Syria

**coracle** · September-16-13, 08:29 PM

**rb336** · September-16-13, 08:59 PM

Ola and Cor, he's far smarter than you could ever dream of being

**oladub** · September-16-13, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

Ola and Cor, he's far smarter than you could ever dream of being

I didn't know coracle or I were in the running. Compared to say Putin though, Obama seems like a dolt- or compared with Carter or Clinton for that matter. More importantly, the world, minus a sliver of Obama devotees, has witnessed Putin's humiliation of Obama. I don't like that. I would prefer having a world class President to better represent this Country. It has always seemed to me that Obama has a high social IQ, he had enough intelligence to complete Harvard law school and pass his bar exam, and he can speak in sentences better than Bush. However, he doesn't seem to have the same sort of wily intelligence needed to win on the chessboard. Being escorted out of the mideast is sort of like losing one's king; not the stuff of victory.

Salon: What do you make of the idea put out by the Administration that it was only the credible threat of military force that brought the Syrians and the Russians to the negotiating table?
Alan Grayson: It’s just not true. Look, if the President wants to take credit, that’s fine with me. ... It’s implausible to me personally that their primary motivation is to avoid an authorization for military force when they can see the current count [[in Congress). Many votes fell off the Administration position in the Senate. It was pretty close until [[last) Tuesday, then support in the Senate collapsed, that’s why there was no vote Wednesday. -Salon

But this isn't just a chess game between Putin and Obama or even if coracle and I are smarter than Obama. Throughout this whole thing, President Obama has claimed that he has the right to attack Syria no matter how Congress votes. With Putin sheltering a US whistle blower, the NSA spying on Americans, the IRS being used to subdue Obama opponents, and preventing an Obama attack on Syria, it's as if the historical roles were reversed between Russian autocrats and US presidents. [[Checkmate Putin)

Learning nothing, today President Obama decided to override a US law forbidding providing weaponry to Syrian rebels. His rationale was that the law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he "determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States." Does anyone here want to take a stab at what providing Syrian rebels with weapons has to do with essential national interests of the US? Sequester? What sequester? Let's spend money arming Syrian rebels. That's your definition of "smart"?

**coracle** · September-17-13, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by rb336

Ola and Cor, he's far smarter than you could ever dream of being

I never dream. So that's another one to add to your "things I got wrong" list. If he was as smart as he is in your own dreams he would be aware of the old familiarity adage.

**noise** · September-17-13, 08:26 AM

Funny how the only people who think Putin humiliated Obama were people who were vocally opposed to Obama from the beginning. Most others see it for what it is.

**oladub** · September-17-13, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by noise

Funny how the only people who think Putin humiliated Obama were people who were vocally opposed to Obama from the beginning. Most others see it for what it is.

I guess some people catch on faster than others. According to Alan Grayson, above, even the Senate stopped supporting Obama's attack on Syria. Even my own Obama propping Senator Tammy Baldwin [[D) reversed her stance. Then the President insulted Congress by saying he could move ahead without Congressional support anyway. If the President wants to take refuge in Putin's plan to pretend to take Syrian CWs, at least that would be better than attacking Syria. First, Putin provided refugee status to Snowden. Now Putin has provided a refuge for Obama. Small world. I appreciate the irony.

**old guy** · September-17-13, 09:19 PM

I don't really care who's right or wrong. I don't care who looks weak or aggressive. I don't care if the leader of one country or another has the spotlight for a few days. I'm just glad we're not in the middle of another conflict.

We can't afford it, and I don't see how we can justify taking the lead role in it. If it did indeed happen, it's a horrific event. How are we going to make things better by attacking another country in the Middle East at this point?

Sorry, but I'm just tired of living in a society that views going to war as the solution for everything. I'd like to think we're above that.

**old guy** · September-17-13, 10:32 PM

One more thing. Isn't it safe to assume that virtually everyone understands by now that war is for profit. Not for the average American citizen, but for large corporate interests. We pay for them, they profit from them. People die. Isn't it time for us to stand up and say, enough. What's happened to us as a nation and a society?
Lemmings?

**Papasito** · September-18-13, 07:17 AM

"Obama threatens war, while Putin saves the world. That's the 'division of labor.' And who is more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize? The contrast does not favor Obama," tweeted pro-Kremlin State Duma Deputy Alexei Pushkov on Thursday.

Read more: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/a...#ixzz2fFJUp4p3
The Moscow Times

**coracle** · September-18-13, 08:35 AM

Papasito
Your Times Cover of Putin was the September 16 Issue and was distributed in Europe and Asia. The American issue showed an athlete and the caption "It's time to play college athletics". The Times cover website invites us to buy the American cover but not the European/Asia.
Then September 23 issue in Europe and Asia has Angela Merkel on the cover while we have "How Wall Street Won".
Obama should have been on at least one of them in recognition of his masterful diplomacy in forcing Putin to save him from the "crisis" he originated by only drawing a line.

**coracle** · September-19-13, 06:51 AM

Saw this beautifully apt summation of Obama on lucianne.com from an E Unum Pluribus and it's just too good not to pass on.

SPEAK OFTLY AND KERRY A BIG SHTICK.

[[It's quite Shakespearian).

**Papasito** · September-23-13, 11:51 AM

WHO used the chemical weapons?

After a UN report concluded that chemical weapons were used in Syria last month, efforts to determine who was to blame rage on via websites.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague believes the weapons inspectors' findings are "fully consistent" with his belief that Bashar al-Assad's government was responsible.

But videos uploaded to the YouTube and LiveLeak websites this week claim to show opposition forces launching the 21 August attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. They were swiftly picked up by media outlets in countries allied to Syria, including state-owned TV channel Russia Today.

From the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news...where-24174565

**Gistok** · September-23-13, 01:26 PM

There's always something about low quality video... that brings out the best in propoganda...

I'll still wait and see on this one, than you very much....

**oladub** · September-23-13, 04:31 PM

Political cartooning can be a decent form of propaganda too.

**Papasito** · October-02-13, 01:51 PM

Gistok, I know that video I posted is disputed, but the Rebels already got caught trying to frame the Syrian regime for using chemical weapons earlier this year. It wouldn't be the first time if it turns out they did it again.

There's always something about low quality video...

There's also something about puns about having tons of money to drop bombs on foreign countries, but no money to keep our parks and buildings open...

...AND THIS IS PRETTY MUCH THE TRUTH: