Then I stumbled across this article:
After agonizing over this question (Whether Obama really intends to attack Syria) over and over I began to realize there is only one logical explanation. He does not. Only a month ago the GOP was accusing Obama of being weak for not acting when the “red line” was crossed. There was pressure for him not only from the US but from the world as well. The reputation of the great American defender was on the line. Still it was obvious at the time Obama did not want to rush into another quagmire, bogging down the rest of his tenure as our nation’s leader. But the evidence kept rolling in. He had to do something not only for his reputation as a world leader but for the United States as well.
Cue the British Parliament to provide Obama with the perfect out. Just days after Britain’s governing body eliminated any joint action with the US to participate in a coalition to strike the Assad regime, Obama made a surprising and decisive move. Against the advice of all his advisors, he put any US participation in the hands of our do-nothing Congress with no chance they would give him the approval he needed. Not because it isn’t the right thing to do but because Obama was asking for it. The outcome is a given if you just take a step back and look at the situation rationally. And there is no way Obama is going to launch this attack once Congress says no. It would be political suicide. Bush may have gotten away with it but America is not going to let it happen again. The fallout would signal the end of any and all effectiveness the Obama administration for the remaining years of his presidency. And history would place him with the likes of war criminals like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Let me repeat this. Obama is not that stupid!
So why then does our president appear to be beating the drums of war? The simple answer is he is now regarded as a hawkish leader before the US and the world. And he does so without having to fire a shot. He appears wholeheartedly in favor of a strike and is playing the part well. The hawk stands upon his perch without lifting a talon as Congress now takes any and all responsibility for lack of action on the part of the US. And during this entire debacle, he even manages to make republicans come out as anti-war; something even no one thought possible only a month ago.
If this sounds like an improbable scenario I ask that you to ponder for a moment the potential outcome:
No war
Obama and America look strong and world leaders should not doubt Obama’s willingness to take action
Congress was made to do their job
Congress will take the responsibility of inaction
Republicans have to pretend they are anti-war
Americans comes out against any further wars thereby providing the beginning of the end to our perpetual war
Puts pressure on the UN to take other action
Suddenly the UN is eager to accept other harsh non-military actions against Syria
And there is even the added bonus that the GOP weakening the push to shut down the government over the debt ceiling will not proceed with the intense battle anticipated. Next week Congress returns for only nine days. Nine days to act on the Syrian War, the debt ceiling, immigration, the Voting Rights Acts and many other important issues.
Many of the statements above make sense, and it WOULD fall in line with some of the other incredible chess moves this President has played in the past.
However I have also heard more than one pundit make the assertion that IF Obama fails to get this vote from Congress that he will have lost a ton of political capital and essentially be a lame duck unable to move any of his policies forward in any significant manner and also negatively impact his party and the hopes for Democrats taking back the House or increasing their numbers in the Senate.
Now on that second part I am not sure I agree, but the first part seems like a reasonable assumption.
There is also the question as to why, if this is in fact the plan, that Hillary jumped on board to support a military strike in Syria? That would seem problematic for her moving forward. NOT political suicide, but still an added complication that it does not seem she would want.
Anyhow I thought I would put this out there and see what all of you might think about the possibility that Obama is manipulating the Republicans and Congress? Feel free to weigh in, I am interested in feedback.
I've wondered all along if the first scenario isn't what's happened -- partly because Mr. Obama came to power as an anti-war candidate.
ReplyDeleteThis way, he gets the benefit of seeming tough, while pushing the blame for not acting on the Congress.
It's a cynical game, but plausible. How it will affect other legislative items, as well as future elections: either he's got all this worked out, as a canny strategy, or he's muddled into a situation for which there's no good escape. Somehow, I have to trust that he knows what he's doing, far in advance of the other players in this game.
anon @ 6:39... "It's a cynical game, but plausible".
DeleteI am with you on this. Though not a chess player, I realize that this President has proven to be able to think and play the political game way ahead of his opposition.
I, too, have learned to respect and trust the long game President Obama has masterfully played over these past eight years. Besides, history has shown us, the moment he's for something, Congress will be against it. President Obama has never advocated war and -- even though he's thumping his war drum -- his move to put the decision on Congress says he never will. It's master theater at its best.
