The President should cut his losses with his "red line" remark"...

[kentuck]

He may have painted himself into a corner but there are worse places to be.

It is not necessary or acceptable to make any policy based on whether or not the President maintains his "credibility".

The President should explain that the "red line" remark may have been a "mistake", but if American interests are threatened, the US still retains the right to unilaterally protect our country. At the present time, the use of "chemical weapons" is unacceptable by any international standards and the US stands with our allies to punish whomever uses them. Per our Constitution, we will inform and involve the Congress in any policy that is decided upon.

Furthermore, the President should explain to the American people that we have been at war for a dozen years and they have no appetite to involve us in another war at this time. Let those that call for military actions at this time, especially the Republican leadership, explain the possible repercussions and downside in unilaterally attacking Syria.

He should explain that he stands with the American people at this time and that he stands ready to protect our nation unilaterally if the need arises. He should admit the "red line" comment was a mistake but he will not use it to maintain political credibility or to form foreign policy. He will do what is in the interest of this nation over his own political interests.

[Rex]

1. Like most other things, he can just pretend it was a mistake

since actually making and admitting to any kind of mistake publicly would destroy the Union.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. The attempt to cover a PR disaster (NSA) with a PR war is a flop.

[FarCenter]

46. "Wag the Dog" doesn't work anymore.

[dipsydoodle]

3. Old saying.

Pride comes before a fall.

[jimlup]

4. It seems to me there must be some things other than war that can be applied

because I don't think it is acceptable for the United States to start shooting cruise missiles at people without UN security council approval. So Obama will need to finesse this one but that seems doable.

[kentuck]

5. I have serious doubts about the quality of advice he is getting...

...from the neo-liberals he has surrounded himself with? He needs to listen to new voices, in my opinion.

[malaise]

6. +10,000

Excellent post

[Faryn Balyncd]

7. That is the most COURAGEOUS and BEST approach.

[msanthrope]

8. Hmmm..in a few days, the narrative has changed from 'it wasn't chemical weapons' to 'it wasn't

Assad' to 'even if it was chemical weapons and it was Assad we shouldn't strike.' And I bet the narrative is going to keep evolving.

Seems to me it isn't President Obama painting himself into a corner.

[delrem]

14. The cautionary "narrative" always has been that it's illogical for Assad.

That "narrative" hasn't changed.

[msanthrope]

34. I think that people who think this is somehow 'illogical' of Assad have a limited

understanding of Assad. This is not illogical for him...not at all, when you look at what he did during the occupation of Lebanon.

He is a doctor...and a sociopath who hires American PR firms to preserve and protect his image--

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/world/middleeast/syrian-conflict-cracks-carefully-polished-image-of-assad.html?_r=3&smid=tw-share&

[pampango]

55. "Illogical" using your logic or Assad's?

If the regime did use gas, what are its motives? Iraq used gas in the 1980s because it had far fewer troops than Iran and wanted to level the playing field. Likewise, the Syrian army has shrunk through Sunni desertions to a shadow of its former self and so can’t control the whole country any more. Its recent advances in the Homs area were offset by losses around Aleppo in the north, including the fall of a major military air base. Weakened armies facing a demographically larger foe often resort to unconventional armaments.

Likewise, the regime clearly is seeking to terrify the population into submission. Again, Saddam Hussein tried that with the Kurds and Shiites. Mass killings of restive populations by a regime raise the cost of insurgency, the regime hopes to unacceptably high levels. Could the Baath have done this? This is the regime that slaughtered at least 10,000 at Hama in 1982, so sure.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/killing-hundreds-obamas.html

[magical thyme]

22. the narrative has never changed.

I doubt anybody here doubts the word of Doctors without Borders.

The narrative has been let the UN do their job, and don't do anything unless you can prove it was Assad.

It is the White House that has migrated from "Assad did it" to "even if he didn't do it, he was responsible." With only the word of Israel as evidence.

[msanthrope]

25. Israel? You think Israel is the only evidence? nt

[morningfog]

44. Those who are against war will and should try to

to argue against it as we march toward it. I think the consistent argument that most have put forward is that an attack will not improve the situation. It will kill more and cause some devastating counter attacks and a unpredictable domino effect.

That has been the consistent position. Within that position, questions have been raised due to what is known and not about the chemical attack. Allowing the UN inspectors to do their jobs had always been the first choice.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. Even if one is disposed to want to attack Syria (and I'm not so disposed), what's the plan?

I've consistently heard that no one wants ground troops in Syria. If that's the case, then what are we left with?

Cruise missile/other air attacks: OK, we can launch cruise missiles, but where do we shoot them? I've seen some people suggest that we aim for chemical weapons stockpiles. Even supposing these stockpiles were above ground and easy to see, I think this would be a horrible plan, for reasons that are too obvious to go into.

We could try to kill Assad and other Syrian military leadership. They know this. When the missiles start to fly, they just have to hide somewhere deep for 3 or 4 days. We may kill some, and we may end up accidentally killing civilians instead. It's reasonable to think that Assad and crew can hide out for the few days that the bombing campaign would presumably last.

