This week's New York Times is full of Syria, as the paper of record really should be at this point. Even some people we usually mock (looking at you, Frank Bruni) are turning in columns discussing the complexity and lack of good options in Syria. Perhaps the NYT has decided to adopt the official editorial policy of yr Wonkette regarding Syria, which is
The only good thing about this week&#039;s &quot;Sunday Styles&quot; is that it doesn&#039;t weigh in at 1.4 lbs (I checked), like the &quot;Style&quot; Magazine that nearly broke my toe when it thudded out of the paper last week. If I want to spend two days looking at ads, I&#039;ll go buy a copy of frickin&#039; <i>Vogue.</i>
Assad is doomed, and he knows it - hence the desperate resort to gas as a method of terrorizing civilians, who are otherwise inclined to support the opposition. He has no support outside of his Alawite coalition, and I suspect that not all of them are particularly keen to see him remain in power, however much they might want one of their own in charge. The only way to avoid decades of misery is to get rid of Assad, and replace him with someone willing to negotiate power sharing with the opposition. It would still be messy, and the far-out radicals would still be blowing shit up, as in Iraq, but I think it&#039;s the best we could hope for. Even getting to where Egypt is would be an improvement. An overt campaign to &quot;take out&quot; Assad (n.b.: not with votes) would, unfortunately, be met with frownies among the international community. Still, there&#039;s nothing wrong, IMO, with making it an attractive option for his generals. I&#039;m sure that the steady demolition of an increasing percentage of their planes and tanks by US missiles would convince them of the wisdom of taking that step.
They weren&#039;t Americans, so they don&#039;t count, any more than the 1,400 gassed by Assad. (If Syrians were 17% of the voters in his state, of course, the same attack would be mysteriously converted into an outrage against humanity.)
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Was it over when Obama won in 2012? Was it over . . . (sorry Karl, it&#039;s as over as the Ohio vote tally.)
As of this morning he does appear poised to use the War Powers Act (the 1941 one, not the 1973 one) to circumvent Congress. In which case it will be me, not the Teapers, calling for impeachment.
<i>It would be a remarkable institutional rebuke of his presidency, with unknowable consequences for the credibility of American foreign policy, not only in Syria but around the world.</i>
I&#039;m definitely missing something here.
Is this another one of those &quot;this is good news for John McCain&quot; pieces of mental masturbation? Because I don&#039;t recall hearing about Obama telling the Congress that he wanted the vote to pass, so how is it a rebuke? It&#039;s more of a &quot;you fuckers deal with this&quot; thing.
Yeah, by only reading the NYT on Sundays you missed Sam Tanenhaus&#039;s gem yesterday in which he explained that Obama is WEAK and HANDS-TIED and IS GIVING AWAY THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENCY and CEDING POWER TO CONGRESS and other awful downfally American Century Decliney things because he is asking Congress to OK the use of the American military overseas in a nondefensive action.
Meanwhile, back on Planet Zorg, Ted Cruz had this to say this morning:
&ldquo;One of the problems with all of this focus on Syria is it&rsquo;s missing the ball from what we should be focused on, which is the grave threat from radical Islamic terrorism. Just this week is the one year anniversary of the attack on Benghazi. In Benghazi, four Americans were killed, including the first ambassador since 1979.&rdquo;
The only good thing about this week&#039;s &quot;Sunday Styles&quot; is that it doesn&#039;t weigh in at 1.4 lbs (I checked), like the &quot;Style&quot; Magazine that nearly broke my toe when it thudded out of the paper last week. If I want to spend two days looking at ads, I&#039;ll go buy a copy of frickin&#039; <i>Vogue.</i>
Assad is doomed, and he knows it - hence the desperate resort to gas as a method of terrorizing civilians, who are otherwise inclined to support the opposition. He has no support outside of his Alawite coalition, and I suspect that not all of them are particularly keen to see him remain in power, however much they might want one of their own in charge. The only way to avoid decades of misery is to get rid of Assad, and replace him with someone willing to negotiate power sharing with the opposition. It would still be messy, and the far-out radicals would still be blowing shit up, as in Iraq, but I think it&#039;s the best we could hope for. Even getting to where Egypt is would be an improvement. An overt campaign to &quot;take out&quot; Assad (n.b.: not with votes) would, unfortunately, be met with frownies among the international community. Still, there&#039;s nothing wrong, IMO, with making it an attractive option for his generals. I&#039;m sure that the steady demolition of an increasing percentage of their planes and tanks by US missiles would convince them of the wisdom of taking that step.
They weren&#039;t Americans, so they don&#039;t count, any more than the 1,400 gassed by Assad. (If Syrians were 17% of the voters in his state, of course, the same attack would be mysteriously converted into an outrage against humanity.)
based on the facts and their conscience?
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Was it over when Obama won in 2012? Was it over . . . (sorry Karl, it&#039;s as over as the Ohio vote tally.)
Not to worry . . . it was between the cars. (Standing on separate cars, I suppose, might have made it pretty interesting, as these things go.)
Obama is just too damned polite
As of this morning he does appear poised to use the War Powers Act (the 1941 one, not the 1973 one) to circumvent Congress. In which case it will be me, not the Teapers, calling for impeachment.
It was open to interpretation.
I am not looking forward to the day when Wonkette&#039;s editorial position on Syria goes from ??????? to !!!!!!!.
It&#039;s harder than you think. <a href="http://images3.wikia.nocook..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080809070...">http://images3.wikia.nocook...
Given the difficulty the rightwingnuts have with math, why can&#039;t it be all of those halves?
<i>It would be a remarkable institutional rebuke of his presidency, with unknowable consequences for the credibility of American foreign policy, not only in Syria but around the world.</i>
I&#039;m definitely missing something here.
Is this another one of those &quot;this is good news for John McCain&quot; pieces of mental masturbation? Because I don&#039;t recall hearing about Obama telling the Congress that he wanted the vote to pass, so how is it a rebuke? It&#039;s more of a &quot;you fuckers deal with this&quot; thing.
amirite?
set Phasers to stunted
Yeah, by only reading the NYT on Sundays you missed Sam Tanenhaus&#039;s gem yesterday in which he explained that Obama is WEAK and HANDS-TIED and IS GIVING AWAY THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENCY and CEDING POWER TO CONGRESS and other awful downfally American Century Decliney things because he is asking Congress to OK the use of the American military overseas in a nondefensive action.
Youknow: BlahblahblahConstitutionWarPowersClause-yawn-yaddayadda-snore.
Gah.
Meanwhile, back on Planet Zorg, Ted Cruz had this to say this morning:
&ldquo;One of the problems with all of this focus on Syria is it&rsquo;s missing the ball from what we should be focused on, which is the grave threat from radical Islamic terrorism. Just this week is the one year anniversary of the attack on Benghazi. In Benghazi, four Americans were killed, including the first ambassador since 1979.&rdquo;