So, Obama will negotiate with Vlad Putin, President of Iran, and Hasan Rouhani, President of Iran, but not with those devil Republicans in the House.
So, Republicans are "the problem," they are "irresponsible," they are "unwilling to compromise," they are motivated by an "ideological agenda," they are "beholden to extreme ideas," they "want to hurt people," their activities are "threatening" and amount to nothing more than "political posturing." The only thing that's missing here is a sentence or two blaming George Bush for the train wreck of the first five years of the Obama Administration.
The President frittered away the last month with his ineffectual meddling in Syria. We are now pushing up against the debt ceiling. The government is set to run out of borrowing authority in mid-October. It has been known for months that this was going to happen. And yet, at the very moment when time is running out and the President should be seeking to work together with Republicans in the House to find a compromise solution to America's budget and debt problems, Mr Obama instead chooses to launch a virulent, partisan attack on them. How can the President possibly think that his words will encourage and motivate Republicans to work together with him?
But the President made it clear in his speech that he has no intention of working together with Republicans, instead drawing a new red line:
If Republicans are unwilling to compromise, then, they are irresponsible and beholden to extreme ideas. If the President, on the other hand, is unwilling to negotiate, then we are somehow supposed to believe that this is not partisan inflexibility, but rather a principled stand.
Your pious sanctimoniousness grows tiresome, Mr President. You are willing to negotiate with Vlad Putin and Bashar al-Assad, but not with the leader of the House of Representatives, who a couple of weeks ago was one of the few American politicians, Republican or Democrat, who supported your hare-brained proposal to bomb Syria.
As I wrote before, Mr Obama is simply not a statesman. For years now, as the economy has stagnated under his stewardship and more and more people have left the workforce, the President has done little more than blame everyone else for the malaise. He seems to be congenitally incapable of rising above this "blame game." He simply cannot stop himself from demonizing and alienating the very people whose cooperation he needs. Instead, it is always attack, attack, attack. It is demeaning to the office of the Presidency. And it is the chief cause of the very political divisions and polarization that the President so vehemently and self-righteously condemns.
It is not Rush Limbaugh who is tearing this country apart, Mr Obama, it is you.
As the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have convened several hearings to carefully review the intelligence with respect to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. In my view, the intelligence on this attack is very precise and very clear. It points directly to the Assad government.
According to U.S. intelligence, this most recent attack killed 1,429 people, including 426 children. I have reviewed video of these heinous attacks, and to see row after row of young children, some in their pajamas, gassed to death is a shock to the conscience and demands action.
The use of chemical weapons is absolutely prohibited by international law. If the United States takes no action, it will send a signal to the rest of the world that the use of chemical weapons will be countenanced. I will vote to support a defined and limited military action, because the conscience of the world demands a response when chemical weapons are used against civilians.
While I believe an international response is necessary, I continue to support diplomatic efforts to end the civil war in Syria. Assad has killed more than 100,000 of his own people. More than five million Syrians have been internally displaced, and more than two million have fled the country in deep fear. The international community must join together to secure a negotiated peace for the Syrian people.
Please be assured that I am being as careful as I possibly can about the authorization of military force, and I will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate discusses U.S. policy towards Syria.
To her email I sent the following email in response:
In response to my email opposing Mr Obama's proposal to attack Syria, you wrote:
"According to U.S. intelligence, this most recent attack killed 1,429 people, including 426 children. I have reviewed video of these heinous attacks, and to see row after row of young children, some in their pajamas, gassed to death is a shock to the conscience and demands action."
So, you find the killing of 426 innocent children "heinous" and a "shock to the conscience." President Obama has labeled the murder of these innocent children to be "abhorrent" and Secretary of State Kerry has referred to Mr Assad's actions as a "moral obscenity." And yet, you and the rest of the Democratic Party continue to support partial birth and late term abortions.
It is the height of moral hypocrisy for you to be willing to send American troops to defend Syrian children while you refuse to defend unborn American babies. I would certainly be willing to support US military action against Mr Assad if you in exchange would condemn the heinous, abhorrent, and morally obscene practice of partial birth and late term abortions.
But, what is his position on late-term abortions?
Mr Obama has said that Assad's use of chemical weapons is "abhorrent" (which, btw, the President pronounces about as well as he does the word "corpsman") and Secretary of State Kerry, wagging his finger, has called Assad's actions a "moral obscenity." Do not these same terms apply to the practice of partial birth abortion?
Messrs Obama and Kerry, please explain how the gassing of Syrian children is a crime against humanity, but partial birth abortion is, well, no big deal.
