Look, I’m not going to pretend that the Obama administration hasn’t made some serious missteps here, nor will I deny that they look really bad. But, President Obama found an escape hatch that will allow him to delay any military response. In asking for congressional authorization (that he doesn’t believe he needs, legally) without calling for Congress to immediately reconvene, he’s bought himself a week, which will allow us to gets some results from the United Nations.
The inspectors were heading to The Hague with blood and urine samples taken from victims of the attack, as well as soil samples from areas where the attacks took place. They were due to deliver the sample to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on Saturday afternoon.
The samples will be divided so each can be sent to at least two separate European laboratories for testing, according to United Nations officials, but experts said the testing would not be completed for several days at the earliest.
As I said yesterday, the administration is out on a limb with their allegations and their intent to strike Syria, and they need to at least find out what kind of chemical agent was used and how it was delivered before they even pretend to have proven their case. Right now, Vladimir Putin is completely comfortable saying things like this:
On Friday, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Syria’s patron, argued that it was “simply utter nonsense” to believe Syria’s government would launch such an attack and challenged the United States to present any evidence to the United Nations.
“I am convinced that it is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to involve other countries in the Syrian conflict, who want to gain the support of powerful members in international affairs, primarily, of course the United States,” Mr. Putin said in his first public remarks since reports of the chemical attack emerged. “I have no doubts about it.”
Putin’s right about one thing. The U.S. ought to provide their evidence rather than simply asserting that they have it. But, in asking for congressional approval, the president has bought himself an excuse for inaction which will give him a window to bolster his case or back down if the case can’t be bolstered.
He has, however, opened himself up for the same kind of humiliation that David Cameron suffered in the the UK. Much of the president’s party is opposed to unilateral action, and the Republicans love to oppose the president. If the administration doesn’t provide more irrefutable evidence, Congress probably won’t approve a strike anyway.
Maybe the president would be okay with that.
Maybe the president would be okay with that.
After seeing what happened to Cameron, I bet this is most likely. We still don’t know what gassed is used, among other things. And at this point it would make little sense for Assad to use chemical weapons.
Do you mean use them again or have used them in the first place?
Again. Since this is the one the President is specifically mentioning when wanting to strike Syria.
Yeah, ironically I actually agree with that but not sure of the use-by date of that reluctance. It certainly has come at a cost to all concerned.
Assuming the Russian’s accusations are disingenuous they couldn’t be happy with the prospect of another incident. Nor Iran. But until the regime’s chemical arsenal is brought under third-party control anyone within Scud missile range has got to be increasingly uneasy.
I don’t know what your assessment of the regime’s incentives might be but it certainly isn’t what we thought it was a few short weeks ago.
I’m not seeing missteps, I’m seeing information not coming out as fast as you would like it to but that’s really it.
The last couple days seem to be the result of a lot of analysis that takes time, especially since the attack only happened 10 days ago.
Having Cameron force a vote before the U.S. even provided their evidence and then watching Cameron lose the vote…that’s not a misstep?
I don’t believe seeing anywhere that the President even asked the PM to do that, I could be wrong. If the PM did something stupidly that doesn’t equate the a misstep by this US administration.
C’mon, Jim. They are coordinating everything. Even leaks.
Hard to imaging the Obama administration not taking their assurance at face value that they had the whip count. Seems to have taken Cameron by surprise, at least.
And you will not that the Commons vote was on the ‘principle’ of a military response. It may have been a precautionary move Cameron felt necessary just to continue with preparations. They’ve now officially joined Europe.
I’m guessing a fair bit of the US sabre-rattling has been to shake out international reaction of both friend and foe. It certainly has had that result. You may recall the lead-up to Libya was protracted, convoluted and frustrating to many.
It sure did seem to me that rhetoric had gotten a bit ahead of the public facts. And it also seemed as if the administration had painted itself into a corner, where either striking or not striking would be painted as a failure here. This does kick the can down the road, but it now throws this baby in the lap of Congressional Republicans, who can only be too eager to plunge the knife and twist mercilessly. With so many opposed to action, they have a number of options for how to play this. And yes, I think my cynicism about how the GOP will handle this entirely justified.
There might well be multidimensional chess going on here, but it seems to me that the more likely explanation is this has been badly misplayed in the internal workings of the administration. I just don’t see how this ends well for anyone.
This is 100% brilliant politics that simultaneously makes me sick about the state of this country.
