Obama has no intention of attacking Syria, Congress his pawn

[Luddly Neddite]

Two articles from the same source so posting both in one new thread.

You Think Obama Wants to Strike Syria? You're Wrong

Let's be real for one second: President Barack Obama never had any intention for a military intervention in Syria. Every speech calling for United States action, "targeted strikes" or otherwise, every promise that the U.S. will not stand on the sidelines, the turn to Congress for approval — it has all been part of a political stunt. Obama played us good.

Less than a week ago, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Obama would take executive action and pull the trigger on a missile strike against Syria in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's regime's use of chemical weaponry against Syrian rebels and civilians on August 21. Sure, the president kept promising that he had "not made a decision" on military intervention. But at the same time, his administration made it clear that there was "no doubt" the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own citizens, thus crossing the "red line" Obama set a year ago when he said "A red line for us is when start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." And yet now intervention has been put to Congress and looks like a long shot. Why would Obama go to Congress for approval, when he, despite a few legal qualms, could have pulled off a strike unilaterally — and even did so in Libya two years ago?

During this feigned war mongering, Obama has routinely claimed that U.S. credibility is at stake. In reality, though, the only credibility on the line is his own. Of course Obama doesn't want to invade Syria. It makes no sense for him. It's wildly unpopular with the public (to the tune of a 48% to 29% margin), politically disastrous within his own party, and garnering support from the sort of people the president wants nothing to do with (we're looking at you, Sen. Lindsey Graham). But he couldn't back off his previous stance, and he couldn't appear weak. If there's one thing Obama hates, it's looking weak.

So what does the president do when he wants to save face? First, he does some macho posturing, using phrases like "a danger to [U.S.] national security" and making it clear he's not afraid to go it alone. He calls out the UN Security Council for being, essentially, useless. He sends Secretary of State John Kerry out to present the evidence of a chemical attack and lay down the number of casualties and death toll. He makes everyone really, truly believe the U.S. is set for a strike on Syria.
=========

Syria War Resolution: Congress Is a Pawn In Obama's Secret Plan

To say that President Obama’s response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria has been controversial would be a gross understatement. He has managed the rare feat of pleasing no one before even deciding what response he will take. The latest chapter in this story has proven particularly inflammatory; Obama’s decision to seek Congressional approval for a military strike has led to accusations that he is “abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief,” giving Assad “the opportunity to hide and protect his resources,” and of “cynically play[ing] politics with American credibility.” Yet while there may be bits of truth to these claims, when you look at Obama’s decision to go to Congress from the perspective of geopolitics it is clear it was not an admission of weakness or an attempt to avoid action — it was a strategic masterstroke.

This is because Obama is looking at the big picture. He is determined to make striking Syria about more than just human rights. It’s about the global reputation of the U.S., drawing a positive comparison against China and Russia, and retaining the ability to act against Iran in the years to come.

Obama knows that nothing damaged U.S. credibility in the past decade more than the war in Iraq. The use of deceit to unleash unilateral American power caused a huge backlash against American leadership. Obama wants to act in Syria, largely to uphold the credibility of the U.S. and the international system it leads, but he can’t let it look like a repeat of Iraq. Obama campaigned for the presidency on the promise to change how America engages the world and has proven extremely reluctant, outside of drone strikes and the Bin Laden raid, to act abroad unilaterally. Consequently, he wants as much support as possible for an attack on Syria, and unlike the intervention in Libya where NATO had approval from the UN Security Council to act and did so in conjunction with several Arab allies, this time around, the U.S. would be, at best, acting with just one significant partner, France. As such, Congress is the last available option to add credibility to a U.S. strike. It’s not a perfect solution, as Congress also voted to go to war in Iraq, but it’s better than Obama acting alone.

President Obama has said he does not want or plant a "boots on the ground" war and, judging by his past, it would be more likely that he would use drones for a surgical strike.

Whatever he does, its been nice to see the worthless Rs actually pretend to do their job, if only for a little while. They'll soon be back to their usual tight schedule of vacations broken up by phony votes against ObamaCare.

 

[The Rabbi]

Never attribute to malice (or in this case cleverness) what can more easily be attributed to simple stupidity.

Obama revealed himself as totally out of his depth. He was played by Putin and shown to be nothing but a hot air balloon with no substance.

