• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Will Look More Ridiculous?

Who will look more ridiculous?

  • Total voters
    17
Dapper Andy said:
Meh. They're entitled to their opinions but as your article states:



For me that's what matters here.

This might be a gloat worthy "gotcha moment" for partisans but I don't see how this really affects the argument one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Maybe
It's her connection with a group called the Syrian Emergency Task Force that I find troubling. The Journal, when it first published the op-ed didn't include that bit of information and since has. This organization subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments "to provide aid to the Syrian opposition." . And the Institute for the Study of Wars didn't mention it either in her bio that previously appeared on their website. O'Bagy was listed as having issued "major reports" on the Syrian opposition. The bio said she "traveled extensively to the region to gain perspective on the situation." The bio said she had received her Master's and Ph.D. in Arab Studies and Political Science at Georgetown. It said she also had a bachelor's in Arabic and Arab Studies from the same university. But according to Georgetown, she isn't listed as a student in a Ph.D program. They do however recognize her Masters. If Kerry and this administration is going to bring her op ed piece before a congressional hearing to make the case for intervening in a civil war, don't you think the fact she is a government contractor involved in arming the rebels should have been disclosed? I do.
 
Last edited:
humbolt said:
Patutity? Sounds complicated.
Click to expand...

:agree: I always thought I had a reasonable command of the English language, but "patutity" was new to me. Apparently it's new to Webster's Dictionary, too, since it is not listed! Must be a horrible disease known only to a few doctors worldwide, and they have agreed never to discuss it except at medical seminars! :shrug: :lamo:
 
vesper said:
Maybe
It's her connection with a group called the Syrian Emergency Task Force that I find troubling. The Journal, when it first published the op-ed didn't include that bit of information and since has. This organization subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments "to provide aid to the Syrian opposition." . And the Institute for the Study of Wars didn't mention it either in her bio that previously appeared on their website. O'Bagy was listed as having issued "major reports" on the Syrian opposition. The bio said she "traveled extensively to the region to gain perspective on the situation." The bio said she had received her Master's and Ph.D. in Arab Studies and Political Science at Georgetown. It said she also had a bachelor's in Arabic and Arab Studies from the same university. But according to Georgetown, she isn't listed as a student in a Ph.D program. They do however recognize her Masters. If Kerry and this administration is going to bring a witness before a congressional hearing to make the case for intervening in a civil war, don't you think the fact she is a government contractor involved in arming the rebels should have been disclosed? I do.
Click to expand...

:agree: I hope it is also mentioned at said congressional hearing, just for clarification regarding her credentials, and the reason Kerry chose her to speak as a witness!

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:
 
ChezC3 said:
Putin played Obama & Co. like a fiddle. They can't very well sit there with a comical look and an awe shucks, they have to try to save face...

So, when trying to take credit for what Putin did, who will look more ridiculous?
Click to expand...

Painter said:
Seriously?

What other options did he have?

Press for an attack that the American people will not stand for. Get denied. Look like a fool AND a BUSH#2

or

Not press for an attack, and look like a fool.

or

Attack anyways and play into the Right Wing's hands.

Any of these 3 options would have placed the Affordable Care Act in Jeopardy by way of getting hammered in 2014.
Obama has found the one and only option to save face and save 2014.
Maybe for an Obama hater, it was meaningless. But for his base and just over half the Nation, he managed to save the day.
Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:
Nice try, but just more bull**** spin.

1. Bush #2 went to congress twice to get approval for military action and both times the persuasion of his character and his strength of purpose ruled the day and congress approved both times - don't dare compare the milquetoast, unprincipled, talking bag of gas Obama with a man of character.

2. Obama tripped into a pile of crap of his own making and then didn't even have the balls to own up to it and tried to blame it on others.

3. Kerry, looking tired from travel the rigors of diplomacy, answered a serious question with a foolish answer before his brain got in gear and thus dumped both he and Obama into another pile of crap and you see that as a face saving brilliant move. Just what level of sycophantic delusion is necessary to exist in that alternate reality?

