Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop

[video=youtube_share;RtzOmx55c8Y]http://youtu.be/RtzOmx55c8Y[/video]

He's all for the Red Line on CW's. Assad must not cross that line. Doesn't want to put troops on the ground. Ok. Neither does Obama as Kerry has emphasized over and again. Humanitarian interests...he waffles but doesn't say no.

Now of course, he's against the missile strike. If Obama's for it, he must be against it.

We have so many weasels in congress and this guy is at the head of the pack.

Meanwhile congressman Michael Grimm of NY sends out a request for campaign donations of $25 to help him in his "fight against the strike", turning the question of a military action into a campaign fundraiser. He politicizes the entire issue for his own self preservation. I haven't seen this much scum in a long time.

 

Next weeks vote in the Congress

Should Syria be attacked?

Yes - 35

No - 400

and then to top it off, Bashar will come on national tv wearing a gas mask and give Obama a finger

LOL

and that will be the end of it.

 

I've screen shot and saved this so I can either do nothing if a certain Syrian ex-pat is correct or rub dog poop in her hair while giggling madly.

 

Obama has screwed this up so badly, and now he looks bad no matter which way he jumps on this.

 

Actually he is handling this very well. If he said nothing at all I'm sure you would be saying the same nonsense.

 

Well, you must be the only person in the entire world who thinks Obama is handling this well. Congratulations on being so unique.

 

This is a joke right?

 

Even the liberal media has noticed that Obama is in over his head on Syria.

 

This is a joke right?

 

we will see

 

Anyway, we've been itching for an excuse to nuke Iran for 34 years. This could be the provocation we desire.

 

???

I would really like you to explain his brilliant strategy then, since right now this looks like the most amateurish thing I've seen from a White House in my lifetime.

 

The circumstances of September 2013 are different.
It is comforting even Paul Ryan can change his mind.
Hopefully, a majority will say, "Gas, so bad, so bad. But NOT America!"
McCain & Obama have no sense !
Only obedience to the Multi National Corporations that benefit from Syria and the politician's personal cut.


Remember Iraq 2. Making Iraqi Oil available to China. Witness by Search: China, Oil, Iraq.
NOT American corporations. Multi National Corporations with no national loyalty.
Serviced by American blood, bone, lives and tax dollars.

Moi

 

Of course. And you would know exactly how to handle this, or anything else for that matter. A situation in which there is only a bad result, and you would have the answers.

 

That would be the more accurate observation. The call would be, "why doesn't Obama do something". In fact, we heard that over and over from the Repugs. So he decides that something must be done, and they all say "no way...he want's to get us into a war". The bottom line is always if Obama wants it, they don't. If he doesn't, they do.

- - - Updated - - -

You failed to respond on the video in which Paul Ryan calls for exactly the measures that Obama proposed. Until now of course. What you're doing is classic misdirect. Why not comment on Ryans hypocrisy?

 

Syria is over your head. You have no rational answer to the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Look at every response you've made. You haven't made one intelligent response. Obama is in over his head. Obama messed up. Obama sucks. Brilliant answers to a terrible situation.

 

Than you must be very young. Did you miss the entire Iraq strategy? Time to grow up son. Tell you what, we'll do nothing, and then let me know how high the pile of body's of men, women, and kids that have been gassed you need to see before somebody acts? And of course when they pile up, you can blame Obama for not acting.

 

Ahhhh...of course. The difference is that it was a year ago. The circumstances of using chemical weapons haven't changed since 1925. The World has condemned it as a war crime. A "Red Line" in a debate for the presidential election is now not a Red Line after you lose an election? A War Crime is no longer a War Crime. What changed?? Ryan lost an election. That's what changed. Did the morality change? If so, why?

It's comforting that Ryan can change his mind? Did he pick that up from Mitt who flip flopped more than and Olympic gymnast? Do you mean like his opposition to the stimulus money...until he demanded getting millions of it for his district. He's a hypocrite. A politician with zero core. An empty suit.

 

There is a far larger game going on than just Syria.

It involves Iran, Israel, Russia, China, Oil and Gas supplies...etc.

OIL...is running out and since the U.S. is the worlds largest oil consumer we are playing for keeps.

AboveAlpha

 

Paul Ryan, just like Obama and Romney, lacks principles.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, is entirely principled. A throwback to the Founding Fathers.

 

Of course. There must always be a far larger game going on than what is obvious. We should Never overlook the conspiracy theory that would divert our attention from the reality on the ground. There must be the illuminati, or the secret oil cabal or whatever. The oozing cynicism that denies what is right in front of our very eyes. It couldn't possibly be that a country decided to use chemical weapons which presents a moral question for the US and the entire world. Occams Razor would inform us that we should never add unnecessary contingencies to arrive at the correct answer. The simplest answer is usually the right one, and the simple answer here is that gas was used in Syria and nobody wants to do anything about it.

The most absurd reasons that I've heard for not doing anything is that there aren't enough other countries supporting the missile strike. That the US should not be the only country all the time acting in these problems. That begs the question of the morality involved. Would the actions by the Syrian government be MORE immoral if we had the support of other countries. Does the morality of using gas, change according to the number of countries willing to stand up? It's not immoral if we are the only country taking action, but if other countries joined in...then and only then would it be immoral. So morality is based on numbers. Can somebody tell me what exactly is the right number of countries that are willing to act, that makes the gassing of the Syrian people immoral? I'd like to know how many need to be willing to act.

 

All of these jerkwad politicians simply say what is convenient at the time. They operate on a different level from most other people, truly setting themselves above right vs wrong, entering a world of performatives and artful flip-flops, of pure manipulation and furtherance of agendas.

 

I'd just like to know why every moral crisis demanding military action on our part invariably takes place in a series of countries that happened to show up on a list of countries laid out many years ago.

[video=youtube;yB17j0a-R34]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB17j0a-R34[/video]

There are conspiracies in real life. It's important to maintain balance and perspective. People can go too far in seeing and suspecting conspiracies, but they can easily go too far in the opposite direction as well and end up being blind to real-life conspiracies in action.

 

That's always been the case for him.

He made the mistake of pissing off Putitin, and now he's going to have to back down.