It declares to the world that Obama considers the GOP to be greater and more pressing adversaries than the Assad regime, and that our actions and principles overseas can and will be compromised by domestic considerations.
The House of Representatives is not an honest arbiter. Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t be forced to whip her members who would otherwise vote against military action to compensate for the white supremacist right wingers who consider any and all government action to be illegitimate. This isn’t constitutionally profound, this is the scandalous culmination of a broken politics.
From John Kerry’s “help is on the way” to “eh, my generals inform me our action could still be effective a month from now.” Syrians must be beside themselves.
The House of Representatives is not an honest arbiter. Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t be forced to whip her members who would otherwise vote against military action ..
But Pelosi came out for cruise missiles two days or so ago.
Right, but what percentage of the Dem House is on board? Right and wrong go out the window and pure facesaving is all that’s left, exactly the same conditions as the Iraq War vote in 2002.
This is the same House that could only find 217 votes to keep funding the NSA. They can’t even pass farm bills. By any rights, the House will vote this down. And then what?
This is not a game. This is life and death. A president should not be taking his own legislature hostage for protective cover. This is a petulant trap to spring on the opposition after they watched Cameron crash and burn.
President Obama is full of shit. This vote will most assuredly not prove we are one nation united in the cause of global peace and justice. I’ve said before that those who fret about poisoning the well any further are psychotic. There’s no water in the well, it’s just poison. This is no way to operate.
The GOP is the greater and more pressing adversaries than the Assad regime. It’s not even close.
The greatest danger to world peace, right now, is the threat of a GOP POTUS.
.
I’m still amazed that the specificity of the MSF statement isn’t good enough for you regarding this:
Maybe this statement from MSF will clear up my position.
Your position was clear. You want 100% certainty. So this kind of legalese influenced caution puts you off I guess:
I think this statement is sufficient:
I think this is good enough. I do not think specific identification as to which neurotoxin was used is critical to making an appeal for action.
I’d say it’s pretty damn important what kind of neurotoxin was used. If it’s standard sarin of the type that Syria is known to possess, that’s supportive of the claim that they did it. But if it’s something they are not known to possess, that raises questions.
My inquiries indicate that not a lot is ‘known’ about the Syrian chemical weapons program with the kind of evidential certainty you and others have demanded about the incident. What if it was soman? Would that prove it wasn’t the regime? We know that Syria has a chemical weapons program and we’ve strongly suspect that they produce mustard gas, tabun, sarin and VX. Here’s an open source assessment. As you can see it relies on some relatively old intelligence reports and has numerous disclaimers.
I’m not saying the intelligence agencies don’t have more definitive information, I’m guessing they do. But the same caveats would apply that you have been citing all along to question the authenticity of official statements relying on such sources, wouldn’t they?
They certainly could. But the identification of the toxin could help clarify things more. For example, some things would be mixed in the warhead and other things wouldn’t. Some things would have a 90 minute delay and some would be instant.
Here we are claiming that we know they were fired on rockets and we know where the rockets were and we know where the rockets landed. That’s pretty impressive in the middle of a more general artillery barrage. Well, if the rockets contained something that would poison people instantly, there wouldn’t be a 90 minute gap before people started showing up seeking medical treatment. And that would mean that we hadn’t identified where and when they were launched.
See what I mean?
I’m not sure, actually. I think you are perhaps misinterpreting the ninety-minute delay. I’m not aware of any chemical which would delay the effects of a nerve agent; I always assumed that this time was accounted for by the propagation delay of getting the lights on, moving victims and waking up the doctors.
I’m assuming that most of the people at ground zero were badly affected with many dead or dying; I’m pretty impressed, frankly, at the apparent lack of hesitation of first responders. Apparently some of those making the videos perished as well.
Sarin can take 5-12 hours to kill you, depending on the level of exposure. Of course, if you breath enough of it and you can die in minutes.
No argument there but I still don’t understand your association of the ninety-minutes with the toxicity. My understanding is that this remarks was presented merely to present the close juxtaposition of reaction to the time of the launches:
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that it would take ninety-minutes from impact to see the first signs of trouble on Twitter, it was in the wee hours of the morning after all. And as you acknowledge the immediate death and incapacitation of some victims would inevitably create confusion and delay. As for the five to twelve hours claim, I’m not disputing that is possible but consider:
Of course, you are still suspending judgement that the agent is indeed sarin which is fair enough. My original point was that it didn’t really matter, almost any neurotoxin use of this kind violates the ban.
