For most Republicans this is about clowning President Obama, nothing more, nothing less.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

They see the vote on Syria as a vehicle to weaken his presidency and personally embarrass and humiliate him. Words can not convey my contempt for their mendacity.

I understand the opposition to this action and even accept the fact that a Rand Paul opposes military intervention except when our own sovereignty is at stake but what is the basis of Marco Rubio's opposition, Rush Limbaugh's Sean Hannity's. Laura Ingraham's opposition ?

These clowns would support attacking Puerto Rico, yeah I know it's a American commonwealth, if a Republican proposed it.

[leveymg]

1. If Obama wanted to avoid the clowns he should have avoided small cars and big shoes

If they fit, he's going to have to wear them.

[TwilightGardener]

4. I think Obama has very real reasons for a strike on Assad--he is in a difficult situation.

[leveymg]

13. I absolutely agree about the difficult situation, but he could have avoided this by not allowing the

regime change enthusiasts in Hillary Clinton's State Dept. and David Petraeus' CIA to activate and intensify this round of the Shi'ia-Sunni civil war in Syria. That was avoidable because we ignited and fed it. Once it got hot enough, this sort of atrocity was almost inevitable.

It's Obama's kitchen. But, that's another metaphor.

[TwilightGardener]

16. I don't think we should have chosen sides and declared "Assad must go", or interfered in

the civil war--but the issue at hand NOW is chem warfare, and that's where I sympathize with the President, and I don't know what the best course of action is.

[leveymg]

29. I agree with you. If command responsibility can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt

(and right now, there is reasonable doubt) and if Russia and China will sign onto a UNSC authorization,I would be willing for the US to be part of a GLOBAL intervention to arrest the regime leaders, along with all those responsible on all sides for a variety of war crimes. But, these are the minimum allowable terms for use of military force under international law.

[HardTimes99]

28. + Infinity! - nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. We're talking about a pointless war of choice.

It would be immoral to kill humans over something like oil it would be beyond obscene to do it in the name of 1 person's prestige. If the GOP is going to be opportunistic then let's not give them opportunities.

[TwilightGardener]

3. War and attacks just aren't fun under Obama. You don't get songs about a "boot in their ass".

You don't get the fear of mushroom clouds, or patriotic fever. You just get sober weighing of intelligence, and debating the pros and cons of a strike. Where's the fun in that? What's really hilarious is Repubs lauding Bush for gathering a coalition and going to Congress before Iraq--that's like applauding a drunk driver who caused a catastrophic fatal wreck for insisting on seat belts and cleaning the windshield beforehand.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I saw this one clown, Representative Yoho, on Hardball

He couldn't be more smarmy and disingenuous. He was acting as if he channelled the ghost of George McGovern.


F--k him and the Tea Party horse he rode in on.

[HooptieWagon]

6. Whatever their reasons...

...I'll applaud their vote against a bad idea. Just because the US has the world's most powerful military, doesn't mean every problem should be solved by using it.

[Romulox]

7. Wow. Based on the whining, it's sounding like the War Drums' beat is wavering a bit...

Poor, poor warmongers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. If supporting Obama makes one a warmonger in this instance does opposing him make one a Rushbot?

[Romulox]

12. Supporting war is what makes one a warmonger. Sorry that the truth is so uncomfortable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Supporting Rush Limbaugh is what makes one a Rushbot. Sorry that the truth is so uncomfortable.

[Romulox]

15. You support war. Nobody here supports Rush. You are embarrassing yourself with this argument. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I support the president in this instance.

If you think that makes me a warmonger there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

[Romulox]

18. I support principle, regardless of who is President. That's a morally defensible stance.

Supporting wars of choice because they help "our guy!" politically is not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. As do I and I see no conflict between my principles and supporting the president in this instance.

And if wars of choice are synonymous with opposing war except when our necks are on the line than that's not a principal I subscribe to and I would argue it's not a principal consistent with what a civilized person or nation should subscribe to.

[Romulox]

20. Then stop citing support of President as a reason to kill people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I support the president in this instance because his principles are consistent with mine.

