"Obama's 'Blink' On Syria Is Politically Brilliant"

[applegrove]

Obama's 'Blink' On Syria Is Politically Brilliant

by Brett LoGiurato at Business Insider

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-syria-congressional-authorization-boehner-2013-8

"SNIP............................



Obama blinked, but he blinked with a dare. He is daring Congress to say no to limited action against a dictator for the brutal use of chemical weapons against his own people — an attack that the U.S. says killed 1,429 people, including 426 children.

"Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?" Obama said in a statement from the Rose Garden Saturday.

"What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?"

In taking this move, Obama answered the waning enthusiasm from the American public and his allies overseas for intervention. He answered the calls from more than 100 members of Congress who sent him a letter saying he needed their approval. And he answered the American public, 80% of whom want congressional approval.


............................SNIP"

[applegrove]

1. Plus, if republicans vote for the action, Obama gets to claim congress cooperated.

The GOP has been trying to keep that from him for 5 years.

[leftstreet]

4. But GOPers have been bitching it's not enough WAR

McCain, Graham Say Obama’s Syria Plan Falls Short

August 31 2013.

WASHINGTON–Two key Republican Senate lawmakers gave notice that despite President Barack Obama‘s pledge to seek congressional authorization for a potential military strike against Syria, they wouldn’t support a limited attack that fell short of changing the momentum on the battlefield.

The statement by Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) demonstrates clearly the challenges the president faces in winning congressional authorization for his plans to punish the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons in an attack last week.

“We cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the president’s stated goal of Assad’s removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests,” the senators said in a joint statement.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/31/mccain-graham-say-obamas-syria-plan-falls-short/

[Billy Love]

33. Both McCain and Graham can sit in the corner, shut the fuck up, and filibuster as usual.

And show that they continue to be obstructionist.

[WCGreen]

57. The question is which one of the faction do we back...

There has got to be a whole bunch of frustrated and stomped upon self appointed saviors of Syria on over the decades that wants the throne.

[davidpdx]

68. We should just start calling them

McGraham. I mean they are attached at the hip anyway.

[freshwest]

16. That is an excellent piece. The only problem I see is that the GOP House of Representatives...

had long ago given up the ability to debate anything.

They've rubber stamped ALEC legislation on a national level they did not debate upon or write.

For explaining what they are doing to the gullible public, they probably listen to subliminal recording of libertarian think tanks and spew a lot of words they know nothing about.

We are suffering from the Nordquist robosigner model of Congress. They could not debate their way out of paper bag with a pair of scissors.

And they don't have the ability to hold their bladders long enough to filibuster anything. They are the laziest bunch of grifters since IDK when.

I am going to stock up on popcorn to enjoy either a GOP meltdown or see a lightning strike to clean up things there.

Maybe I can reach a Nirvana-like state of total disinterest of anything they spew in a faux debate. I don't expect much, but they may surprise me.

[polichick]

2. I agree - it was a brilliant political move.

[mike_c]

3. what's the use of the "international system" if we act as rogue warriors...

...whenever we don't like what someone else does? Go to the U.N. If the Security Council votes to attack Syria, then by all means, contribute forces to the blue helmets. Otherwise, it's a war crime in response to another war crime. Congress has no more authority to initiate a war of aggression than the president does.

[reformist2]

10. +1. We're well into a new era where we need international consensus before 'punishing' any nation.

It's not enough for Congress to give its approval. Either the UN must do so officially, or at least a significant majority of the members.

[JaneyVee]

5. The President is 100% correct on his assessment.

[BootinUp]

7. Yep. nt

[Dawson Leery]

6. kick

[MFrohike]

8. Quite a cottage industry

There's nothing quite like spinning the fact a man got forced to do something he didn't want to do as a brilliant move. I do like how all these stories sidestep the issue of actual evidence, like residue testing, and the fact the very inspectors who were gathering that evidence had to leave Syria so they didn't get caught in the middle of this. If Congress asks for hard evidence prior to approving a resolution, how brilliant will this look at that point?

[JDPriestly]

45. You make some good points, but I thought the inspectors finished their work.

Am I wrong?


Do you have a link stating that they had to leave before they finished?