Perhaps I should qualify what I meant by “I’m not aware of any chemical which would delay the effects of a nerve agent.”
The toxicity and lethality is directly related to the dosage of the agent. This is what determines whether a given victim dies within minutes or hours or not at all. Two things affect the dosage, the concentration of the agent in the target area and the possible dilution of the agent in the warhead.
The attacker has little control over the former affect; some victims will be at ground zero and some will be at a distance; ventilation, exposure to vapour or droplets and duration of exposure will all create variations in dosage for individuals. Some will receive lethal doses and some won’t.
Now if the agent is diluted the proportion of lethal doses can probably be reduced but the former provisions still apply. Note that the incapacitating and lethal doses leave little leeway. So one could probably raise or lower the ceiling for lethal casualties by diluting the agent in any given attack but I don’t see how one could establish an arbitrary delay between impact and casualties given the uncertain distribution of victims relative to ground zero.
Also, from Kerry’s presentation:
It was the social media, where there is no delay whatsoever, not the hospitals, that blew up 90 minutes after the attack.
Heh. We are posting exactly the same quote to prove opposite arguments. Something is wrong here; I think we are at cross purposes.
My point was the videos (ie the credible social media in question) were largely filmed at hospitals. Or at least by first responders who had been marshalled to the scene to provide relief. I really don’t see how a ninety-minute gap sets off your scepticism, Kerry’s speech-writers clearly thought it bolstered their case.
plus it was really early in the morning, probably took some time for the town to wake up and get moving
I think you are not understanding my point.
Different neurotoxins take different amounts of time to kill. If Twitter (not YouTube) went crazy after 90 minutes, then that tells you that most people weren’t showing symptoms of a chemical attack for about 90 minutes. That’s consistent with a sarin attack, but I’m no expert. Perhaps actual experts will be able to tell how long the toxin should have taken to make people sick.
First, identify the toxin, and then see if you measure the dose some of the deceased received, identify the time they were showing symptoms on video, and piece it all together. It could be possible to confirm the approximate time that the toxin was released and see if it matches up with the time we think the toxin was released.
I’m pretty sure I understand what you are saying I just don’t think it is compelling. I’m guessing the folks at ground zero weren’t tweeting much of anything, to be honest, then or later. I really think we have a profoundly different conception of the scene of the attacks and the circumstances of the immediate aftermath but I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree and simply drop it.
I’m not sure what would or could be “compelling” about what I am saying.
I am only arguing that investigating the crime might help us understand the facts, and that the facts could confirm what we think happened or not.
I agree with the philosophy. You might be surprised to know I believe I am doing exactly the same thing. But in this instance we are both being subjective and speculative and have had our innings.
There could be other reasons for the ninety-minute delay. For example, if someone were planning a false flag operation they would carry it out in an area which has just been shelled. But if the neurotoxins were in a truck somewhere in the neighborhood they’d have to drive the stuff to the location to release it.
Sorry to have dropped out. Had an event to go to.
“it’s pretty damn important what kind of neurotoxin was used”
Yes and no. For the purposes of the potential cruise missile strike, I think sufficient info is available. And I think the administration is more interested in prevention and upholding the importance of CW bans than in punishing Assad for past acts.
There is a certain amount of info that will always remain unknown or in doubt. And some parties will always disbelieve other parties based on narrow self interest or lack of political trust. The CTs that are coming out now will add to the obfuscation.
Even if the UN investigators identify a specific toxin and (through an info source) Syria is known to have significant supplies of it, Russia can claim the rebels broke into the supplies, or the same agent was received from a different source and used by the rebel, etc…
I hope that by showing serious intent and readiness the administration was convincing enough to the world. I hope that something positive somewhere falls into place that satisfies the administration that they have achieved their goal already. And in that case I hope Congress doesn’t support an attack.
Thanks for providing the forum for these discussions.
I suspect the POTUS already knows he has the votes in his vest pocket. Members of the DEM caucus will be under intense pressure to vote in support of Presidential wishes, or they will be the ones exerting said pressure.
That leaves it to War Party members in the House. Plenty of them will vote against the POTUS. These people cannot help themselves.
But enough of them will see that voting against Presidential desire here will mean their political future rests on the chance Assad never again uses chemical weapons on his own people.
