The “What Will The World Say About Us If We Don’t Attack?” #Syria Argument

Update II: American army boots in Syria??? #JohnKerryBotox was for it before he was against it. We kid you not. The past remains present as today we heard it straight from the horses’ mouth, a.k.a. John Kerry, just thinking out loud: I can’t rule out boots on the ground if Syria implodes.

Would you buy a used car from this man or from Barack Obama? Hard to believe we ever campaigned so hard for Kerry in 2004.

——————————————————————————————————

Update: Why do Republicans keep John Boner as Speaker? Today we hear from bonehead Boehner: I support Obama’s call for action in Syria. Cantor too wants to give the treacherous boob more authority to screw things up even more than he already has. As foolish as these Republicans are it is hypocrite Nancy Pelousy that takes the prize for most incoherent support for Barack thus far with her chatter about “the children”. Here’s your spokeswomen attack supporters:



Supporters of giving Barack Obama authority to initiate a flaccid thin-prick attack on Syria have a lot of explaining to do, as we outline in our main article below. Those that want to give the drunken rodeo clown more liquor and guns because “Assad must be punished for using chemical weapons” have to provide an “exit strategy” (and an overall rational and strategy) but they refuse to do so because they don’t know what Obama will do other than bumble and stumble. These supporters of attack authority for the Peace Prize Putz Prez know that Obama continues to state that the attacks will be very limited, short, and not designed for regime change.

Supporters of authority for Peace Prize Putz Prez, like Boner and Pelousy, who applaud Obama’s “limited” attack dream to “punish” Assad should answer the points we raise below (like why Assad will be strengthened by “surviving” an American attack) and some of those raised by Obama adorer Al Hunt:

“Critics of intervention are now asking, if we strike now, what do we do when Assad does it again?

Supporters must provide an answer to that question. There’s more from Obama adorer Al:

“Former U.S. Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, one of many former top officials who are rarely consulted by this White House (he ran the Pentagon during the Kosovo air attacks in 1999), worries that the president’s plans for Syria are merely tactical, without a clear strategic objective or mission. Has the administration, for instance, seriously considered the likelihood that Russia and Iran will resupply Assad immediately after a strike? Will anything the U.S. does, Cohen wonders, make Assad think, “Hey, we might lose this thing, let’s negotiate a settlement.”

Others worry about being dragged into a protracted engagement.

“Unless the administration gets real lucky, they’re in a terrible box,” says Aaron David Miller, a longtime U.S. diplomat. The president has to respond, he says, though there is the danger of “an incremental drip by drip intervention.”

That would be a disaster. After Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. voters won’t tolerate another war unless critical national interests are at stake.”

That “drip by drip intervention” sounds an awful lot like Vietnam war style “escalation”. We punish Syria – Syria gets bragging rights – Syria gets resupplied by Russia/Iran – Syria gets out the Sarin gas again – we punish/escalate a little bit more then a little bit more, then a little bit more – meanwhile Iran rejoices as it completes its nuclear weapon. All the while Obama forbids Israel from attacking Iran or Syria on the grounds that he is “punishing” the evildoers and not to worrrrry about an Iran Nuke. Or does Obama wrist slap “punish” once and then ignore whatever else Assad does?

Supporters of enabling the Boob and his boobery have a lot of ‘splaining to do.

——————————————————————————————————

Some people we respect want the congress to vote “yes” and give Barack Obama authority to “attack” Syria. We find most of the arguments in favor of an attack risible and delusional. The only argument that carries some weight is the “what will the world say about us if we don’t attack Syria for the use of chemical weapons?” But the question should be “what will the world say about us if we do attack Syria?”

If the Congress votes to give Barack Obama authorization to attack Syria for use of chemical weapons the answer to the latter question is “What is wrong with Americans? Do they never learn? Do the Americans still not understand that the problem is Iran, not the sideshow client Syria? Does the American Congress still not realize that Barack Obama is a clueless, treacherous man-child not to be provided with matches? Why are Americans about to follow callow Obama into a trap he talked himself into in order to cover up the fact that Obama does not know what he is doing? Are Americans suffering from collective Attention-Deficit-Disorder?