[MFrohike]

50. I may be wrong

I can't find a story that says they left early, so I may have misread that. The BBC link says they did 4 days of investigation, while the Guardian says almost two weeks. It's hard to tell, so I may have been premature in that accusation. Whoops.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23908808

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/31/un-weapons-inspectors-syria-clock

[JDPriestly]

60. We shall see what their assessment is.

[KoKo]

75. They pulled out a day early... Here from the "Guardian"

starting... I've not seen another explanation.

-----

UN weapons inspectors to leave Syria a day early

Ban Ki-moon's announcement that United Nations experts will depart on Saturday fuels speculation of armed intervention

Ban Ki-moon has said the UN weapons inspectors investigating last week's suspected chemical weapons attack will leave Syria on Saturday, one day ahead of schedule.

The announcement deepened anticipation over imminent air strikes. Under an agreement with the Syrian government, the UN team had until the end of Sunday to complete their investigation.

If they leave a day early, they will not be able to carry out the three other site inspections from earlier suspected chemical attacks they had initially intended to complete.

The move is reminiscent of similar hasty departures of UN weapons inspectors from Iraq over a decade ago, after receiving a tip-off from western intelligence agencies that US air strikes against Saddam Hussein's regime were imminent.

Ban called on western powers to refrain from taking action until the UN inspectors had produced a report, but he added to the growing sense of urgency by saying the inspection team would report to him as soon as they left the country. UN officials, however, noted that a proper analysis of the chemical agents involved would take a lot longer. The inspectors had so far sent none of the samples they had collected out of the country for tests, but would be carrying the samples with them when they left. Laboratory work would only begin once they had left Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/un-inspectors-leave-syria-early

[HumansAndResources]

58. Who in Congress Will Demand Evidence?

Kucinich is gone. Maybe the "Tea Party," but I think they will be afraid of being called "conspiracy theorists" for even suggesting that Al Qaeda, er, I mean "the Syrian rebels" would actually use Sarin. This to spite a 'leak' from A UN inspector, Carla Del Ponte:

"I was a little bit stupefied by the first indication of the use of nerve gas by the opposition"

Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.

Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".

I say "leak" because the UN didn't back her up.

If the Tea Party has the guts, and gets the moral high ground on this issue, that would be a shame. They will get LOTS of young voters, who don't see their Koch-puppet-strings, if they are the only anti-war candidates on the ballot.

[MFrohike]

62. Possibly

I don't think anti-war will outweigh anti-everything. The Tea Party will exist as a viable political force as long as partisan gerrymandering is allowed (all else being equal). The day it's gone, so are they.

[pscot]

9. I don't know how brilliant it is

but at least we aren't killing anyone right now.

[morningfog]

13. That is the only good thing about this.

[Phlem]

24. No shit!

Since when is checking in with the people your supposed to represent such a brilliant fucking move!?

-p

[robinlynne]

38. I don't think he intends to check in with the people.

I know Congress was created to represent we the people, but it does not.

[Phlem]

40. That's what I tried to say but you know what I mean.

And ditto on the second matter as well. The people have no representation.

I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round,
I really love to watch them roll,
No longer riding on the merry-go-round,
I just had to let it go,

-p

peace

[robinlynne]

71. oh good. I understood you backwards.

[David__77]

11. His "facts" are shoddy, and he deserves a resounding "no!"

But, sure, I am glad that he is giving congress the opportunity to tell him no. I'm glad that the imminent missiles have been delayed, giving time to organize opposition and for facts to come out to undermine this "case."

[Renew Deal]

54. What is the case is not underminable?

What if there is clear proof that Assad was in on it? Would you support action then?

[David__77]

64. No, I would not.

But we are far from that place. There are plenty of crimes to go around in that civil war, and I think that red line is nonsense.

[morningfog]

12. It's sick that people care about the political brilliance of a march to war.

[NuclearDem]

15. +100

There's a time for horserace bullshit, and a lead up to war isn't it.

[neverforget]

19. No doubt. Hey we're going to kill some more people, but the politics on this will look great!

[raindaddy]

37. I agree!

The Brits decide against an attack, most Americans are leery and the House wants a vote, so instead of going it alone the President is calling for a vote. So if they vote against he's off the hook and if they vote for he gets his attack. Brilliant! Obama wins either way!!! Who cares about the horrors of war when Obama's playing 3 dimensional chess?

