9% approval for bombing Syria = suicide for Dems in 2014

[nashville_brook]

The pushback on White House plans to bomb Syria has been startling. Almost everyone hates the idea. With a 9-percent approval rating, bombing Syria is LESS popular than Congress. Unlike post-9/11 Afghanistan, and even Iraq, there's no rah-rah brigade cheering us into war. Instead there's a consensus against it.

This could be a reflection of the fact that the political stakes here couldn't be higher. With Congressional fundraising in the last weeks of recess, you have to imagine they're getting greasy earfuls on this. We've got another debt ceiling fight ahead of us, and we're about to put another war on the credit card. Americans are reeling from sequestration, and the Democratic president wants to cut a blank check for another war. This is not popular. Not when Grandma no longer has Meals on Wheels.

It's an outrageous proposition.

Also, there's too many unanswered questions:
-- People aren't buying the idea of "humanitarian air strikes."
-- No one is certain about *who* used chemical weapons.
-- We're highly suspect of intercepted phone calls provided to us by Israel, which is perceived as a less-than objective observer.

I expected air strikes to be started and finished by now, and I didn't expect mainstream media to be taking a critical view of the idea. The fact that it's dragged on is not strategically ideal. To say the least.

If Obama oversees an expansion of war in the Middle East...after promising to bring troops home, and promising focus on our economy and jobs... with a 9% approval rating, it's going to hurt Dems in 2014. And that's if everything goes well. If things go sideways, and Obama is blamed for a strategic error, we could see a resurgence of the discredited Neo Con brand.




New poll: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

[MisterP]

1. second verse, same as the first

70-90% of Americans want real gun registration, SS, Plan E, peace, no fracking, etc.--but the bounds of acceptable discourse have been moved to deliberately exclude all that

[leftstreet]

2. DURec

Kinda hard to ride the antiwar wave to a Congressional majority and WH, then expect it to recede when you want it to

[another_liberal]

41. Too true.

Well said!

[n2doc]

3. There can be no better illustration of how unrepresentative DU is than this

Given the number of bloodthirsty poster we have here, clamoring for war. The flip side of the "80% of liberal democrats love Obama" statistic.

[philly_bob]

6. Anybody have on any numbers on pro-bombing DU'ers?

I've seen some DU'ers supporting "moral" bombing with the current level of evidence, but they tend to post a lot (not even counting sock puppets/second ID's).

Did anybody run a poll?

[JoeyT]

12. There was one in GD.

cali started one: So far the numbers are relatively close to actual poll numbers. We're more or less within the margin of error of the general population.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023543019

[philly_bob]

75. Thanks. 93% against to 7% for U.S. strike on Syria! Wow! (nt)

[stevenleser]

84. Up to 94% against now. nt

[golfguru]

178. IOW 93% don't give a rat's azz

if civilians, women & children are gassed to death with chemical WMD's.
Why bother, it is far away in Syria. Before that Saddam Hussein gassed 5000 civilians, women & children. Yap Iraq is too far away to bother. Why bother!

[HardTimes99]

182. Lie piled atop a steaming pile of NeoCon BS. Shame! - nt

[nashville_brook]

20. outrageously out of kilter.

[KittyWampus]

42. What is? That poster's assertion is total rubbish. There aren't "a lot" of bloodthirsty DU'ers

clamoring for war.

It shows what a screwed up echo chamber is going on.

A very FEW DU'ers who don't agree with you turns into "a lot". And that means sock puppets and paid disruptors.

[delrem]

44. I agree. There're only a few of you.

[sabrina 1]

24. I hate to disagree with you doc, but the pro-war contingency here maybe loud, but they are

definitely in the minority.

I think DU is probably about 90% opposed to this war. In fact, a few of the pro-war crowd told my this week that DU is NOT representative of the 'Mainstream'. That most Americans support this invasion.

Looks like DU is representative of the Mainstream as I contended, after all.

[delrem]

74. go figure...

[grahamhgreen]

34. I hope Skinner is aware that the think tank crowd is destroying his website as well as ushering in

the neo-con takeover of the Democratic Party.

War with Syria would leave Ovama with a legacy worse than Bush's.

[stevenleser]

83. See my #82. nt

[KittyWampus]

39. there are "a lot" of bloodthirsty posters here? Really? Care to characterize how many is "a lot"?

Cause I think a tiny number of DU"ers are "pro-war". And some DU'ers are so thin-skinned and unable to handle dissenting OPINIONS that a very few turns into "a lot".

[nashville_brook]

71. "thin-skinned DU'ers...unable to handle dissenting opinions"

[Maedhros]

120. We're not "unable to handle" pro-war opinions.

We just detest and ridicule them, rightly so. I'd say that's the proper way to handle the issue.

[Stuckinthebush]

140. With hyperbolic statements

Great strategy. That helps.

[Maedhros]

141. I'm not following you. [n/t]

[nashville_brook]

166. examples?

[Stuckinthebush]

175. Bloodthirsty DUers

A tad over the top

[arely staircase]

188. Isn't it sad that it has become impossible to actually have a discussion about this -

and lots of other things here? I am very torn over this and don't like the idea of us getting involved or the idea of us not getting involved. But at DU you must be either this or that. Nuance is dead here.

[stevenleser]

82. There is a poll of DUers that shows the exact opposite. 94% of DUers opposed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023543019

[Stuckinthebush]

139. You and your facts

They contradict the over-the-top hair on fire OP and that just can't stand. DU is bloodthirsty according to the OP. It must be so. Bloodthirsty! Thirsty for blood! Give us blooooooood!

[stevenleser]

142. Yeah, I know, I'm a real party pooper that way.

[nashville_brook]

167. i don't think that poll says what you think it says.

[Stuckinthebush]

176. Enlighten us

Does it say that DUers are bloodthirsty?

[Marrah_G]

86. The number of Pro-War DUers is very small

They are just very vocal

[Bluenorthwest]

88. Is a screaming tea kettle 'vocal' or just loud?

nt

[Marrah_G]

89. lol

[Bradical79]

108. perception /= reality

You're perceiving a very small minority of people as a greater number because of how much they're posting their nonsense and how much it pisses you off.

