New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Obama's new proclamation:

He absolutely NEVER admits to anything! And the lefties will back him all the way....incredible!

I am a little surprised that he has gone to this extent to deny that the red line belongs to him when he made it his when he evoked it.

Does this man have no shame? No conscience? No sense of responsibility for his actions at all?????

I wonder who he will blame when he takes us into Syria and an American life is lost?
I wonder who he will blame when he strikes Syria and videos come out of the Syrian women and children that American strikes have killed?

Prediction: He will not blame himself.
 
look, as most Americans you and me are against our involvement in another conflict , especially after the Iraq lies fiasco.
But Obama is correct about chem weapons-the world treaty signed by the most nations about using Chem weapons IS A RED LINE, not some imaginary boundaries Obama invented on his own for Syria behavior.
 
look, as most Americans you and me are against our involvement in another conflict , especially after the Iraq lies fiasco.
But Obama is correct about chem weapons-the world treaty signed by the most nations about using Chem weapons IS A RED LINE, not some imaginary boundaries Obama invented on his own for Syria behavior.

interestingly...it appears Syria is not a signatory of the CWC.
 
I am a little surprised that he has gone to this extent to deny that the red line belongs to him when he made it his when he evoked it.

Does this man have no shame? No conscience? No sense of responsibility for his actions at all?????

I wonder who he will blame when he takes us into Syria and an American life is lost?
I wonder who he will blame when he strikes Syria and videos come out of the Syrian women and children that American strikes have killed?

Prediction: He will not blame himself.

I wonder who he will blame if somebody decides to sink one of our ships in the hope of pinning it on Syria. It's will be a perfect scenario for a false flag and there may be some who won't be able to resist.
 
I wonder who he will blame if somebody decides to sink one of our ships in the hope of pinning it on Syria. It's will be a perfect scenario for a false flag and there may be some who won't be able to resist.

There are so many disgusting possibilities if/ when this whole thing plays out that it's hard to think about them.
 
I wonder who he will blame if somebody decides to sink one of our ships in the hope of pinning it on Syria. It's will be a perfect scenario for a false flag and there may be some who won't be able to resist.
More paranoid Babble Hoping America fails
 
"I didn't set a red line"
"My reputation isn't at stake"

Really????


View attachment 23507

I wouldn't trust this piece of shit to do the right thing on anything. He doesn't care one whit about people killed by chemical weapons. His only interest is elevating his own credibility (an impossible dream) and trying to make himself look relevant (another impossible dream).
 
"I didn't set a red line"
"My reputation isn't at stake"

Technically he's correct. But, if this is indeed a global moral imperative, wouldn't it behoove us to know which side actually used the chemical agents?

I haven't had the time to watch the Senate committee debates, so does anyone know if that question and the supporting evidence has been discussed....at all?

CBS had an article asking "where's the evidence?".......CBS has another article that Syria has challenged our government to "produce the evidence".... Vladimir Putin has called John Kerry a liar who hasn't returned phone calls...
some reports have been made that rebel forces have confessed to it having been an accident on their part.

Again, has there been one minute of debate or discussion in the Senate on this the most important issue?

Or is this but another "trust us" affirmation the likes of Fast and Furious, IRS targeting by "rogue agents in Cincinnati", or a "movie" provoked Benghazi? And let's not forget that Benghazi itself was about a CIA - State Department operation to arm the same Syrian al-Queda led rebel groups that the Administration now wants to assist with attacks on the Syrian regime.

I don't pretend to know the answer, but somebody better damn well find out!
 
Technically he's correct. But, if this is indeed a global moral imperative, wouldn't it behoove us to know which side actually used the chemical agents?

I haven't had the time to watch the Senate committee debates, so does anyone know if that question and the supporting evidence has been discussed....at all?

CBS had an article asking "where's the evidence?".......CBS has another article that Syria has challenged our government to "produce the evidence".... Vladimir Putin has called John Kerry a liar who hasn't returned phone calls...
some reports have been made that rebel forces have confessed to it having been an accident on their part.

Again, has there been one minute of debate or discussion in the Senate on this the most important issue?

Or is this but another "trust us" affirmation the likes of Fast and Furious, IRS targeting by "rogue agents in Cincinnati", or a "movie" provoked Benghazi? And let's not forget that Benghazi itself was about a CIA - State Department operation to arm the same Syrian al-Queda led rebel groups that the Administration now wants to assist with attacks on the Syrian regime.

I don't pretend to know the answer, but somebody better damn well find out!

I'm not so sure he's correct. He stated that the moving around of and the use of chemical weapons would be a Redline for us (the administration). This indicated that would be a point at which the US would take some sort of action.
 
I'm not so sure he's correct. He stated that the moving around of and the use of chemical weapons would be a Redline for us (the administration). This indicated that would be a point at which the US would take some sort of action.

You're right Jack....I should have said he was moon walking back his position to the moral imperative position, which may or may not be correct. And even that depends on whether idealism trumps pragmatism.

Either way he's being his own shifty self as circumstance requires. Apparently he thinks that's leadership. Most recognize it to be about political survival.
 
You're right Jack....I should have said he was moon walking back his position to the moral imperative position, which may or may not be correct. And even that depends on whether idealism trumps pragmatism.

Either way he's being his own shifty self as circumstance requires. Apparently he thinks that's leadership. Most recognize it to be about political survival.

Obama seems to still be living under the delusion that the influence of his voice, and the power of his words, actually have merit and can effect change in people and events. That shit was pretty much dispelled in his first year as Pretend President.
 
"I didn't set a red line"
"My reputation isn't at stake"

Really????


View attachment 23507

The thing that troubles me here is the constant, unrelenting focus on optics. We have a sitting president in a critical situation dedicating considerable time to image management, blame apportionment, and unending campaigning for self.

A more well-adjusted adult human being would ignore the noise regarding such stupidity of who owns a bloody "red line", rise above the chattering classes, and act with the dignity and professionalism expected of a C-in-C. What sort of poor parenting yields such unwavering preoccupation with cosmetic externality and image-crafting?

Really? He dedicates time to this?!?

I'd love to see a bit more "presidential" behavior. Instead, it's just more "self" all the time.
 
What sort of poor parenting yields such unwavering preoccupation with cosmetic externality and image-crafting?

Liked your post....excellent.

As for the above , you gotta remember his father deserted him when he was 2 years old, his stepfather lent him a new name and hauled the family off to Indonesia, then his mother shipped him back to his white grandmother when he was about 9.

I'd say his problem is about identity and parenting....and understandably so by the way.
 
Back
Top