Barack Obama is Such a Reluctant Warrior that He's Personally Lobbying Members of Congress for Approval to Attack Syria


Have you heard that Barack Obama is a "reluctant warrior"?

Columnist E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post:

Obama is a reluctant warrior, which, in truth, is what he was elected to be. 

At Politico, it's the headline to an article on Obama's inner conflict over the war: "Barack Obama, reluctant warrior."

Circumstances on the ground and building momentum in elite political and policy circles that something vigorous must be done to prevent additional bloodshed and regional chaos point in one direction. Clear majorities of public opinion and Obama's own clear conviction that the United States has spent the last decade overextended militarily in the Middle East point the opposite way. [bold added]

And the UK Telegraph:

Mr Obama is a deeply reluctant warrior. He resolved not to intervene in Syria's civil war, famously rejecting the united advice of his entire national security team, which urged him to arm the rebels.

It's distinction worth highlighting in a New York Times piece on the relationship between the Obama administration's push for war in Syria and the Bush administration's march to war in Iraq:

There are other differences, of course. The most obvious is that President Obama is a reluctant warrior, while his predecessor, George W. Bush, was anything but. The Obama administration has so far sketched out a war plan that is most remarkable for how narrowly it is drawn.

Aaron David Miller, a vice president and distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, writing at CNN:  

To be sure, there are real risks in acting on option three [proceeding with a limited strike] and Obama most assuredly is a reluctant warrior. 

Wolf Blitzer, also on CNN: 

He's clearly a reluctant warrior, this president. And he made that clear a week ago when he said if the U.S. goes in and attacks another county without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it. 

Historical fun-fact: Obama was a reluctant warrior on Libya, too! According to National Journal back in 2011:

Drawn toward an important inflection point in his presidency this week, President Obama revealed none of the lead-with-the-chin swagger of his predecessor. Playing to type, he instead adopted the mien of the reluctant warrior.

Granted, he wasn't reluctant enough back then that he didn't eventually send in the cruise missiles.

And how reluctant is he now? He's so reluctant that his administration has launched a self-described "flood the zone" campaign to convince Congress to give the go ahead to launch a strike. So reluctant that, according to Reuters, "Obama is making individual calls himself to members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to press his case for action." For a reluctant warrior, he's pushing his case for war pretty hard. 

NEXT: Japan to Spend Half a Billion Dollars Fighting Toxic Water Leaks at Fukushima

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Barack Obama: Dumber than Carter; Dirtier than Nixon.

    Now I need to work LBJ into there somehow.

    1. “Now I need to work LBJ into there somehow.”

      “The Bankrupt Society!”

      1. Bloodthirty as LBJ.

        1. I am going to make this the theme of my next birthday party.

    2. Don’t worry. He’ll be remembered as one of the greatest Presidents to ever live. He knew from day one his legacy was secure.

      1. Obama needs to up the body count if he wants to be numbered among the greatest.

    3. More incompetent at fighting wars than Johnson. Maybe he can give the zombie Johnson a call and ask him how getting a hugely broad authorization from Congress followed by some limited bombing to show the enemy we really mean it works out.

      1. Pithy John. Needs to be pithy.

        1. A bigger loser than Johnson.

    4. Barack Obama: Dumber than Carter; Dirtier than Nixon; Bloodier than Johnson.

      1. Perfect, except they should be in order. Chrono or Alpha.

    5. Barack Obama: Dumber than Carter; Dirtier than Nixon, More Racist Than LBJ.

      1. You need to follow the patter: dumber, dirtier, racistier (or something).

      2. You need to follow the patter: dumber, dirtier, racistier (or something).

        1. Thought of that, but my way scans better.

        2. Plus we’re all missing someone:

          Barack Obama:
          Dumber than Carter;
          More Aloof than Ford.
          Dirtier than Nixon,
          More Racist Than LBJ.

          1. Has Barack beaned anyone with a golf ball yet? Would we even know? Or would that be classified?

            1. That’s classified!

    6. Let’s be honest — we’re not talking about George W Bush here.

    7. He’s the Chocolate Johnson, who proves the Mencken definition of democracy.

  2. His campaign to get approval is less about wanting war and more about not wanting to look impotent. It’s all about him.

    1. We must kill and kill and kill and kill so the world doesn’t think our president is some kind of wiener.

    2. His campaign to get approval is less about wanting war and more about not wanting to look impotent.

      So you’re saying Obama has to prove he is a man? Racist!

      I for one think Obama has been cromulently transparent in his need to be a reluctant warrior in the face of the imminent threat Syria poses to the United States.

      (Note: I don’t actually know if Obama has given us a new definition of the word ‘cromulent’, but I know he has given us new definitions for several of those other words.)

  3. Barack Obama is Such a Reluctant Warrior that He’s Personally Lobbying Members of Congress for Approval to Attack Syria

    He’s not lobbying for approval. He doesn’t need approval because he’s good enough, he’s smart enough, and doggone it, people like him. He’s merely looking for, uhm, dialog.

    And speaking of Stuart Smalley, what’s the over/under on Franken towing the lion on this?

    1. He’s already issued his support for bombing now, as our dear editor Matt Welch noted on Twitter:
      Franken supports White House, Syrian military strikes.

    2. Franken is already on board.…

      Franken doesn’t need his arm twisted. He’s not a redneck. He’s a genius! Just like everyone that supports whatever Obama wants–no matter how stupid.

  4. He hits you because He loves you, baby.

  5. The TEAM BLUE sheep really do take their marching orders from Yegg Central, don’t they. Amazing how all of them use the exact, exact same fucking phrase, isn’t it? It’s like they’re not even people, just robots being programmed.

    1. Yup. The love taking orders. Libs have their own little army of talking point repeating sockpuppets.

    2. They are court stenographers, not journalists.

  6. If Obama is reluctant, it’s because he really didn’t want to go to war with Syria. …but he said something stupid, and now he feels like he can’t back down.

    One of the reasons he feels like he can’t back down is because the chorus of admirers that constantly tell him (and anyone else who will listen) about how smart he is–even when he does something stupid like paint himself into a corner with red lines.

    There isn’t a small-cap CEO anywhere that would put his foot in his mouth as deep as Barack Obama inserted his. Stupid is as stupid does, and if Barack Obama gets us knee deep into Syria, unnecessarily, then the word for him is not “reluctant”. It’s “stupid”.

    1. i totally disagree. biden was out there demogoguing about the chemical weapons. it wasnt a reluctant admission, which is what it would look like if obama was bluffing and wanted to save face.

      he is actively seeking war. there is nothing reluctant about it. biden was campaigning for war support and proclaiming obama’s red line was defied.

      biden doenst give a fuck WHO used them, he just knows they were used in syria and we gotta do something right quick.

      his indifference to who used them makes it painfully obvious there are ulterior motives at play.

      i just hope enough ppl are disgusted by boehner and him supporting the enemy to critically analyze the whole thing. as is, the american ppl are totally against this strike. so obama is really going out on a limb here. it must be a very important strategic point for whoever is calling the shots for team purple (blue/red).

      but there is no chance obama is reluctant about this war. backpedaling includes things like slowing down the process to rethink, NOT sending your 2nd in command out to drum up war support, and not doing photo ops with boehner. you shift blame to others then let it die. you dont campaign for it and draw attention to it.

      1. I’d really like to learn something, here, if I missed it.

        When was Biden out demagoging on chemical weapons? You’re saying he was doing that before Obama made his red line statement?

        Do you have a reference for that?

        Obama made his red line speech a year ago, and if Biden has been demagoging on chemical weapons since then? then that’s exactly what I would expect from a vice-president. Demagoging to try to make the stupid things the president said a year ago seem smart somehow.

  7. This post really is fascinating. Putting aside the specifics of Obama’s position, the repetition of a single phrase across media outlets is about as revealing as it gets, in terms of seeing the media as being simply a pro-Administration mouthpiece.

    1. Blame Frank Underwood.

      “disorganized labor”

      1. To any rational person, this would be blindingly obvious evidence that the media are all reading out of the same playbook.

    2. Also interesting are the gratuitous shots at Bush for being “anything but” a reluctant warrior.

      Really? Bush spent over a year working up enough support to get congress to actually authorize the Iraq invasion, as well as getting additional U.N. authorization. While Obama just bombs Libya and threatens Syria on his own say-so.

      These people are completely insane, mendacious assholes.

      1. Where do you think PB gets it from?

  8. his reluctance is exactly why he’s lobbying. Boxed into a corner by his own words, Obama’s only means of saving face is a vote from Congress, even a no vote.

    This is a guy who thought a cute phrase and a mean face would bring Assad to heal. When it didn’t, a big ‘oh shit’ moment occurred in the West Wing. It’s ironic enough that this chimera of a man who was built on words is now in trouble because of words, but the irony increases when he looks for saviors in the faces of those he routinely demonizes.

    1. let’s be honest, boehner and obama play for the same team. boehner is willing to be a partisan hack on social issues but when it comes to the nuts and bolts of destroying the republic he is willing to cross the aisle and compromise, for the sake of the looting or whatever their prime goal is.

  9. And the UK Telegraph:

    What’s up what that? Didn’t the Telegraph used to be known as the ‘Torygraph’? Did they get taken over by the same folks that ruined the Economist?

  10. There is a non-trivial amount of people (mostly on the Left) who disliked Bush primarily because he didn’t seem conflicted enough. If only he had shown more anguish when bombing, they would have liked him.

    1. They hated him because of who his fans were.

      Always remember, the Boomers hate their enemies–pretty much all the same–because of who they are, not because of what they think or what they do.

      They hated Bush for the same reasons they hate Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Ronald Reagan, and Ron Paul. It didn’t have anything to do with what any of them did or believed.

      It’s just culture war stuff. George Bush’s foreign policy was a liberal one. They just hated the guy doing it. The reason so many NEOconservatives became conservative was because no one could take the liberals seriously on foreign policy anymore.

      Isolationism and pragmatism ruled conservative foreign policy before. It’s kind of good to see liberals championing their natural interventionism again–send that crap back where it belongs.

      1. It is not “boomers” you describe. A lot of boomers are Republicans. It is liberals. And liberals get their personal identity by hating their enemies. Their enemies must be evil otherwise the liberal cannot feel important for fighting them.

        1. Nah, it’s Boomers.

          The Worst Generation.

          The Greatest Generation had it so hard, and they wanted to make things as easy for their kids as possible (Up yours, Dr. Spock!)–so the Boomers grew up to become the disgrace they’ve always been.

          I’ll be glad when they’re gone.

          1. Boomers are over 60 now. They mostly vote Republican. And there is a huge split amongst the boomers between those that went to Vietnam and those who didn’t. Those who went, McCain aside, tend to be more like their parents and grandparents. The ones who didn’t tend to me more like the ones you describe.

            1. Only the oldest Boomers are over 60, many are still middle-aged.

              1. Everyone born on or before 1953 is now or about to be over 60. The boomer generation only went to around 1960. So that is now seven years or nearly half of the generation.

                1. Boomers are defined as 1948 to 1964, so the majority are still under 60.

                  1. 1946, not 1948.

                    1. I don’t buy it that someone born in 61 is a boomer. That makes Obama a boomer. No. The boomer culturally happened in the late forties and fifties. If you can’t remember the day Kennedy was assassinated, you are not a boomer.

              2. Under the outlandish definition put on us by the Census. How are you a “boomer” if you were born in 1964? That’s almost 20 years after the event in question.

                1. The boom started in 46, peaked out around 54-56, then died out in 64.

                  I was born in 57, essentially at the mid point of the boom, so about half the boomers are in front of me and half behind.

                  Culturally though, the “Boomers” where the dumb fucks born from 46 to 52 or so that were old enough to fight in and fight against the Vietnam War. They’ve spent the last 4 decades or so perverting their political ideals to feather their own beds.

                  1. Kinnath has it right, I think. My uncle was born in 1948, and fought in Vietnam. I was born in 1958, and I did not go to Vietnam. Although my uncle and I are both Boomers, we are culturally very different.

