Making the Case for War

White House transcript:


Rose Garden

1:52 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.

Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see — hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children — young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.

This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I’m prepared to give that order.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

Over the last several days, we’ve heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they’ve agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America’s national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

I’m confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we just acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What’s the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

Make no mistake — this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won’t enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?

We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.

So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world. While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.

I don’t expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made. Privately we’ve heard many expressions of support from our friends. But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.

And finally, let me say this to the American people: I know well that we are weary of war. We’ve ended one war in Iraq. We’re ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that’s why we’re not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war.

Instead, we’ll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.

But we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus. Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning. And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations. We aren’t perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.

So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to the debate. And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.

Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it’s about who we are as a country. I believe that the people’s representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments. We do what we say. And we lead with the belief that right makes might — not the other way around.

We all know there are no easy options. But I wasn’t elected to avoid hard decisions. And neither were the members of the House and the Senate. I’ve told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people’s representatives stand together.

I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.

Thanks very much.


I support President Obama’s decision to seek congressional authorization to use force in Syria. It’s the right thing to do. It’s also politically smart.

On the other hand I hope Congress votes against using force in Syria. Sometimes war is a necessary evil. This isn’t one of those times.

I am not a pacifist. I served in the army. During my 3-year term there were two major crises, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian hostage situation. When anything like that happens military personnel and their families pay attention because they will be the first to go if the shit gets real. I would not ask anyone to go to war unless it was absolutely necessary.

There is a valid case to be made for intervening in Syria. They are in the midst of a bloody civil war. It’s a war we helped cause when we encouraged Arab nations to overthrow dictatorships in the Middle East. When some Syrians began to protest against Bashar al-Assad he responded with deadly force and the violence escalated into war.

Make no mistake; Bashar al-Assad is a really bad guy. Originally educated as an Ophthalmologist, he was chosen to succeed by his father, Hafez al-Assad, the brutal dictator who led Syria for 30 years. The rotten apple didn’t fall far from the tree.

The problem with waging war to get rid of malignant assholes is figuring out where to stop. One of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East is our friend and ally Saudi Arabia. The other problem is making sure you are not replacing one malignant asshole with another.

The international politics of what is taking place are complicated. Assad is being supported by Iran and Syria. He is not a Shi’ite but rather an Alawite, which is a small Islamic sect. Even though they are the minority in Syria the Alawis control the government.

Israel wants Assad gone, but they want us to do it. Saudi Arabia and some other Arab nations support the rebels. So does al Qaeda. Talk about strange bedfellows.

Allow me to quote a wise man:

Goals determine strategy. Strategy determines tactics.

The first thing is to agree on a goal.

What is our goal here? Our goal should be related to our justification for going to war. Obama has said our goal is not regime change. This is apparently our goal:

But I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

How do we hold the Assad regime accountable? By blowing up some shit and killing some people? The chances of us getting any of the top leadership with a cruise missile strike is practically nil, given that they are expecting an attack. I’m pretty sure we could kill lots of Syrian civilians without upsetting Assad. We could even kill a bunch of his soldiers and he wouldn’t miss them very much.

That is why deterrence is an iffy proposition too. In order to deter the future use of chemical weapons we have to convince Assad (and any other would-be users of WMDs) that they will be held personally accountable.

Degrading Assad’s ability to wage chemical warfare is a specific yet problematic goal. Chemical weapons have been around for 100 years. Any competent chemist could make them. They can be dispersed in numerous ways.

If we could locate his existing stockpiles we could destroy them, but blowing up a warehouse full of Sarin would contaminate the local area, probably causing “collateral damage”. It is a safe guess that Assad has placed his troops and equipment in civilian areas. Trying to target those military assets could easily result in us killing more civilians with cruise missiles than were killed with chemical weapons.

The problem is that Obama has put the cart before the horse. He has decided on a course of action (tactics) before clarifying our goal. We are thusly limited in our options. Our goal has to be something we can achieve with cruise missiles. Unfortunately that doesn’t leave very much.

As I said earlier, there is a valid case for going to war with Syria. But that case is neither compelling nor even persuasive. We don’t have a clear achievable goal. Obama has limited our actions to those that do not require “boots on the ground”. Preserving Obama’s credibility is not a proper justification for war.