[another_liberal]

134. And how successful they have been . . .

And how successful they have been at shutting down those who have the courage to try and refute their pro-war claims.

[tavalon]

109. I've been incredibly busy so I haven't scoured DU the way I do sometimes

but I've found not one person wanting war with Syria. I haven't even seen the obligatory trolls saying that. I'm going to need some citations for that one.

[Blanks]

113. Apparently one is too many...

Which is probably true, but I've only seen one 'pro-war' thread and it was a link that I followed from an 'anti-war' thread.

The pro-war bunch got to enjoy a march up to war a decade ago. There's an old saying in Tennessee (at least it's old in Texas) "fool me once, can't be fooled again" - or something like that.

I found it kind of hard to believe that was actually an old saying anywhere, but I think it actually applies now.

[tavalon]

114. It's not, it's a paraphrase of something our silverspoon sociopath, dubya once said

It's a real shame that he has early senility syndrome. Sad, because he'll just happily drool and shit his pants and those around him will be bearing the burden of that awful man. It's always been that way for that useless piece of garbage. Really unfair.

[KamaAina]

115. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I'm beginning to think that applies to the 2012 elections.

[Blanks]

131. Too subtle I guess.

I know the real saying. The point is that so many Americans were frothing at the mouth to go to war in 2003.

It's gonna take a little more to fool us this time I think. Less than 10% support for war. If we go to war under those circumstances - we are all fools.

If we feel we must go to war - lets declare war on poverty and/or hunger.

[LearningCurve]

143. I knew what you meant

I go too subtle at times myself.

[Blanks]

149. I figured you just thought I was a moron...

I was quoting a moron after all.

[HardTimes99]

183. Howzabout a War on Greed? :) - nt

[Blanks]

190. That makes more sense.

After all poverty and hunger are really just side effects of greed. If we could make greed socially unacceptable - the world would already be a better place.

[NealK]

148. There's this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3549299#top

[nashville_brook]

168. that's a good one -- i think the poster can search in the last week and find plenty more

the fact that "peace purists" is being launched as an attack is a good index, too.

[Stuckinthebush]

118. Bloodthirsty posters???

Back off on the hyperbole, please.

[another_liberal]

135. Here comes . . .

One now.

[Stuckinthebush]

136. Hyperbole or bloodthirsty DUer?

You or me?

[another_liberal]

145. I do not . . .

What do you mean? I do not follow you.

[Stuckinthebush]

138. Oh, and please point to any post by me that supports your claim

Any. Just one.

If you can't then I'd appreciate an apology. Bloodthirsty is quite a nasty thing to call someone.

You do know that exposing the hyperbolic nature of some statements does not necessarily equate to support of an opposing viewpoint, don't you?

[another_liberal]

144. Claim?

What claim did I make concerning you? I certainly did not call you bloodthirsty. Are you in the habit of making that kind of accusation against people who simply respond to your posts?

[Stuckinthebush]

177. Yes

When justified as in this case.

But I will be the first to apologize if I misconstrued, "Here comes one now". Given that it is difficult to discern meaning in posts I will be happy to admit my error. Please clarify what you meant by that statement if I am wrong in my conjecture.

[another_liberal]

187. You want me to say I'm sorry?

I am so sorry if I hurt your feelings, sir.

Now, I want you to admit you've been acting rather petty and self-absorbed. Try to lighten up!

[nashville_brook]

169. "hyperbolic" -- word of the day!! everyone use the word "hyperbolic"!

[Stuckinthebush]

174. Cute

How about over the top? Or tea-party-esque?

Big word, hyperbolic. I know it's a tough one.

[grasswire]

4. yeah, the WaPo polling that I saw two days ago was 79% against...

...military intervention. And a good number of the respondents are in D.C.!

I guess we will soon know who is the master of Obama. The will of the American people, or the Military Industrial Complex and the neo-cons. A man cannot serve both masters.

Oh, heck. I just realized that's biblical. "Choose ye, then, whom ye will serve."

[leveymg]

32. We'll either be at war by this time next week or we'll see the first of the resignations. If neither

this may have been another in a long line of "ready to bomb Bushehr" type psyops the Iranians are so used to not overreacting to.

Lets hope for lots of NSC and Inner Circle types looking to take extended early Fall vacations with their long-neglected families.

[nashville_brook]

171. that's an interesting idea -- i bet there are those staking their "public" career on this...

poised to launch a "consulting" venture as soon as their plan dies.

[jimlup]

5. No trying to be disagreeable...

I'm against any military action without UN security council approval. But honestly this will be forgotten by 2014. Americans don't vote on wars unless they are frightened and they are not frightened. Just say'n

[dawg]

101. I agree.

[JDPriestly]

150. A lot of just-out-of-high-school kids sign up for service at the lowest levels

from my neighborhood. War is not good for the mothers and fathers in my area. I remember when I was campaigning for Kerry 2004. I knocked on a door and a man, judging from his English an immigrant, stepped out and begged me to get Kerry elected. His solier daughter had just come home from the war. His English did not suffice to share the details of his daughter's story, but he was on the verge of tears. He literally begged me to get Kerry into the White House and get Bush out. He wanted peace. Peace for his daughter. Peace for himself. Peace for our country.

Kerry needs to stop and remember what he saw in Viet Nam. You cannot bring the dead back to live. Maybe Jesus could, but we can't.


Let's don't pull a George Zimmerman on the Syrian people.


Let's not kill before we have the facts.

Our attacks will not kill Assad.

They will kill innocent people.

We need to have evidence before we go out and kill.

[jimlup]

179. More than that actually

we need a consensus that it is the action that the world must take. This does not seem to be the case at all. We must condemn the gas attacks on civilians in Syria in the strongest possible terms but violence is not going to be the solution especially the way that the world's ducks are currently aligned.

As a democrat though I worry about how Obama can "save face".

[tritsofme]

7. It may not be popular, but it isn't high on most voter's priority list either.

It will have very minimal impact on 2014.

[nashville_brook]

28. it will be.

[Ken Burch]

33. If it leads to a lot of deaths, it will become a high priority.

There cannot be any upside to military intervention in Syria. It can't bring down Assad, and even it if could, the armed factions that would replace him wouldn't be an improvement.

And if the best you can say is that peopler here wouldn't care if we murdered tens of thousands of Syrians, that's not a hell of a strong case.

[Carolina]

8. So voting really doesn't matter

I was in Washington 50 years ago when hope and change were real and real possibilities, rather than slogans.

Now... fuck it. This country is gone and it doesn't matter who's in power. Rapid decline with repukes, slow decline with dems but decline all the same. And the pols are all owned -- bought and paid for by the MIC.

They don't answer to us and we don't matter.

All this country knows how to do, and has the will to spend money on, is wage WAR. And what is that good for?!

[robinlynne]

67. absolutely nothing!

[iemitsu]

130. Say it again.

[robinlynne]

181. lol!

[Enthusiast]

78. Slogans don't do it for me.

They didn't work when Bush was in office.

You'll know how far gone this country is after they strike Syria AND enact the TPP.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

151. It's been good at raping the environment as well.

That slow decline might be speeding up worldwide.

[bvar22]

9. 9% approval???

Wow.
That would be all the Pro-WAR members of DU,
plus two more!!!

[YOHABLO]

10. At what point does the U.S. public say enough is enough. Tired of the lies and misinformation.

We've already drummed up enough hatred toward the U.S. and it's allies for many many generations to come. The only thing to gain is another World War which won't last very long .. but the planet will be annihilated with every living organism dead.

[AverageJoe90]

49. Which isn't at all likely to happen.(yes, that is a fact, by the way). EOM.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

157. Those facts come with a crystal ball?

But life will continue, it just might not be human.

[AverageJoe90]

170. No, but what I said is true: WWIII just isn't all that likely in this day and age. eom

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

172. You don't give the human race enough credit to be stupid

[AverageJoe90]

173. I doubt that.

I've said this before, but WHY would Russia and China gamble with the existence of their whole nations over just one or two little countries that really aren't that important in the scheme of things? Do you really think they'd want to go that far, to drop atomic bombs on an enemy nation's cities, over this? I don't think so. Even Putin's not that crazy.

And don't pull the 1914 schtick, either, because it won't work......

This isn't the '80s anymore, Crabs; to start WWIII in this day and age, you'd literally have to *want* to do so. And even Dubya Bush wasn't that insane.

[HardTimes99]

184. You really have a very poor understanding of 1914 and the move to all-out war - nt

[AverageJoe90]

185. To the contrary, in fact.

Compared to what led up to 1914, this will be seen as a mere diplomatic disagreement between cordial friends; the serious problems between the European powers had been building up and converging for years and it was sadly damn near inevitable that a World War was going to occur at some point in the early 20th....and many Europeans knew this damn well, too, whether they were in denial or not.

The situation in Syria now, is basically like the apples to 1914's oranges: The Al-Assad regime is quite widely despised by many for its usage of chemical weapons, its brutal treatment of dissidents, and even of civilians in general.....even in countries strongly opposed to U.S. direct intervention.

[HardTimes99]

191. 1914 did not see a move from peace to 'total war' overnight. Instead, there was a

sequence of events, each of which taken on its own seemed quite logical and understandable, given the immediate casus bellum that preceded it but the end result of which saw a world at war and with no single human capable of stopping the war machine on his or her own. (Eugene Debs here gave it a try and look what happened to him

To wit, Imperial Germany gives the Austro-Hungarian Empire (PKA "The Habsburg Empire&quot the infamous 'blank check' to attack Serbia. Russia offers guarantees to Serbia if it is attacked. Austria-Hungary attacks Serbia. Russia declares war on imperial Germany and imperial Germany decides to neutralize its western front by trying for a repeat of 1870 but violates Belgian neutrality to do so, triggering Entente Cordiale guarantees of Britain, France and Italy. By the end of this chain, the entire developed world is at war. (Well, America doesn't get drawn in until after a German Uboat sinks the Luistania, but that's really by-the-by for our purposes.)

Consider August 2013. The U.S. attacks Syria. Iran and Russia have offered guarantees to Syria to defend its sovereignty. Russia displays restraint, but Iran attacks Israel and U.S. ships deployed in the Gulf. The U.S. retaliates against Iran, pushing the Soviets to attack Israel. Now all bets are off and the entire region and world's superpowers are involved, perhaps with nuclear Armageddon as the end-game. (Well, this time around, Britain has decided to opt out apparently.)

No one (other than simpletons) has ever declared that history repeats itself exactly. But certain constants in modern experience do seem to appear and re-appear. Thus, "Remember the Maine!" pre-figures the Gulf of Tonkin which in turn pre-figures Niger Yellowcake, just as the ineluctable logic of tit-for-tat 1914 pre-figures its contemporary counterpart.

[AverageJoe90]

192. "1914 did not see a move from peace to 'total war' overnight." That's what *I* just said.........

Apparently you didn't pay attention to what I'd written.

Consider August 2013. The U.S. attacks Syria. Iran and Russia have offered guarantees to Syria to defend its sovereignty. Russia displays restraint, but Iran attacks Israel and U.S. ships deployed in the Gulf. The U.S. retaliates against Iran, pushing the Soviets to attack Israel. Now all bets are off and the entire region and world's superpowers are involved, perhaps with nuclear Armageddon as the end-game. (Well, this time around, Britain has decided to opt out apparently.)

The Soviets? You do realize the USSR disbanded in 1991, right? And I doubt the Russians would directly attack Israel over Iran, btw: they might provide logistics support, as we would for Israel, but no troops on the ground.

No one (other than simpletons) has ever declared that history repeats itself exactly. But certain constants in modern experience do seem to appear and re-appear. Thus, "Remember the Maine!" pre-figures the Gulf of Tonkin which in turn pre-figures Niger Yellowcake,

True, but There's just one problem: there IS no counterpart for 1914 right now.