I'd rather have a President with the brilliance and courage to stand up to the Military-Industrial Complex. We could use some of the money being used for unending war for better paying jobs, education, healthcare and the environment.

[adirondacker]

42. Couldn't agree more. nt

[moonlady0623]

55. Completely agree, Raindaddy

brilliant my ass.

[juajen]

85. Yeah, but, good luck getting any of that through Congress.

[woo me with science]

47. +10000

Thank you.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

51. Sounds like that Obama Derangement Syndrome we hear so much about. (n/t)

[morningfog]

65. Don't be daft.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

70. I've been on this planet through...

10 administrations and I've never seen so much coddling of a public servant -- any public servant. The Sensible Centrists trying to score political points over possible war disgust me.

[LearningCurve]

59. I had been debating what to post, then I saw yours

You captured my first thought.

[gopiscrap]

14. I agree

[KG]

17. isn't everything he does Politically Brilliant? *swoon*

[Phlem]

43. My flowers are going to get to him before your's

*swoon*....

-p

[DeSwiss]

18. What was that about a message about getting away with killing children?

- Right, brilliant political move. Let's talk about the children Assad kills. And ONLY those children. Yes, everyone's impressed with his aplomb.......
[center]


















[/center]

[libdem4life]

20. These are photos that could have been "taken" for many decades, over a century with all due respect.

The US has been "intervening" for a mighty long time...long before John Kerry waxed eloquent. I apologize in advance if the URL repost is repetitive. Our political/cultural White Hat is a bit dusty.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

[DeSwiss]

25. That the pictures exist at all.....

...is the real tragedy. But no, they were found from the Google picture cache using the search terms: ''droned killed mothers and children.'' Obviously those pictures could only exist since drones have existed.

The question is: How long must we continue to do these stupid things before we stop doing them?

For anyone to pontificate about Assad killing children in one way as being a ''terrible tragedy that mustn't go unanswered,'' as opposed to them being killed by the US (ad infinitum) in another way (drones) is totally ludicrous.

- That's my point.


U.S. airstrike that killed American teen in Yemen raises legal, ethical questions

[libdem4life]

46. Yes...the "drone" notation served merely to date the photo. I recall the photo that likely ended the

Vietnam War ... the unforgettable and riveting photo of the little Vietnamese girl naked, screaming while burning from napalm. We were a generation emotionally scarred. That image will never leave me.

[Maedhros]

22. But it was NECESSARY to kill THESE children

because we needed to get THE TERRORISTS!

Or, more accurately, the people we suspected were "Terrorists" because they acted like terrorists, at least that's what it looked like (we think).

The gall of this Administration to wave the bloody shirt over dead children in Syria when it turns a blind eye to its own malfeasance.

[DeSwiss]

27. When gall is all you've got......

...gall is what you get.

[totodeinhere]

23. And after we attack then we will be seeing pictures of children that

Obama killed. Or at least that is how our enemies will spin it.

[DeSwiss]

26. You can't spin dead.

And I don't have any enemies. America does.

- I don't. Don't mix me up in their shit, thank you.


Put on the glasses.....

[heaven05]

30. thank you

hope it puts perspective on the calls for unilateral action by our POTUS.

[DeSwiss]

32. De nada.

- Only the TRUTH can set us free.

[totodeinhere]

21. Cameron was humiliated when his parliament refused sign off on the war.

Reports are already out saying that Obama advisers are predicting that Congress will approve the request. Well that's what they thought in the UK too. If Congress turns him down then it will interpreted as a defeat for Obama. He's taking a big chance. And if they approve the attack Obama will still own it. He is the commander in chief and he will be the one who ordered the attack. So if the aftermath of the attack goes badly it will be he who assumes the blame, not Congress.

[BeyondGeography]

31. Totally different political situation

Labor said no to a conservative. Not much if any political capital spent there. The only two national elections the Republicans have won since Reagan were won with a huge edge on national security. Obama has already neutralized them on that front, now you have specter of him asking them to show some spine. If they say "no" it will redefine them in ways that Labor didn't have to contemplate at all.