This would be a war of choice, not one in defense of our nation or our citizens. We have no treaty obligations that would require us to take military action at this time. Assad’s Syria is not an immediate threat to any of its neighbors.

Any action we take is fraught with peril. To be fair, there are dangers to inaction as well. There is a strong argument in favor of doing nothing and letting the Syrian army and the rebels exhaust themselves in a long and bloody war of attrition.

I favor the idea of trying to keep the conflict contained until it eventually burns out. That won’t make us any friends but it won’t make us any enemies either. Some will find that option unacceptable on humanitarian grounds.

If we do nothing, people will die. But if we take action people will die. The only difference is who does the dying and who does the killing. I would prefer it if we did neither one.

In 1916 and 1940 the American people were opposed to getting involved in a European war. Eventually public opinion changed and we got involved. Maybe we will eventually get involved in Syria as well.

But not yet.

About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Syria and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

114 Responses to Making the Case for War

  1. The Klown says:

    This post is an example of what happens when my muse loses interest before I finish writing. The last few paragraphs took up about 80% of the time I spent on this post.

  2. 1539days says:

    Short of nuclear weapons, which is my go-to option, we should send in a chemist. For example, we could get Walter White to go in and get everyone hooked on blue meth.

  3. lyn says:

    America lost its moral authority when we decided to fight terrorism with torture and drones and to shred the U.S. Constitution. Let the Syrians fight their civil war. We should stay out.

    • driguana says:

      Seems like we have a “civil” war of our own kind right here in this country.

      • Constance says:

        That’s the reality but since the Ivy indoctrinated Frat boys who run everything don’t notice us peons other than to imposed taxes on us (for our own good of course)they are unaware of the fact that we despise them, they don’t care if they follow the Constitution because it was obviously meant for everyone but them and they are unaware that their opinions aren’t valued by the majority. So if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around did it make a noise? And if regular citizens are fed up with the government and want to rid themselves of the burden but the Frat boys in the elitist echo chamber bubble are insulated from it is there a rebellion brewing? Not in their opinion and not in the opinion of corporate media (who also don’t represent us regulars).

  4. DandyTIger says:

    If we don’t go in, we’ll be hated by a few because we don’t. If we do go in, even if only via a few missiles, we will be hated more intensely by one or all sides in Syria, and many groups throughout the ME for having touched holy ground, or some shit. That usually doesn’t end well. See for example, 9/11/01.

    • DandyTIger says:

      That doesn’t mean we don’t deal with the ME if our interests are there, and we have well defined goals that make sense. Fuck ’em all, we’ll do what we want. But this isn’t one of those cases.

  5. jeffhas says:

    I’m surprised Obama is ‘allowing’ congressional approval, but it’s clearly not his first choice, so as you said previously; better to make it look like it was his idea…. But is he really fooling anyone?… And what happens when congress does not approve (which I think is likely)? Will he finally lobby congress so he doesn’t face that cataclysm – where we get to see President Petulent and how he is not amused by our quaint system of checks and balances.

    Let’s face it, he has shown us time and time again he can do whatever he wants; executive orders, signing statements, direct his justice department to not act, or simply waive or delay any part of any law… And NOW we’re supposed to believe he means to follow the constitution and his own offices limitations on absolute power?… Ni**a, please (as they say). He just bumped into a dreary reality – his numbers are bad, and after the UK debacle (that clearly they didn’t have under control) and the rising tide of criticisms based on his own past words, he got Thumped.

    My surprise is that, in the past when he has been ‘thumped’, he has moved ahead anyways – so I am still trying to figure out why it is different this time. Maybe it is bigger than before?… Or the stakes are higher?… I am thankful, but I’m also skeptical… Because this is a lose/lose no matter what (and Kerry looks particularly vulnerable to high shame)…. and Mr. Thin Skin usually just doesn’t care about losing, he cares about himself and his grand opinion of his own opinions.

    • swanspirit says:

      ^this^ plus, If Obama is doing the right thing , it is because he has ulterior motives .Asking congress is buying dithering time , and finding someone else to blame is what he is seeking ; because he has been informed his policies are failures. He isn’t doing the right thing , because it is the right thing to do .

