The Red Line: Part Deux

[volinbham]

Can't believe no one (commentators) have jumped on the good minute he spent explaining why Assad was no immediate threat to US whatsoever.

Overall the whole thing had a "don't make me hit you, cuz I'll do it" vibe.

 

[FullButchVol]

Be clear. I'm opposed to strikes.

But not because Obama is president, which seems to be the primary reason so many on the right oppose it.

How do you know that's the reason they oppose it? Because making that up supports your argument?

 

[FLVOL69]

How do you know that's the reason they oppose it? Because making that up supports your argument?

Bingo...fits his narrative .

 

[hog88]

Be clear. I'm opposed to strikes.

But not because Obama is president, which seems to be the primary reason so many on the right oppose it.

No, you are wrong.

Answer me this, Obama has been trying him damdest to rally support for strikes, tonight he had a prime time audience. Why didn't he mention anything about the proof he has, show something, anything to support his belief?

 

[volinbham]

Good speech. Contents as expected.

I thought it was horrible - an absolute disaster.

Appeals to children foaming at the mouth.

Incoherency - Assad is not a threat to us but if we don't act people will feel free to use CW; then they'll use them against our troops (of course that's only if we go to where they are for a fight); then that'll extend to other weapons (nukes); then the whole world will have gone to hell.

BUT:

This crazy arse plan from the Russians who we've said repeatedly are dirty lying bastages might just work so...

Forget that we have to punish the MFr for making kids foam at the mouth because we might not do it.

But listen America, the Troops, Jobs, a stronger middle class, let me bomb him if I want to even though earlier in the speech I told you I could anyway. God bless

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

I realized his hair is getting grayer by the minute.

 

[Gramps]

How do you know that's the reason they oppose it? Because making that up supports your argument?

Another question :


Why are so many democrats opposed to it ?

 

[volinbham]

To be fair Elijah was not on their panel. Wolfe interviewed him. He is against a strike and said he tought Obama did a good job tonight he is still not sold on a strike. Newt gave Elijah praise for his comments.

I agree but I laughed out loud at the absurdity of his maybe this could be used against our troops (which is a long hypothetical) then mused that's not "fair". I'd say some sucker in Yemen thinks that a dude in Kansas who's good at video games and operating a drone is unfair.

 

[FLVOL69]

I thought it was horrible - an absolute disaster.

Appeals to children foaming at the mouth.

Incoherency - Assad is not a threat to us but if we don't act people will feel free to use CW; then they'll use them against our troops (of course that's only if we go to where they are for a fight); then that'll extend to other weapons (nukes); then the whole world will have gone to hell.










BUT:

This crazy arse plan from the Russians who we've said repeatedly are dirty lying bastages might just work so...

Forget that we have to punish the MFr for making kids foam at the mouth because we might not do it.

But listen America, the Troops, Jobs, a stronger middle class, let me bomb him if I want to even though earlier in the speech I told you I could anyway. God bless

I like your condensed version better...actually made more sense.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Good speech. Contents as expected.

Are you joking? Dude bombed

It's a wake on msnbc

 

[Vols520]

Are you joking? Dude bombed

It's a wake on msnbc

What being said?

 

[Gramps]

Rand Paul: " I hope the Russian plan works" on a CNN interview with Wolfe.

 

[lawgator1]

How do you know that's the reason they oppose it? Because making that up supports your argument?

It's not hard to detect.

Typically, they start by invoking Iraq and how we should have learned our lesson about getting involved over there.

Fair enough.

But then they'll make some crazy azz tangent off on something like Benghazi (Really? WTF? More of that nonsense?). Or they'll say some nonsense about this is all a ruse to avoid "scandals." LOL. Scandals.

Like I said, it's pretty obvious where they are coming from. Hell, one of the Fox panelists tonight after the speech started in on Benghazi. Honestly, it felt like the rest up there wanted to bash her head in with a trash can over it, because she is an wmbarrassment to them, but as I say it was immediately clear that she had just an anti Obama agenda, at all costs, merits be damned.

Obvious.

 

[volinbham]

Rand Paul: " I hope the Russian plan works" on a CNN interview with Wolfe.

I'm in full on cynic mode and Paul is falling into the same trap of selling a viewpoint with weak sauce vs letting political advantage take a back seat to objectivity.

 

[volinbham]

It's not hard to detect.

