"She said she expected better of President Obama and that it 'feels terrible' to have to protest against a member of the Democratic Party."

What? You mean it feels good to protest Republicans? Actually, it should feel terrible to have to protest any President, regardless of their party affiliation.

You know, while I've always thought Medea Benjamin was a mostly-brainless piece of refuse with all the critical thinking skills of a sea sponge, I have to give her credit here.

She's sincere about this and not just being partisan; while she obviously prefers Democrats, notice she's still protesting President Obama.

There's hypocrisy (being Anti-Republican rather than Anti-War) in the anti-war movement, but it at least isn't in Code Pink's leadership, as shown here.

Their rank-and-file, evidently.

I do not know why she or other would be surprised now. Anti- war protests raged continuously during the election. And pretty much vanished afterwards, that was years ago, and troops still fight and die.

Right, right. Because Democrats CARE about innocent people the way Republicans don't. That's why this administration has done a complete 180 from the--

What?

You mean they haven't?

Well, snap.

I'm just amazed it has taken this long to realize the anti-Bush war agenda has finally separated from the anti-war agenda that is reality.

Almost nothing was said when Obama bombed the shit out of Libya. Obama spent billions of dollars to put the Muslim Brotherhood in charge there. But when you have a choice of supporting Assad or his opponents -- fuck them and stay the hell out.

OH GOD it pisses me off. It pisses me off. I was anti-Bush because I was anti-war (and for other reasons too), and he told us while he was campaigning that he wanted to "finish the job in Iraq".

I'm so pissed at Obama. I'm SO PISSED.

But, everyone's against this war it seems. I saw a poll that said only 9% of the population supports it, with 60% being against war in Syria and the rest being ambivalent.

I've got another interpretation... rather than it being about Dem/Rep... could it be people have grown cynical and lost their idealism? They're protested out after occupy wall street?

Where's that snippet? Oh, here it is!

"Let me guess, you voted for Obama because you believed that...
...a man who had experienced the worst futilities of war would eagerly and immediately involve the country in multiple conflicts around the globe.
...a man who had never sponsored a bipartisan bill or voted against his party in his life would be more bipartisan than a man who had earned the enmity of his own party by frequently sponsoring bipartisan bills and voting against his own party.
...a vice presidential candidate with actual executive experience and a reasonably non-partisan executive record was scarier than a presidential and vice presidential candidate with no executive experience between them and highly partisan voting records.
...a vice presidential candidate who had been wrong on every foreign policy issue on which he commented actually lent credible foreign policy credentials to a presidential candidate with no foreign policy experience whatsoever.
...a man whose career consisted of a record number of "present" votes and who had avoided taking a stand on every major issue to come across his desk was ready to take on the most significant economic problems the US had experienced since the Great Depression.
...a man who could sit for twenty years listening to a radical preacher disparage America and found those sermons so harmless that he took his young children to listen to them would be a good president.
...that a man whose closest confidants included some of the most radical homegrown terrorists America has ever produced, even going so far as to having one of them ghost write his autobiography, regarded them as mere cocktail party guests and had no political affinity with their views whatsoever.
...that a man who came to national prominence through one of the most corrupt political systems in the country would be a shining paragon of ethical probity."

...and that a man who forcefully insisted that raising the cap on Federal debt was a failure of leadership would actually insist on financial responsibility when in office.

Isn't McCain being a Syria hawk, too?

Isn't McCain being a Syria hawk, too?

Posted by: NicoleK at September 6, 2013 11:06 AM

In my opinion Obama owns this, and all the other middle east messes because he withdrew all our forces from Iraq.

This has given all the middle east dictators and terrorists a free pass to misbehave.

Whatever McCains position might be now, I doubt he would have abandoned Iraq without a status of forces agreeent, so in all likelyhood, there would not be a civil war in Syria right now.

Incompetence and foreign policy dithering begets global insecurity, and civil war, as terrorists perceive weakness, and opportunities.

"In my opinion Obama owns this, and all the other middle east messes because he withdrew all our forces from Iraq. "

Isab, this is naive, for at least two reasons.

One is that it assumes having troops in Iraq would have some effect on this. Evidence? All having troops in Iraq did was expose them to IEDs and enable the Iraqis to fuck around instead of getting serious about running thier country.

The other is that it assumes withdrawing the troops was about withdrawing from the ME (a good idea in and of itslf) rather than about preserving what is left of the Army and transfering resources to where they can actually tend to matters that affect the national interest - the Pacific.

There will be peace in the Middle East when the last two Middle Easterners finally kill each other - and that applies across the board, without regard to religion or ethnicity - and not until then. Well, maybe if all the rest of us just back off and confront them with that possibility, the shock will bring them all to their senses.

Yes, I have evidence, but it is not the smoking gun kind of evidence.

I have read several books on the Arab culture, and understand the strong horse mentality of their tribal world view.

Assad is no dummy. He watched Obama leave Iraq totally with no forces left in place, and then watched terrorists kill our ambassador in Benghazi, and again Obama did nothing.

Not only did Assad make a smart bet, that Obama would do nothing to intervene in Syria, but I am still not sure, the chemical attack was not orchestrated by the rebels, in the hopes that Obama would be stupid enough to jump in on their side. And in answer to their question, he is, but Congress probably not.

US casualties started dropping dramatically in 2008 in Iraq , after the surge. My husband was serving in Baghdad when things were getting a great deal better.

Since we pulled out, things have gotten much worse for the Iraqi people,

But if you honestly think there is no connection between stability and our presence over there, nothing I say will convince you.

Obama picked the Muslim brotherhood over Mubarak, and that sure made Egypt a more pleasant and stable place, didn't it?

http://icasualties.org/

Yes, Arabs are a violent culture, and have been killing each other for years, But violence is a matter of degree. Less is better, and in my opinion Assad, terrible as he may be is better for stability than the Muslim Brotherhood or some other bunch of thieving terrorists.

We dont need a dozen failed states like Somalia in the middle East because pretty soon one of them will get hold of a nuke, and we are looking at World War III when Israel nukes them back.