Yesterday, lamenting the horrible media coverage of this whole Syria mess, I wrote the following:
Is it just me, or has the entire media coverage of this Syria debate amounted to little bit more than a bunch of scribes with tape measures in a dick measuring contest? “Obama’s up! Obama faltered! Obama’s aloof! Obama got owned by Putin! Obama is weak!”
Who honestly gives a shit? Is the Syria strike necessary, do we know for sure who launched the chemical attack if there was one, will the American strike accomplish any tangible goals and shape the outcome of the civil war, if so, is that a good thing, and how much blowback and how many innocents are we going to kill?
That’s all that fucking matters. Jesus.
I thought it was a pretty straightforward post. The coverage has been horrible, and if you are going to run around advocating a strike on Syria for using chemical weapons, whether the President is winning or losing or aloof or weak or whatever bullshit they have been tossing at Obama, I think the following questions should be pretty relevant and noncontroversial:
1.) Is the strike necessary?
2.) Was there a chemical attack for sure?
3.) If so, do we know who launched it?
4.) What are our goals with a strike?
5.) Will this change the outcome of the civil war?
6.) If so, is that a good thing?
7.) What about blowback and collateral damage?
I think that is a pretty reasonable series of questions. I’m not sure how anyone could read that and think I am now Alex Jones, but here are the response from some of you addle-minded dickheads:
Tin foil hat territory. What a fucking looney.
Ask Doctors Without Borders if there was an attack, or don’t you trust those fucking warmongers?
The anti-strike people have written their own 10th season of the X Files. They just make up shit about “well what if aliens showed up and gassed all those people?”
A bunch of fucking morons. Cole should probably just sign the blog over to somebody saner and hang it up.
Yikes “if there was one”. Loony.
For those of you wondering why I don’t read every single comment and respond to them, this is why. Wankers.
And for the record, I suspect there was a chemical attack. I suspect there will probably be more. I’m just going to wait for the UN Report before I go all in on another military adventure just because John Kerry has been running around with his pants on fire for the last three weeks.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
I thought my comment was pretty good.
ETA: Wait, I think that about all of my comments! never mind
beth
And this is why I read BJ. It’s like having my much loved, but very cranky, grandfather back.
Baud
I didn’t comment about your questions in that thread, but I think folks were reacting to questions 2 and 3. 2 is, I thought, undisputed at this point. Although 3 is still disputed by some, it seems like the evidence is all going one way.
Derelict
Probably the only way to stay sane, John. Especially with so many commenters who apparently suffer from extremely poor reading comprehension and reasoning skills.
Ted & Hellen
Fucking Racist Firebagger
Betty Cracker
Cole, whatever you do, man, DO NOT READ the comments in the post under this one.
Villago Delenda Est
1.) Is the strike necessary? (John McCain says it is, he needs to hear BOOM!)
2.) Was there a chemical attack for sure? (this one is a YES)
3.) If so, do we know who launched it? (um…Mossad says it was Assad, and if you ask anything else, shut up that’s why)
4.) What are our goals with a strike? (invoices sent by bomb manufacturers, I think)
5.) Will this change the outcome of the civil war? (Probably not)
6.) If so, is that a good thing? (Well, from John McCain’s perspective, a bunch of whackaloon Sunni murderous jihadis are preferable to Baathist types who are secular and lean socialist)
7.) What about blowback and collateral damage? (we never worried about that before, why should we start now?)
Baud
@Betty Cracker:
That’s some awesome psyops there, Betty.
Ex Regis
You suspect there was a chemical attack? Then it has to follow that you are suspicious that the president was telling the truth when he said the US had hair and tissue samples (from first responders) that tested positive for sarin.
Why do you suspect that the president might be lying?
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@beth: John may be old, burnt out and on the scary downhill side of life but he still has one good post a week in him easy.
Baud
You also cited three comments by two people in a thread with 336 comments in it. I don’t care whether you read the comments or not, but that seem like a silly reason not to.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
Your commentariat takes after you. There isn’t a single thing you yell at us about that you do on a fairly regular basis.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Betty Cracker:
John, before you ban Martin again, you sh
Ah, fuck it, go ahead.
Baud
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN):
“Who taught you how to do this stuff?”
“From you, dad. I learned it from watching you!”
Jane2
First, listen to Betty.
You are absolutely correct regarding the questions that should be asked, but were not. The US media is most comfortable when it has black and white issues and winners and losers. It’s been a long time since analysis or actual investigative journalism was the norm, and my only solution is to make my house a cable-news free zone.
Unfortunately, it’s just as easy for many commenters to fall into the same trap. I’ve just ignored the Syria-related threads because they’re full of way too many people spewing polemic and crapping on anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
jenn
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): totally off-topic, but how was China?!
Davis X. Machina
@Ex Regis: Mossad got to Obama. Them and AIPAC. And the oil companies. And his own innate sociopathy.
It’s really very simple. It’s always very simple.
One of the few things left shared by both left and right….
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud: To be fair, it is hard to get a good rant out of mild disagreement.
Comrade Dread
Is the strike necessary? Depends. Is it necessary in the context of US interests or helping Syrian civilians? No. Is it necessary to make some folks feel like they have the biggest dicks on the block? Yeah.
Was there a chemical attack for sure? All signs point to yes.
Do we know who launched it? Well… Russia says the rebels based on the fact that their a patron of Assad’s. Germany supposedly says that it has intel that says that Assad explicitly denied a request to use chemical weapons from one of his officers and the officer did it anyway. And the US, of course, which has never met a Middle Eastern country it didn’t want to deliver small surgical strikes to, says Assad probably pushed the launch button himself.
What are our goals? Showing we have a big dick. Certainly not punishing Assad directly or the officers that fired the CWs.
Will this change the outcome of the civil war? Maybe. It depends on what we would hit and how Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Russia, and Israel would respond. We could have a war that spills out of Syria with casualties that would make the current 100,000 seem like chump change.
Is this a good thing? Emphatic no.
Blowback? We never, ever experience blowback from our actions in the Middle East and only an American hating pansy liberal would suggest such a thing.
Mino
Plus John Kerry went to sit in the lap of Henry Kissinger… Kissinger, for god’s sake. I can’t breathe.
Baud
@Omnes Omnibus:
I guess we’ll just have to wait for the UN report to determine whether, in fact, a substantial number of dickish comments were aimed at Cole in that thread.
Mike E
And the Great Orange Sofa fire blazes on! I thot leather was moar fire resistant…
burnspbesq
@Baud:
If my facebook wall is to be believed, there seems to be a lot of overlap between people who dispute 3 and 9/11 truthers.
Ash Can
Considering that Doctors Without Borders, the UN, and Human Rights Watch all agree that a chemical attack did take place, and have photographic evidence, I’m inclined to believe them. Your other questions, IMO, are entirely valid and necessary.
Schlemizel
I gave up a month or two ago. I don’t remember the issue but I just realized I was having the same conversation over and over and over and over, For some reason people seem to be incapable of assuming good intent from others on the internet and unwilling to have an actual discussion when rage & snark are simpler. Its not just this place its everywhere.
As for your caution now John I will add this: you have explained and apologized for your past sins so I hold no grudge against you; this is aimed at the bloodthirsty assholes whole couldn’t wait 2 weeks to get our war on with Iraq. Where the fuck were all you skeptical, cautious mother fuckers in 2003? Seems the best way to slow down the rush to war is by having a Democrat in the White House.
Belafon
Well, I haven’t really sounded like the people you quoted, even though I have generally supported the idea of a strike because, well, the video and evidence from groups like Doctors without Borders has been pretty substantial. At the same time, I haven’t been in the bomb yesterday crowd. I think Obama and Kerry have done a pretty damn good job, considering that the world went from “Oh well, chemical weapons were used in Syria” to “Syria has decided to sign the chemical weapons ban and turn over its weapons.” And they did it without firing a missile because Obama made it clear he was willing but stalled long enough that he didn’t need to.
And I have yet to see an FPer go “Oh wait, that actually looks like diplomacy, and not the fuck-up we all got used to under Bush.”
So, yes, while we all type to consider your hypotheticals and feelings, I’ll just enjoy being right about Obama doing his damn job and getting Syria to agree to taking steps about their weapons and, more importantly, getting the world back on the “chemical weapons are bad” wagon. And once again, WITHOUT DROPPING A SINGLE BOMB!
Baud
@burnspbesq:
Who the fuck are you friends with?
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
John, let’s get rid of all the commenters and start over like in the good old days when it was just me, your mom and all of DougJ’s sockpuppets. Remember how much fun it was? It can be fun again!
Ripley
Fucked that up for you.
Mnemosyne
I guess I’m not getting why these questions are urgent and necessary to be answered right the fuck now now now since we’re not, you know, getting ready to bomb Syria. We’re in the midst of negotiations that will hopefully avoid bombing. So why exactly do we have to rewind back to the events of two weeks ago and ignore current developments, again?
Omnes Omnibus
@Comrade Dread: I think there is a preliminary question to be asked: What is Obama’s goal in all of this? I think there are two goals. First, to remove chemical weapons from the Syrian civil war. Second, to establish that one cannot violate the international norm against chemical weapons use without consequences.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
Baud, Burns isn’t like you. He has needs that only bad people can help him with.
burnspbesq
@Belafon:
Well, slow down just a bit there. Assad delivered what Ezra referred to as his “ransom note” earlier today, and if he’s serious about that (as opposed to it being an opening gambit), we are pretty far from “yes.”
Villago Delenda Est
@burnspbesq:
This is to be expected, because the problem is, this question (who launched the CW attack) is central to the entire magilla, and trust in “authority” has been greatly corroded by crap like Vietnam, Iran-Contra, 9-11, Afganistan, and Iraq. Not to mention hundreds of other “official explanations” that do not serve to explain, but instead serve to cover ass.
Which is what makes this whole thing so contentious…and opens up the door to “skepticism” that is in fact cover for self interest.
jl
Huh, I thought Jesus wrote that post and Cole just put it up.
We need more transparency on this miserable lefty blog.
“I’m just going to wait for the UN Report”
Obama said he was going to do that too. Why does Obama hate Obama?
