Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Remember how Fox News was claiming that Al Jazeera would be used to spread Islamic Propaganda in the US? It looks like Fox News decided to get the jump on them   (thinkprogress.org ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, spread of Islam, Secretary of State John Kerry, propaganda, out in the street, chemical warfares, Syrian opposition  
•       •       •

6468 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Sep 2013 at 2:21 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-09-02 03:50:21 PM  

rohar: Infernalist: rohar: Not related to Fox News, but :

KERRY: I don't believe so at all and that is in the hands of the Congress of the U.S. The president has made his decision. The president wants to stand up and make certain that we uphold the international norm.... I think the Assad regime needs to recognize that they have refocused the energy of the American people on him, on his regime.

That phrase is really getting on my damned nerves.  The international norm is to stand by the treaties we've already signed.  Striking Syria would be a direct violation of our treaties with the UN.

I don't want to sound rude or anything, but if it came down to it, I'm afraid most people are going to trust the interpretation of the United States Secretary of State over that of rohar of Fark.com

You might have a point if it wasn't already commonly known:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/leading-edge-leg al -advice-everyday-matters/2013/aug/31/attacking-syria-not-legal-attack- we-must/

And here you are beating the drum for war AND treaty violations.


Hey, everyone - someone cited the Moonie Times, and apparently they were even serious! Isn't that hilarious?
 
2013-09-02 03:51:18 PM  

ongbok: ManateeGag: How are they allowed to call themselves a News organization anymore.

According to their lawyers Fox news isn't a news organization, they are an entertainment organization.


Shouldn't they have to call themselves something slightly different then? You know, like peanut spread instead of peanut butter or orange drink instead of orange juice. How about, "Fox News Substitute,  Now with 10% Real News!"?
 
2013-09-02 03:54:29 PM  

BMulligan: rohar: Infernalist: rohar: Not related to Fox News, but :

KERRY: I don't believe so at all and that is in the hands of the Congress of the U.S. The president has made his decision. The president wants to stand up and make certain that we uphold the international norm.... I think the Assad regime needs to recognize that they have refocused the energy of the American people on him, on his regime.

That phrase is really getting on my damned nerves.  The international norm is to stand by the treaties we've already signed.  Striking Syria would be a direct violation of our treaties with the UN.

I don't want to sound rude or anything, but if it came down to it, I'm afraid most people are going to trust the interpretation of the United States Secretary of State over that of rohar of Fark.com

You might have a point if it wasn't already commonly known:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/leading-edge-leg al -advice-everyday-matters/2013/aug/31/attacking-syria-not-legal-attack- we-must/

And here you are beating the drum for war AND treaty violations.

Hey, everyone - someone cited the Moonie Times, and apparently they were even serious! Isn't that hilarious?


Better?

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/31/217429978/analysts-obama-lacks-legal-f ra me-for-a-syria-strike

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-martin/international-law-and-the _b _3849593.html
 
2013-09-02 03:57:23 PM  

Alphax: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Saudi prince, so Sunni.


so the good kind of muslims?
 
2013-09-02 03:58:00 PM  

simplicimus: 2wolves: Alphax: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Saudi prince, so Sunni.

Could be Wahabi,

And thus Al Qaeda. Now Fox News makes sense.


Sunni ... Shia, like there's a difference. They all hate our Freedumz!
 
2013-09-02 04:07:26 PM  

Infernalist: rohar:

I don't want to sound rude or anything, but if it came down to it, I'm afraid most people are going to trust the interpretation of the United States Secretary of State over that of rohar of Fark.com


s11.postimg.org
windows screenshot
 
2013-09-02 04:13:34 PM  

whither_apophis: simplicimus: 2wolves: Alphax: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Saudi prince, so Sunni.

Could be Wahabi,

And thus Al Qaeda. Now Fox News makes sense.

Sunni ... Shia, like there's a difference. They all hate our Freedumz!


Makes a difference to the Muslims. One worth killing about.
 
2013-09-02 04:13:54 PM  
The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.
 
2013-09-02 04:14:13 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Um...no. Think Progress typically quotes directly. Usually they include video or audio of what they are covering so you can see/hear it yourself. Wallace either did or did not say what they claim he said.


No, he said it.  It's right there on the linked page.
 
2013-09-02 04:20:33 PM  

skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.


See, the legal problem here is that the Chemicals Weapons Treaty that the majority of countries signed, including Syria, says nothing about a government's use of CWs inside their own borders, only against other countries. So technically, Syria is not violating International Law.
 