      • DeniseVB says:

        Someone must have advised him forcing Congress (especially the Repubs) to vote can be used against them, like he did with Hillary and Edwards in 2007. It’s always about the politics. Probably why the stand down orders on Benghazi just before the 2012 election. Doing nothing helped him more than doing the right thing.

  6. DeniseVB says:

    This is what we should have done for Benghazi and the world would have supported him. Lobbing a few missiles into the desert ain’t gonna change a thing over there.

    This sounds like he’s not even consulting with his own staff or what few allies we have left in the ME.

    • Lulu says:

      He doesn’t have a clue. He is getting conflicting information, people who usually defer and kiss his butt are telling him things he does not want to hear, everything is his politics and nothing is principle, and what happened to Cameron has scared him. Talking trash is not working and the polling is horrible. He is also so lazy that any effort to convince anyone of his goals, which are dubious at best, are appropriate he isn’t willing to do it. So he does what he always does, pass the buck to blame someone else or get them to do the heavy lifting. He will defer to the alpha while making obscene gestures behind his/her back. This is hardball geopolitics and he cannot get up to speed after over four years on the job. He and his “staff” are so out of their depth it is pitiful.

      • DeniseVB says:

        Speaking of hardballs, I read on twitter Chris Wallace smacked John Kerry in the head with a few. Wish I would have seen that ! Even people who don’t like JK said it was hard to watch. Heh.

        Yes, those conflicting reports are still conflicted. Foreign media is still reporting everything from accidental to the rebels framing Assad. Just not sure why Obama has such an itchy trigger finger NOW? Something smells, and it’s not sarin.

      • insanelysane says:


        Well said.

  7. piper says:

    Bronco was so serious that he went golfing after another one of his histrionic teleprompter reading. Have to wonder if Putin called and whispered a few words into his ears that actions have consequences.

    As Sarah says let Allah sort it out. Between Bush and Bronco more than enough damage has been done to the people of the ME.

  8. DeniseVB says:

    This is a great companion piece to myiq’s post and a fun ranty read :

  9. driguana says:

    Wondering about “twerking” this Labor Day??? Labor no more.

  10. Hello Crawdads. The world seems to be going to hell n a hand basket. I sure hope somebody has the wherewithal to make good decisions.

  11. helenk3 says:

    backtrack and congress

    this is a sad commentary on just how low the bar is now

  12. helenk3 says:

    be prepared for large propaganda push from backtrack’s media

  13. The Klown says:

    I’ve had some weeeeeird dreams before but this time I dreamed that the guys at the cannabis club stole my wheelchair that I was only pretending to need.

  14. votermom says:

    What is our goal here? Our goal should be related to our justification for going to war.

    Obama’s goals are related to wagging the dog, saving face, and supporting the Islamists.
    The USA as a country has nothing to gain by interfering in Syria.

  15. amspirnational says:

    You admit the US “helped cause” the problem yet you still say there is a valid case for US intervention. Did I miss something? Was the Zionist owned American ruling class replaced in the interim?
    Here’s your problem. You overcomplicate the analysis. As long as the American political class is comprised of war profiteers, fellow travelling Likudnik Jewish supremacists (and there is no other way to classify the manner in which the former Palestine is now governmened) “Christian” Zionists and Empire for Empire’s own sake “realists” and worse…the US can do no good in the Middle East. Believe me, the Arab-Iranian “man in the street” realizes this, even if you do not.

  16. angienc says:

    It’s sad when we have to “approve” and/or be thankful that the POTUS decided — due to political fallout and for no other reason — to obey the Constitution and seek Congressional approval before going to war.

  17. swanspirit says:

    ” We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.”

    Who the fuck is he kidding ? Did he say this because he has followed through on everything else he has said ? Suuure , because he has followed through on closing Guantanamo ,changing Washinton and the lobbyists revolving doors .creating jobs , securing the borders, finding those responsible for Benghazi , etc etc etc and I don’t feel like typing until tomorrow to complete the list of things he has followed through on .
    I expect he will revolve , oops I mean evolve , on this issue as well even as serious as it is . He is a quick draw evolver .

    • SHV says:

      “syria is becoming a religious war. no body wins those wars”
      And the level above that is a proxy war between KSA and Iran.