We could also try to hit strategic military targets. But 100 cruise missiles over 3 days isn't going to destroy Syria's military infrastructure.

And then what happens? We've shot a bunch of missiles. More missiles won't do much good. It's time to either send in troops, or watch everyone from the GOP to the world press laugh at the hubris and stupidity on display. I think Obama understands this. I'm guessing he wishes he had a way out of this. I'm also guessing he wishes he'd never said anything about red lines.

[kentuck]

10. Basically, some folks are coming to their senses...

They have no idea just how strong is Assad? Will the rebels look at any American attack, no matter how small, to throw him off the train?

Then, we might have Hezbollah (Iran) looking to take over power in that country and the instability would be the worst thing for Israel, our number one ally in that region.

Second thoughts are in order.

[magical thyme]

23. they have made clear they won't attack weapons stockpiles

which would be insanity.

They plan to bomb military infrastructure and airplane runways. And of course, surgical strikes never miss their targets, especially when they are close to civilians. Their targets are primarily in and around Damascus.

[kelliekat44]

11. The nation doesn't want it and the world doesn't want it. If Congress wants to attack Syria let

them come back to town and vote to do so. Otherwise the President has some very good reasons to erase his red line.

1. Our economy is on the rebound. Attacking Syria would kill it.

2. We have no real partner in Syria. Since we don't have any assurances on who will replace Asaad if he is ousted.

3. None of neighboring countries to Syria will cooperate with us and will not allow us use their land, sea, or airways.

4. We would be contributing to killing or devastating already suffering women and children and making it so that their country would become a wasteland further harming their own economy.

5. AQ will have a field day exploiting the evil empire.

6. No telling what Israel would do to Palestinians under cover of our attacks.

7. The GOP is going to exploit this situation either way Obama decides so at least he should make the decision to not inflict more punishment on innocent people and make more enemies for us.

8. He would be respecting the sovereignty of a nation instead of playing the arrogance card that has not served us well in the past.

9. For once, a President would be putting the interests and well-being of the American people ahead of the interests of the neo-con, PNACers who would love to see a smoldering ME.

10. It would be a momentous event to admit to making a mistake...a sign of real strength, not weakness.

[Hulk]

12. He can say it is MY fault!

I'll take the blame. I shoved my hand up his behind and made him say the stupid remark on "crossing the red line". I'M the one you can blame. I'll take it to my grave. Now, spare us the disaster of attacking Syria with anything but humanitarian aid.

How do we win the hearts of the Muslim world that ALREADY HATES US?? More bombs? I think not. Try humanitarian aid to the refugees. Makes all the sense in the world.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. He should go to congress for an AUMF

They'll vote it down. Then he can save face by saying it was congress.

As a second-order benefit it would saddle the GOP with the precedence that you cannot unilaterally go to war and if congress says "No!" you stay home.

[99Forever]

15. Agreed.

Not backing down from this asinine posturing to save face for saying something truly regrettable, would be the largest blunder of Obama's entire political career.

There is ONE and only ONE person on this planet that can single-handedly stop this insanity in it's tracks. Failure to do so, would be catastrophic in a multitude of ways.

[Cryptoad]

16. I guess this gives Assad the "GO"

to do whatever he wants..... maybe now he can gas some more kids at his leisure.

[kentuck]

17. How do you interpret this:

"At the present time, the use of "chemical weapons" is unacceptable by any international standards and the US stands with our allies to punish whomever uses them. Per our Constitution, we will inform and involve the Congress in any policy that is decided upon. "

[Cryptoad]

18. Whats the new plan for "to punish"

cut off his imported tea? Oh yea that will teach him!

[kentuck]

19. What would you prefer we do?

That would teach him a lesson??

[Cryptoad]

31. Fly a drone up his ass!

That should take care on it!

[kentuck]

36. Hmmmm...

When do you want to do that? Do you want to wait on the UN inspectors to get out and give the evidence they find? Could you envision any repercussions from such an act?

[Cryptoad]

37. SAP

Obama already has the UN inspectors evidence.
Best Repercussion will be they can get back to their little civil war. but he will not gas anymore children.

[obxhead]

20. Get Congress involved.

Set clear guidelines as to where the line actually is and what the specific responds will be. Let the entire government decide on a path instead of Obama acting like a king and doing as he pleases.

I've been told time and again here on DU that Obama is restricted by Congress. That door should swing both ways.

[kentuck]

21. It could also set a precedence...

and put the war-making powers back into the hands of Congress, as our founders intended.

[obxhead]

24. Exactly where it should be.

I've heard this story before with another conflict. It started with a V I think. Give me a minute, it will come to me.

[Cryptoad]

29. If you

cant get it up to help kids who are being gassed by this asshole Assad..... no much you can get it up for !

[obxhead]

32. How about the kids in Darfur?

How about the kids dying in Chinese sweat shops building the $3 trash we buy in Walmart? How about the kids dying right here at home from starvation and abuse?

Yeah it sucks that gas was used. It sucks kids died. It really sicks to live within a civil war. That doesn't mean this needs to see missiles and bombs fly that will kill yet more innocent people.