Ask yourself this: Would you like to willingly place your short hairs in Assad’s grip?
I doubt very much that anyone’s political future will be threatened by voting no to any kind of attack that has little public support. What makes it doubly awkward would be the more ostensibly anti-war party attacking opponents for being too unwilling to go to war. That’s probably not going to happen.
Well, I guess I have to say that’s an equally valid way of looking at this.
But it seems that the possibility that the Syrian regime might use these weapons again is not being taken very seriously; which seems rather to miss the whole point. We seem to be reacting to this as if it were an isolated act of terrorism, which is what it now resembles.
How many more nerve gas attacks would it take to stand the diplomatic and political calculus surrounding this issue completely on its head? Not many I’m guessing.
There’s going to be some sober reflections on all manner of potential risks by those concerned before this comes to a vote. Where are Netanyahu’s buddies in the Republican party now while Israel is busy distributing gas masks?
This is a very optimistic assessment.
And you vastly overstate the public’s desire to intervene in Syria and their “fear” of the Syrian family dictator and his CW. I suppose the propaganda hasn’t yet been seriously deployed, but we’ll see.
The chances of US strikes just went way down, not way up, IMO.
It’s not the US public’s opinion I had in mind, but those GOP voters who are always on a RINO hunt. Those are the voters who put GOP Congresscritters on the hot seat should they make the wrong call.
Seems to me it puts the majority Republicans in a slightly bigger bind than Democrats. But not by much. I’m guessing the first challenge will be to establish a quorum.
“But enough of them will see that voting against Presidential desire here will mean their political future rests on the chance Assad never again uses chemical weapons on his own people.”
You’re talking about a group of Congresspeople who have no qualms about risking the deaths of their own constituents by trying to shut down Obamacare.
You’re dreaming if you think the deaths of foreigners will enter into their political calculations at all.
It was not the deaths of foreigners I had in mind as their motivating force but rather the deaths of their political careers.
I’m not understanding the hysteria.
I’m an non-interventionist by nature. I feel bad for other folks, but there is little that would make me think that American troops should be sent anywhere.
The President is asking Congress to do their jobs.
And then telling them he can ignore them.
I always thought hysteria was rushing to war. When did we suddenly get peace hysteria?
That sounds more like a tactical maneuver to influence the vote. Obama made it harder for himself by consulting Congress. He’s giving up some power here. It will be much worse for him in the court of public opinion if he defies Congress after giving them the platform to possibly oppose his desired course of action. I suspect he wouldn’t do this if he were unwilling to acquiesce to whatever Congress decides.
I think that was his intention all along, that he didn’t want to intervene in Syria. He was being pushed. This offers him the perfect out. This gives him time for the evidence to be thoroughly vetted, and puts the vote on the Congress.
Let’s face it, any intervention by us just makes things there worse, and this way he can dump it in Congress’ lap.
plus the President doesn’t plan to send troops anywhere, this seems to be a similar plan to Libya but possibly even smaller
yeah, but notice that the UNSC blessed the West’s Libya campaign and Obama didn’t dream of going to the paralyzed Do-Nothing Repub Congress to approve that ME adventure. War powers act, baby!
UN Charter, Chapter 7: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression
Chemical Weapons Convention, Article I: General Obligations
Chemical Weapons Convention, Article XII: Measures to Redress a Situation and to Ensure Compliance, Including Sanctions
Chemical Weapons Convention, Article XIII: Relation to Other International Agreements
Chemical Weapons Convention, Article XIV: Settlement of Disputes
US Constitution
Quote the section from one of these documents that authorizes the President to conduct an act of war on a foreign country that is not a direct and imminent threat to the US without authorization by Congress. To use the commander-in-chief justification in Article II is so expansive the Congress becomes irrelevant.
The President argued today that this issue was one of national security to the United States and its allies. This is nonsense. And it is a change of argument from the need to preserve the integrity of the Chemical Weapons Agreement.
We are getting dangerously into the area that one surmises that the reason is that either we strike the Syrians or the Israelis will unilaterally carry out their own strikes. For besides Jordan, that is the only ally that I see threatened by the attack in Syria.
Putting this before Congress is the best thing to do from an number of standpoints. It buys time to vet information for accuracy and reliability and to build a more specific case. It gives Congress something to do that they must do instead of nonsense partisan gamesmanship. If the Congress tells him “No” with sufficient Republican votes, that takes the issue off the table politically. If they tell him “Yes”, they have voted with the President and will get political cooties. That also takes it off the table for partisan exploitation.