  18. The Klown says:


    Dr. Barack and Mr. Hyde

    So why is there such a disconnect between what Obama once declared and what he subsequently professed? There are four explanations, none of them mutually exclusive:

    A. Candidate Obama had no experience in foreign policy and has always winged it, now and then recklessly sounding off when he thought he could score cheap points against George Bush. As president, he still has no idea of how foreign policy is conducted, and thus continues to make things up as he goes along, often boxing himself into a corner with serial contradictions. Trying to discern any consistency or pattern in such an undisciplined mind is a futile exercise: what Obama says or does at any given moment usually is antithetical to what he said or did on a prior occasion. He is simply lost and out of his league.

    B. Candidate Obama has always been an adroit demagogue. He knew how to score political points against George Bush, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain, without any intention of abiding by his own sweeping declarations. The consistency in Obama’s foreign policy is his own carefully calibrated self-interest. Bombing or not bombing, shutting down or keeping open Guantanamo Bay, going or not going to the UN or the U.S. Congress — these choices are all predicated not on principle, but only on what a canny and unprincipled Obama feels best suits his own political interests and self-image at any given moment. In a self-created jam, he flipped and now goes to Congress in hopes of pinning responsibility on them, whether we go or not, whether successful or unsuccessful if we do. He is a quite clever demagogue.

    C. Obama is a well-meaning and sincere naïf, but a naïf nonetheless. He really believed the world prior to 2009 worked on the premises of the Harvard Law School lounge, Chicago organizing, and Rev. Wright’s Church — or least should have worked on such assumptions. Then when Obama took office, saw intelligence reports, and assumed the responsibilities of our highest office, he was shocked at the dangerous nature of the world! There was no more opportunity for demagoguery or buck-passing, and he had to become serious. In short, it is easy to criticize without power, hard with it to make tough decisions and bad/worse choices. He is slowly learning.

    D. Obama is the first president who genuinely feels U.S. exceptionalism and power were not ethically earned and should be in an ethical sense ended. As a candidate, he consistently undermined current U.S. foreign policy at a time of two critical wars; as president, he has systematically forfeited U.S. authority and prestige. There is no inconsistency: whatever makes the traditional idea of the U.S as a superpower weaker, Obama promotes; whatever enhances our profile, he opposes. He is often quite angry at what could be called traditional America — seen often as a downright mean country here and abroad.

    • SHV says:

      “There are four explanations, none of them mutually exclusive:”
      “C. Obama is a well-meaning and sincere naïf, …..He is slowly learning.”

      Only an delusional Obot would think that the Sociopath-in-Chief is well-meaning or is learning.

  19. The Klown says:

    Pet peeve: “Friends” I only hear from when they want free legal advice, especially when they show up at my door after 3-4 years of no contact since the last time they wanted free legal advice.

    • 49erDweet says:

      That’s when you say. “Oh, No!! There’s no way out this time. Kiss yourself goodbye. You’ll be doing serious time for this little epidsode”!

  20. The Klown says:

    Let ’em hire mercenaries.

    • Lulu says:

      Isn’t that what the resistance (Al Queda et al) already essentially is with Saudi backing (pay and arms) in Syria? Now they want others to bail their loosing butts out.

  21. The Klown says:
  22. elliesmom says:

    I’m watching Hitchcock’ s “The Birds”. Some strange parallels.

    • driguana says:

      Funny…I was watching The Invasion of the Body Snatchers with Donald Sutherland and Brooke Adams last night and I kept thinking of The Birds….how elements or unknown invaders can just suddenly take over our lives. Don’t know about The Birds but I do recall that the original 1956 Body Snatchers with Kevin McCarthy and Dana Wynter was supposed to have been an anti-communism allegory.

      • The Klown says:

        In 2008 I discovered that unknown invaders had taken over the Democratic party.

      • elliesmom says:

        While the plot of “The Birds”, either the movie or the short story by Daphne DuMaurier, never gives any definitive explanation of why the birds attack, the implication is that humans have caged a mated pair of lovebirds. At the end of the movie there have been murders and considerable mayhem, but the lovebirds are still caged and in the custody of humans.

