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.

(Talking Points Memo)   GOP rep: I'm for limited strikes on Syria. President Obama: I'm for limited strikes on Syria. GOP Rep: Whoa, there. Let's not be hasty about this   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, GOP, President Obama, Mike Coffman, wars, chemical warfares, Assad regime  
•       •       •

2003 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Sep 2013 at 1:10 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-06 02:56:36 PM  
2 votes:

tallguywithglasseson: "There are three questions that I will be asking during the debate on Syria before making my decision. The first is how strong is the evidence that the Assad regime directed a chemical attack against civilians? The second is whether a limited strike would be effective in deterring Assad from the further use of chemical weapons? My third question will be whether a limited strike could ultimately drag the United States into an intractable sectarian civil war in Syria?"

Those are actually three pretty good questions.


Answers:
1. Very.

2. Probably relatively effective. It will certainly be far more effective than doing nothing, and will unquestionably make us far more credible when trying to prevent future chemical, biological or nuclear events elsewhere (with the elephant in the room being Iran).

3. We'll retain control over how involved we are. We're already involved, the question is how involved we want to be and how we structure that involvement. Our intent with these strikes is to weaken Assad's military capability without removing him from power. This is intended to work in concert with our actions supporting moderate rebel elements- simply by virtue of greater resources, we hope to help moderates develop a leadership role within the assortment of rebel groups. Weakening Assad reduces the death toll, prevents future chemical weapons involvement, and allows leadership from those groups to emerge and overthrow him themselves.

Standing by and sticking fingers in our ears is not a peaceful stance. It just enables Assad and those like him.
2013-09-06 02:08:46 PM  
2 votes:
Obama should just get start throwing logic puzzles at Congress.

Obama: "I always lie."
Biden: "I always tell the truth. Don't believe Obama, he's lying."
Clinton: "Biden told me that Obama told him that he wants to invade Syria."
2013-09-06 12:06:04 PM  
2 votes:
This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.
2013-09-06 06:41:18 PM  
1 vote:

cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.


This. As I've said before: Kudos, Obama. MAXIMUM TROLLING.
2013-09-06 03:19:24 PM  
1 vote:

cptjeff: We'll retain control over how involved we are. We're already involved, the question is how involved we want to be and how we structure that involvement.


Oh yeah? So, let's say we strike at Assad's CWs. Then, the country goes even further to hell. Maybe we miss some and Assad goes full genocide with the ones we missed. Maybe Al Qaeda takes over some serious military assets. Whatever. Point is, we bombed the place and now it is going (further) to hell. What do we do? What level of involvement is obligated from us? The answer won't be none, I'll tell you that right now..
2013-09-06 02:57:58 PM  
1 vote:

paygun: This Syria thing, isn't this exactly the kind of thing that electing Obama was supposed to prevent?


how, pray tell, would electing obama (or romney, or anyone for that matter) prevent a dictator from going full retard like assad has done?
2013-09-06 02:17:24 PM  
1 vote:

Nadie_AZ: Is anybody not for striking Syria? I mean besides the American people and the military?


Obama is not for it. He is just saying he is to get the GOP to go against it.
2013-09-06 02:14:39 PM  
1 vote:
Yeah, the Neocon's dilemma is the one silver lining to this clusterfark.

Pro:
1. Kill brown people who speak muslim
2. BibiNetanyahu will be happy and might sleep with us
3. Spend huge amounts of government money on million-dollar, one-use items that literally explode
4. Strong possibility of sending some 18-year-olds to go die in the middle east
5. If things go just right, could end up with a decade-long, open-ended engagement with no possibility of success

Anti:
1. Obama's idea
2. Obama might want to leave before we've finished blowing everything up
2013-09-06 01:58:42 PM  
1 vote:
imageshack.us

I'm still horrified that this attitude is the only chance of keeping us from war in Syria.

(because the two liberals in Congress certainly don't have enough votes on their own)
2013-09-06 01:25:06 PM  
1 vote:
"There are three questions that I will be asking during the debate on Syria before making my decision. The first is how strong is the evidence that the Assad regime directed a chemical attack against civilians? The second is whether a limited strike would be effective in deterring Assad from the further use of chemical weapons? My third question will be whether a limited strike could ultimately drag the United States into an intractable sectarian civil war in Syria?"

Those are actually three pretty good questions.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-06 01:20:28 PM  
1 vote:

Aristocles: Obama, not a Neo-Con, but sure as hell acting like one.


Really?  Know how I know you don't know what an actual neo-conservative is?

You're too young to remember the whole Iraq thing aren't you?
2013-09-06 01:15:05 PM  
1 vote:
Congress will vote no. Assad will gas more people. Congress will be outraged again and at some point the Democratic members of congress will do electoral math: How many gassed kids does it take for them to lose support from their liberal base.
2013-09-06 01:14:09 PM  
1 vote:
sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-09-06 01:13:02 PM  
1 vote:
He should turn his attention to more pressing national issues and take an open stance that putting one's balls in a food processor is a bad idea.
2013-09-06 12:53:53 PM  
1 vote:

cameroncrazy1984: MrBallou: cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.

Doesn't hurt their brains at all. At this point, they've become completely fixated on opposing him. Any damage it does to any of their other causes is acceptable collateral damage.

Unless and until it starts losing them elections. Which, in the house may take a few cycles but in the Senate they'll probably lose seats in 2014 because you can't gerrymander entire states.


Shhhhhh. The later they realize that, the better for the country.
2013-09-06 12:38:45 PM  
1 vote:

cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.


Doesn't hurt their brains at all. At this point, they've become completely fixated on opposing him. Any damage it does to any of their other causes is acceptable collateral damage.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-06 12:23:13 PM  
1 vote:
1.bp.blogspot.com
2013-09-06 12:17:08 PM  
1 vote:

FlashHarry: cameroncrazy1984: This is the best part about the whole thing. The GOP is generally okay with bombing countries, but they are NOT okay with anything Obama does. It's breaking their brain. To them, Obama's supposed to be an empty-suit who doesn't take action. It's fantastic to watch.

i would love obama to come out and say that we should lower the top income tax rate to zero percent, abolish the EPA, FDA and DEA and scrap obamacare, just to see what the GOP would do.


They'd call that "compromise", and still be against it as "not enough".
2013-09-06 12:04:48 PM  
1 vote:
president obama: breathing air is a good thing.
GOP rep: *holds breath*
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

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