bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

The mendacity of Obama!

DJ Mills Loc: Idaho

It's like he expects us to get a new case of amnesia every morning.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Actually HE did not declare the use of chemical weapon illegal nor did he create the 'red line', if I recall, the war in Iraq was about this unfamous 'red line', remember??? The Ligue of nations did. Syria that did not exist as an independent country at the time (1925?) is not a 'signator', one of the very few countries who have not agreed to ban this weapon.

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

Now ain't that the truth! :thumbup: :thumbup:

Rongnongno Loc: FL

An interesting article, especially the end on congress intent to vote...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24022866
Two chambers, two different voices.

So, where do your ideology lean toward?

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

I think that we should stay the hell away from Syria and let them sort out their own mess. We may never learn the truth and, in all probability, it could well be the insurgents and their allies who used it to sucker us into getting involved. I don't know if our "intelligence" agencies have improved since Iraq. I would look to the Israelis who usually have a better intelligence presence in the Middle East than we do.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Personally while from another view point philosophically I agree with you (stay out) yet this is highly disturbing.

As human we never seem to learn.

ottopj Loc: Annapolis, MD USA

Exactly!

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

:thumbup: :thumbup:

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

:thumbup: :thumbup:

HEART Loc: God's Country - COLORADO

There is only a YELLOW line...and it runs down Obama's back.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Don't even try to go there. That is a little too deep for the detractors of the President!

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Rongnongno Loc: FL

That is where we diverge. I do not accuse anyone of having a 'yellow line on his back' or 'being the proud owner of an expanding yellow belly'.

While one can disagree with policies and the like one should always respect the other side and engage in a proper discourse instead of name calling.

The continuous bashing of Obama is uncalled for as he does not make the laws, Congress does. He also does not prepare the budget, Congress does. He does influence and lobby toward one thing or another and finally can accept of veto a proposed legislation.

If you want a change, any change, start with Congress as this is where the power really lies and where all the professional cheats and liars reside. This is also where the most morally corrupt US politicians inflict their ills upon the Nation.

Extreme point of views are repulsive and a disservice to a 'cause' as folks who could agree in some part of the ideas proposed do not simply because they do want to associate with that very extremism continuously expressed on this board and else-where.

Our country is slowly rotting from the inside because there is no grass-root dialogue, only simplistic and moronic slogans and 'position taking'.

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

In response to your comments I would offer this. I received it in an email this morning, I have no idea who the originator is but I have no reason to rebut his or her points.:


THE COUNTRY WE'VE BECOME



He would slow the rise of the oceans.

He would restore the image tarnished by “Cowboy Bush.”

He would become the global ambassador of good will. The world would rally around his fresh message of “Hope and Change.”

Skeptics warned that a nation was being duped by a man whose speeches did not match his history. He never managed anything in his life. Now he was going to lead the greatest nation on Earth. How can he when his resume is devoid of accomplishment?

Though the skeptics were branded as racists, they were proven right.

Nearly five years later the man who vowed to be the great healer stands alone, boxed in by his arrogance, trapped by his amateurism and indecisiveness.

Over a year ago President Obama announced his “red line” ultimatum. He would punish the Syrian government if they dared to use chemical weapons.

Our president made a sophomoric mistake when he failed to consult Congress before throwing down his dangerous gauntlet. Any leader threatening war better have a plan and support if his line is crossed.

But Congress has always been an afterthought to the president who claims to know best.

And when chemical weapons were used, our president said he would bomb Syria for it. He said he had the authority to do so. He would do it because Syria is a threat to global peace.

But action did not follow words. Why?

If the Assad government is a threat to the United States then bomb it into oblivion today. Destroy it before it has the opportunity to destroy us.

Why wait?

But our president says his objective isn’t regime change. He will rain bombs on Syria as a warning.

His stated objective resulted in more confusion – and concern. Even a rube knows bombs aren’t fired as a warning. Bombs are for killing enemies.

Nor can humanitarian reasons be our president’s objective. Not after he stood on the sidelines for nearly three years while approximately 100,000 Syrians were slaughtered.

This is the problem. Our president waited. He talked. He threatened. He dithered. He vacillated. He miscalculated – badly.

If truly sincere then he missed his opportunity.

If our president felt the Assad government was a threat then he should have acted when rebels first engaged. He should have taken action before Al Qaeda became entrenched in Syria, ready to fill the power vacuum.

Waiting to bomb without a reasoned plan has made success (by whatever measures used) much more difficult to achieve.

It’s reported that Al Qaeda has infiltrated seven of the nine major rebel groups. What happens if Al Qaeda confiscates the chemical weapons in the chaos as bombs are flattening Syria? Does our president expect Al Qaeda to turn the WMD over to him?

Our president doesn’t have an answer.

The wavering by our president has allowed the Syrian government ample time to move weapons into densely populated areas. The Syrian government will bunker down and resurface – defiant as ever – once our president completes his strike that is “limited in scope and duration” (his words).

And he must sense trouble. He sprints from his own rhetoric.

Our president now claims he didn’t set a “red line” even though the words came from his mouth. Never one to accept responsibility, our president blames the international community for what he said.

And suddenly President Obama will seek support from the Congress he has long ignored. But this is important to our president. If an endorsement comes, he will have Congress to blame if his bombing results in an escalation in Middle East fighting. After all, our president is not one to accept responsibility for his actions.

But why is our president alone? Why was he been abandoned by most of the world and what were once our staunchest allies?

Why was the great healer shunned?

The answer is not complicated.

The world has watched the Obama administration for nearly five years.

The world has seen the Obama administration refusal to take responsibility for the failed “guns for drug cartels and other murdering criminals” Fast and Furious program.

The world has seen the Obama administration punish political groups it doesn’t like.

The world has seen the Obama administration target elements of the media – and their families – because they don’t carry water for the administration.

The world has seen the Obama administration fail to protect its citizens at the Benghazi embassy, then lie to the American people about the circumstances that caused the terrorist attack.

The world has seen the Obama administration violate the law when it meets their purposes.

Why should the international community support an administration that abuses its power, shirks responsibility and lies to its people?

Why should the international community support a president who blames them for his words?

And why should the international community support military action when the objectives are incoherent?

During Senate testimony, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was asked what the administration was seeking. General Dempsey replied “I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.”

Of course General Dempsey can’t answer. The objective isn’t to remove the threat, our president has said as much.

And General Dempsey isn’t about to say the bombs are intended as a face-saving mission for our haughty and naïve commander-in-chief.

Leaders who take countries into battle must have credibility that is built through a sense of purpose, with clear objectives, and above all – integrity and veracity.

Our president lost credibility because of the continued lies and corruption coming from his administration. Our president lost credibility because he acts more like an emperor than a president.

Today the emperor has no clothes.

And we, the American people deserve our share of blame. We accepted this vulgar behavior. We looked the other way while corruption ruled.

Our president appears weak. We are a weaker nation because of it.

It’s our president’s fault. It’s our fault too.

The chickens have indeed come home to roost in this country we’ve become.

PS: One addition. I do not share the fault, I didn't vote for him.
PPS. Neither did I.