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)   Five Republicans who were for Syrian strikes before they were against them. If they were Democrats, we'd call this the "Kerry Defense", since they're Republicans, it's called "business"   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 60
    More: Interesting, Syrians, Republican, Mike Coffman, intervention  
•       •       •

1021 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Sep 2013 at 12:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-10 11:24:30 AM
you mean Republicans change their stance when Obama shares their point of view?  what never happens!
 
2013-09-10 11:33:15 AM

ManateeGag: you mean Republicans change their stance when Obama shares their point of view?  what never happens!


If the strike is voted down and Obama doesn't do anything, Syria will pull some more shiat and the GOP will decry Obama's lack of action.  It is a farking joke.
 
2013-09-10 11:36:31 AM
You don't think the situation has changed in the last couple of days?
 
2013-09-10 11:57:33 AM
I figured the GOO called that Tuesday
 
2013-09-10 11:57:54 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: You don't think the situation has changed in the last couple of days?


Definitely changed.  But not sure what to make of it.  I don't trust Putin one bit.

And I'm also sure that these Republicans aren't motivated by these new developments.

But it will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.
 
2013-09-10 11:59:35 AM
War will come when the Republicans love bombing brown people more than they hate our black president
 
2013-09-10 12:05:07 PM
If Obama said "Americans must deny the urge to hook up their testicles to a car battery" there'd be a line a mile long outside the Sears Auto Center punctuated by millions of cold-crankin' screams.
 
2013-09-10 12:14:16 PM
Five Republicans who were for Syrian strikes before they were against them. If they were Democrats, we'd call this the "Kerry Defense", since they're Republicans, it's called "business" "being a Republican."
 
2013-09-10 12:26:02 PM
Ihofe - unsruprising
Rubio - unsruprising 
Cruz - unsruprising
Grimm - disappointing
Coffman - don't know him, but excuse is unconvincing
 
2013-09-10 12:53:34 PM
www.bit-101.com
 
2013-09-10 12:55:02 PM
 
2013-09-10 12:55:50 PM
Btw, it turns out Russia/Syria weren't serious about putting chemical weapons under International control. Russia wont back any UN action on the issue. Yay!
 
2013-09-10 12:55:54 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/france-to-author-secu r ity-council-resolution-to-require-syria-to-give-up-chemical-weapons/20 13/09/10/0d51a06c-19ff-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html


Check out the above link and consider that Obama didn't dick around with congress when he bombed Libya; he ignored them.  Now he's been busy letting the media hype this "critical" vote in congress while Kerry just happens to mention Syria could give up its weapons, Russia just happens to think this is a great idea, and France just happens to have it really to go in the security council.

This is good cop bad cop stuff.  Long con.
 
2013-09-10 12:59:00 PM

bbfreak: Btw, it turns out Russia/Syria weren't serious about putting chemical weapons under International control. Russia wont back any UN action on the issue. Yay!


That's a relief!  For a minute there I thought we wouldn't be able to find a tinderbox to drop this lit match into.
 
2013-09-10 12:59:56 PM

bbfreak: Btw, it turns out Russia/Syria weren't serious about putting chemical weapons under International control. Russia wont back any UN action on the issue. Yay!


Source?
 
2013-09-10 01:00:03 PM

DarnoKonrad: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/france-to-author-secu r ity-council-resolution-to-require-syria-to-give-up-chemical-weapons/20 13/09/10/0d51a06c-19ff-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html


Check out the above link and consider that Obama didn't dick around with congress when he bombed Libya; he ignored them.  Now he's been busy letting the media hype this "critical" vote in congress while Kerry just happens to mention Syria could give up its weapons, Russia just happens to think this is a great idea, and France just happens to have it really to go in the security council.

This is good cop bad cop stuff.  Long con.


That's exactly what I was thinking.
 
