Featured Post

Castro and the Nazis: Makes Perfect Sense

As we come up on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we see newly declassified German intelligence documents reporting that Fi...

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Drawing Inside the (Red) Lines

How did this happen? How did we allow The Onion to elect our president

President Obama has been regaling us about the importance, the imperative of action on Syria; he has proudly proclaimed his macho man credentials by establishing a "red line" on chemical weapon use in Syria; he has warned John "Xmas in Cambodia" Kerry's dining partner, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, that the US would act if chemical weapons were used in Syria's increasingly violent and "no quarter given" civil war.

Well, now it turns out, it's not really a red, red line, it's not even really Obama's red line. No, now the Alinskyite Chicago Community Organizer has decided that it's the world's red line. He first tried palming it off on Congress, but has gone for bigger game: THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT MADE ME DO IT!

Have we ever had a more absurd president? The world will decide whether the United States should use our blood and treasure? Where is the international treaty that obligates the United States to launch air strikes if a country uses chemical weapons? Is there one that requires Russia, China, the UK, France, Rwanda, and Belize to do the same? Or is it only for the United States?

Perhaps the only thing more absurd than our president is his band of followers and apologists. Like faithful brainless and gutless Orwellian caricatures they follow along with every bend, twist, deletion, and redaction of the record. It appears that liberals have both short-term and long-term memory loss, and do not realize that in today's digital age, stupid words are forever.

This Syrian mess was built by Obama; it is an annex to the mess he and Hillary made in North Africa and is compounded by how they threw away our gains in Iraq in exchange for nothing.

If Obama cannot handle this, do you think he can handle Iran?

WLA

54 comments:

  1. Look at his earliest steps at using US military power in Afghanistan. 5 years later and some 1600 US deaths and about 16,000 wounded, what have we accomplished? What have the Taliban accomplished? Pure waste of our blood due to Obama having no goal other than getting out by 2014. The Taliban are looking forward to taking power around 2015.

    Look at his use of power in Libya. We made Libya safe for Al Qeada and saw to it they gained a massive new arsenal.

    Look how he used his "smart power" in Egypt where he helped install the MB, which was a terrorist group with long ties to AQ and Hamas.

    Now who can reasonably think his Syrian adventure will end well?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was in college with all these bozos and got to watch the riots and red diaper babies operate up close. It seemed obvious at the time their maturity would mean "a dark time" for anyone who considered themselves pro-liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "If Obama cannot handle this, do you think he can handle Iran?"

    No, and that should scare the patootey out of everyone.
    Iran is a difficult policy problem at best; with Obama in charge, it's an inevitable tragedy unfolding. Without some restraint imposed (how, I do not know) and apart from the likelihood of a Middle Eastern arms race, all Iran needs to blackmail the West on any issue is a credible nuclear threat -- not an actual warhead & delivery system -- just a credible threat. Which country in its right mind is going to call that bluff?
    MAD worked because we relied on the USSR to rationally evaluate the huge cost of nuclear war & to therefore avoid it. We do not have, I believe, the same faith in the mad mullahs (who, remember, are still waiting for the 12th Iman) to be rational.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So the House of Saud is offering to PAY the US to bomb Syria? Is that at-cost or can we add a markup?

    The position of the Saudi house is a bit more rational than that of the Obama Administration as publicly argued. The Sunni AQ is not the worst ally for them. Little wonder that Obama bowed deeply upon meeting the King.

    It seems likely that the Saudis will be arming themselves with nuclear weapons and appropriate delivery systems if they haven't so far. In a counter-value nuclear exchange, the Iranians would have more to lose and the House of Saud would be quicker to recover.

    Putin seems more interested in humiliating Obama than anything. He hopes to gain influence and diminish ours but has little long term interest in either Syria or Iran.

    He does enjoy running up the price of oil so a Middle East in flames could be in Russia's interest too. Is that his deeper game?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did not understand why Sec. Kerry seemed so proud to announce that the Saudis would underwrite the cost of this Syrian attack. If the Saudis are so all-fired excited about bombing Syria, why don't they use the planes we've financed their purchase of, and the pilots we've trained for them, and the airfields we've built for them, and do it themselves?

      Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I'd not approve of the U.S. providing the equivalent of a mercenary force to do the Saudis bidding, when I can see no benefit (only animosity) that inures to us.

      Delete
    2. Quite hilarious. And here we were told all along that the Bushies were deeply invested in the House of Saud.

      Gives new meaning to "blood for oil".

      Delete
    3. Well, of course the Saudis and Qataris want Assad out. He's not letting them build a natural gas pipeline across Syria. If they can get someone in there who'll play ball, there's lots of money to be made.

      Very different from "blood for oil," you see. Natural gas. Not at all the same thing.

      Delete
    4. no pipeline across Syria means Western Europe is dependent on Russia for natural gas.

      Assad is just doing Putin's business. Too bad about the long suffering Syrian populace. Their suffering is being done to preserve Assad's regime.

      Delete
    5. Am beginning to re-consider the claim that a $20 million grant got Obama/Soetoro into Harvard (via Percy Sutton). Is the WH occupant elected or installed?

      Delete
  5. What is the implication if the emerging story that the CIA and MI6 was complicit in the gas attack is true? That it was set up with the rebels Turkey and Saudi to draw the US into the war? I am not usually one for conspiracy theories but this sounds more than likely as not delivery vehicle has been found.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is the implication if the emerging story that the CIA and MI6 was complicit in the gas attack is true?

      I doubt CIA or MI6 was complicit. Unless perhaps if by "complicit" you mean they failed due diligence. I can't see them cooking the books anyway.

      Ah well, good thing we can expect to see McCain and Graham safely re-elected since it's obvious they weren't complicit.

      Arkie

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure the CIA had the competence to be complicit in this kind of thing. MI6, maybe.....

      Delete
  6. Encore!
    He's a real nowhere Man,
    Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
    Making all his nowhere plans
    For nobody.
    Doesn't have a point of view,
    Knows not where he's going to,

    Nowhere Man, please listen,
    You don't know what you're missing,
    Nowhere Man, the world is at your command.
    He's as blind as he can be,
    Just sees what he wants to see,
    Nowhere Man can you see me at all?
    Doesn't have a point of view,
    Knows not where he's going to,

    Nowhere Man, don't worry,
    Take your time, don't hurry,
    Leave it all 'till somebody else
    Lends you a hand.
    He's a real Nowhere Man,
    Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
    Making all his nowhere plans
    For nobody.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He’s a real Control Freak Man
      Ruling in what he wants to be a vassal land
      Making all his controlling plans
      For everybody

      Doesn’t listen to an opposing point of view
      Control Freak man, ruling all he thinks is his purview
      Control Freak Man, he had better listen
      He don’t know with what he’s messin’
      Knows already just what he wants to do
      Doesn’t he seem more and more like Hitler and Mussolini to you?

      He’s a real Control Freak Man
      Ruling in what he wants to be a vassal land
      Making all his controlling plans
      For everybody
      He’s as blinded by his lust for power as he can be
      Just sees what he wants to see
      He’s got such a God complex point of call
      Control Freak Man can you even see America at all?
      Knows already just what he wants to do
      Doesn’t he seem more and more like Hitler and Mussolini to you?

      He’s a real Control Freak Man
      Ruling in what he wants to be a vassal land
      Making all his controlling plans
      For everybody

      About Control Freak Man we should all worry
      To destroy all America built he is in a hurry
      If he controls everything his fascist way
      It will be a forlorn day
      Hes going to leave it all a mess
      Anyone of sound mind must confess
      He’s a real Control Freak Man
      Ruling in what he wants to be a vassal land
      Making all his controlling plans
      For everybody

      Delete
    2. ....and they said the band wouldn't get "back together"?

      Delete
  7. I am very afraid. Kaiser Wilhelm was fairly absurd as a political leader, too. Nor was Serbia much of a military power. But is this even remotely about Syria? It increasingly looks to me like a whizzing contest between Obama and Putin.