Mnemosyne
@Belafon:
Yep. They were more to happy to hit the panic button over public posturing about potential bombings, but now that the bombings aren’t going to happen, they’re still obsessing over them and can’t seem to register the fact that the bombing is not, in fact, going to start in five minutes and has been postponed indefinitely. Is it a form of PTSD?
kindness
John discovers who his regulars are. Hey John. Just don’t pull a Sully and have an e-mail link to you on the front page. Friendly advice.
joes527
@Ash Can: You have read the UN report, have you?
Baud
@Omnes Omnibus:
Obama’s stated goals seem pretty clear. I guess you can argue about whether there are hidden goals, whether the stated goals can be achieved, or whether they are worth the effort, but I don’t get why people are having difficulty fathoming what the goals are.
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
I don’t do the whole Facebook thing, so I’m curious who one ends up with certain people on their wall.
burnspbesq
@Baud:
Some OG Firebaggers that I can’t be bothered to unfriend because they occasionally amuse me.
Villago Delenda Est
@Omnes Omnibus:
I would agree with those two points as Obama’s goals. The fact that McCain has his panties in a fucking knot because Obama isn’t supporting McCain’s al Qaeda buddies in their fight against the Shiite fuckwad Assad indicates that Obama’s concerns are separate from “who wins” in Syria.
srv
Doctors w/o Borders is not providing a First Hand statement here. So while they have full confidence in their reporting partners, perhaps it would not be outrageous to wait until the UN report before Courtesy Bombing.
Baud
@burnspbesq:
OG = Old girlfriends?
Villago Delenda Est
@Baud:
He’s Obama. His goals have nothing to do with what he stated as goals, his goals are reparations for slavery, or where are the white women at, or everyone will be paraded before a death panel if they renew the prescription, or something like that.
Omnes Omnibus
@srv: I haven’t noticed any “Courtesy Bombing” going on right now.
ranchandsyrup
You should take your Greenwald in Steve’s cat tree for succor and avoid all of this nastiness. But I joke around too much.
different-church-lady
@Baud: Yeah, but to be fair, the other 333 comments were about Greenwald.
SiubhanDuinne
Luckovich is so goddamn good.
Keith P
Was there every any definitive word on what’s going on with John Kerry’s face? I can’t tell if it’s swollen, or he’s taking HGH, or he’s got that disease the kid from Mask had or what, but it is unsettling to see someone like that talking while their face remains still.
cleek
@Schlemizel:
ding ding ding.
Ash Can
@Belafon: Given the fact that Obama is such a legal wonk, I wasn’t surprised to see him adamant about upholding a treaty. That didn’t mean I wasn’t cringing at the thought of bombs dropping as a result, though, even though I would trust him far more than W or Romney or — oy — McCain to at least make an attempt to make the strike as surgical as possible.
Omnes Omnibus
@Villago Delenda Est: If those are the goals, then shouldn’t any moves by the administration be judged by how well they advance those goals? Any analysis that doesn’t do this is automatically going to be off base.
Baud
@Keith P:
I have the same question. It’s freaky.
Mnemosyne
@srv:
We are waiting. Did you miss the news?
That’s what’s so weird to me — people are still acting as though bombing is imminent when what’s actually happening is that negotiations have opened and will probably continue for at least a few weeks. Why are people still convinced that bombs will start flying immediately?
burnspbesq
@Baud:
OG = original gangsta. We’re talking pre-Ned Lamont, when you could actually have more than one point of view in a comment thread over there.
geg6
Okay, Cole…
1) I don’t know and I’ve said that from the start.
2) Yes, pretty indisputable IMHO.
3) Not for sure but the evidence and common sense says Assad and/or his military did it.
4) Well, there isn’t going to be an imminent strike. Now that Putin has pretty much gone all in with his NYT editorial as the guarantor of Syria not doing it again, the goal has changed. If it happens again, I would expect there would be a UN or some sort of international coalition, of which the US would be a part, that would decide whether to make a strike against military installations that have CW capability.
5) No and I don’t think that was ever the goal.
6) I don’t know because I never considered that an option.
7) I don’t know just like neither you or I know the blowback or collateral damage that would result from allowing CWs to be used like any other conventional weapon.
You’re nuts if you question that CWs were used. Seriously nuts.
Meanwhile, I know I wanted to know how you feel about your good buddy GG directing people to the Oathkeepers’ praise for his and Snowden’s shenanigans and hiding who and what they are. You didn’t read far enough to get to that, I guess.
Baud
@Mnemosyne:
C’mon, M. Don’t be naive. Syria is practically our 51st state.
Villago Delenda Est
@Omnes Omnibus:
Hey, you expect the asswipes of the Village to be that thoughtful? C’mon, man, this isn’t fucking military science where you actually give two shits about the lives of your subordinates. This is the VILLAGE!
patroclus
The comment about “if there was a chemical weapons strike” really detracted from the post because I don’t think Doctors Without Borders is lying and implying that they are is insulting to the BJ commentariat.
This one is far better because John actually suspects that there was a chemical weapons strike rather than just throwing out the possibility that Doctors Without Borders is just a bunch of liars. Granted, we should await the UN inspectors’ report, but they aren’t going to affix blame because of an inadequate mission. Yes, the coverage has been horrible and those are all reasonable questions; which deserve real answers; most of which have not been provided. Personally, I don’t think some bombing is going to accomplish all that much, which is why I want this latest diplomatic track to bear fruit – and every effort should be made to see if it can.
Jane2
@geg6: Why does John Cole have to justify or answer to everything Glenn Greenwald does?
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Keith P:
My guess is it got a little physical inside the tomb when Kerry was being reminded of his oath.
Omnes Omnibus
@Villago Delenda Est: No, I don’t expect that of them. All they can do is call a horse race. I would think that Cole was capable of acknowledging this line of thinking.
jl
@geg6:
‘ UN or some sort of international coalition, of which the US would be a part, that would decide whether to make a strike against military installations that have CW capability. ‘
I think Putin has explicitly ruled out that option as part of deal. Putin seems to be OK with US threatening a unilateral strike, though he will yell about it as being illegal and unwise.
So, Putin implicitly is saying that he will go ahead with diplomacy with a threat of force in the background, but not once officially sanctioned by the UN, or part of a UN deal.
Edit: that may be too subtle for corporate media talking heads and some other people. But if Putin is sincere, I think the message is very clear to Assad, that he better co-operate on getting Syria of the sh*tt*r or he will get hit.
patroclus
@Jane2: John doesn’t have to do anything, but he’s gone so all in for Dear Leader Greenwald that it would be interesting to see how he responds to GG’s evident blindness as to who they are.
Keith G
A point of view you share with John Cornyn. (my embolden)
There was an attack. It was one of many launched by the Assad regime over many months.
If you get to the point where trust that there was an attack, but you don’t think it was Assad’s military, then you share a point of view Hannity, or O’Reilly, or is it Limbaugh.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Jane2: Jane, if you have to ask a ridiculous question like that there’s a very good chance the answer won’t make any sense to you.
Omnes Omnibus
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: Skull and Bones reference, nice.
Villago Delenda Est
@Omnes Omnibus:
Ok, sure.
One of the good things about this blog is that there are people who do put some thought into this, and in their comments, and Cole’s questions are not that bad (number two was the one that got people going, I think) but our courtier media dumbasses are incapable of posing any of these questions when doing their supposed “jobs.”. It’s all about dick size with those people, which explains their Weiner obsession, among other things.
Keith G
@Omnes Omnibus:
To that I would add, showing Iran we are serious with other lines/boundaries we have stated.
cleek
@burnspbesq:
oh shush. Obama and Kerry have had this all planned out for weeks.
or so i’m told.
Omnes Omnibus
Who besides McCain and his minions is all in on another military adventure? Why do you discount entirely the possibility that Kerry’s actions were a part of a strategy that that involved military pressure and diplomacy?
geg6
@Jane2:
Because he justifies his actions all the time. He comes here and tells us GG is a super good dude and his good buddy and that we should lay off him because he’s a pure soul or something equally gag worthy. If he expects us to accept that bullshit, he better be able to answer when good buddy Glenn cavorts, once again, with the most despicable racists.
muddy
This is just delightful: https://twitter.com/NancyPelosi/status/378195015719071744
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@geg6: This is why John won’t go eat with you. Because you are fucking nuts.
Villago Delenda Est
@Keith G:
How do you KNOW it was Assad’s military, on Assad’s orders? How do you KNOW this?
You can’t, unless you work for the NSA, understand Arabic, and heard the orders given live.
The fact is, Assad seems to be winning with conventional weapons. Why would he resort to CW? For shits and grins? Because he’s been studying at the Darth Cheney school for sociopaths?
Mnemosyne
@Villago Delenda Est:
Which is why, when most normal people were happy and relieved that Russia finally stepped up and brought Syria to the negotiating table, the media immediately started talking about how Putin’s dick was totally bigger than Obama’s. Because when it comes to the question of whether or not to drop bombs, the real question is dick size. Totally.
agrippa
Those questions are excellent and on point.
The so called ‘mainstream media’ will not ask them.
patroclus
@Keith G: For what it’s worth, in the British parliamentary debate, all sides (Tory, LibDem and Labour) have more or less agreed that there have been 14 times that chemical weapons have been used in the Syrian civil war. Which is why it is so insulting to have to argue on this blog as to whether chemical weapons have been used at all. Granted, their origin and who gave the order is very much at issue, but the existence of their use has been verified by reputable sources. The UN inspectors’ reports will be ready in a week or two – I wonder if John wants to place a bet on what their report is going to show.
The question is what to do about what, somewhat clearly, has been the blatant use of chemical weapons. Hopefully, the diplomatic track (which was caused by the threat of bombing) is going to bear fruit. I’m willing to await much more evidence and a lot of negotiation and implementation, but there doesn’t appear to be much doubt that the saber rattling has worked in causing a shift in the debate and in the negotiations, which everyone should be pleased with.
eemom
@different-church-lady:
“the other 333 comments were about Greenwald.”
Precisely! And five seconds or no five seconds, Cole knows doggone well he owes us an explanation for whatever it was Greenwald did yesterday.
agrippa
@Mnemosyne:
That sort of puerile fatuity is normal practice.
srv
@Mnemosyne: Uh, in context, you WEREN’T waiting.