Ensuring that the vote is not whipped or lobbied by leadership is the best way to a prudent decision, providing the military and intelligence communities are forthcoming with enough details for Congress to struggle with understanding the real situation instead of just taking the military and intelligence community’s word for it.
Just as another refresher:
Congress deserves a specific answer to what vital national security interest is threatened.
Congress needs to understand the clear and attainable objective and why the Administration thinks that it is attainable.
Congress needs a clear understanding, showing the analysis work, of the risks and costs involved. Note that the key word here is “frankly”.
Congress needs to understand the non-violent means that have been used and those that will be used in parallel with military operations.
Congress needs to know the exit strategy, what is expected to be the situation on exit and why that strategy is plausible. (No BS Powerpoints here)
Right now the action clearly is not supported by the American people; under the Powell doctrine that would can it right there.
Right now we do not have genuine broad international support; under the Powell doctrine that would can it right there.
The President is going to Congress with two reasons already not to act militarily. And then he is asserting that regardless of Congress’s decision he has the authority to act. Really? This is one case in which the military will be torn between their order and their oath, if the President persists with that assertion.
And the White House communications team thinks they can just bull this one through?
I am hoping that this Congress suddenly is transformed into one that is more sane and more steady than any in 40 years. We are in deep water here.
We’ll see a healthy reaffirmation of the exercise of Congressional authority. It is certainly going to be interesting to see what motion is presented.
That if adult in style instead of the childish shenanigans and posturing that has been going on would be welcome.
Minor footnote:
Rosh Hoshannah and Yom Kippur are September 4-6. That makes for an interesting Congressional debate schedule.
Obama took TarheelD’s advice! Forcing the paralyzed Do-Nothing Repub Congress to hold a vote that will have actual consequences? This oughta be good, as one assume that a NO vote will end the matter, perhaps for good.
First we’ll have the spectacle of the standard of evidence required and whether complicity is proven. However that is “resolved” we’ll have the debate on why the hell we should do anything now other than tell Assad “don’t do it again!! and we mean it!” Then we’ll have the bad polling problem for a representative body and no amount of evidence will make Syria bombing popular or transform intervention into a grudgingly accepted duty of the Superpower. I’d say most Dem House districts are simply not going to be persuaded, their reps will be quite aware of that, and Dem yes votes will be like pulling teeth without anesthesia.
As for the Repubs with all their factions, Lord knows what they will do as party, and most of them are far more interested in Obama-bashing than Bashar-bashing. This will quickly be turned into a “appalling weakness of Obama!”-fest by Repubs like Peter King. That’s my bet, anyway. And will Warmonger McLame have apoplexy on the senate floor?
Not the admin’s finest moment, and the UN team hasn’t even reported! Everyone involved needs a little vacation, haha…
And whether Congress says go ahead or stop, that branch of government will then own the consequences just as much as the President.
Here’s the new wrinkle. The Repubs hawks are going to vote “No” because it does not go far enough, the Administration has not determined how to make it successful….la..da..da..posturing embedded with valid points.
Which will cause Pelosi and Reid to whip their caucus for a “Yes” vote or possibly lose the vote. Which will put Reps in districts that very much oppose military action in a difficult position. Especially if this becomes a single issue criticism in 2014.
So if it comes out a “No” vote (which is to say if the Dem leadership does not whip the vote), the President is back in a bind. Israeli and Myanmar ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention would come in real handy right now. So would a signature by Egypt.
The concern of the “not going far enough” crowd is if the strike occurs and then two months later the Syrian government is found to have made another chemical attack, what then? Saddam Hussein used the “still standing against the sole global superpower” a lot before the Iraq War. The issue isn’t whether a strike produces any more deterrence than not striking; it’s arguing the necessity of massive intervention to get regime change. I really don’t buy the “still standing” argument although I grant that it’s a form of rope-a-dope to frustrate an opponent so much that the opponent starts making serious mistakes.
At this point it is hard to predict; Obama has certainly reshuffled the deck.
Shades of Bay of Pigs:
Interesting to know which of the rebel groups are disappointed. If it’s al-Nusra, well…
There’s and article in Foreign Policy (behind a paywall) reporting the details.
That Putin’s statement and Obama’s course correction coincide; looks like the big nyet from the Kerry and Lavrov discussions recently goes straight to the top.