4. Obama is an idiot, and a dangerous one at that, because he doesn't know he's an idiot and everyone else does.
Click to expand...

The first question I asked myself in considering a reply was, "What exactly did Putin do?"

Answer: Take action on a straight-forward recommendation proposed by Sec. Kerry during negotiations with Putin and Russia's Foreign Minister (the equivalent to our Secretary of State), towit: "Syria could avoid an American attack by turning over 'every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week.'"

The only way Pres. Obama or SoS Kerry look foolish is if negotiations breakdown OR if Syria does exactly what many believe Iraq did w/their chemical weapons stockpile - move them to another country in hiding. Based on media reports it looks as though Syria is very willing to capitulate and not only turn over their entire chemical weapons stockpile but also halt production of chemical weapons altogether.

Source: USAToday article, "Syrian FM: Syria will sign chemical ban, open storage sites"

If they follow through, I'd say Kerry's gaff will turn out to be a smart bold suggestion, Pres. Obama will come away looking stronger for not backing down completely on his threat to use military force, if necessary, as well as pragmatic on the world stage for listening to his people (Congress and U.S. citizens) and world leaders and allowing for a diplomatic solution rather than violence.

The verdict is still out, but I'd say "heads, we win" on this one assming things play out as is being reported.
 
vesper said:
Maybe
It's her connection with a group called the Syrian Emergency Task Force that I find troubling. The Journal, when it first published the op-ed didn't include that bit of information and since has. This organization subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments "to provide aid to the Syrian opposition." . And the Institute for the Study of Wars didn't mention it either in her bio that previously appeared on their website. O'Bagy was listed as having issued "major reports" on the Syrian opposition. The bio said she "traveled extensively to the region to gain perspective on the situation." The bio said she had received her Master's and Ph.D. in Arab Studies and Political Science at Georgetown. It said she also had a bachelor's in Arabic and Arab Studies from the same university. But according to Georgetown, she isn't listed as a student in a Ph.D program. They do however recognize her Masters. If Kerry and this administration is going to bring her op ed piece before a congressional hearing to make the case for intervening in a civil war, don't you think the fact she is a government contractor involved in arming the rebels should have been disclosed? I do.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not that interested in if her resume was embellished or outright false.

I'm interested in whether Syria used chemical weapons against its people.
 
Jack Hays said:
Perhaps "patootie" was intended?:roll:
Click to expand...

I hope so, since I spent some time trying to find out the meaning of the word she used! :mrgreen:

Good afternoon, Jack! :2wave:
 
polgara said:
I hope so, since I spent some time trying to find out the meaning of the word she used! :mrgreen:

Good afternoon, Jack! :2wave:
Click to expand...

Good afternoon, Polgara.:2wave:

Mrs. Hays and I are getting ready to fly down to Orlando to link up with grandchildren at Disney World.:eek:

I'll be a little scarce on DP the next ten days or so.:mrgreen:
 
polgara said:
:agree: I hope it is also mentioned at said congressional hearing, just for clarification regarding her credentials, and the reason Kerry chose her to speak as a witness!

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Greetings to you Polgara, I must clarify that O'bagy didn't physically testify but that Kerry and McCain introduced her testimony through her writings/opinions to try and make the case for military involvement. If you watched the hearings, Kerry and McCain relied heavily on her opinions. They referred to her as "Doctor O'bagy", the one without a ph.D. Send in the clowns.
 
vesper said:
Greetings to you Polgara, I must clarify that O'bagy didn't physically testify but that Kerry and McCain introduced her testimony through her writings/opinions to try and make the case for military involvement. If you watched the hearings, Kerry and McCain relied heavily on her opinions. They referred to her as "Doctor O'bagy", the one without a ph.D. Send in the clowns.
Click to expand...

Please keep in mind that in a public hearing it is sometimes necessary to cite a public source for information obtained via non-public means.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Please keep in mind that in a public hearing it is sometimes necessary to cite a public source for information obtained via non-public means.:peace
Click to expand...
Afternoon Jack, Happy Belated Birthday. It isn't because it was a public op-ed piece, but rather the information that she was connection with a group called the Syrian Emergency Task Force. The Journal, after the op-ed was first published, it later included a clarification noting she is "affiliated" with that group, and that the organization subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments "to provide aid to the Syrian opposition." Her opinions were introduced to Congress as that of a researcher with a phD for the Institute for War Studies. Nothing about her affiliation with the Syrian Emergency Task Force. The phD turned out to be a lie.
 
vesper said:
Afternoon Jack, Happy Belated Birthday. It isn't because it was a public op-ed piece, but rather the information that she was connection with a group called the Syrian Emergency Task Force. The Journal, after the op-ed was first published, it later included a clarification noting she is "affiliated" with that group, and that the organization subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments "to provide aid to the Syrian opposition." Her opinions were introduced to Congress as that of a researcher with a phD for the Institute for War Studies. The phD turned out to be a lie.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the birthday greeting. Getting old is hell but it beats the alternative. I understand her background and situation. I'm just saying that those who cite her as a source may find her convenient rather than important.
 
Jack Hays said:
Thanks for the birthday greeting. Getting old is hell but it beats the alternative. I understand her background and situation. I'm just saying that those who cite her as a source may find her convenient rather than important.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Have a good one.
 
Objective Voice said:
The first question I asked myself in considering a reply was, "What exactly did Putin do?"

Answer: Take action on a straight-forward recommendation proposed by Sec. Kerry during negotiations with Putin and Russia's Foreign Minister (the equivalent to our Secretary of State), towit: "Syria could avoid an American attack by turning over 'every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week.'"

The only way Pres. Obama or SoS Kerry look foolish is if negotiations breakdown OR if Syria does exactly what many believe Iraq did w/their chemical weapons stockpile - move them to another country in hiding. Based on media reports it looks as though Syria is very willing to capitulate and not only turn over their entire chemical weapons stockpile but also halt production of chemical weapons altogether.

Source: USAToday article, "Syrian FM: Syria will sign chemical ban, open storage sites"

If they follow through, I'd say Kerry's gaff will turn out to be a smart bold suggestion, Pres. Obama will come away looking stronger for not backing down completely on his threat to use military force, if necessary, as well as pragmatic on the world stage for listening to his people (Congress and U.S. citizens) and world leaders and allowing for a diplomatic solution rather than violence.

The verdict is still out, but I'd say "heads, we win" on this one assming things play out as is being reported.
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters to certain people. It is a sad day when you root for foreign leaders if it makes your president look bad.
 
rcart76 said:
I don't think it matters to certain people. It is a sad day when you root for foreign leaders if it makes your president look bad.
Click to expand...

For me, personally, I'd love to see no action taken in Syria by the west - while Canada would not be involved in the initial stages, we would inevitably get stuck in the aftermath in some way and Syria is a situation that only the Syrians can solve now - there are already too many external forces at work there.

That said, my responses on this thread have been related to some apologists for President Obama who claim this was/is now a brilliant masterplan on their part when it was nothing of the kind. When first asked about Kerry's comments right after they were made, Obama and the White House dismissed them. When Russia seized the initiative and turned it on the US, Obama and the administration were beat - they had to step back and accept the challenge, one that will take years in my view to work out unless the US abandons it at some point. That's what makes President Obama look bad and nobody needs to root for it, Obama has a great knack for looking bad all on his own.
 
Jack Hays said:
Good afternoon, Polgara.:2wave:

Mrs. Hays and I are getting ready to fly down to Orlando to link up with grandchildren at Disney World.:eek:

I'll be a little scarce on DP the next ten days or so.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Have a great trip, and most importantly...enjoy yourself and have lots of fun! :thumbs:
 
After giving the question some consideration, I decided I can't take part in this poll. I have an entirely different thought on the subject. I believe the U.S. electorate looks most ridiculous.
Sad thought, isn't it ?