2013-09-10 01:00:22 PM

DarnoKonrad: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/france-to-author-secu r ity-council-resolution-to-require-syria-to-give-up-chemical-weapons/20 13/09/10/0d51a06c-19ff-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html


Check out the above link and consider that Obama didn't dick around with congress when he bombed Libya; he ignored them.  Now he's been busy letting the media hype this "critical" vote in congress while Kerry just happens to mention Syria could give up its weapons, Russia just happens to think this is a great idea, and France just happens to have it really to go in the security council.

This is good cop bad cop stuff.  Long con.


Republicans play tic-tac-toe. Obama plays kal-toh.
 
2013-09-10 01:00:33 PM

bbfreak: Btw, it turns out Russia/Syria weren't serious about putting chemical weapons under International control. Russia wont back any UN action on the issue. Yay!


But clearly that was them just outmaneuvering Obama! How could they be made to look so unreasonable?!
 
2013-09-10 01:01:00 PM

Diogenes: The Stealth Hippopotamus: You don't think the situation has changed in the last couple of days?

Definitely changed.  But not sure what to make of it.  I don't trust Putin one bit.

And I'm also sure that these Republicans aren't motivated by these new developments.

But it will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.


I think it's because their constituents, feeling like 80% of America, are melting down the phone lines saying they don't want the US helping either side in a war between groups, both of which we'd be happy to see lose.

I never thought I'd see lefties humping for the US to get into a battle, particularly one that would be this stupid and pointless. Looks like one's point of view on an issue really does depend on whether it's your camp that's pushing it.
 
2013-09-10 01:01:15 PM
It seems to me that USA and Russia are playing good-cop / bad-cop with Syria.

Not sure if it's a real plan or just turned out that way.
 
2013-09-10 01:02:05 PM

Car_Ramrod: bbfreak: Btw, it turns out Russia/Syria weren't serious about putting chemical weapons under International control. Russia wont back any UN action on the issue. Yay!

Source?


NVM, found it:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/russia-proposed-un-syria -r esolution-unacceptable

Russia told France on Tuesday that a proposed United Nations Security Council resolution holding the Syrian government accountable for the use of chemical weapons was unacceptable, Reuters  reported.

The Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told his French counterpart Russia would propose another U.N. declaration supporting an initiative to place Syria's chemical weapons under international control, according to Reuters.


Meh, mixed bag. Same end result, it seems. Just appears to be "we'll do this as long as we don't have to admit we did anything wrong."
 
2013-09-10 01:04:18 PM

jjorsett: I never thought I'd see lefties humping for the US to get into a battle, particularly one that would be this stupid and pointless. Looks like one's point of view on an issue really does depend on whether it's your camp that's pushing it.


You're confusing the democratic part with leftists.  It's a common mistake, but it's just not reality.
 
2013-09-10 01:04:25 PM

Fantasta Potamus: It seems to me that USA and Russia are playing good-cop / bad-cop with Syria.

Not sure if it's a real plan or just turned out that way.


Who is playing the role of Jack McCoy in this?
 
2013-09-10 01:05:03 PM

jjorsett: Diogenes: The Stealth Hippopotamus: You don't think the situation has changed in the last couple of days?

Definitely changed.  But not sure what to make of it.  I don't trust Putin one bit.

And I'm also sure that these Republicans aren't motivated by these new developments.

But it will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

I think it's because their constituents, feeling like 80% of America, are melting down the phone lines saying they don't want the US helping either side in a war between groups, both of which we'd be happy to see lose.

I never thought I'd see lefties humping for the US to get into a battle, particularly one that would be this stupid and pointless. Looks like one's point of view on an issue really does depend on whether it's your camp that's pushing it.


56% of Democrats and 45% of liberals isn't exactly "the left" humping for war. I would call that kinda split.  But again, whatever narratives makes you sleep better at night.
 
2013-09-10 01:06:49 PM
The same thing happened during our intervention of Kosovo, where because President Clinton was for it, Republicans pretended they were doves, at least until Bush came into office.
 
