I saw an article by Cliff Kincaid but two small quotes stuck out.
“I want to commend the President for finally following through on our red line threats,” said [SE] Cupp. “That’s important. That’s important for our credibility.” Van Jones replied, “This President has now said there is a red line. It was not clear before whether the line was crossed. It’s crossed, he’s moving forward. I think we need to stand behind this President and send a clear message to Assad that this type behavior is not acceptable.”
Van Jones says people ought to get behind the President. That is the problem, how can you get behind a guy who doesn’t have a clue, someone you can’t trust? Even Obama will be surprised by his action.
“He’s moving forward”? With what, to do what and why? Here we are coming up on a year since Benghazi, and he hasn’t leveled with us about that, and now he is doing another intervention. How about we settle that?
But just get behind the absentee C-in-C? We’re not supposed to have major issues with that. Send a clear message? I thought Benghazi was clear…. in Obama’s subversive, secret way. You mean get behind his billion dollar shot across the bow?
What about the message Obama sent us on Benghazi — it’s old news? “Get behind him”? The words are even offensive. He doesn’t make the case for it himself but relies on others to do it for him. Clear message all right.