DeleteThe man is brilliant!!!
Excellent post Gryphen!
ReplyDeleteI also thought about this....my theory is that it is about MONEY and campaign contributions for Hillary that should start coming in about this time in advance of 2016.
Can you just imagine the dollars lost to the Republicans from defense contractors now that it is the Democrats looking for military action?
Hillary looks tough, Obama looks tough, Republicans look weak. And we got the added benefit of re-hashing the bad decisions on the run-up to the war in Iraq in the press. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld on our TV's to remind us of how awful they were!
Obama has always played a long game with the Republicans, time and again. He steals their donors and forces them to publicly declare their awkward positions, always on record.
Republicans went home and had town hall meetings about SYRIA, for goodness sakes, instead of talking about shutting down the government or Obamacare.
PBO could be one of the smartest presidents this country has ever had.
Bingo. Not that it takes a genius to be smarter than the GOP, but he is.
DeleteAnd the person who first called pundits "pundunces" gets a gold star from me!
DeleteI agree with the writer, but with one addition: Obama figured it out correctly, but probably also thought that IF the Repubs actually wanted to start a war, they would want a full-out, boots on the ground assault, and he knows that Americans have NOT forgotten Iraq and Afghanistan.
He is ONE SMART, CALCULATING PRESIDENT.
I've been saying this same thing! If he wanted war he would not of given the decision to the "do nothing congress" who thought this was such a important issue....
ReplyDeleteThey couldn't be bothered to break their vacay!
(are they all at palins fun-resort?)
If PBO says the sky is blue, the congress will say its yellow!
Obama is not someone who would construct such an elaborated scheme to avoid taking action. I think it is quite simple. He realized Congress needed to be the decision-maker. End of story.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, but remember that Obama is keenly aware of the failures of this Congress! They are NOT "decision makers" and once again they take the fall.
DeleteI don't think so.
DeleteI'm with you, Lynn. This Congress can't decide anything that is not politically motivated. He KNOWS that throwing it to them means they will vote against it. And then he does not look weak at all. Plus, the UN then has to take steps to resolve the situation. It's masterful.
Deletelkjh
ReplyDeleteI have been wondering how he was going to pull this off. He has, as you said Jesse, smacked down the Fools before. I KNOW he does not want this war and is focused on other things and knows we are screwed either way. What a bitter sweet Karma exchange for him with the do=nothing congress taking the final blame. It is a very interesting pickle and so far, he comes out on top. Obama is a clever, clever man. If he does decide to go to war with the No from congress, then I will be pissed. If the congress says OK then Obama is screwed. I don't think they are that smart.
ReplyDeleteI "think" if they did want to vote for WAR they would of broke their vacays....
DeleteThey are in a pickle alright. :) :) :)
I'll bet the chemicals are moved via the efforts of POTUS and Putin.
DeleteI always wondered why the Congress wasn't brought back into session - especially w/war supposedly being eminent! Makes the Republicans look bad - w/their continued obstruction.
President Obama is a strategist. I think if he truly wanted to bomb Syria it would have been done by this time. He is thoughtful in his actions and never rash. I think this theory is close to the truth.
ReplyDeleteThere's more at work here than standing for Truth, Justice and the American Way. And there's certainly more than some internal political power struggle (although who could deny making the republicans eat their own war drums is a perk).
DeleteWe're not going in there because of some civil war or illegal chemical weapons. If this had to do with that Britain would not have backed out--- especially since the British government sold key chemical ingredients for sarin gas to Syria several times between 2004 and 2010, there's a responsibility factor there.
The biggest threat in the world is not chemical gas or civil unrest-- since WW2 it's always been about the nukes. The Red Scare's purpose was to limit $$$ going into USSR and cripple their economy (and by extension their military power/nuclear capabilities). Korea was about bitch-slapping anyone who would trade with communists. One of the reasons we're allies with certain countries is so they'll allow us to fly nukes over them in the event we ever need to (other countries say, "fuck that, if we see one of your nukes over us, we don't care who you're really aiming at-- we're gonna take it as an act of war against us").
