Watching John Bolton Made Me More Likely To Support The President If He Decides To Punish Syria

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Watching John Bolton on FOX made me more likely to support the president if he decides that the Syrian chemical attack on its own people warrants a military response. Bolton said that American credibility is not on the line as the credibility of the United States and the credibility Of President Obama are not synonymous and that "Obama will be gone in 1,200 days." One-1,200 days is a long time. Two- the elected president represents the will of the American people. And three- you're going to get another Democratic president in 1,200 days.

[DrDan]

1. "the elected president represents the will of the American people" - sorry, he is not representing

me in regards to military intervention in Syria

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. He won't be representing John Bolton either/nt

[cali]

7. So? He doesn't represent my very progressive congressman either. And?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I don't think not representing John Bolton and not representing "your very progressive congressman"

I don't think not representing John Bolton and not representing "your very progressive congressman" are mutually exclusive.

[cali]

14. you're the one that tried to make a point that he's not representing Bolton

presumably you had a point to make.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. My point , like Rousseau made, is that general will differs from the will of all

And the general will is more than just a tabulation of the individual wills of the citizens of a nation.

[SwampG8r]

4. and number 3 is being undermined everyday by these actions.nt

[Berlum]

2. 4. Bolton is a Republicon Chickenhawk WhackDoodle, and intimate crony Clarence Thomas

'nuf said

[yoloisalie]

5. Its called reverse psychology

And it just might work

[cali]

6. what some asshole supports or doesn't support doesn't sway me

I prefer to research, to look at facts and to make up my own mind.

You actually believe that the President represents the will of the American people? In every decision he/she makes?

Just fucking yikes.

scary way of "thinking".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I believe he represents the American people

President Obama is the duly elected president of the United States and gets to enjoy all the privileges and responsibilities the position entails and is not some interloper who serendipitously found himself living on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as John Bolton suggested.

[backscatter712]

9. The interloper would be George W. Bush...

Seriously: if Yosemite Sam is for war, I'm against it. I'm funny that way.

[cali]

15. that still begs the more practical question: Does he represent the American people

in every decision he makes? The clear answer is Fuck no. No president does.

It's ridiculous to assert that he does.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. The American people DO NOT want another war.

PBO could realize that and represent US in that regard.

[spanone]

10. 2 words....fuck bolton.

[NCTraveler]

12. I think your verbiage is a huge part of the problem.

We should not be in it to punish anyone, although that is the one thing our military is good at. Say we "punish" them, what is it that will be left. A continued civil war? Our goal should be peace and stability, that cannot be achieved by the training and tools currently available to our military. We are good at punishing. Not so good at nation building.

[MNBrewer]

13. I don't get the "on his own people" distinction that people are making here in DU

Isn't it the use of chemical weapons that's troubling, not upon whom they were used? Would it be OK for Assad to use chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds, but not on Syrian Kurds?

Or is "on his own people" being used as an emotional hook, to drag us into a military conflict?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. You shouldn't be harming anybody regardless of whether they are your charges in this case

You shouldn't be harming innocents regardless of whether they are your charges in this case or citizens of another nation, especially with radiological, biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons.

[MNBrewer]

19. I agree with you

but over 100,000 people have already died in this conflict. I think it's terrible, and I also think that thousands more will die, regardless of what we do or when we do it.

Our involvement will likely do nothing to end the killing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. His old man buried a city with 20,000 people in it/nt

[Alamuti Lotus]

21. But the government called those people "terrorists"

At that time, the Muslim Brotherhood was engaging in rampant assassination of government figures, and exploding car- and other-bombs in residential areas. The government waged a "war on terror". What's the problem?

Entirely stripped of context, figures alone do not tell a truthful story.

No, I don't approve of what was done in Hamah. The phrasing was constructed to make a point. I do, however, obviously draw stark and unflattering parallels in both rhetoric and action to what the US gov't regularly engages in. If you're going to try to utilize (or should I say, crudely exploit) the historical event for present propaganda purposes, you'd have to explain what the difference is. But if you're taking your cues from John Bolton, you clearly have a significant credibility gap to overcome; given his record, we're talking nearly insurmountable. But I'll hear the argument.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. How could I be taking my cues from Mr. Bolton when he is arguing military intervention is not

How could I be taking my cues from Mr. Bolton when he is arguing military intervention is not justified and I am at least willing to entertain the notion that it is?

As to Assad Pere leveling an entire city. That doesn't strike me as a justified response to terror unless it can be established that all those leveled were terrorists.