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)   Obama plans to do a "media blitz" today on chemical weapons in Syria. You know who else did a blitz with weapons?   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 190
    More: Interesting, Obama, chemical weapons, weekly address  
•       •       •

365 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Sep 2013 at 9:37 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-09 07:58:27 AM
I take it you are referring to Adolf Hitler, the Chancellor of Germany from 1932 who became the supreme ruler of Germany and retained that position until his mysterious death in 1945.  Though I could be uncertain, seeing as you pose the question but do not leave any corroborating information.
 
2013-09-09 08:01:28 AM
Give it up Obama, the American people don't want this war.  Better to stop now and not give the house a reason to impeach you.
 
2013-09-09 08:02:45 AM

Mike_LowELL: I take it you are referring to Adolf Hitler, the Chancellor of Germany from 1932 who became the supreme ruler of Germany and retained that position until his mysterious death in 1945.  Though I could be uncertain, seeing as you pose the question but do not leave any corroborating information.


Why you such a stupid? He was Chancellor from January 1933, everyone knows that.
 
2013-09-09 08:18:30 AM
You know who else did a blitz

The Sweet.

/Are you ready Steve?
 
2013-09-09 08:18:42 AM
So...in order to punish Assad for murdering his people, our plan is to....murder some of his people? Great plan, that. Sure to be popular.
 
2013-09-09 08:20:16 AM

Weaver95: So...in order to punish Assad for murdering his people, our plan is to....murder some of his people? Great plan, that. Sure to be popular.


it worked before
 
2013-09-09 08:23:24 AM

dittybopper: You know who else did a blitz

The Sweet.

/Are you ready Steve?



And the prez in back said "Everyone attack!"
And it turned into a media blitz
Rand Paul in the corner said "Boy, I wanna warn ya
It'll turn into a media blitz."
Media blitz
Media blitz
 
2013-09-09 08:34:21 AM
I don't get it....why this rush to war? Yes I know chemical weapons are bad but...after our actions in the so called war oterror, can we really claim any sort of moral high ground? Not to mention the fact that we don't know any of the details about this chemical weapon attack. Given that we never found WMD in Iraq I'm very skeptical about another round of attacks based on the same justifications we used for the Iraqi invasion.

I don't like the way any of this sounds.
 
2013-09-09 08:34:30 AM

EvilEgg: Give it up Obama, the American people don't want this war.  Better to stop now and not give the house a reason to impeach you.


They have been planning to impeach ever since learning that Obama was black.
 
2013-09-09 08:36:06 AM

Weaver95: So...in order to punish Assad for murdering his people, our plan is to....murder some of his people? Great plan, that. Sure to be popular.


well, i'm not sure hitting his command and control is technically "murdering his people." if casualties are combatants, they're not civilians.

but, yeah, this is not an easy situation by any stretch.

assad hasn't attacked us. we are not in danger. neither are our allies. but if that's the case and we stay out, does that mean that we have no responsibility as the world's lone superpower to prevent and punish war crimes?

i don't have the answer. my gut says that assad needs to be hit for this, though.
 
2013-09-09 08:36:41 AM

clancifer: EvilEgg: Give it up Obama, the American people don't want this war.  Better to stop now and not give the house a reason to impeach you.

They have been planning to impeach ever since learning that Obama was black.


Besides, the GOP won't impeach obama for starting another war in the middle east. They'll be too busy jacking off in the corner over the thought of more bloodshed.
 
2013-09-09 08:37:44 AM

FlashHarry: Weaver95: So...in order to punish Assad for murdering his people, our plan is to....murder some of his people? Great plan, that. Sure to be popular.

well, i'm not sure hitting his command and control is technically "murdering his people." if casualties are combatants, they're not civilians.

but, yeah, this is not an easy situation by any stretch.

assad hasn't attacked us. we are not in danger. neither are our allies. but if that's the case and we stay out, does that mean that we have no responsibility as the world's lone superpower to prevent and punish war crimes?

i don't have the answer. my gut says that assad needs to be hit for this, though.


I don't think Assad HAS any command and control to hit.
 
2013-09-09 08:41:01 AM

somedude210: Weaver95: So...in order to punish Assad for murdering his people, our plan is to....murder some of his people? Great plan, that. Sure to be popular.

it worked before


Ain't gonna work this time, for a couple of reasons.

