Democrats Who Are for Action in Syria Don’t Want the pResident Humiliated

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.

20 thoughts on “Democrats Who Are for Action in Syria Don’t Want the pResident Humiliated

  1. neocon01 September 6, 2013 / 10:35 am

    dont want barry humiliated??? Bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha the boy should have stayed in Indonesia then.
    Now the whole regime is a farce.

  2. bardolf2 September 6, 2013 / 10:47 am

    I think the whole Syria thing has been argued thoroughly enough. Basically B4V and DemocraticUnderground are on the same page and think the US should stay out of Syria. Obama/Norton and McCain/Boner are for going in, so it’s fairly clear that it’s a poor idea to launch million dollar missiles at targets to save face.

    HOW about a new thread on the unemployment situation. Democrats could trumpet a 7.3% rate and GOP could point to labor participation being the lowest since 1978. Don’t know if that is a win-win or a lose-lose.

  3. neocon01 September 6, 2013 / 11:00 am

    lose lose lose with this bunch of amateur losers.

  4. M. Noonan September 6, 2013 / 11:55 am

    I’ve decided I’d back this if Obama will say “we’re going to fight to protect the innocent Christians who are being massacred and oppressed”. Until he says words to that effect, no way.

  5. Retired Spook September 6, 2013 / 12:14 pm

    Just when you thought it couldn’t get any better, it does.

    Obama, speaking after Putin, said he had a “candid” discussion with the Russian leader at the summit. But it was clear that Obama wasn’t swayed by the Russian leader’s opposition to striking Syria in retaliation for what the U.S. says was a chemical weapons attack that killed more than 1,000 people.

    “There are times where we have to make hard choices if we’re going stand up for the things that we care about,” he said. “And I believe that this is one of those times.”

    No, dickhead, the time to make a hard choice was 2 years ago when the Syrian opposition was almost completely devoid of foreign jihadists. The time to make a hard choice was in June, 2009, when you had the chance to stand behind the uprising in Iran. You wouldn’t know a hard choice if it bit you in the ass.

    • M. Noonan September 6, 2013 / 1:07 pm


      Obama’s lack of understanding is breathtaking – but, on the other hand, what can we really expect from the “liberal” arts product of the Ivy League? Certainly not any knowledge of American or world history…he just doesn’t know.

      But its not just Obama – its our whole Ruling Class which seems to be befuddled. I’m hoping that Cantor and Boehner announced their support early on in a Machiavelian move to keep themselves out of the spotlight…but even if they did that (backing idiocy as a political move), then I’m still distressed…when lives are at stake, it is time to stand on principal. Worse is if they are backing Obama because they think striking Syria is a good idea…that is just “dumb as a box of rocks” stuff (and I do want to reiterate an apology I gave the other day on Twitter – I apologize for my vote for McCain in 2008; it was a terrible mistake, and I won’t do that again; though daily I grow happier with my Romney vote – sure he’s not the revolutionary I wanted, but he’s clearly miles ahead of everyone in DC other than Paul, Cruz and a few others).

      I watched a bit of Obama’s presser this morning – asserting his faith in the UN, while at the same time pointing out that he has to ignore the UN because it’s deadlocked. Its like these people don’t even realize what they are saying…

  6. percybeezer September 6, 2013 / 12:51 pm

    I don’t understand why anyone would oppose Obama on this; he has the approval of most of the Arab world, he has a coalition of more than 30 countries, he has UN resolutions and condemnations, he has an AUMF from Congress, he has spent more than a year building his case, he has intelligence reports from 5 different countries that confirm what our intelligence has stated, and he’s given the regime ample opportunity to come clean and cease activities like gassing its own citizens … oh wait, he has none of that … never mind.

    Wait, wait, wait.

    He does have France as an ally!

    Now we know our troops will be secure with France on their 6.

    • tiredoflibbs September 6, 2013 / 1:01 pm

      Percy, according to many mental midgets on the left, those who oppose obAMATEUR do so strictly because of their hatred for him. Those who were so outspoken and free with their criticism give scant mumblings of “we disagree”. Their virtual silence is due to the fact that they are opposed to the action against Syria but they too do not want to openly criticize obAMATEUR and humiliate or embarrass him. Their loyalty to party trumps their “morals”. “Morals” to them are a relative term and are defines by who is in the White House.

      • percybeezer September 6, 2013 / 1:37 pm


        Embarrass or humiliate Obama? Obama has already cornered the market on that … and that ship done sailed!

        Mark’s aunt Peggy had a great article in the Wall Street Journal today; Why America is saying “no”. “Wrong time, wrong place, wrong plan, wrong man.”

        The world now sees him (and unfortunately, the US) as small, weak, indecisive, irrelevant, and whiny. A little man shouting at the dark; a small dog yapping at their heels.

        Spook is correct that the time to act was two years ago, or 18 months ago when the Pentagon drew up plans for assisting the Syrian rebels. He should have acted then, or when his “Red Line” was crossed weeks ago. I ‘m afraid it’s far passed the point where any action short of War and deposing Assad will accomplish anything but make Obama (and the US) look more like a frustrated eunuch. And Obama is not the man to follow into that battlefield.

        When the reprisal come, and the enemies of the US push us to the brink, Obama will blame those racist Republicans for tying his hands and preventing him from smiting the Syrian Bullies!

      • tiredoflibbs September 6, 2013 / 1:57 pm

        “Embarrass or humiliate Obama? Obama has already cornered the market on that … and that ship done sailed!”

        You know that and I know that. Apparently, Eleanor Holmes Norton, some Democrats and other mindless drones haven’t received the memo or are in complete denial.

      • M. Noonan September 6, 2013 / 3:34 pm

        Percy – my aunt Peggy died about 25 years ago; now home with my uncle Mike who died 5 years ago.

  7. dbschmidt September 6, 2013 / 10:37 pm

    Pres. Obama is an amateur in a world of professionals.What bothers me the most is that the American public was stupid enough to elect this ass-hat in the White House twice. I could almost forgive number one but now we have a big pile of number two we will have to deal with.

  8. tiredoflibbs September 7, 2013 / 1:17 pm

    Wait Mark, I thought that if we just sit down unconditionally with Iran we would all become buddy-buddy. I mean the dumbed down talking point was that we and they were just simply misunderstood and that the former administration was just unwilling to sit down and talk.

    If we talked, then we could understand each other. Bush was just not willing to talk without precondition and 0bAMATEUR was willing to meet unconditionally. That didn’t work out so well did it?

    Now we are just trying the same stupidity again – the very definition of insanity! I guess Iran just doesn’t know the real Assad and only the smartest, greatest pResident in the history of this country can tell them that. This administration is so naive or they think this is all that they have to tell the low information voters – the drones.

    • M. Noonan September 7, 2013 / 3:17 pm

      I guess that is what they believe – probably because they just don’t know. Their Profs at Yale didn’t tell them it would happen…

      • bardolf2 September 8, 2013 / 3:34 pm

        Bush went to Yale, Obama went to Harvard.

      • Amazona September 8, 2013 / 11:52 pm

        And by “administration” Mark clearly meant only the President—————

      • neocon01 September 9, 2013 / 9:22 am

        dr B.
        Bush went to Yale, Obama went to Harvard.

        actually W attended both.

      • neocon01 September 9, 2013 / 9:23 am

        and ubama was a foreign (kenyan – indonesian) AA attendee at harvard, basket weaving and hate whitey were his majors I believe.

      • neocon01 September 9, 2013 / 2:51 pm

        unbelievable…….lunacy in this regime of commies, traitors, lightweights.

Comments are closed.