70%+ Liberals oppose Syrian intervention; message to world - if Obama acts it is without the support

www.washingtontimes.com...

President Obama’s liberal activist base is adamantly opposed to military strikes in Syria, according to a new survey the Progressive Change Campaign Committee released Wednesday.

PCCC says more than 57,000 of its activists weighed in, and 73 percent of them opposed the U.S. taking action in Syria. Just 18 percent supported strikes, and just 14 percent said the U.S. should go ahead unilaterally if it can’t find any allies.

Indeed, a majority of the activists don’t believe Mr. Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry are being honest when they lay out their justifications for taking military action.

Four out of five activists also said they believe U.S. action will lead to deeper involvement in the civil war.
President Obama’s liberal activist base is adamantly opposed to military strikes in Syria, according to a new survey the Progressive Change Campaign Committee released Wednesday.

PCCC says more than 57,000 of its activists weighed in, and 73 percent of them opposed the U.S. taking action in Syria. Just 18 percent supported strikes, and just 14 percent said the U.S. should go ahead unilaterally if it can’t find any allies.

Indeed, a majority of the activists don’t believe Mr. Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry are being honest when they lay out their justifications for taking military action.

Four out of five activists also said they believe U.S. action will lead to deeper involvement in the civil war.

So if over 70% of liberal progressive Democrats oppose Syrian intervention.
AND

I heard a congressman on the radio today saying that the emails they are getting regarding intervention are 100% against intervention.

AND

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters poll says.

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

whtc.com...


AND

after reading the many many posts on Syria that seem to me to be 90% against and 10% for

it is quite clear.


If Obama acts without congressional support, he literally acts alone.

AND

He told a bald faced lie today, on Aug 12 he clearly said he drew a red line, even though today he claims he didn't.

But, too many have the tape to be able to do anything but show the world that he can lie easily without
even remembering there is video of him 2 weeks ago.

So please people of the world, please don't blame the American people, by a vast vast majority, we do not support his proposed actions.

No support, no problem. Obama will simply use the MSM to fabricate the support of the 'majority'.

I don't think I've ever felt more disgusted by my 'representative' government.

Obama could care less. He's secured his 2nd term.

Does anyone remember that "hot mic" accident with Obama and Putin? What did he say? Something about being more free when he gets his 2nd term.

I have a feeling the Obama and Putin are on the same page. That incident with the microphone made it look to me like they had something arranged, and it could be easier for him to do whatever it is in a 2nd term.

ETA:
Ah ha! Obama said he'd have more "flexibility" in a 2nd term. Flexibility for what? War?

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
Obama could care less. He's secured his 2nd term.

Does anyone remember that "hot mic" accident with Obama and Putin? What did he say? Something about being more free when he gets his 2nd term.

I have a feeling the Obama and Putin are on the same page. That incident with the microphone made it look to me like they had something arranged, and it could be easier for him to do whatever it is in a 2nd term.

ETA:
Ah ha! Obama said he'd have more "flexibility" in a 2nd term. Flexibility for what? War?

edit on 4-9-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)

For all we, the 'Unwashed' know, the U.S. and Russia are just playing 'Good cop, Bad cop' with the same end in mind.

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos
No support, no problem. Obama will simply use the MSM to fabricate the support of the 'majority'.

I don't think I've ever felt more disgusted by my 'representative' government.

You may be right about NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, ABC

However it looks like even Reuters is getting the truth out there.

If Obama acts alone, he may lose the good will of the liberals who might finally be fed up enough with his antics to finally get over their white guilt support of bad policies and dictatorial behavior

Not to mention the NSA spying that has even the libs upset

But Obama may get us into WWIII and we'll all be too busy surviving due to his complete incompetence to do a real impeach and throw him out of office for it.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
Obama could care less. He's secured his 2nd term.

Does anyone remember that "hot mic" accident with Obama and Putin? What did he say? Something about being more free when he gets his 2nd term.

I have a feeling the Obama and Putin are on the same page. That incident with the microphone made it look to me like they had something arranged, and it could be easier for him to do whatever it is in a 2nd term.

ETA:
Ah ha! Obama said he'd have more "flexibility" in a 2nd term. Flexibility for what? War?

edit on 4-9-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)

Scary, if Obama acts alone - then everyone will know his end game is not the end game of the American people. I just hope we haven't been nuked out of existance by then because of his arrogant stupidity sparking a backlash of truly Biblical proportions.

It's like Washington went over to Syria with some bombs and the U.N. was like "Hey...watchya up to there?"

Washington: "Ummm...gonna drop some bombs on these guys here."
U.N./U.K.: "Whoa...do you even have a reason?"
Washington: "Yeah they're bad guys."
U.N./U.K.: "Wow, well we'll help you but we want to double check our evidence first..."