2013-09-02 04:21:16 PM  

skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.


you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?
 
2013-09-02 04:22:54 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Um...no.  Think Progress typically quotes directly.  Usually they include video or audio of what they are covering so you can see/hear it yourself.  Wallace either did or did not say what they claim he said.

FOX et al spend most of their time mocking Obama for his choice of paperclips or asking Donald Trump what his opinion is (that is, in the rare event that the triumvirate of geniuses at FOX & Friends can't sufficiently derpsplain what unconstitutional outrage Obama will be using to destroy America that day).


...and now you're gonna rationalize and pretend it's somehow different when your side does it. you're delusional beyond belief.
 
2013-09-02 04:24:00 PM  

namatad: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?


The President doesn't think he needs Congress' authorization. No one here, including you, honestly thinks that the President is unable to launch a buttload of Tomahawks without getting the approval of Congress. Why pretend that you do believe this just because you cannot admit that the President was a bit injudicious in his choice of words?
 
2013-09-02 04:27:28 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: BMulligan: simplicimus: Princess Ryans Knickers: Well FOX News is owned by a Muslim soo....

Sunni or Shia?

Sunni today, with a 40% chance of Shia overnight.

Sounds like we're in for a 50% chance of a Shiat storm tomorrow.


I certainly don't want to be in the area when the Shia hits the fan.
 
2013-09-02 04:28:25 PM  

namatad: you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?


The United States has been involved in exactly five declared wars against a total of eleven nations. There have been plenty of examples of military conflicts approved by Congress but not in the form of a formal declaration of war, going back to the First Barbary War of 1802. And of course, America's longest war was undeclared and waged without any official congressional approval - the 46-year Apache War.
 
2013-09-02 04:30:05 PM  

namatad: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?


Skully appears to be advocating a return to the imperial presidency of the previous administration.
 
2013-09-02 04:30:51 PM  

BMulligan: namatad: you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

The United States has been involved in exactly five declared wars against a total of eleven nations. There have been plenty of examples of military conflicts approved by Congress but not in the form of a formal declaration of war, going back to the First Barbary War of 1802. And of course, America's longest war was undeclared and waged without any official congressional approval - the 46-year Apache War.


yet there is something just real nice about the President getting approval from congress before launching a strike, if possible. It's just not a love for propriety or limitations on executive power which are causing the President to do it in this case.
Let's not pretend that it is.
 
2013-09-02 04:32:15 PM  
Ah, DerpProgress.  The interviewer was giving the Secretary of State an opportunity to respond to published quotes, and somehow this is made out to be the spreading of propaganda.  Keep up the good work, derpers.
 
2013-09-02 04:32:16 PM  

El Pachuco: namatad: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?

Skully appears to be advocating a return to the imperial presidency of the previous administration.


nah, as I said, I like the fact that the President is going to congress to get approval. I am just wondering where the sudden love for congressional ok came from.

/not really wondering
 
2013-09-02 04:35:33 PM  

skullkrusher: namatad: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?

The President doesn't think he needs Congress' authorization. No one here, including you, honestly thinks that the President is unable to launch a buttload of Tomahawks without getting the approval of Congress. Why pretend that you do believe this just because you cannot admit that the President was a bit injudicious in his choice of words?


Good grief, we have multiple threads discussing the WPR. The President has 48 hours to inform the heads of Congress of his intent and 60 days to act before Congress can approve or disapprove of the action, and the president has another 30 days after that to remove the troops. The reasoning is simple. Events in the real world can move faster than Congress can react.
 
2013-09-02 04:36:04 PM  

skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.


Perhaps he trying to gain the same sort of false cred Bush Jr. got with the AUMF for Iraqi Boogaloo, which granted exactly zero authority under the Constitution, which demands a Declaration of War.
 
2013-09-02 04:36:20 PM  

skullkrusher: yet there is something just real nice about the President getting approval from congress before launching a strike, if possible.


Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm just saying that if Congress chooses not to authorize military action (and, given Congress' general intransigence these days, that wouldn't be a shock) and Obama decides to go it alone, it wouldn't be in any way unprecedented.
 
2013-09-02 04:37:10 PM  

skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.


You're exactly right.

The President blinked and made us look weak and now our enemies are rejoicing.

The rest is the usual Obama apologists trying to put a better spin on it.
 
2013-09-02 04:37:35 PM  

simplicimus: skullkrusher: namatad: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?

