DU hawks, once 100% behind Obama striking Syria, now praise him as a prince of peace

[whatchamacallit]

This place is a hoot.

[Warpy]

1. Not all of them

Some of them are still out there, slugging away.

[KittyWampus]

2. There were/are very, very few DU hawks 100% behind Obama striking Syria.

A vanishingly small number, in fact.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Yep

A poll was done on DU and I believe 92% of the people were opposed to striking Syria.

DU hawks? Right....

[whatchamacallit]

22. I'm referring to the DUers who, until today, supported Obama's decision to strike Syria

A minority yes, but they made substantial noise. Now it's all about "peace".

[pnwmom]

26. I don't think they were supporting the decision to strike Syria as much as they were

wanting something to be done to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again.

If this plan works, that will achieve the goal.

[whatchamacallit]

28. Bullshit

The people I'm talking about support the president no matter what he does.

[pampango]

39. If they are just 8% of DU (see #7), don't worry about them too much. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

42. Actually 5%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023543019

[RC]

100. That number only comes from those that voted in that poll.

How many are in the BOG?

[Just Saying]

105. The BOG is far too often used as a strawman.

There are probably about 5 people who post there regularly and there's no reason to believe they didn't vote in that poll or to assume they supported bombing Syria.

I support the President but do not support an attack on Syria.

[Tarheel_Dem]

162. "The BOG is far too often used as a strawman." It's like fighting freepers, we shouldn't have to do

that at Democratic Underground, they have their own playground.

[Andy823]

124. What about

The much larger number of posters who "attack" the president no matter what he does? Those who claim he is a total failure, is just like Bush and Reagan, etc. Since this is a board for democrats, the president is a democrat, why would supporting him be so bad? Wouldn't trashing the man day in and day out be much worse than giving him your support?

And honestly I really doubt that there are any posters here who would agree with everything he does, or has done, but giving him your support does not mean you "totally agree with everything no matter what"! I disagree with him on things, but I still support him.

[lumpy]

78. Yes, you hit my nail in the head. I feel, and still do, that the gas attacks must stop, all over the

world. Some how. some way.

[BlueStreak]

110. Perhaps, but that goal is nonsense

Nowhere in any of this euphoria have I seen any acknowledgement that it is really, really easy to fire up the chemical weapons machine as soon as things quiet down. Unless Assad is agreeing to s cease fire and permanent access by arms inspectors (and he isn't) we aren't doing a damn thing about the chemical weapons. This is just all for show.

And bear in mind that there are reports out there that say the UN inspectors found that the gas delivery canisters were homemade, but of the industrial quality that Assad would have at his disposal.

But I will give Obama credit. With one clever move he was able to take the anti-NSA concerns off the air and also thwart Israel's attempts to escalate this into full-scale regional war -- which is always their comfort zone.

[AgingAmerican]

147. Yes they were

They were calling us names over it. Names like, "Peace Purists."

Yesterday their blood lust turned into "Neener, neener, neener for peace".

[Capt. Obvious]

149. No, it was just about supporting Obama 100%

doesn't matter what.

[Cali_Democrat]

36. They made substantial noise? Bullshit

There were so many anti-war posts here including several from me. The notion that the alleged "DU hawks" made substantial noise is utter bullshit.

[AgingAmerican]

148. They were calling people "Peace purists"

...and saying that bombing and airstrikes isn't war, and a million other vile things.

[leftynyc]

156. 1 poster used that phrase

Just one. As opposed to being called WARMONGERS for wanting to do something about chemical weapons. I have no horse in this race - I've maintained from the start we shouldn't go anywhere near Syria but to complain about namecalling without calling out both sides is completely dishonest.

[AgingAmerican]

158. Try using the search function

That is but one example of the nonsense thrown at those opposed to 'war solutions'.

Also, do a search for 'warmongers'. I found no threads accusing DUers of being 'warmongers.'

It all boils down to the politician worship. 'Opinions' shift with the prevailing winds.

