5yrs and he starts NOW?

[TheOldSchool]

You're a boring old man, old man.

You don't need me...You need a freshly charged IBT card.

And you need a freshly charged seminal vesicle and prostate

Because that's what makes the semen you love so much

 

[Missourian]

Oh and what would you suddenly, and near suspiciously I'd say, peaceful republicans have done differently?

The point is that this is his first attempt at foreign policy and he's failing.

But thanks for admitting that much

Seems to me he listened to the American people and changed his mind. Thank goodness he didn't jump the gun on this one.

But Putin "wrote" an article in the NY Times. What a catastrophe...

I thought that too, at first.

And I'll admit, maybe this is my skeptical jadedness speaking, but this seemed to me to be all about the Obama Legacy.

Being outspokenly antiwar and a Nobel Prize winner solely based on what he WASN'T going to do has absolutely limited his ability to play the role of Commander in Chief to the fullest.

Even in Libya, Obama demurred and let NATO take the lead.

No point in taking the unnecessary risk of being out front, and risking his image, in the event the whole thing blew up.

But here he thought he had the moral high ground, a dictator aligned with Iran, chemical weapon deployment, dead children...

Surely if any military engagement was politically safe, THIS WAS IT.

Everyone would be behind him, the American people, the international community...

Even congressional republicans couldn't resist backing the president here.

Obama would be the hero, the white knight beating back the forces of evil...and a bump in presidential opinion polls to boot.

Except it just didn't work out that way.

The UN was opposed.

The international community was opposed.

And the American people were opposed.

That's what got Obama's attention.

It wasn't supposed to be this way.

The was supposed to be righter of wrongs, the vanquisher of the cowardly murderers.

Instead he was isolated and confused.

That's why he backed down, IMO.

A strike was going to do more harm to HIM, his image and his legacy...everything else was inconsequential.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The point is that this is his first attempt at foreign policy and he's failing.

But thanks for admitting that much

Seems to me he listened to the American people and changed his mind. Thank goodness he didn't jump the gun on this one.

But Putin "wrote" an article in the NY Times. What a catastrophe...

I thought that too, at first.

And I'll admit, maybe this is my skeptical jadedness speaking, but this seemed to me to be all about the Obama Legacy.

Being outspokenly antiwar and a Nobel Prize winner solely based on what he WASN'T going to do has absolutely limited his ability to play the role of Commander in Chief to the fullest.

Even in Libya, Obama demurred and let NATO take the lead.

No point in taking the unnecessary risk of being out front, and risking his image, in the event the whole thing blew up.

But here he thought he had the moral high ground, a dictator aligned with Iran, chemical weapon deployment, dead children...

Surely if any military engagement was politically safe, THIS WAS IT.

Everyone would be behind him, the American people, the international community...

Even congressional republicans couldn't resist backing the president here.

Obama would be the hero, the white knight beating back the forces of evil...and a bump in presidential opinion polls to boot.

Except it just didn't work out that way.

The UN was opposed.

The international community was opposed.

And the American people were opposed.

That's what got Obama's attention.

It wasn't supposed to be this way.

The was supposed to be righter of wrongs, the vanquisher of the cowardly murderers.

Instead he was isolated and confused.

That's why he backed down, IMO.

A strike was going to do more harm to HIM, his image and his legacy...everything else was inconsequential.

Obama's failed on his promises. It's really disappointing.

Whatever reason is behind us not getting involved in Syria, I'm happy about it.

His presidency will eventually end. I hope this country gets passed its partisanship by then.

 

[auditor0007]

We should never have started betraying our allies and picking the wrong side.

What we should do as a nation, is demand that obama explain why he has the hots for terrorists.

You mean our allies like Saddam Hussein? Or are you referring to our close ally Bashar al-Assad? Just curious.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Oh and what would you suddenly, and near suspiciously I'd say, peaceful republicans have done differently?

Not waited five years to start.

Duh.

To start what? Supporting lunatics who are fighting against lunatics?

 

[velvtacheeze]

Oh and what would you suddenly, and near suspiciously I'd say, peaceful republicans have done differently?

The point is that this is his first attempt at foreign policy and he's failing.

But thanks for admitting that much

Headline writers are often underpaid little twerps who have little experience. And you are a buffoon for taking it seriously.

Obama's Presidency has been a success, and his re-election was a cakewalk, unlike Bush's, which was only slightly less dubious and sketchy than his first "election victory" in 2000. He won that one 5-4 in the USSC, but lost with the voters.

 

[Claudette]

After his world apology tour I guess Barry figured he had it made as far a foreign policy goes.

Guess not.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Oh, **** you, old man.

You'd suck Boiking's dick if he was caught in bed with the dead woman AND the live boy.

You blindly obedient dicksmokers are self marginalizing.

Such a typical response when pushed to provide a salient, informative post.

Drive-by posters: People who have nothing to say but love to spout bile.

 

[Oddball]

Oh, **** you, old man.

You'd suck Boiking's dick if he was caught in bed with the dead woman AND the live boy.

You blindly obedient dicksmokers are self marginalizing.

Such a typical response when pushed to provide a salient, informative post.

Drive-by posters: People who have nothing to say but love to spout bile.

Or it's just a logical reaction to brain dead blind hack morons like you, who blindly support a a hapless, hopeless, incompetent, bungling nincompoop because of the (D) by his name.

After all, you dumb ***** are entirely impervious to facts.

 

[RKMBrown]

Guess that explains all his previous failures

(well I guess you can't fail at something if you haven't started yet)

I started the day with a new policy:

Never admit I've ever had a new policy in my life, nor that there is even a concept of new issues and/or new days and new time frames. Additionally, time is not relative, and only my interpretation of a title of an article is important, and I will not ever read a title in context with it's article.

Guess that doesn't explain any of his failures. But it does point out a different failure.