    We have far too many political leaders who think they can control events and who are playing mostly to save face with very little thought as to the potential consequences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "... We have far too many political leaders who think they can control events and who are playing mostly to save face with very little thought as to the potential consequences. "
      - - - - -

      And to my shock and dismay, a lot of these idiots are on the (nominally) CONSERVATIVE side of the aisle. Doesn't anybody in the alleged "halls of power" understand that sometimes people don't react the way you assume they will? That people can be unpredictable? That World War I started over a seeming trifle? ... Are they REALLY WILLING to risk Armageddon because "we have to look like we're serious"?

      I am so ashamed of these idiots we've elected - - I can't begin to describe my utter disgust at the whole lot of them.

      - - - - -

      Have you seen the captioned Obama photo going around?
      (Photo of Obama with his "serious face" on)
      "As I lead us toward World War III, remember this-
      Bush is to blame, and you're a racist !"

      A_Nonny_Mouse



      Delete
    2. This has been a proxy war from the get-go: Obama against Putin and Sunni Saudi Arabia against Shia Iran. For Obama and Putin it's about international status and global leadership, and for Iran and Saudi Arabia the stakes are a lot higher.

      Historical analogies are always imperfect, but I think that JFK and Khrushchev are a better guidepost than Wilhelm and Ferdinand.

      For fairly obvious reasons, Putin seems to have decided that Obama is a weak man lacking in common sense, backbone and intestinal fortitude. With the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis we were lucky - let's hope that this situation doesn't spiral out of hand . . . . .

      Delete
    3. There are a lot of wild cards in the Syrian scenario that simply didn't exist with Cuba, a vassal police state, not an independent player in the missile crisis. The internal politics of the Balkans are akin to the current Middle East -separatists cells, ethnic rivalries, religious tensions, terror groups and other wild cards.

      Also the key clash that contributed to the start of WWI was never between Wilhelm and Ferdinand. It was poor little cousin Willy's desire to rival George V's Britain in military power and colonial empires. There may be something akin going on between Obama and Putin, a feeling of inferiority that is personal rather than political. Consider Obama's promise seemingly of cooperation that things will be different after the election. Look how fast that turned into name calling. That's much like Wilhelm's behavior when he met with his Royal British cousins.

      Kennedy was rash, but he wasn't emotionally unstable. (Neither was Khrushchev.) Are we sure we can say the same about Obama? Or Putin for that matter.

      Delete
    4. We'll have to agree to disagree about Kennedy. Whatever Dr. Max Jacobson was injecting into JFK (steroids, amphetamines, painkillers), it was unlikely to produce good judgement. Khrushchev may have been completely under control when he banged on his desk at the UN so hard he broke his watch, but that's hard for an outsider to evaluate. The shoe was a nice prop, however.

      I have no idea what to make of the emotional stability of Obama and Putin. It does look like we'll find out.

      Delete
    5. Obama is a narcissist with a god complex. Putin has a yawning chasm where a soul would normally be. One may damage a perfectly good country, while the other wants to rebuild a replica of a country he lost. Dangerous mix. Maybe somebody close to Mad Vlad wants to move up and happens to be a good shot.

      Delete
    6. I'm not concerned about the emotional stability of either Obama or Putin. What I am sure of though is that if the shooting starts Putin will take home all the marbles.

      Delete
  8. The "most brilliant president ever" has struck again, tying himself up in verbal knots over whether or not he meant it about a red line in Syria. However, if this means we won't be getting into that mess, I'm a bit relieved. Still, I agree with our blog host that the O is a rank amateur in international relations (Rodhamn Clinton and Kerry weren't and aren't much better), and this most recent development confirms my opinion.

    Teddy Roosevelt got it right when he spoke of walking softly and carrying a big stick. Our brilliant Great Leader O, however, is full of rhetoric and carries a toothpick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kepha:
      Putins got him. The scary thing is I don't know how much O realizes it. Some silly outlet has a picture of Putin greeting O and calling O's (O's trying to put on his bad face) performance dominant. It's truly amazing!