The American Congress should not approve of Barack Obama’s bumbling mumbles of a “red line” stupidly stated during an election year – with a vote to authorize an attack on Syria. If the American Congress wants to vote on something constructive then the American Congress should vote for a resolution to (1) condemn Syria as a vicious puppet of Iran; (2) authorize specific and limited financial and military assistance to whatever groups other than Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda type organizations fighting against the Syrian regime; (3) authorize assistance to an attack on Iran nuclear weapons development facilities; (4) condemn the Muslim Brotherhood specifically and like minded terrorist organization in whatever country they operate within; and (5) declare that the American government will pursue terrorist organizations and government that threaten the United States without respite.

* * * * *

The smart professor at Legal Insurrection has some smart things to say before coming out the wrong side of the rabbit hole:

“I agree with just about every criticism of Obama’s handling of the Middle East and Syria in particular — in fact, I’ve made the arguments myself for years.

I agree with just about every criticism of Obama’s “red line” and dawdling and backing himself and our nation into a policy corner where we have no good options and have squandered credibility.

I agree with just about every criticism that Obama is seeking Congressional authorization, or denial, for cynical political purposes.

I agree with just about every criticism of Obama’s vague plan to fire across Syria’s bow.

I agree with just about every criticism that we don’t know where things end if Assad falls.”

So why then give matches to this goofy treacherous clod? The answer at every turn from those that want to give the man-child nuclear matches is that ‘if America does not do it who else will uphold the international order?’ We agree that the United States is and must be the leader of the world. But we believe the United is and must be the SMART leader of the world. The United States must keep its eyes on the prize and not get distracted. Syria is a sideshow. Syria is a distraction. Iran is the problem. Terrorist Muslim organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood are the problem. A smart United States must keep its eyes and firepower focused on the puppet-master (Iran) not the puppet (Syria).

Obama Dimocrat Charlie Rangel thinks Obama has thus far been an embarrassment on Syria:

“Democrats, too, are expressing frustration at Obama’s failure to act decisively after his ‘red line’ speech.

Charles Rangel, who represents the Harlem section of New York City, said Monday said ‘of course it’s embarrassing’ that the president didn’t act immediately after chemical weapons use was discovered.

Rangel opposes a Syrian military strike but said Obama’s delay on Saturday was also a major embarrassment to Kerry – who had demanded strong action a day earlier.

It’s ‘unheard of,’ Rangel said on MSNBC, that a president would allow the world to see him issuing an empty threat.

‘So of course it’s embarrassing, I wish it didn’t happen, ‘ he said. ‘

I guess Secretary Kerry is even more embarrassed than me after making his emotional speech that this was urgent.

Why would anyone argue that a drunk clown be given more liquor and guns? Obama has been, at best, an embarrassment – so why empower an embarrassment? To make the America as “shining city on a hill” and America as “world leader and must attack” argument? This is a strong disconnect in logic. The world is not going to be impressed if the American Congress empowers embarrassment Obama. Does this argument make any sense?:

“Republicans should support some version of the authorization of force resolution. They should do so even if they think that the President’s policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks; they should do so even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and they should so even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment. The simple fact is that the nation and our allies will be at further risk if the world sees a presidency that is weakened and that has no credibility to act. Partisans may be tempted to see such a result as condign punishment for the President’s misjudgments; they may feel that he deserves to pay the price for his hypocrisy and cheap and demagogic attacks on his predecessor. But at the end of the day, Republicans need to rise above such temptations; the stakes are too high.. The weaker the president’s credibility on the world scene, the more the need to swallow and do what will not weaken it further. President Obama is the only president we have. That remains the overriding fact.”

So because Obama is going over the cliff the American Congress should vote for the country to go over the cliff with him? We should give more liquor and guns to the drunk clown?

The author of that particularly bizarre argument goes on to admonish Republicans not to weaken the presidency nor become isolationist. To us the obvious response is that what weakens the institution of the Presidency is blind support for a weak treacherous President that weakens the nation with foolish face-saving adventurism. As to isolationism, we are not advising a Fortress America mentality should take hold. What we argue for is focus on the the real dangers not the distractions. But the same arguments continue to be made for additional liquor and guns to the drunk clown, “…if you allow the red line to fade, the mullahs in Tehran are going to be the ones who take the greatest note of that red line fading….” This is crazy talk.

