Obama's loss for words on Syria

[MDM4AU 337]

Obama has no policy...

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-obamas-loss-for-words-on-syria/2013/05/06/f697c108-b671-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html

[homersapien 11,812]

Actually I'd say he does.

His policy is not to jump into a mess like that without the ability to control it. Considering our current involvements and the clear example of Iraq, that may be the best policy option available.

It's easy to propose intervention when you are not responsible for the outcome.

[cptau 169]

Actually I'd say he does.

His policy is not to jump into a mess like that without the ability to control it. Considering our current involvements and the clear example of Iraq, that may be the best policy option available.

It's easy to propose intervention when you are not responsible for the outcome.

Obama needs to quit acting like he has a policy or correctly express what that policy is. For all the priase of him as a great communicator by some entities, he has problems in expressing himself clearly off the cuff. He has also always tended to jump in and make comments on situations that he should stay away from (unless it is a scandal in his administration).

[homersapien 11,812]

Actually I'd say he does.

His policy is not to jump into a mess like that without the ability to control it. Considering our current involvements and the clear example of Iraq, that may be the best policy option available.

It's easy to propose intervention when you are not responsible for the outcome.

Obama needs to quit acting like he has a policy or correctly express what that policy is. For all the priase of him as a great communicator by some entities, he has problems in expressing himself clearly off the cuff. He has also always tended to jump in and make comments on situations that he should stay away from (unless it is a scandal in his administration).

I think it unrealistic to ask any POTUS to declare specific policy in a situation like Iraq. For example, assume Obama's policy is exactly as I described. You wouldn't necessarily want to declare that to the world.

Or to put it another way, no policy is often better than bad policy.

Otherwise, there are elements of the referenced article I agree with. I don't really get the big distinction between using chemical weapons vs explosives when you are basically killing innocents to begin with. Certainly, declaring a red line regarding chemical weapons was a mistake.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Actually I'd say he does.

His policy is not to jump into a mess like that without the ability to control it. Considering our current involvements and the clear example of Iraq, that may be the best policy option available.

It's easy to propose intervention when you are not responsible for the outcome.

Obama needs to quit acting like he has a policy or correctly express what that policy is. For all the priase of him as a great communicator by some entities, he has problems in expressing himself clearly off the cuff. He has also always tended to jump in and make comments on situations that he should stay away from (unless it is a scandal in his administration).

I think it unrealistic to ask any POTUS to declare specific policy in a situation like Iraq. For example, assume Obama's policy is exactly as I described. You wouldn't necessarily want to declare that to the world.

Or to put it another way, no policy is often better than bad policy.

Otherwise, there are elements of the referenced article I agree with. I don't really get the big distinction between using chemical weapons vs explosives when you are basically killing innocents to begin with. Certainly, declaring a red line regarding chemical weapons was a mistake.

I agree with the first part of this post. Our bravado, as nobile as it may be, has gotten us into some sticky situations resulting in unnecessary loss of life.

However, using chemical weapons is not a tactic of targeted killing of enemy combatants. This is a tactic to kill everyone in a given area. Enemy or not. Otherwise known as genocide.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Actually I'd say he does.

His policy is not to jump into a mess like that without the ability to control it. Considering our current involvements and the clear example of Iraq, that may be the best policy option available.

It's easy to propose intervention when you are not responsible for the outcome.

Easy to draw a line in the sand and then do nothing when that line has been crossed.

Obama loves to look down his nose at America as he lectures us on the morality of having to get involved in Libya, to oust Qaddafi but Syria ? Obama's stance is to take a very hard position in having no part in it , at all. Or something.

[homersapien 11,812]

Actually I'd say he does.

His policy is not to jump into a mess like that without the ability to control it. Considering our current involvements and the clear example of Iraq, that may be the best policy option available.

It's easy to propose intervention when you are not responsible for the outcome.

Obama needs to quit acting like he has a policy or correctly express what that policy is. For all the priase of him as a great communicator by some entities, he has problems in expressing himself clearly off the cuff. He has also always tended to jump in and make comments on situations that he should stay away from (unless it is a scandal in his administration).

I think it unrealistic to ask any POTUS to declare specific policy in a situation like Iraq. For example, assume Obama's policy is exactly as I described. You wouldn't necessarily want to declare that to the world.

Or to put it another way, no policy is often better than bad policy.

Otherwise, there are elements of the referenced article I agree with. I don't really get the big distinction between using chemical weapons vs explosives when you are basically killing innocents to begin with. Certainly, declaring a red line regarding chemical weapons was a mistake.

I agree with the first part of this post. Our bravado, as nobile as it may be, has gotten us into some sticky situations resulting in unnecessary loss of life.