 

[Jackson]

Two articles from the same source so posting both in one new thread.

You Think Obama Wants to Strike Syria? You're Wrong

Let's be real for one second: President Barack Obama never had any intention for a military intervention in Syria. Every speech calling for United States action, "targeted strikes" or otherwise, every promise that the U.S. will not stand on the sidelines, the turn to Congress for approval — it has all been part of a political stunt. Obama played us good.

Less than a week ago, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Obama would take executive action and pull the trigger on a missile strike against Syria in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's regime's use of chemical weaponry against Syrian rebels and civilians on August 21. Sure, the president kept promising that he had "not made a decision" on military intervention. But at the same time, his administration made it clear that there was "no doubt" the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own citizens, thus crossing the "red line" Obama set a year ago when he said "A red line for us is when start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." And yet now intervention has been put to Congress and looks like a long shot. Why would Obama go to Congress for approval, when he, despite a few legal qualms, could have pulled off a strike unilaterally — and even did so in Libya two years ago?

During this feigned war mongering, Obama has routinely claimed that U.S. credibility is at stake. In reality, though, the only credibility on the line is his own. Of course Obama doesn't want to invade Syria. It makes no sense for him. It's wildly unpopular with the public (to the tune of a 48% to 29% margin), politically disastrous within his own party, and garnering support from the sort of people the president wants nothing to do with (we're looking at you, Sen. Lindsey Graham). But he couldn't back off his previous stance, and he couldn't appear weak. If there's one thing Obama hates, it's looking weak.

So what does the president do when he wants to save face? First, he does some macho posturing, using phrases like "a danger to [U.S.] national security" and making it clear he's not afraid to go it alone. He calls out the UN Security Council for being, essentially, useless. He sends Secretary of State John Kerry out to present the evidence of a chemical attack and lay down the number of casualties and death toll. He makes everyone really, truly believe the U.S. is set for a strike on Syria.
=========

Syria War Resolution: Congress Is a Pawn In Obama's Secret Plan

To say that President Obama’s response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria has been controversial would be a gross understatement. He has managed the rare feat of pleasing no one before even deciding what response he will take. The latest chapter in this story has proven particularly inflammatory; Obama’s decision to seek Congressional approval for a military strike has led to accusations that he is “abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief,” giving Assad “the opportunity to hide and protect his resources,” and of “cynically play[ing] politics with American credibility.” Yet while there may be bits of truth to these claims, when you look at Obama’s decision to go to Congress from the perspective of geopolitics it is clear it was not an admission of weakness or an attempt to avoid action — it was a strategic masterstroke.

This is because Obama is looking at the big picture. He is determined to make striking Syria about more than just human rights. It’s about the global reputation of the U.S., drawing a positive comparison against China and Russia, and retaining the ability to act against Iran in the years to come.

Obama knows that nothing damaged U.S. credibility in the past decade more than the war in Iraq. The use of deceit to unleash unilateral American power caused a huge backlash against American leadership. Obama wants to act in Syria, largely to uphold the credibility of the U.S. and the international system it leads, but he can’t let it look like a repeat of Iraq. Obama campaigned for the presidency on the promise to change how America engages the world and has proven extremely reluctant, outside of drone strikes and the Bin Laden raid, to act abroad unilaterally. Consequently, he wants as much support as possible for an attack on Syria, and unlike the intervention in Libya where NATO had approval from the UN Security Council to act and did so in conjunction with several Arab allies, this time around, the U.S. would be, at best, acting with just one significant partner, France. As such, Congress is the last available option to add credibility to a U.S. strike. It’s not a perfect solution, as Congress also voted to go to war in Iraq, but it’s better than Obama acting alone.

President Obama has said he does not want or plant a "boots on the ground" war and, judging by his past, it would be more likely that he would use drones for a surgical strike.

Whatever he does, its been nice to see the worthless Rs actually pretend to do their job, if only for a little while. They'll soon be back to their usual tight schedule of vacations broken up by phony votes against ObamaCare.

I have never seen such a large pile of horseshit in one place before in my life!

 

[Katzndogz]

You can spin this any way you want. obama is still going to stink.

 

[Vox]

Leftards are backpedalling in a hurry to make their messiah save the face?