[leftynyc]

163. You didn't see anyone calling

those wanting to punish assad warmongers???!! Are you freeking serious?

[Whisp]

44. must of been one huge honking mofo big hawk

and I missed him/her.

o well.

[Andy823]

121. Yep

And I recall from another post about his poll that only one name was familiar, the rest most people have never heard of. Most likely our gang of right wing trolls that have invaded the board.

[whatchamacallit]

11. Right, "Incredibly small"

[sharp_stick]

3. This whole thing has really got you pissed off

I've got to admit you've got the stamina thing worked out but maybe a break would be in order.

[sibelian]

6. ....I'm beginning to think that we need to lay off the Obama worshippers...

Some of the behaviour coming out of them is starting to look very strange.

I'm starting to wonder if I'm inadvertently feeding something really unhealthy.

The level of private reality construction is well beyond the margins of error for any ordinary political hack.

[woo me with science]

20. +100000 It's a disturbing phenomenon,

and, pathetic as it may appear, has to be taken seriously.

When brazen, unapologetic rewriting of history becomes a normalized part of political discourse, it's a sign of a deep and dangerous corruption in the system.

[snooper2]

56. I read that on DU this morning!

[SylviaD]

80. Agree 100%! n/t

[HooptieWagon]

82. When the Bushbots did it, we questioned their sanity...

It seems the Obama Personality Cult has the same tenuous grip on reality.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

106. It's actually quite reactionary.

Strange that people who fancy themselves as either liberals or progressives acting like reactionaries.

[HooptieWagon]

35. Good point.

It's likely there is some mental illness involved...we should be concerned for the health of fellow DUers.

[sibelian]

47. I really don't know what to do about it.

First it's "bomb Syria" to which any sane person says "no there needs to be a diplomatic soution" then there IS a diplomatic solution and the people who wanted the bombing are pointing at those who wanted the diplomatic solution and howling that they are refusing to admit to being in the wrong after having spent days and days howking a military solution over a diplomatic one.

It's really very, very peculiar. I really have no idea how to relate to it. I've never seen anything like it. Not even here.

I'm begining to think we're making some very damaged people considerably worse.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. Almost every person on this branch of this thread is a 9/11 Truther. Including the OP.

So maybe you guys should lay off the "constructing your own reality is scary" schtick.

[sibelian]

64. Errrr... no I'm not.

And, significantly, it wouldn't matter even if they were, you can't just somehow copy and paste wrongness from one issue onto another. That's totally irrational.

There's no question whatsoever that there's blatant reality construction going on everywhere in the Syria threads, imaginary conversations with Putin have taken place, imaginary intentions on behalf of Obama and Kerry, imaginary racism... it's not difficult to spot.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. If you're not, then I apologize to you.

But the company you're keeping here, they are. So you still might want to be careful about throwing lines like "blatant reality construction" around.

[sibelian]

137. I have no problem with the term.

In the context it's perfectly accurate.

[whatchamacallit]

146. A swing and a miss

[Bolo Boffin]

153. Are you saying you are no longer a 9/11 Truther? That's welcome news.

I'm glad you finally worked yourself free from that morass of lies and mercenary chicanery.

[Kolesar]

60. Obsessively hanging at the liberal forum bashing the Pres is sign of mental illness

It's true!

[sibelian]

65. Not sure if missing sarcasm smilie? nt

[Poll_Blind]

73. ^ This. This is maybe the most succinctly descriptive way I've seen it put thus far. nt

PB

[SylviaD]

79. Agree 100%! n/t

[Demeter]

96. I just put them on Ignore

My list is Ginormous! And I don't get ulcers, either.

Of course, not too many laughs, either.

[truebluegreen]

135. My list is out of hand, but they wore me down:

got to be too much work ignoring them...but yeah, I kinda miss the belly laughs.

[Logical]

89. LOL, so they own you and you get defensive? n-t

[sharp_stick]

130. Yeah that's it

Your deductive reasoning is something else, not sure exactly what but it's something else.

[Logical]

132. LOL, deductive reasoning is you thinking someone is pissed because they think you are wrong. n-t

[sharp_stick]

133. Stop drinking

and posting it won't make any sense in the morning to you either.

[Logical]

134. Make believe is fun for you I understand. Keep it up. Reality sucks at times. n-t

[DontTreadOnMe]

4. Yeah... aren't you the guy who is constantly slamming Obama?

Go stomp your feet, Obama wins again.

[whatchamacallit]

5. Actually I spend more time slamming his drooling acolytes.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. so is your comment about Obama supporters worse than mine about Putin lovers?

it is probably a push. But one is our elected president and, you know....the top Democrat about which this Democratic Underground revolves. The other one is a cruel dictator who rigs elections to maintain power.

[whatchamacallit]

14. If anybody ought to be loving Putin right now it's you

[KittyWampus]

61. so you basically admit it's not about policy but slamming other DU'ers.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

145. Its always nice when somebody lets the mask slip slightly

it lets other people know a bit more accurately how the said poster actually is/thinks

[Kolesar]

63. Obsessive #2 ... eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. And that was a prediction that we racist, paulits, you fill in the rest of the insults

made.

[NoOneMan]

9. Chess-playing peace maker

lol

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. WTF do you care? If the end result is what you claimed you wanted, what does it matter?

[NoOneMan]

16. I think you can call out bullshit and still be happy people aren't going to be bombed

This blind loyalty, follow the leader shit is dangerous. This is a great example

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Speaking of "bullshit".

[Shivering Jemmy]

83. I'm not convinced they are happy

Who doesnt want to be the noble dissident bucking the brutal warmonger?

It'd be best if Obama had bombed Syria. That way I could be against it.

[NoOneMan]

95. "It'd be best if Obama had bombed Syria"

Civilians aren't dying in a dick measuring contest. Good enough

[Liberal Veteran]

13. Shouldn't the important issue be results?

There seems to be a couple of camps that are far more concerned with stroking their own ego/tearing down others than the actual results.

[Sheepshank]

15. your analysis of DU'ers lacks so much intellectual acuity, it must be either deliberate

or stupid

[sharp_stick]

17. Just check out the

transparency page.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Oh Lord. Thanks, I needed that.

[whatchamacallit]

25. At least my transparency page doesn't show I like to blow up children in oil-rich lands.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Well alrighty then! You certainly told me!

[msanthrope]

38. Well, her transparency page shows nothing. Yours, however....nt

[whatchamacallit]

46. Whatever

lol

[Cha]

141. And, check out this..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593326

[Tarheel_Dem]

150. Cha, you are just a veritable fount of information. I don't visit that forum, and would never have

seen that. Wonder what "changes are coming"? Hmmmmm......

[Cha]

152. As you read.. whatever it is..

some people like hmmmm.. won't be happy.

[Tarheel_Dem]

159. You Better Believe It!

[SidDithers]

41. Ahahaha...

Good stuff.

Sid

[zappaman]

74. I don't think it's deliberate. n/t

[panader0]

18. Some people try to divide DUers....

Let it go.

[DesMoinesDem]

19. The BOG is nothing if not inconsistent.

[Hydra]

24. lmao

Perfect

[LondonReign2]

90. +1 LOL

They are consistent in following blindly whichever way Obama leads...or in this case, whichever two ways he leads

[Demeter]

101. DUZY!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

112. They were for bombing before they were against it.

Just in time, too. Putin really helped them save face.

[CakeGrrl]

27. Way to willfully ignore and oversimplify a complex situation

You should really get a handle on the terms you throw around so casually.

No one here "hawked" for 'war'.

As has been stated, despite the prevailing woo, the President wanted to stop a man from using chemical gas on his own citizens. You have a problem with that?

As the President himself has said, the option to hand those over was preferable.

And it may now come about.

The problem is that those of you who salivated that the President was nothing but a lying warmonger who wanted nothing more than to become Bush II have to spin around yet again to call him a fuckup because it DIDN'T happen.

Good luck with that. Presidents who WIND DOWN wars? Not warmongers.

[whatchamacallit]

30. I'll issue an apology if we're still not at war 3 months from now.

[SidDithers]

43. Bookmarking...nt

Sid

[CAG]

31. +1000

[lumpy]

87. Those that throw around terms like, 'Obama, Kerry etc, are lying warmongers etc.' are the ones

who should be taken to school. That sort of garbage is still being floated around, the US is a warmonger nation, doesn't do anything for the people, are empirialilists, and, in general, knocking this country to hell. I can only surmise that they get their jollies by making people pissed off.

[frylock]

118. sez the "love it or leave it" guy

[seabeyond]

29. you fail. and the reason is all the days you did not listen to what your fellow duers were saying

to you. you decided they were hawks. you decided they only wanted to bomb. what they wanted was retribution for using chemical weapons, instead of ignoring the horrid action and simply saying "not our business". obamas solution gives them just that AND no bombs, which EVERY duer cheers.

this is your fail. because you will not actually allow this very info to go into your head, because of your own agenda.

[msanthrope]

40. And Hell just froze over, because I agree with Seabeyond....nt

[sibelian]

48. No, that's not what's happened at all.

What do you mean "obama's solution"?

What's happening to you?

[seabeyond]

52. did he not agree to it?

[Cryptoad]

71. Hear,,, Hear! NT

[The Straight Story]

32. If Obama had ignored it all what would the outcome be again? Please, proceed.

He is getting the result he wanted in the first place - I know many are pissed off because we are interfering with assad's ownership of his people and his right to rape/murder/gas/etc and we are all for staying out of what the 1% of the world do, but Obama apparently is not content with that basic ideal.

His people, his choice, might seem to be the popular opinion that you hold, but not everyone is a hawk who does not hold it.

[HappyMe]

34. What the hell do you care?

Bombs aren't falling. The appropriate parties are talking.

Pretty sad if this schtick is all you can post.

[Junkdrawer]

37. That's sooo 10 minutes ago....

Lord only knows where the matter will be in the next hour....

[Whisp]

45. I think most 'hawks' were just waiting for more info and time to pass

and trusted the President to do the right thing considering all options.

Accepting that Obama is no one's fool does not make one a war hawk.

[sibelian]

49. So... just to be clear...

Those preferring a diplomatic solution were wrong when they wanted it and wrong when Obama wants it?

[Whisp]

50. you weren't clear at all.

Just saying I did not know what the right thing to do was. And I was very glad the President was in charge of what the right thing to do was.

And he was in charge, and he did the right thing.

that is all.

[xchrom]

51. du rec.

[SidDithers]

55. Interesting blog you took that from...nt

Sid

[xchrom]

75. I dont give a fuck about - I'm interested in the 'image' worship

[Tarheel_Dem]

160. You Better Believe It!

[Divernan]

81. OMG! The patron saint of drones!

[ProSense]

53. "DU...100% behind Obama...praise him as a prince of peace"

Now, that's a "hoot."

[LanternWaste]

54. I imagine the corollary is just as true

I imagine the corollary is just as true: Those who thought he inflamed and then mismanaged the crisis give credit to all but him for seeing this situation potentially getting diffused.

Though I'm compelled to believe that both extremes are as imaginary as the other, used merely to petulantly point fingers at other posters.

However, yes, this place can be hoot sometimes.

[Kolesar]

59. Putin is the Prince of Peace!

:hoot: :hoot:

[rug]

58. They were against the strike before they were for the strike.

Now they're against the strike again unless the Administration does not strike a deal. Then they'l be for the strike again.

[morningfog]

62. Obama is infallible and omnipotent.

Therefor, they are never wrong when they follow him.

[quinnox]

66. lol, perfect!

