Kingston: Shorter Obama

Congressman Jack Kingston has summed up the President’s address tonight as follows, via press release:

“Tonight, President Obama said what he had to say.  He did not have the votes in Congress, the support of the American people, or the aid of the international community.  The speech was a polished version of the existing facts, a summary of what everyone has already concluded.”

Concise.

20 comments

  1. Charlie says:

    From Karen Handel:

    The use of chemical weapons in Syria was a horrific act. Everyone on both sides of the political aisle agrees with that. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration’s response to this act was incoherent and vacillating. Real leadership would have included a roadmap to success for American military or economic intervention. That leadership was and is lacking. Sadly, this has resulted in America being weaker abroad and Syrians continuing to be at risk from a totalitarian regime. Under the current circumstances I remain opposed to American military action in Syria.

    • Toxic Avenger says:

      While I can’t say that I agree with striking Syria, I also can’t imagine that Mrs. Handel is correct here. Fact is that there was a major development earlier in the day with the possible agreement by Syria to part with their chemical weapons. There’s also a not illegitimate argument that President Obama’s threat to attack Syria caused Assad’s change of heart.

      But what else could I expect from a Republican Senate candidate. Any chance to attack Obama, amirite?

      • Will Durant says:

        President Obama’s line drawn in the sand back in April gave Vladimir Putin the opportunity to both support a good armament customer and embarrass the US on the world stage. The outcome of this measured use of poison gas and Obama’s subsequent rants have not resulted in a “change of heart”. It has resulted in the US appearing as an aggressor nation and Putin as a statesman. I repeat, former KGB Colonel and current near-dictator Putin is appearing as a statesman to the rest of the world.

        Why should Ms. Handel differ from any other candidates/politicians who see which way this ill wind is blowing?

  2. David Colburn says:

    We seem to be missing the point here.

    There is no one anywhere near power in Syria who is not evil.

    Regime-change in Syria would be from the proverbial frying pan into the fire.

    The only apparent USA interest in Syria is the removal of as many chemical weapons as possible – and Putin is leading that effort – for his own purposes of course. Arbitrary bombing, killing more Syrians to no purpose, would have resulted in additional release of chemical agents (and possibly biological as well).

    Most talking heads and politicians keep forgetting that the terrorist-rebels also possess imported and stolen chemical weapons – and have used them in the past – what about collecting those?

    Meanwhile, the evil thuggish leaders of Iran happily proceed toward nuclear weapons – and the Obama regime does nothing.

    Barack Hussein Obama is, once again, leading from behind.

    • John Konop says:

      I was speaking out against the policemen of the world foreign policy, years ago, before it was popular….. I came out early pre polls, against the original Obama policy via this incident in Syria……Other than waiting out Iran as their economy keeps getting softer, what would you do? If we really get the chemicals is this not a win?

  3. David Colburn says:

    “If”.

    Does any informed person really believe we’d get all of it, even from only the government, not to mention the terrorist-rebels?

    Also, why would anyone presume that more chem weapons would not take their place (such weapons are known to be entering Syria regularly).

    Reducing the stockpile is the best one may hope for but there’s no reasonable expectation of meaningful change. (Putin opened this door.)

    Had Obama and the Democrats gotten their way and merely bombed they may have imbalanced things enough to tilt the Bosnian-like civil war toward the terrorist-rebels. That would have been a loss without hope of any gain.

    Poor leadership for the past five years has created this mess …

    • John Konop says:

      ……….the terrorist-rebels?………

      1) Help us understand who are the terrorist rebels in Syria? Give us a list of the good guys and bad guys in this conflict?

      ………..entering Syria regularly….

      2) Show us the facts?

      …….no reasonable expectation of meaningful change….

      3) Help us all understand what group you back in this civil war? Why are they any better than the current leadership?

      ………….Poor leadership for the past five years has created this mess………….

      4) The mess in the Middle East has been going on for a very long time………Our last president who understood it well was Bush Senior…..every time we do not follow his policy it only gets worse…..The truth is the McCain/Lieberman/Bush 2, mucho-policemen of the world policy has only made the problem worse. If Obama gets the right deal this would be a win. In general I have been very open about my disappointment in the Obama foreign policy inability to get us out of the entanglements fast enough. You seem to want to talk tough like Bush 2, but like him no real substance only mucho talking points. Ironically Obama almost step in it by using mucho BS…. Bush 1 did not talk tough, just got the job done. And understood the book “Art of War” well.

Comments are closed.