This morning I heard an argument from Joe Scarborough that's at the core of disagreements between the supporters of President Obama and those who hate everything he stands for.
Joe started out by rolling out his preconceived arguments that Obama is a weak out -of-place president who is now making us look foolish worldwide. There's no argument that Joe's perception may be correct right now because a lot of people are hearing that message. Howard Dean landed a powerful blow to Joe's theory when he called it " phony Washington hooey. " And those remarks coming from Dean ,at 6:00 AM, really pissed off the blowhard, Joe Scarborough.
The issue was the remark that Obama made in Stockholm yesterday, when he said that his credibility was not on the line,the credibility of the international community and that of Congress was on the line.
Understanding liberals or even the wiliness to do so ,has never been a priority for conservatives ,who think they control the normal train of thought. People like Joe Scarborough likes a man of few words who can make an instant decision and stick to it ;even if he's wrong. They put a lot of emphasis on the spoken word as they literally interpret it. Joe Scarborough thought that President Obama was shifting blame for his red line comment but he was not. President Obama is willing to back up his "red line" remark with limited military strikes, but he's not willing to give the international community or Congress a pass for their unwillingness to enforce the ban on the use of chemical weapons resolution of 1972,because it has been ratified several times. We didn't do anything when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people and approved it when the dictator used it against Iran. If we're aren't serious as many nations clearly are not,or if we want to selectively enforce the ban on the use of chemical weapons,then we should amend the resolution.
I believe the other 187 nations who approved the ban of the use of chemical weapons don't have the moral courage of their convictions like our country does. Yes,our country's credibility was severally damaged 10 years ago and the other countries have a right to be skeptical. Having said that,they have the same intelligence we do, "that was then and this is now." It's easy to sit on the back bench and yell "Iraq all over agin."
President Obama,Secretary Kerry and Hagel are not war mongers,no matter how you slice it. Each have expressed their displeasure of war,but answering an obvious violation on the use of chemical weapons crosses a line that they can't consciously ignore.
President Obama didn't ignore the other four uses of sarin gas by Assad;he didn't have enough evidence to lay the blame on the current regime.
Joe Scarborough keeps faulting President Obama for saying "Assad must go" and then he remains in power. In due time Joe,we have a deliberate president not a "shoot from the hip" cowboy.
Marco Rubio will vote against the resolution because it will help him with his anti-Obama theme in his 2016 presidential run. The senator says the action is "too little, too late" because he thinks the administration should have taken action two years ago in supporting a pro-American rebel uprising. That's laughable,the president will have a hard time getting the votes for a limited two days of strikes and all of a sudden Rubio thinks the GOP would have supported Obama in arming the rebels. Oh,I've heard the call for action by the GOP but that was prior to voting for such action. Other reason the conservatives are angry with the president;he makes them put their money where their mouth is.
Several leading liberals in Congress and in the media are dead set against an intervention in Syria. People like Charlie Rangel,Ed Schultz,Chris Hayes and Chris Matthews disagree with President Obama and his reason for limited strikes. In fact national polls show that Americans do not support striking Syria. It's funny how the memories of 9/11 are beginning to fade but the memory of Iraq is still there.