Washington: "Screw you, you're just haters! We're doing it anyway!"
Rest of the Planet: "Are the American people okay with this?!"
Washington: "Yeah totally. We're a democracy. "

American People (Listening in): "Wait...what's going on? Syria? You want to....WHAT?! Hell no that's stupid!"
Washington: "Ummm...maybe we should ask them. So American people, what do you think!"
American People: "Horrible idea!!!! STOP NOW!!!!"

Washington: "Screw you! We do what we want!"
American People: "Wait...that's not how it works..."
Washington: "Shut up and do what we say or we'll throw you in prison! DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Land of the Free
'murica

I'm going to go smash my face into a mirror now until bleed to death through my eyes.

Originally posted by grandmakdw
You may be right about NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, ABC

However it looks like even Reuters is getting the truth out there.

Too little, too late, as far as I'm concerned.

reply to post by grandmakdw


Obama --- Bush
Bush -- Obama

The only difference it seems is the lack of out-cry that Bush received for the Iraq war, which our allies supported.
Plus Saddam had UN sanctions placed against him which he repeatedly ignored

Britain pulled out today and British Prime Minister David Cameron, who was pushing for intervention in Syria, indicated he would NOT defy the will of Parliament, which did not want to get involved militarily.
Unlike our President who thinks he's above the law and can bypass Congress when he pleases.
Very disrespectful to our system and to the American people.

Even the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that any "punitive" action taken against Syria for an alleged chemical weapons attack last month would be illegal without Security Council approval or a sound case for self-defense.
He also warned that a military strike against Syria could unleash more turmoil and bloodshed in a crisis that has already killed more than 100,000 people.


Looks like President Obama might find himself on the verge of pursuing the very kind of 'go-it-alone' approach that he accused his predecessor of using in Iraq.

Hypocrite....remember before he became Senator how he called Bush's war a "dumb war"?
Well, Obama, this is going to be another "dumb war".
Your war now
:shk:

reply to post by AlliumIslelily



Wow you hit it on the head!

That is exactly what is going on.

Even Pelosi's 5 year old grandson had the sense to tell his grandmother, no war! And she had the nerve to compare his reaction to that of the American people. Now now children, let me tell you why killing lots and lots of syrians is a good thing, you see they killed some of their own children, now we have to go kill them. Soooooooo rational.

Originally posted by snarky412
reply to post by grandmakdw

 

Obama --- Bush
Bush -- Obama

The only difference it seems is the lack of out-cry that Bush received for the Iraq war, which our allies supported.
Plus Saddam had UN sanctions placed against him which he repeatedly ignored

Britain pulled out today and unlike our president, British Prime Minister David Cameron, who was pushing for intervention in Syria, indicated he would NOT defy the will of Parliament, which did not want to get involved.

Even the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that any "punitive" action taken against Syria for an alleged chemical weapons attack last month would be illegal without Security Council approval or a sound case for self-defense.
He also warned that a military strike against Syria could unleash more turmoil and bloodshed in a crisis that has already killed more than 100,000 people.


Looks like President Obama might find himself on the verge of pursuing the very kind of 'go-it-alone' approach that he accused his predecessor of using in Iraq.

Hypocrite....remember before he became Senator how he called Bush's war a "dumb war"?
Well, Obama, this is going to be another "dumb war".

Can we say

Dumb and Dumber war!

Originally posted by AlliumIslelily
It's like Washington went over to Syria with some bombs and the U.N. was like "Hey...watchya up to there?"

Washington: "Ummm...gonna drop some bombs on these guys here."
U.N./U.K.: "Whoa...do you even have a reason?"
Washington: "Yeah they're bad guys."
U.N./U.K.: "Wow, well we'll help you but we want to double check our evidence first..."

Washington: "Screw you, you're just haters! We're doing it anyway!"
Rest of the Planet: "Are the American people okay with this?!"
Washington: "Yeah totally. We're a democracy.

"

American People (Listening in): "Wait...what's going on? Syria? You want to....WHAT?! Hell no that's stupid!"
Washington: "Ummm...maybe we should ask them. So American people, what do you think!"
American People: "Horrible idea!!!! STOP NOW!!!!"

Washington: "Screw you! We do what we want!"
American People: "Wait...that's not how it works..."
Washington: "Shut up and do what we say or we'll throw you in prison! DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Land of the Free
'murica

I'm going to go smash my face into a mirror now until bleed to death through my eyes.

You paint quite the picture

Hell has frozen over, people.

Call me a liberal democrat before I'll EVER support this!