[whatchamacallit]

68. That's the shape of things alright.

[Motown_Johnny]

67. BREAKING: President's supporters now support the President!

Details at 11:00

[Tarheel_Dem]

161. !!!

[Jakes Progress]

69. They are not hawks. They are not doves.

They are star-struck. Like republicans under bush, they approve of it is he does it. Consistency and a political or moral center don't enter into it.

[seabeyond]

76. what a totally offensive thing to say. can i say you are morally deficient because

you lack the ability to have empathy for the children that were killed thru chemical weapons?

of course not. that would be simplistic and not accurate and offensive. i understand your position whether i agree or not. it is a complicated situation and not a lot of win win solutions. this one that obama happened upon seems to be the best. why we are not cheering, but working at being as offensive and ugly to each other is totally beyond me.

[Divernan]

94. You're the one who is inaccurate/twisting "moral center" into "morally deficient"

I've noticed a spin of implying objectionable words, terms or phrases to other's posts. I suspect some posters (not you, of course), do so in hopes of getting an alert sustained.
Observing, as did poster Jakes Progress, that people whose political opinions are inconsistent lack a political OR moral center is a valid criticism to raise. How many politicians have been accused, here on DU of FLIP-FLOPPING? I have certainly read some nasty remarks on various Syria-related threads today, but Jakes is not one of them. You could have replied that people with moral or political centers changed their opinions in response to changing facts.

[seabeyond]

97. ok. not moral defeiciency. just throw in moral center to what i posted. lordy. lol

and again, it is the never ending explanation of not necessarily seeing a shift in position, but a relief of a solution being found that both does not entail bombing and addresses retribution for the use of chemical weapons. without calling one a name.

[BlueStreak]

114. If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't wear it

That shoe fits a lot of people here, IMHO.

These are the same ones that are first in line to explain why it is a good thing that Obama capitulates every time the teabaggers cry a little bit about the nation's finances. They are the ones who are first to say why refusing to support unions in Wisconsin is just one of his genius 12-dimensional moves. They are the first to say that you have to be pragmatic and let the Republicans kill Medicare, Social Security, and the Postal system because, well actually I never hear any coherent reasoning why they supported Obama on those issues.

It is mostly the same ones time after time. In most communities they might be considered trolls that don't share any of the values of he community, but here it is considered part of some big tent concept.

Regarding the children, it is offensive that YOU would imply the rest of us so not care about children. I care about these children just as much as the children that Obama's drones are killing every week. Just as much as the Iraqi children we killed by the thousands, just like the Ugandan children that were slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands without the slightest response from our government. And the millions of children in America who will not have a decent opportunity to make a good life here because of the poverty that results when we spend our treasures enforcing corporate ownership of the rest of the world.

THAT is what I find offensive.

[HooptieWagon]

85. Thats my analysis.

They have no core principles, their position readily flip-flops as Obama's position. When Obama talks war, they love war. When Obama thinks a diplomatic solution avoiding war can be reached, they call him a genius peace-maker. Its like they're ammoral...lacking any close-held core values.

[TheKentuckian]

103. This is consistently a concern. It isn't a secret either many of these folks openly mock core values

Although, for some of them I think the flexibility is phony, they have core principles they just are of the corporate globalist and/or authoritarian bent they just aren't blatantly bigoted and/or theocrats but rather the Brooks Brother's wing of the TeaPubliKlan party in exile.

Andrew Sullivan/David Brooks "Democrats" flying under the amorality flag rather than to be definitively defined as they are.

[quinnox]

98. Definitely. Not all of them,

but there is a certain core group who fit that mold precisely. Having said that, there were some hard core Obama supporters who surprised me, and came out strongly against the Syrian action. To their credit.

[Jakes Progress]

136. Agree.

Back during the first election primaries, I had some tooth and nail with some bright people who just didn't agree with me. That was fine. We buried the hatchet and all voted for the man, campaigned for the man. Then when things started going ever more rightward and corporate, many of these were disillusioned and spoke their minds about what was happening to our party. I really admire those people.

As long as you have a center and a belief system, you can see through the bullshit pep-rally stuff. But mentally lazy and morally hazy are not a good way to go through life. To Obama's credit, he came out and told us he wanted us to let him know when he was screwing up, call him on his actions. Unfortunately, he just decided not to listen to the voice of the people and the voice for the people. Too many here were codependent enablers, not calling him on his poor performances, even cheering when he did things that they booed when republicans those things.

Much credit of those who trust their hero enough to actually tell him the truth.

[Cryptoad]

70. Go read his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech,,,,,,,,,, nt

[Skidmore]

72. Well, no one can ever accuse you of

reading content for nuance, can they? Your record remains unsullied.

[treestar]

77. Straw Man Alert

[RC]

86. One would think all that flip-flopping would hurt.

But that's what separates the Liberals from the Conservatives. Liberals depend on the truth and facts for their reality, while the Conservatives can and do make it up as they go.

[Logical]

88. It is the cheerleader crowd. Give them a break. n-t

[DCBob]

91. What's a hoot is how disappointed the bashers are..

since they were totally convinced Obama is a warmonger and was going to attack Syria no matter what.

What a bunch of loons on this board!

[frylock]

119. really? i missed the thread where those who were against a strike are disappointed..

that there won't be a strike. can you link to that kplzthx?

[DCBob]

125. I seriously believe there are many here..

who would find some sick perverse pleasure from Obama going ahead with the attack plans just to confirm their claims he is a warmonger.

[frylock]

127. i think that number is signifigantly lower than you'd like to believe

[DCBob]

128. I hope so but I really wonder sometimes.

[TrollBuster9090]

92. Maybe I'm a 'hawk,' but I am in favor of countries being punished for committing

war crimes, and crimes against humanity. INCLUDING OUR OWN when we use napalm, agent orange, or spent uranium shells.

Here's what I have a problem with: THE HYPOCRISY. We only seem to be interested in punishing regimes that commit crimes against humanity when they've got oil, or some other strategic value, and never when they don't.

I supported Bill Clinton's use of military force to try to bring food (along with order/safety) to Somalia, and think the worst thing he ever did was to pull out when that became even SLIGHTLY difficult, and the jackals at home started their usual hypocritical chorus of 'American boys should only die in defense of other americans' (at least until there's an oil-rich country that needs to be 'liberated').

And Clinton said his biggest regret was not sending a few American troops to stop the GENOCIDE in Rwanda. Nearly a million people were murdered, mostly with machetes. Clinton mused that just one regiment of Marines, armed with rifles could have stopped a million Tutsis from being murdered with stupid machetes. Not only did the USA do nothing to stop the genocide, but we actually BLOCKED a UN Resolution calling the Rwandan Tutsi massacre "GENOCIDE," because this would have forced UN member states to intervene under the UN charter.

This was probably a deciding factor in Clinton's decision to intervene to prevent genocide in KOSOVO, and I still applaud him for doing it.

So, I guess maybe I'm a hawk? I think any country that's able to punish a regime that commits crimes against humanity should do so, where possible.

If anybody wants to throw spitballs at me for having that opinion, that's fine.

[Ian David]

93. Maybe you were just unfairly maligning their motivation and mischaracterizing their position? n/t

[frylock]

120. that never happens here

[bvar22]

99. The tortured twisting is enough to give a sane person WHIPLASH.

*

[Union Scribe]

102. And now they're pretending THEY were just bluffing too

Like Obama was. Because of course they were in on it and didn't want to give away the plan.

[frylock]

122. of course they were in on it. they're close, personal friends with obama..

he sends them emails.

[Brigid]

104. WRONG.

I have never supported strikes on Syria, and I am not alone.

[Whisp]

107. whatchamacallit appears to have lost his gitchygoomie doohickey. n/t

[zappaman]

108. Now with more nuts!

[Whisp]

109. oh! now we can take bites out of him without feeling guilty.