Thom Paine
 
polgara said:
:agree: I always thought I had a reasonable command of the English language, but "patutity" was new to me. Apparently it's new to Webster's Dictionary, too, since it is not listed! Must be a horrible disease known only to a few doctors worldwide, and they have agreed never to discuss it except at medical seminars! :shrug: :lamo:
Click to expand...
It does sound like of combination of things I dare not consider. I know what she meant, but I do believe she's strayed into territory in which few venture. Frankenstein probably had one of 'em.
 
vesper said:
Greetings to you Polgara, I must clarify that O'bagy didn't physically testify but that Kerry and McCain introduced her testimony through her writings/opinions to try and make the case for military involvement. If you watched the hearings, Kerry and McCain relied heavily on her opinions. They referred to her as "Doctor O'bagy", the one without a ph.D. Send in the clowns.
Click to expand...

Vesper, why do...and I'm using "do" instead of "did" because I fear this isn't the end of our meddling... they want more chaos in the ME than there already is? Who benefits from this? :eek:
 
humbolt said:
It does sound like of combination of things I dare not consider. I know what she meant, but I do believe she's strayed into territory in which few venture. Frankenstein probably had one of 'em.
Click to expand...

It's been suggested since by JH that she probably meant "patootie," but I haven't heard that word in so long it never occurred to me! Being curious by nature, I just had to look it up in the dictionary, and when it wasn't listed there, I called our County Library to see if it was something new that my older dictionary just didn't have listed. Nope, I was told, there is no such word. Morale of the story...don't believe everything you read if you aren't prepared to spend time you don't have to follow up! Sheesh! :lamo:
 
Objective Voice said:
I'd say Kerry's gaff will turn out to be a smart bold suggestion
Click to expand...


See, you can't have it both ways. Intention is everything. They walked it back. You yourself just said it was a gaff. Fumbling about, falling ass backward into success in spite of yourself shows neither strength nor leadership.

To frame it as such is nothing more than

:spin:


But there are fools who'll believe it...
 
polgara said:
It's been suggested since by JH that she probably meant "patootie," but I haven't heard that word in so long it never occurred to me! Being curious by nature, I just had to look it up in the dictionary, and when it wasn't listed there, I called our County Library to see if it was something new that my older dictionary just didn't have listed. Nope, I was told, there is no such word. Morale of the story...don't believe everything you read if you aren't prepared to spend time you don't have to follow up! Sheesh! :lamo:
Click to expand...
JH is correct. I was just having a little fun with it. I, too, haven't heard the word in a very long time.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I have a military mindset in that I blame the person in charge, regardless of who actually screwed something up. The NSA scandals, Benghazi, Syria, etc. All of these things happened in his organization under his watch, and because of that I place the blame squarely on his shoulders.

A good leader takes responsibility for his organization, so yes, Kerry will look like a jackass (as usual), but ultimately Obama was his superior officer who blessed off the decision.
Click to expand...

I agree. He is appointed his cabinet members and he is responsible for all foreign policy.
 
polgara said:
Vesper, why do...and I'm using "do" instead of "did" because I fear this isn't the end of our meddling... they want more chaos in the ME than there already is? Who benefits from this? :eek:
Click to expand...

Polgara if I stated that I understood this administration's thinking on this, I would be lying. It makes no sense to me. Instead of threatening to bomb the country it would have been nice for this administration to announce a big humanitarian effort for the refugees that have fled Syria. When someone flees to another country, it isn't that easy to get protection or aid. Many of these folks are anti-American. It would be an excellent time to show them kindness in their time of need. Our military could be dropping food and supplies into these refugee camps And I mean do it personally and not by having Congress pass a bill allowing funds to be sent to countries like Turkey or Jordan to provide assistance. The people never find out it was U.S. tax dollars that supplied for their needs. By being visible on the scene, I believe it would go a long way in changing the hearts and minds who tend to hate us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom