will play itself out. Iraq could potentially become a political model for its neighbors. And, whether one likes it or not, all this has come about thanks to the American intervention of 2003.[8]
Posted by: narciso el taino | August 31, 2013 at 09:13 PM
Clarice,
That (source of funds) sounds so dumb it might be the truth. If it were Italy, he would have to verify the transfer and he'd still pay a very stiff fine (either 25% or 33% IIRC).
Posted by: Account Deleted | August 31, 2013 at 09:20 PM