[HardTimes99]

193. Encroaching senility explains my inadvertent reference to the 'Soviets' - I'm leaving

it for thread integrity purposes but appreciate your flag

Russia's Putin has said (think I read somewhere) that a U.S. attack on Syria would be seen as a threat to Russian national security interests. So I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree about the possible parallels to 1914. I definitely understand where you're coming from, I just happen to disagree with you.

[fujiyama]

11. People have war fatigue

The last time we intervened, we ended up with a dead ambassador.

We intervened in Afghanistan in the '80s and ended up with 3,000 dead Americans, two destroyed skyscrapers, and another badly damaged building.

Now that may be a simplistic way of looking at it, but blow back is an unpredictable and spiteful, psychotic bitch.

[nashville_brook]

103. this goes to the heart of the lack of support, and not just on the part of Americans

there's no international coalition for this either.

[pansypoo53219]

13. more presidenting while black? georgee lies amerika into Iwaq + we pound afghanistan w/ hardly a

peep.

[Autumn]

21. There was quite a peep from many of us when Bush raged to war. No one listened.

They ignored the anti war protests and played them down. The problem isn't as you say " presidenting while black " The problem is unnecessary wars.

[robinlynne]

68. exactly. There were thousands of us in the streets and only foreign news cameras.

[Maedhros]

122. Hundreds of thousands.

There were nearly 10,000 of us here in Portland alone.

[robinlynne]

180. Thank-you!

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

161. The problem was GREED pure and simple.

Three trillion dollars spent.

Yes they ignored the anti war protests, hundred of thousands marched here in this county and millions worldwide, but you knew that.
The Senate and Congress went along with the war, wanting to look strong and tough, but you knew that as well.

The real problem is, how do we change this country with a peaceful revolution that is supported by a majority of the populace?

Every source of information seems to be manipulated and directed toward us being complainant little citizens doing whatever were asked to do, mostly saying hooray for our side.

But I'm not buying that, are you?

[Autumn]

163. Oh no. I'm not about to buy what they are selling.

I remember and I can see what's going on. I don't need anyone to tell me how to think. The only possible peaceful revolution we have is at the ballot box. And the choices we have been offered that we must vote for to keep the other guy out, just isn't working.

[BrotherIvan]

31. I find your post rather offensive

So being against war is now racist too?

[grahamhgreen]

43. Apparently this is the subtext here, as the think tank crowd reaches deep into their psy-op bag of

Tricks....

[quakerboy]

52. Just because you werent listening to us

Doesn't mean we were quiet. Just means you weren't paying attention.

But even if you set that aside, Im betting if you proposed invading Syria in 1973, it probably would have been pretty unpopular at that particular point in time as well.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

69. If invading Syria had been linked to ending the 1973 Oil Crisis,

then there probably would have been a lot of support for it.

[Doctor_J]

154. Hardly a peep?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

164. I stood on a busy corner in San Diego in 2004 with a sign

that read,

HONK
IF BUSH
LIED

the noise was unbelievable, people were coming out of stores to see what was going on.
People flashing the V-sign, people shouting in support and even a city fire truck blasting the horn.

Had enough lies?

[Ocelot]

14. K&R

I have yet to meet one REAL person who supports military action against Syria. It's sunk in across party lines that Mideast wars are a recipe for economic disaster here at home. Not seeing any flags attached to cars in my home town this time (and there were plenty when we went into Afghanistan). Even the knuckle-dragging GOPers around here don't want it.

We're going to get slaughtered by the GOP in 2016 if the War Psychos have their way again.

[Shanti Mama]

15. = suicide in 2014 AND 2016.

I have mixed views on the idea of taking action, taking what we did in Libya as an example of what can come of it. However, I don't think many would see it this way. I think it would turn the political tables around. Completely.

I hate that the administration would make the politically expedient decision, but...

[nashville_brook]

22. being a local kind of person, i've 2014 on the brain

but you're right, it will splash forward to 2016.

[brooklynite]

62. Right.....like the Libya involvment led to defeat in 2012?

[Bluenorthwest]

91. Victory would involve enough House seats to run a functioning government and DNC failed

in that regard. Can we pass bills and run this nation? Not so much. Why is that? Radical Republicans who were victorious over enough 'Blue Doggies' or 'Moderate Bipartisans' to hold us all hostage for years.
Without Libya, who knows? You sure don't. You are standing with a very tiny pro war group at this point.
I do not know even one person who supports bombing Syria. There are the few of you on DU, but frankly brooklynite, you who support it support anything the administration wants. Same lot was 'against marriage equality because civil unions are just as good and marriage is just a word' until the day Obama 'changed his mind' and then poof, so did all the DU civil Union boosters. You must know that stuff degrades your opinion into something that is clearly affected and inauthentic.
Oh, and we bought Obama's 'evolution' with money and pressure. It was not what he wanted to do, but money talks and bullshit walks. Civil Unions indeed. Did you support 'marriage is just a word civil Unions are all we can get for now' theory? Of course you did.

[brooklynite]

105. Because of Libya? Or because of Gerrymandering in 2010?

I remember Benghazi! coming up; nothing about our involvement in the broader context.

as for the rest of your post? I am neither "pro war" nor accepting of everything the President does. What I am is 1) not an isolationist, and 2) thoughtful enough to acknowledge the the situation is not black and white. I generally support the President's judgement because I generally find it to be equally throughtful, even if I don't agree with his position on everything.

BTW - how exactly did we move into a discussion on marriage equality?

[ileus]

16. As democrats who are we going to vote for? Repukes??? I think not...

We'll swallow the bitter pill and pull the lever.

[nashville_brook]

27. with a 9% approval rating it's the swing vote that's a concern.

[Doctor_J]

156. The casuals and the throngs that voted for change in 2008 will stay home in droves

like they did in 2010 when they figured out they were "misled" on HC and some other issues.

[delrem]

47. Not necessarily. The US might be at a turning point.

Otherwise - good luck to ya!

[Maedhros]

125. I will not vote for any Democrat that supports Syrian intervention

in the absence of incontrovertible proof of the use of chemical weapons by Assad.

And Israeli evidence is not incontrovertible - they have too much incentive to falsify it.

[Autumn]

17. You got that right.

rec

[KoKo]

18. It's hard to know how they will position themselves... Maybe to the Militant RW?

The Gun Crowd? It's going to be a tough call. But, who knows what can happen between now and then.

[sabrina 1]

19. That can't be. I've been told on DU just yesterday that I am a 'fringe' extremist who represents

only 5% of the population.

You must be mistaken, no one on DU would tell a lie like that.

[nashville_brook]

25. it's amazing what happens when you don't get your news from DU...

to be fair, there's ways in which DU can be a great resource, but these big national issues tend to get too spammy and reality checks are called for.

[leftstreet]

26. Peace Purist Puritan!

Indeed!

[Egalitarian Thug]

119. Welcome and revel in their hatred. They're just simple people that are seeing their fantasy crumble

around them. Fear is their current motivation.

The more they attack you, the surer you can be that you're right.

[sabrina 1]

123. I do revel in it. Those old labels have zero impact having being so overused and

associated with the extreme right wing fringes who got them from morons like Rush Limbaugh.

Lol, the 'Left is Always Right'!

[Egalitarian Thug]

124. "Left is Always Right" Always has been and there is no sign of that changing

anytime soon.

Peace. Now.

[Vanje]

23. I wish I could rec this twice.

A kick , now, will have to do.

[babylonsister]

29. What has happened? What did I miss? Oye. Get a life. nt

[Enthusiast]

79. Get a life?

Isn't that what Rumsfeld said in regard to their fuckups in Iraq?

[sabrina 1]

30. Less popular than Congress!

Wow, quick, go hire the Rendon Group again! I think their price tag is around $300, 000,000. Or it was for Iraq airc. 'To sell Iraq to the American people'.

[BlueStreak]

35. I don't believe it. 'Mercuns love to see big 'splshuns

What they don't like is a lot of Americans getting killed, but WAAAAAY more than 9% would be just fine with lobbing a bunch of Cruise missiles or drones with Hellfires, as long as nobody we care about gets hurt.

I think we would have seen numbers like 9% if the question was, "Are you in favor of Americans participating in a war to get rid of Khadafi from Libya?"

But a few weeks after that nobody even remembered it happened, except for the Benghazi thing -- and that wasn't even connected with the invasion to oust Khadafi.

Polls can only measure the stupidity of Americans. You can't ask an ignorant American a question and expect to get a learned answer on average. Only 5% actually are well informed about the world.

Now if you want to know the best player for your fantasy football league, lots of people can answer that one.

[grahamhgreen]

45. Your comment is highly anti-American and anti-democracy, IMHO. Thanks

[BlueStreak]

63. Your concern is noted with all the respect it is due.

[Amonester]

53. Yeah, but when these 'splshits boost up the price of a fill up...

pop goes all these funny splshits

they quickly start raging at the sight of their empty pockets

[BlueStreak]

65. That is definitely a scenario

Obama painted himself into a corner. He has to do something because he drew a "solid red line". The problem is that Syria didn't have to let loose with the chemicals. They did it because one of their backers (Russia or Iran) pushed them to do it. There is a lot of gaming going on here, with the potential for rapid escalation well beyond the borders of Syria.

It is easy to talk tough when you just look at the situation on the surface, as Obama obviously did. Not that he is coming face to face with the range of scenarios, he is surely having an "Oh shit -- what did I do?" moment. And the Brits are having that same realization now.

The worst part of this situation is that there really isn't ANY action that will improve matters. If we come in with overwhelming force to topple Assad, it probably just sets up a new hope for al Qaeda, and gives them control over all those chemicals.

If we just lob in a few Cruise missiles, that saves some face for Obama's blunder but it doesn't help anybody in Syria, and it creates a very real opportunity for that to be used by Iran and others as a trip wire to escalate. And as usual, Israel is sitting there ready to do a wildly disproportionate response if any of that escalation hits them.

But Obama may see this as all being worth it, because it get the NSA crimes off the front page.

[durablend]

94. I'd go one further...

But Obama may see this as all being worth it, because it get the NSA crimes off the front page.

All that 'potential terra' makes the NSA seem like it's even more justified (if even doesn't go far ENOUGH).

[Maedhros]

127. And Obama and his Wall Street buddies have certainly positioned themselves well

in the oil futures markets. Driving up the price of light sweet crude by bombing Syria will line their pockets.

[joshcryer]

54. Indeed.

Libya didn't hurt Obama's reelection chances despite the claims here.

Most Americans are so blinded by the MIC that they don't know what to think.

It's one reason the MIC is so powerful. If Americans really knew what their taxpayer money was for...

[Bluenorthwest]

93. Compare and contrast the Libyan military defense capabilities with those of Syria

Most Americans oppose bombing Syria.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. The sad facts are that once the hammer falls the opposition will dissipate,

and the collosal decades long apathy will be maintained, and our rulers will continue to execute the PNAC plan unhindered.

At some point there will be a military disaster. Thankfully, as we do most of our brutality remotely, it likely will not involve major casualties on our side (and we obviously care nothing at all about dead foreigners.) What happens then will be "interesting" and "unusual". Until then our bullying will continue on schedule.

[mick063]

37. He has already caused irrevocable damage to the party.

Who is motivated to contribute or go to work for more of what he gave us?

Fear factor doesn't work when there is fear of every available option.

The obstruction that at one time hurt us, to deny everything Obama, has recently been a boon for those that like Social Security, are against "fast tracked" trade agreements, or lack faith in high level cabinet appointments.

[another_liberal]

38. Good for you!

It can not be said enough times:

This war of choice attack on Syria could cost Democrats their majority in the Senate, perhaps it could even give us a Republican in the White House come 2016. That is one hell of a steep price to pay just to punish someone you only half-way know crossed your goddamned "red line."

As far as the reliance on "evidence" from the Israeli Mossad:

When it comes to critical information, the best source for reliable, unbiased and non-partisan intelligence on any independent Arab government is, of course, always Israeli intelligence, right?

(sigh)

[sabrina 1]

46. And it isn't even to 'punish' anyone for killing people. We kill people every day, we don't care

about killing people.

It is part of the PNAC plan to 'turn the ME into a parking lot of shattered glass' and 'then reorganize it' to OUR liking.

We don't care about people being murdered or tortured or imprisoned wrongfully. Anyone who believes that, believes in Santa Claus.

But I'm happy to see these numbers, which reflect my experience in RL, across the political spectrum.

Not that anyone in elected office will listen, but it is nice to know the people are not buying the 'official theory' anymore.

[another_liberal]

48. Those in elected office will only listen if they begin to fear for their reelection.

That is the fear we must instill in them. They are supposed to be our servants, not our masters.

[sabrina 1]

146. Absolutely. We are to blame for always going along with the

propaganda that 'Progressive can't win in this country'. Well, maybe it's time to test that out. They won't listen if the people don't make them listen.

[another_liberal]

147. Very true.

It clearly has to be done.

[Enthusiast]

80. It's a slow motion modern day crusade.

They have our oil. And special people can make rooms full of money in the process. It the PNAC come to fruition.

[Kablooie]

40. I'll bet it would trigger impeachment too. The Rebuplicans are probably licking their lips.

I'm not against doing something but if it is a war-like attack the Tea-liban will scream unconstitutional and whoops, impeach.

The fact that attacks like this without Congressional approval have several precedents won't make any difference.

[DeSwiss]

50. K&R

[Amonester]

51. Add the price of gas that's going up-swing because of all the m$m raw-raw

$112 today
$117 tomorrow?
$135 on stupid bombing day?

[creeksneakers2]

55. It depends

It's 9% now but we haven't seen how this will turn out. If Assad keeps his word and attacks Israel in retaliation it will be impossible to keep Israel from responding by attacking Syria. What would Iran do then? We could have a disaster on our hands. We'd not only have about 100% against intervention, we'd have an extremely angry public.

On the other hand, if the US lobs 180 missiles over a few days and then Assad decides to quit using chemical weapons and that's the end of it Syria probably won't be a major issue in 2014.

[NuclearDem]

56. In a democracy, I might see how that kind of thing would matter.

Fortunately, our wise leaders actually know what's best for us and want we want better than we do.

[jsr]

58. It's a price we pay for freedom

[Douglas Carpenter]

59. what do you expect in country where 91% of the population are a mixture of fringe far leftist and

fringe right-wing libertarians? It's only the fringe with their big mouths who object. We can't help it if 91% of the population are fringe.

[nashville_brook]

60. as Derrida said...

the center is at the margins.

[HardTimes99]

70. Derrida made Reagan possible :) - nt

[nashville_brook]

99. i see that now.

it's amazing how occluded it was back in the 80s. it seemed as if "the margins" were up for grabs by the traditional margins...what we didn't pay attention to was the hegemony factor. those with power will naturally fill the choicest narrative slots. just b/c the slots are up for grabs, doesn't mean the disenfranchised voices will fill them.

[Doctor_J]

158. the 91% fringe

Also makes the 9% mainstream.

[workinclasszero]

61. If we lived in a representative democracy...

We would not be on the verge of yet another middle eastern quagmire in which both sides hate our guts and there is absolutely NO FUCKING WAY WE CAN WIN!

At least 90% of ALL AMERICANS ARE AGAINST THIS WARMONGERING BULLSHIT!

But shit that ain't gonna stop uncle sam from goin balls deep into the middle east AGAIN!

Hope we don't accidentally-like start WW3 while we are throwing cruise missiles around. Iran might want to throw around its weight also and send thousands of missiles over Israel way, and then children, the shit will REALLY hit the fan!

But hey its all good! Look at all the $$$$ the MIC will be making before its all over!

No way to win but what the hell, lets go in guns blazing and shooting off million plus dollar missiles by the hundreds or thousands even.

We can get the money back by kicking 40 million poor women and their kids off food stamps and kill social security too!

Then the MIC can turn around and sell us those missiles all over again! Ain't war wonderful? Its just the height and embodiment of that god given capitalist way of life that is absolutely killing off this planet and the 99% of us that aren't rich!

[DaveT]

64. Finally found a silver lining

to the cloud of the Tea Party campaign of perpetually discrediting Obama.

The core of political support for the Bush invasions has been persuaded that The Commander In Chief is a fraud -- the Kenyan Socialist who pals around with terrorists. So now when there's the prospect of a splendid little war, the wingnuts are more skeptical than the peaceniks -- with nobody in-between jazzed up about those dreaded WMDs anymore. That is a far better political environment than we had when Rove was coaching Bush on how to rev up the knuckle draggers.

I doubt that Obama will get us into the Syrian War, not because I have any faith in his anti-war bona fides, but because it would be even stupider than the last two stupid wars. Nothing to gain, much to lose and politically disastrous, no matter what.

If he does start such a preposterous miltary adventure, all doubts about him should finally be resolved. His mixed record has undeniable plusses and his defenders have my respect, even as I disagree with them. But this combination of mass slaughter and geopolitical folly would clinch the case against him.

Conversely, if the President manages to hold the neo-con war hawks at bay, and avoids going to war, I will tip my hat and add a major plus mark on my personal ledger -- which now has far more big red minuses. The consenus on this thread seems to think it is going to happen, in spite of that 9% poll result.

I'm not so sure about that.

[nashville_brook]

92. i'm not sure about it either. i figured it would have been done and over by now...

the time lag could mean they're assembling more assets for a greater mission, or that diplomacy is working.

[SaveAmerica]

66. Anti-Obama fervor is at the level of W cheer leading after 9-11

Am I the only one who heard Obama say tonight that he has not made any decisions on Syria? Has Hagel said that forces are ready 'if needed'? Stay tuned over the next few days for answers to these and other questions.