I think there are some Mars people here too.

[greatauntoftriplets]

151. OMG!!!

[great white snark]

111. Another tantrum from a serial basher.

Don't you find it odd that when something good happens you're miserable? Well...even more miserable than usual.

[Yandorio]

143. Kick

[randr]

113. It is possible to be on both sides of this fence

On the one hand, I will never accept war as a possible solution in my world. War is the ultimate sin. It is far worse than hell as it is inflicted upon innocent victims. War is the failure of diplomacy.
On the other hand, I believe that in times of crisis we need to cover our Presidents' back and not put our country in a weak position diplomatically. If the threat of a military strike is what my President needs to maintain law and order in our world, I would allow him power to do so. At the same time I would lobby for a peaceful settlement of situations.

[CSStrowbridge]

115. And I remember...

And I remember a lot of Anti-War DUers refusing to admit Syria had chemical weapons.

One could argue the Hawks were right to support an attack, because the threat of an attack led to a diplomatic solution. On can NOT argue that Assad didn't have chemical weapons.

[frylock]

123. i don't recall that. there are concerns as to who is responsible for that attack..

but I don't recall blanket denials of any CW. linky?

[NealK]

116. K&R

It was predictable.

[DirkGently]

117. I know, right? THANK GOD HE PLANNED THIS ALL ALONG!

How enmeshed in a zero-sum, personality-driven view of reality does a person have to be to not be satisfied with the appearance that Obama is wisely considering a non-war counter to his proposal of war, and to insist that instead of observing the political realities, respecting the will of the people, and CHANGING COURSE FOR THE BETTER, he is instead carrying out his precise plan of action, conceived in perfection, and progressing as he always intended?

Can we just tell them it's okay, and Obama gets all kinds of points for a good result, EVEN if it means he wasn't the sole architect of the course of history and godforbid -- listened to the people who would not accept another war?

For Pete's sake, guys, no one but you even looks at it that way.

[hughee99]

126. It's funny to see people who, a week ago, were saying we HAD to punish him for using Sarin,

because we NEED to send a clear message that this is not acceptable, are now cheering that his "punishment" is (if it even happens) to turn over the rest of his chemical stockpile.

Isn't that like punishing a murder by just taking away the rest of his bullets after they've already shot a few people? Wouldn't the message be, "you get one free pass, but they you have to give up all your stuff"?

[polichick]

129. Perhaps they'll be back into strike mode once Pres. Obama speaks tonight.

[JaneyVee]

131. WAAAH!

[Skittles]

138. wait, WAIT - now it has evolved to BOTH!!!

he's just like the presidential seal!!!

[whatchamacallit]

139. I saw that

Laughed, puked, and laughed some more.

[idwiyo]

140. K&R

[IronLionZion]

142. And some DUers will never be satisfied

ever. Some people just can't get over their own deeply entrenched misery. They won't allow themselves to feel happy. When confused, just remember the ABC of DU:

Always
Be
Complaining

[JoeyT]

144. No matter what the outcome was,

it would have been the best possible outcome and anyone that refused to accept that would have been labeled a "hater".

As long as you remember that basic fact, it makes ignoring the silly far easier. Any outcome is the best one, and anyone that disagrees just hates Him. Probably because they're racist.

[woo me with science]

154. Just having lunch, really.

?w=490

[JoePhilly]

155. Those who were predicting a 2nd Iraq War in Syria are now struggling

with the reality that they were wrong on a massive scale, and its driving them crazy.

To reduce the sting of that reality, they build a strawman, and then try to use their own smouldering hair to light that strawman on fire.

Not working ...

[JI7]

157. This is like the Republicans who were upset OBama killed Bin Laden

people looking so forward for the worst to happen so they can do an "i told you so".

and just like nobody was calling for war, nobody is claiming he is a prince of peace.

it must really suck to be that full of hate and anger. the biggest enemy in your life is some Group on a Democratic Forum that likes the Democratic President.