In my original post I cited those who opposed the president not out of principle but out of pique and even conceded that there were Republicans like Rand Paul who opposed him out of principle but there's a lot of pique there too which is hidden in the cloak of principle but I digress...

I can't peer into your psyche so I can't divine why you ignored that.

[Romulox]

23. You'll need to *articulate* those principles if you want gain support. So far, you given us

"clown the president", "you're a rushbot", and other such inanities. It's not a convincing argument for asking someone to kill someone.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. First principles

I like that word. Thank you for bringing it up.

In my original post I confined myself to my evaluation of the Republican opposition. I think my evaluation is unspectacular because it's axiomatic. It's like saying water's wet.

Your first response was "Wow. Based on the whining, it's sounding like the War Drums' beat is wavering a bit... Poor, poor warmongers. "


So you called me a warmonger without even knowing my position on a military response and if I favor an military response the reasons why and you say my usage of the word "Rushbot" is a inanity.

That's tantamount to the orphan who kills his parents and asks the court for leniency because he's a orphan.

If you want to know why I support a military response in this instance you could have asked me. You still can.

[cali]

8. who cares? that's way, way down my list of concerns regarding Syria

I'm just glad they're opposing it no matter how shitty and nefarious their reasons are.

[MotherPetrie]

9. If they prevent this war I don't care what their motives are.

[840high]

34. +1

[KittyWampus]

11. If their stupidity serves a higher purposed I'm all for it.

[freshwest]

22. They see themselves as Stephen King's Langoliers. Devour everything and drag us into a black hole.

[devils chaplain]

24. Eh, what's your point? Absolutely no one here has thought otherwise. n/t

[Hydra]

27. Not so subtle drumming OP n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. How is a recitation of the facts drumming?

I hate those fucks with a passion. I love bringing their mendacity to the light of day. It pains me to use such language but the pain is relieved somewhat by the catharsis it provides using it.

[Hydra]

31. As others have said, why is this relevant?

We don't like Republicans. We don't support their BS.

The fact that they may incidentally save the world by being assholes is not lost on any of us. The fact that we need them to save us from the great "Hope and Change" is even scarier.

Let them do it. If they have to make the President look bad to make it happen, that's what has to happen.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Respectfully, I don't believe preventing the US from a limited attack on Syria will save the world

Nor do I believe allowing a limited attack will end it.

If the president loses this vote it will weaken him going forward with both his domestic and international agenda. It will embolden his domestic and international opponents. Why do you think hawks like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who never met a war they didn't like is opposing this narrow, limited action?

And Bashar al-Assad has violated a universal prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. He has killed 100,000 of his own people with other means. A limited military attack would punish him for using these weapons and would hopefully deter him and and others from using them in the future.

If we attack him it's because he gassed his own people. That's not a nebulous reason.

[Hydra]

33. The President can make his case to the UN

That's what's legal. And butting heads with Russia by proxy is a BAD IDEA.

This is all pretty simple, but the President decided to pull a Bushco. We know how well that worked last time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Respectfully, how did President Obama pull a BUSHCO?

My support is predicated on the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime. If they didn't and the president is lying I will immediately withdraw my support of the operation, and more importantly and at much greater pain, of him.

As long as China and Russia are on the Security Council I don't see them as very helpful because those nations don't want to see a precedent set by allowing other nations to interfere in their internal affairs and Russia is Syria's benefactor and arms supplier.

[Hydra]

38. We're pushing for a strike before the UN inspection results are released

Doing this the right way won't take long...but for some reason Kerry and Obama are giving us vague info and are rushing the process so that we won't see that until after we hit the tar baby. On top of that, they're talking about a regime change on the heels of "we're just going to do some bombing."

A strong case needs to be made for this, and that's what we should be doing anyway. Strong evidence, a good plan that includes other partners and agreements(Including UN acknowledgement of the problem), and a clear goal and timetable.

