Thursday, August 29, 2013

For a Change Conservatives and Liberals Coming Together...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


This is a day I have long waited for. A day that gives me great satisfaction. Reasoned and reasonable liberals and conservatives in a bi-partisan fashion have sent a strong and constitutionally correct signal to the President.

Perhaps most rewarding for me is that these conservatives are finally acting like conservatives ought to be acting every time it comes to ordering military action against another sovereign nation. With extreme skepticism and caution.

Liberals, to their great credit are "bucking" their party leader. Good news from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps the ultimate outcome will be as the President seems to favor. If the President listens to the peoples representatives, whether they give or withhold Congressional approval for intervention the people have won. Just as our Founders intended.

Maybe this mood will take hold and last? Naw, not likely given the republican tendency to be the consummate party of the contrary.

The Hill - The opposition to President Obama launching unilateral military operations in Syria exploded on Thursday when dozens of liberal Democrats joined scores of conservative Republicans in warning the administration that any strikes without congressional approval would violate the Constitution.

In a letter to Obama, 53 liberal Democrats — including a long list of Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) members — argued that, while the human rights atrocities being committed by the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad are "horrific," they alone "should not draw us into an unwise war – especially without adhering to our own constitutional requirement."

"While we understand that as Commander in Chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack," reads the letter, which was spearheaded by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a former head of the CBC.

"As such, we strongly urge you to seek an affirmative decision of Congress prior to committing any U.S. military engagement to this complex crisis."

The message comes on the heels of a similar letter, released Wednesday by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), warning Obama that "national interests" alone are not enough to authorize military force without Congress's stamp of approval.

"If you deem that military action in Syria is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request," reads the Rigell letter, which has been endorsed by 140 House lawmakers, including 21 Democrats.

There is some overlap between the two campaigns; 12 of the Democrats signing the Rigell letter have also endorsed Lee's message.

The congressional pushback highlights the dilemma facing Obama as he tries to bring an end to Syria's bloody and long-running civil war.

On one hand, Obama faces increasing pressure to intervene on behalf of civilian victims amid escalating attacks, particularly since last week's alleged toxic gas assault by Assad's forces. On the other, Obama ran his first campaign for president largely on a platform of ending conflicts, not starting them. And an attack on Syria risks alienating the voters who are still holding him at his word — especially if it's done without congressional approval. {Read More}

47 comments:

  1. The 53 liberal Democrats then all urged Obama to confiscate all guns and round up those who refuse to conform and take sides as either an R or a D. Instead of using our resources to attack Syria we need to use them to round up dissenters like RN.

    Hopefully they won't come for me. I used to think I was a good partisan due to my blind allegiance to Obama and therefore safe from the tyranny of the Progressives, but I recently learned that RN and I are like two peas in a pod. SO much so that I was recently mistaken for RN on Joe Kelly's blog.

    (Thought I'd let RN know that "Steve" is talking about "out of context" remarks by RN on another blog... in case he feels the need to get on over there and defend himself).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, Dervish Sanders. I went there, I tried, but I got lost in the loops of "being a devils advocate of a devils advocate of a devils advocate" spoof and posing and satire and fake blog wars to look like real blog wars and compliments to mean insults to mean compliments. It makes my brain hurt.

      Delete
  2. The Obama of 2007 (prior to him having backed himself into a corner) would have been more than happy enough to sign that letter, too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Syria is a God awful mess. I don't think Obama really knows what to do there. I don't think anyone does.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On this we agree. Obama doesn't have any constructive idea what to do.

      Do nothing.

      Of course, siding with the rebels is siding with the organization responsible for 9/11.

      Seems Obama has backed himself into a corner though.

      Then there is the Geneva Accords. Oh my, it is a civil war.

      Meddling has consequences. When in the affairs of a sovereign nation engaged in civil war the consequences aren't usually pretty.

      Remember Viet Nam.

      I see more destabilization of an already destabilized region. Intervention will add to the instability.

      Delete
    2. "Of course, siding with the rebels is siding with the organization responsible for 9/11."

      Shows how problematic Al Queda is for the people of Syria. If AQ gets its way, they will impose a Khmer Rouge type regime that will make Assad look like the Dalai Lama in comparison. Their mere presence in the rebel movement has made so many want to avoid intervention, period.

      Delete
    3. I would oppose intervention even if Al Queda was not a factor. For what I believe is sound philosophical principles. Also in line with the Founder's position of staying clear of (avoiding) foreign entanglements. Syria is a civil war, it does not affect our interests but mark my words, intervention will have long term negative affects on the U.S. And there is history to support the statement.

      Delete
  4. From the quoted article: "The congressional pushback highlights the dilemma facing Obama as he tries to bring an end to Syria's bloody and long-running civil war."

    I doubt very much that lobbing a few missiles into the mess would "end" it. This would require, I think, a long and very harrowing invasion and occupation. I think we probably all agree (despite differences on the reasons going into it) that the "harrowing invasion and occupation" in regards to Iraq didn't go well at all. I'm not seeing any evidence that doing this in Syria would be any different or better.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If something needs to happen, let the EU take the reigns with Cameron at the helm. What is this, Team U.S.A. World Police?

    If we are given to help the victims, let us provide asylum to the refugees.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How about working with other Arab speaking Muslim nations in the region to relocate victims to other friendly Arab nations?

    It is time Team USA goes into retirement with respect to policing the world.

    ReplyDelete


  7. Just who are these "friendly Arab nations?"

    I say fill about 50 C-130's chock full of all sorts of weapons and drop them into Syria...step back and let them go at it.....it's possible in a couple years they will all be gone.

    Has anyone actually ever met a Syrian? Personally I've met a shitload of mid-eastern Arabs,but never a Syrian.And hopefully if they carry on over there I never will meet one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I realize it is VERY difficult for you neo-cons to understand this so I'll go slow.

      F r i e n d l y ---- A r a b ---- N a t i o n s ---- M e a n s ---- O t h e r ---- A r a b ---- N a t i o n s ---- F r i e n d l y ---- To ---- S y r i a.

      In answer to your rhetorical and obviously prejudicial question, YES. My ex wife's aunt was a Syrian. I wish my ex wife was more like her aunt when I was married to my ex wife.

      Ya letting it sink in Rusty?

      Delete

    3. Rusty: "Has anyone actually ever met a Syrian?"

      Rusty doesn't get out much, does he.

      Delete
    4. Likely only after daybreak when all the evil ones are in for the day.

      Delete
  8. Not sure if we have any neo-cons commenting. Are you one, Rusty?

    I know a few Syrians. I expect I might be talking to one or two of them over the weekend.

    ReplyDelete


  9. In your minds guys,what exactly is a neo-con? If caring less who kills who in Syria makes me a neo-con...then guilty as charged.

    Les,I think the only Arab nation friendly to Syria is Iran and I doubt they will be taking in any refugee's in the near future.

    And Les,I'd love to hear your ex-wife's side of the story....she may very well have wanted a bit of a manly man....rather then a talker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What side what that be Rusty? Did I tell a story? If so please wake me up to my own alleged story.

      If you would like however I may be able to hook you up with my grown adult children. Perhaps they would give you THEIR side.

      What a freaking knucklehead you are Rusty.

      Delete
    2. Iran's percent Arab population is a mere 2%:

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Arabs

      That makes Iran as much an Arab nation as the US is (as the US has an Arab population proportion in the low single digits of percentage also). The US in fact has more Arabs than Iran.

      I will be generous and assume Rusty typoed Iran when he meant to type Iraq. Is that right, Rusty??

      Delete
  10. Rusty said: " Les,I think the only Arab nation friendly to Syria is Iran..."

    Huh? Since when is Iran any kind of Arab nation at all?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct D.Luthor, it is indeed not a Arab nation. It is Persian, as in the former Persian Empire.

      Bur Rusty is shy a few ounces.

      Delete


  11. wow....I am impressed with your knowledge of arab populations. Must come in quite handy in conversations at the round table....pip,pip and all of that.

    As for Rusty,I could care less who is arab and who isn't.....what ever they are doesn't factor into my life one iota.They can shoot each other,blow each other up,spray chemicals on each other,beat each other with clubs,stab each other with knives,poison each other or put a sharp stick in each others eyes.

    I will putter on as usual and I doubt if I will give a shit if Irans arab population is 2%......although I may very well win a bet on that some day. And Les, I really don't give a shit what negative things your children have to say about their mom.....although I would love to hear the poor womans story......I'd lay 7-2 she would say "I just couldn't take his boring dinner conversations one more fucking day!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're welcome Rusty. Glad to give you a forum to vent your frustrations.

      As to your weird fixation with my prior marital relationship, I won't hazard a guess. However, I will say you are one interesting dude. You seem to enjoy and revel in the pointless.

      Delete
    2. RN said: "As to your weird fixation with my prior marital relationship, I won't hazard a guess."

      Just don't get Rusty started on axe-handles. I never could quite figure that out, but I never tried.

      Delete
    3. Axe handles can be a challenge when done manually I imagine. Perhaps Rusty cold confirm?

      Delete
  12. Rusty said: " wow....I am impressed with your knowledge of arab populations. Must come in quite handy in conversations at the round table....pip,pip and all of that."

    Very useful to have some idea who Arabs are if one is talking about a few of the major foreign policy issues of the day. Including... by some amazing coincidence... the subject of this post.

    Otherwise, one might come across like a guy who walks into a sports bar, sits down, looks up at the football game on the screen, and sez to the other guys, "So, who's pitching?".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Russ probably meant to say, Muslim countries, and not to confuse the Arabs with the Kurds, Persians, Pashtuns, Javanese, etc.. Or at least that would be my guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rusty did not mean to say that. At least not according to Dennis the printer guy. Dennis says "Rusty's comments about Arabs and Iranians were about ethnic groups, not religion". So, according to Dennis, the fact that it "is at least as ignorant to confuse Arab with Muslim as it is to confuse Arab with Iranian" now applies to Will.

      Delete
  14. Not at all. Will made a guess about Rusty's meaning... but it was WD who came right out and confused Arab with Islam. Will guessed. WD lied. Big difference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dennis the printer guy is lying. Many Arabs are Muslim (a majority, in fact), but I am not "confused" about the difference between an ethnicity and a religion. I stand by my original comment (the one from my blog). Rusty does not care about the difference between Arab and Persian due to his Islamophobia. You don't like my opinion or agree with it? That's fine, Dennis, but no need to lie about me being "confused" about things I'm not confused about.

      Funny how you scramble to come up with some excuse now that you realize your "confused" insult could apply to your buddy Will. Does not cut it IMO, but I'm sure Will will forgive you.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. You're a liar, wd. I fully know the difference between an Arab and a Muslim (Indonesia is a Muslim country and they're obviously not Arab, India has a significant Muslim population and they're obviously not Arab). My sole intention here OBVIOUSLY was to cut the Russ a little slack (he made a mistake, what are you going to do, string him up?) and why do you have to be a horse's ass/ trouble maker 24/7?

      Delete
    4. Will said: " My sole intention here OBVIOUSLY was to cut the Russ a little slack (he made a mistake, what are you going to do, string him up?)"

      Exactly. WD somehow twisted it around so much to lay blame on you? Very weird. I knew you were trying to cut Rusty some slack. It is fine. As I told WD in my correction of his wild assumptions, Rusty had said something, I called him on it: and we moved on. BIG WHOOP. Will, I knew you were being generous to Rusty, which is fine. WD is now repeatedly trying to put words in Rusty's "mouth" about Islamophobia: making wild guesses, and attacking Rusty for something Rusty never said or implied.

