So what? That was politics. I am NOT unilaterally an Obama supporter, but his
job should be to act to do what is right not worry about being called a
"flip flopper". Stop making this about politics. If Syrians are
killing each other by the hundreds of thousands I think I would commit troops
even if it was the one thing I said I would never do, because it is the right
thing to do. Stopping Genocide >>>>>> name calling.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Progressives (or ANY politician for this matter)
DO NOT flip-flop. They evolve...
What does Obama care? To him there is no constitution. There is no law. There
is no congress. There is only the golf course.
@ Foxtrot,The point of the article calling Mr. Obama a "flip
flopper" is not directed at his willingness to employ US forces in punitive
action against the Assad regime, it is directed at the way he purports to do it,
by side-stepping congress as required by the War Powers Resolution. This is in
direct contradiction to his strong criticism of former President Bush. This is
but another in a long list of significant miscues Mr. Obama would be committing
with respect to inappropriate use of executive power.I agree with
you in that if he and congress agree that it needs to be done, so be it. But he
needs to do it the way it is constitutionally mandated to be done.
So how many have been wounded, disabled, or killed? Several thousand? The AMA,
FDA, BigPharma and oncologists do that and more day in and day out using the
chemical warfare known as Chemotherapy. How many lives have been scarred by
this barbaric and failed 'treatment' here at home? Different motives?
How about greed and power. I can't say the prescription drug industry has
any better track record. But ask your doctor about alternatives - in the
'Land of the Free' he is under a gag order. Go figure.
There are so, so many other things that Obama criticized Bush for, which he is
now doing himself. Someone should compile a list of them, or write a book about
This is a no win situation for republicans in congress. If he goes through them
first and they agree to allow action against Syria then their base will crucify
them for working with Obama and agreeing with him on something. If they do not
authorize action then they are siding with Assad and they get to own every
action he takes against a civilian populace. The only "win" for
republicans is if he doesn't go to congress for authorization, then they an
criticize whatever action he does take, either way.
And so goes his entire presidency, a big flip flop. He will say ANYTHING to get
elected and then do as he pleases.
Foxtrot--flip-flop. Biden also. flip-flop.Syria has done nothing
to us. May be they should bomb us for the killings in Chicago, Detroit,
Philadelphia, L.A, etc.Attacking Syria would be helping the Muslim
Brotherhood gain power.
Let's see. In Iraq you had a renegade, leader that was destabilizing the
middle east who invaded other countries at will, used chemical weapons on his
own people and those of surrounding countries and an oil interest. And the
liberals say that was wrong to use military force there. In Syria you have no
outside threat, no oil interests and a leader trying to control his subjects.
Hey, lets march!Let's help the rebels so they can bomb our
embassy afterwards. No wait, that's not right. Um, lets send the rebels
military aid like the Muslim Brotherhood so they can shoot their own people.
Oops, maybe that's not right either. How about we just stay the heck out of
I too, have wondered if Obama feels the least bit ashamed or embarassed for now
doing the same thing he criticized Bush for.A good way to take his
mind off his "flip-flops", (I thought ONLY Romney did that)would be to
go play a round of golf.
As with President Bush, as with President Obama, as with virtually any
president. All evolve, all flip-flop over time, as the demands of the office and
dealing with real problems often require a reversal of campaign promises and
priorities, to do what must be done during their presidency in fulfilling their
responsibilities. We wish them all well and pray on their behalf.
Obama has repeatedly shown complete disdain for the Constitution's
separation of powers provisions. More than any prior President, he has become a
law unto himself. His actions and statements evince his belief that Congress and
the powers granted that branch by the Constitution are a mere inconvenience as
he moves forward to implement whatever edict happens to suit his fancy at the
moment.I don't know if the Constitution "hangs by a
thread" at the moment, but it certainly will at some point unless the
Supreme Court or Congress itself steps forward to stop this constant usurpation
of authority by the executive.
When The President made his first comments, he wasn't the President. He
knows more now about the situation and how things work. Totally
This President is supposedly a Constitutional lawyer but maybe doesn't know
international law or knows enough to get around the Chemical Weapons Convention
treaty that is in-force in the United States of America as a signatory with
President William Clinton's signature on it. This treaty was made with
certain protocols for situations such as this. He has had 12 months since his
red line was drawn in the sand and he has several times he could have done
something prior to now. Benghazi was within days of the first communication
during the campaign and convention time. He couldn't be bothered by that
and didn't need to be as he could have had Ambassador Rice push the
situation with the United Nations. However, she was too busy making a defense
on all forms of media for Benghazi and that fiasco.
So let me get this straight....If Bush invades a foreign country who
(by virtually EVERY civilized country (go look it up), deemed Iraq a threat to
America and the western world) it was really invaded for oil.If
Obama invades a foreign country who is NOT deemed a threat to America or the
western world, it's a righteous and holy action entirely justified.Riiiiight......And here I thought only Romney
Paco--evil is not understandable. Attacking another country that is not a
threat to us is evil.Will somebody please get Obama back on a golf
I voted against Romney because he talked about getting us into more wars. So I
voted for Obama and we got the biggest war monger in the history of our country.
Reminds me of when we voted for LBJ in 1964 because we were told Goldwater would
get us in war, and of course LBJ got us into a disastrous war that we lost. So what's the point of voting when both parties have the same
failed foreign and war policy? Is there anyone out there opposed to such
international aggression and national betrayal? Who do we vote for in the future
to stop this insanity? Eisenhower was right about the military industrial
complex running the country.
I'm just rolling on the floor laughing at all the Obama supporters lame
lame lame excuses for him. He really has them fooled.
This wasn't already done with Libya? I feel like the writer is a couple
years late on thinking this...
One by one Obama changes his positions and promises. And yet the sheep keep
following him. I just don't get it.Obama's
defenders will support him no matter what he does or doesn't do.
Wow the bubble around here is tight. Line after line of hate Obama and deriding
the Obama supporters..oh wait there aren't any in this thread..man habits
are hard to break.Oh by the way ya all lost.
A "flip-flop," really? How is Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical
weapons on his own people not an "actual or imminent threat"? George
Bush never found Iraq's chemical weapons. Barack Obama found Syria's
chemical weapons in the lungs of dead children.
pragmatistferlifesalt lake city, utahWow the bubble around here is
tight. Line after line of hate Obama and deriding the Obama supporters..oh wait
there aren't any in this thread..man habits are hard to break.Oh by the way ya all lost.Yes, our guys lost but your guy won
through deceit. All I hear when you ATL1 and the rest of you speak right now is,
"When Bush does something it is a war crime and should be prosecuted. When
Obama does the same thing he should be awarded another Nobel Peace Prize and
given the presidency for life."I really wish an adult were
Obama incorrectly stated, an offensive video caused the violence at Benghazi,
taxes won't go up, deficit will be cut in half, and he won't sign any
legislation which would add a dime to the debt.Now Assad says
they're not using chemical weapons, and Obama says they are!America the great, has a president which spends hundreds of millions of tax
payer money on vacations, and can't be trusted to tell the truth.
@photografr7Obama's actual quote says "actual or imminent
threat to the nation." To the nation. No one here is condoning the use of
chemical weapons, and I think everyone here agrees that the killing needs to
stop. The constitutional question is whether the USA is threatened by
Syria's civil war, and I don't believe that has been demonstrated.More importantly, your second point is made with the benefit of
hindsight. At the time that the case was being made for invading Iraq, everyone
believed that the WMDs were "a slam dunk." Would you say that the
Syrian government's use of chemical weapons is "a slam dunk"?
Answer carefully, this is not the same question as "were chemical weapons
used by someone?".
1. I was against Bush/Cheney starting wars in Iraq/Afghanistan.2. I was
against Romney wanting to go to war in Syria and Iran.3. I'm against
Pres. Obama considering another war in Syria for the same reasons.WE
are not being attacked by Syria.I stand by my principles and
integrity.Any conservatives accusing Pres. Obama of Flip-Flopping is
no different than they are accusing him of being [Bush war good, Obama war bad],
which makes them the biggest hypocrites.BTW - Who was the one who
set the precedence? Oh ya- it was Bush and the Republicans.Ya -
As of today, WHO deployed the chemical weapons remains an open question. Best
assessment I've heard is that the rebels have gotten their hands on them
and are trying to get the U.S. and others to attack Assad and overthrow him so
they will win. THEY by the way are people just as bad as the Assad regime. We
have two factions fighting each other, both of whom hate the U.S. and are
terriorists. Let them fight it out and we stay out.
LDS LiberalAnd so now you should be against Obama and any wars he
gets us into. I was at least honest about the wrong direction of Bush wars.
And any Democrats who support Obama in this will be equal to any Republicans who
oppose Obama but supported Bush. So both will be equal as hypocrites.
It's great to talk about all the politics involved, who is fighting who,
and how we should do nothing about it because "they" are our enemies.What about the innocent victims involved? Men, women, and children who
did not ask for this but are paying the consequences for others'
actions.There currently is no good answer to helping these people,
but it got a lot more complicated when we stood by watching at the beginning of
this conflict before terrorist organizations got involved.If you
were one of the US revolutionaries, and you received aid from a party, you would
want to stay loyal to that party, treating them as an ally. These people have
received aid from Al Qaeda, so when the dust settles who will they see as their
ally and who will they see as their enemy?
Legality – it means nothing to the BO cabalThe current
build-up of Russian forces in the Mediterranean speaks volumes about the level
of respect they have for BO and how much he has improved relations.RG,There’s not enough paper or ink to meet the requirements for
the book you proposePragmatist,Yep, and everyday BO remains in
office, the country loses even more. But of course, I see no defense from you
for his obvious flip-flops. You cannot defend the indefensible, so you go on the
attack.LDS?libYOU can criticize BO, but we cannot? Who is the
hypocrite?Who set the precedent? JFK and LBJ – THEY sent you
to ‘nam. Ya hypocrites.DN moderator, these are the same words
and same context LDS?lib used. Your blocking of them while leaving his comment
makes no sense whatsoever.
LDS Liberal1. I was against Bush/Cheney starting wars in . . .
Afghanistan.When Liberals say that we started in a war in
Afghanistan I stop listening to everything else that they say, because clearly
they have no sense of history. WE, AMERICANS, were attacked by people
headquartered in Afghanistan. The justification for President Bush to go to war
in Afghanistan was probably the clearest example to go to war in the history of
our nation. Perhaps even more than World War 2 when only our military was
attacked. No, civilians by the thousands were killed, with the promise of
future actions to be forthcoming. No, whenever Liberals say "George Bush
started a war in Afghanistan" they are either being disingenuous or
astonishingly misinformed, and therefore can no longer be trusted in whatever
conclusions they reach.In addition, LDS liberal conveniently
misstates the reasons why conservatives called Obama a hypocrite. After coming
just short of calling Bush guilty of War Crimes, and saying how different he
would be in his campaigns, here he is having attacked Libya and now wanting to
proceed on to Syria. THAT is rank hypocrisy. (Bush started the war
on Afghanistan? Talk about rewriting history. . .)
@Red Headed Stranger"When Bush does something it is a war crime and
should be prosecuted. When Obama does the same thing he should be awarded
another Nobel Peace Prize and given the presidency for life."Except it's not the same thing. One of the two (Iraq and Syria) is
actively slaughtering their people. One of the two is actively using chemical
weapons. One of the two (presidents) proposed a ground invasion. By
the way... Bush's war crime was violating the international laws against
torture.Oh and one more thing... I oppose intervening in Syria. @worf"deficit will be cut in half"Actually the
projected deficit for this year is expected to be around half of what it was in
2009 (don't confuse deficit with the national debt, the deficit is the
total for the one year).
Flip flopper ? Liar? Arrogance and Stupidity? All fit our campaigner
n chief. This Jimmy Carter clone is even less than little Jimmy in his grasp of
foreign affairs and his unmatched arrogance.
LDS Liberal-you're a funny guy. Still blaming Bush.If I cheat
on my wife,--I can blame Clinton for setting the precedence.I can do
anything I want, and not be at fault, because someone set the precedence.Typical liberal.
Three of a kind, Obama, Biden, Kerry, all on record that Bush II did not have
power to unilaterally go to war in Middle East. BUT that was before they were
put into power. Three of a kind beats two of America.