This whole struggle is about nuclear intelligence and getting the upper hand on other world nuclear powers.
http://www.ibtimes.com/fighting-words/poisonous-choices-syria-real-issue-irans-nuclear-program-1403643
9:53 AM, there's more backstory to the Syrian civil war, too. This article about drought conditions in the Middle East and subsequent crop failures (in addition to Assad greedily selling reserve wheat stores on the global market instead of reserving to feed his people) outlines a major reason for the Syrian civil war: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/08/2586811/arab-summer-drought/
DeleteObama loses politically no matter what decision he makes. There is simply no politically correct response to anything in the middle east. Political suicide if he chooses to make a military strike but non-action appears weak. I will agree that putting it Congress' lap is probably the best action he could take. They'll vote "no" and the POTUS won't have to take action. He'll be seen as weak in the long run but our treasure in souls and economy will be spared. I will thank him for that . Future presidents, republican or democrat wont have it any easier.
ReplyDeleteThe media always says President Obama is going to lose politically, or that his "credibility is on the line." The media, and the republicans have been calling President Obama "weak" since Day 1 of his presidency!
DeleteI have lost count of the many times during Barack Obama's first-term when the media said a political loss was going to destroy his presidency, and make him a one-term president. They were wrong every time, because President Obama easily won a second-term.
The media, and the G.O.P. unsuccessfully used this narrative to make Barack Obama a one-term president, now they are trying to use the same narrative (they have always used) to ruin his legacy.
I heard today, that Russia is urging Syria to give up their chemical weapons, and put them under international control. I don't think Syria will do it, but if Russia is successful, that would be a big deal. It will mean President Obama's threat of a military strike against Syria got Russia, and Syria to blink.
Of course, the media would never give President Obama any credit. Vladimir Putin would get the credit. But would Russia have asked Syria to give up their chemical weapons, if it had not been for President Obama's threat of a military strike?
I think President Obama and Mr. Putin had a talk and Putin knows exactly what is going on....
DeleteThe media continues to play them up as total enemies and that they don't get along or like each other.
As I've said - I truly don't believe a damned thing the media is saying - they are all saying the same thing - there is no 'individual' thought or research!
10:31 AM, a number of writers who aren't political pundits agree with you:
Deletehttp://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/09/is-obama-in-process-of-landing.html#.Ui0p-gfa1HQ.twitter
and a followup: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/09/time-to-drop-mic-crumbling-under-obamas.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2013/09/09/the-syria-vote-why-obama-wins-if-he-loses/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/obama-reframes-syria-meta_b_3879335.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
I think he’s very conflicted, and won’t act if uncomfortable; Obama isn’t a rash man, and Putin may have gotten through to him more than is admitted. The professor may be annoyed, but that sullen boy in the back of the classroom is smart and can’t be ignored.
ReplyDeleteHillary is a natural hawk; more so than her husband.
I disagree that Hillary is a hawk..what wars did she get us into as Sec. of State? Nada. Now Kerry has to act macho and be for blowing up everything in sight. I think that otehr than Condi Rice, whose opinions meant nothing to Bush, women in the Sec.of State position have more patience, more ability to bring sides together, and more desire to keep our kids safe.
Deletehillary voted for the Iraq war.
DeleteI don't remember President Obama asking Congress for authorization to get bin Laden. I don't remember President Obama asking Congress to authorize any of those drone strikes. Quick, surgical operations, done. This situation required a public statement denouncing Assad's use of chemical weapons. But there is no support in the UN or with other nations. Sarah Palin's flippant "Let Allah decide" appeals to her simpleminded followers. Obama took a different approach, "Let the American people decide, through their elected representatives." We can argue whether Allah is God, if and how a divine being takes sides in a war, but we know that anything that Congress is asked to decide will be the opposite of what President Obama states publicly. He doesn't lose face by saying that it was a serious decision and the people have spoken. Many of the people who rushed us into a war in Iraq will now be on the record taking a different position. Even Ted Cruz was for it before he was against it.
