Posted on 09/01/2013 9:23:54 AM PDT by Starman417
For Assad?
Don't make me laugh.
Make no mistake- Obama has set a trap. A cagey, crass political trap. It is a trap designed to bail his a$$ out of the corner into which he's painted himself.
Obama has set the trap for the GOP.
A year ago Barack Obama blurted out the now-infamous "red line" words regarding Syria. The classic Obama hubris has boxed him in. He told the world how he would teach Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad a lesson- that the US has an "obligation" to attack Syria.
A war-weary United States has little appetite for another conflict and polls reflect this. Barack Obama is sensitive to one thing above all- his own political viability- and his plans for a Syrian attack reflect this. He said an attack would be limited in scope and regime change was not a goal. And now he wants to consult with Congress before he acts but lest anyone think he's become a weenie he's said that he's willing to go it alone.
Obama had no interest in Congress' approval when he toppled Gaddafi in Libya. So you have to ask yourself- why now? Why does Obama want to involve Congress now?
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
The “goal” is to make Obama look good....that’s all he cares about.
One freeper, GreenHornet, proposed the interesting idea that Republicans should vote “present” and leave the entire decision up to Ubama and the rats.
It's a TARP!
The only trap I see, is one being laid by Mr. Putin.
Is there any doubt that the “rebels” in Syria are al Qaeda?
Is there any doubt that al Qaeda are enemies of the United States?
Is there any doubt that this alleged president is aiding and abetting them?
Is there anything in the supreme law of the land that explicitly addresses this?
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” — The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3
I’m just asking...
By the way, the same thing was true in Libya, Dictator Obama’s personal little barbaric dirty war.
The honorable thing to do is to vote NO.
Yep.
You're assuming Republicans are honorable.
They'll have their lips firmly affixed to Barry's tush like they always do.
I would be one of the last ones to ever make that particular assumption.
I figured as much.
If they thought anyone would believe the truth, they would have come after us already.
If the Congress, especially dandy Boner, would go follow the trail like good scouts who knows what might come out of the woods.
Flopping Aces must read FR - many of us have opined the same from the beginning. Woo Hoo! Cutting edge analysis for anyone with the brains to listen.
“Present” doesn’t sound as good as handing back the responsibility to Obama. “Present” makes the GOP and congress look cowardly. Yeah, not voting to attack or not, is kind of cowardly, but not as much as present. Present is the same as disavowing all responsibility. Putting the responsibility back on Obama’s court, says that, he’s going to own whatever he decides.
Dunno. I just made it yesterday.
If you can find someone to print stickers from it, knock yourself out.
And send me one!
print it on plain paper and cover it with packing tape, use same tape to put it on the car...
That “O” reminds me of a train tunnel ... and that tunnel has no light at the end, just collapse and chaos, by design.
LOL, you have just described Ubama's entire legislative background.
Putting the responsibility back on Obama’s court, says that, he’s going to own whatever he decides.
Except Ubama doesn't WANT to decide anything. By kicking the issue over to congress, he is voting "present" yet again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.