I can’t help but notice that Putin, despite his bluster, has couched his statement in subjective terms; “utter nonsense” and “I am convinced that [the chemical attack] is nothing more than a provocation” and so forth. This is a totally different approach than their reaction to the incident in the Khan al-Assal district in Aleppo last March when they made quite a fuss over evidence supporting their claims which was subsequently submitted to the United Nations with great publicity but little effect.
Now, not so much; they are just stonewalling. This is not a position of genuine strength.
TWO forms of picture ID, plus their birth certificate, long form.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/obama-syria-aumf-resolution-96131.html
Authorization (2) is a blank check. So is the formulation “weapons of mass destruction”.
I think it’s because they need to keep the libertarians on board, and the libertarians are committed on this issue. They are already close to civil war between the libs and the militarists, and Syria will escalate that. They can’t afford to have the Pauls attacking the party more right now, and the Pauls are too committed on this issue not to if they make a stink. In fact, I believe the Pauls, too, have been strangely silent. There is no GOP faction for whom drugs are the most important issue, so all are willing to let sleeping dogs lie for the moment.
Oops accidentally posted in wrong thread. Will repost. Feel free to delete here.
I’m actually pretty interested in the long game aspects of this–regardless of party–where the Office of the President might actually submit to the will of a Congressional “no” vote and effectively strip itself of some imperial power. It makes Obama look weak in the short term, but whatever–it would seem to restore some kind of independent Congressional authority.
“Seem” being the operative word. It could only happen with a Dem president (possibly only with this president) acquiescing to a GOP controlling 1 chamber of Congress, and given what Obama said about doing a strike anyway, there’s slim chance of that.
So I’m waiting to see what the President will do if Congress returns a no vote. If he acts anyway, he’s a high-minded jackass–but if he doesn’t, he would seem to be setting an important precedent re: Congress actually doing what it’s supposed to do, and a POTUS abiding by that.
I’m probably not being cynical enough about this, but fuck it–there’s nothing that I can type about Syria that won’t make me look like an ignorant tool, so I’m gonna go with long-game less-war precedent.
Maybe the guy will actually earn a sliver of that Nobel after all, but I’m not banking on it.
Interesting analysis of rockets and videos from Jane discussing the allegedly used makeshift rockets.
POTUS today
So what’s to stop this this military strike when Obama says, “Go now?”
Finally!!! Great Britain’s House of Commons’ refusal to kowtow to the PermaGov line as presented by Prime Minister Cameron has spooked the U.S. warhawks. They thought they could power on through, but now? They’re not sure. Some polls suggest that as much as 91% of all Americans want the PermaGov to keep its missiles in its pants this time.
Riiiiiight…
WTFU.
AG
In one decade a Republican administration intervenes irresponsibly against a dictator where there isn’t a violation of the ban on WMDs and in the next a Republican Congress irresponsibly fails to intervene against another when there is a violation of the ban on WMDs; in both cases dismissing available evidence and with the overwhelming and vocal support of the American public and many Democrats.
Well done folks; congratulations all around. Stupid squared. Is there a garbage can or mailbox we will actually miss as we weave drunkenly down the road on our joyride to global irrelevance?
… and in the next a Republican Congress irresponsibly fails to intervene against another when there is a violation of the ban on WMDs; in both cases dismissing available evidence and with the overwhelming and vocal support of the American public and many Democrats.
What is this one you talk about? Syria? If so, last I checked only 9% of the people want to get involved. Far from overwhelming.
That’s what I’m saying, by your numbers in the latter of the two cases 91% don’t want to get involved. Seems pretty ‘overwhelming’ to me. Probably even greater than the support for invading Iraq.
Well, be fair, Shaun; the horrific clusterfuck resulting from the first I daresay has a lot to do with the second. Once bitten, twice shy, and all that.
So we make two consecutive mistakes; neither of which we can afford and both of which could have been avoided with an 8th grade level grasp of history and geography. But you are clearly correct.
Obama’s Decision to Seek Approval First Lengthens Suspense of Attack
LOL!
“Man, I wish Bush was the president,” he said. “He would have reacted right away. He may have invaded Cyprus or Jordan instead of Syria by mistake, but you know he would have done something at least.”
Read, your post, nodded and thought, “Yup, the Onion is spot on as usual,” then clicked on the link. Man, was I ever surprised.