ReplyDeleteI have been hoping that Congress would vote against the strikes. I usually support the president but not in this case.
ReplyDeleteAnd like you I'm hearing it framed as a terrible defeat against the president. Like his losing face in the world would be horrible. So I'm thinking it's a new right wing talking point.
The President will look "weak" to the world if Congress votes not to authorize military action? I think not. The right has always attempted to paint him as bumbling and inexperienced, and they will always succeed in getting that message to the Republican faithful. The rest of the world will look at it as what it really is, just knee-jerk obstruction by a congress that has done the same to everything Obama has proposed since 2010. Then they will think about it...
DeleteBingo. I didn't want to say anything earlier and potentially let the cat out of the bag.
ReplyDeleteObama is one hell of a 3 dimensional chess player. Now if he can only get this damn debt ceiling shit taken care of and kill the Keystone Pipeline.
He has killed it before! An easy way to kill it would be to expose Boner and the rest of the Congress's financial ties to it.
DeleteRMuse on politicalusa has been doing that. Of course our idiot msm doesn't pick it up.
I hope so...and by calling on Congress to vote yay or nay, he makes THEM own the final decision either way. This may also give Obama leverage in other deliberations with Congress for the rest of his term. He has the Chess, Poker, and Bridge (the card game) strategies all going here. I think he probably read some scifi too.
ReplyDeleteI want to hear what President Obama will say in his Tuesday address. Anything before that is speculation and the media has proven that it speculates without educating itself or without thinking things through. One thing I'm sure of is that President Obama thinks things through.
ReplyDeleteBeaglemom
I truly think the media has lost it! Most of them have no clue of what they are talking about - i.e. FOX especially.
DeleteThey are covering Rodman (basketball player) today as to his recent visit to North Korea - showing him calling on President Obama to come talk 'directly' and 'personally' to him! Friggin' amazing!
Love that photo of Obama, that you selected here, G., It paints the exact picture of a man conflicted in his thoughts and a man who has to really have the wisdom of Solomon here.
ReplyDeleteI've always felt that President Obama as a person, is a humble man, who would put others first, before his personal political interests. Am I naive? I don't know, but this is the sense I get. Despite all the mean and hateful things said about him and his character, he's ignored it, turned the other cheek, expressed to the world that he has tremendous self-control and does not carry vendettas or angry grudges. Despite the horrible things said about him, he keeps his head up and continues to serve the people.
The fact that many democrats, including Hillary, are for executing strikes on Syrian weapons caches, means that President Obama was convicted that this was the right thing to do. However, he's not a dictator and wants to be part of a coalition, and if the coalition doesn't exist, he'll withdraw. I think he puts the lives and safety of others above his political ambitions.
All this president has now is the remaining time of his second term; what would his motive be to risk putting the US into harms way and creating a widespread war? If he dilly-dallied with his choice by going back to Congress and giving them a say, it doesn't show weakness, it shows a man who would rather look foolish, yet make the right decision and do what the people want.
This president is a true man of integrity, IMO. Party politics comes second to him. To me, a person who wavers in a huge decision before making it, is truly the one I'd rather have at the helm than someone who stubbornly insists on ONE solution, despite what it's citizens and world wants.
President Obama is a thoughtful man.
ReplyDeleteHe saw children who were victims of gun violence in Newtown and said, "We must do something." He left gun control legislation to the Republican controlled Congress, and they did nothing.
He saw children who were victims of chemical attacks in Syria and said, "We must do something." He left the decision to attack Assad to the Republican controlled Congress, and they WILL DO nothing.
Same story, different day.
Oh yes :))
ReplyDeleteBy which I mean this: Obama knows that interfering in Syria's Civil War is a bad move.
DeleteHe also knows that the nation is war weary and that the right wing in Congress will oppose anything that he recommends.
9 whole working days! Congress sure earns their pay, don't they.
ReplyDeleteThis whole "edge of war" game sickens me. I don't care who thinks they are winning at multi-dimension chess. Neither the president nor the hawks in congress can give me one single reason for aiding Syrian rebels. Those rebels are NOT the friends of the US nor can they be trusted to treat the Syrian people any better than Assad.
If the "evidence" that Assad ordered the gas attack, then trot it out for the world to see, every last shred of it. Don't pussy foot around with "we showed it to congressional leaders". Hogwash! President Obama has got to admit that he MUST handle the legacy of George W. Bush. The American people were lied to about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If President Obama can not comprehend that he HAS to confront the lies of the past, then he might as well just abandon his second term. He is out of touch with reality.
If President Obama was "out of touch" with reality, he would have gone past congress, and launched a military strike against Syria, already.
DeleteI doubt Barack Obama will rush into a war with Syria, and fuck-up everything, like George Bush did. Presidencies have been ruined because of long, bloody wars, like the Vietnam war, and the Iraq war. I can't think of any president in history whose legacy was ruined, because he failed to get congress to vote for an unpopular war, or limited military strike.
Bill Clinton lost a war vote, or two, and it didn't hurt his legacy. David Cameron lost the vote in Britain, and it didn't hurt his legacy, either. In fact, I heard that was the first time Britain has ever voted against military action.
The media, and the republicans just want another reason to call the black president they resent a "loser."
Yep, nine days, and they'd put up a vote to defund obamacare BEFORE touching Syria if they weren't painted in a corner.
DeleteRegardless of whether we bomb or don't bomb Syria, the situation will escalate because the rebels know they can't win without US intervention. (And not winning means death in Syria.) Regardless of who triggered the last gas attack, the rebels can see that more gas will eventually drag President Obama into the quagmire.
ReplyDeleteA "no" vote from Congress will CAUSE another gas attack.
According to this Assad character, a "Yes" vote from congress would cause another gas attack, too.
DeleteI have thought from the start of this that our president is several steps ahead of the do-nothing Congress. I think the article is spot-on. Congress will say "no", he will say all right "the American people have spoken" and move on.
ReplyDeleteHe will come out of this looking like the grownup in the room. As he always does.
He's playing chess, they are playing checkers as usual.
As for the "pundits" ...most of them are very shallow and jump on whatever bandwagon is the shiniest and had the most streamers hanging from it and glitter also, too. Just like a circus wagon.
I have no regard for any of them except the MSNBC crew: Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes (totally smart nerd that he is) Big Ed and Lawrence O'Donnell. None of them are perfect, but at least you don't feel like they're idiots, and they give you their rationale for why they think a certain way. They treat the listeners w/ respect, so they get my respect back.
Just my thoughts.
Is Obama in the Process of Landing a Bloodless Humanitarian Coup in Syria?
ReplyDeleteIsrael's Haaretz newspaper reported today (Sunday, September 8) that under the threat of Barack Obama's resolve against the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons, and his clear willingness to use American military force to achieve that goal, the pro-Syrian coalition may have just started to crumble. Russia and Iran may - may - have reportedly convince Assad that Obama isn't bluffing. Details are murky, but here is what Haaretz knows:
The proposal includes a plan for a "democratic transfer" of power in stages. This seems to be an improved version of the proposal presented in the past, according to which elections for the president of Syria will be expedited and President Bashar Assad will not run again .
In another proposal, which was reported in Haaretz last week, Syria will agree to completely remove its inventory of chemical weapons from the country and transfer it to Russia or another country. This proposal is also expected to be discussed in the meeting between Putin and al-Muallem.
Disarmament and an end to Assad's power? Though American adversaries are calling this a "counter-proposal" to the threat of US military force, you can see how it seems to me like they are waving a white flag.
The report goes on to say that Syrian rebels have discussed a proposal for Russia to remove Assad from power while still protecting some of Russian interests in Syria. The rebels will in return ask the United States to call off the attacks, and if the US doesn't, they would fight against US. The last part is irrelevant of course, the United States will not need to take military action if both its military goal (an end to large scale chemical attacks) and beyond (full disarmament) as well as its diplomatic goal (regime change) is accomplished in one fell swoop.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/09/is-obama-in-process-of-landing.html
Republicans and even some Democrats in Congress can barely play checkers, while our President is playing 3d Chess that could give Spock a run for his money -- from the start of all this war drum beating, I've felt he doesn't want to go to war (which is a good thing !) but something has to be done - hopefully the UN will step up and do something and pressure can be put on other nations are well to get tougher with Syria - war is never the solution, I don't know what is - and I realize sometimes you have to be willing to go to war even when you don't want to -- any way, of all the possible ways to deal with this Prsident Obama did just the right thing for the reasons you laid you
ReplyDeleteNo one wants war. Everyone is weary of Republican grandstanding. Two birds with one stone? Who knows. I'm not worried.