 

[birddog]

Obama showed himself to be an incompetent liar! Of course, what else can be expected from a "community organizer?"

 

[blastoff]

At least now the entire world knows what a feckless loser Barry is.

So easy to be a tough guy community agitator, but life in the Big Leagues takes experience, leadership, determination, and other qualities sorely lacking by our jackass-in-chief.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Let me get this straight.... Obama draws a "red line", then claims he didn't, threatens to attack Syria, then tells the world all the details of when and how, back peddles when he realizes it is a coalition of 1+ France, the American people say no, and now he bows to Putin, and this fool thinks Obama played Congress?



That's seriously fucking delusional.

 

[kaz]

During this feigned war mongering

As a business leader, one thing I always say is "I never bluff." The first time you get called, you have no credibility. Study the history of any leaders in politics, business or other areas and you'll find a dearth of effective bluffing or any sustained leader who does. If you're right, it's just yet another testament to his being completely over his head. The US is the greatest country in the world, establishing us as bluffers is just moronic.

 

[boedicca]

The thread title is inaccurate.

Obama is Putin's pawn.

 

[oreo]

Two articles from the same source so posting both in one new thread.

You Think Obama Wants to Strike Syria? You're Wrong

Let's be real for one second: President Barack Obama never had any intention for a military intervention in Syria. Every speech calling for United States action, "targeted strikes" or otherwise, every promise that the U.S. will not stand on the sidelines, the turn to Congress for approval — it has all been part of a political stunt. Obama played us good.

Less than a week ago, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Obama would take executive action and pull the trigger on a missile strike against Syria in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's regime's use of chemical weaponry against Syrian rebels and civilians on August 21. Sure, the president kept promising that he had "not made a decision" on military intervention. But at the same time, his administration made it clear that there was "no doubt" the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own citizens, thus crossing the "red line" Obama set a year ago when he said "A red line for us is when start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." And yet now intervention has been put to Congress and looks like a long shot. Why would Obama go to Congress for approval, when he, despite a few legal qualms, could have pulled off a strike unilaterally — and even did so in Libya two years ago?

During this feigned war mongering, Obama has routinely claimed that U.S. credibility is at stake. In reality, though, the only credibility on the line is his own. Of course Obama doesn't want to invade Syria. It makes no sense for him. It's wildly unpopular with the public (to the tune of a 48% to 29% margin), politically disastrous within his own party, and garnering support from the sort of people the president wants nothing to do with (we're looking at you, Sen. Lindsey Graham). But he couldn't back off his previous stance, and he couldn't appear weak. If there's one thing Obama hates, it's looking weak.

So what does the president do when he wants to save face? First, he does some macho posturing, using phrases like "a danger to [U.S.] national security" and making it clear he's not afraid to go it alone. He calls out the UN Security Council for being, essentially, useless. He sends Secretary of State John Kerry out to present the evidence of a chemical attack and lay down the number of casualties and death toll. He makes everyone really, truly believe the U.S. is set for a strike on Syria.
=========

Syria War Resolution: Congress Is a Pawn In Obama's Secret Plan

To say that President Obama’s response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria has been controversial would be a gross understatement. He has managed the rare feat of pleasing no one before even deciding what response he will take. The latest chapter in this story has proven particularly inflammatory; Obama’s decision to seek Congressional approval for a military strike has led to accusations that he is “abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief,” giving Assad “the opportunity to hide and protect his resources,” and of “cynically play[ing] politics with American credibility.” Yet while there may be bits of truth to these claims, when you look at Obama’s decision to go to Congress from the perspective of geopolitics it is clear it was not an admission of weakness or an attempt to avoid action — it was a strategic masterstroke.

This is because Obama is looking at the big picture. He is determined to make striking Syria about more than just human rights. It’s about the global reputation of the U.S., drawing a positive comparison against China and Russia, and retaining the ability to act against Iran in the years to come.

Obama knows that nothing damaged U.S. credibility in the past decade more than the war in Iraq. The use of deceit to unleash unilateral American power caused a huge backlash against American leadership. Obama wants to act in Syria, largely to uphold the credibility of the U.S. and the international system it leads, but he can’t let it look like a repeat of Iraq. Obama campaigned for the presidency on the promise to change how America engages the world and has proven extremely reluctant, outside of drone strikes and the Bin Laden raid, to act abroad unilaterally. Consequently, he wants as much support as possible for an attack on Syria, and unlike the intervention in Libya where NATO had approval from the UN Security Council to act and did so in conjunction with several Arab allies, this time around, the U.S. would be, at best, acting with just one significant partner, France. As such, Congress is the last available option to add credibility to a U.S. strike. It’s not a perfect solution, as Congress also voted to go to war in Iraq, but it’s better than Obama acting alone.

President Obama has said he does not want or plant a "boots on the ground" war and, judging by his past, it would be more likely that he would use drones for a surgical strike.

Whatever he does, its been nice to see the worthless Rs actually pretend to do their job, if only for a little while. They'll soon be back to their usual tight schedule of vacations broken up by phony votes against ObamaCare.

Not now ha.ha. A 61% of the majority in this country stating no strike--and with the 2014 mid-term coming up--what President with this coming up is going to go with a strike.

But--let's face it--who would have ever guessed that just 1-1/2 weeks ago--John McCain--Barack Obama--Nancy Pelosi--and John Boener--would have all been in agreement for a strike on Syria.

It's clear that Americans are tired of being the police of the world.

 

[kaz]

Let me get this straight.... Obama draws a "red line", then claims he didn't, threatens to attack Syria, then tells the world all the details of when and how, back peddles when he realizes it is a coalition of 1+ France, the American people say no, and now he bows to Putin, and this fool thinks Obama played Congress?



That's seriously fucking delusional.

Obama didn't draw a red line so much as a yellow line...

 

[kaz]

But--let's face it--who would have ever guessed that just 1-1/2 weeks ago--John McCain--Barack Obama--Nancy Pelosi--and John Boener--would have all been in agreement for a strike on Syria.

It's clear that Americans are tired of being the police of the world.

I actually think a lot of us would have had no problem believing the neocon crowd would get behind this.

 

[Moonglow]

No matter what Oblama does he's wrong, yet GOP and conservatives offered no other options but to sit on their hands and wring out their hankies from all the crying and whining.

 

[whitehall]

The whole mess underlines the fact that the former community activist is in way over his head. Nobody but Obama drew the red line when it came to chemical weapons and now he painted himself into a corner. Playing politics with Congress doesn't seem to be working and compared to Barry Hussen even Putin comes out looking like a statesman.

 

[kaz]

No matter what Oblama does he's wrong, yet GOP and conservatives offered no other options but to sit on their hands and wring out their hankies from all the crying and whining.

I like the irony of your statement. Explain how saying it's not our problem, stay out of it is crying or whining.

Stay out, not our problem. Nope, not seeing any crying or whining in that.

I do see crying and whining in this one though.

No matter what Oblama does he's wrong, yet GOP and conservatives offered no other options but to sit on their hands and wring out their hankies from all the crying and whining.

 

[kaz]

The whole mess underlines the fact that the former community activist is in way over his head. Nobody but Obama drew the red line when it came to chemical weapons and now he painted himself into a corner. Playing politics with Congress doesn't seem to be working and compared to Barry Hussen even Putin comes out looking like a statesman.

Yes, luddy's claim that he was bluffing and hoping it would work out because he was never going to attack Syria would support your contention that Putin is the Statesman and Obama isn't.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No matter what Oblama does he's wrong, yet GOP and conservatives offered no other options but to sit on their hands and wring out their hankies from all the crying and whining.

You do realize that as POTUS, Obama is in charge of US foreign policy.. not Congress...

Of course you do.

 

[Katzndogz]

Of course no matter what obama did he would be wrong. That's the whole meaning of the word "checkmate". obama's move into being checkmated wasn't one thing, it was a series of wrong moves that resulted in a checkmate.

The only thing obama can say now, is that he very cleverly lured President Putin into checkmating him.

 

[The Rabbi]

No matter what Oblama does he's wrong, yet GOP and conservatives offered no other options but to sit on their hands and wring out their hankies from all the crying and whining.

Obama is CinC. He is responsible for foreign policy, not Congress or the GOP. He didnt need Congress' approval to do anything. He said so himself. Even so he had support from prominent GOP congressmen. It was his own party that wouldn't support him.
Will Democrats ever take responsibility for anything?