Rachel Maddow making a case why other nations should join us re: Syria

[No Elephants]

Apparently, we have enough enemies--"some deserved, some undeserved-- as it is, so other countries should step up and give us cover.

Not her exact words, but the gist.

She mocked the nations who were not joining us and their reasons, supercilious mockery apparently being her one trick. "By the tone in my voice my smirk and my occasional hand gestures, you can tell I think I'm so much smarter than everyone and every nation I mock. And, trrrrust me, folks, when I say, I really am. Besides, the mocking tone breaks up my otherwise monotomous show.

BTW, I think I'm so smarter than all of my fans as well. You can tell that by how I break everything down into teeny tiny bits so that your teeny tiny brains have a better shot of assimilating what I am so painstakingly trying to brainwash you with. And, I'm right about how dense you are because you don't even get the degree to which I am talking down to you, or you would long ago have gotten justifiably insulted and stopped watching my show."

Apparently, the false dichotomy du jour is either bomb or do nothing and open the floodgates of chemical weapons forevermore. Guess which alternative she hopes America will choose?

God forbid anyone finds some way to deal with this other than bombing, eh?

Good lord. Whatever made any of us think she was a liberal?

So easy for neocons who register Democrat to seem liberal when the guy in the office committing war crimes is a Republican, I guess.

Some guest on MSNBC recently did make a good point: what if bombing doesn't send anyone any message? What if it does not dissuade anyone from using chemical weapons in the future? (Lord knows, we've never been dissuaded from using them in the past.) What if bombing only kills more Syrians? And makes us more enemies?

BTW, I still haven't heard what makes us think Assad did this, as opposed to anyone else.

In fact, I have heard Obama fudge it from time to time, as in "chemicals were used."

In elementary school, I was taught to disdain the passive voice because it hides responsiblity for the action being described. That, and it deadens everything. It's as though Ms. Schmidt had heard Obama while he was talking about the use of chemicals in Syria.


Once, I heard Obama say something like, "Chemicals were definitely used. No one is disputing that chemicals were used. And the evidence is strong that Assad was responsible."

Sounds to me like no doubt/fudging at all on the first point, but some doubt/fudging on the second.



As long as there is any doubt at all about who was responsible (Assad seeming least likely to me), shouldn't we hold off on bombing?

I mean, if we're wrong, the joke's on us, right? And, of course, the joke's on the by then dead Syrians.

I hate that kind of joke.

Maybe someone will bomb us, to send us a message that our President should go bombing people in other countries while there is any doubt at all about who the culprits are.

Or, while there is any possiblity at all of nonlethal action, say maybe NOT cancelling a meeting with Putin because of Snowden Putin's stand on gays? (After all, it's not really been that long since Rev. Warren, repeal of Clinton's DADT and Kennedy's decision on Clinton's DOMA, has it? Or your own D of J's court briefs on how homosexuality is like bestiality and incest, as you defended DADT and DOMA?)

Bet Americans, including Maddow, would not see bombing us because of what Obama did as a humanitarian response. And, we'd be damned right. Dead, but right. Dead right, as it were.

[Enthusiast]

1. Rachel

has lost me completely. At least Chris Hayes made his anti-Syria strike position clear. Maybe MSNBC will remove Chris from the line-up.

DU3 has blown up over this issue. Most are against a strike, reflecting the sentiments of the American people.

I still do not believe Assad launched the chemical attack.

[No Elephants]

2. I am going to eat crow on another thread. I thought her show last night was useful.

This is the upside of MSNBC having no principles other than ratings.

During Bush's popularity, MSNBC was pro-Bush. As Bush's popularity began to diminish, MSNBC hired Olbermann, then Maddow and then, one show after another, flipped from conservative to Democrat or, at least, conservadem. I think the public outcry over this may have gotten to MSNBC, at least on this issue. Not that anyone will condemn the administration, but MSNBC may allow a break in the ranks.