The President doesn't think he needs Congress' authorization. No one here, including you, honestly thinks that the President is unable to launch a buttload of Tomahawks without getting the approval of Congress. Why pretend that you do believe this just because you cannot admit that the President was a bit injudicious in his choice of words?

Good grief, we have multiple threads discussing the WPR. The President has 48 hours to inform the heads of Congress of his intent and 60 days to act before Congress can approve or disapprove of the action, and the president has another 30 days after that to remove the troops. The reasoning is simple. Events in the real world can move faster than Congress can react.


so you agree that the President does have this power? Good.
 
2013-09-02 04:38:19 PM  

BMulligan: skullkrusher: yet there is something just real nice about the President getting approval from congress before launching a strike, if possible.

Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm just saying that if Congress chooses not to authorize military action (and, given Congress' general intransigence these days, that wouldn't be a shock) and Obama decides to go it alone, it wouldn't be in any way unprecedented.


indeedy.
 
2013-09-02 04:39:05 PM  

buckler: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

Perhaps he trying to gain the same sort of false cred Bush Jr. got with the AUMF for Iraqi Boogaloo, which granted exactly zero authority under the Constitution, which demands a Declaration of War.


huh? Was that a half-assed B-but Bush?
 
2013-09-02 04:39:31 PM  

cchris_39: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

You're exactly right.

The President blinked and made us look weak and now our enemies are rejoicing.

The rest is the usual Obama apologists trying to put a better spin on it.


Yes, yes, we get it. Obama did something and you don't like it because [insert BS reason here]. Go crawl back under your concern troll rock
 
2013-09-02 04:40:08 PM  

cchris_39: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

You're exactly right.

The President blinked and made us look weak and now our enemies are rejoicing.

The rest is the usual Obama apologists trying to put a better spin on it.


I don't know that he blinked. He might not want to help Al-Qaeda, and rightfully so. He did talk out his ass last summer, however, and is now interested in finding cover to get out of it though. That's what I think is going on.
 
2013-09-02 04:41:29 PM  

skullkrusher: simplicimus: skullkrusher: namatad: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?

The President doesn't think he needs Congress' authorization. No one here, including you, honestly thinks that the President is unable to launch a buttload of Tomahawks without getting the approval of Congress. Why pretend that you do believe this just because you cannot admit that the President was a bit injudicious in his choice of words?

Good grief, we have multiple threads discussing the WPR. The President has 48 hours to inform the heads of Congress of his intent and 60 days to act before Congress can approve or disapprove of the action, and the president has another 30 days after that to remove the troops. The reasoning is simple. Events in the real world can move faster than Congress can react.

so you agree that the President does have this power? Good.


He's got the power. Just not a internationally recognized cause, or the support of any other nation. So, he punts.
 
2013-09-02 04:42:14 PM  

buckler: Perhaps he trying to gain the same sort of false cred Bush Jr. got with the AUMF for Iraqi Boogaloo, which granted exactly zero authority under the Constitution, which demands a Declaration of War.


This would come as a huge shock to all those presidents over the years who employed military force without benefit of a declaration of war. Frankly, I can't think of more than a handful of presidents who have not done so. And some of those did were involved in the drafting of the Constitution.
 
2013-09-02 04:45:09 PM  

BMulligan: buckler: Perhaps he trying to gain the same sort of false cred Bush Jr. got with the AUMF for Iraqi Boogaloo, which granted exactly zero authority under the Constitution, which demands a Declaration of War.

This would come as a huge shock to all those presidents over the years who employed military force without benefit of a declaration of war. Frankly, I can't think of more than a handful of presidents who have not done so. And some of those did were involved in the drafting of the Constitution.


Yup. Last one was WWII. I'd be interested to learn how that fell by the wayside.
 
2013-09-02 04:47:31 PM  

simplicimus: So technically, Syria is not violating International Law.


There are however laws in regards to war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity etc that do apply to stuff within borders. Chemical weapons in this case would just be how the law was violated, but not the law violation itself.
 
2013-09-02 04:47:49 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-02 04:48:12 PM  

BMulligan: buckler: Perhaps he trying to gain the same sort of false cred Bush Jr. got with the AUMF for Iraqi Boogaloo, which granted exactly zero authority under the Constitution, which demands a Declaration of War.

This would come as a huge shock to all those presidents over the years who employed military force without benefit of a declaration of war. Frankly, I can't think of more than a handful of presidents who have not done so. And some of those did were involved in the drafting of the Constitution.