Click here for more information.

reply to post by grandmakdw


Haven't you ever heard the story of "The Congress that cried WMD's?"

They had a sketchy reason then they have a sketchy one now!


Democrat or Republican't it is the same agenda and Obama follows the script just like his buddy Bush did!

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
reply to post by grandmakdw

 

Who the "F" made you Ambassador to the world?

Obama won with 51% of the vote to become president.

If you take your useless out of the air thin numbers of 70% liberals, that is only 35% of the pie chart that includes everybody. Not all of Obama's 51% were "liberal" less than half I'd say by pulling a number out of thin air using your standards. So lets revise that 35%, say 50% of 51% were actually "liberal", that's 25% liberal who voted for Obama, now apply your "70% of liberals" to the 25% and you get about 17% of the total population you are declaring to speak for are against the war in Syria.

Some declaration, who ever hired you to be world's ambassador should summarily fire you.

These numbers are not out of thin air. Read the articles before you call names - the first poll referenced was done by the Democratic Party. The second poll was done by Reuters.

I have to admit that the ATS post percentages were just a guess based on my readings of the posts.

If you are for killing Syrians and possibly sparking a huge ME war, and possibly sparking multiple terrorist attacks on the US in retaliation and a good possibility of sparking WWIII - and oh yes - there is no way we can be so "surgical" as to not kill more Syrians than the number who were gassed.

And, why is that not equal to the number of Christians killed, tortured, with businesses burned down and churches destroyed in the ME? Why is it that thousands more Christians killed are worth less and not mentioned by our bleeding heart president?

Why are you for launching this war aside from spanking the Syrian government, which will end up killing thousands more innocents?

They should read this short guide to the middle east and understand how stupid this all looks...

From Mr K N Al-Sabah. Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad! Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.
But Gulf states are pro Sisi!
Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood! Iran is pro Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!
Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!
Gulf states are pro US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day.

So guessing the variant would be?: Obama is against Assad. Cameron is against Assad and backing Obama.

The British Parliament is against Cameron and Obama, and therefore backing Assad.

Hollande is backing Obama and Cameron, and against Assad.
The French parliament is against Hollande, and therefore backing Assad.

Israel is against Assad, but Hezbollah is backing Assad. Israel is also against Hezbollah, actually backing Assad.
Russia is against Obama, Cameron and Hollande and really just against everyone except against Russia.

The American, British and French people are against an attack, and therefore backing Assad. And all because of two!

Really what are we talking about here???

An AlSabah’s understanding of the Middle East

This is not a post and run -
gotta go teach a night class

Back after class to catch up and respond.

Grandma

reply to post by grandmakdw


don't go making excuses for liberals or anyone else to absolve any sense of guilt you might feel or to place blame on others. whether you oppose it or not when a country declares war on another the people are responsible for it as much as the government, especially when they do nothing to stop it.

this whole "we're innocent" bs is merely an excuse to make cowards feel justified about their inaction, it's easy to blame others but it's hard to look and see your guilt and realize that you have wronged even if indirectly. that is our responsibility as people of a powerful nation to accept guilt for lives taken, to weigh our actions and accept the consequences of those actions, to not run away and place blame on this or that group for whatever reason.

that is why we have never completely won any modern war, why we can't have peace, because our people cannot realize this and they run from it, they fight amongst themselves and blame each other and we end up creating messes that lead to more conflict which is never resolved, and if we don't quit behaving this way our country will be destroyed by our foolishness.

Originally posted by namehere
reply to post by grandmakdw

 

don't go making excuses for liberals or anyone else to absolve any sense of guilt you might feel or to place blame on others. whether you oppose it or not when a country declares war on another the people are responsible for it as much as the government, especially when they do nothing to stop it.

this whole "we're innocent" bs is merely an excuse to make cowards feel justified about their inaction, it's easy to blame others but it's hard to look and see your guilt and realize that you have wronged even if indirectly. that is our responsibility as people of a powerful nation to accept guilt for lives taken, to weigh our actions and accept the consequences of those actions, to not run away and place blame on this or that group for whatever reason.

that is why we have never completely won any modern war, why we can't have peace, because our people cannot realize this and they run from it, they fight amongst themselves and blame each other and we end up creating messes that lead to more conflict which is never resolved, and if we don't quit behaving this way our country will be destroyed by our foolishness.

Bullshirt.

I served in Gulf War 1 and Deux.

They were fought for (what I thought) valid reasons but were executed poorly.

Now we have a potus that is just itching to prove his manhood by blowing shirt up!

Again, executed badly.

I don't see a valid reason for this. Maybe because I'm out, maybe because I'm older, but I could give a shirt if it doesn't affect Americans or the western world.

Harsh?

Maybe.

*meh*