            2. AARP is a left wing organization.

              old ppl start wanting handouts too.

              i do agree that they are the worst generation tho. they gave us the sex revolution, drug revolution, and think they invented holding powerful figures accountable. now they want to pretend they are moral as they approach the grave, meanwhile they did less in the noble work of raising children to even keep population stagnant, so their retirement is a monstrous drain on society.

              they are selfish in every way imaginable. there was SOME of the good stuff that leaked thru from the previous generation, but not much.

              what boomers did to america is take it from 1950s culture to 2010 culture, the greatest cultural derilection in mankinds history. to give us such crap as modern feminism and affirmative action. THAT was worth the values lost and crime society? they were softminded spoiled brats who hollywood went to town on.

              1. What Ann said. The problem with the boomers is that they never built anything. They tore down the existing culture but everything they tried to replace with was a total failure and faded away. We are left with this ridiculously stupid idea that being “dangerous” and “subversive” alone counts as good art or culture. What started with the great cultural awakening of the 1950s has now turned into Miley Cyrus shaking her ass on national TV pretending she is doing something new or different.

                1. As a Boomer I refuse to take the blame for Miley Cyrus.

                  1. She is the retarded grandchild of Tina Turner WTF.

                2. Seriously, Boomers are not monolithic in their beliefs and politics, so to claim that Boomers supported x,y or z is just silly. Some supported certain things, some opposed, and many were indifferent. And there have been several generations following the Boomers who could certainly have effected change on their own rather than whine about the Boomers as the source of all their troubles.

              2. Also Ann, it is not just the old people who want handouts. There is another dynamic going on here. The old people’s kids don’t want the burden of taking care of their parents. The people who get most pissed off when talk of cutting medicare or social security are middle class middle aged couples who don’t want grandma moving in with them the way it has worked in every other generation.

          2. But on the plus side, they invented sex, drugs, rock’n’roll, rebellion, torn jeans & spending their kid’s inheritance on Winnebagos.

          3. Boomers are not monolithic in their beliefs and motivations. I am a Boomer, and I’m a libertarian. All the Great Society bullshit was foisted on us by ‘the Greatest Generation’ not Boomers.

            1. It foisted on us by a one time freakishly large Democratic majority that passed a bunch of shit that wouldn’t have been passed any other way and wasn’t popular with the country. The parallels to Obamacare are striking. People voted for Johnson and the Dem majority in 64 out of guilt and grief over the Kennedy assassination and out of foolishly believing the most disgusting character assassination done in a Presidential campaign. They were not voting for the Great Society and kicked a lot of Dems out of office in the 66 midterms as a result. But it was too late. The people to blame for the great society are the politicians who told the majority of Americans to go fuck themselves and passed it.

      2. +++ to this. Actual actions or beliefs have nothing to do with it; it’s all about the “Goods” vs the “Bads” and beliefs about beliefs.

        See, Republicans are racists who love war and hate the environment and poor people, and this is why I’m not a Republican! Joe Bloggs over there is a Republican, so he must be a racist who loves war and hates the environment and poor people! See how much easier everything is when you don’t have to look anywhere but outside your own head for all the answers?

  11. In those fleeting seconds between the time they hear the missile coming and the time it obliterates the building around them, the Syrians can take comfort in the knowledge that President Obama gave the order to end their lives reluctantly, with a heavy heart, haunted for the rest of his life by the question of whether he could have spun this whole thing differently.

    1. Come on, Hugh, he’ll feel really really bad about it, and isn’t that what matters?

      1. A solitary tear will crawl down his cheek as he hits under par on the links, as he mourns those he was forced to relieve of their lives, reluctantly. And then he will putt. Reluctantly, but firmly. And then he will take a mulligan because he missed because some asshole yelled “fore” and distracted him. What was he thinking about again?

        1. Your mom.

          1. And now I am too. What were we talking about again? Besides my mom, that is.

        2. Obama? Under par? I bet he’s never shot 85. Maybe I could buy 90 on an easy course, but I doubt that, too.

    2. What’s funny is that I can see Bush praying for forgiveness for his wars. Obama prays that he won’t suffer any personal or political consequences for his.

      1. He is his own personal Jesus.

        1. “Reach out and touch faith…”

    3. I know that was snark, but just for the record, Obama has no conscience that I can see. I doubt he’s ever apologized for anything or regretted anything he’s ever done in his life.

      If we’re talking about someone who always seems to think that whatever he wants is right–because he wants it? then we’re dealing with someone who is incapable of feeling conflicted. Feeling conflicted is for the victims of his choices, not him.

      1. Politics does tend to attract sociopaths.

          1. It attracts and creates them.

    4. I really want to see a body count associated with each Nobel Peace Prize winner; it would be a hoot.

  12. Not-so-reluctant warrior presses for war.

    Obama’s eye is full of war? I’m not surprised.

  13. Maybe he should explain to the country what he wants to do and why and rally public support first. That might make dealing with Congress a little easier. And of course, the fact that he has spent five years calling Republicans racists and attributing only the worst motives to them and doing everything he can to demonize them and divide the country also makes this a bit harder. Those damn Republican racists just don’t trust Obama or have any desire to work with him for some reason.

    1. And of course Boehner will still support Obama’s war boner.

      1. Yeah. It is not like it is hard to get the Republicans to give the President the authority to go to war. The fact that this vote is even in doubt is a tribute to Obama’s monumental political incompetence.

  14. Obama has been (reluctantly, apparently) at war with America for a few years now, and is considering giving us a short reprieve while he (reluctantly) bombs Syria. Nothing to see here.

    I’m sure this has nothing at all to do with the NSA scandals or Obamacare missing its deadlines, or the IRS scandals, or…

    1. But remember it is an article of faith among liberals that Reagan was a war monger. You know the Reagan bombed Libya one time and knocked over a taco stand otherwise known as Grenada during 8 years as President.

  15. Just like the government isn’t actually a monolithic evil power, but a bunch of puerile, self-centered morons just trying to build their own little empires, this isn’t a case of a talking point being disseminated from a central power, but a bunch of semi-literate morons seeing a phrase that hasn’t been copyrighted and throwing it into their own pieces because they think it sounds so wonderful. The result is the same, but really, thinking of them as disciplined soldiers dutifully following orders from a secret commander is giving them far too much credit. They are more like dedicated cultists trying to out-worship each other without the creativity to actually differentiate themselves.

    1. Maybe. They are all Washington twits. They worship power and love to be around it. They all know each other. They all have close contacts with the White House. The White House puts out the talking point and they all repeat it. It makes them feel important. They are out there on some of America’s most money losing publications doing God’s work.

    2. Journolist was a real thing, you know. I don’t know what’s replaced it, if anything, but I believe they still coordinate their talking points deliberately.

      1. Journolist was a real thing, but again, I don’t think it was nearly as organized or unified as some people have come to believe. And even then, its members were unable to keep it a secret. I just don’t think these people are that intelligent. They come up with the same talking points because they copy each other after they are unable to come up with original ones.

    3. These are people who earnestly believe individualism is a bad thing. They yearn to appear just like everyone else, and desperately yearn for everyone else to be just like them. Is it any wonder they repeat the same phrases when pressed?

      1. social conformity is the least of our concerns. its not the bland unimportant decisions that carry significance, its their views on personal choice.

        wanting to be like others and thinking we should look the same (unless black/gay/favored ‘other’) is really harmless when compared to their more insidious revulsion to individualism: leaving decisions at personal level. thinking ppl should voluntarily conform is 1 thing, but allowing individuals to choose for themselves if they own a gun is an outrage to them. they fucking hate this. IF ONLY we could get a central planner to get in here and optimize this choice for them, with societies best interest as his sole agenda.

        they want to remove choice as a daily and everpresent experience of the individual. they think persons are too small a unit to call indivisible, it ought to be society. your hand ought not to act on its own cuz its too small an element to be its own self. just like peasants, they aint selfs.

        1. Ann,

          They thing their preferences are moral imperatives. Since they don’t want or feel they need a gun, they see no reason why should either.

    4. You make an excellent point, but there is still a definite meme factory that goes on with these twits. And we all know the Journolist shenanigans that went on, and that certainly was organized.

      They’re not disciplined soldiers, they are, as you say, dedicated cultist twits. But they still definitely see a meme and all run with it, not even realizing how idiotic that looks.