However, using chemical weapons is not a tactic of targeted killing of enemy combatants. This is a tactic to kill everyone in a given area. Enemy or not. Otherwise known as genocide.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that. I really don't see a moral distinction - or distinction of intent - between using chemical weapons and deliberately targeting civilians with artillery or bombs. It certainly doesn't make much difference to the victims.

[autigeremt 6,970]

I think we need to stay out of it! The sarin gas being used came from the Saddam regime and the President doesn't want that egg on his face. Lolololol! (Sarcasm....kind of)

We don't need to intervene. Let the Syrians figure this out for themselves. We need to stop being the UN police force.

[augolf1716 21,646]

Its Bush fault

[4AUsince62 10]

I think we need to stay out of it! The sarin gas being used came from the Saddam regime and the President doesn't want that egg on his face. Lolololol! (Sarcasm....kind of)

We don't need to intervene. Let the Syrians figure this out for themselves. We need to stop being the UN police force.

Like it or not, we’re the world’s police force; it’s an ugly job but someone has got to do it.

[cptau 169]

Actually I'd say he does.

His policy is not to jump into a mess like that without the ability to control it. Considering our current involvements and the clear example of Iraq, that may be the best policy option available.

It's easy to propose intervention when you are not responsible for the outcome.

Obama needs to quit acting like he has a policy or correctly express what that policy is. For all the priase of him as a great communicator by some entities, he has problems in expressing himself clearly off the cuff. He has also always tended to jump in and make comments on situations that he should stay away from (unless it is a scandal in his administration).

I think it unrealistic to ask any POTUS to declare specific policy in a situation like Iraq. For example, assume Obama's policy is exactly as I described. You wouldn't necessarily want to declare that to the world.

Or to put it another way, no policy is often better than bad policy.

Otherwise, there are elements of the referenced article I agree with. I don't really get the big distinction between using chemical weapons vs explosives when you are basically killing innocents to begin with. Certainly, declaring a red line regarding chemical weapons was a mistake.

Agreed dead is dead. Dying from a bomb or nerve gas is quick compared to groups of people being starved and tortured. Uncle Joe Stalin tried to starve the Ukranians into submission in the 1930s. Millions died. Stalin was the ultimate criminal and no one stopped him.

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

Obama has no policy...

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-obamas-loss-for-words-on-syria/2013/05/06/f697c108-b671-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html

Yes, he does have a policy. Stating "Assad's days are numbered" and implying the use of chemical weapons will "cross a red line" and then do nothing about it IS a policy. It's called Dithering. Admittedly, it's not a very good policy but it seems to suit him well. I would even go so far as to say he is a master at it.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Obama has no policy...

http://m.washingtonp...7add_story.html

Yes, he does have a policy. Stating "Assad's days are numbered" and implying the use of chemical weapons will "cross a red line" and then do nothing about it IS a policy. It's called Dithering. Admittedly, it's not a very good policy but it seems to suit him well. I would even go so far as to say he is a master at it.

That was just to give the green light to Israel. Nothing more.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Obama has no policy...

http://m.washingtonp...7add_story.html

Now that last President, that guy had a policy!

[augolf1716 21,646]

_yep

[autigeremt 6,970]

I think we need to stay out of it! The sarin gas being used came from the Saddam regime and the President doesn't want that egg on his face. Lolololol! (Sarcasm....kind of)

We don't need to intervene. Let the Syrians figure this out for themselves. We need to stop being the UN police force.

Like it or not, we’re the world’s police force; it’s an ugly job but someone has got to do it.

I'm quite familiar. Literally.

[MDM4AU 337]

Obama has no policy...

http://m.washingtonp...7add_story.html

Now that last President, that guy had a policy!

Not saying Bush was better or worse. I didn't write the article. Just posted it. Doesn't surprise most here that a democrat fanboy would bring up Bush, though.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Obama has no policy...

http://m.washingtonp...7add_story.html

Now that last President, that guy had a policy!

Not saying Bush was better or worse. I didn't write the article. Just posted it. Doesn't surprise most here that a democrat fanboy would bring up Bush, though.

No, you just chose to post an article written by this guy:

http://mediamatters....rs/193117#cohen

And complained about what you perceive as a lack of a "policy." And I drew the contrast between this President's approach and the last one that you and most other folks complaining about Obama's approach to Syria supported.

[alexava 6,974]

is a war in Syria winnable? is it Iraq part II? what is the point? give me the pros and cons for intervening.

[homersapien 11,812]

Actually I'd say he does.

His policy is not to jump into a mess like that without the ability to control it. Considering our current involvements and the clear example of Iraq, that may be the best policy option available.

It's easy to propose intervention when you are not responsible for the outcome.

Easy to draw a line in the sand and then do nothing when that line has been crossed.

Not if you don't know the details.

What if one of the Syrian army officers decided to join the rebels and got his hands on some sarin and used it to incite our intervention? (for example)

The mistake was the "red line" comment to begin with.

