Corrente

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

When you've lost William Rivers Pitt...

Apparently, the lie direct sticks in Pitt's craw. Why now, after so many lies, I don't know, but I guess everyone has their own tipping point:

[I]t was President Obama himself who deployed the line to beat all lines during this demented catastrophe of a rush to war. During a presser in Sweden on Wednesday morning, he actually said with his bare face hanging out for all to see that, "I didn't set a red line, the world did," regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Got that? Mr. Obama absolutely did not tell Chuck Todd on August 20, 2012 that, "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation." And he totally didn't box himself in with that comment to the point that his only recourse was to throw this hot potato at congress and hope they catch it, so stop saying that.

Ha ha.

We've been hearing "shut up shut up SHUT UP SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP" for years from Obots, but now that Pitt's on the outside he hears it, too. It's a funny old world.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

And when gun advocates actually do something about tyranny, do feel free to let me know. Until then, it's just empty sloganeering and dick waving. The NRA weighing in on NSA surveillance is good, but their analysis is generally so sloppy, distorted, and AIPAC-like in its lack of integrity, that we'll have to wait and see how much is genuinely accomplished.

Adding, I don't know why gun nuts are so fucking sensitive. They're the ones with the guns. If they feel insulted, they can avenge themselves with the weapons, no? So what's the issue?

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

"expression" conveys the same as FS Clinton's words on August 11, 2012, which were as follows:

. . . "in the horrible event that chemical weapons were used, and everyone has made it clear to the Syrian regime that that's a "red line for the world" . . .

We're still traveling, so I cut my earlier comment this evening very short, and really didn't get to the point.

First, thanks for the MSNBC quote.

It surprises me a bit because some of the articles that I've seen, convey a different message regarding PBO's intentions to invade Syria (they are somewhat contradictory, IOW). So, thanks.

Anyway, what I didn't say because I was rushed (and it makes more sense now that you found this MSNBC post, actually), in answer to your questions here, and at NC: "Why now?" was this:

I figure that the Administration and FS Clinton worked out a deal to allow her to leave her State Department "before" the US launches an attack on Syria.

This would make sense since they (PBO and FS Clinton) have to know that "the base" will not support further military action/adventurism.

And, as to "why now?" I imagine that not knowing "how long" another military action might last, the Administration decided to engage well before the 2016 election.

And then there is the pressure from AIPAC. (This is conjecture on my part, about waiting a while, then pressing forward to avoid ongoing military action during the 2016 election campaign--but I think that it's "logical.")

Hey, clearly PBO doesn't "run again," so he could care less about blowback.

But FS Cllinton and ANY other Dem candidate who will be running in either 2014 or 2016 will obviously have to be very concerned about "blowback."

As several pieces have pointed out, it was FS Clinton's hawkish stance and vote (and this time, she'll be on record as a hawk, but at least won't have to cast a vote) on a very unpopular war--the Iraq war--that was one of the reasons that she lost to PBO.

So, my main point is that the President's Syrian invasion is best carried out now (or at the least--very soon), in order to mitigate some of the harm or damage that it will likely cause FS Clinton (or Booker, O'Malley, Schweitzer--whoever the Dem Party candidate is) in 2016.

(I do believe that their "quotes" are pretty much identical, in sentiment. I think that they could both be considered typical political "doublespeak.")

When all is said and done, I'm as mindboggled as the next person to figure out "WHY" the Democratic Party Elites would want to shoot themselves in the foot, this way.

They are (and should be) worried sick about the ACA.

I think that the ACA debacle alone will defeat them in (maybe) 2014, and definitely by 2016. (I only qualify this because a few folks will come out better, and many will be persuaded to "give the ACA a chance.")

But, I firmly believe that by 2016, the masses will realize that they've "been had by the corporatist Dems."

And that "there will be hell to pay," as the saying goes.

Cujo359's picture
Submitted by Cujo359 on

I think that this was about the time Pitt started waking up. Remember that business? I think I first heard about it here. "Moral geometry", my furry ass.

Anyway, you're right. It's a funny old world, particularly when folks get over their prejudices.