[Cryptoad]

35. Thats really a stretch to compare the two

different motivations. and level of evil.

[quakerboy]

38. How in hell does "motivation" matter when it comes to killing kids?

Your argument would seem to boil down to "Greed is less evil than powerlust, when it comes to killing children".

[Cryptoad]

42. Intent and Motive

has everything to do with it. If you are targeted to be tortured and killed is not the same thingy as being hired for a job and dying of in some accident .!

[quakerboy]

49. So if you die of neglect or less targeted abuse

as opposed to being specifically picked for punishment, you suffer less? Your family is less griefstricken? When a hundred people die in a factory due to purposefully unsafe conditions, it is less evil than when a dictator kills a hundred people to try and maintain his regime?

Intent and motive have little to do with it. It is actions and results that matter. If you knowingly contribute to killing children, you kill children, whether you do it by buying oil from Syria or clothing from India or diamonds from Africa.

[Cryptoad]

50. No need

to say things I did not write. geez

Seems it is getting harder and harder for you to find any justification to defend your Premise.

[quakerboy]

56. Nice of you to describe your own postings so succinctly

Harder and harder to find any justification. Indeed.

[Cryptoad]

57. you need more work on your reflection! LMAO nt

[obxhead]

41. no they are not.

The only real difference is the products sitting under or flowing over the ground.

If Darfur had an oil pipeline we would have saved those kids. If parents had oil under their yard we would probably save those kids.

It is tragic, but don't kid yourself. Any reaction at all doesn't concern the kids in any way.

[Cryptoad]

43. People like Assad

love your Logic

[Cryptoad]

28. Surely you jest

The GOP House has not done anything for the last three years..... Im sure they could get the job done,,,,, geeez...

[obxhead]

30. exactly.

If 91% hates the idea maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't do it. Let the R's be weak on atrocity and be called out on it!

[Cryptoad]

33. Its not about R's and D's

it about an asshole gassing children......nothing more nothing less

[squicked]

26. Using the word "mistake" would be political suicide in the current environment.

Don't think for one minute they aren't considering elections next year and 2016. They'll fumble the ball to congress and "Bomb Bomb McCain" won't run with it. All the commercials will show the republicans lied the country into war with Iraq but didn't have the balls to save innocent children... this will freakin crush republicans!!!

[totodeinhere]

27. Remember when GWB was asked what was his biggest mistake while in office and he couldn't think of

even one mistake? Of course he was a jerk and people laughed at him over that. But people of character admit when they made a mistake and then move on. If President Obama admits that his red line comment was a mistake I think that most of us will have his back and we will respect him for doing the right thing. Of course he would get some flack form the Republicans but that will happen no matter what he does so the president may as well as you put it cut his losses.

[Amonester]

39. The problem he has with this is, he thinks doing so would give a$$-had another green light

to gas more children, men, women, elders et al

And he would feel 'guilty' about it for years.

[joshcryer]

40. What losses? He needs to paint Russia as not agreeing with it.

Then he is good to go. Wash his hands of it. Russia then looks like they don't care about red lines.

[davidpdx]

45. I'm working on his speech right now, what do you think?

My fellow Americans, today I come before you to tell you I made a grave error. I stated that the use of chemical weapons was a red line that should not be crossed. Now that I see the bloodshed and horrors caused by chemical weapons I tell you it isn't that bad. Mr. Assad is a kind and gentle man and will take care of his people and if he chooses to use chemical weapons, well that's his business. I believe the whole thing was a misunderstanding and I apologize. The United States will sit idly by and watch people die because we don't care, it isn't our problem, and it isn't our fault. Thank you and God Bless these United States of America.

[joshcryer]

51. FIXED

My fellow Americans, today I come before you to tell you I reaffirm my position on the use of chemical weapons. I stated that the use of chemical weapons was a red line that should not be crossed. Now that I see the bloodshed and horrors caused by chemical weapons I implore the UN to intervene in the atrocities in Syria. Mr. Assad is thought by immoral entities to be a kind and gentle man and will take care of his people, and if he chooses to use chemical weapons, well that's his business. I believe that is an immoral position and I stand in front of the world today, alone, might I add, that chemical weapons use crosses a line. The United States will sit idly by and watch people die because we care about international opinion, but let it be known from this day forward that while chemical weapons use is a problem for this planet, the use of those weapons as defined in the Chemical Weapons Convention isn't our fault. We've destroyed 90% of our stockpiles and may they never be used on any world citizens in the future. Thank you and God Bless these United States of America.

[davidpdx]

52. I was being sarcastic

[joshcryer]

53. I know, I figured I'd play with your wording.

I was being semi-serious because I don't think his options are completely limited here or that he's boxed himself in or whatever.

[malaise]

47. Kick n/t

[Barack_America]

48. Use of chemical weapons should cross a red line.

I will never fault anyone for stating so.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

54. You folks illustrate daily the level of naiveté in the trenches

Out of any option...that is absolutely one of the worst I have ever heard.