I just wanted to say once again how much I love this guy:
“I’m less concerned about style points, I’m much more concerned about getting the policy right,” Obama said in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “What I’ve said consistently throughout is that — the chemical weapons issue is a problem. I want that problem dealt with.” Obama — who initially called for punitive military action against against Syria before a workable diplomatic plan emerged last week — said that a bad policy could have a smooth rollout and vice versa.
“Folks here in Washington like to grade on style,” Obama said. “Had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and linear they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy.”
“We know that, ’cause that’s exactly how they graded the Iraq War until it ended up blowing [up] in our face,” Obama said.
Reminds me of this:
I also loved his tacit admission that the strikes wouldn’t do anything to deal with the actual chemical weapons issue, points I repeatedly brought up, but let’s not rub all the hawks noses in it.
There is a reason I voted for this guy and this website popularized the terms firebagger and Obot. It’s because Obama is smarter than your average commenter and himself knew strikes would do nothing. And that is why I love him.
*** UPDATE ***
Again, I have no idea how I am trolling you all. I was vehemently against us getting involved in more air strikes that would accomplish (in my estimation) nothing. I stated this repeatedly. And Obama agrees:
Let’s see if they’re serious. But we have to make sure that we can verify it and enforce it, and if in fact we’re able to achieve that kind of agreement that has Russia’s agreement and the Security Council’s agreement, then my central concern in this whole episode is resolved. It doesn’t resolve the underlying terrible conflict in Syria.
And, you know, that I’ve always said is not amenable to a military solution. We’re gonna have to get the parties to arrive at some sort of settlement. But this may be a first step in what potentially could be an end to terrible bloodshed, and millions of refugees throughout the region — that is of deep concern to us and our allies.***
But what I’m gonna try to propose is, is that we have a very specific objective, a very narrow military option, and one that will not lead into some large-scale invasion of Syria or involvement or boots on the ground, nothing like that. This isn’t like Iraq, it’s not like Afghanistan, it’s not even like Libya. Then hopefully people will recognize why I think this is so important.
And that we should all be haunted by those images of those children that were killed. But more importantly, we should understand that when when we start saying it’s okay to — or at least that there’s no response to the gassing of children, that’s the kind of slippery slope that leads eventually to these chemical weapons being used more broadly around the world. That’s not the kind of world that we want to leave to our children.
If that isn’t a tacit admission that bombing strikes will change nothing on the ground and would be nothing but dick-waving because “WE HAD TO REACT,” then I don’t know what is. Instead, the smart guy out there worked to put Putin and his client state in a bind, and create a situation where the chemical weapons might actually destroyed rather than the spray and pray tomahawk strikes so many of you witless and feckless liberal hawks were all het up about. It’s almost like many of you douchebag internet warriors are too young to remember the big SCUDmobile weapons chase in the the first gulf experiment. At any rate, hopefully Syria is easier to control for Putin than Israel is for the US.
And instead of fearmongering, he does this:
But on CNN’s “The Situation Room,” Obama snapped back that Syria is no threat to the United States.
“Mr. Assad doesn’t have a lot of capability,” Obama said. “He has capability relative to children. He has capability relative to an opposition that is still getting itself organized and are not professional, trained fighters. He doesn’t have a credible means to threaten the United States.”
Compare that to the Bush years of mushroom cloud hysteria.
I reserve my right to scream against bombing that will accomplish nothing. I’m not trolling my website when I support the guy I have supported for 6 years when I agree with him, and bitch about him when I think he is wrong. I don’t have to just sit here and rely on faith in the man. I get to choose if I think he is right. That is how thinking goes. I was against the fierce three week bombing push, and I support what he is doing now and want to once again state how much I love the guy. That’s not trolling. That’s just basing my decisions on people’s behavior. Although I guess I could still be a mindless idiot Republican trying to name every god damned thing after Reagan.