Exactly! An excellent exposition of the utter lack of integrity of our elected reprehensatives. However, I must point out that the President is not necessarily “the only president we will have for another three plus years.” Having dealt “US prestige and power a serious blow”, if he had a shred of integrity, he’d resign.
Mr. Allison, I take it you’re a Joe Biden fan then?
Not especially, but he could hardly do worse. The thought of three more years of amateur hour in the White House is truly scary.
Having met Biden several times, trust me…he is worse. Obama is a narcissistic twit who seems to have bought in to his own nonsense, but Biden is relentlessly stupid (and I mean that as in “IQ below 90” not “someone I disagree with”) and deeply insecure to boot. Add to that his wife (who makes Hillary Clinton look like Mother Teresa) and his dubious selections of aides, and I can honestly say that I wish Obama a healthy 3.5 years.
But yes, the current collection of nitwits in the White House is genuinely frightening.
And yet we compare:
Number of troops killed in wars started in the middle east by conservatives?
Hmm…there’s alot to be said for stupidity
To fascists like bupharic, the people who died in Libya are 0, and the fact that the democraps voted for the AUMF in 2003 doesn’t make them responsible. Got it.
Re: “Biden is relentlessly stupid”. Seems to me the same was said of one of the most successful Presidents in recent history. Could it be that it’s not the IQ but the recognition of it. Surrounding oneself with smart advisers and surrounding oneself with idiots? Disclosure: I’m a paleolibertarian who couldn’t bring himself to vote for either Presidential candidate last time around.
I am not suggesting that this is about IQ (though I would be willing to wager big money that Biden’s is solidly in the double-digits), it is about the ability to reason and think critically. Biden has a certain flexible charm, and a ruthlessness which serves him well (his son makes him look like Machievelli, if you can believe that), but there is nothing in the way of intellect behind it.
The senior aides in the Senate (of both parties) have a semi-secret informal poll each year as to who the smartest and dumbest Senators are. At the time he became VP, Biden had won dumbest 10 years running, and had no serious competition. If it matters, the current ‘champ’ is Patty Murray, with Barbara Boxer a close second. Remember, these evaluations are based on votes from aides in BOTH parties…
Who do they think the smartest ones are?
(FWIW, I’m 20 years more appreciative of the wisdom of the Founders than you are LOL)
Not that it matters, but I am something of a libertarian learning conservative myself. I must admit, as I get older (I am 54 now…sigh), and see more and more the wisdom of our Founders, I move increasingly to the libertarian (small ‘l’) camp myself!
Conservatives killed 4400 US troops and blew a 2 trillion dollar hole in the budget. Under your idea, Bush should have been impeached.
Actually Conservatives killed no one. Jihadis (who the Democrats constantly defend and ally with) are the ones who killed people. Democrats want them as citizens of America and bring them here to blow up marathons.
Meanwhile the deaths in Afghanistan under Obama is more than under Bush.
Libya is a chaotic nightmare, thanks to Obama and Hillary and led to American deaths.
And let us not forget the tens of thousands killed in wars started by Socialists like LBJ.
Actually it’s teh GOP that defends Islamists
Item: The week after 9/11, Grover Norquist sponsored CAIR at the White House. CAIR is America’s largest Islamist organization
Item: Dinesh D’Sousza a noted conservative, has suggested building alliances with US Islamists to fight gay marriage
And we wouldn’t have BEEN in Afghanistan under OBama if BUSH hadn’t failed in BOTH Afghanistan AND Iraq
Bush and conservatives lied about IRaq
They killed 4400 US troops
Spent 2 trillion
And LBJ is as much a socialist as Paul Ryan is a nazi
I suggest you lay off the ‘socialist’ shtick
Your right wingers us it ALL the time. It’s such a cliche
He can’t resign until his goal of of the Muslim Brotherhood running most of North Africa and the Middle East has been achieved.
Let me try an equally stupid comment:
George Bush wanted the nazis to run N Africa
Golly! This is fun!
Paranoia is a great game.
