If you have "no place to go," come here!

Oh good, we're only going to bomb the bad Syrians

Because surgical precision. Pravda:

After Syria chemical allegations, Obama considering limited military strike
President Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria that would be of limited scope and duration, designed to serve as punishment for Syria’s use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while keeping the United States out of deeper involvement in that country’s civil war, according to senior administration officials.

The timing of such an attack, which would probably last no more than two days and involve sea-launched cruise missiles — or, possibly, long-range bombers — striking military targets not directly related to Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, is dependent on three factors: completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last week’s alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law.

What kind of half-assery is this?

So they whack Assad. What then?

So they destroy some weapons. Russia sends more.

So they blow some civilians to pink mist. What else is new?

And what kind of "deterrent" is based on "keeping the United States out of deeper involvement?

NOTE As for "punishment," Dear Lord... Look, can we just forget about the whole Nobel peace prize thing?

No votes yet


Submitted by MontanaMaven on

What's weird is how different this is than in 2003. there will be no massive marches against the war. People have given up. Marches don't work except as a feel good exercise like Saturday. And these demons are crafty. they dont declare a big war like in iraq. they choose small ones. And no time to organize any protest. So they will bomb to commemorate MLKJr. That's not just more effective evil. It's pure evil. It defines cynical. So tired.

Martin Finnucane's picture
Submitted by Martin Finnucane on

Tired. Me too. But you and I may be different from most other non-marchers. That is, Obama's purpose, why he is where he is and is what he is, is to deliver otherwise restive and dangerous constituencies safely to our plutocratic overlords. Part and parcel, he managed to deliver the anti-Bush anti-war movement to the dark masters of the military-surveillance state. In so doing, he inevitably left a few of us behind to sigh and cavil out in the cold, but we're sufficiently isolated, cowed, and - yes - tired, that we no longer pose any threat.

The bulk of the anti-Bush crowd were cheering for hope and change in '08, and at least kind of hopefully whimpering hopey changey in '12, instead of taking to the streets. That is why I argued to friends and family, and other people that generally ignored me, that better Romney than Obama in '12, simply because with the odious Romney, we may again have an opposition. With Obama, it's game over and lights out: total victory for the plutocracy.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

considering that (if I've heard correctly) the House has only nine days penciled in their calendar for September, once everyone returns from summer/Labor Day break.

Have to wonder if the "timing" is about churning up some patriotic fervor right before Congress gives the America People a major haircut (i.e., the Grand Bargain--slashing "entitlements," while raising taxes).

From all that I've read since 2010, the intention is to "fast track" the Grand Bargain (pass within a couple days of announcing that a deal has been struck).

Hmmmmmm . . .

jo6pac's picture
Submitted by jo6pac on

true on the GB (not so grand for Main Street) that why he been having those'd closed meeting with the repugs and no demodogs like they would doing anything other than what their puppet master want.

The other news was TPP hit a snag in Japan so now the Amerikan govt. is going to pound on them until they see the right path because 0 wants it done by years end. Good-Bye any rights we might of had left.

I better plant a winter garden.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

for a Republican in 2012.

Instead, if cast my first ever non-"Lesser Than Two Evils" vote for Jill Stein (even though I've never been associated with Green Party politics).

Your suggestion is also worth consideration in 2016--unless there is a non-corporatist, non-DLC/Third Way/New Dem/No Labels candidate.

And I wouldn't "hold my breath" on that one.

Look how long poor ol' Howard Dean was allowed to float his "trial balloon" before the Democratic Party Establishment reigned him in, LOL! (Less than a week!)

Until the Dem Party base is willing to do as Repubs did--refuse to support politicians who don't hold their core beliefs--their destiny may be just what Macbeth described:

"It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

[BTW, I obviously include myself in this category, since I've admitted that I've only mustered the "nerve" to reject the legacy parties, once.]

But, I do believe that it will become much easier for me in the future. After all, clearly this President is either going to succeed in completely destroying the social safety net in the US, or as Mr. A recently heard on C-Span, "set everything up, to be finished off by the next President."

I'm pushed now, but I will try to remember to post the "DLC Hyde Park Declaration" in my next "Grand Bargain" comment.

Obviously, PBO is simply carrying out the DLC/Third Way's/No Label's neoliberal, corporatist conservative agenda.

It is nothing "original." One only has to visit the DLC and Third Way websites, and they will see that pretty much EVERYTHING that we have seen this past five years, has been called for by this toxic group.

Except now, they have the "No Labels" crowd (basically the same people, for that matter), and all the "Fix The Debters" to give an assist in pushing the Peterson agenda.

We have practically nothing to lose, at this point.

It seems to me that the battle's been won--and we lost.

katiebird's picture
Submitted by katiebird on

What is behind the PBO thing. I've seen other people use those initials for Obama but, not for any other president. Why not BHO?

I know, it's trivial. I'm just curious.

Submitted by lambert on

I am guessing because there was this big thing about how it was disrespectful (i.e., racist) not to call Obama "President" (as if we didn't call Bush, Bush, and Clinton, Clinton). This would be the same crowd that calls Obama "Our President."

No relation to PBR, I don't think.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

at eight blogs. And "PBO" is a common acronym at "six" of them.

I haven't blogged prior to this Administration--I began in October 2011.

So honestly I don't know anything about the "format for initials" for previous Presidents.

I only know why I use it.

And my intention is to show respect for the Office (in the way that I address them), which I basically do for all of our politicians--Senators, Representatives, Governors, etc.

And I used PBO instead of "the President" because I was pushed for time.

The only politician that I'm likely to refer to by first name is "Hillary," because as I recall, her own Presidential campaign "branded her as Hillary." (One of her Super Pacs today is called "Ready For Hillary.")

But regardless of this, I most often refer to her as Secretary Clinton (when I can remember it) or Senator Clinton--again, to show respect.

Bottom line is that my blogging style is based on policies, ideology, and values.

And I don't feel comfortable getting too much into the "cult of personality" stuff. Which is why I really don't know anything about it.

So, your guess is as good as mine as to exactly what the originator of the acronym "PBO" had in mind.

Now, there is one other reason. Lambert came close, except for the racial component.

I have found that one can be very critical of this Administration's policies (and those of other Democratic Party politicians) at blogs like DKos, and other blogs with ties to the Democratic Party machine, and not get into a lot of trouble with moderators, if you have your facts (links), and don't "name call" or show "personal disrespect" for powerful people/politicians.

And the bottom line is, I'm not skillful enough to be able to adopt various blogging styles, tailored to each blog.

So, my personal guideline is to use formal addresses of all politicians (unless I'm terribly pushed for time), even if I'm savagely attacking a politician's policies, LOL!

It's worked thus far--meaning that I'm still able to "rant" about the Grand Bargain as policy, in the progressive blogging community.

After all, it was the Fiscal Commission's 2010 proposal that prompted me to blog, in the first place. ;-)

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

It's probably a dumb question, but bear in mind, I've only been blogging for about 22 months.

So, I don't know much of the jargon that was used during the 2008 election, between the two warring camps.

Or for that matter, much internet slang period. ;-)