Obama loves to look down his nose at America as he lectures us on the morality of having to get involved in Libya, to oust Qaddafi but Syria ? Obama's stance is to take a very hard position in having no part in it , at all. Or something.

Blah blah blah,I hate Obama, blah blah blah

Is that all you got?

[homersapien 11,812]

Obama has no policy...

http://m.washingtonp...7add_story.html

Yes, he does have a policy. Stating "Assad's days are numbered" and implying the use of chemical weapons will "cross a red line" and then do nothing about it IS a policy. It's called Dithering. Admittedly, it's not a very good policy but it seems to suit him well. I would even go so far as to say he is a master at it.

I think we would have been better served if Bush had done a little more "dithering".

[homersapien 11,812]

Obama has no policy...

http://m.washingtonp...7add_story.html

Now that last President, that guy had a policy!

Not saying Bush was better or worse. I didn't write the article. Just posted it. Doesn't surprise most here that a democrat fanboy would bring up Bush, though.

No, you just chose to post an article written by this guy:

http://mediamatters....rs/193117#cohen

And complained about what you perceive as a lack of a "policy." And I drew the contrast between this President's approach and the last one that you and most other folks complaining about Obama's approach to Syria supported.

Hah! Good link.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Actually I'd say he does.

His policy is not to jump into a mess like that without the ability to control it. Considering our current involvements and the clear example of Iraq, that may be the best policy option available.

It's easy to propose intervention when you are not responsible for the outcome.

Easy to draw a line in the sand and then do nothing when that line has been crossed.

Not if you don't know the details.

What if one of the Syrian army officers decided to join the rebels and got his hands on some sarin and used it to incite our intervention? (for example)

The mistake was the "red line" comment to begin with.

Obama loves to look down his nose at America as he lectures us on the morality of having to get involved in Libya, to oust Qaddafi but Syria ? Obama's stance is to take a very hard position in having no part in it , at all. Or something.

Blah blah blah,I hate Obama, blah blah blah

Is that all you got?

Thanks for the input, Jay Carney.

I don't recall Obama saying " If we have specific details.... " when he made that bad arse 'red line' comment. Looking pretty weak now, and everyone seems to agree to that point.

I don't need any more than " I hate Obama" . He sucks. He's an incompetent, self absorbed leader who is in way over his head. But don't let that bother you, he's showing his incompetence to the world each and every day. Doesn't bother you in the least, I can tell.

[MDM4AU 337]

Obama has no policy...

http://m.washingtonp...7add_story.html

Now that last President, that guy had a policy!

Not saying Bush was better or worse. I didn't write the article. Just posted it. Doesn't surprise most here that a democrat fanboy would bring up Bush, though.

No, you just chose to post an article written by this guy:

http://mediamatters....rs/193117#cohen

And complained about what you perceive as a lack of a "policy." And I drew the contrast between this President's approach and the last one that you and most other folks complaining about Obama's approach to Syria supported.

LOL!

I didn't complain about anything. The line I posted (from my phone, so quoting was a little difficult) was in the article. You didn't like that I posted an editorial about your "guy" that didn't praise him as the messiah and you retorted with a typical, liberal, "BUSH!"

[homersapien 11,812]

Actually I'd say he does.

His policy is not to jump into a mess like that without the ability to control it. Considering our current involvements and the clear example of Iraq, that may be the best policy option available.

It's easy to propose intervention when you are not responsible for the outcome.

Easy to draw a line in the sand and then do nothing when that line has been crossed.

Not if you don't know the details.

What if one of the Syrian army officers decided to join the rebels and got his hands on some sarin and used it to incite our intervention? (for example)

The mistake was the "red line" comment to begin with.

Obama loves to look down his nose at America as he lectures us on the morality of having to get involved in Libya, to oust Qaddafi but Syria ? Obama's stance is to take a very hard position in having no part in it , at all. Or something.

Blah blah blah,I hate Obama, blah blah blah

Is that all you got?

Thanks for the input, Jay Carney.

I don't recall Obama saying " If we have specific details.... " when he made that bad arse 'red line' comment. Looking pretty weak now, and everyone seems to agree to that point.

I said that statement was a mistake.

You criticizing him for not doubling down on it.

I don't need any more than " I hate Obama" . He sucks. He's an incompetent, self absorbed leader who is in way over his head.

One could say the exact same thing about the last President.

But stupid is as stupid does. Like it or not, Obama hasn't made the sort of mistakes that will cost us for decades.

Even "Obamacare" can be modified. It's only legislation. Wars, not so much.

But don't let that bother you, he's showing his incompetence to the world each and every day. Doesn't bother you in the least, I can tell.

Funny how the "world" doesn't agree with you. Let's wait and see what history says. (But thanks for proving my point)