Maybe we are witnessing how to handle a crisis of this magnitude in comparison to W's 'What Not to Do' Mid East style? That's cool, I was an 8 percenter after 9-11, I have no problem being an 8 percenter Probama.

And where is OCTAFISH??!! We need some dots connected cause this has a BFEE fishy smell about it.

[nashville_brook]

73. being pro-Obama and being pro-war should be separate

if one follows straight from the other, then there's likely not enough thought going into it.

[jzodda]

72. Suicide? Nonsense

For a 3 day bomb or missile campaign? People will have long forgotten that by Nov of 2014.

In fact with the looming battles over Obamacare and debt limit people will forget this (if it happens) by Halloween of this year. People in this country have no long term attention spans. We are country who does not pay much attention to anything outside of pop culture anyway.

[harun]

81. Shocked I had to read this far down for this answer.

Fact is, people won't give a shit. None.

They will run their air campaign. Beat up Assad. People will forget all about it in a couple weeks.

[DaveT]

95. Yes, if.

If it is all over in three days with no mission creep, no blowback or no explosion into wider war, the public will indeed forget about the idiotic adventure in a matter of weeks.

But I won't.

And that is one big honking IF when you are talking about bombing a country in the Middle East.

[demosincebirth]

76. Usually agree with you Mr. President, but not on this one. Stay out of Syria!

[Enthusiast]

77. When a proposed government military action only has 9%

approval, that government action should not take place.

It's very simple. This is a fucking democracy.

[Marrah_G]

85. Everyone has seen this movie before, it didn't end well

Actually, it just hasn't ended.

[Little Star]

87. Screwing the pooch.

[Savannahmann]

90. So just to make sure I understand this.

Bombing Syria is slightly more popular than Herpes, but far less popular than a trip to the proctologist.

[DirkGently]

96. And what exactly is a "punishment bombing?"

Yesterday I heard a former ME advisor or some such supposed expert opine that if the U.S. was contemplating a strike on Syria, then it would be aimed at stopping Assad or turning the tide of the war, and that if the first strike failed to do so, of course the U.S. would escalate its attacks from there. EXACTLY the kind of Iraq quagmire scenario most likely to enrage the American public.

By the time I got home, all the talk was about this limited "punishment" strike, where we would "send a messsage" about chemical weapons, and then stop.

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama vowed on Wednesday that the Syrian government would face "international consequences" for last week's deadly chemical attack, but made clear any military response would be limited to avoid dragging the United States into another war in the Middle East.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130828

There is a lot wrong with this whole idea. As noted, we still don't have confirmation as to the use of the weapons, and by whom, but for some reason, the push seems to be to go forward ahead of the U.N. inspection. Especially odd given the quickly disparaged U.N. reports on the last claimed chemical attack, which implicated rebel forces.

If this is all about lines in the sand and enforcing "norms" of military conduct why, as with Iraq, is the U.S. again insisting we don't need no stinkin' U.N. inspections? Hate to be cynical, but the simplest explanation would be that we don't CARE who used what weapons, but rather are looking, again, for an excuse to intervene militarily.

But moreover, military actions have military objectives. The speculation appears to be that bombs and cruise missiles would be used to take out C&C and air defenses. Those are, coincidentally, the first targets that would be required for an extended bombing campaign or an invasion.

So what exactly is the concept here? This is some kind of limited, high-stakes corporal punishment, meaning it's NOT a prelude to further action, but it's still going to lay the groundwork for engagement anyway? This seems like the kind of situation where sanctions, not military intervention, would apply -- unless military intervention is the goal.

It makes no sense. A campaign of guided missile attacks are not sanctions -- it's war. So trying to gain the American public's trust on the basis that it's NOT war is disingenuous. So is not waiting for U.N. analysis. So is not considering further sanctions.

"Punishment bombing" is not a thing that militaries do. Militaries fight wars. We can say all we want that we are "policing" or "supporting" or "advising," but once the warships and the bombers and the missiles are in play, we are engaging in war.

This proposal is not the thing it is represented as being. Not at all.

[DaveT]

97. The whole WMD obsession

is absurd, an invention of the Bush Administration.

From 1945 until 2003, there was a national security consensus, supported whole heartedly by both parties, that deterrence was the best way to deal with the threat posed by Stalin, Mao and their successors. This was overthrown with no debate by the Bush Administration with the invasion of Iraq.

Most people see the criminality of the Bush Administration in its dishonest depiction of Iraq as a bristling arsenal of WMDs. But I think that it was even worse -- far worse -- that they succeeded utterly in the abandonment of deterrence as national policy. We turned Nuremburg on its head, and we adopted the philosophy of Tojo by not waiting while threats developed. Instead, we took pre-emptive action and we now have a standing policy of Attack First.

Now President Obama has inherited this moral abomination and idiotic strategy of starting wars to prevent potential threats from maturing into actuality. His rhetoric on this Syrian bullshit is firmly rooted in the Bush Doctrine of using America's allegedly infinite power to prevent the Syrian government from employing WMDs, explicitly citing the possibility that those weapons might someday be used against the USA.

This policy is insane and one of my many disappointments in Obama is that he has not repudiated the Attack First doctrine of George Walker Bush and the Project for a New American Century.

[DirkGently]

98. "Pre-emptive self-defense." A Bush-era fallacy.

So, I think is "punishment bombing." Another way to try to re-frame starting a war as somehow not Starting. A. War.

Fool us once ... won't get fooled again? And again? And ...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

106. "Tough Leader" PR. See LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Bushes, for precedents.

[woo me with science]

100. Oh, I have to add that one to the list.

"Humanitarian air strikes."


War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Chained CPI is Superlative.
Drone murders are Legal, Ethical, and Wise.
Health Care is Affordable.
Edward Snowden is the Traitor.
G.H.W. Bush made the world a Kinder and Gentler Place.
Spying on the Public is in the Public Interest.
America is not spying on the Public.
Surveillance Tools should Empower the People.
Air Strikes are Humanitarian.

