Obama Declares War On Syria

[JustDoIt 10]

I just agree with scram that indiscriminate bombing sends the message we want. We wanted Ghaddafi out, he's out. Libya still sucks but nation building is a bad idea. It's going to be up to them to build a country; we are just keeping the maniacs on their toes.

 

Obama didn't destabilize Libya. It's never been stable. Statements like that are just complete Obama hating nonsense.

 

I'm sorry your right, it Obama and the coalition destabilized Libya which was a million times more stable than it is today, Ronald Reagan made sure of that.

 

Come on CainBrain you say Obama is going to eat crap, he looks like a ball in a pin ball game, Seriously. I'm sure you are a little nervous about this also. Like I said in previous post if Syria is destabilized we are in big trouble.

 

And I am not convinced the Syria did the gassing. A lot of stuff out there that points to other side.

 

Your correct if we were to do something slip in nail them and get out (do not yap about it).

[NickCave 194]

 

 

I'm sorry your right, it Obama and the coalition destabilized Libya which was a million times more stable than it is today, Ronald Reagan made sure of that.

 

Come on CainBrain you say Obama is going to eat crap, he looks like a ball in a pin ball game, Seriously. I'm sure you are a little nervous about this also. Like I said in previous post if Syria is destabilized we are in big trouble.

 

And I am not convinced the Syria did the gassing. A lot of stuff out there that points to other side.

 

Your correct if we were to do something slip in nail them and get out (do not yap about it).

 

What intelligence leads you to believe it was the rebels that used the Sarin?

[AmScray 355]

send in a military team to arrest Assad and try him for crimes against humanity.

 

 

Assads Republican Guard is 25,000 men, presently the only force allowed in Damascus (cute strategy there to avoid a sudden military coup). Please, outline just what your practical strategy is to go in and 'arrest' him.

The notion is basically child-like.

 

Wars ****ing suck. ******* dictators rise to power, then surround themselves by enormous protectionary forces that effectively eliminate the chance that anyone will ever get anywhere near them without an enormous military effort They only crawl out of rat holes once their country has been conqured. In order for us to arrive at a point where Assad is forced into a situation like Saddam or Ghadaffi where he can be 'arrested', we would have to conquer Syria and strip him of every resource available to him as commander or empower the opposition forces to do it..

 

We're sick and tired of conquering middle eastern countries, there is no 'special super-duper hero team' that can just go arrest him and he's lobbing nerve gas into suburbs, killing innocent people. Quite the pickle for left-bent idealogues who don't have the sack for war yet when humanitarian situations arise when some butthole dictator is gassing families and action is demanded, they propose we call in Spiderman to go snatch him up and deliver him to the Hague in a web.

 

And how about all those Republican doves! Gotta be 'careful', ya know. Wouldn't want to get into any military quagmires...

Faggots. Just gigantic faggots.

[AmScray 355]

I think we should re-consider black ops assassinations. No bombing, no collateral damage: you use chemical weapons and some delta punches a hole in your brain from a mile away. I don't know. Not a ton of good options.

 

It should be standard US policy.

The playbook here is Executive Order 12036 which was Jimmy Carter's bulletproofing Fords earlier EO about the same thing.

 

This policy is totally outdated and inappropriate for a world where we no longer fight nation-states but instead, fight individual villains and their minions that often times operate autonomously. Targeted assassination is *precisely* the correct policy for the kind of warfare we are fighting in 2013 and beyond. You don't wait until the dictator has risen to power, dug in and gassing his people. Just unapologetically Benigno Aquino his ass on some random runway at the first inkling he's becoming relevant and prevent the problem from ever happening in the first place.

[NickCave 194]

I wish there was more transparent game theory involved in this kind of deterrence. "If you commit x crime, we roll a 12 sided die. If it's a 1-6, we respond with a proportional bombing response. 7-9 nothing happens, 10 we assassinate your head of state and anyone else we deem responsible. 11 we carpet bomb your three most populous cities and your capitol. 12 roll again." Or something. As long as there's at least the iron-clad threat of horrible, terrifying horrible repercussions...

[JustDoIt 10]

What intelligence leads you to believe it was the rebels that used the Sarin?

