Page 1 of 1
Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:21 pm
by Pointedstick
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.
Re: Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:54 pm
by Benko
By any means necessary.
Re: Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 7:37 pm
by I Shrugged
I give him a little credit for at least asking the question.
Re: Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:36 pm
by Pointedstick
TennPaGa wrote:
Would this be an example of sogginess?
Because I really liked
your use of that adjective.
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.
Re: Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:04 pm
by I Shrugged
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.
Re: Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:30 am
by MachineGhost
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.
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.
Re: Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 7:31 am
by WiseOne
MachineGhost wrote:
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.
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.
YES!!!
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.