We last declared was in 1941. I think there have been a few kerfuffles since then. Anyway, the President's actions without a Declaration are covered by the WPR, which was passed by Congress in 1973. And if you read the Constitution, having a standing peacetime army is unconstitutional, as is the existence Air Force. Having a Navy is constitutional, and so by extension I'd guess the Marine Corps.
 
2013-09-02 04:48:40 PM  

buckler: BMulligan: buckler: Perhaps he trying to gain the same sort of false cred Bush Jr. got with the AUMF for Iraqi Boogaloo, which granted exactly zero authority under the Constitution, which demands a Declaration of War.

This would come as a huge shock to all those presidents over the years who employed military force without benefit of a declaration of war. Frankly, I can't think of more than a handful of presidents who have not done so. And some of those did were involved in the drafting of the Constitution.

Yup. Last one was WWII. I'd be interested to learn how that fell by the wayside.


That's just the point - undeclared wars are an American tradition going back to the very founding of the Republic. This is nothing new - declared wars have always been the exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of American military action from the very beginning of our history has been in undeclared wars.
 
2013-09-02 04:51:49 PM  

simplicimus: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

See, the legal problem here is that the Chemicals Weapons Treaty that the majority of countries signed, including Syria, says nothing about a government's use of CWs inside their own borders, only against other countries. So technically, Syria is not violating International Law.


pretend reasons to go to war are pretend.
we pretty much always use dumb-ass reasons for wars.
god said
lies
they are killing innocents

ok that last one is a bit of a good reason
sort of
 
2013-09-02 04:52:46 PM  

simplicimus: And if you read the Constitution, having a standing peacetime army is unconstitutional, as is the existence Air Force.


Nonsense. To say that something is unmentioned in the Constitution is not at all the same thing as saying something violates the Constitution.
 
2013-09-02 04:58:05 PM  

El Pachuco: namatad: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

you do realize that it is illegal for the president to declare war?
that only congress can declare war?

so explain why this is ANYTHING other than congresses job? unless they are punting yet another of their responsibilities?

Skully appears to be advocating a return to the imperial presidency of the previous administration.


PLUS
I said it was ILLEGAL ... not that The President would or would not break the law.
PLUS, they can always pretend to claim clear and present danger, PLUS the chem weapon treaty might require them to attack, plus the laws against genocide require the president to attack, PLUS the insane patriot act might allow an attack if they CLAIM terrorism ... ROFL

and yah
I am all for the president following the law, rather than what that asshole bush did for 8 years.
 
2013-09-02 04:58:05 PM  
The sheer assholishness of Fox News and the teabaggers is just amazing. Berate the president for not asking congress (before anything is clear or decided). Then put down the president for looking weak by asking congress. They don't care what our country looks like on the international level, they don't care how they might even be emboldening the terrorists by calling the president weak. They only care about being pissy little biatches. Seriously, fark them.

I has a sad.
 
2013-09-02 04:59:10 PM  

BMulligan: simplicimus: And if you read the Constitution, having a standing peacetime army is unconstitutional, as is the existence Air Force.

Nonsense. To say that something is unmentioned in the Constitution is not at all the same thing as saying something violates the Constitution.


The peacetime army stuff is unconstitutional.

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
 
2013-09-02 05:01:13 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Is your life really so empty and pathetic that you spend a holiday trolling on the internet?


It's hilarious, and a little sad, that you think that's a troll.  Talk about not being able to see the big picture.
 
2013-09-02 05:01:56 PM  
I reiterate: we need to let the Russians and the UN deal with this. It's the Russians' backyard, and it's Turkey's neighbor where the refugees will head, so pretty much, they've got first dibs. The Russians and the British don't really want to go in, because Syria's military still has the receipts for their goodies, and no one wants to really discuss that.

The humanitarian interests are pressing, but there are no "good" sides in this conflict, just lesser degrees of worse. Regime change will plunge the country into further civil war, and will last a while. Assad is the favorite, because the trains run on time, and he lets the Russians park there. The EU wants the US to step in, because they want nothing to do with the ugliness that will result. The Russians just want things to settle down so that they can see a return on their investment in the region. The various players in the Middle East all see opportunities in the unrest to get factions of friends installed, and while folks keep pointing to the humanitarian angle, there are damn few folks with hands clean in this, and the only way to REALLY clean this mess up, is to go in hard, clamp down on EVERYONE and no one has the the stomach, or the resources to do that.

This IS a tragedy, and it's been brewing a long while, and folks have wrung their hands about it, and now that it's boiling over, folks want to capitalize on it, and make points here and abroad, and few want to really do much to actually do much, because without the Russians' support, there is nothing close to a happy ending, and the Russians have no intention of doing much. Yes, it sucks. If you're a civilian in Syria, or if you're in a rebel group, or a civil servant there as well.