6 May 2013

UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'

 

Carla Del Ponte: "I was a little bit stupefied by the first indication of the use of nerve gas by the opposition"

Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

 

Footage of chemical attack in Syria is fraud

September 06, 2013

http://rt.com/op-edge/mother-chemical-attack-footage-fraud-509/

 

Russia gave UN 100-page report in July blaming Syrian rebels for Aleppo sarin attack

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html

 

U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-officers-have-deep-doubts-about-impact-wisdom-of-a-us-strike-on-syria/2013/08/29/825dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story_1.html

 

August 29, 2013, 1:03 PM

Syria chemical weapons attack blamed on Assad, but where's the evidence?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57600624/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-blamed-on-assad-but-wheres-the-evidence/

 

Russia asks Turkey for info on sarin terrorists

6 June 2013

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/151261/russia-asks-turkey-for-info-on-sarin-

terrorists.html

 

Syrian rebels' Damascus chemical cache found by Assad army - State TV

Published time: July 14, 2013

http://rt.com/news/damascus-syria-chemical-weapons-082/

 

And there is this

 

Assad did not order Syria chemical weapons attack, says German press

 

Bild am Sonntag cites high-level German surveillance source suggesting Syrian president was not personally behind attacks

Now if they have these intercepts just release them to the world.....game set match.

 

This is interesting

Russia urges Syria hand over chemical weapons to intl control to avoid strike

Published time: September 09, 2013 14:16

http://rt.com/news/lavrov-syria-chemical-weapons-handover-615/

[JustDoIt 10]

This whole situation just sucks. The Assad regime has, and apparently has no qualms using, chemical weapons. That makes me want to support the rebels. The rebels are made up in large part by religious extremists, many of whom have ties to Al Qaeda. That makes me want to support the current regime.

 

Look, you can't let people launch Sarin rockets, even at their own people. Even if you just stomp your feel and shake your fists (and it is my intuition this is all the administration is really doing for now), you can't afford to let the issue go. I don't envy the position the administration's in. I have no idea what to do. Even if the military just blows up a few military assets, that is a de facto act of support for the rebels. Yeesh.

 

This is a great post, covered all the bases.

 

I feel there has been a lot of good points made.

CainBrain Black Ops

AmScary Getting back to no babble just action. Example Reagan with Gaddafi.

[AmScray 355]

This is interesting

Russia urges Syria hand over chemical weapons to intl control to avoid strike

Published time: September 09, 2013 14:16

http://rt.com/news/l...s-handover-615/

 

It's also impossible, or at least, impotent.

 

Sure, Assad could make a token gesture (aka, hollow action), hand over whatever strategic chemical weapons stockpile they have in case ever went to war with a neighbor (do they even have such a stockpile?) but the problem right now is not strategic chemical weapons, it's tactical chemical weapons. I doubt its even possible to control them in a situation like that once they've been dispersed and FUBAR commences.

 

It's not planes flying over and dropping chemical or crop-dusting the town with nerve gas at the behest of the president.

They're in stupid little shit like mortar and artillery shells under the command of lone field officers and shitheads, perhaps indirectly subordinate to whatever higher authority exists but still firing at will.

 

Edit: apparently Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the difference between tactical and strategic weapons purposiong but they do have a dedicated artle to TNWs, which basically explains the difference between a strategic stockpile and a field level tactical weapon be they nuclear or chemical.

 

http://en.wikipedia...._nuclear_weapon

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Six Million Displaced by War in Syria

 

An aerial view shows the Zaatari refugee camp, near the Jordanian city of Mafraq, on July 18, 2013. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spent about 40 minutes with half a dozen refugees who vented their frustration at the international community's failure to end Syria's more than two-year-old civil war, while visiting the camp that holds roughly 115,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan about 12 km (eight miles) from the Syrian border. (Reuters/Mandel Ngan

 

[SilentSnow 1]

Assads Republican Guard is 25,000 men, presently the only force allowed in Damascus (cute strategy there to avoid a sudden military coup). Please, outline just what your practical strategy is to go in and 'arrest' him.

The notion is basically child-like.

 

Wars ****ing suck. ******* dictators rise to power, then surround themselves by enormous protectionary forces that effectively eliminate the chance that anyone will ever get anywhere near them without an enormous military effort They only crawl out of rat holes once their country has been conqured. In order for us to arrive at a point where Assad is forced into a situation like Saddam or Ghadaffi where he can be 'arrested', we would have to conquer Syria and strip him of every resource available to him as commander or empower the opposition forces to do it..

 

We're sick and tired of conquering middle eastern countries, there is no 'special super-duper hero team' that can just go arrest him and he's lobbing nerve gas into suburbs, killing innocent people. Quite the pickle for left-bent idealogues who don't have the sack for war yet when humanitarian situations arise when some butthole dictator is gassing families and action is demanded, they propose we call in Spiderman to go snatch him up and deliver him to the Hague in a web.

 

And how about all those Republican doves! Gotta be 'careful', ya know. Wouldn't want to get into any military quagmires...

Faggots. Just gigantic faggots.

 

Announce that anyone who tries to defend Assad will be slaughtered. Let's see how much effort they put up defending him when we clearly are after only one person. Indiscriminate bombing is the most cowardly possible way to fight a war. Either precisely target the leaders or send in troops on the ground to actually give yourself a chance to catch them.

 

Your proposal to just bomb people is a perfect demonstration of the sociopathy and racism that I'm talking about. Maybe you get off to murdering brown people with your phallic missiles and guns, but don't pretend you are in any way making the world a better place.

[NickCave 194]

6 May 2013

UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'

 

Carla Del Ponte: "I was a little bit stupefied by the first indication of the use of nerve gas by the opposition"

Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-22424188

 

Footage of chemical attack in Syria is fraud

September 06, 2013

http://rt.com/op-edg...tage-fraud-509/

 

Russia gave UN 100-page report in July blaming Syrian rebels for Aleppo sarin attack

http://www.mcclatchy...age-report.html

 

U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria

http://www.washingto...14_story_1.html

 

August 29, 2013, 1:03 PM

Syria chemical weapons attack blamed on Assad, but where's the evidence?

http://www.cbsnews.c...s-the-evidence/

 

Russia asks Turkey for info on sarin terrorists

6 June 2013

http://www.turkishwe...-info-on-sarin-

terrorists.html

 

Syrian rebels' Damascus chemical cache found by Assad army - State TV

Published time: July 14, 2013

http://rt.com/news/d...al-weapons-082/

 

And there is this

 

Assad did not order Syria chemical weapons attack, says German press

 

Bild am Sonntag cites high-level German surveillance source suggesting Syrian president was not personally behind attacks

Now if they have these intercepts just release them to the world.....game set match.

 

This is interesting

Russia urges Syria hand over chemical weapons to intl control to avoid strike

Published time: September 09, 2013 14:16

http://rt.com/news/l...s-handover-615/

 

 

You know, I read almost every word you linked to, and very, very little of it suggested IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER that the rebels (and not the Assad regime) were the perpetrators of the Sarin attack.

 

One article's headline suggested that the Rebels' had a stock of chemical weapons, like Sarin gas, that the Assad regime found and confiscated. The article itself mentioned only one chemical: chlorine. It wasn't chemical weapons, it was just potentially dangerous chemicals.

 

One of the articles just talked about how an American military response might not have much impact, which doesn't support your assertion at all. The BBC article quotes a former war crimes prosecutor who, in early May, had "strong, concrete suspicions" that rebels had used Sarin at some point. The UN made it clear she was speaking informally and not on their behalf. She went on to say that she won't rule out the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.

 

I dunno. I could go through every article, line by line, but you get the gist. I saw absolutely nothing even remotely compelling.

 

Announce that anyone who tries to defend Assad will be slaughtered. Let's see how much effort they put up defending him when we clearly are after only one person. Indiscriminate bombing is the most cowardly possible way to fight a war. Either precisely target the leaders or send in troops on the ground to actually give yourself a chance to catch them.

 

Your proposal to just bomb people is a perfect demonstration of the sociopathy and racism that I'm talking about. Maybe you get off to murdering brown people with your phallic missiles and guns, but don't pretend you are in any way making the world a better place.

 

What are you talking about? Targeted strikes, specifically of strategic military assets, is one of the most humane, fair, proportional, whatever methods of waging war I can think of. We're not talking about carpet bombing Damascus.

 

But even if we were, suggesting that the entire country of Syria would just be all like, "Don't tase me bro here's Assad" if we threatened them is absurd. ASSAD IS THE COUNTRY. He has control of the military.

 

'Murica: "Turn over Assad or we will slaughter every last one of you because we are SUPER BRAVE AND HUMANE."

 

Assad: "If you try to turn me over, I will kill you. With Sarin gas."

 

 

The country is in the middle of a civil war. THERE ARE ALREADY PEOPLE TRYING TO KILL HIM.

 

 

What are you talking about?

[JustDoIt 10]

I dunno. I could go through every article, line by line, but you get the gist. I saw absolutely nothing even remotely compelling.

 

Response:

Wow, that was a lot of reading. Let's go over a couple of points.

 

Carla Del Ponte is a well respected world wide. I think what she was doing was forewarning everyone to cool their jets that evidence was pointing to rebels on original attract. I believe the final report will reflect this.

 

Mother Agnes: I have carefully studied the footage, and I will present a written analysis on it a bit later. I maintain that the whole affair was a frame-up. It had been staged and prepared in advance with the goal of framing the Syrian government as the perpetrator.

 

The key evidence is that Reuters made these files public at 6.05 in the morning. The chemical attack is said to have been launched between 3 and 5 o’clock in the morning in Guta. How is it even possible to collect a dozen different pieces of footage, get more than 200 kids and 300 young people together in one place, give them first aid and interview them on camera, and all that in less than three hours? Is that realistic at all? As someone who works in the news industry, you know how long all of it would take.

 

This is very interesting and can be validated. She said she would be submitting a report to the UN.

 

As far as compelling, I have seen nothing from the administration compelling.

 

In fairness I included this with out link. If this is true make it public and that definitely would be the road to game over.

 

http://www.theguardi...-not-assad-bild

 

I am having trouble trusting our goverment.

 

Obama administration had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011

September 7

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

 

 

 

 

ASSAD IS THE COUNTRY. He has control of the military.

Assad bother is the butcher running the military.

 

[timwakefield 68]

It seems to me that the whole thing is playing out exactly as Obama planned/hoped it would. We make a legitimate threat of force, Kerry makes a supposedly offhand remark about Assad giving up his chemical weapons which is Russia's cue to say to Assad hey now there's an idea, and Assad gives up his chemical weapons.

 

Obama gets to look tough and crafty and like a world leader whose own allies can't even keep up with him, Putin gets to look wise and helpful and loyal to his allies, Assad gets to look like a pragmatic non-maniac for once and also doesn't get bombed, and the weapons get destroyed.

 

It could just be a backup plan since Obama got such little international and domestic support for a military strike, but it seems to me that this was the plan all along.

[AmScray 355]

Announce that anyone who tries to defend Assad will be slaughtered.

 

My favorite part is how you said this, then...

 

Your proposal to just bomb people is a perfect demonstration of the sociopathy and racism that I'm talking about.

 

... you said this and with what I presume is a totally straight face, don't see how the two are essentially the same thing.

 

That's the problem with idealists.

They are totally, totally incompotent in the face of a problem that demands a realistic solution Their minds aren't wired to concieve of rational- even 'more likely' - scenarios outside their own idealogical realm. It eventually arrives at the point where you wonder how they can function in life being so totally detached from reality, but I guess they can. It's also a totally amusing tendancy of authoritarian leftism to propose murderous actions when it's in service to some stupid ideal. "Save the baby seal, shoot the seal hunter" types.

 

Sorry, though. While I may have sociopathic tendancies and I think you know by now you won't get any shuickin' and jivin' out of me by squealing 'racist', my proposal results in LESS bodies than yours (excluding the Spiderman scenario, but I'm pretty sure you realized how dumb that was before you even hit 'post'. I can only assume it was purely rhetorical and not an actual suggestion.) and while I don't ****ing care if we fly sortie's of AC130 gunships to strafe the refugee camps, I can still acknowledge that my own situational-sociopathy in regards to people outside my own culture isn't nessacarily the best way to manage global policy. If you'll go back and read the post, you'll notice that I've been a champion of discretion.

 

I think your ideals on "drones" are just so visceral that you don't even understand what they are. They've just become another ringing bell to your pavlovian ideal system. They perform some tasks that were once left to carpet bombing.

[AmScray 355]

It seems to me that the whole thing is playing out exactly as Obama planned/hoped it would. We make a legitimate threat of force, Kerry makes a supposedly offhand remark about Assad giving up his chemical weapons which is Russia's cue to say to Assad hey now there's an idea, and Assad gives up his chemical weapons.

 

Obama gets to look tough and crafty and like a world leader whose own allies can't even keep up with him, Putin gets to look wise and helpful and loyal to his allies, Assad gets to look like a pragmatic non-maniac for once and also doesn't get bombed, and the weapons get destroyed.

 

It could just be a backup plan since Obama got such little international and domestic support for a military strike, but it seems to me that this was the plan all along.

 

The greatest thing to come from this whole mess was Obama stopping the snowball of expanding discretionary executive powers on matters that should go through congress. He could've done this alone but he didn't, because to do that is wrong.

 

When the debate commences, there are going to be a lot of Republicans in a shit-pickle trying to reconcille their 'defense' of King Bush for all those years in the face of someone who stood up and did the right thing with impeccable intellectual consistency.

[JustDoIt 10]

My favorite part is how you said this, then...

 

 

 

... you said this and with what I presume is a totally straight face, don't see how the two are essentially the same thing.

 

That's the problem with idealists.

They are totally, totally incompotent in the face of a problem that demands a realistic solution Their minds aren't wired to concieve of rational- even 'more likely' - scenarios outside their own idealogical realm. It eventually arrives at the point where you wonder how they can function in life being so totally detached from reality, but I guess they can. It's also a totally amusing tendancy of authoritarian leftism to propose murderous actions when it's in service to some stupid ideal. "Save the baby seal, shoot the seal hunter" types.

 

Sorry, though. While I may have sociopathic tendancies and I think you know by now you won't get any shuickin' and jivin' out of me by squealing 'racist', my proposal results in LESS bodies than yours (excluding the Spiderman scenario, but I'm pretty sure you realized how dumb that was before you even hit 'post'. I can only assume it was purely rhetorical and not an actual suggestion.) and while I don't ****ing care if we fly sortie's of AC130 gunships to strafe the refugee camps, I can still acknowledge that my own situational-sociopathy in regards to people outside my own culture isn't nessacarily the best way to manage global policy. If you'll go back and read the post, you'll notice that I've been a champion of discretion.

 

I think your ideals on "drones" are just so visceral that you don't even understand what they are. They've just become another ringing bell to your pavlovian ideal system. They perform some tasks that were once left to carpet bombing.

 

LOL, sorry guys I am not biting. TimWakefield and you are pranking us right?

[timwakefield 68]

I'm pretty sure nobody is pranking anybody. We're all just that dumb. Please explain it to us.

 

I'm serious, please go ahead and explain what you think the situation is and why you think my post (and anybody else's other than the clearly insane silentsnow) was so wildly off the mark as to appear parodic.

[AmScray 355]

IMO, Kerry's comment was disposable and rhetorical.

The fact that they basically snap-called a comically bullshit proposal demonstrates that they know we are absolutely serious and there will be no chest puffing about how unafraid they are (because a puffed chest just makes a bigger target for the drones)

 

Syria is critical to Russia for many different reasons.

http://en.wikipedia....Syria_relations

 

Putin is in bed with Assad but Putin, unlike Assad, realizes that we are dead ****ing serious about removing Assad from this world if he gasses innocent people. Assad suffers from crappy little dictator superiority syndrome. His enjoyment being king of his bubble has caused him to lose perspective of just how easy his bubble would be to pop should he piss the wrong people off, which he has now done. He will not 'win' this. At this point, the best they can do is save face. As with Kennedy in Cuba, Russia was the key player here, they just blinked and Obama made them do it.

 

You mindless conservative ideaogues can chant your stupid mantras all you want but Obama is knocking shit out of the park left and right.

Health care, Bin Laden, Syria, economic recovery... Fox News talking points do nothing to undermine conclusions drawn from objective analysis on each of those issues.

 

His presidency compared to that of Bush is a spectacular embarassment for you clowns. Were it not for his apathy on reigning in domestic spying and shoring up privacy rights- also, on a more personal note, kind of appaled that he's used his executive clemency powers less than any other president in history, when there are more people than ever in need of post conviction relief given the ridiculous expansion of Federal prosecutions over the past 20 years- I'd say he would go down as an All Time Top 5 President.

He's a stone-cold lock for Top 10.

[timwakefield 68]

The biggest mark against Obama's presidency it seems to me is his aggressive attacks on whistleblowers, and the domestic spying programs. The feds have charged 8 people under the vague, outdated Espionage Act under Obama, mostly on bullshit trumped up charges (the charges against Manning and Snowden could be argued to be valid). They're basically trying to scare people into keeping silent. Only 3 other people in history had ever been charged under that act since it was enacted 100 years ago. That, combined with the NSA spying revelations (which of course he didn't enact, but he sure as hell didn't reign them in either - quite the opposite), don't paint a great picture of America The Free under Obama.

 

As shitty as all that stuff is, he's done an awful lot right.

[NickCave 194]

The biggest mark against Obama's presidency it seems to me is his aggressive attacks on whistleblowers, and the domestic spying programs. The feds have charged 8 people under the vague, outdated Espionage Act under Obama, mostly on bullshit trumped up charges (the charges against Manning and Snowden could be argued to be valid). They're basically trying to scare people into keeping silent. Only 3 other people in history had ever been charged under that act since it was enacted 100 years ago. That, combined with the NSA spying revelations (which of course he didn't enact, but he sure as hell didn't reign them in either - quite the opposite), don't paint a great picture of America The Free under Obama.

 

As shitty as all that stuff is, he's done an awful lot right.

 

This is a really tough issue for a President. No matter how you feel about about Snowden, Manning, NSA, et al, it's easy to understand why a President might want to shut that shit down, or at least do what he can to stem the tide. I happen to think Snowden made a tough, self-sacrificing decision, but he also violated a number of laws, laws which exist for very good reason.

 

I think the way President Obama handles the Snowden situation going forward will be very telling. To be fair, he's really made very little noise about it, and I honestly believe if Putin secretly offered to turn Snowden over so he could stand trial in an American court, Obama would decline. The absolute worst thing that could happen would be for the US to get Snowden back alive. That's not to say Obama doesn't have a piss poor record re: transparency, NSA nonsense, etc., but there's more to the situation than what's a matter of public record.

[brvheart 1,752]

[NickCave 194]

Were it not for his apathy on... shoring up privacy rights... I'd say he would go down as an All Time Top 5 President.

 

This is one of my biggest concerns, and I think it's a huge deal. I tend to agree with the left on almost every privacy issue, from abortion to the internet to law enforcement, and it's one of the reasons I will almost never be able to vote Republican nationally. And Obama has really, really dropped the liberal ball, here. Privacy is so important. To quote Aaron Sorkin via Sam Seaborn:

 

It's about the next 20 years. In the '20s and '30s it was the role of government. '50s and '60s it was civil rights. The next two decades are going to be privacy. I'm talking about the Internet. I'm talking about cell phones. I'm talking about health records and who's gay and who's not. And moreover, in a country born on the will to be free, what could be more fundamental than this?

 

Melodrama aside, that quote is prescient. It was written in 1999, fourteen years ago, and in the last two years we've had SOPA and PRISM. Privacy is the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats (or, perhaps more appropriately, conservatives and liberals), and that difference is the genesis of everything we tend to shout about today, so the fact that Obama has a shit privacy record is a bigger deal, I think, than you make it.

[NickCave 194]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p12cAclNCRU

 

Sweet clip, bro. Good point. Care to expound?

[brvheart 1,752]

Sweet clip, bro. Good point. Care to expound?

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/07/obama-guantanamo.html

[NickCave 194]

http://latimesblogs....guantanamo.html

 

I'm asking what your point is. I'm asking you to put his actions in context, personally, politically, historically. I'm asking you to have an opinion on the situation, to not be a link-posting parrot. What did he do wrong? Why is it bad, both in a vacuum and comparatively? Is Obama a failure because of the nature of his promises? or his inability or refusal to keep them? Is this a consistent standard you hold all politicians, regardless of party affiliation, to? WHAT DON'T YOU LIKE ABOUT HIM REALLY?

 

Make a point, man. I'm asking you to say something.