Maureen Dowd: Bill Schools Barry on Syria

[ProSense]

Bill Schools Barry on Syria

By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON — NOT only is President Obama leading from behind, now he’s leading from behind Bill Clinton.

After dithering for two years over what to do about the slaughter in Syria, the president was finally shoved into action by the past and perhaps future occupant of his bedroom.

Clinton told John McCain during a private Q. and A. on Tuesday in New York that Obama should be more forceful on Syria and should not rationalize with opinion polls that reflect Americans’ reluctance to tangle in foreign crises. McCain has been banging the gong on a no-fly zone in Syria for some time.

The oddity of Obama’s being taken to the leadership woodshed by the Democrat who preceded him and the Republican who failed to pre-empt him was not lost on anyone. When Obama appointed Clinton “the Secretary of ’Splaining Stuff,” he didn’t think Bill would be ’splaining how lame Barry was.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/dowd-bill-schools-barry-on-syria.html

Commenters school Dowd.

What kind of nonsense is this column, turning a life-and-death civil war in Syria, with tens of thousands of people brutally killed on the various sides, into a little soap opera drama about Bill and Hillary and Barack?
What needs to be explained is what the U. S. would accomplish by committing equipment and soldiers in Syria. Prolonging the civil war until both sides destroy one another? Making Russia feel they should help ease Assad out?
Finding the democratic opposition in Syria and producing a western-style democracy in Syria (you know, like the ones we produced in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt)?
And what guarantee is there that any of this would work?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/dowd-bill-schools-barry-on-syria.html?comments#permid=13

Actually, Ms. Dowd, Syria is a topic where President Obama, at least until a couple of days ago, has been showing leadership by keeping us uninvolved militarily even in the face of immense pressure to do otherwise.

People who push for our military involved in Syria have failed to convincingly answer at least three important questions. First, who would we be supporting? Obviously the Assad regime is a horrible one that, ideally, would get replaced. But which of the rebel groups would we want to support? None of them seem all that appealing. Second, what are the goals and exit strategy? If we cannot identify clear goals, how we can achieve them, and how we then leave, we shouldn't be going in. Third, how could we afford yet another military quagmire in the Middle East at a time of teacher layoffs and cuts to social spending?

Bill Clinton has simply gotten this one wrong. The war in Syria is not like the genocides in Rwanda or Kosovo. Instead, in Syria we are confronted with a power struggle between a number of not very appealing groups and their outside funders.

President Obama's agreement to send small arms to the rebels was a definite misstep. Let's hope he returns to standing up to the pressure to get further involved in yet another military misadventure. Instead, stay off the slippery slope and restrict our role to humanitarian aid and trying to bring peace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/dowd-bill-schools-barry-on-syria.html?comments#permid=8

I know, I know, who cares what Dowd has to say?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022975522
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022975522#post12

No one should every hype this shrill clown.

[Thinkingabout]

1. K & R

Obama has been accused of allowing the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, wasn't his vote but the citizens of Egypt. He was accused of allowing different groups into Libya, again not under his control.
Since we are under sequestration and too much money is being spend (per GOP), we don't have the extra money to get into another war. In which middle eastern country has our intervention worked well, then this is the answer.

[ForeignandDomestic]

2. .......

I guess Lindsey Graham and John McCain schooled Obama as well..

When it comes to war and making sure these military contractors keep their pockets lined these shills got schooling down pact.

Here's and idea though how about they school us on jobs, higher wages, affordable healthcare, keeping social programs from getting austerity cuts. How about schooling us on how to get off of our dependency on oil and developing renewable energy.

Oh but I forgot this schooling was about how to keep all the wealth firmly 1% and the 99% all over the world are the ones getting schooled or screwed!

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. Yeah, it's really not good to use the word shrill to describe a woman simply because

she speaks critically about someone you idolize.

Might want to rethink that.

[Are_grits_groceries]

4. Actually she has some very good columns that I agree with.

Other times, not so much.
I read her to help clarify my views either for or against what she says.

And as someone noted, shrill, really? Does she get in catfights too. These are terms that are used to demean women and their work. Would you call a man shrill? That"s a good way to try to stop debate. A lot of people either turn away or begin to argue whether she is shrill or not. substance is lost.

[David__77]

5. It's not too late for Obama to continue showing leadership by not getting involved.

Set very stringent guidelines, submit any weapons shipments to a vote by congress. The tax payers have the right to transparency - enough with the old ways.

[dsc]

6. the fact is she was beloved on this site when she wrote this kind of crap about Hillary and Bill

during the primaries. I, for one, have always recognized her as a talented writer who uses her talent to express lame ideas.

[ProSense]

7. I have always despised Dowd. n/t

[One of the 99]

8. Barry??? How disrespectful.

Reading her columns is like reading a spoiled teenager's slam book. That discredits any points that she has to make.

BTW Did she ever apologize for lying about Al Gore in 2000?

[CakeGrrl]

9. Disrespectful in the extreme. Hack "writing"

coming from a dishonest place. She's not trying for actual reporting.