      (I had my own moment long ago where I misintepreted/found some racial intent in something Rusty said, and I went after him on it. It was a mistake, and let him know. I have realized since that it is something WD does all the time. Only he never apologizes, never stops.)

      Delete
    5. Rusty pushes the envelop, no question (using the word, spade, as a double entendre, for example) but on this one it sounded like an honest mistake (the vast % of the American public couldn't tell you the difference between a Persian, an Arab, a Kurd, a Pashtun, etc.), and I actually kind of like the guy. A different colored brick in the wall, so to speak.

      Delete
    6. Will: You're a liar, wd. I fully know the difference between an Arab and a Muslim...

      I said, and I quote.. Funny how you scramble to come up with some excuse now that you realize your "confused" insult could apply to your buddy Will.

      I said it COULD apply (using the logic of Dennis). I didn't say it did apply. It doesn't apply to me and it doesn't apply to you. I did not lie. I've never used any "word salads" or non sequiturs either. Those are things YOU are lying about.

      Dennis the printer guy: Exactly. WD somehow twisted it around so much to lay blame on you? Very weird.

      The blame is on you Dennis. You're the one who accused me of not knowing the difference between an ethnicity and a religion. Very weird that Will and Dennis somehow twisted a lie from Dennis into me blaming Will (which I didn't do). I only pointed out that the "confused" claim of Dennis (if true) would also apply to Will.

      Dennis the printer guy: ...making wild guesses, and attacking Rusty for something Rusty never said or implied... Only he never apologizes, never stops.

      He implied it VERY clearly. We all saw it. He went on at length about how he didn't care about people getting killed (which would include many innocents caught in the crossfire). And these people Rusty doesn't care about live in a part of the world where most are Muslim. He does not care if they are Arab. He does not care if they are Persian. So WHY doesn't he care if they die? Clearly it is because they are Muslim. Not that hard to deduce, fellas. So, tell me, why would I apologize for things I'm right about? That makes no sense.

      Delete
    7. I was trying to play peacemaker, wd. Try it sometime.

      Delete
  15. No scrambling necessary. Will made a guess. You in contrast repeatedly lie about Rusty's "Islamophobia". And what you stand by is a lie. Rusty is running circles around you on your blog. Playing you like a fiddle.

    Me? I called Rusty on something. He snapped back. RN laughed. Big whoop. The rest of us moved on... while you are putting words in Rusty's mouth and are going on and on attacking the straw-man you made. Pretty funny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I gave my genuine and honest opinion. I'm not putting words in Rusty's mouth. I read what he wrote. But you denied the racism of Darth Bacon, as well as the racism inherent in defending the Southern Strategy... so the opinion of Dennis the printer guy is not one I listen to on such matters. And Rusty making inane comments on my blog is him playing me like a fiddle? Now, THAT Is funny.

      Delete
  16. Rusty did what? I've already forgotten....

    ReplyDelete
  17. Given the tenor of this thread comments are now closed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Will: I was trying to play peacemaker, wd...

    Yeah, I could see very clearly that you were trying to smooth things over after Rusty made an ass of himself here. Will was being a "peacemaker" between Rusty and RN/Dennis... all his conservative buddies. No way he would ever try to be a "peacemaker" between RN/Dennis/himself and ME. That's when Will breaks out the anti-peacemaking insults and lies... like word salads and non sequiturs and going along with shithead accusations from Joe Kelly (adding "monstrous" in front of that absurd accusation). But Will likes the bigoted brick in the wall because their thinking is very similar on fiscal matters.

    Dennis TPG: I think we probably all agree (despite differences on the reasons going into it) that the "harrowing invasion and occupation" in regards to Iraq didn't go well at all.

    I agree, it did not go well. Nor did the one in Afghanistan, yet for some reason the gang here supported that harrowing invasion and occupation. Although some will protest and say the occupation part was a portion of that they opposed... I say we could have avoided it by not going there at all. I'm consistently against any invasion and large scale use of ground troops and occupations. I've said so on many occasions and been attacked on many occasions for this position.

    RN: Syria is a civil war, it does not affect our interests...

    Some might say it effects our "interests" as humans and as part of humanity when innocents are being killed. Analyzing the quoted statement from RN, I'm thinking the reason RN wants us to steer clear -- it might be due to the lack of empathy inherent in the self-centered cult of Objectivism? I'm sure RN will say I am wrong, but what then, pray tell, does explain RN's position? Personally I don't know what the answer is, but standing by and doing absolutely nothing (especially given the fact that one of the reasons we went into Iraq was to "liberate" people) can't be the answer. As I recall there were many on the Conservative side who cited Saddam's killing of his own citizens as an extremely good justification for taking action (Will Hart, Dennis and others).

    In any case this discussion seems a mighty good opportunity for the Obama haters to attack him for drawing red lines (that were actually drawn by others in the international community on the issue of the use of chemical weapons long before Obama was elected president) and "backing himself into corners". So that's a good thing for you, I guess. Explains the title of this post. The RN gang is quite happy when everyone can come together to criticize Obama.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're full of shit wd, but then everybody knows that all ready.

      Yep, when the decision is made and the die cast you support the troops. PERIOD.

      By the way, I don't have a gain nor am I a sheeple.

      How about you?

      Delete
    2. wd is lying through his teeth on this one. As he knows I was fully against the Iraq war FROM DAY ONE and well before John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton turned against it. Les and I are the consistent ones on this issue and wd the partisan stooge who suddenly supports military action simply because a Democrat has backed himself into a corner (much like he did in Afghanistan). Shameless.

      Delete
    3. And, yes, the use of chemical weapons is a violation of international law but it's Obama who's making the threats of retaliation here. He's the one who set this specific red line and it's him who's potentially getting us into a civil war (much like LBJ did in Vietnam).......I also find wd's sudden concern for civilians uproarious. Saddam and his sons were torturing and raping civilians like madmen and he didn't give a rat's ass about that.......And what exactly does wd think that the Syrians are going to do in response? Not attack Israel? Not attack Jordan? Not go after the civilians with even more impunity? Not try and drag Iran and Hezbollah into the mix? It sounds to me as if wd has thought about this about as much as Obama has - not much!

      Delete
    4. And just for the record, I've defended Jerry. I've defended Marcus. I've defended Weiner. I've defended John Myste. I've defended Durbin. I've even defended Ema (whose thanks was to attack me even more). wd's assertion that I only defend conservatives is yet another patent lie.

      Delete
  19. Will is shamelessly canardo-ing through his teeth on this one. I DO fully know he was against the Iraq war and my prior comment does not suggest anything else (even though he has written numerous posts defending George bush and denying obvious canardo-ing from bush about WMD). Nor does my comment say I support military action against Syria (at least an invasion. Anything short of that I'm going to wait and see what it might be before judging). That does not stop Will from canardo-ing and saying I do. And despite this obvious lie the Canardos RN and Dennis will likely believe him. President Obama has NOT backed himself into a corner. This is a talking point Will is using to attack Obama because of his dislike for him, nothing more. Another factor could have something to do with his defense of Rusty. Rusty didn't care about innocents dying, and it appears as though Will (along with the other Canardos) do either. I've brought it up a few times and nobody responded, at least.

    Will canardoed: [1] Saddam and his sons were torturing and raping civilians like madmen and he didn't give a rat's ass about that... [2] wd's assertion that I only defend conservatives is yet another patent lie.

    [1] Not true. [2] Those words aren't in any comment I've submitted. You certainly view your fellow Conservative more favorably. It's obvious to me and it's obvious to others (I've discussed it with a commenter on your blog via email). I never used the absolute "only". I only point out the truth of your bias (in favor of your Conservative canardo-ing buddies).

    RN: ...when the decision is made and the die cast you support the troops. PERIOD.

    I support them by calling for them to be brought home. I don't know what RN considers "support". I'd ask him to explain, but he only asks questions and rarely answers them. Or he gives a non-straight answer full of carnados.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.