We have none of those right now. If the Repubs stop this crazy train out of pure spite, that's not a bad thing. At least we've gotten past the point that the President was going to call the strike himself, so there has to be some hope somewhere.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. In the absence Of convincing evidence I will withdraw my support.

My support is predicated on the belief an evil actor used universally prohibited weapons and punishment will hopefully deter him and others from using them again. After all this prohibition against the use of such weapons is extremely rare.

I understand the optics and the politics. John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi are no more convincing as warriors as are Marco Rubio and Rush Limbaugh being peaceniks but if the facts were the same I would like to believe I could put aside my partisanship which is obviously strong and support this action.

It's not just "clowning" President Obama which I so elegantly or inelegantly put it. They want to wreck his presidency so they can wreck him and prevent him from moving forward on his agenda.

[Hydra]

41. I understand where you are coming from

I just disagree with the President's position from a legal, financial and tactical standpoint. We don't have solid case in front of the UN, we don't have the money to do this(or we do have plenty of money, and we aren't using it for badly needed social programs), and we are talking about empowering Al-Qaeda again.

The burden is on the President to produce the evidence of why we need to do this when it's going to hurt all of us.

As for wrecking President Obama's Presidency...he's gotten everything he's wanted so far except the love of the GOP. I don't know why he idolizes the Grand Ol' Perverts the way he does, but he should have taken the lesson from Bill Clinton- they may accept him, but they'll never stop being mean in public to him.

[LondonReign2]

35. Conversely....

[DCBob]

37. And also to damage Democrats.

They want to make this situation as difficult as possible in hopes that something goes wrong and they can blame it on the President and the Democrats. They will claim the President did too much or he didnt do enough... depending on the outcome.

Their motives are driven entirely by their lust for power and getting back full control of this country. God help us when and if that happens.

[former9thward]

45. How come Boehner, Karl Rove, etc. support it?

[DCBob]

48. superficial faux support just for show..

behind the scenes they are scheming to kill it.

[former9thward]

50. The spin of the pro-war crowd goes on.

Imagined conspiracies and everything.

[DCBob]

52. Im not pro-war.. in fact I dont think we should attack Syria at this point.

but I don't trust the Republicans on anything. Whatever they say or do is most likely lies and manipulations. Their main goal is to discredit the President and Democrats to score political points.

[former9thward]

54. The main thing everybody in DC does is try and score political points.

Knowing that, I try and look at the bigger picture.

[markpkessinger]

47. You don't think taking an action that the American public overwhelmingly opposes . . .

. . . won't also do major damage to Democrats?

[frylock]

40. so should we start sending missiles so obama can save face?

and in turn giving a big FU to the repubs?

[Niceguy1]

42. I don't really

Care as long ss they vote no.

[former9thward]

43. Why are Bush, Boehner, Rove, and Cheney for it?

[Crimson76]

44. Mr. Red Line set himself up for this, he gets what he deserves in this scenerio.

[markpkessinger]

46. Count me with Will Pitt . . .

I don't give a rat's ass about Republicans' motivations. If making common cause with Republicans is what it takes to stop this madness, then so be it!

[Puzzledtraveller]

49. I could give a rats ass what the republicans motives are

if they are successful in stopping this then I will be glad.

[indepat]

51. Has America launched an attack on another sovereign nation under a Republican president since WWII

that Republicans did not support?

[sendero]

53. so?

Obama made his bed with that ridiculous "red line" statement. It was amateur hour to even say that for reasons that anyone should understand.

So he has to endure a bit of humility in exchange for us not starting another pointless war. Big deal. Republicans have been feeding him crow since day one and he doesn't seem to mind, why now?

[geek tragedy]

55. They'd be voting for an end to foreign adventurism as US foreign policy.

If they want to own that, it's good for the country.

Obama is well-meaning here, but grievously in error and out of step with what the country wants.

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. if domestic politics and avoiding embarrassment is the motive for sacrificing human life - then

supporting this military action is truly immoral.

But whatever the motive, I rejoice that both parties are now moving away from the philosophy of permanent war and unsustainable empire --