It’s a free country, and you can choose to believe 11D Chessmasters Obama and Putin had this all planned out, but we’re not all swallowing that. Obviously, this makes any unbeliever not a realist, but a fire bagger.
In the mean time, about your chesslovers:
This stuff is just comedy GOLD. Everybody has their dicks out wagging now.
Yes, I realize you don’t care about the details as long as the end result justifies your ex-post-facto conceptions of what was going on before it actually went on and how it was just a giant troll-fest by Vlad and Obama.
Omnes Omnibus
@cleek: Not planned out in the sense that they were working toward the process that is currently taking place. Rather, planned out in the sense that diplomatic efforts were moving forward at the same time the military pressure was being applied.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved in a similar fashion.
jenn
Honestly, I’ve been mostly avoiding the Syria threads. I think it’s perfectly possible for a person to in good faith (and rationally) agree or disagree with the President’s plans. What I’ve found difficult to deal with is the jump to ascribing those plans to some sort of malevolent conspiracy (it’s oil! Regime change! Yada yada yada) – which if any of them were true, it’d have been bombs away more than 2 years ago. Just as a reminder, the Syrian civil war has been going on for what, almost 2 and a half years now, with plenty of folks wanting to get involved from the start. If Obama were actually the warmongerer that some commenters here were asserting, we’d have been in there a long time ago!
different-church-lady
@geg6: Actually, what he tells us is that we’re foolish for doubting GG — almost always includes a form of “How is this wrong?”
I mean heck, all the stuff you wrote might even make some kind of sense. But instead it’s just sputtering disbelief that we don’t all share his credulity.
Mnemosyne
@Villago Delenda Est:
IIRC, he’s not. The Syrian Army has had a huge number of defections, especially among the leadership. He may not have enough warm bodies left to fight the war conventionally, which would be a possible reason to resort to chemical attacks.
ETA: As the US found out the hard way in Afghanistan and Iraq, superior conventional weapons can only get you so far if you don’t have the manpower boots-on-the-ground to enforce it.
piratedan
@agrippa: addendum…. the so called “mainstream media” isn’t even interested in the answers to those questions
geg6
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
You would know all about nuts, wouldn’t you?
Meanwhile, I’m not quite sure why my mental health would bother Cole all that much considering his own has been somewhat questionable. Despite that, I’d still have him over for dinner, as I’ve offered several times. You? I wouldn’t give you the mold off the cheese I just threw in the garbage.
Jebediah
Cole@top:
I believe the correct usage is “addle-pated.”
Jane2
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: Who gives a shit what John thinks? Or indeed, what Glenn Greenwald thinks? The real story is what Charles Pierce calls the Snowden Effect, not John Cole, Glenn Greenwald, or even Edward Snowden.
Every fricking thread these days, regardless of subject, seems to have pissy comments about Greenwald, John’s love of such, or T&H (just in case we didn’t read the other eleventy thousand times someone’s opinion of any of those subjects).
eemom
Damn, I SO picked the right day to be stuck in the office waiting for rush hour traffic to clear out.
I even have actual popcorn.
Jebediah
@Ash Can:
It’s a valid question; it’s just that it has already been answered.
Mnemosyne
@srv:
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Is the US currently dropping bombs on Syria? No. Were there credible threats to do it? Yes. But threats =/= action.
Again, the whole idea of a parallel track of diplomacy operating at the same time as threats being issued seems to be very confusing to you. Why is that?
Xboxershorts
2) Was there a chemical attack for sure? We will never actually know for sure.
I tossed this out at another discussion:
if some member of the Syrian military with access to a chemical weapons depot had had enough of Assad and managed to spirit away several chemical warheads and hid them away in the suburb that got shelled. And suppose the Syrian military and Assad found out where these stolen warheads were hidden away and decided to shell that position to destroy the stolen warheads?
It’s as believable as anything else that’s been posited…
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
It’s pretty obvious Obama planned this entire thing to look unplanned so no one would suspect it was planned. By having it look unplanned, he can react in a completely unplanned way to events as they happen. In his memoirs, he will tell us the initial planning that went into it and voila – fabulous!
Cassidy
@Omnes Omnibus: Because it allows simple minded comparisons to Iraq which gives the warm and fuzzies to the emoprogs.
geg6
@eemom:
We’re not going to get an answer to that. GG is NOT to be questioned!
Schlemizel
@Keith P:
He looked like a ken doll that fell face first against a hot stove. It has to be either botox or a really poorly done face lift. It is a nightmare whatever it is
Omnes Omnibus
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
He didn’t plan that.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@geg6: Are you sure you didn’t ingest some of the mold? It can cause hallucinations.
Villago Delenda Est
@Mnemosyne:
Yup, I know I was delighted to hear this.
Of course, the vermin of the Village were not, because bombs mean ratings, and they are all, first and foremost, Feregni assholes.
Villago Delenda Est
@Xboxershorts:
Stop thinking outside the box, you asshole!
Cassidy
@Xboxershorts: You left out the part where Jason Bourne drops in and kicks Bond’s and spirits Pussy Galore away to never never land.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Jane2:
Maybe new people to the blog? Lilly?
I’m drawing a blank here.
burnspbesq
@Villago Delenda Est:
Who the heck knows (you forgot ” because he was having a bad hair day”)? Trying to figure out why sociopathic tyrants do things is more often than not a fool’s errand.
It currently seems to be beyond dispute that there was at least one use of chemical weapons in Syria. The regime is the only actor known to possess them. If you want to believe that somebody else was responsible for the use of chemical weapons, you need to be able to credibly suggest who it might have been and where they got them.
Omnes Omnibus
@Xboxershorts: If that were the case, it would be further evidence of the need to get the chemical weapons under the control of someone else.
Davis X. Machina
@jenn:
Have you ever seen Samantha Powers and Condoleezza Rice in the same picture? Huh? Huh?
R2P. Just sayin’
Villago Delenda Est
@Villago Delenda Est:
Damn, I misspelled “Ferengi” and now FYWP won’t let me correct it.
/hits head on keyboard
geg6
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
Nope. I’ve had hallucinations (mmmm, mushrooms!), but not for thirty years or so. So tell me, oh lucid one, why am I nuts?
srv
@Mnemosyne: OK, look, I could love A-J as much as any good America Hater can, but I do have to draw a red-line at a media outlet funded by the Emir who is funding the moral equivalents of George Washington.
Ladybug
Not sure if this has been posted already, too lazy too actually go through all of the posts but..
According to Human Rights Watch “Syria: Government Likely Culprit in Chemical Attack”
Furthermore, while the UN Report has yet to be released, according to leaks “The U.N. Report will point to Assad Regime in Massive Chemical Weapons”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBRE98B0Y820130912
So yes, with the Human Rights Watch Report and the UN Report (assuming the report listed above are accurate) independent sources are also confirming that all evidence points to the the Syrian government as responsible for the chemical weapons attack.
Mnemosyne
@srv:
I can only be upset by one oligarch-owned network at a time. Still, the only people who seem to be convinced that the Syrian government is winning the civil war is the Syrian government.
Jane2
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: Edited: “Other than perpetually offended commenters, who gives a shit what John Cole thinks about Glenn Greenwald’s every move, word, and action?”
Surely not Lily.
patroclus
Here is my take at John’s questions:
(1) No, a strike does not appear to be necessary (or advisable) at this time. But, the threat of a bombing strike was necessary, which was the reason for the saber rattling.
(2) Yes, there have been 14 chemical weapons strikes so far in the war, of which the 8/21 one was the most egregious. Reputable sources have already confirmed this – we await further confirmation from the UN inspectors.
(3) No, we do not know for sure who launched the chemical weapons strikes nor who ordered them, but virtually all the evidence so far points to the Syrian military and the Syrian government who now admits that they possess stores of chemical weapons.
(4) It depends on whether a strike is ever authorized and for now is unclear as to what ‘precisely’ the goals are. The stated goals are to degrade the Syrian military and to deter them from launching more chemical attacks. This sounds pretty vague (and overbroad) to me.
(5) I don’t think anyone knows what the effect will be on the civil war as a whole although significant ‘degrading’ will probably help the rebels somewhat. If the proposed bombing strikes are tiny and last only a little while, it doesn;t seem likely to do much at all.
(6) Maybe, but it’s so vague right now such that an adequate determination at this stage seems difficult, if not impossible.
(7)There’s bound to be blowback and unintended consequences, including dead innocents and more refugees – this is the strongest argument against a strike at this time.
Xboxershorts
@Omnes Omnibus:
Yes, yes it would.
Seanly
We stand up for democratic values in our own country? Aren’t there a lot of state legislatures proving that narrative false?
Back on topic, I appreciate John’s questions. I wish the MSM would ask them! Question 2 though is a definite yes and 3 is still debatable (without seeing the intelligence).
Mary G
I agree with John, and I have a question. Does anyone know how long tests for sarin take? The UN inspectors left Syria on Saturday with their samples.
Davis X. Machina
@Ladybug:
They’ve been gotten to by Mossad. All of them. The simplest explanation is the best.
Villago Delenda Est
@burnspbesq:
Well, as Xboxershorts points out, could it have been a Syrian military officer who decided to fuck with Assad via false flag?
As I’ve been saying (for weeks, now) the assumption that there is an ironclad, US military inspired protocol regimen in place for the storage, movement, and use of CW in Syria is not a good assumption…particularly under the stresses of civil war in which Syrian regular soldiers are known to have defected to the Anti-Assad “side” which is a damn kaleidoscope of people who have a beef with Assad, by no means some under unitary command insurgency (like those things actually exist in the first place).
You’re welcome for the long run-on sentence.
Botsplainer
A message to all – American diplomacy under either a Dem or GOP administration isn’t going to start with a declaration that “force is off the table, no matter what”, as that won’t accomplish jack shit. If you want that, Doctor St President Jill Nader Stein is awaiting your vote and financial support.
What you get with a Dem administration is a diplomacy of development and consensus that occurs with time and thought. Force may happen, but won’t be inevitable.
What you get with a GOP administration is the diplomacy of John Bolton, a “shoot first and we don’t give a shit about the questions or answers later” sort of hodgepodge designed to coerce international compliance through stupid, excessively applied reflexive force.
Those are your choices. Pick the one that makes the most sense.
