Dem Congresswoman: Only Reason I’d Vote for Syria Attack Is Loyalty to Obama
It goes to show that Democrats can’t think for themselves and their actions are a result of partisanship.
HOLMES NORTON: So I think he’ll be in real trouble if he then does it anyway. No president has done that.
PRESS: It’s not an easy decision for any of you, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.
HOLMES NORTON: Oh, and I’d like to say, Bill, that if he gets saved at all, I think it’ll be because, it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage.
PRESS: Yeah, right.
HOLMES NORTON: At the, at the moment, that’s the only reason I would vote for it if I could vote on it.
Wow, she has said it all. It is a shame that a pResident who claimed to “restore our world image” is an utter failure at that as well.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan
You want to know just how we got ourselves in to this mess? Where, here’s the level of stupidity in the Obama Administration:
…Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, hoped that a team of UN investigators — many of whom, presumably, have a longstanding relationship with Iranian leaders — could write a report that would convince Iran to abandon its ally at the behest of the United States.
“We worked with the UN to create a group of inspectors and then worked for more than six months to get them access to the country on the logic that perhaps the presence of an investigative team in the country might deter future attacks,” Power said at the Center for American Progress as she made the case for intervening in Syria.
“Or, if not, at a minimum, we thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran — itself a victim of Saddam Hussein’s monstrous chemical weapons attacks in 1987-1988 — to cast loose a regime that was gassing it’s people,” she said…
So, here goes the “thinking” – if we can just get the Iranians to see that Assad is a bad guy, they’ll get on board with us against him! Genius, I tell ya! Just where to heck to we get such idiots? Well, Tom Elia on his Facebook page details it:
Yale undergrad; journalist; Harvard Law School; Pulitzer Prize winner (non-fiction book); professor, Kennedy School; diplomat.
We get it from the Ruling Class – the privileged elite who are supposedly just oh, so well educated and oh, so much smarter than us knuckle-dragging teabaggers. That’s where we get it from. Ms. Powers, a little clue for ya from the dummies: people who hang people for being gay and stone women to death because they were raped are unlikely to have an attack of conscience over gassing people. Its just not that likely, ya see? In fact, people who do that sort of thing might even be in favor of gassing people…I know, shocking; but there it is. Some people are just like that.
Now anti-war Hollywood chimes in with the most unintelligent reason for not opposing action in Syria:
Ed Asner: “They don’t want to feel Anti-Black”
Wow. Now I have heard it all. I am 100% positive if the President was a African-American Republican, Hollywood would have no problem “feeling Anti-Black” in that case. Again according to the left, if you criticize the pResident you are a racist…. a bigot…. a hater.
UPDATE III, by Mark Noonan:
In between bouts of blaming Bush, I guess someone over at Team Obama realized that Team Bush could at least drum up and sustain support for war – even when things got really rough. And, so, Team Obama sent some former Bush people to lobby House GOPers:
Top Bush administration officials have mobilized to sway a skeptical Republican party to authorize military intervention in Syria. As National Review Online reported, former national security adviser Stephen Hadley and former undersecretary of defense for policy Eric Edelman this week led a briefing on Capitol Hill for Republican legislative directors and chiefs of staff…
…Their argument: If you hope to have a negotiated settlement with Iran, they only way you are going to get there is if the Iranians actually believe the use of force lies behind America’s efforts to negotiate. Hamstringing the president’s effort to use force against Syria now will “absolutely cripple and destroy” the chance to reach a diplomatic settlement with Iran…
The idea is that if we fail to sustain Obama on Syria, then when he does go to talk to the Iranians about their nuclear program, the Iranians will know in advance that there is no credible threat of US action if Iran refuses to forgo nuclear weapons. Its a nice theory, but it is based upon a premise that to this moment Iran believes that we’ll do something about their nuclear program. If they do, then they are too stupid to figure out how to build an atomic bomb…or even a firecracker, for that matter.
Obama’s credibility will not be destroyed by failure to sustain him on Syria – Obama’s credibility has been destroyed for ages. If the Assad government did use chemical weapons it is because they were convinced that no great punishment would be meted out if they did. And, they’re right – even if we sustain Obama, he’s just going to lob a few missiles in to Syria. Twenty or thirty more large explosions added to the scores of large explosions happening there every day. Not exactly the sort of thing to convince a bloodthirsty dictator fighting for his life that he’s in trouble. No war in Syria – not now; not while Obama is President.