http://www.caintv.com/obama-et-al-discuss-syria-on-f

I found this hysterical.

"5. There's no endgame"

That, of course, is the point. Just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's about keeping the contracts flowing - a conflict with no clear goals and no end in sight, why, that's perfect!

I see two possibilities:

1. Obama actually wants an excuse to send troops into Syria. If that's the case, I take back everything I said about him being not as bad as Bush. I mean, starting up with Iraq was bad, but at least we didn't have two other wars already going on at the time.

2. Obama just wants to look like he cares about the victims of Assad's "crimes against humanity" (this includes the possibility that he actually does care). In that case he has a perfect out. Go to the UN and ask them to intervene. When Russia and/or China veto the action, they look like the bad guys to the world. Obama gets brownie points for humanitarianism without having to get his hands dirty.

If neither Obama nor anyone in his circle of advisors is bright enough to figure this out. . . I take back everything I said about him being not as bad as Bush.

It really doesn't matter if it is Bush or Obama. We're damned if we do or damned if we don't.

The difference is that is we do, we tell Arabs once again that what we want to do is more important than their sovereignty. Imagine for a moment a Saudi attack on US soil. Pick a reason. Even if something truly heinous was going on, just what does a border mean?

Orwell, in Goldstein's book (approximately): It does not matter that the war cannot be won. The purpose of war is the consumption of human output.

It makes a fine distraction from American internal affairs. If some hottie intern did the President, the cruise missiles would have flown months ago.

There's the Syria/Iran/Iraq conspiracy theory, of course...

why don't we ask Saudi to intervene? Or any other local country? Don't Kuwait owe us one? And finally why don't we just mind our own business? Everyone always dislikes the person who keeps sticking their noses in everyone else's business: do we ever learn? Maybe we wouldn't need such an intrusive NSA is we kept the **** out of it all.

At least Bush had a goal, however unrealistic it might have been. I don't even understand what the goal would be for this operation. To overthrow Assad? No point really, as Amy notes; there's a thousand more just like him waiting in line.

Here are a few reasons why we could potentially have an interest in Syria. This is not to say that we should be in Syria, but they are things that might be worth considering in making a decision:
1. To help protect Israel's security.
2. To help protect Mideast oil flows to Europe so that they do not become overly dependent on Russia.
3. To prevent Syria from becoming another Al Queda home country.

Has anything from the Administration addressed any of these goals, or how we might accomplish them? I haven't heard anything. Even if we decided that one or more of the above goals constituted sufficient justification, there's still the matter of how we would go about it, and, as noted above, what the engame would be -- what would constitute victory, and how we would guarantee our gains long term.

If the rebels win, it's bad news for the U.S.

Unless you're Obama, and everything you've done in office so far seems to be done to help out the Islamists. He clearly is on their side (see: Egypt, Libya)

It's far from certain that any "limited" actions would actually be effective.

They would be effective at helping the Islamists gain control of yet another country (see: Egypt, Libya, etc.)

It's hard to keep limited actions limited.

That type of thinking requires...thinking. At least, thinking past the next election cycle or poll or interview with Oprah.

There's no endgame.

See first two points above. There is most certainly an "endgame". It's consistent with what he's been doing all along.

This isn't hard to figure out folks. Obama supports the islamists (see: Egypt, Libya, etc.) and will do whatever it takes to help them out.

I see this has a 14% approval rating, which proves that most Americans are smarter than their leaders.

It also proves killing people that have nothing to do with us half a world away is still more popular than Congress.

Where am I? This isn't the United States anymore.

Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul.

I actually said this to someone recently, and her response was, 'I liked him a lot, but it just seemed like a wasted vote.'

Makes sense. If everyone else is doing the wrong thing, why shouldn't YOU be part of the problem, too? Also, you get a free value meal if the candidate you vote for wins.

So 100,000 dead from bullets and conventional weapons is fine. 1000 dead from poison gas and we goods to get involved?

Agree, luj. Syria is having a civil war, and people kill each other during civil wars. It's a bad thing, but frankly none of our business. Not that you can get those jugheads in our government to acknowledge that there is ever anything that is not our business.

Besides, how in holy hell are we supposed to pay for this? We have to borrow money just to cut Social Security checks.

The Obama Administration is worse largely because fewer outlets, most notably the supposedly independent media, hold him accountable.

...somebody please tell me again why Obama is so different from George Bush.

George W. Bush checked with Congress before he committed the US military to action. Both his adventures (or misadventures) in Afghanistan and Iraq were done with Congressional approval.

Obama's adventure in Libya was done with only NATO approval and Congress was not consulted (much like Clinton's adventure in Serbia).

His numerous covert operations and drone strikes are mostly unsupervised as well.

Of course, to his apologists, it's not that he doesn't consult Congress, he simply doesn't consult this Congress ... because it's obstructionist (in other words, he can't get his own way so he takes his ball and goes home).

From Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic consultant:

"There is a special Congress that we’re dealing with right now that has the lowest popularity rating in history and Republicans who overwhelmingly would oppose taking any action. The president of the United States cannot be handcuffed by the same Republicans that are holding the rest of the country hostage on every other issue. That is wrong."

She conveniently ignores the fact that Bush faced an obstructionist US Senate, yet still consulted Congress on major matters.

Link to interesting editorial by John Fund (where the Marsh quote came from): http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356978/obama-embraces-imperial-presidency-john-fund

"Besides, how in holy hell are we supposed to pay for this? We have to borrow money just to cut Social Security checks."

Exhaust existing inventory and manpower, then block replenishment in favor of handouts to people who will vote for you.

Inventory!? WHAT inventory?

If you listen to Mike Church you would know that the declaration of war resides in the House:

Amongst the founding generation, there was pretty much rapt agreement, unanimous agreement that making wars was serious, serious business and that you didn’t want to have a standing army around, which is why they made the appropriations for no longer than two years. You didn’t want to have a president that could have at his disposal a standing army, which is why we were counseled against it. You certainly did not want the president to have the ability to be able to call out a standing army. If he did, then he would get us involved in all sorts of wars and activities that may be of his or those that he knows, to their personal interest. Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

Here is the pertinent section:

What!? Allow the executive to declare? No, no, no. He can be the president or the chief of the army after it has been declared, but the power must reside in the legislature, because that is the only way the people can have a check against it. They argued and debated over this.

There is a reason it was made a responsibility of the House. The founding fathers knew the Senate was to represent the individual states to the federated government. The House was supposed to represent the voters of each state to the federated government. They would be the one's fighting and dying with their blood, treasure, and sacred honor. That should be the people's choice and not choice of some tyrannical president.