Ben Franklin
@Ladybug:
Don’t give too much credence to HRW. They have a reputation for trolling Zionism. AIPAC was recently quite active lobbying for the attack.
SmallAxe
I thought your post was pitch perfect yesterday Cole, F the haters.
srv
@Mnemosyne: Parallel Tracks.
I close my eyes, and I see Kissinger saying that after reading Vlad’s op-ed.
How about Parallel Dick-Waving?
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Jane2: Like I said, if you have to ask, you probably wouldn’t understand. It’s some sort of delusional hangup they have.
Baud
@srv:
I’m still pissed the IOC won’t include it in the Olympics.
geg6
@Ladybug:
If that article is true, I don’t expect Cole or any of his groupies like srv and Corner Stone to accept that verdict. They are invested in this whole Obama is worse than Bush meme and that isn’t going to change. Hell, they’re still acting as if nothing has changed and bombing will commence in minutes.
Ladybug
@Mary G:
Apparently Monday (possibly): http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBRE98B0Y820130912
Botsplainer
@Seanly:
Orly, Trump and Arpaio wish you to join them in personally inspecting the original long form birth certificate with little footprint and raised hospital seal.
Mnemosyne
@Villago Delenda Est:
If so, that should be a very strong incentive for Assad to agree to inspections — that way, if people on his side go rogue again, he can say, “Hey, my stuff was under lock and key.”
The tricky part will be preventing him from sneaking weapons to select people who can act while he pretends not to know anything about it, but the least we can do is add that layer of difficulty for him.
Villago Delenda Est
@Baud:
I’m holding out for Rhythmic Dick Waving. Or Synchronous.
Mnemosyne
@srv:
So what do you think happened? Explain it for us. You don’t believe that the US, Russia, and Syria were negotiating behind the scenes this whole time, so what, in your view, actually did happen?
Baud
@Villago Delenda Est:
If you’re going to reach for the stars, don’t forget Relay Dick Waving and the 200m medley.
Botsplainer
@Baud:
Four words – male pairs figure skating.
Villago Delenda Est
@Mnemosyne:
Agreed.
This stuff gets VERY Machiavellian, very fast. It’s so hard to know what precisely is going on here, and act on it accordingly.
The fog of war, it’s a cruel mistress, but one that must be reckoned with.
Omnes Omnibus
@srv: Yeah, Kissinger is the only person who ever used the technique. My guess is the first time the threat of war was used for leverage in a dispute was the first time there was a dispute between two groups.
Baud
@Botsplainer:
The Russian team wins the gold…and is immediately arrested and sent to Siberia.
Villago Delenda Est
@Omnes Omnibus:
Then there’s Kissinger’s hero, Tallyrand…
different-church-lady
@geg6: Maybe CS is, but Cole seems to checkerboard his opinions about Obama. Which, in its most basic form is probably a good thing.
Cole’s sick of bombing shit. Nothing at all wrong with that. Let’s not forget: the dude has been there when the vast majority of us have not.
But sometimes his emotions get way out in front of his brain, and when that happens he has a hard time backing off his initial position.
Keith G
@Villago Delenda Est: So I appear to be one of the few people on this thread who actually believes Obama. Cool.
burnspbesq
@Villago Delenda Est:
Sure, theoretically it could have been. But at the present time there appears to be almost no evidence to support that hypothesis, and a rapidly growing shitload of evidence to support the hypothesis that it was the regime. At some point, evidence has to trump imagination.
patroclus
@Ladybug: Thanks for the links – granted, we should await the final report of the UN inspectors, but the preliminary version (leaked) only seems to confirm Doctors Without Borders’s initial report. Thoughtful observers should not be questioning whether chemical weapons have been used at this stage.
Baud
@Keith G:
I believe Obama. I have less confidence in the underlying intelligence that Obama is relying on. That said, I lean towards believing that the administration’s conclusions are accurate.
Ben Franklin
@burnspbesq:
and a rapidly growing shitload of evidence
What’s that? The Israeli intercept? The one with a uniquely classified status, for POTUS’s eyes only?
Botsplainer
@Baud:
As Griftwald, Miranda and Snowden cheer while sitting in gilt viewing box with Kirill and Putin.
Villago Delenda Est
@burnspbesq:
Waiting for the evidence to manifest itself, because so far, all we’ve got is talking heads letting their imaginations run wild, based on the assumption that Assad is worse than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot rolled into one, because that’s the easiest narrative they can come up with to fit between the all-important commercial (yay, money for us!) breaks.
muddy
@Baud: Watch the handoff!
joes527
@Xboxershorts: Yes, but I don’t see anyone disputing that the chemical release happened in a number of non-contiguous areas at about the same time. I’m as open to “rebels mishandled CW” or “accidental release” as the next guy, but it is hard to picture a situation where there would be several separate releases at the same time.
I suppose the rebels could have been storing CW in several neighborhoods, and Assad’s forces happened to shell them all at about the same time, and they all happened to result in CW releases. It could have happened. But it seems … unlikely.
At some point you cross over from “reasonable doubt” to “Hell, I can doubt *anything* Just watch me.” Hypotheticals w/o a shred of evidence at this point seem to be approaching that territory.
I’ve argued strongly against bombing Syria because it seems like a recipe for making a very bad situation even worse. Not because I imagine Assad is a boy scout.
geg6
@different-church-lady:
Well, the other prominent blogger who does that “emotions getting ahead of the brain” shit has as terrible a record on these matters as Cole does. Meanwhile, his service didn’t make him sick enough of bombing shit to NOT vote enthusiastically for W and Cheney. Twice.
ranchandsyrup
has anyone just felt regular whelmed?
Mark S.
@geg6:
I never thought I’d see anyone call Corner Stone a Cole groupie. I didn’t wake up in that parallel bearded Spock universe, did I?
Villago Delenda Est
@Baud:
Yeah, I am extremely skeptical of anything that comes out of Israeli intelligence, because they operate pretty much like Darth Cheney…they have an agenda to push, and they’re going to support that agenda with their product, and leave anything exculpatory in file 13.
jl
@Seanly: A lot of this public talk and leaks of maybe who did or did not suggest what and when and where just might be for domestic political CYA and distraction and tactical maneuvering on both sides. For the Obama administration to keep the GOP and media from going apeshit over the relative dick sizes of Obama and Putin.
Similarly for Kerry spouting today on the 1001 criteria the US needs for a deal, that when I heard them seemed patently redundant and over the top to the point of silliness.
What matters is whether talks continue and we see steady progress over the next few weeks.
Belafon
@burnspbesq: You know, I thought about writing a line that said “And no, we’re not completely there yet, so I don’t think bombing is off the table, but Obama is doing his job” but I didn’t think it would be necessary.
Ladybug
@patroclus:
You’re welcome. :)
noodler
Points 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 valid. Please rethink two and three. I know three but I’m not tellin. However, I concur, loony. Go peel an apple.
Mohammed Aly Sergie @msergie 22m
The New Truthers: Americans Who Deny Syria Used Chemical Weapons http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114676/syrias-chemical-weapons-assad-not-blame-say-truthers …
Villago Delenda Est
Well, concerning the “simultaneous” release of CW, how is it NOT possible that recently defected Syrian military pulled that off? They didn’t forget all those drills the instant they decided “Assad bad!”.
It’s too fucking convenient for the Likud agenda right now.
joes527
@different-church-lady:
It is almost as if he is more interested in the policy than the personalities. What’s up with that?
geg6
@Mark S.:
Oh, CS thinks Cole has come over to the loony lefty side. I don’t think Cole considers him a groupie, but CS has been crowing for a week or so now that Cole is one of them. And I have to say, I’m beginning to wonder if he’s right.
Ben Franklin
@Mark S.:
Nope. It’s just BJ, that other parallel Underverse.
different-church-lady
@geg6: You’re gonna have to narrow that down for me.
Xboxershorts
@joes527:
I was well aware of a number of smaller releases elsewhere…but was unaware of any of these coinciding with the big one that included confirmed Syrian artillery. If other releases did coincide with the big one, then you’re right, it weakens my theory…
Mandalay
@geg6:
That is not the case at all. There is only circumstantial evidence that Assad is responsible, apart from “hard” evidence provided by Israel, who have every incentive to lie. The Administration is stonewalling on providing details of that evidence. Well fine, but you can hardly justify an intervention to the American public based on that limited evidence.
And “common sense” says Assad and/or his military did NOT do it. Why would they?….observers were already in Damascus, and there was no advantage gained by Assad from the attack. If “common sense” is the criteria being used, then it would be the opposition who had everything to gain from the attack, and little to lose. Since so many of Assad’s military have switched to the other side, it hardly seems wildly improbable that they took CW with them when they defected. If they did, Assad was hardly going to announce that to the world.
The stakes are so high it seems crucial that Assad’s should be shown to be the guilty party beyond a reasonable doubt before intervening (if intervention does occur). I just don’t see that we have reached that point on the evidence presented so far. That may be galling, but the downside to intervening, and then later discovering that we have supported an opposition that initiated the CW attack, is massive.
different-church-lady
@geg6: He’s not.
Belafon
@ranchandsyrup: I’ve been whelmed a few times before (What do you call it when a unit doesn’t need the prefix?).
jl
@ranchandsyrup: Yes, I am regular whelmed about the commentary that just knows that Obama is either Warren G. Harding (“Oh God! One man comes and says one thing, then another man comes in and says another, and I just don’t know what to do”) or genius mastermind time traveler who knows exactly how to make Plan A double plus planned plans seemed unplanned in real time that fools everyone. Or he has to be GW Bush, who had primitive and violent ideas about how to get things done, and was also in way over his head.
Maybe Obama and his team are muddling through and taking whatever opportunities come along, maybe pursuing a double track of unilateral strikes and secret diplomacy to optimize chances of having some lever of getting their goals accomplished sooner or later.
That is how most mortal human national leaders have done diplomacy throughout human history. I figure chances are that is how it is going now.
OmerosPeanut
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice… won’t get fooled again!
Keith G
@Villago Delenda Est: So you are saying that the President is too stupid to see these things that you so clearly can envision? Or is he being deceitful?
ranchandsyrup
Top Conservative Cat @TeaPartyCat 8m
John McCain and Lindsey Graham introduced a bill in the Senate today forbidding the use of diplomacy in Syria.