***Congress will be hoping for a short and inconsequential war; Syria, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, however, will all get to vote on what kind of war we actually have.***
They wouldn’t adopt a strategy of giving us the opposite of what we want, would they?
I disagree with the VM premise that “…our elected representatives seem to be trying to evade the harsh truth about what they are doing…”
This looks far more like a Confidence/No confidence vote of a parliamentary system.
Except for MA Sen. Markey who actually voted “Present”, his way of signalling how much he wants to show his confidence in this CinC without any missile launches????
Anyway, rumour has it the House won’t get to any full vote ‘for a few weeks’. Are they waiting for the Sochi2014 Olympic torch lighting in Greece on Oct. 6?
This is one of the most insightful and clarifying articles I have seen.
I think Congress needs to vote no on a war with Syria to spare the Syrian people the incompetence and fecklessness of our Commander in Chief.
If there is anyone who has an “imaginary war you have designed in your clever, ivy-educated, IR-theory stuffed head” it is the President judging by the disaster he fomented in Benghazi.
The right (ala Peggy Noonan) thinks Benghazi is the worst disaster in US history (yes, she said that). Guess they forgot about those flag draped coffins that arrived every day during the Iraq war….
By that standard, George Meade, the Union commander at Gettysburg, who suffered 23,000 casualties, was a greater failure than George Armstrong Custer, who only suffered 323 casualties at the Little Bighorn.
Let me know when Benghazi turns into Appomattox, OK?
Your grasp of history is…tenuous at best.
And yours is better? I am awaiting the evidence.
You have a very long wait ahead of you…
Number of soldiers who’ve died in wars started by Obama?
As is yours of the truth.
Maybe I’m just dense (as you must assuredly think) but what on earth are you talking about?
No, she didn’t. The subject was 9/11, and the statement was a comment by an opponent on one of her columns.
You are actually trying to argue facts with this clown?
Great words of wisdom, “Don’t mud wrestle with a pig, you will get filthy, and the pig will enjoy it”
Who knew you had a corkscrew tail?
It was actually Dick Cheney..
My apologies , but every once in a while this idiot writes something so utterly outrageous that a response is required. I’ll try harder to restrain myself.
You don’t even understand Benghazi.
The attack itself was just what Islamists do. Absolutely no one is surprised it happened. That is what they do, violent jihad.
The atrocious thing about Benghazi is that Hillary and Obama completely ignored requests for help and the situation on the ground.
After the situation resulted in American deaths Hillary and Obama lied, and lied, and lied and blamed some video instead of their incompetence. Then they JAILED the video maker!
Then they lied some more.
Then they hid evidence, lied some more, threatened people into not testifying, lied some more.
Incompetence and lies. That is what you defend.
And you seem not to understand the failure of conservative ‘nation building’ which killed thousands of US troops and was one of the 2 largest single items in the debt.
The atrocious thing about conservative foreign policy is that its failures last not days
Cost not single lives but THOUSANDS
and cost TRILLIONS of dollars
A one day failure I can understand.
But conservatives think THAT is more important than the collapse of their view of the world which resulted in thousands
THOUSANDS of US deaths.
Let us hope our good president (and I AM an Obama supporter) has the good sense to back off this entanglement. There’s nothing here to be gained.
Going to war is like stepping through a door into a dark room
Serbia wasn’t a very formidable adversary in 1914 either, and look what happened. But then, as now it wasn’t really about Serbia. It was about which rules had the biggest pair of ball.
Let’s stop worrying about saving face here and take a look at the big picture. The entire world is far from stable right now in both economic and political terms. Our leaders are children pla
Oops. It should read It was all about which ruler had the biggest pair of balls, and Our leaders are children playing with nuclear matches.
Actually, Serbia was a fairly formidable adversary, and as things worked out, they were more than Austria-Hungary could handle on their own.
Your broader argument, however, still stands…
I agree for the most part with WRM. It’s unserious, unseemly and dangerous for Congress to start drawing lines around what military action is permitted. Then again, Obama did not have to ask Congress, no one expected him to do so, and most Members would vastly prefer that he did not. So, any blame for making an even bigger mess of the mess made by Obama’s “red line” comment is on Obama’s head.
While I’m sympathetic to the argument that, like it or not, our nation’s credibility and leadership are on the line, so we have no choice but to support Obama, however foolish or inept his policy, as I’ve read and heard it from many sources over several days, I must say it’s not entirely convincing for two reasons:
1) It largely ignores or at least does not not account fully for the downside risks of following through on a foolish policy. Becoming enmeshed in Syria’s blood feud and by extension the Sunni-Shia conflict and other vicious internecine conflicts across the Muslim world is certainly not in any US national interest.
2) I don’t think enough attention has been paid to the fact that Assad is a Russian client and also supported by China. Not that our actions can be dictated by relations with Moscow, reset or not, but let’s face it, US-Russia and US-China relations are a lot more important than our relationship with Sunni Syrian rebels, whoever they may be. Bill Clinton’s “humanitarian” intervention in Kosovo and merciless bombing of Serbia, even Belgrade, may be seen as the moment when Russian nationalists, including Putin, made up their minds to reassert Russian influence after a decade of everyone playing nice — because Serbia was a Russian client and Clinton waved off Russian objections at every step.
What will reestablish American — and Obama’s– credibility is smart, resolute policies, not doubling down on stupidity.
“It’s unserious, unseemly and dangerous for Congress to start drawing lines around what military action is permitted.”, not to mention unconstitutional, but the Constitution seems to be the last thing on the minds of either the President or Congress these days. The Republic is in deep trouble.
“The degree to which the current debate is over fine tuning the limits of action is a powerful illustration of the lack of understanding on the part of our political class about the nature of war…. But one should be very clear: if you vote for war, you will have to take the war that you get not the beautiful imaginary war you have designed in your clever ivy-educated, IR-theory stuffed head.” Power is exercised for much more than mere show and moving toward one extreme (regime change through degradation) or other (arming rebels) during indecisive civil war may avail uncertainties/unknowns (as have been alluded to).
The Syria issue for many has redound to credibility – United States credibility vis-a-vis national image and foreign policy going forward (credibility being obstacle to an overture of power). Question for me is should a war be fought on such an abstraction alone. Further, does congress pass resolution embracing said abstraction or are there really other motives afoot masked by damaged credibility.
Is it ethical or honorable to go to war to maintain a President’s image? NO it isn’t. With foreign leaders laughing and sneering at Obama as an incompetent weakling, the President has very little authority or credibility left to lose, and if Obama is to regain any, congress cannot give it to him, he will have to earn it.
The 1st Law of Hand Grenades is: Never give a monkey a Hand Grenade.
Hmmm…black president…’monkey’ analogy…..
hmm – defending the indefensible? I know – RACE CARD TIME!
According to racists like you, black people are not allowed to have their incompetence pointed out because they have a privileged skin color.
This is coming from a guy who probably said many racist slurs against black Republicans.
Odd they called Bush a “monkey”too. I wonder was that racist also?
That seems to be the fall-back for all libs these days.
The Syrian issue has grasped Via Meadia and large parts of its audience. But, Syria represents two levels of concern not explicitly noted in essay: 1) response to chemical use on populace; 2) small Syrian client state of Iran and long-term effects on region given war initiation. Simply, our involvement alone changes very little on ground – civil war continues and parties remain bellicose. More than a congressional authorization, a congressional recognition of Syria in relation to both its neighbors and U.S. geopolitical interests post internecine resolution ought to be order of business in Washington D.C.
Because Pearl Harbor was not actually an act of war – just a limited air strike with no boots on the ground…
Is the economist full of people who aren’t serious? The writers there believe that you can support military action against Syria while basically taking a full invasion off the table.
“The vision thing
These sceptics are fighting the last war. Syria is not Iraq. The evidence that the regime has committed atrocities is clear beyond doubt.
Even if Mr Assad defies America after a strike by unleashing yet more sarin, Mr Obama is not about to invade.”