  23. helenk3 says:

    i am watching the history channel about the Philadelphia and New York Mafia. lot of parallels between them and the backtrack bunch. Wish we had a justice department that would use the RICO act against them. But that will not happen with Holder’s dept of crime as they are part of the problem

  24. The Klown says:
  25. The Klown says:

    How Ohio slipped through Romney’s fingers in 2012: Brent Larkin

    Early in the 2012 presidential campaign, President Barack Obama’s brain trust had grave doubts about the president’s ability to convince Ohioans he deserved a second term.

    But Senate Bill 5 and, to a lesser extent, the controversy over attempts to limit early voting in Ohio offered Obama a “route back.”

    It was a route the Obama team traveled with such breathtaking precision that, by August, Mitt Romney’s campaign in Ohio was pretty much a lost cause.


    In the chapter titled “Ohio and the Path to 270,” Balz writes that after Republicans swept Ohio’s statewide offices in 2010 and the Tea Party piled up victories across the country, Obama’s battleground state director Mitch Stewart admitted to being “very, very worried” about Ohio.

    “The Ohio electorate is older and less well-educated than some of the other battleground states,” Balz said, in a telephone interview. “The working-class vote has always been a tough vote for Obama. And there’s a significant portion of that in Ohio.”


    And when it became clear Romney would be the Republican nominee, the Obama campaign carpet bombed Ohio with attack ads. From May through August of last year, the Obama campaign spent $30 million in Ohio on effective television ads accusing Romney of outsourcing jobs, having a Swiss bank account and investing in the Cayman Islands. During that same period, Romney countered with $10 million of his own ads.

    It wasn’t nearly enough. Obama’s ads inflicted irreparable damage to Romney’s reputation.

    “In retrospect, it (the election in Ohio) was probably over at that point,” Balz told me. “The Obama campaign didn’t take anything for granted. But the ad campaign sort of put a weight on top of Romney.”

    Balz writes that the Romney campaign’s strategy in Ohio irritated Sen. Rob Portman, referred to in the book as “one of the campaign’s most valuable assets,” someone with special access to the candidate.

    In September, Portman complained Romney wasn’t buying enough advertising time in the smaller television markets that helped President George W. Bush beat Sen. John Kerry in 2004. A review of Romney’s spending in Ohio also found that ads they thought were running in western Ohio markets weren’t even on the air.

    “After Portman’s complaints, Boston responded,” writes Balz. “Advertising increased, as did Romney’s time in the state.”

    No issue hurt Romney in Ohio as much as his opposition to the automobile bailout. And it was especially damaging across the state’s northern tier.

    Again, a frustrated Portman urged the campaign to deal with the issue. But Boston vetoed use of some television commercials on the bailout. By the time the campaign responded, it was too late.

    • 1539days says:

      One of the other things that I saw after the election was that the Obama campaign seemed to leak stories of being in trouble, followed by a convenient debate fail in his first bout with Romney. Romney’s campaign by contrast basically lied to other conservatives about their internal polling, making it rosier than it was.

      Obama supporters felt they were in real danger (as they were) and were emboldened to cheat to win. Too many Republicans sat back in the last weeks of the campaign, certain that Obama was lagging just beyond that margin of error.

  26. The Klown says:
  27. The Klown says:

    Oh shit!

    Obama Throws Up Right There During Syria Meeting

    During a meeting with Cabinet-level officials at the White House Friday morning, sources confirmed that President Barack Obama threw up right in the middle of discussions regarding a U.S. military intervention in war-torn Syria. “He got really quiet and pale when we began to discuss plans for a unilateral strike on al-Assad’s forces, but then [White House Chief of Staff] Denis McDonough mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood, and the president just puked right on the table,” said one source who was present, adding that Obama began dry heaving when talks turned to yesterday’s British parliamentary vote against any involvement in an imminent attack. “We thought he had gotten it all out of his system, but when [Secretary of State] John [Kerry] argued that the use of airborne military force must be swift and decisive in order to diminish the likelihood of a subsequent ground invasion, that just made Obama double over and hurl all over the floor. At that point, we simply had to stop the meeting.” At press time, Obama was reportedly sitting in the fetal position in a corner of the Oval Office as advisers frantically assured him that France is prepared to take military action alongside the United States.


  28. 49erDweet says:

    So internet’s been MIA a couple of days. Anything interesting going on?

Comments are closed.