Roy G.
Thanks for the sanity check, Cole.
Who is saying there is little doubt about the provenance of the CW attacks? The following people – actual intelligence experts formerly with the NSA, CIA and FBI – disagreed enough with the official narrative to write Obama this open letter.
Obama Warned on Syrian Intel
Despite the Obama administration’s supposedly “high confidence” regarding Syrian government guilt over the Aug. 21 chemical attack near Damascus, a dozen former U.S. military and intelligence officials are telling President Obama that they are picking up information that undercuts the Official Story.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?
Precedence: IMMEDIATE
We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.” …
Signed,
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan
Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)
Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@Mark S.: You clearly don’t know CS. He took an entire room in his third floor walkup and built a miniature version of Bethany, WV. Every night, 8:30 on the nose, he puts “John” in the bathtub and puts Little Feat on the stereo and they talk and sing for a little while until Corner Stone falls asleep, usually stretched out along Church Alley with his head resting on Bethany Memorial Church.
Xboxershorts
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader:
Damn, must be some really good mushrooms. Feel like sharing? I know I gotta work tomorrow, but it’s still early….
Cacti
Was there a chemical attack for sure?
And again, the answer is “yes, you idiot.”
The chemical weapons that your old pal Dubya lied about, and you believed? Those were fake.
Mnemosyne
@Roy G.:
Dude. Seriously? We’re supposed to take a group of people who have been anti-Obama since at least 2008 as “experts” in this?
Head over to Johnson’s No Quarter blog and let us know what you find there. If you still think he’s a honest player in this, then you’re a frickin’ looney just like he is.
burnspbesq
@Roy G.:
Read the article linked at comment 154 and decide whether you want to go where you’re going.
raven
@Roy G.: Pat motherfucking confederate Lang, whoop-tee-dooo.
Ben Franklin
@Roy G.:
Nice work. I’m tired of our leaders making public statements clearly defining Assad as the instigator, as though it were common knowledge.
It’s too bad we weren’t this smart in 2003.
Davis X. Machina
@Roy G.: This Larry Johnson?
geg6
@different-church-lady:
Sully. The other drama queen blogger who has seemingly changed sides and who is ALWAYS wrong about foreign policy and writes hysterical posts that turn out to be as wrongheaded as it is possible to be.
I pretty much stayed out of posts about Syria before this week’s events because I was torn about what should be done. Now that diplomacy is being given a chance, I back what Obama is doing and I think he’s handling it right. But Cole and his new besties are still arguing as if none of that has happened. Hell, Cole is still arguing that chemical weapons may not even have been used!
jenn
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: Ok, that is really disturbing! :)
Ben Franklin
@raven:
Identity politics fail…
Ladybug
@burnspbesq:
There’s also overlap among some of the same people who deny what happened in Syria and those who have denied/mitigated war crimes committed in Balkans
@noodler:
Thanks for the link
jl
@jenn: I thought all the BJ commenters were supposed to follow JSF, TL’s routine, and I’ve been shirking.
Mandalay
@Botsplainer:
FWIW, John Bolton (like Liz Cheney) thinks intervention in Syria is pointless.
Of course he may well be viscerally opposing whatever Obama proposes, but in this case he is definitely not in the “shoot first and we don’t give a shit about the questions or answers later” camp.
But our Al Qaeda sympathizer, John McCain, definitely is.
Mnemosyne
@Davis X. Machina:
Yep, that one. But he’s an honest, upright, upstanding player who just wants the truth out there, don’t’cha know.
raven
@Ben Franklin: FWIW Lang actually voted for Obama. . . twiced.
patroclus
@Roy G.: Thanks for the link – but they are doubting whether Assad was responsible. They are not doubting the existence of the chemical weapons attack – they are in fact admitting it. This blog has yet to concede even that an attack occurred – it went from last night’s open questioning of it to today’s admission that it probably happened.
Cacti
US Army JAG and US Army Sgt = Intelligence Professional?
Well shoot, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. I’m an Intelligence Professional too!
different-church-lady
@geg6: I don’t believe Sully has military service in his background, never mind serving in Gulf War 1. That’s what I meant when I said Cole had “been there” — literally been to war.
Granted, I wasn’t very clear about that.
***
ETA: I am correct Cole served in GW1, yes?
Ben Franklin
@raven:
Me too. What choice is there really?
Emma
@Omnes Omnibus: Because he’s a democrat of the kind that always assumes democratic elected officials are either morons or liars. SATSQ.
geg6
@Mandalay:
And where did you get the idea that I was arguing for immediate intervention? Never said any such thing. I’m perfectly willing to wait for the UN’s report. But I think you’re going to be sadly disappointed in your pie in the sky idea that Assad didn’t do it. I may be wrong, but probability is in my favor. The idea that Assad would only act in rational ways is fucking hilarious though. Kudos on giving me an opportunity to LOL.
Redshirt
To the Left?!
Betty Cracker
@jl: This.
jl
@raven: Voted for Obama twice as the lesser to two evils. Lang and his crew have been going on about how Obama is clinical case of narcissist megalomania. Obama narcissist? Compared the Clinton or Bush II? Really?
I was complaining in another thread how I went over Lang’s blog for info on Syria, and found he was in one of his periodic ‘fits’.
Cacti
@jl:
Lang and his crew have been going on about how Obama is clinical case of narcissist megalomania
Sounds like the longhand version of “uppity”.
Mandalay
@Keith G:
Nice false dichotomy you built there. You truly see absolutely no other possibilities…just those two?
raven
@jl: It’s constant but we have an easy peasy link right here. What would what’s her face world expert on all things say? Draxiza or whatever.
geg6
@different-church-lady:
Cole’s having “been there” didn’t stop him from supporting Bush and Cheney’s excellent adventure. His service, in this instance, is meaningless in that context (though I certainly respect the fact that he served).
different-church-lady
@geg6: All the more evidence for him being a very slow learner.
****
ETA: Oh dear… this comment is going to be the subject of his next front page rant, isn’t it?
Ben Franklin
@Cacti:
Or the reverse-side of that coin…enabling behaviors.
Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader
@jenn: It’s really quite amazing. It’s on pinterest but I don’t have a link handy.
geg6
@different-church-lady:
And possibly learning the wrong lessons when he finally does.
srv
@Mnemosyne: Assad was supposed to be toppled two years ago according the MSM. By that standard, he’s winning. We don’t want that. We draw a red-line. They keep violating it. Finally, we get youtubes, and Powers tweets “Think of the children!” and it’s time for fast-track.
Alas, our partner the UK burped on regime change. France waffling. The public says meh. Putin sees an opportunity and waves his dick.
Assad is not worried about bombing. He knows it’s a joke. There are no high-value targets in a ground war fought by street corner. He is worried about getting all his SAMs knocked out, which is the real goal here, because then that opens the door to a No Fly Zone, or the rebels operating their own helicopters. That then opens the door to Air Support.
That’s how he loses his existential war. That is why we are going to bomb him. We don’t care about the children or CW. The powers that be want him out.
You really believe Assad is going to audit all the CW he said he didn’t have and turn it over to the UN? Parallel tracks or parallel universe?
Omnes Omnibus
@geg6: In any case, Mandalay want proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I doubt we will ever get that either way. The more important thing is that the threat of force appears to have pushed everyone to try really fucking hard to a diplomatic solution to the problem. And this is a good thing.
jl
Balloon Juice the blog has official positions on stuff?
I mean, beyond the important stuff like the bestnest of the Furrinator or whatever it’s called for grooming cats?
I didn’t know that.
Emma
@Mnemosyne: Actually, IIRC, there was a report in a couple of European papers saying that there was an intercept of a phone call? message? between two Army officers that suggested someone down the chain of command may have acted without authorization in at least one of the attacks. But I’ll be damned if I can find it now.
Mandalay
@geg6:
I said absolutely nothing about you arguing for intervention. I was pointing out that your assertion that “common sense” and “the evidence” show that Assad’s forces initiated the CW attacks was nonsense.
ranchandsyrup
@Belafon: I don’t know but I’m thinking that overwhelmed is overkill.
@jl: right there with ya. The Kenyusurper is a blank canvas for projection of fears, hopes, desires, etc. It would be much easier to just listen to his actual positions but what’s the fun in that?
joes527
@jl: I’m pretty sure that this blog has officially endorsed the neti pot.
Omnes Omnibus
@joes527: Those things creep me out.
jenn
@Just Some Fuckhead, Thought Leader: Glad to hear it!
Betty Cracker
@srv: What makes you so sure getting rid of Assad serves US interests? Why wouldn’t a negotiated settlement be preferable from the US POV?
geg6
@Mandalay:
Because brutal dictators in the midst of civil wars always act rationally, right? They only take the most rational course. And the opposition has every capacity to launch rockets filled with sarin. And cleverly hit neighborhoods with their own compatriots in them so as to hide who did it.
We’ll see when the UN report comes out.
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Absolutely correct. We should not intervene in Syria over this issue unless talks break down, AND we also know that Assad’s forces were responsible. If we don’t know that they were then our intervention would be every bit as bad as what Bush did in Iraq.
Imagine the consequences for the US if we intervened on behalf of the Syrian opposition, and it was then discovered that they had initiated the CW attack. I realize that the situation has changed for the better, and intervention currently looks very unlikely (thank goodness), but I see the Administration’s case as really flimsy right now.
navarro
i feel your pain mr. cole. over at samefacts and kevin drum i’ve been treated as if i were an absolute idiot or syria supporter or both by people i normally respect for saying things like “when there are no good choices the best choice is to wait and see” or “it seems that john cole learned much more from his experience of having backed gwb’s war on iraq than dr. kleiman has. such a shame.” to that last one the usually temperate dr. kleiman responded “Because of course GWB and Barack Obama are interchangeable, so if one was a lunatic liar so was the other. Do I have your logic right?” it’s just been one disappointment after another on this issue.
Ben Franklin
@geg6:
We’ll see when the UN report comes out.
That’s the Spirit. If more could share that reasonable perspective; imagine the possibilities.
Roy G.