2013-09-10 01:10:22 PM

Fantasta Potamus: It seems to me that USA and Russia are playing good-cop / bad-cop with Syria.

Not sure if it's a real plan or just turned out that way.



For a week now I've been trying to figure out why Obama cares what congress thinks.  He's not up for reelection and he's the CnC.  He can order any place on earth bombed in a moment's notice.  This only makes sense as some kind of orchestrated dog and pony show to get the UN involved in Syria with Syria's permission no less.  And if it doesn't work, there's always the bombs to fall back on.
 
2013-09-10 01:19:13 PM

jjorsett: I never thought I'd see lefties humping for the US to get into a battle, particularly one that would be this stupid and pointless. Looks like one's point of view on an issue really does depend on whether it's your camp that's pushing it.


For starters, Obama isn't a "lefty." You should know this by now. Secondly, most of the liberals I know or read are criticizing the GOP for suddenly being against military adventurism now that it's proposed by a Democrat. "We" are not really beating any war drums so much as we are appalled by Teapublicans' willingness to oppose the president no matter what the issue may be.
 
2013-09-10 01:21:31 PM

Gwyrddu: The same thing happened during our intervention of Kosovo, where because President Clinton was for it, Republicans pretended they were doves, at least until Bush came into office.


Yeah, but 9-11! It changed EVERYTHING.
 
2013-09-10 01:25:05 PM

DarnoKonrad: Fantasta Potamus: It seems to me that USA and Russia are playing good-cop / bad-cop with Syria.

Not sure if it's a real plan or just turned out that way.


For a week now I've been trying to figure out why Obama cares what congress thinks.  He's not up for reelection and he's the CnC.  He can order any place on earth bombed in a moment's notice.  This only makes sense as some kind of orchestrated dog and pony show to get the UN involved in Syria with Syria's permission no less.  And if it doesn't work, there's always the bombs to fall back on.


Good point. That would explain the last minute switch to ask congress. We will see soon enough.
 
2013-09-10 01:26:53 PM
We could just call it politics. But that just doesn't allow for the necessary partisan hackery, I guess.
 
2013-09-10 01:28:10 PM
I imagine a lot of these people were opposed to rampant government spending, but just didn't say anything about it before 1/20/09.
 
2013-09-10 01:28:43 PM

dickfreckle: jjorsett: I never thought I'd see lefties humping for the US to get into a battle, particularly one that would be this stupid and pointless. Looks like one's point of view on an issue really does depend on whether it's your camp that's pushing it.

For starters, Obama isn't a "lefty." You should know this by now. Secondly, most of the liberals I know or read are criticizing the GOP for suddenly being against military adventurism now that it's proposed by a Democrat. "We" are not really beating any war drums so much as we are appalled by Teapublicans' willingness to oppose the president no matter what the issue may be.


You're talking to one of Fark's veteran right-wing shills. In his universe, Obama is actually a shambling undead monstrosity composed of parts of Josef Stalin, Idi Amin and Pol Pot brought to revenance by exposure to 2-4-5 Trioxin, and everyone to the left of Genghis Khan follows him mindlessly.
 
2013-09-10 01:31:19 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: You're talking to one of Fark's veteran right-wing shills. In his universe, Obama is actually a shambling undead monstrosity composed of parts of Josef Stalin, Idi Amin and Pol Pot brought to revenance by exposure to 2-4-5 Trioxin, and everyone to the left of Genghis Khan follows him mindlessly.


Obama has adopted Papa Doc's platform.  Be afraid white people. Be very afraid.
 
2013-09-10 01:36:10 PM

FarkedOver: A Dark Evil Omen: You're talking to one of Fark's veteran right-wing shills. In his universe, Obama is actually a shambling undead monstrosity composed of parts of Josef Stalin, Idi Amin and Pol Pot brought to revenance by exposure to 2-4-5 Trioxin, and everyone to the left of Genghis Khan follows him mindlessly.

Obama has adopted Papa Doc's platform.  Be afraid white people. Be very afraid.


