Maybe I'm just missing the massive war protests. Can you link me to some?

Sending John Kerry to talk to the world about how good our intelligence is and how we need to attack is one of the craziest things I can recall. Another example off the top of my head is the debt ceiling, although there's also those little things like government transparency and protection of civil liberties.

There are many videos of "Candidate Obama debates President Obama" which show this better than my bungling attempts at communication.

I suppose you're sort of right here. But that didn't stop the establishment dems from condemning the president for violations (Think telecom immunity) just like the GOP is condemning Obama now. You could make the case both parties are full of **** and just talk a good game, but that's really my point. "Positions" are political calculations based on what gives the greatest political advantage at the current time, not based on actual principles. (Witness the magical 'evolution' of politicians on gay marriage when the polls made it obvious the country was for it)

Yeah this is hogwash. I follow the WaPo, NPR, The Daily Show, and they've been sharply critical of Obama. There's no way you can claim that the right was this skeptical during the Iraq War runup.

I'm pretty sure I'm talking less about Syria and more about the endless years of warfare, droning, and blatant civil liberties violations. You know, stuff that was red meat for the left from 2003-2008. Remember Harry Reid in 2005 fighting against the PATRIOT act? Remember in 2011 when he was fighting for it?

2005:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...670r/?page=all

2011:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55645.html

The "anti war" left is about as vocal as it's always been, they just have zero power. Only one senator voted against the PATRIOT act; the Dems in congress have been consistently AIDSy on civil liberties.

Dems are not "the left." They are a center right party with few exceptions.

They just talk a good game when they are out of power as a way to score political points?

The Dems never really talk a good game, except for a few fringe representatives. FFS, they were anti-gay marriage until like a year ago.

Well - what are they meant to do exactly? Its not like the Republicans are courting them.

The anti-war lobby got Obama into power which made sure there was no ground war in Libya and they didnt leap in both feet first in Syria two years ago like Hillary and McCain wanted to do, they got their cake in the drone war instead of a troop war and they get to eat it too by being against that. America is out of Iraq, is about to draw down and leave Afghanistan. They even almost got rid of GITMO and would have done so if they could have held more power across the board instead of just concentrating it in a small handful of states.

The anti war lobby never disappeared. They just finally got asked what would they like to see happen in reality not just in fantasy land and they balked at the question.

Speaking of the PATRIOT act.....

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...g-patriot-act/

Nice of him to show up to the party, albeit several years too late.

When your enemies are killing each other, why step in the middle of it?

Amazing.

Maybe Obama really doesn't want to attack, and is just using reverse psychology to get Republican support.

He's trying to find a way to worm his way out of this and look like he's playing everyone all along.

When he said he never said the red line comment was his first bluff.

Don't forget core creation cost and manpower recovery!

Syrian civilians are not our enemies.

Err, he said he didnt set the red line and the world set that red line, not that he didnt say there was a red line. Lol, at rara accidentally showing that no matter how crazy the GOP can get they are more than happy to believe any invented truth easily disproven if it fits with their predispositions.

Are you saying that the rebels are not killing civilians? Just how do you have a civil war and not have civilians in the cross fire?

Nice to see that you are letting him split hairs. He clearly stated if chemical weapons are used then they would cross a red line.

Do you simply ignore all news that has no angle of making Obama look bad?

When exactly did you disavow neocons, when Obama became one?

I've never been a neocon and I've been against us doing anything on this from the get go. I wouldn't care who our president is.

And this is the same policy of every modern president, you remember we went into a full scale boots on the ground war under our previous president for the mere assumption of WMDs. Here we're talking about the active use of WMDs leading to the confirmed deaths of 1,000+ people.

I will agree that it was one reason, but not the only reason.

He wasn't saying he didn't say the red line comment but I'm not surprised nuance escapes Rara.

this would be tremendous

sadly the right wingers would shift seamlessly to OBAMA PLAYING POLITICS WITH OUR SAFETY

My aunt would forget in less than a day that she was ever against bombing Syria.

He was asked a question about chemical weopons and the possibility of U.S. involvement. He answered by say the red line for us is......(while making it clear he was talking about this country)

How can this in anyway be construed as the red line for the world is....? Maybe the world also has a red line maybe not.

He clearly indicated that if the above line was crossed that the U.S. would and have to act to protect our allies and our interest. He did not say or even imply that he believed the UN or other countries have to enforce this red line or help us to enforce this red line. A red line means automatic action and enforcement, does anyone believe that applies to anything the world or UN does? Do you really believe that because of the "world set a red line" we have to go to war?

I'm sort of sorry this thread died down while I was gone, not because I think we need one more thread for partisan back-and-forth, but because the topic of the OP is really interesting to me. Granted, it's a little partisan in nature but you could still be a Democrat who thinks the contemporary GOP is solid and here to stay, or a Republican who thinks the Tea Party is leading your own party off a cliff.

Anyway, here's a good piece a few days ago from Jonathan Cohn:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...e-theories-why

I think he nails it on point 3. The folks driving the GOP Crazy Train don't have their incentives aligned with the rest of their party, let alone the nation. There's probably a dose of 1 -- even if they recognize how toxic their views are right now, they're convinced the rest of the nation will come around eventually. But none of that matters if you don't win the primaries, you can't win the primaries without money, and the way to get money from the right wing is to out bat**** everyone else. There's really not much personal downside, if you don't mind living in an economy that you yourself have wrecked (and on that point, they are delusional).