@Mnemosyne: @Mnemosyne and fellow travelers: Nice debunking on one name, now tell us what is wrong with Thomas Drake and Colleen Rowley.
joes527
The UN is addressing “who did it” now?
am
I don’t know who’s been saying what, but that sounded dangerously lucid and clearheaded, Cole.
am
I don’t know who’s been saying what, but that sounded dangerously lucid and clearheaded, Cole.
Omnes Omnibus
@srv:
The Syrian government is offering to “provide an accounting of chemical weapons stocks in 30 days, standard practice under the treaty.” Right now, the US is saying do it within 15 days. But negotiations are ongoing.
@Mandalay:
And we continue to disagree.
different-church-lady
@Mandalay:
I’m sure the president agrees with you.
It’s just that he’s a hell of a lot more likely to have accurate information than you are.
Mnemosyne
@Roy G.:
I’m sure Thomas Drake holds absolutely no grudge against the Obama administration for pursuing charges against him. Nope, he, too, is coming from a pure place of absolute objectivity.
Ben Franklin
@different-church-lady:
It’s just that he’s a hell of a lot more likely to have accurate information than you are.
More likely, is less than reassuring. Can you indemnify more succinctly?
Keith G
@Mandalay: The President has laid out his case. His terms were definitive. There were no gray areas or weasel words that I could detect. Were there?
Also he was ready to launch a strike before the Parliament slapped Cameron around. So when the referenced person comments…
… and support comments like this…
If they honestly believe what they typed, I feel its fitting to ask them to evaluate the President’s performance. Do they think he missed what they have come to feel or is it possible that he shares their views and planned to attack anyway.
Mandalay
@geg6:
That is completely irrelevant. The issue is whether there is strong evidence that Assad’s forces were responsible for CW attacks, and right now there is no strong evidence being made public that they were. We’d be going to war on a hunch.
It’s already being leaked – no conclusive evidence either way.
Roy G.
@raven: I do have a problem with Lang’s domestic views, however, i’m smart enough to separate that from his professional expertise and knowledge of US foreign affairs in the Middle East.
By all means, go ahead and Snowald him all you want if it makes you feel better.
different-church-lady
@Ben Franklin: You got something better?
Ben Franklin
@different-church-lady:
Wait for the UN report and avoid being wanked into another unnecessary war for nostalgia’s sake.
srv
@Betty Cracker: Of course it’s not in our best interests. Why do you assume we’re acting rationally?
We have been supporting the rebels since forever there. We’re partnered with the Turks and Jordan. You can’t seriously have not heard about all that in the last two years? I’m not going to dig all that up again, but I posted a link last night in response to Omnes about the US ramping up rebel support.
How do you negotiate when the Turks, Qataris and KSA are throwing everything at it? We’re going to buy them off? Slap them down? Assad and a million odd Alawites are going to retire to Cyprus? Partition Syria?
This isn’t any more rational than Iraq. If you want rational explanations, Cheney was an agent for Iran. The only rational explanation is that principals in the NSC and Foggy Bottom are agents for the KSA.
Mnemosyne
@srv:
I’m already sensing the first problem with your “logic” — you assumed that the MSM was giving you accurate and unbiased information.
So? Who cares what Putin does? Why not forge ahead with the bombing unilaterally if that’s what we really wanted to do all along and the chemical weapons use was just an excuse? Why grind everything to a halt?
different-church-lady
@Roy G.: Snowald as a verb: does that mean you demonize him or deify him?
Omnes Omnibus
@Ben Franklin: Every bit of intelligence that the president sees is never going to be released, is it?
different-church-lady
@Ben Franklin: Uhh… kinda what’s actually happening, hello?
different-church-lady
@Omnes Omnibus: Well, Greenwald is still combing through that thumb drive, so…
Omnes Omnibus
@different-church-lady: And the whole allowing diplomacy to take its course thing too. It is not 2002-3. Obama is not Bush. We may still end up launching military strikes at Assad, but no one is rushing into them.
srv
@Omnes Omnibus: Well, if Assad said it, it must be true?
Ben Franklin
@different-church-lady:
Fortunately, due to public response and exigent circumstances.
Omnes Omnibus
@srv: Assad just acceded to the CWC, He is offering to provide an accounting of the weapons. Why wouldn’t he? At this point, if he doesn’t keep moving forward, he will have provided casus belli that no one will easily overlook. Are you working on the premise that everyone involved is trying to expand the war?
Edited slightly
Mandalay
@Keith G:
Why? They said nothing about the President…
Pretty reasonable points to raise IMHO, even if you don’t agree with them, but nothing directly to do with Obama.
More than most here, you accurately call out disingenuous posters, yet your response to what was posted seemed like a complete non sequitur to me. Maybe I’m missing something….no biggie.
Roy G.
@patroclus: The doubt about the CW is if it was military grade or not. As many have pointed out, in the supposed evidence show, the people who were working with the victims weren’t even wearing protective gear. If it were heavy duty CW, they would presumably have been cross-contaminated with it themselves.
srv
@Mnemosyne: Uh, I’m pretty sure, but maybe it was someone else upthread who said Assad was losing. I never believed that. I’m just restating the meme.
The rebels were given an appropriate amount of time to get the job done. They obviously can’t deliver. We drew a red-line. It took awhile, but youtube delivered eventually.
You’re saying Obama could have gone Courtesy Bombing before the youtube videos? Have you noticed, um, the resistance to Courtesy Bombing even after gasping baby videos?
Hey, ok, I’m all for it, but you do remember the whole “Don’t Introduce New Products in August” thingy?
Betty Cracker
@srv: We’ve been giving plenty of lip service to supporting the rebel forces, whom the US is understandably handling with tongs since they contain a not-insignificant percentage of fundamentalist crazies. But if you look at what we’ve actually provided, it’s fairly paltry.
I could be wrong, but it looks to me (judging by actions rather than words) that the US wants to keep the rebels from losing but isn’t in it to help them win. Except McCain & Co., of course.
srv
@Omnes Omnibus: I’m operating from the premise that Assad will provide a list and chess master Putin will audit it. If I’m not being clear, I mean he’s going to play the game and keep his reserves for his existential battle.
Roy G.
And I would add THIS to Cole’s points: What if the whole CW controversy is a chimera? Even if we all agree that Chemical Weapons are bad and using them should be punished, clearly it should be seen that John McCain, Lindsay Graham, AIPAC and others don’t give a f*k about that and are pushing the US into this for their own agendas. Sound familiar?
Keith G
@Mandalay: The President was emphatic in his speech essentially saying: Because I know A happened, B or C must happen.
If one were to propose that A did not happen, one must account for the President’s actions.
Ben Franklin
@Betty Cracker:
Sounds exactly like ‘Nam.
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
It’s not that I don’t think Assad’s forces were not responsible for the CW attacks. But as things stand it seems entirely possible that the opposition might have been responsible. Less likely, but possible.
We don’t know what the Administration knows, but they are being pretty coy about giving any details on the hard information, which is being reported as having been supplied by Israel.
As a matter of fact, Obama can do whatever he wants to Syria. He does not need a permission slip from Congress, the American public, or the international community. But I think he would face a massive shitstorm of opposition if he does initiate an attack based only on the evidence he has presented so far. Hopefully it will never come to that.
srv
@Betty Cracker: We won’t know what we gave them until it comes out in a few years.
We had a much higher chance of secularity two years ago. Perhaps like the Afghan-Soviet war, we supported the wimps, while the Saudi’s and ISI supported the Jihadis who got shit done with a high causilty rate.
Well then, that would make Obama as evil as Reagan in the Iraq-Iran war?
Maybe the rational theory is this is all a hill for the crazy Saudis to die on. Fly paper and all that. I had not considered that option. I will try to be more Machiavelli-Straussian in the future.
Morbo
1.) Is the strike necessary?
No, Assad has proven to be completely trustworthy in every other negotiation so far, and Russia has made no attempts to shield him from accountability.
2.) Was there a chemical attack for sure?
Oh clearly there was.
3.) If so, do we know who launched it?
The rebels kidnapped children from Latakia then set off chemical weapons to frame the regime.
4.) What are our goals with a strike?
Money for Raytheon and strengthening Al Qaeda.
5.) Will this change the outcome of the civil war?
See #4, also babykilling.
6.) If so, is that a good thing?
Obviously.
7.) What about blowback and collateral damage?
No, violence will kill hundreds of thousands of refugees, but the United States is powerless in the face of that, and absolutely no one can say otherwise. Also Al Qaeda.
fuckwit
I honestly do not know why this topic is such a huge shitstorm. Is it because Cole and others were advocates for the Iraq war, and, like people who quit smoking (ahem, or drinking), they get so, ahem, MILITANT and swing so far to the other side that they can’t tolerate being around smokers or drinkers anymore? Is it that kind of boomerang snapping back so hard?
I see it as pretty simple. The attacks DID happen (yeah, doubting that is pretty much tinfoil hat territory, I belive Medicines Sans Frontiers). It was very likely Assad or some rogue unit in his military if the reports are correct that it was delivered by rockets the rebels don’t have.
The usual vile scumbags (Raytheon/Rocwell/etc, our war-mongering fucking media, Rethug dick-wavers, corporate military-owned Blue Dogs, AIPAC, etc.) got major war boners and want to bomb immediately. Israel freaked the fuck out because it was gas (there’s some history there regarding gas, Godwin knows), though no matter who wins, they’re not going to have a happy time with whomever ends up in charge next door. The international community was horrified, and heads of large states that tend to get targeted by terrorists got some shrinkage (just to stay consistent with dick-related metaphors).
So where’s Obama on this? I believe he’s 100% sincere: he wants the international community to step up and enforce the convention against chemical weapons, not only for purely pragmatic reasons as the leader of one of those large states that tends to get targeted by terrorists, but also for his own personal moral reasons. We have long known that he does everything he does for the children. Fuck with children and he will want to get medieval on your ass (that means you, NRA, as well as Assad).
Being rational though, he isn’t concerned with dick-waving as much as actually SOLVING THE PROBLEM. In this case that problem is how to get chemical weapons out of the theatre (haha, little Putin joke there!) of operations so that they don’t get used again. Missile strikes wouldn’t do that, though they’d at least be somewhat of a symbolic gesture of punishment, but Russia is blocking those, mainly because they’re tired of the USA bombing other people’s countries (Putin said so in his editorial).