So now he's a Christian, Muslim, Athiest who practices Voodoo?
 
2013-09-10 01:37:38 PM

jjorsett: I never thought I'd see lefties humping for the US to get into a battle


I never thought I'd see you lumping huge numbers of people into a caricature of a political ideology as if they all had the same thought process...oh, wait, that's exactly what I thought you'd do.
 
2013-09-10 01:37:57 PM

jjorsett: Diogenes: The Stealth Hippopotamus: You don't think the situation has changed in the last couple of days?

Definitely changed.  But not sure what to make of it.  I don't trust Putin one bit.

And I'm also sure that these Republicans aren't motivated by these new developments.

But it will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

I think it's because their constituents, feeling like 80% of America, are melting down the phone lines saying they don't want the US helping either side in a war between groups, both of which we'd be happy to see lose.

I never thought I'd see lefties humping for the US to get into a battle, particularly one that would be this stupid and pointless. Looks like one's point of view on an issue really does depend on whether it's your camp that's pushing it.


The narrative really IS whatever The Party says it is these days, isn't it? Despite polls showing "liberals" opposing action and Republicans flip-flopping like a salmon on a rock, it's all "Democrats are mindless followers!" all the time...

/this despite liberals being the ones to actually criticize President Obama's policy
//and not his hamburger topping
 
2013-09-10 01:38:18 PM

jjorsett: Diogenes: The Stealth Hippopotamus: You don't think the situation has changed in the last couple of days?

Definitely changed.  But not sure what to make of it.  I don't trust Putin one bit.

And I'm also sure that these Republicans aren't motivated by these new developments.

But it will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

I think it's because their constituents, feeling like 80% of America, are melting down the phone lines saying they don't want the US helping either side in a war between groups, both of which we'd be happy to see lose.

I never thought I'd see lefties humping for the US to get into a battle, particularly one that would be this stupid and pointless. Looks like one's point of view on an issue really does depend on whether it's your camp that's pushing it.


I don't support strikes.  But I also reject the reasons for GOP opposition stated in TFA.  But please, continue to irresponsibly conflate that criticism with support for intervention.  I'd expect nothing less from you.
 
2013-09-10 01:40:11 PM
actually if they were Democrats we would call them bi-partisan
 
2013-09-10 01:40:47 PM

Fart_Machine: FarkedOver: A Dark Evil Omen: You're talking to one of Fark's veteran right-wing shills. In his universe, Obama is actually a shambling undead monstrosity composed of parts of Josef Stalin, Idi Amin and Pol Pot brought to revenance by exposure to 2-4-5 Trioxin, and everyone to the left of Genghis Khan follows him mindlessly.

Obama has adopted Papa Doc's platform.  Be afraid white people. Be very afraid.

So now he's a Christian, Muslim, Athiest who practices Voodoo?


There's no stopping this Nazi!
 
2013-09-10 01:53:17 PM

Aar1012: I figured the GOO called that Tuesday


GOO?  Grand Old Octogenarians? Sounds right.  I like it.
 
2013-09-10 01:53:40 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: If Obama said "Americans must deny the urge to hook up their testicles to a car battery" there'd be a line a mile long outside the Sears Auto Center punctuated by millions of cold-crankin' screams.


Similarly we need Michele to issue a statement that breathing is good for your heath.
 
2013-09-10 01:56:11 PM
jjorsett:   I think it's because their constituents, feeling like 80% of America, are melting down the phone lines saying they don't want the US helping either side in a war between groups, both of which we'd be happy to see lose.

Diogenes:   But I also reject the reasons for GOP opposition stated in TFA.

Why is it not OK to state that you're following the will of your constituents, regardless of their personal opinion?  Their chickenshiat equivocating is way worse than the flip-flopping.
 
2013-09-10 02:06:00 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Why is it not OK to state that you're following the will of your constituents, regardless of their personal opinion?