All the saber rattling, all the rhetoric, it's empty, because this situation has been brewing for years, and we've sat and watched. Maybe if we sit this one out, we might learn a bit about the price paid for doing nothing. It's a lesson we need to learn.
 
2013-09-02 05:02:10 PM  
We've apparently become a nation of moral cowards.  Look what another president has said about the use of WMDs

Campaigning for the vital 23 electoral votes of Ohio, Vice President Bush said today that the United States must take the lead in making sure that nations using chemical and biological weapons are punished.
''The barriers against chemical warfare, breached as we've seen during the Iran-Iraq war, must be repaired and raised even higher,'' Mr. Bush said, vowing to make nations that use such weapons ''pay a price.''
''They must know that continued violation of the ban against the use of such weapons carries a heavy penalty,'' he continued. ''Not just a fine or a minor sanction that can be ignored. That's not enough.''


Apparently, Obama is a throwback to a time when we had a more resolute moral character.  Bush the Elder made that statement in 1988, and, apparently, between then and now, we've, as a nation, decided that the use of chemical and biological weapons, even against civilians, ain't a big deal. Bush the Elder made that statement knowing the character of his country, knowing that, at that time, we as a country would not sit idly by as women and children were gassed to death.  Obama's biggest failure with his bright line statement was assuming the American public give a damn about the use of WMDs in 2013.  If he made that statement 20 years ago, the American public would have his back and agree.  In 2013, 400 gassed children are not a big deal.
 
2013-09-02 05:02:53 PM  

cchris_39: skullkrusher: The President getting authorization from Congress for military action is a great thing in the absence of a national security emergency. However, when the President says there will be "enormous consequences" if the "red line" of use of chemical weapons is crossed and then punts the responsibility to Congress rather than making the decision himself, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be viewed in any other way.

You're exactly right.

The President blinked and made us look weak and now our enemies are rejoicing.

The rest is the usual Obama apologists trying to put a better spin on it.


Again, you idiots biatched yourselves inside-out when Obama DIDN'T ask Congress in Libya. And you'd be doing the same if he didn't now.
 
2013-09-02 05:07:36 PM  

BMulligan: simplicimus: And if you read the Constitution, having a standing peacetime army is unconstitutional, as is the existence Air Force.

Nonsense. To say that something is unmentioned in the Constitution is not at all the same thing as saying something violates the Constitution.


troll probably thinks that the federal income tax is unconstitutional and that he should be allowed to own slaves ...
 
2013-09-02 05:08:30 PM  

simplicimus: BMulligan: simplicimus: And if you read the Constitution, having a standing peacetime army is unconstitutional, as is the existence Air Force.

Nonsense. To say that something is unmentioned in the Constitution is not at all the same thing as saying something violates the Constitution.

The peacetime army stuff is unconstitutional.

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"


Point out the part there that makes maintaining a standing army unconstitutional.
 
2013-09-02 05:26:29 PM  

Cataholic: Ah, DerpProgress.  The interviewer was giving the Secretary of State an opportunity to respond to published quotes, and somehow this is made out to be the spreading of propaganda.  Keep up the good work, derpers.


How would you respond to that is different than "haven't you handed Syria and Iran at least a temporary victory". Chris Wallace isn't going to sleep with you.
 
2013-09-02 05:42:11 PM  

Aristocles: ThinkProgress is really stretching here. Wallace asked for a response to comments made by Syrian officials. There's nothing wrong with that and it's not his fault if the Syrian govt lies.

too bad I'm on a tablet and can't hover the link...
/never would have clicked if I'd known it was gsorosfundedThinkProgress


THIS

/I hate FOX News
 
2013-09-02 05:47:03 PM  
the_dude_abides:right-wing news source

Does not compute, Will Robinson.
 
2013-09-02 05:47:45 PM  

freak7: Satanic_Hamster: Is your life really so empty and pathetic that you spend a holiday trolling on the internet?

It's hilarious, and a little sad, that you think that's a troll.  Talk about not being able to see the big picture.



Well see the thing is you are a troll, the first place I spotted you was in the geek tab, I had posted about a touch screen tablet with a keyboard dock, with a linked video, you then insisted it was shiat and in fact didn't have a touch screen and could not be undocked from the keyboard, after that everyone in the thread pretty much considered you a moron if they felt pity for you, or a troll otherwise.
 
Displayed 50 of 186 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report