And here we are. Someone came up with the genius idea of Russia taking the lead– and credit– on a diplomatic solution. Dunno if that was Obama, Putin, Kerry, or who the hell knows. What matters is…
What we want here is to get chemical weapons out of the hands of Assad or anyone who’d take over from him (imagine Al Queda getting their hands on that stockpile! Anyone want that? Israel and Turkey sure don’t, and I’ll bet Putin doesn’t either… they’ll find their way to Chechya pretty quickly).
And here’s the answer. Problem solved, let him hand over the weapons to the UN for destruction. At this point I don’t expect any sane person to call for missle strikes or any show of force. Watch and wait, let the UN take the lead, let Russia take the credit. I don’t give a shit about credit (Obama doesn’t seem to either), I care about stopping attacks like this from happening anymore, there or anywhere.
hoodie
@Roy G.: That must be really important because of the CAPS. Perhaps we should consult with David Icke
Ben Franklin
@fuckwit:
And here’s the answer. Problem solved. At this point I don’t expect any sane person to call for missle strikes or any show of force. Watch and wait, let the UN take the lead, let Russia take the credit. I don’t give a shit about credit (Obama doesn’t seem to either), I care about stopping attacks like this from happening anymore, there or anywhere.
Kindly remember that circumstances can rapidly change (escalate). Relying on available data does not address those execrable exigent circumstance. Someone wants us to embroil ourselves in Syria. They have not given up. Rest assured. This has not peaked.
Villago Delenda Est
@geg6:
You’ve bought into the Assad is the New Hitler storyline, and you’re sticking to it.
The opposition to Assad is a pretty mixed bag. Which is why we need to be very, very cautious about embracing storylines that are prefabricated.
joes527
@fuckwit:
Actually, it looks like you believe what someone told you that MSF said, not what they actually said.
@srv:
SiubhanDuinne
@ranchandsyrup:
Yep, same people who are usually gruntled and mayed.
fuckwit
@joes527: NO, their report said that the attack happened. They are not present in Damascus, they are supporting the local doctors. They got their report from them, and I got it from them. I still trust them.
fuckwit
@Villago Delenda Est: Ugh, that is not a visual I wanted to have. Wouldn’t Rhythmic Dick Waving be basically masturbation?
Reminds me of an old joke:
Q: What do you call a herd of masturbating cattle?
A: Beef Stroking Off.
Dumb pun, but the visual is so disturbing I still LMAO at that.
And, finally, I’m reading the news stories, and this is basically good cop/bad cop on Assad, with the USA as the bad cop, and Russia as the good cop. I have high hopes it’ll resolve without military action by the USA.
Suffern ACE
@srv: When has Syria denied that it had chemical weapons. It denied that it used them, sure. But I don’t think they have denied having them. There is a reason why they didn’t sign that CW treaty.
joes527
@fuckwit: link? Because everything I see at the MSF site says: “there was an event that appears constant with a chemical attack, but we aren’t saying that it was a chemical attack”
Suffern ACE
@Ben Franklin:
And the relationship between Bibi’s spies and Obama is what? You think POTUS is just going to take something Bibi’s government hands him and yell “war, war, war.”
Omnes Omnibus
@Roy G.:
Here’s is the thing, I don’t see any evidence that the administration gives two fucks about anything that John McCain, Lindsay Graham, AIPAC and others have to say about the issue. If it did we would already be knee deep in spent shell casings.
different-church-lady
Y’all seem to be missing something subtle in Cole’s point: he’s not saying we’re not addressing those questions, he’s saying the media isn’t addressing those questions.
sherparick
@Villago Delenda Est: For those who need a bit of sharpening of their irony attenna, Villago is snarking here. By the way, since the President had obvious reservations about this, why the piling on on ol’JC, since 60% of us agree with him.
srv
@Suffern ACE: Please take it up with United States Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power
Ben Franklin
@Suffern ACE:
And the relationship between Bibi’s spies and Obama is what? You think POTUS is just going to take something Bibi’s government hands him and yell “war, war, war.
Sorry. My response has to be limited to the special security clearance protocols.
I do not remember. I do not recall.
Omnes Omnibus
@different-church-lady: I think he is still off base. The media should be trying a find out what the parties are actually trying to do and reporting that. If they were asking just Cole’s questions, they would still be headed the wrong way. Also, it seems like he wants those questions asked because those are his concerns – which means he is missing the boat.
Mandalay
@fuckwit:
How do you know this? What are your information sources that make you so confident that this is the case? How can anyone assert that the rebels don’t have rockets that could deliver CW? How the fuck can anyone possibly know that?
They can’t. So take a pause and consider why you are being presented with that unknowable information. At least seven thousand army officers have flipped to the opposition. Isn’t it entirely possible that they took some CW with them?
patroclus
@Roy G.: Understood – the debate elsewhere concerns whether the CW was weapons grade. On this blog, however, the debate is whether chemical weapons were even used at all.
jl
@Mandalay: The usual counter theory I have heard is that the rebels got hold of some sarin gas, probably not weapons grade, and released it at the site of conventional missile strike by Syrian govt. forces to stage a provocation.
Mnemosyne
@srv:
Hey, I’m not the one trying to argue that the only thing standing between Syria and US Courtesy Bombs is Putin’s big, swinging dick. You are. So at least stand by your own theory that Putin successfully blocked the US from doing what they wanted to do and explain how you think that worked.
Mnemosyne
@Omnes Omnibus:
“But what about the workers?”
Mandalay
@Omnes Omnibus:
AIPAC (and Israel) have a legitimate concern: Assad may decide to generously donate some CW to Hezbollah for their loyal support in the near future, if he hasn’t already done so.
That’s why I’m so wary of hard evidence allegedly provided by Israel to the Administration. Israel has an incentive to persuade Obama to attack Assad, and would have every reason to provide him with phony evidence.
Narcissus
@Mandalay:
Yeah…that’s not what your link says.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Villago Delenda Est: He doesn’t have to be the New Hitler. Saddam was a garden variety thug who was more than happy to gas the Kurds if it kept them quiet. Capone had tommy guns, Assad has sarin canisters. Gangsters gonna gangster.
Mandalay
@jl:
Interesting. I had not read that, but it makes sense. So the issue isn’t simply “who launched the rocket that caused the CW attack?”, because there might not have even been any rocket.
What a mess.
Heliopause
Your questions are good, John, but it’s interesting that the legal question is not among them.
Omnes Omnibus
@Heliopause: I think it is two legal questions. Was there a violation of international law by Syria? If so, what should be done in response?
Mandalay
@Narcissus:
Uh…….Yeah…it is. From the extract you pasted:
Which is pretty much how things stand anyway: circumstantial evidence, but no hard evidence.
RobinDC
This is your fault for cultivating an environment where a complete cult of personality exists among your commentariat. Anything that has a whiff of being interpreted as unfavorable to the obamagod will be attacked mercilessly by this rabid pack of slavering fan boys. Good job buddy next time don’t bring in shitty hacks like ABL and Zandar to do your writing for ya.
Mnemosyne
@Mandalay:
The UN report is not permitted to assign blame, but I’m guessing you’ll take it as “proof” that it wasn’t Assad’s doing anyway.
jl
@Mandalay:
Going by Narcissus’ link of above, if the UN experts can examine missile casings and find out what the missile held before it landed, that would answer a lot of questions.
I tend to think that either Assad or his military ordered it, or parts of the military are out of control and did it against orders. But don’t know for sure.
If the third possibility is the case, and some of the local military commanders are doing what they damn please, that might explain why Russia decided to come in and supposedly rescue Obama. They are the outsiders that I think know more than anyone what is going on inside the Syrian government and military.
As I said in previous thread, if the Russians see signs things are spinning out of control in Assad’s regime, then preserving some kind of order under layers of international agreements and monitoring forces might look like a good option. Doing so for the CW issue is a first step towards that. That is just my speculatin’ on it right now.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
And since its been a few days and I didn’t answer the last time:
1.) Is the strike necessary? To deter Assad from crossing the red line again, we should be prepared to use force, yes.
2.) Was there a chemical attack for sure? Yes.
3.) If so, do we know who launched it? A repressive dictatorship with a known chemical weapons program finds itself stuck with a two-year long now civil war. Suddenly sarin gas is used! Hmm, who could’ve done it? Maybe it was Colonel Mustard with the lead pipe!
4.) What are our goals with a strike? To give Assad the Cosgrove. “Cut it out.”
5.) Will this change the outcome of the civil war? Not likely, but we would not be there for the civil war.
6.) If so, is that a good thing? Ideally the voice of the people should be heard, but that’s not why we would be there.
7.) What about blowback and collateral damage? I’m still waiting on the blowback from Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, these are great buzzwords to throw around, but we should be focusing the message more on the lives we know are wasted by physical, mental, and emotional trauma.
srv
@Mnemosyne: The product rollout flopped. There are lots of things standing between Courtesy Bombs. Where have I said Obama could do whatever he wants whenever he wants? Oh, I’m a firebagger… right.
As I’ve gone on record, this will be sorted out by the marketing team by December. Hey, even Fox News is coming around.
Maybe that’s another 11D move – Obama is really Admiral Ackbar!
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@RobinDC: Don’t you have an Oathkeepers’ meeting to attend?
Suffern ACE
@srv: I was wondering when the Tea crowd would notice the swipe at exceptionalism.
rda909
You think it is just coincidence this Putin-palooza love fest is happening shortly after comrade Edwardo Snowden is set loose within Russia?!? No, of course not. Getting this “Axis of Evil” dictator to back down is clearly a result of Fast Eddie. Duh. And of course, ergo proctor gamble hoc, Glenn Greenwald. Let us all bow before our one true Lord – The Snowdenwald. A(white)men.
Emma
@Mandalay: For crying outloud. In UN speak “strong circumstantial case” means “we know you did it but we want a diplomatic solution so we’ll soft pedal.”
There are people here that want Obama to be the Evil Master so badly that they’ll twist history itself into knots.
jl
@jl: And dude, I thought up that speculatin’ on my own damn self, and was very pleased to see Marshall in TPM say similar a few days later. Some ‘this HUUUGE!” post at TPM.