The mullahs in Tehran will be very happy indeed to watch as the United States distracts itself with Syria. The race for nuclear weapons in Tehran is helped, not hindered, by an attack on Syria. A congressional resolution that rejects a Syria distraction attack and refocuses on puppet-master Iran is what will terrify Iran most and show the world that Obama is a clod but that the United States is not a nation of lemmings prepared to go over the cliff for Obama the drunken treacherous clown.

What should have been done, or maybe should have been done, is not the issue, and some wise people recognize this unpleasant reality:

“Sometimes the best thing we can do is stay out of the way. It may be that a year or two ago, we could have played a constructive role by supporting relatively sane elements among the rebels, but those days are gone. We can’t support the rebels now without aiding Islamic extremists. In my view, if we are not prepared to bring about Assad’s demise–and we probably shouldn’t be–the best thing we can do is stand aside.”

None of this should mean that the United States should be a pitiful helpless giant guided by a drunken clown. The American Congress, as we suggested above, should keep Assad off balance by authorizing aid to non-Muslim Brotherhood type organizations.

Obama worship machine William Saletan repeats all the same risible arguments and ends with a dare:

“The better reason to hit Syria is colder and simpler: If Bashar al-Assad doesn’t pay for gassing his people, he and others are more likely to use weapons of mass destruction again. To discourage that, we have to make him suffer. [snip]

If you don’t want a military strike in Syria, fine. Make your case for sanctions or some other alternative. Whatever you propose doesn’t have to save Assad’s people. But it had better hurt him.”

Want to hurt Assad? Attack the puppet-masters, not the puppet. Want to hurt Assad? Don’t do a thin-prick attack that allows Assad to glorify himself as a “survivor” who defied the United States and has become larger than life. Want to hurt Assad? Keep focused on puppet-master Iran and make them fear for what their puppet is doing.

A vote to empower the drunken treacherous clown is folly that weakens America. A vote against authorization empowers America not the drunken clown. Vote for America, not the drunken treacherous clown:

“Of the bad and worse alternatives, the worse is attacking without specifying our aims, means, and desired results. Yet to do so would convince Obama to drop the idea.

If the objective is to weaken Assad without empowering al-Qaeda-like Islamists, then non-intervention serves that goal far better.

If the objective is to destroy WMD depots, and send a global lesson that they are taboo, where are they and how are we to take them out? And what of the irony that Assad is probably no worse a custodian of WMD than is the opposition that we would de facto aiding?

If the point is to save face after the empty rhetorical redlines, then at this late date a few hours of cruise missiles will be interpreted by those who count — Russia, Iran, China, North Korea — as a half-serious and pathetic attempt to restore credibility.

There are many good reasons for being smart and doing what is in the interests of the United States, not to save Obama’s nonexistent “credibility”:

“The president is a spent force, both domestically and internationally. Congress should help by voting to cut our losses; it should resist opening the door to the uncertain consequences of a military campaign conducted, without conviction or clear purpose, by this commander in chief. If Republicans can limit the president’s authority to wander and blunder on the world stage, there is a moral obligation to do so.

Of course Syria should be viciously punished for using chemical weapons, but who trusts this president to do so in such a way that also sends a clear message to Iran? No one does. Why would they? Better to leave Iran with a modicum of doubt than let them witness any more of the tepid uncertainty, lack of conviction or absence of moral clarity from President Obama.

The only thing worse than no response from America is a floundering response, so Congress should stop it while they can. We don’t need to go through the half-hearted lobbying effort in Congress, which will just underscore the incompetence and incapabilities of this administration. Republicans should vote to end this disaster now. A vote of no confidence is in order.

The problem is that we have serious problems that require an able president both at home and abroad. It is too soon for our president to be a marginalized lame duck. Doing nothing is one thing, but doing harm by not properly wielding the power a president holds is another.”

The dumb thing is to go on a gun shooting adventure with a drunken clown. The smart thing is to let the drunken clown to go over the cliff alone. Barack Obama is the one in crisis, not America.

Share