Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I first wrote about this the other day. From The Hill:
A U.S. official briefed on the military options being considered by President Obama told the Los Angeles Times that the White House is seeking a strike on Syria “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”
“They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic,” the official told the paper, giving credence to similar reports describing a limited military strike in the aftermath of last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack.
NBC News reported earlier this week that the administration would launch three days of missile strikes, while CNN cited a senior administration official saying that the White House wanted to conclude any action before the president departs for the G-20 summit next week.
And today we have President Obama asking for Congress to vote on those Syria strikes (even though his staffers were eager to leak this afternoon that he would probably go ahead and bomb them anyway if they vote against it. A symbolic vote for a symbolic war!)
“We are the United States of America. We cannot, and must not, turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus.”
Here, let me finish that for you:
“But we do, and must, turn a blind eye to anything that happens in Gaza.”
I honestly don’t see any compelling reason for Obama to bomb Syria, except for his ballsack. And that would be an amoral reason, indeed.
Especially since we knew the attack was coming, and didn’t warn them. You’d almost think there was some other agenda at work, huh?
On the mark, Susie. There hasn’t been a conflict since Korea, that wasn’t justified by rampant dick waving in DC. Of course the real reason’s always been that the 1%’s bottom line needs firming up . . . so to speak.
Just who exactly is out there that will taunt the US for not bombing the shit out of Syria for no discernible purpose? Rush Limbaugh’s audience, the Village, and Israel: that’s about all I can think of. So it’s not even about projecting an image to the world, it’s about waving your dick around to impress the tiny-meat Viagra voters of Missouri, Cokie and Sam (or whoever the ninnies of press the meat are these days) and AIPAC.
the points in the article are good but obscured by the presumption to turn this into some kind of gender issue or at least couch it in sexist terms, which is trite and self-defeating. I know female journalists (and young women in general) think it makes them sound “empowered” and ‘edgy” using terms like ballsack,nutsack, cock, hard on, and all the rest but it just makes them sound stupid and silly.Maybe write articles like this and use terms like “vaginal foreign policy” or how Syria is like a “wet pussy” or how the US foreign policy is “pussywhipped” or how this plan has so many holes it’s like “cunts at a whorehouse.” Grow up.
I agree with both Ron and guest – the audience that says “bomb” consists of the 1%, Limbaugh’s listeners, the Village, and the right wing political parties of Israel.
Why on Earth does Obama care about them? He’s not running for office anymore. Supposedly, in the second term, we were supposed to see a more “independent” Obama, especially as regards pressure from Israel’s right wing. What happened to that?
Maybe Obama is worried about his pay grade when he gets his big post-presidency job at Goldman Sachs or the Carlyle Group.
Never underestimate the power and influence of the ballsack.