ReplyDeleteI trust my President.
Russia Urges Syria to Put Its Chemical Weapons Under International Authority
ReplyDeleteLast week, Russia and China were refusing to get on board with a United Nations condemnation of Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people. Monday morning, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters that Russia has urged Syria to put its chemical weapons under international authority.
“We are calling on the Syrian authorities not only agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control, but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We have passed our offer to [Syrian Foreign Minister] Muallem and hope to receive a fast and positive answer,” Lavrov said, according to RT.com.
Russia will urge Syria to move their chemical weapons to areas under international inspection in order to dismantle them.
This is a huge and important shift, both in possible U.N. support for Obama’s call to action against Syria and in unlikely aversion of a need for military strikes. Russia is basically offering to persuade Syria to give up its chemical weapons in exchange for the possible aversion of the U. S. strike on Syria.
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/09/russia-urges-syria-put-chemical-weapons-international-authority.html
I believe a lot of this tough talk, by the President and by Hillary, is to appease AIPAC.
ReplyDeleteAttacking Syria is a bad and dangerous idea. Let's hope it does not happen. In the meantime watch this video which opposes any attack. Top of the hat to Alan Grayson and the Kingston Trio.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbnnQ4dlQ0Y
I agree that it is possible that Mr. Obama may not really want to start a wider conflict. Let's hope so.
He talked to Putin, privately during the G20 summit. How much do you want to bet the solution of having Syria give up it's chemical weapons was hashed out then?
ReplyDeleteDuh.... though Republicans will spin this as their victory and backing him down and weak on foreign policy. What a bunch of poo flinging monkeys. Anybody stupid enough to swallow their crap probably thinks Sarah Palin would make a great President.
Fricking morons...pwnd by a smart President.
Reddit is weighing in...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1m1f5n/president_obamas_brilliant_strategy_no_one_seems/
That's the article Gryphen linked to. As "backpackwayne" says in the first comment, he's the author of the original article, and most commenters on the original site support his theory (including me).
DeleteLet's see, who had the better solution? Sarah Palin and "Let Allah sort it out" or President Obama (and other world leaders and diplomats) sorting it out quietly, behind the scenes. It it was important, President Obama wouldn't have waited for Congress to come back and give him a "no" vote. He would have acted. He is letting people negotiate behind the scenes.
ReplyDeleteIndecision is good. This situation is extremely impossible to solve. The talk on the news is so glib and excited about this talk of war games. Those with much to gain lie. Those with nothing to gain (Syrian residents) are ignored and have no voice. Decisions on the security and safety of these people are being made by outside factions. I can't imagine how I would be feeling now if this were happening in my country.
ReplyDeleteIf I could put myself in their shoes for a moment, I would be wondering whether to flee, if my family could afford to flee, where to go, and feel so helpless, not getting facts and not knowing whether my government was responsible for the releasing of chemical weapons on my people. I wouldn't have a balanced perspective on the whole thing, as Syrian media would be controlled by the government propaganda machine. I'd be relying on the European Union, United Nations, G-20, American, Russian, rebel factions, to decide whether my country and my citizens was worth the trouble. I probably would want to see an outside superpower help my fellow citizens and my loved ones topple the evil dictator, but at no risk to my fellow citizens or my loved ones.
Me here. I can't imagine being in those people's shoes. These are the things media and political pundits neglect to consider. All I hear is how a certain decision 'helps Hillary' or 'hurts Hillary'. I don't think those Syrians care one iota about Hillary or how it affects GOP or Obamacare.
I don't think the president is manipulating Congress. I think he genuinely intends to bomb Syria, and he will do it with or without congressional approval.
ReplyDeleteI never believed Obama when he claimed he would have voted against the war in Iraq had he been in Congress at the time. That was simply a politically expedient statement to help get him elected. Too many of his actions since then have indicated the opposite, and this is one of them. It's totally in character with his presidency so far.
I'm very, very uncomfortable with the naive, defensive "I trust my president" meme. Really? Why? And just how informed are those who state that? Are you even aware that YourPresident has told some huge bare-faced lies wearing a happy smiling face -- i.e., he recently claimed to Jay Leno that the NSA didn't spy on Americans, when we now know that the WH has actively SOUGHT the power to do just that.
Re Syria, Obama seems to really mean what he says, but if he doesn't, I think it's just as bad, if not worse. Crying wolf is never a good idea, since it destroys whatever credibility you have.
I trust POTUS. Is that any better to your ears?
DeleteWhy do you trust a president who blatantly lied about the NSA, 10:32? Seriously, if you are determined to trust a proven liar, that's up to you, but hope you don't criticize all those suckers who believe Republican lies, too.
DeleteNone of this stand by President Obama has ever made sense to me. Everything and everyone is currently against him in this proposed endeavor. President Obama is too smart to go against the majority of Americans not wanting war and that being the same stance he has had back to his Congress days.
ReplyDeleteHe's too smart to be going in the war direction. I could see him trying to get rid of the chemicals in Syria, but to my way of thinking that could be done through negotiations.
President Obama, VP Biden, SOS Kerry and his Administration know far more about this issue than do we....so, we'll just have to watch it play out.
He is looking one hell of a lot tougher though than the asshole Republicans!
But, the first scenario put out there, IM, does make sense.
I especially like the fact the President is keeping Hillary Clinton up to date in this matter and she is also speaking out about it.
ReplyDeleteI truly think she is going to run and I can hardly wait to vote for her!
You want to know confirmation that President Obama is succeeding in his three-dimensional chess move in this Syria Congressional vote upcoming?
ReplyDeleteRush Limbaugh just weighed in with his typical fat-boy bullying swipe: Limbaugh Dubs Obama's Syria Plan "Operation Shuck And Jive"
Rush: Bush Had 'Shock And Awe.' We're Looking At Shuck And Jive Here.
A faux pas worthy of the Wasilla Wendigo herself, in that it ought to lose Rushbo about 100 more advertisers.
I've been saying for days that Pres. is beating the Hawks at their own game, backing them into a corner. McCain, Chambliss, and the other GOP members of Congress who were screaming that Obama was weak and needed to do "something" in Syria are now forced to either back what the President SAYS he wants, or to backtrack on their own bellicose rhetoric. It shows that all they wanted all along was to oppose whatever position the President takes. Now BO is saying "Put your vote where your mouth is" and they're all in a tizzy. If he wanted to bomb he would have already done so. Period.
ReplyDeleteWhat he accomplishes by his tough talk on the world stage is to force ASSad to the bargaining table. If Syrian leaders believe that BO is willing to act, and has the authority to do so (with or without Congressional backing) then they have incentive to look for negotiated solutions. Which is exactly what is happening.
Obama is crazy like a Fox. (Get it?)
This was my thought, too...he's not dumb...he knows the house isn't going to approve it...and I saw a vote tracker and although many people hadn't committed, it's already a non-starter!
ReplyDeleteThat was my very first thought when I heard he was going to put it to a vote. He doesn't want a yes vote. He's not a stupid man. Now let's see what our Circus, er, Congress does with this...
ReplyDeleteThis man doesn't do anything without giving it a lot of thought and "strategery" (h/t Fecebook Dipshit). I'm sick of war, I'm embarrassed at the mess President GWBush left after his eight year regime, most of which, President Obama has dealt with masterfully.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the first section, all the trust I lost for the Presidency under President GWBush has been restored and then some by President Obama. He's more than earned the nobel peace prize he was awarded, and I trust him implicitly as Commander in Chief. It goes beyond the checker/chess analogy.