Why It’s Big
Josh Marshall, TPM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/09/why_its_big.php
edit: read Marshall’s post again, and I disagree with him that this course is a problem for Russia. Seems more like a solution, since if the conflict does get embalmed in international UN diplomacy and various monitoring forces, they would have a better chance of retaining their naval access to Syrian ports. If they saw signs that Assad was losing grip, that would be an OK Plan B, better than chaos or the rebels winning.
patroclus
@RobinDC: Did you read any of the other comments? Because your comment is bizarre to say the least. When Obama was veering towards war, I described it as reckless. Now that he’s pursuing a diplomatic option, I’m supportive again. Many others have different perspectives. I suggest you read the comments rather than opining on them first.
My problem with John is that he seems to be in denial about the use of chemical weapons. This is clouding his opposition to the proposed bombing and isn’t very convincing. But otherwise, he’s right on point. The media is terrible, we don’t need to start bombing yet and Obama would be making a mistake if he did so precipitously.
Omnes Omnibus
@Emma: Weirdly, communications things like this were a problem between me and my ex. I would say, “I don’t think that is the best idea,” meaning “OMG, if we do that, we will DIE!” OTOH, she had the diplomatic skills of a charging rhino.
RobinDC
@patroclus: This is the first good thread to come out of Balloon-Juice in a while on this issue, it might be the only good thread in fact. One exception does not change the general fact that there are plenty of sewer threads on any issue where even a whiff of criticism of the president can be detected.
jl
I criticized Obama plenty on AB and Zandar posts. I never got attacked by nobody.
Omnes Omnibus
@RobinDC: I have have say doubt you have read the threads. Very little different is being said here that was said elsewhere. FWIW the general tide of comments was against unilateral military strikes – or even strikes under UN aegis.
rda909
@patroclus: You realize the “reckless veering towards war” was part of the strategy all along to succeed with the “diplomatic option,” correct? President Obama has been in complete control of this plan all along, and it appears to be leading to one of the great foreign policy successes in modern history. Don’t let the “liberal” blogs or the media fool you into thinking otherwise.
Edit: Syria was included in John Bolton’s definition of the dreaded “Axis.”
patroclus
@RobinDC: We’ll just have to agree to disagree. The threads here have been well represented by war supporters and opponents and it’s basically been a free-for-all. Perhaps you should read more of them and get a much better perspective. Basically, this issue has split the BJ commentariat and while some commenters are taking what you might call predictable positions, many others haven’t. My own views keep shifting – I don’t think bombing will solve anything and I oppose it, but I accept the case that Syria has violated the Chemical Weapons Conventions and that the international community should respond. I just prefer that it be diplomatic; rather than military. I support Obama but he can certainly make mistakes and bombing Syria would be a big one.
Mandalay
@Emma:
“strong circumstantial case” means “we don’t have any hard evidence” because if they did it would have been in the report. Their goal was not to assign responsibility, but they would hardly suppress hard information tying the attack to Assad if they had found any. On the limited evidence of the leaked report, the case against Assad does not seem to be significantly weaker or stronger.
patroclus
@rda909: Yes, I realize that the saber rattling has had the desired effect of forcing Russia and Syria to blink and not only admit the presence of chemical weapons but also begin a process which might turn the stocks over to international control. This is good and I support the diplomatic track and hope that it is successful. But in real time, it wasn’t clear two weeks ago that that would happen and I feared (and still fear) gettting involved in the civil war there more so that we are already.
If you want to attribute that to Obama’s foresight and dual-track options and strategy, you can. But it didn’t seem that way at the time to me.
rda909
@patroclus: Yes, I do indeed attribute it to President Obama’s “foresight” since he is without a doubt the most liberal president in any of our lifetimes…by far. This is not a debatable statement when one looks objectively at the total amount of CHANGE that has happened while he has been president, and all this happening while fighting the most obstructionist Congress ever…by far.
Because of this fact, he has earned my trust over time, so my first instinct now is to think that he knows more than I do, or any other white-privilege whiners with pathetic lives who rail incessantly about the .0000000000000000000000000000001% chance that one of their meaningless emails might be accidentally read by some NSA employee.
Morbo
My god…
Assad, FSA, Al Qaeda, they all have nothing; the Kurds play the long game.
Omnes Omnibus
@Morbo: I don’t know of any international treaty or norm that bans it.
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@Mnemosyne:
CHAINED CPI! AUDIT THE FED!
Emma
@Omnes Omnibus: One of my UN pet peeves is that in their efforts to square the circle they’re too damn diplomatic at times.
Emma
@Mandalay: You really need to read up on the history of the UN. Really.
Tractarian
Sure was. You made it straightforwardly clear that you haven’t been paying attention at all. (“do we know for sure who launched the chemical attack if there was one”)
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@Xboxershorts:
Occam called. He says you borrowed his razor, and he wants it back.
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@Mandalay:
It has been mentioned before in other threads in which you were omnipresent.
Assigning blame was not in the US mission. Please read something.
Corner Stone
Jesus Christ. I’m sorry, everyone. I just can no longer keep up with killing these fucking shit hole threads. There’s just too many of them. It’s like Galaga level 90.
I can’t keep denying everyone here the conversation they *truly* desire to have.
I’m sorry. I’m sorry I failed you all.
chopper
@Mnemosyne:
“on the stand, the medical examiner refused to say that my client killed the guy!”
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: Have you considered taking the honorable way out?
Jebediah
@Omnes Omnibus:
But they do help. If you can get over the weirdness of pouring water up your nose.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Either most of you are twelve years old or have the memory span of a stoned Alzheimer’s patient.
What the fuck is wrong with waiting a while and making sure you get your facts straight before bombing the shit out of someone?
Didn’t work out so fucking well last time, did it? Oh, but that was different because it was a Republican! Guess what; bad ideas are nonpartisan.
I’ve been bitching unendingly about Cole not policing his blog but you know what? I was wrong. I no longer see why he should put in the effort. For that matter, I no longer see why he should pay the hosting fees. You people are, most of you, a pack of bloodthirsty brainwashed idiots.
This country deserves every bit of the utter ruin it’s been begging for over the last fifty years. I’m only sorry I’m going to have to bend over and take it with the rest of you imbeciles.
Good post, John.
Omnes Omnibus
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
Who was in favor of immediate bombing? Please name names and provide links.
Redshirt
@CONGRATULATIONS!: Sodomy analogies always work, IMO.
different-church-lady
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
Apparently nothing, since that’s what’s indeed FUCKING HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
LiberalTarian
JC, nobody else reads all the comments either. It’s OK.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
The last time was Libya, not Iraq.
Omnes Omnibus
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): Fuck facts.
Elie
@rda909:
Well said….thanks
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Omnes Omnibus:
Hey, if they don’t fit the “Obama=Bush” narrative…
peachkfc
John, I’m a little late to this party but.I hope you see this. The comment.section to BJ is a.fucking cesspool mostly because of the so-called regulars. Yjdrbybnooff alrighty
peachkfc
OK, tried once to fix this comment phone is fucking up. Last comment got messed up can’t fix. Point is some regulars treat commenting here as a fraternity-type privilege and feel entitled to haze newbies or lurkers as pledges who need hazing. It’s really obnoxious. –
different-church-lady
@peachkfc:
We ought to just stick that in the lexicon — just create a made-up definition for it. I mean, your comment almost made surrealist sense like that: “[regular X], you’re being all yjdrbybnooff again!”
Betty Cracker
@patroclus: It actually didn’t seem that way at the time to the most hardcore meep-meepers either, who were busily denouncing anyone who questioned the wisdom of launching Tomahawk missiles at Syria as naifs or fans of genocide.
Now that the Obama admin is pursuing a diplomatic solution, it is no longer a fool’s errand but was instead the plan all along. And if the talks break down and the admin rattles sabers again or actually launches strikes, that too will be interpreted as the only possible correct and righteous course and also something that was foreseen.
Also, it’s important to keep in mind that while US threats to use force must receive 100% of the credit for luring the Russians and Syria to the negotiating table, the lack of support for airstrikes among the majority of Americans, the UN, the UK, etc., must receive 0% of the credit for prompting the admin to step up diplomacy and back off the war footing.
cleek
@rda909:
this is completely unsupported speculation.
you have no idea what Obama’s ultimate “strategy” is, because he (rightfully) hasn’t told anybody what it is.
you’re guessing.
Omnes Omnibus
@Betty Cracker: Who was all out in favor of launching Tomahawks? I thought that the use of chemical weapons warranted a reaction. I, however, did not think that there was a proportional military response that had a reasonable chance of being successful; therefore, I opposed the strikes. It now appears that diplomatic efforts were underway to resolve the crisis without military strikes at the same time that military pressure was being extended. This result actually satisfies the concerns I had. Use of chemical weapons is being addressed and we aren’t simply lobbing some bombs at Syria as punishment. The fact that I did not see the diplomatic efforts happening in real time doesn’t mean that they weren’t happening. In addition, I have no idea what specific picture the administration had of an end result in the process. My guess is that they were willing to discuss a wide variety of options and that the one currently being pursued is the one that the everyone found they could live with.
And, yeah, if Assad uses chemicals now or if he walks away from the table, strikes are almost inevitable. My guess is that they would have much greater international support as well. I still don’t think they would do much good.
As far as the threat of force receiving 100% of credit for bring people to the negotiating table goes, no reasonable person would suggest that or anything approaching that. Obviously, a metric shit ton of considerations went into the mix.
cleek
@Omnes Omnibus:
the obvious inference from the “THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS” and “YOU WANT THE CHILDREN TO DIE” and “IT WILL OPEN THE DOORS TO C.W. FREE-FOR-ALL IF DONT DO SOMETHING NOW” is that the Tomahawks had better be launched – and damn soon, too!
i applaud your own nuanced assessment, but such caution was not universal.
Betty Cracker
@Omnes Omnibus: What Cleek said.
Redshirt
@cleek: That was one poster, was it not?
Betty Cracker
@Redshirt: One commenter was a super-obnoxious asshole about it, but similar sentiments were expressed in less hysterical terms by others.
Corner Stone
@Betty Cracker: Betty, this is like a TV actor breaking the 4th Wall.
To me, it seems almost as if you’re saying that this admin can’t fail. It can only be failed.
dobrojutro
Every psycho regime claims their opponents bombed themselves. It’s sad that this gambit still buys them enough ambiguity to squeeze out of being held responsible.