1. The reaction wasn't swift enough.  By now, the Assad regime has dispersed the majority of his chemical weapons so that it will cost *MUCH* more to take them out, and as a practical matter, we'll probably get perhaps a quarter to a third of his capability.  And if he's smart, he'll have started a program to have us hit empty warehouses and bogus ammo dumps.

2. The reaction won't be big enough.  We'll shoot a few missiles, maybe bomb a few sites with manned aircraft, then we'll stop.  And the Assad regimes *KNOWS* this.  Congress isn't about to write the president a blank check here:  The Republicans would like nothing more than to turn Barack Obama into the lamest of lame ducks, and many of the Democrats in his base are opposed to military action of any kind, and this is something they can't blame on Bush.    So all Assad has to do here is hunker down, take his (relatively mild) lumps, and then move on.

This potential action may or may not prevent Assad from using chemical weapons.  He might use them again anyway, but just on a smaller scale.  Or he might just say "Fark you Obama" and still use them after the bombing campaign is finished.   He knows there would be no stomach for a US invasion, which is really the only way to permanently stop their use.

Ill advised all-around, and I really, really wish the president hadn't telegraphed the need for this earlier.  Instead of saying "red line", he should have said "gravely concerned", and then after the event, launched a surprise missile attack on known chemical weapons sites, to be followed up by the "red line" rhetoric.

As president, he's commander-in-chief, and as such he's got the power under the War Powers Resolution to do limited military action like that, without running afoul of the Congressional power to declare war.
 
2013-09-09 08:47:37 AM

Weaver95: clancifer: EvilEgg: Give it up Obama, the American people don't want this war.  Better to stop now and not give the house a reason to impeach you.

They have been planning to impeach ever since learning that Obama was black.

Besides, the GOP won't impeach obama for starting another war in the middle east. They'll be too busy jacking off in the corner over the thought of more bloodshed.


No they won't.  They'll be cackling gleefully no matter what happens.  Why?

1. Barack Obama doesn't get congressional approval.  So now he's the lamest duck president *EVAR*.  Republicans win.

2. Barack Obama does get congressional approval.  Now they can point to him as a war-monger, to drive a wedge between him and his far-left base.  Won't matter to him personally because he isn't going to be up for reelection, but it could matter to Democratic senators and representatives who will be facing reelection in a year.  If the far left goes third party (like for Greens), then the Democrats might lose some seats, an especially dangerous thing in the house.

I can't see the Republicans losing anything here, and they potentially have much to gain.
 
2013-09-09 08:49:09 AM

Weaver95: So...in order to punish Assad for murdering his people, our plan is to....murder some of his people? Great plan, that. Sure to be popular.


Don't concur with your summation. I understand your objections, but using chemical weapons in war is banned. I have no problem with hitting Syrian government targets for repeatedly using them. I find it in our national interest to do so to indirectly remind adversaries and others not to use CW, particularly against us. CW was a big concern in the First Persian Gulf War. Also, CW is particularly difficult to deal with, besides being nasty and indiscriminate, more than bombs and bullets.
 
2013-09-09 08:56:44 AM
Let's let the UN handle it.

I almost couldn't type that with a straight face.
 
2013-09-09 08:58:12 AM

AirForceVet: Weaver95: So...in order to punish Assad for murdering his people, our plan is to....murder some of his people? Great plan, that. Sure to be popular.

Don't concur with your summation. I understand your objections, but using chemical weapons in war is banned. I have no problem with hitting Syrian government targets for repeatedly using them. I find it in our national interest to do so to indirectly remind adversaries and others not to use CW, particularly against us. CW was a big concern in the First Persian Gulf War. Also, CW is particularly difficult to deal with, besides being nasty and indiscriminate, more than bombs and bullets.


But if we bomb Assad, it won't actually do anything. Dropping a few bombs will look great on the news nut it won't actually stop Assad or teach him any important lessons about morality in war. Useless flash in the pan. An expensive PR stunt that only ends up making us look weak and ineffectual. Unless you want to put boots on the ground, a few pretty pretty explosions aren't gonna make much of a difference in Syria.
 
2013-09-09 09:00:45 AM

AirForceVet: I find it in our national interest to do so to indirectly remind adversaries and others not to use CW, particularly against us.


Is that because there are no full-time dittyboppers left in the military?

CW was a big concern in the First Persian Gulf War.

Actually, as I recall, it turned out to be a paper tiger, as pretty much all Iraqi comms were voice.

Also, CW is particularly difficult to deal with, besides being nasty and indiscriminate,

I actually find CW rather soothing, and it's actually my preferred method of communicating.  Why, just yesterday, I used CW to talk to a guy in Denmark.

Also, it's not nasty once you get the rhythm down.  It's actually got a bit of a swing to it.
 
2013-09-09 09:02:39 AM

Weaver95: I don't get it....why this rush to war? Yes I know chemical weapons are bad but...after our actions in the so called war oterror, can we really claim any sort of moral high ground? Not to mention the fact that we don't know any of the details about this chemical weapon attack. Given that we never found WMD in Iraq I'm very skeptical about another round of attacks based on the same justifications we used for the Iraqi invasion.

I don't like the way any of this sounds.


IMO I think that Obama wants this war because he could appear weak internationally if he doesn't back up what he says
 
2013-09-09 09:10:53 AM

Weaver95: But if we bomb Assad, it won't actually do anything. Dropping a few bombs will look great on the news nut it won't actually stop Assad or teach him any important lessons about morality in war. Useless flash in the pan. An expensive PR stunt that only ends up making us look weak and ineffectual. Unless you want to put boots on the ground, a few pretty pretty explosions aren't gonna make much of a difference in Syria.


it depends on what we hit. You'd be amazed what people respond to when you blow their shiat up, especially if they're in a fight for their very survival

I don't advocate boots on the ground or regime change. I do think there needs to be a shot at his chemical weapon facilities.
 
2013-09-09 09:12:55 AM

Slaxl: Why you such a stupid? He was Chancellor from January 1933, everyone knows that.


Because you have fallen right into my trap.  See, I made a mistake, and instead of acknowledging the error of my ways, I am going to double down on it.  Because any idiot knows Hitler was born in 1932.  You, on the other hand, provided the correct answer.  Because that is all you liberals can do.  You can't shoot a gun, you can't love this country, so you read things in history books because you can't think for yourself.  But welcome to Obama's America, the America where Obama is the president of America.
 
2013-09-09 09:21:56 AM
While the actions of the Syrian President against his own people are reprehensible, they do not rise the level needed to require the USA to initiate a war with his regime. France and Turkey have more geographical and historical connections to the area and are more than capable of handling this together should they choose to do so.
 
2013-09-09 09:28:32 AM

dittybopper: You know who else did a blitz

The Sweet.

/Are you ready Steve?


That's the best kind of blitz.
 
2013-09-09 09:29:43 AM

Weaver95: I don't get it....why this rush to war? Yes I know chemical weapons are bad but...after our actions in the so called war oterror, can we really claim any sort of moral high ground? Not to mention the fact that we don't know any of the details about this chemical weapon attack. Given that we never found WMD in Iraq I'm very skeptical about another round of attacks based on the same justifications we used for the Iraqi invasion.

I don't like the way any of this sounds.


That is an excellent question.  I was wondering the exact same thing myself.
 
2013-09-09 09:31:44 AM

Marcus Aurelius: dittybopper: You know who else did a blitz

The Sweet.

/Are you ready Steve?

That's the best kind of blitz.


All right fellas, lets GO!
 
2013-09-09 09:32:52 AM

Marcus Aurelius: dittybopper: You know who else did a blitz

The Sweet.

/Are you ready Steve?

That's the best kind of blitz.


Close but not quite

Hey ho, Let's go
 
2013-09-09 09:34:49 AM

Tom_Slick: Marcus Aurelius: dittybopper: You know who else did a blitz

The Sweet.

/Are you ready Steve?

That's the best kind of blitz.

Close but not quite

Hey ho, Let's go


What they want, I don't know.
 
2013-09-09 09:43:16 AM

FlashHarry: assad hasn't attacked us. we are not in danger. neither are our allies. but if that's the case and we stay out, does that mean that we have no responsibility as the world's lone superpower to prevent and punish war crimes?


We could start at home first.  Bush and Cheney still walk free.
 
2013-09-09 09:44:16 AM
Cui bono
 
2013-09-09 09:45:19 AM

dittybopper: Tom_Slick: Marcus Aurelius: dittybopper: You know who else did a blitz

The Sweet.

/Are you ready Steve?

That's the best kind of blitz.

Close but not quite

Hey ho, Let's go

What they want, I don't know.


Cretin.
 
2013-09-09 09:45:41 AM
I came into this thread for the "Ballroom Blitz".  dittybopper did not disappoint me.
 
2013-09-09 09:45:47 AM
Fark the U.S. and fark American exceptionalism.  This country is a joke.
 
2013-09-09 09:47:13 AM
I dunno, Ray Lewis?
 
2013-09-09 09:48:32 AM
I bet BOB is going to pull the ol' "don't forget 9/11" or "as we approach the anny of 9/11" to try to get folks amped up for Obama's Illegal War on Syria.

Stay classy, BOB!
 
2013-09-09 09:48:39 AM
Remember, you can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Not doing sh*t the opposition dislikes.

I forget most of you were babes in arms in the 90s.
 
2013-09-09 09:50:31 AM

Aristocles: I bet BOB is going to pull the ol' "don't forget 9/11" or "as we approach the anny of 9/11" to try to get folks amped up for Obama's Illegal War on Syria.

Stay classy, BOB!


24.media.tumblr.com
?
 
2013-09-09 09:53:13 AM

Mike_LowELL: But welcome to Obama's America, the America where Obama is the president of America.


You magnificent bastard.
 
2013-09-09 09:53:33 AM

Rann Xerox: I came into this thread for the "Ballroom Blitz".  dittybopper did not disappoint me.



R.I.P. KROKUS

i.imgur.com

 
2013-09-09 09:53:57 AM
The videos and photos released of all those dead bodies, including tons of kids in what looks like classrooms are pretty terrible. Not sure why 90% of the bodies had lifted up / taken off their shirts. Reaction to the chemical weapons?
 
2013-09-09 09:54:41 AM
We need to get involved in this civil war? no thanks... If the international community is against the use of chemical weapons then get the international community to do something about it.
 
2013-09-09 09:55:17 AM
maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com
 
2013-09-09 09:56:49 AM
I don't think any PR offensive is going to sell this war.  Even after weeks of showing videos of victims and swearing on a stack of bibles that intervention will be quick and clean, the public is still against the resolution 59-39.  Americans are tired of war and have no desire to make our military serve as the world police.
 
2013-09-09 09:57:28 AM

Mike_LowELL: I take it you are referring to Adolf Hitler, the Chancellor of Germany from 1932 who became the supreme ruler of Germany and retained that position until his mysterious death in 1945.  Though I could be uncertain, seeing as you pose the question but do not leave any corroborating information.


Could have meant anyone of these.

balder.orgwww.emblibrary.com
milwaukeebreweries.wikispaces.com
 
2013-09-09 09:57:47 AM

Rann Xerox: I came into this thread for the "Ballroom Blitz".  dittybopper did not disappoint me.


You know, if I had a dime for every woman who said that to me, I'd have at least 35 cents.  At *LEAST*.
 
2013-09-09 09:59:52 AM

Tom_Slick: Marcus Aurelius: dittybopper: You know who else did a blitz

The Sweet.

/Are you ready Steve?

That's the best kind of blitz.

Close but not quite

Hey ho, Let's go


All it needs is a good bop.
 
2013-09-09 10:00:24 AM

Weaver95: I don't get it....why this rush to war? Yes I know chemical weapons are bad but...after our actions in the so called war oterror, can we really claim any sort of moral high ground? Not to mention the fact that we don't know any of the details about this chemical weapon attack. Given that we never found WMD in Iraq I'm very skeptical about another round of attacks based on the same justifications we used for the Iraqi invasion.

I don't like the way any of this sounds.


That's because it stinks to high heaven.
Iran, Iraq and Syria are supposedly banding together to make a new oil pipeline in order to, well whatever. Make money, I guess.
Syria's got the real estate needed to get oil to the European market more easily.

I cannot really cite a source, I can't seem to find where I found that tidbit of speculation. I've been to too many Anonymous-based websites lately.

/why hello, nsa!
 
2013-09-09 10:00:32 AM
Oh cool, a media blitz.  That'll do the trick alright.
 
2013-09-09 10:01:11 AM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Remember, you can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Not doing sh*t the opposition dislikes.

I forget most of you were babes in arms in the 90s.


As Gerald Ford said, an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives says it is at a particular point in history. If the House wants to impeach Obama for PWB, there's nothing in the Constitution to stop them.
 
2013-09-09 10:02:19 AM
Thanks alot, President  Possum Al0ysius Jenkins
 
2013-09-09 10:03:17 AM
Well it's not really WAR war, just a few nobel peace bombs.  Maybe no-one will notice.
 
Displayed 50 of 190 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report