https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014 ... ss-anyway/
What’s worse: Launching a disastrous military campaign under false pretenses to achieve goals you wrongly believe are attainable? Or launching a disastrous military campaign you know is doomed in order to help your party win an election?
I ask in light of today’s New York Times story about how President Obama asked the CIA a while back whether arming rebel forces – pretty much the agency’s signature strategy — had ever worked in the past.
He was told that it almost never has.
But then in June, once the political pressure for intervention in Syria got too great, he did just that — sending weapons to rebels fighting the Syrian military.
Yes: He knew better, but he did it anyway.
Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
Moderator: Global Moderator
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
By any means necessary.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
- I Shrugged
- Executive Member
- Posts: 2064
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm
Re: Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
I give him a little credit for at least asking the question.
Stay free, my friends.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
Definitely! Just doing what he felt would be popular. Which is ironically what everyone clamors for after a president who ignores what people want and does what he thinks is right. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Worst job in the world. Well, maybe second worst after white house press secretary.TennPaGa wrote: Would this be an example of sogginess?
Because I really liked your use of that adjective.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- I Shrugged
- Executive Member
- Posts: 2064
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm
Re: Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
I've been observant of second term presidents since Nixon. I can't recall any that didn't seem lame. Yet, it seems Obama might be the lamest since Nixon. Maybe this is recency bias.
Stay free, my friends.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
Historically, great progress happens in lame duck Presidencies with a split Congress. So if the Republicans ignore the Tea Party wingnuts and finally play ball with Obama, his legacy is assured. As much as I sympathize with some Tea Party sentiments, not compromising is causing more economic damage than passing imperfect legislation.I Shrugged wrote: I've been observant of second term presidents since Nixon. I can't recall any that didn't seem lame. Yet, it seems Obama might be the lamest since Nixon. Maybe this is recency bias.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Re: Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
YES!!!MachineGhost wrote:Historically, great progress happens in lame duck Presidencies with a split Congress. So if the Republicans ignore the Tea Party wingnuts and finally play ball with Obama, his legacy is assured. As much as I sympathize with some Tea Party sentiments, not compromising is causing more economic damage than passing imperfect legislation.I Shrugged wrote: I've been observant of second term presidents since Nixon. I can't recall any that didn't seem lame. Yet, it seems Obama might be the lamest since Nixon. Maybe this is recency bias.
It would also help if Congress would decide to go back to work and vote on whether to send troops to Syria & Iraq. Although I do blame Obama for the current mess, I blame Congress even more. The President isn't supposed to wage war without a mandate from Congress, but what can you do when they go and take a two month vacation!! I heard they actually plan to work a grand total of 13 days from now until January. It remains to be seen whether they'll take up this issue or not.
Nice work if you can get it.