After carving out four distinct positions yesterday on the Syrian chemical weapons disarmament deal, President Obama appeared to backtrack to number 3 today during his primetime address, making it very much an afterthought in a speech that appeared to mostly go back to last week’s arguments for attacking Syria.
Though mentioned as something to be pursued at the UN, the chemical weapons deal was only mentioned some 10 minutes into the brief speech, after reiterating his case for war and promising “no boots on the ground.”
The lack of new arguments is conspicuous, particularly with President Obama promising that after tonight’s speech Americans would “want to attack Syria,” and then rehashing arguments that have an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to the war.
The president capped off the speech by claiming that he is now supporting a Congressional delay of the votes authorizing the war, though of course those delays already came simply because he didn’t have the votes.
How dare you project you own warmongering "bent" onto the sensible people ! We reject your appetite for aggression, and violence, mister prez!
Full transcript of his speech: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-tr…
Because I refuse to watch the things, but have to know if we are going to have a @#$# war or not. In written form the mention of the Putin compromise is only 2 1/2 paragraphs or so, very brief. That's not really encouraging 🙁 Compared to many paragraphs of blah blah the jingle for selling this war, we know it well. Sigh …. crossing fingers, but not encouraging. Don't let up resistance to the war now, that's what they are counting on.
Obama — Burn in hell, you warmongering mass murderer !
Meanwhile the nobel peace prize lies in a laundry closet buried under a pile of soiled underwear….
"No boots on the ground" until Syria retaliates. Anyone remember the reaction when Japan made a limited strike against US military assets at Pearl Harbor?
What is the status of boots on the ground in the bill before the Senate? I know it initially allowed it. The President can promise "no boots on the ground" all he wants in speeches, and if the actual bills leave an opening for them, disingenuous is too kind a word.
Being the humanitarians that we are…we dropped 2 nukes on them…
There is something puzzling here, why is it that such presidents as Obama and Bill Clinton promise one thing but when they get into office they become a total different person, is it what they eat or served at White House, is it some strange meetings taking place where they are questioned by a group of men or women whom are from another planet and psychologist able to change people's mind, or they are shown the map of a world where all over it says " this world belongs to America and America only" and presidents needs to repeat it at least 15 times a day until they get use to knowing why they are at the office, or could it be that they have lied to the people and by the time they get into office they can't remember what they said and promised before being elected, so by now they flip flopping on what they said last week?
Your diatribe makes it sound like only "…such presidents as Obama and Bill Clinton…" are guilty of selling out to the men behind the curtain. Rest assured that ALL presidents do it – remember "compassionate conservative?" I keep waiting for the American people to realize that regardless of party affiliation, they are all the same and serve the same masters. If a man/woman was elected and refused to "sell out" as all their predecessors have, they would not last a fortnight…The Archons will not be denied.
White man speak with forked tongue.
What Syria should do is mount every chemical weapon they have on ordinance aim them at Israel and proclaim one us missil or jet and Israel is gassed!
He kept us out of war !
(The 1916 campaign slogan of Woodrow Wilson)
Peace in our time !
(What was said after Hitler agreed to annex only "part" of Czechoslovakia)
Claims no more accurate than the recent spin that Obama's "clever brinksmanship" has avoided war.
This ain't over yet.
Obama has agreed to nothing, but instead continues escalating the undeclared war and making demands impossible to meet for an agreement.
Arming and infiltrating "rebel" jihadists continues. The fighting in Syria continues. The nuclear armed warships still face off.
US threats continue (threats in violation of international law if that still means anything to anybody).
The US insists that any agreement made must include a pre-approved UN authorization for the US to punish alleged non-compliance (like Iraq was "punished" for having non-existent WMDs).
He has not given up the strike on Syria. He is a petty servant of zionist bankers who are seeking "world government" with "greater Israel" in the region allow the "jewish state" to rule the Muslims. Obama must know that is hated around the world and his legacy is SERVANT OF THE APARTHEID STATE at the cost of American people which an act of treason.
I don't mind being the lone person to call Jason Ditz out on this. Without the threat of repercussion there is no way that Syria would agree to surrender their chemical weapons. I guess it's ok with Ditz that they gas their own people and that the bad guys in this is the US; specifically the president. If this works and Syria's chemical cache is destroyed then there is no attack and the world is a lot better off. Isn't that what Antiwar.com is about or is it just a pretense to diss the U.S.?
Antiwar.com is about being anti-war — and being anti-war means being non-interventionist. It's not the US government's business to decide whether or not Syria's government gets to have this or that weapon. At least not until and unless Syria applies to become, and is accepted as, a US state.
If it works out, and if the U.S. accepts the deal, and if the deal isn't used as a *pretext* for another war later. It takes a lot of assumptions about the U.S. government's stated motives being thier actual motives.
Meanwhile it's a very dangrous game of brinksmanship they play, threatening another major war, regional chaos, etc..
Fair enough to question it, but remember what Obama's inner-circle of advisers (Rice, Powers, Kerry, Clinton, etc) have been screaming for: the ouster of Assad. That doesn't happen without US aggression (which includes the arming and supporting of the Al Qaeda-infested rebels). To me this suggests that the Obama Administration is not finished.