      We are very, very lucky these people are so stupid, because otherwise we’d all be up against a wall right now.

  16. And CNN, the government’s main PR contractor, is aggressively lobbying the public on behalf of the President.

    Nothing brings the establishment politicians together like the prospect of bombing yet another middle eastern country. Thankfully this is all about the unsanctioned (by the U.S.) use of chemical weapons and has nothing to do with Israel, oil, or bolstering the bottom line of America’s arms industry. It’s all about the need to hold those who harm innocent civilians accountable for their actions. You know, like when the U.S. joyfully executed Reuters journalists from a helicopter or killed children in drone attacks. Of course, it’s different when we do it because we do it in smaller installments over a longer period of time. And we never use chemicals which are known to kill people much deader than ordinary weapons.

    1. You know, like when the U.S. joyfully executed Reuters journalists from a helicopter

      *rolls eyes*

      bolstering the bottom line of America’s arms industry

      *rolls eyes harder*

      Pipe down, Alex Jones. There are enough reasons why this is a bad idea without you making shit up.

      1. You’re right. The U.S. never commits war crimes. I forgot we’re the ones with the white hats.

        And you’re also right that the U.S. arms industry never influences politics in the U.S.

        See? I can be just as naive as you.

    2. Unlike Afghanistan, who had attacked us or Iraq with whom we had essentially been at war with for 12 years, Syria has neither attacked us or been at war with us. I can’t see the public ever really coming around to this cause.

      I can’t see how this ends well. Either they give him the authority and Obama proceeds to undertake an endless number of increasingly large attacks each one designed to really show Assad we mean business finally ending up in a full scale us involvement or they don’t give it to him and he goes ahead anyway leading to a full on Constitutional crisis with the Congress left with the choice of allowing an illegal war or cutting off funding to troops in the field. It is just a slow motion train wreck.

      1. A slow motion train wreck in DC sounds really good to me, John. Let the administration’s ship founder on the rocks of indecision. That sounds really good to me.

        1. Have patience. If he doesn’t disgrace himself and everyone who supported him with this issue, he will with another issue soon enough. Every time I look at him or hear him speak, I get this overwhelming feeling of impending doom. I have never seen a figure in real life before that seems so determined to be destined for some kind of historic, epic, tragic failure and end.

          1. I guess he has managed to make everyone forget all of his ‘phony’ scandals.

          2. Is it possible for Obama to disgrace himself? Why wouldn’t the cult just excuse anything he does for the next 3 years?

      2. Unlike Afghanistan, who had attacked us or Iraq with whom we had essentially been at war with for 12 years…

        The U.S. has been poking middle eastern countries in the eye for a half century before 9/11. And people still think we were just sitting here minding our own business when we were dragged, kicking and screaming, into these wars.

        Let’s call it what it is: retaliation.

    3. I don’t hope things go to hell. I hope Assad does nothing to retaliate against the rebels for American attacks, and I certainly hope he doesn’t retaliate against us. I hope Hezbollah doesn’t start seeing us a legitimate target for terrorism. I hope Assad, because of Obama’s strikes, sees the error of his ways and apologizes both to the Syrian people and the world for all the trouble he’s caused.

      But if that doesn’t happen, and everything goes to hell, whom will CNN and the rest blame? the Tea Party? George Bush? I think maybe Obama isn’t the only one who’s painted himself into a corner.

      1. My guess is that any resolution that passes will not be the broad one he wants. So he will get a narrow resolution. So that when things go to hell, it will be the Republicans in Congress’ fault for tying his hands. That will be the new spin.

        But I can’t see that working. Americans blame the President for wars that go bad. Maybe they will not do so this time because apparently no black man can ever be wrong or anything but well meaning. But it will be the first time.

      2. They’ll blame America for not being good enough for Obama.

  17. The meme comes right out of the White House, of course. It’s related to this NYT article I linked a couple of days ago, the information for which was “leaked” [wink wink] by a senior aide.

    President Pulls Lawmakers Into Box He Made

    But Mr. Obama, who has been reluctant for the past two years to get entangled in Syria, had qualms from the start.