[nashville_brook]

102. indeedydoodoo.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

104. So, 91% is the "Peace Purist" fringe?

[nashville_brook]

110. precisely. know your place Peace Purist!

[Doctor_J]

155. Better than being a racist

oh, wait. We're racists TOO

[steve2470]

107. good op ! nt

[Coyotl]

111. gotta kick this

[Proud Liberal Dem]

112. That's a bit hard to say IMHO

Public opposition to intervention in Syria doesn't necessarily translate to "suicide for Dems in 2014". It could I suppose but electoral problems would likely hinge on how long we were involved, how involved we get, and whether or not we take on any casualties or if we escalate our involvement. President Obama got involved militarily in Libya and didn't pay any political penalty for it in 2012 AFAIK, so....... .

[nashville_brook]

116. empowering to GOP which paints Dems as inept in military intervention.

we'll get it from both sides: the libertarians (and some swing voters) that are isolationist. and from neocons who will be able to say "u r doing it wrong."

[Progressive dog]

117. 2014 is too far off for more than minimal impact on elections.

The Libyan conflict is already ancient history, in spite of the ongoing violence there. A short series of missile strikes against Syrian military targets will be forgotten within weeks.
The real question is whether it would be a moral act to punish the Syrian government for using poison gas.
That assumes that the gas was used by the Syrian government. If the Syrian rebels are later shown to be responsible for the gas use, the repercussions could carry to 2014.

[AverageJoe90]

121. I'm not so sure about that, TBH.

While it certainly can be said that there were a lot of people who'd also been opposed to our intervention in Libya, maybe perhaps as much as 75% of people over all(which is, btw, a more realistic high-end estimate of people who oppose Syrian intervention as well). But Obama did so anyway, even if not in the way that the warhawks would have liked.....and it didn't really hurt us in 2012, even with the Benghazi attacks.

TBH, althought I'm sure some of the purity-obsessed factions of the far left could end up staying home(but then again, a lot of these guys stayed home in 2010, too), I really seriously doubt that even a badly failed intervention would hurt us *too* much: if things really don't go lopsided, then it may not hurt us at all.

There are far more issues to worry about than just war, and some more important than war, at that, and, frankly, I'd rather have an imperfectly informed Dem Pres., than a guy like Rand Paul, who may claim to be anti-war, but he is ALL okay for screwing us in the ass not just financially, but even more so politically and socially as well.

[nashville_brook]

128. "purity-obsessed factions of the far left" -- wow, really?

when you're looking at 9% approval, you should be worried about swing voters. base will always turn out unless something REALLY stupid happens that sours the brand...like LBJ experienced in 68.

this kind of name-calling and casting aspersions is getting really old. AND, it's not working for you.

[AverageJoe90]

129. Unfortunately, it's true.

Now, I'd like to clarify that there are many people opposed to an intervention who *DO NOT* fit that description.....even I have my own doubts.....but the sad thing is, there are a few people out there who *are* apparently obsessed with ideological purity, and I've noted that a lot of *them* DID stay home in 2010, and might do so again in '14 if things don't go swimmingly perfectly. At least there's some hope, as we faced a similar conundrum in Libya, but it didn't end in total disaster in 2012, even with the Benghazi bombings.....

[DirkGently]

132. No. The "peace / purity obsessed left" is a fiction.

That is a poorly cobbled together meme designed to circumvent rational thought.

It's not a fringe idea that America has a problem with ill-advised adventures in the Middle East. This was ... rather a large theme under which Obama was elected to office. Iraq was a disaster on a scale almost impossible to overstate. Afghanistan is widely viewed as a mistake, and most Americans want us out.

Sneaking in a little Libya on the side does not mean the mainstream of American political thought favors a pattern of military interventions in the Middle East.

The "fringe" are the right-leaning nutters and coporate profiteers who would like us all to think a little war here and there has been working out fine.

[AverageJoe90]

133. Again, there's a difference between opposing intervention, and.....well, you know already.

And I've made that distinction clear already, but if not, lemme try to make it clearer: from what I can see, the good majority of Democrats who oppose intervention in Syria would likely stlll stand by Obama's side even if things *do* go terribly wrong. It's this small faction of people that can *rightly* be called the "purity brigade", as it were, because every time Obama either makes a mistake or doesn't go exactly where they'd like, they make an unnecessary fuss.....and many of this faction stayed home in 2010, helping the Teabaggers seize the House. The good news is, though, is that they aren't growing and that the pragmatists remain dominant; there are many more issues to be focused on than just this one conflict.

It's not a fringe idea that America has a problem with ill-advised adventures in the Middle East.

This isn't something I've argued against, and in fact, like pretty much every other person on this site, I'd agree wholeheartedly with this, actually.

Afghanistan is widely viewed as a mistake, and most Americans want us out.

And that's what PBO has been trying to do.

The "fringe" are the right-leaning nutters and coporate profiteers who would like us all to think a little war here and there has been working out fine.

Well, I can't argue with that, at least.

[Zoeisright]

126. Oh hardly.

If this is your only issue you're a moron.

[obxhead]

137. Things WILL go sideways as well.

SNAFU is a common acronym among military personnel for a very good reason.

[nashville_brook]

160. Proxy wars are notoriously difficult to control

[Doctor_J]

152. all 9% are BOG regulars

yet somehow they think they're "mainstream"

[Doctor_J]

153. If he bombs Syria, signs off on TPP, and on KeystoneXL, my party of 50 years will be

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

159. K&R. No shortage of Judith Miller...

... type media puppets to try and sell this attack on Syria, but a very dire shortage of takers. NOBODY is supporting it.

The OP is correct, this could be suicide for the Dems.

[nashville_brook]

165. thanks! it's weird though, that there's not too many mainstream Judith Millerss...

been seeing some choice backfield wannabes though.

[steve2470]

162. UK Parliament defeats Syria resolution yay !!!! nt

[B Calm]

186. If he doesn't bomb Syria, republicans will scream he's soft on fighting terror.

If he does bomb Syria, republicans will scream anyways.

[brooklynite]

189. Update: 50% support military action limited to air strikes (NBC poll)