Typically, they start by invoking Iraq and how we should have learned our lesson about getting involved over there.

Fair enough.

But then they'll make some crazy azz tangent off on something like Benghazi (Really? WTF? More of that nonsense?). Or they'll say some nonsense about this is all a ruse to avoid "scandals." LOL. Scandals.

Like I said, it's pretty obvious where they are coming from. Hell, one of the Fox panelists tonight after the speech started in on Benghazi. Honestly, it felt like the rest up there wanted to bash her head in with a trash can over it, because she is an wmbarrassment to them, but as I say it was immediately clear that she had just an anti Obama agenda, at all costs, merits be damned.

Obvious.

Can't you admit that the Dem's beating the drum of military action is likewise a cynical political position?

Hell, I just saw Donna Brazille in full throated support of military action to prevent CW from getting into the hands of terrorists (it was like watching Cheney or Rove).

They are all the same.

 

[Vols520]

It's not hard to detect.

Typically, they start by invoking Iraq and how we should have learned our lesson about getting involved over there.

Fair enough.

But then they'll make some crazy azz tangent off on something like Benghazi (Really? WTF? More of that nonsense?). Or they'll say some nonsense about this is all a ruse to avoid "scandals." LOL. Scandals.

Like I said, it's pretty obvious where they are coming from. Hell, one of the Fox panelists tonight after the speech started in on Benghazi. Honestly, it felt like the rest up there wanted to bash her head in with a trash can over it, because she is an wmbarrassment to them, but as I say it was immediately clear that she had just an anti Obama agenda, at all costs, merits be damned.

Obvious.

U gonna point out Rove? He said he personally agrees w Obama. Sure you wouldn't have pointed that out.

 

[volinbham]

But then they'll make some crazy azz tangent off on something like Benghazi (Really? WTF? More of that nonsense?).

Interesting that POTUS said "we aren't going to take out leaders of countries - we learned that doing that in Iraq meant we have take full responsibility for the country" paraphrasing.

Interestingly he left out our most recent example of that. Where was it that we decided to take out the leader with military action -even though there was no threat to the US? Gee, I just can't recall but it seems like we did this recently...

 

[YorkVol]

I posted the below in this thread on 9/06.
This is the only suggestion I have heard out of DC other than an attack until the Putin proposl was released. Obama has been the big loser on Syria, to this point

i saw that and if the chem weapons accords were ratified by more nations with some teeth to the accountability, then it would be a viable solution. but as it is that would have only drawn attention to everyone who hasn't signed and would have exposed more of the UN weaknesses in the whole issue. i think the admin was right when they gave that proposal a pass.

 

[volinbham]

I'm shocked that people are treating the Russia proposal so seriously. It's a sham. The whole idea that the threat of force created this solution are nuts because it's not a real solution. It's a troll job.

 

[theFallGuy]

.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

I'm shocked that people are treating the Russia proposal so seriously. It's a sham. The whole idea that the threat of force created this solution are nuts because it's not a real solution. It's a troll job.

Putin blamed the Rebels. Now we relying on him to solve this mess?

 

[allvol123]

I'm shocked that people are treating the Russia proposal so seriously. It's a sham. The whole idea that the threat of force created this solution are nuts because it's not a real solution. It's a troll job.

Once again you nailed it.

Like I've said, Putin v. Obama is like man v. child.

 

[lawgator1]

I'm shocked that people are treating the Russia proposal so seriously. It's a sham. The whole idea that the threat of force created this solution are nuts because it's not a real solution. It's a troll job.

I worry that you are right, but I can see why the Kerry proposal might be supported by the Russians. They promise to help Assad, he stays in power and avoids ouster by the US, Russia keeps an ally.

 

[lawgator1]

Putin blamed the Rebels. Now we relying on him to solve this mess?

OH MY GOD!!

Just days ago the right was saying that we couldn't act because Putin did not agree to it. Now that he is brokering the Kerry proposal, you are complaining that he's involved !!!

You people have NO credibility. It's all just anti Obama.

 

[Vols520]

OH MY GOD!!

Just days ago the right was saying that we couldn't act because Putin did not agree to it. Now that he is brokering the Kerry proposal, you are complaining that he's involved !!!

You people have NO credibility. It's all just anti Obama.

Why are u calling it the Kerry proposal? It's been made clear it wasn't his idea.

OH MY GOD.