      Delete
  9. I've never seen much discussion of what ultimate goal the Russians are pursuing in the Mideast. They have been there a long time and have ties with Iran and Syria that go back quite a while, I know that. Haven't they been supporting the Iranian nuclear program? Of course the Russians need world oil prices to stay high for the sake of their own oil export dependent economy. I'm sure Putin plays three-dimensional chess....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The main thing for Putin, I think, is to challenge US interests by lining up against us. Outside of regional influence and strategic national power, Putin and Russia also want arms sales to Syria and Iran and other allies in the ME. And then of course, there's the pipeline problem. This is from The Guardian:
      _______________________________________________________


      In 2009 . . . . Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

      Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

      The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.
      --------------------------------------------


      Delete
    2. Very interesting! I had forgotten how important arms exports are to the Russians. And this explains the gas pipeline background.

      Delete
  10. " I'm sure Putin plays three-dimensional chess." He doesn't have to. He could be playing checkers with only two pieces AND be unconscious and still be winning.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is obvious that the african king is a fool and a liar, that has been proved many times, I am now willing to entertain the fact that he is mentally ill.
    When excerpts of obumblers appearance before the press corps at the White House clearly show him talking of red lines, how can he then deny he set a red-line. Only an eight-year-old would adopt the "big kids made me say it" defence, do I have to accept he is only developed to the age of eight or is he mentally ill?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he's just so narcissistic that he completely believes his own bullshit. Interviewing potential Chiefs of Staff, O supposedly told candidates that he wished he could do the job because he could probably do it better than anyone. With the Affordable Care Act, he's simply ignoring the laws in it that aren't convenient for his favored constituents. In his speeches, every 5th word is either "I" or "my" or "me".

      Warren Buffett likes to say that CEOs who continually mislead others in public eventually begin misleading themselves in private. I think O reached that deadly stage of self-deceit about halfway through his first term . . . . . .

      Delete
    2. From the Mayo Clinic:

      Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

      The african king is mentally ill, and leading the USA towards a potential nuclear war. When do the adults step in?

      Delete
    3. Those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder also display behaviour in which they 're-write' occurrences so as to portray themselves in as good a light as possible/so that the outcome, whatever its reality, fits with their ideal of how it 'should have occurred'. They then act so convincingly that this 'alternative reality' is the truth they are often believed, and come to believe it themselves.

      Sound familiar.

      Delete
    4. Yes.

      Put another way, the truth is whatever I say it is.

      Benghazi: YouTube video causes riots and the Ambassador got killed. Trayvon Martin, Red Line, following international treaties as long as they point your way but ignoring them when they don't, implementing only the elements of ObamaCare this year that you like, etc etc.

      Delete
  12. Backing up his boss, John Kerry announced there is also no truth to the rumor that he wears ketchup red underwear.


    pmc

    ReplyDelete
  13. Back in 2008, Barack Obama promised to ‘fundamentally transform’ the United States. He’s kept his promise. After all, who could have imagined prior to the advent of Obama that a mere 5 years later, a former Lieutenant Colonel of the KGB would be more trustworthy than the President of the United States?

    But that’s what happens when you elect today’s Democrats — a party that either no longer has the best interests of Americans at heart or happens to be the most incompetent herd of maladroits that ever walked an entire country off a cliff. (http://crockettlives.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/when-fools-and-obama-rush-in/)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But that’s what happens when you elect today’s Democrats — a party that either no longer has the best interests of Americans at heart or happens to be the most incompetent herd of maladroits that ever walked an entire country off a cliff.

      Or, yesteryear's Republicans.

      (Except for our recently acquired Tea Party - or affiliated - Representatives, we need a whole new batch of politicians. The only thing we need to keep from yesteryear is the phrase, Throw the bums out!)

      Arkie

      Delete
  14. "Have we ever had a more absurd president?"

    I don't know; James Buchanan, who thought it was illegal for the South to secede from the Union and that it was just as illegal for the North to stop the South from seceding from the Union comes pretty close to Himself on the absurdity meter.

    ReplyDelete
  15. And since when did the world draw any red line?

    If by "world" Obama meant "United Nations", there's no red line there; Russia & China are seeing to that. The UK by itself (not to mention most other EU nations) is probably not going to let the EU draw any red line it would have to back up, though France has been making some supportive (but uncommittal) noises. Various members of the Arab League seem supportive, but I don't know if there's been any official request from that body.

    If we're to still take Obama at his word circa 2008 (silly, I know), the US would not be gearing up for any sort of military action absent some sort of official request/order from some significant international body. By his own words, then, even if the US Congress gives him a useful use-of-force authorization, it would still be insufficient for him to do so.

    I mean, he (didn't) give his (non-)red line remark last year. There's been at least one chemical weapons "incident" before this one, with public debate about whether the (not yet nonexistent) red line had been crossed. Did he even make any inquiries among the "international community" about this very contingency in all the time since?

    Honestly, I don't know whether Congress should vote yes or no on this matter; it's a crappy choice we have now. But has Obama actually given NO thought to this issue over the past year? THAT's the worst part of this matter; this is possibly a tripping point for even more violence in the Middle East, & our Smartest President Evah(TM) is acting without any apparent thought of the consequences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IF you think that Obama hasn't given any intelligent, conscious thought to the matter of chemical weapons in Syria over the past year - I suspect that's pretty much true - and IF Obama is acting with little appreciation for how quickly the consequences of an attack on Syria could spin out of control - and I suspect that's pretty much true - then how can you "Honestly [not] know whether Congress should vote yes or no on this matter"?

      Yes, it's clearly a crappy choice we have now. But the continual, absurd diminishment of Presidential and US prestige we've absorbed thus far is a sunk cost. It cannot be recovered by an incompetent bombing raid on Syria with further unpredictable and embarrassing consequences.

      For gosh sakes, Senator "Video Poker" McCain is talking about how Obama putting Boots-on-the-Ground in Syria would be an impeachable offense!!!

      Stop the madness, now.

      Delete
  16. Great... by hemming, hawing, and just generally showing a lack of decisiveness or character, Obama's invited a potential escalation, deliberate or accidental, for if/when he *does* attack Syria.
    If Obama thought this merited a military response, we should be discussing what *happened* not what *might* happen. This waffling is just disastrous.

    http://www.news24.com/World/News/4-Russian-ships-head-for-Syria-20130906-2

    - Reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  17. Saw Carville blaiming Bush.
    Except that in 2002 every intel agency in the world was saying Saddam had WMD (and some of them to this day still maintain that he had them). Bush went to Congress and got authorization. Bush built a coalition of Nations who were going to contribute blood, talent, and treasure. Bush went to the UN and got a mandate.
    Obama has been unable to do any of that.

    Is our entire foriegn policy now based on the phrase "I didn't say that?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You betcha. There is no higher imperative in the world today than covering the presidential bottom. All else falls to the wayside.

      Delete
  18. Help!

    Can we crowd-source the translation of this paragraph from Obama's press conference this morning in St. Petersburg? The underlying language appears to be English, but the word order and syntax may be garbled for national security reasons . . . . .


    "Frankly, if we weren't talking about the need for an international response right now, this wouldn't be what everybody would be asking about," said Obama at a press conference this morning. "You know, there would be some resolutions that were being proffered in the United Nations and the usual hocus pocus, but the world and the country would have moved on. So trying to impart a sense of urgency about this, why we can't have an environment in which over time, people start thinking this we can get away with chemical weapons use--it's a hard sell, but it's something I believe in."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks to me like all that's required would be to intersperse about twenty-five or so, "Ummm" willy-nilly throughout between the "Frankly" and the ending "in."

      That's the problem with today's press - when they produce a transcript of what our "Emperor" (remember Napolean's crowning himself?) anyway, "our" Emperor's talking - they leave out the 'umms' - leaving us to figure out what in the dickens Ears was attempting to say.

      By the way, did the crowd-source translation mention whether his trusty teleprompter was nearby?

      Arkie

      Delete
    2. "...and the usual hocus pocus."
      The real hocus pocus is Obama trying to sell the rabbit-in-hat trick that a few Tomahawks flung into Syria will have any meaningful effect(s) on Assad, his opponents, Iran, or any other interested party. His claim that missiles would be a "shot over the bow" is inappropriate at best and ignorant at worst. The phrase, as I'm sure all here know, means that if the instruction to "heave to for boarding" is not followed, bombardment will begin (which Obama has explicitly ruled OUT.) IIRC, Bush 43 issued timely ultimatums (ultimata?) to both Afghanistan (in 2001) to turn over bin Laden, Mullah Omar, et al., and to Iraq (in 2003) for Saddam & Sons to leave the country, prior to initiating military action. Ultimatum with related threat issued + failure to respond as directed = military action to enforce ultimatum seems more like a "shot over the bow" followed by bombardment than a flurry of Tomahawks, period, stop. He is such a buffoon.

      But, returning to hocus pocus: in the matters of Afghanistan & Iraq, Bush & team worked with U.N., Congress and American public to educate and persuade that these actions were necessary, and at the time they were taken Bush had overwhelming support for his decisions. Rightly or wrongly, Bush made it happen politically (while building up & positioning our forces for maximum effect.)

      Not quite what Obama’s done here, is it?

      Hocus pocus, indeed. Guffaw.

      Delete
  19. "In war the will is directed at an animate object that reacts." Clausewitz, On War.

    All of this also brings up an interesting question: what happens if Assad does not choose to take an American missile strike lying down? What happens if he decides to shoot back, either directly or through intermediaries? It seems to me that we went down this road a century ago and the results were not good for anyone involved.

    ReplyDelete
  20. What happens if he decides to shoot back ...?

    That's actually one of the few reasons for me to think maybe it's a good thing there's so many Russian ships in the area. Vlad might be a little more amenable to our way of thinking should the Syrians shoot one of their missiles down one of Vlad's stacks.

    Ark

    ReplyDelete
  21. Got a "humorous" McCain, Feinstein, Graham, & Associates Senate LLC back from one of my pals in an email.

    The 'M,F,G, & Associates Senate' wasn't particularly what I found so much "humorous" so much as the follow-on 'LLC.'

    Limited Liability Company indeed!

    Arkie

    ReplyDelete
  22. I watched his presser, he's done. Oh, we'll see sound and fury from him and the Dems, but he's done. Regardless, Congress still needs to vote and put all of them on record.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Obama's narcissistic behavior began long ago, does no one remember the "Office of President-elect" sign? This man is so deep in denial he's about to drown. Obama has mismanaged nearly every detail of his administration, which would be amusing if it weren't for all the grief it has caused. Brian Terry, Ambassador Stevens and the others at Benghazi, the IRS scandal, etc., etc., etc. How many people have paid the price for Obama's idiotic policies? Just thinking about his callous actions leave me incoherent with rage.

    My rage is directed more at the people who put him back into office than at him - you expect a narcissist to have no empathy for anyone other than himself. What excuse do Republicans have for throwing away a chance to save America from an additional four years of this insanity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What excuse do Republicans have for throwing away a chance to save America from an additional four years of this insanity?

      Eric Cantor maybe? Boehner? Perhaps the 'Hugger From Joisey'?

      Maybe re-casting McCain as 'Maverick 2.0' or perhaps the 'Beta' version?

      Thing is, in my humble opinion, the Republican Party (as decided & defined from Washington DC) ought to take some few baby-steps away from K-Street, the polls, the biggie donors and the makers of Tomahawk missiles and F-35 cheerleaders.

      (Admitting after the $1T spent, the Lightning looks like it might get deployed within the next decade or so. Maybe before the PAK-FA even.)

      Thing is, again in my humble opinion, we've got some homework we've got to do. Matter of fact, I'd like to see our host's ideas about the "hows we start to do dat?" - maybe amongst us 14 readers who've landed here the million times (kidding Diplomad Sir, you've truly hit the big-time) we can work on strategy.

      With this SyriaSwamp - now might be a good time to begin speaking amongst ourselves. Obama's managed to get Pelosi and Boehner coupled up for the next Dancing With The Stars - no reason us regular people can't get a pair.

      Arkie

      Delete
  24. "monkey with a hand grenade".......sums it up pretty well.

    No thought required, no serious people in the White House or Washington who will leash the monkey. No hollywood slebs complaining about peace.

    The white house Trayvon has toked up, and decided he don't get no 'spect. He is about to show those white-Syrians how tough he is.

    It will all end well, the monkey is cuddly.

    ReplyDelete