Obama's Address to the Nation about Syria

A transcript of the President's remarks is here.

Well, here are your Head Trucker's thoughts, just for the record:  the first two minutes were fine, with the President reviewing the use of poison gas since World War I and saying that the nations of the world have worked for a century to outlaw this terrible weapon of war.  Lofty ideas, noble thoughts.  All well and good.

ut from there, he seemed to tumble down one slippery slope after another, sliding on generalizations and doubletalk, vague claims and promises, and outright contradictions.  To wit, for example: "I've had letters from a number of citizens saying the United States shouldn't be the world's policeman, and I agree."  But then a few minutes later:  "For seventy years, the United States has enforced the rules of international law, and the world is a better place for that."  Um, so what exactly is the difference between a policeman and an enforcer, I wonder?  And also, what about all the debacles and destruction so carefully ignored by that far-reaching claim?  Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, and others we could name?

Another example:  "We are not going to try to remove a dictator, we already learned from Iraq that that's no good because then we are responsible for all that comes afterwards.  I am not going to put American boots on the ground.  We're just going to degrade Assad's ability to use chemical weapons."  But then:  "In response to some comments in Congress, this attack will not be a pinprick strike.  The United States military does not do pinpricks."  So WTF?  How big and how bad will it be, exactly?  What the hell will happen when the order to hit Syria goes out?  Why all this vagueness and obfuscation?

Another:  "Syria has no ability to attack our military.  And any other attacks that might happen, well we deal with those threats every day, anyway.  And our BFF Israel [which your Head Trucker has been thinking is the elephant in the room that Obama has never mentioned until this speech], well everybody knows they have the power to respond to any attacks with overwhelming force."  In other words, Syria can't possibly do anything to hurt us.  And yet:  "Even though there is no imminent or direct threat to the United States . . . I believe I have the power to order this strike in order to enforce international law and protect our own children from being gassed like those poor Syrian kids."  What the holy fuck???

In other words, boys, as much as I want to support this president - and I do believe his fundamental motive of stopping an outlaw use of chemical weapons is sincere - I am hearing nothing but the same old bureaucratic doubletalk that has been used every fucking time before, when this country has muscled in where it shouldn't have gone.

And on top of all that - What exactly was the point of this speech?  What was his point, what was he asking us citizens, or anyone, to do?  The first three-fourths of the speech sounded like it might have been written last week - not until towards the end did he get around to mentioning that, oh yeah, somebody has a crazy idea for a diplomatic solution here, so I've been chatting with my bud Putin about that - we'll see where it goes, and I've asked Congress to chill on voting for anything until I know more.  Then I'll let 'em know.

And so your point is, Mr. President?  Why have you just been talking at us for 15 minutes, then?  What kind of idée fixe is this, which you just keep repeating and repeating?

Something is just not right here. I am vividly reminded of a brilliant aphorism that I heard Judge Judy say once: If it doesn't make sense, it's not true.

Continued after the jump . . .

WTF? Church of England Drops Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Yesterday, the Most Reverend Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin "Whatajerk" Welby, went out of his way to utterly trash the idea of same-sex marriage, saying it would "abolish" true marriage between men and women and replace it with "a less good option that is neither equal nor effective," thereby handing our homo-hating enemies a wonderful cache of ammo to use against us for years to come. Here's the video of his speech in the House of Lords:



Today, however, a church spokesman declared that after seeing large majorities in both Houses of Parliament vote in favor of the same-sex marriage bill, the Church has no further objections to make, and the 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords will now work on amendments to refine and "improve" the bill. Which it seems is not so evil after all.

Politics. What a difference a day - or a vote - makes.  What a fucking turnaround.  What sheer, unmitigated hypocrisy.  I'm glad the Church, and presumably the two-faced Archbishop too, is going to stand out of the way now - but I am totally underwhelmed by their transparent, self-serving motives.

Middle Class Is Un-American

The New Yorker reports on the arrogant, thieving, high-Tory mindset of today's Republican Party, and their Orwellian attempts at corrupting the meaning of plain English - emphasis mine:

On the floor of the Senate this week, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican Minority Whip, criticized President Barack Obama for talking about the middle class. The mere phrase “middle class” — that most anodyne of demographic terms, the category to which half of all Americans polled identify, and into which Mitt Romney is always trying to shoehorn very, very wealthy people like himself — emerged, in Kyl’s evocation, as some kind of crazy-lefty bumper-sticker slogan. By alluding to “what he calls ‘the middle class,’ ” Kyl said, as though Obama had come up with the phrase, the President was “pitting these Americans” against the wealthy, “spreading economic resentment, and weaken[ing] American values and ideals.” Kyl went on: “We don’t need the current American President touring the country and defining every American’s values and status based on a class system that he’s made up. I don’t think there’s anything called middle-class values. I just think the whole discussion of class is wrong. It’s not what we do in America.”

Increasingly, it isn’t. Not if we’re in office or running for office, and especially not if we’re Republicans. America perpetuates a class system — and an income-inequality gap growing faster than that of most other countries — but American politicians try not to speak of it, because if they do, they get slimed. “What you could do for me,” President Obama told a group of Presidential historians in May, 2011, “is to help me find a way to discuss the issue of inequality without being accused of class warfare.” A year later, it takes even less to attract that particular charge, even as it takes more rhetorical chutzpah to get around the reality.

It’s remarkable how far to the right the acceptable political discourse about the haves and have-nots has shifted — or perhaps it’s just moved into the realm of denial. In the not-so-distant political past, it was considered reasonable for Republicans to allude to inequality and even vow to try to remedy it. In an excellent recent article in Rolling Stone about the contemporary Republican party’s extreme attachment to tax cuts for the rich, Tim Dickinson quotes a 1985 speech by Ronald Reagan, a speech that somebody — maybe Kyl — would surely be calling “class warfare” talk until he heard who’d made it. “We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed, adding that they “sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary—and that’s crazy." . . .

GOP Translator

Don't leave home without it:

Honk to Truth Wins Out.