The Neo Cons are at it again!

The Neo Cons have consistantly pushed for some sort of proxy war with Iran for many years now.

They were behind the Bush adminstration's tacit approval of Isreal's invasion of southern Lebanon in 2007.

And, of course, they were the primarly policy authors of the Iraq war.

Today's WSJ editorial page contains a lenghtly editorial on Syria, authored by a "fellow" at something called the Institute for the Study of War.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579044642794711158.html

As it turn out, the Institute for the Study of War is a rebranding of the Project for a New American Century, whose website stopped being updated around the time the new group was founded.

What's the difference between the neo cons of 2000 and the neo cons if 2013?

Not much.

The gang's all there. Bill Kristol, Liz Cheney (proxy for her father), Elena Kagan (whose husband was the director of PNAC).

Naturally, their WSJ piece called for the US to get involved in another war in the Middle East..

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/institute_for_the_study_of_war

 

Kim Kagan*

Elena Kagan is a liberal justice on the Supreme Court.

 

Right!

 

You do know who the President is right? You do know what political party he part of right? How about Kerry the one calling for war.. You do know what political party he is part of right? Are you suggesting some think tank runs our policy under Obama?

 

Getting involved in Syria would be One Big Assed Mistake America. I thnk Obama is playing right into the hands of our enemies that are taking advantage of his (and his administration) utter stupidity and incompetence.

 

Lol, good meme there. The Right seem to be exceptionally good at those... Without, you know, actually being able to defeat the man they hate.

 

You ignored the meat of my post that says that Obama would be making a huge mistake getting involved in Syria at this point. But he is both stupid and incompetent so it is inevitable. I do not hate MaO'Bama, I simply acknowledge him for the imbecile that he is.

 

More 'nyah,nyah,we won'....

 

Really! Never let your unthinking anger go to waste, I suppose.

I wonder if the Left knows who is running the country, and who is beating the drums of war? They've been incredibly willing to point at Bush whenever anything goes wrong...now that extends to some think tank they've identified.
Kerry and Obama are the ones calling for a military response despite the fact it seems futile and senseless and they are the ones with their fingers on the trigger...not any "neo cons".

 

No problem.

If another war breaks out while Obama is president it's still Bush's fault.

Life is simple when you're a lib.

 

I'm sitting on my toilet (TMI?) with the news on in the bacjground.

Obama is currently giving a speech on why we should attack Syria.

Wow, Obama is a NeoCon now?

Interesting, I still haven't gotten all the lingo down apparently.

 

What's more is the fact that a month ago most of these same righties were condemming Obama for not doing something in Syria!

It's just another thing to add to the growing list of right wing hypocricies!

 

Funny how all the wingers are making the same point.

My point is that this same cabal of right wing foreign policy types has been calling for war in some form or another in the Middle East for nearly twenty years now.

That's a fact that is very easy to document.

So the righties, most of whom were condemming Obama for NOT attacking Syria, are now all talking out of the other sides of their mouths (again).

I don't support getting involved in Syria without a strong case and broad international support.

 

Translation: Look people, I'm getting pretty desperate here. Now Barack Obama wants yet ANOTHER war in the Middle East. It was already embarrassing to have his war for oil in Libya. But now? Now he wants to start a war over specious WMD claims, just like his long lost twin George W. Bush. I have GOT to come up with something to deflect the attention away from Obama. Hmmm.... I know what... I'll babble about "neocons" and act as though Obama has nothing to do with the war he's itching to start!

- - - Updated - - -

Is Barack Obama a hypocrite?

 

What happened.......were you flushing when he said he was going to send it to Congress?

 

That doesn't mean that the right wing foreign policy establishment hasn't been advocating for a war in Syria, or any other proxy war they can think of with Iran for years now.

Those are your words, not mine.

Obama is smarter than that.

He'll make his decision based on what his intelligence people tell him. He won't send the Vice President over to Langley to instruct them on what he wants to hear, like the last guy did.

And he won't pay attention to the Zionists and the ex PNAC crowd, either.

 

What's more is the fact that some people run around with a pre-pubescent mentality that suggests doing "something" indicates you did the proper thing correctly ... Then get defensive and start squealing "hypocrisy" when they have yet to take proper action and secure stability in the first place.

When President Obama's plan for participation was to threaten Syria ... It might have been wise to evaluate what exactly he was going to do when Syria told him to "Fu** Off".

 

I cannot say that I am taking up for President Obama ... But I am not sure that he is a true hypocrite and perhaps just a lousy leader.
Situations change, and needs change with them ... The ability to be prepared or to adapt is what makes a successful leader.

The whole situation would look different if the president had taken the time and effort necessary to build a better coalition in Congress and with our allies ... When he chose to threaten Syria.
Like any overburdened Community Organizer ... He is now trying to convince our allies to trust him, and they have a hard time hearing him over the foot stuck in his mouth.

 

Translation: you can't argue the point so you put words in other people's mouths instead.

 

So what Neo Cons dont speak for all conservatives, far from it. And why do they beat war drums on the ME all the time?

 

That is pretty close to what I accused you of ... No content, defensive posturing ... Thanks for the translation, now go clean your room.

 

I wasn't talking to you.

I offered detailed content in another OP.

The conservative foreign policy establishment has been clamoring for US military involvement in the Middle East for nearly two decades now.

Even after the disaster in Iraq, they're still at it.

The President is not contemplating a response to Syria based on the NeoCon fantasy of some sort of grant American protectorate as envisioned by the likes of Bill Kristol or Dick Cheney.

We have the uber embassy in Baghdad as a permanent monument to that disasterous vision.

 

I cannot argue that someone is not justified in trying to apply the neocon formula to our actions in Syria.
The ability to connect the dots is often warranted … And facilitates understanding the possibilities.
My personal stance has more to do with the idea of limited involvement (Obama's Plan) … Versus nothing at all … And in the case where WMD's may have been used.
The message we need to send is one of strength … And the fact that we won't tolerate their use in the region … A message that far more agree with once you remove the posturing from each nation or the UN.

If we sit idly by as Syria uses chemical weapons … And cannot build a coalition to support efforts to discourage such activities … What do you think Iran will take away from that?

Does what Iran think make a difference in what happens in Syria … Maybe, maybe not.
Does how we approach the situation make a difference in what Iran can expect from us if they get stupid and start slinging WMD's in the region … I think it does.

 

The core problem is, too many people are trying to make this a straight up black and white issue. GOP supported this war = GOP support all war. Democrats opposed this war = All Democrats oppose all war. The reality is shades of grey. Each case has to be handled on its own merits. The intervention in Libya was a very easy strategic choice with a simple completable mission. The reasons for acting against Iraq were very different to Afghanistan.

I am glad Congress will get the time to work through this case. To balance the value of intervention against the case for doing nothing. Syria is not a rogue state like Iraq and Libya, it still has friends, some capable of causing a lot of carnage. This may be one of those rare times where politics wont play a part and our leaders will genuinely seek the best course of action

 

Then this thread is just to deflect from Obama then. Got you. Instead of discussing Obama recent flip flop over Syria lets discuss a group that according to you has no influence on Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZvypFPscP8

Strange why would he select Biden if he wouldnt listen to his advice.