    Even as he steeled himself for an attack this past week, two advisers said, he nurtured doubts about the political and legal justification for action, given that the United Nations Security Council had refused to bless a military strike that he had not put before Congress. A drumbeat of lawmakers demanding a vote added to the sense that he could be out on a limb.

    I’ll give some credit to the headline writer, though. Must be someone who has been around the block a few times and knows when he’s being used.

  18. “Obama is a reluctant warrior, which, in truth, is what he was elected to be.”

    He’s only doing this because Bush is making him do it.

    1. It’s already a meme.

  19. I got to say, this is the creepiest we’ve seen the cult of personality manifest itself. To say he is a ‘reluctant warrior’ or ‘tormented soul’ is so blatantly counter-factual it’s just sickening to see people argue that with total sincerity.

    I don’t think even fuckin’ Stalin got this much unqualified praise from the media.

    1. I was listening to NPR this morning and it was absolutely sickening. The “experts” were all fawning over how getting approval was unnecessary but BO took it upon himself to educate Congress and the people about how bad it is.

      When the question was asked about what he would do if the vote came back no, one of the “experts” said it would be a travesty but BO had the authority to do it anyway, so Congress be damned.

      1. Let me guess, they never cited any Constitutional basis for Obama’s authority to do it without congressional approval, right?

      2. I understand the argument that the President has the authority to defend the country without asking for Congress’ approval. I am willing to stretch that to include things like Reagan bombing Libya or Clinton bombing Al Quada camps in retaliation for attacks on US interests.

        But Syria hasn’t attacked the US or any of its interest. The entire reason for doing this is to enforce the idea that the international community will not stand for someone using chemical weapons. That is a nice concept and all. But the international community doesn’t seem interested in enforcing it. And whatever Obama’s powers as Commander in Chief are, I fail to see how it extends to doing the dirty work of enforcing international law without any authorization from Congress.

        Those “experts” are supporting the idea that the President has the power to wage war against anyone, at any time, for any reason.

        1. Those “experts” are supporting the idea that the President has the power to wage war against anyone, at any time, for any reason.

          Well, as long as the President has a “D” after his name, sure.

        2. In practice, the president does have the power to wage war at his discretion, as long as he goes through the motions and gets the perfunctory blessing from congress. As you noted up thread, he’s only in this position due to his own hubris and massive incompetence. Nowhere in his experience did he learn what most of us learn on the playground….being an arrogant prick all the time tends to lose friends and make enemies.

    2. I have never once heard him speak of the gravity of ordering men into battle or ordering the deaths of people. Remember, this is a guy who has personally okay-ed the assassination of people. In some ways, he has experienced the gravity of killing in a way more personal than any President since Washington. Yet, he has never once talked about the burdens of responsibility or conscience, like pretty much every other person who has ever held such responsibility.

      Maybe he just keeps all of that inside. If so, it would be the only thing President narcissist doesn’t share with the country. Or maybe he has no conscience or any sort of moral depth that would allow him to even consider such issues.

  20. Dave Mustaine said it the best “If there’s a new way, I’ll be the first in line, but it better work this time. Peace sells, But who’s Buying?”

    1. ppl who say violence never solves anything are very stupid. if we killed all the muslims and arabs there would be no mid-east peace question.

      we are a species of the victorious. the winners of a perpetual genocide.

      violence solves a lot. if you have a disagreement with them, and they are dead, their concerns dont really matter anymore. the conflict is gone. imagine if we had genocided the native american indians. that would have solved a lot.

      im totally receptive to arguments as to why nonviolence is better, just dont sell the snake oil that violence never solves anything, cuz its untrue. every kid who punched a bully in the nose knows it in a very visceral way.

      this little lie is promulgated because its a good belief for peasants so they dont quarrel with each other and harm the tax base.

      1. Dear lord, this is dumber than Tony. Repeating by rote a poorly-remembered rant that your drunk uncle went on that one Thanksgiving is just sad.

  21. Obama’s WARP (Wars Above Replacement President) is off the charts. He’s the Barry Bonds of WARP. It’s hard to compare presidents of different eras, but BO’s WARP stands up with the best of them.

  22. Another Nobel Prize for Mr. President?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.