We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I suppose if I asked for a mere shred of sympathy for our president because of the sticky wicket Syria has become, I'd get laughed right off the stage?
I thought so.
From Theo's, I suppose this just about sums it up:
Welcome to the Middle East, indeed.
(by the way, I hope you don't mind my interrupting, but it just now occurred to me to ask: What countries are in the Middle West? Kansas?)
With Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although still sectarian, at least the battle lines were fairly well drawn. If even half of the above pic is true, we are a long, long ways from those former days of innocence. And I have no reason to think the entire thing isn't right on the money. What a friggin' mess.
As she has a hundred times before, our own Klondike Queen nailed it:
In laying out the case for military strikes on Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday had praise for the French, who he called “our oldest ally,” but snubbed any mention of the British, who have long believed they enjoyed a “special relationship” with the U.S.
When you're forced to praise the weak-ass French as being staunch allies, you know the End Times are near.
Which isn't to say all Brits are particularly happy with their Parliament's decision:
Remember how France refused to support us in the Iraq War and patriots were calling for French fries to be renamed "freedom fries"?
Turnabout's fair play:
Britain, a U.S. ally in the war in Iraq, might watch from the sidelines if Washington launches a Syrian strike and turns to France for a European stamp of approval. (Could we see the debut of “liberty muffins’’ a decade after the derisory “freedom fries”?)
Back to our president, remember how the MSM labeled President Bush a 'warmonger', 'baby-killer', with his 'immoral war' and all the rest?
From CNN's web site this morning:
This time, with a Democrat in the White House, it appears the rules have changed. Poor President Obama is already war-weary — and he hasn't even done anything yet. But he's tough and gritty and 'determined' to see Truth and Justice prevail. Must be nice having the MSM cover your ass.
My personal fantasy:
(ring-ring!)
"Good morning, this is Susan, Sarah Palin's assistant."
"Hi, this is President Obama. Can I speak to Sarah for a sec?"
"Sure, she's right here. Hey, Sarah, President Deadbeat's on the phone!"
"Good morning, Mr. President, this is Sarah. How may I help you?"
"Could you pop by the White House later today? I'd like to have you standing beside me when I repeat your message to the world."
Oh, I can't see Americans getting all upset with the Brits and referring to English muffins as liberty muffins when most of us agree with and were tremendously relieved that the British Parliament voted not to back Obama's stupidity. Now we're just afraid that the idiot will "go it alone".
Well, you raise the question of what "staunch ally" and "special relationship" mean. If Britain isn't either, then you're right. I don't see Ireland or Scotland or Zanzibar or other lesser nations jumping in, either. So you're making the case that Britain isn't a 'staunch ally'; one who will support us in times of war.
But that, in turn, raises the question: okay, if Britain isn't our 'staunch ally' and we don't enjoy a 'special relationship' with them -- then who do we enjoy a 'special relationship' with? "No one", would appear to be the answer.
And are you asserting that dictators who massacre part of their population with chemical weapons not be punished? Because if that's true, then that means you were against the war in Iraq, since the reason we invaded wasn't because of nuclear WMD, but chemical WMD in the form of Sarin gas that Saddam had slaughtered a couple hundred thousand Kurds with, turning him into the biggest butcher since Pol Pot in the 70's.
Or are you claiming that whether or not a brutal dictator should be punished for using WMD on his populace depends on whether the current president is Republican or Democrat?
Some very good points there, but the British vote should be put into its proper context.
In short, El Presidente has been pretty bad to Britain since he gained office, most notably with Brown, but still more recently. These petty acts sum up pretty quickly, especially if you are busting your guts to help out in the Ghan. He is amazingly unpopular over in Britland.
Examples:
- banishing a special gift of a bust of Winston Churchill from the oval office
- over the Falkland islands (allowing representatives of the US government to refer to the islands as validly "disputed territory and by their Spanish name).
- giving the former PM of Britain DVD box sets as a "gift". They could not be played on a regular British DVD machine due to zoning.
- representatives of the administration stating "there is nothing special about Britain.You're just another country." (Paraphrased!)
On this specific issue, President Obama's red line was a throw away remark, unscripted to a journalist. It is essentially his own problem that he got into this mess.
Finally, the British government are in fact supportive of the American stance here, in spite of the fact that military action has been voted against. This is quite different to Chirac's outright and stated opposition to Anglo-American action in the invasion of Iraq.
(Plus "France", for all of the fact that since it supported the America Revolution has tried out around 13 different systems of constitutional government, is indeed the oldest ally of the United States. In many respects it is surprising that Britain and America get on so well!)
He also insulted their queen once, patted her shoulder or something at some function like she's just one of the gals. Still, though, "special relationships" between countries are supposed to overcome such trivialities, and especially when the threat of war is in the air. On the other hand, that was a pretty strong statement by their Parliament, so it would appear the rules have changed.
Sticky wicket, indeed, Doc. Interesting article, and interesting questions up above, especially the last one. Looking over the comments on the R/W sites, it would appear that there's more than just bias in the MSM at play. Simply put, if a Repub's in the WH, then all wars are good and just and noble. But if a Dem is, then all wars are bad and evil and "stupid".
Isn't it nice to live in an age when complex matters are so clearly defined?
However, in this case, I agree with Palin. From what I understand, the pic up above is accurate, and that's the kind of mess no one would voluntarily walk into. I'm sure Obama regrets a few things he's said while in office, but the 'red line' speech is probably at the top of the list.
You've gotta lotta nerve to say you are my friend
When I was down you just stood there grinning
You've gotta lotta nerve to say you have a helping hand to lend
You just want to be on the side that's winning
Growing up in MA, the Midwest ran from Ohio to Iowa. Kansas and Nebrask were Plains states, alng with Oklahoma. Missouri more Plains than Midwest. Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and evrything not on the west coast were the West.
I learned them as the 'Plains States' back in the 60's, but it seems over the years that the general populace just calls the whole area the 'Midwest' these days, simply because it's in the middle of the country.
Hell, I was also taught that anything past the Sierras was the 'Far West', yet I've hardly ever heard the term since. It's just the 'Left Coast' these days - both geographically and politically.
This morning our Peace President made a firm "presidential" decision to let Congress decide whether or not to go ahead with a militarily and politically meaningless bombing of Syria, all the while claiming that by virtue of settled law he has the legal authority to bomb the crap out of another sovereign nation without Congress's approval. My guess is this move is really based entirely on internal politics, aimed at extricating himself from the box he has created for himself and forcing a show of hands that will put House Republicans in there instead. The Stupid Party will undoubtedly cooperate, once again making itself an object of ridicule and scorn.
Make the Dems introduce the resolution, make every one register a roll call vote. Require all extra funding to come from the existing budget. Require the Administration to explain if this is a declaration of war, if not why not? Make the Administration go on record as to what is exactly their authority to do this without Congressional approval. Make them explain why if it is in their authority to go without Congressional approval that they are here asking for it.
Do not let them hide on this make them explain everything publicly. Congress should remember that Obama is coming to them not by Congressional demand!
Got out my unabridged version of the US Constitution and couldn't find anything in the section on the Executive Branch that said the President could commit a war crime by bombing Syria for no reason at all without Congress's approval. Maybe I should have attended the relevant lecture by Obama in his Constitutional law class at the University of Chicago. And as for Obama's being willing to go it alone without the cooperation of our usual allies, wasn't he the same guy who, at the beginning of his first term in office, said something about placing the US military under the international authority of the United Nations? Maybe I just dreamed that.