Because to anyone who has been paying attention to the GOP since shortly before Obama's election, it's obvious they, the constituents and their elected representatives, are only agin' it a'cause Obama's a'fer it. It's not some populist, will of the people that's causing the change of opinion.
 
2013-09-10 02:06:31 PM

jjorsett: I think it's because their constituents, feeling like 80% of America, are melting down the phone lines saying they don't want the US helping either side in a war between groups, both of which we'd be happy to see lose.


This is all well and good, but why did they decide to do it over this issue? Why not the Manchin-Toomey gun background check amendment where several deep red states showed 80-90% support for expanding background checks? Why not the Senate's immigration bill when a supermajority of Republicans support the kind of pathway to citizenship included in the bill? Why not on funding ObamaCare when only a tiny minority of Republicans support shutting down the government rather than fund the program?
 
2013-09-10 02:10:35 PM

jjorsett: Diogenes: The Stealth Hippopotamus: You don't think the situation has changed in the last couple of days?

Definitely changed.  But not sure what to make of it.  I don't trust Putin one bit.

And I'm also sure that these Republicans aren't motivated by these new developments.

But it will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

I think it's because their constituents, feeling like 80% of America, are melting down the phone lines saying they don't want the US helping either side in a war between groups, both of which we'd be happy to see lose.

I never thought I'd see lefties humping for the US to get into a battle, particularly one that would be this stupid and pointless. Looks like one's point of view on an issue really does depend on whether it's your camp that's pushing it.


Get into battle? Like a ground war? That seems to be coming from the right wing not the left wing. Many, many lefties are against this. There were numerous lefty peace demonstrations over the weekend. I don't really remember any right-wing peace demonstrations about Iraq. (Although I do remember the local conservative radio station trying to drum up a pro-war counter demonstration.)

If you're talking about "pro-war" lefties, the best you can find is support for very limited air strikes to take out arms and munitions. And they do not represent the majority of lefties by any stretch of the imagination. I know "both sides are bad" is a really important thing to support for you, but you have set yourself a mighty hard row to hoe on this one.
 
2013-09-10 02:12:36 PM

FarkedOver: Fart_Machine: FarkedOver: A Dark Evil Omen: You're talking to one of Fark's veteran right-wing shills. In his universe, Obama is actually a shambling undead monstrosity composed of parts of Josef Stalin, Idi Amin and Pol Pot brought to revenance by exposure to 2-4-5 Trioxin, and everyone to the left of Genghis Khan follows him mindlessly.

Obama has adopted Papa Doc's platform.  Be afraid white people. Be very afraid.

So now he's a Christian, Muslim, Athiest who practices Voodoo?

There's no stopping this Nazi!


He is such a relentless communist dictator. And he's so do-nothing!
 
2013-09-10 02:25:14 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Zeb Hesselgresser: Why is it not OK to state that you're following the will of your constituents, regardless of their personal opinion?

Because to anyone who has been paying attention to the GOP since shortly before Obama's election, it's obvious they, the constituents and their elected representatives, are only agin' it a'cause Obama's a'fer it. It's not some populist, will of the people that's causing the change of opinion.


Maybe some of them got an earful of NO over the weekend?  You're drawing this gross generalization from an example set of 3 Senators and 2 Representatives.  You are a wizard.
 
2013-09-10 02:36:29 PM

DarnoKonrad: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/france-to-author-secu r ity-council-resolution-to-require-syria-to-give-up-chemical-weapons/20 13/09/10/0d51a06c-19ff-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html


Check out the above link and consider that Obama didn't dick around with congress when he bombed Libya; he ignored them.


He didn't have to. We were fulfilling our obligations to NATO.
 
2013-09-10 02:38:53 PM
Given the military experience of three of the five in the Canadian Armed Forces, it figures. They trained for colder climates, and were promised there would be no math questions.
 
2013-09-10 02:50:43 PM
The Nobel Committee knew what they were doing when they awarded Obama the Peace Prize.  No one else on earth could have turned Republicans anti-war.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report