[totodeinhere]

53. The big story in the UK was that 30 members of Cameron's own party voted

against him. It wasn't just Labor saying know to a conservative. If he could have got more votes from his own party he would have prevailed. Nine members of the Liberal Democrats also vote against him.

[unblock]

28. sure, if taking the only politically viable path to achieve your objectives is brilliant.

what brett logiurato seems to miss is that this isn't a situation where congress is saying "we will deny military authorization" and obama is calling their bluff.

all congress has been saying is that they want to be included in the decision, which in practical terms means they want to say yes -- but they want to be the ones to say it, not the president.

[wandy]

29. I hoped Obama would do just that................

As much as I hate that our government has become a game of three denominational chess, I believe our side has just called "check'.

Wonder how the republicans are going to obstruct this!

[adieu]

34. Hey Obama, here's my answer to your question:

The message we will send is, "Your actions will have repercussions, but only from within your country. We are not qualified to dictate to dictators whether their actions are morally or legally correct. That is all."

[Iliyah]

35. Well McCain and Ms. Lindsey

have already said they want the present regime out as a package deal. That probably means boots on the ground. Pres O won't do that but Senate will debate it and hopefully the Dems will vote against it alongwith a few sane gopers. The House on the other hand and with enough pressure on the Tea Nuts from their corporate masters may throw it back as a package deal.

But at least it will debated. I have reservations regarding a dictator who will use chemical weapons on his or her people.

[arikara]

36. How many thousands of children will be killed if he decides to start to shock and awing

How many thousands of children are dying in the refugee camps. How about instead of more bombing and warmongering why don't they start caring for those people who are hurt by the civil war. And stop supplying weapons.

There is never any enthusiasm for war unless they can come up with some atrocity to get the public riled up. Obviously this one is too flimsy to do the job.

Obama never earned the Peace Prize. He should give it back.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. Hyperbole much? Have you heard any plan like "shock and awe" being discussed?

no one has said all out carpet bombing...

[Chaco Dundee]

39. brilliant?

After the alpha wolf barks to loud and none of his pack follows,he puts the responsibility for the atack to a vote by nitwits.that's brilliant.

[greytdemocrat]

41. And what if Assad

kills 1000 more tomorrow???

[Dash87]

44. What does it say if we help Al Qaeda get said chemical weapons, and support rebels that

are just as bad as Assad?

I've been seeing condemnation after condemnation of Assad, but no mention of the rebels. What about their victims? What about the laws that they're breaking, and the harm they've done?

[BOG PERSON]

56. good point - of those 100000+ killed

there's never any breakdown of the casualty figures

[joshcryer]

77. According to some DUers Al Qaeda already has the weapons.

And are responsible for the attack.

In that event that would actually be more reason to do a significant attack since they'd be belligerents and the UN and Geneva Conventions specifically do not give belligerents protections.

[woo me with science]

48. Good god.

[golfguru]

49. Syrians opposed to Assad say Obama’s decision will embolden his regime

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/un-inspectors-leave-syria-as-us-pushes-forward-with-plans-for-military-action/2013/08/31/9d79d88a-121b-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_story.html

Obama leaving door open to Syria strike, even if Congress votes no

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/31/obama-leaving-door-open-to-syria-strike-even-if-congress-votes-no/#ixzz2dbunIJlK

[RobertEarl]

61. New Message from the US

We've been talking ourselves blue in the face trying to stop wars. And we have failed, obviously. Heck, we've been the cause of a few wars ourselves, the US has, and maybe we are finally not gonna do that anymore. So, we'll redouble our talking, reduce arm deals and financially punish those who support war and making toxic gas for weapons.

Why are we doing this finally? Because the flower children of the 60's are now taking over the government.

[sibelian]

63. Obama goes to the bathroom! Politically brilliant!

He eats his breakfast cereal - Amazing move, sir! His face falls off in a freak accident - what a masterstroke!

[B Calm]

66. The talking heads on FOX yesterday were already calling him weak.

They were bringing up sound bites of Hillary Clinton campaigning for president when she said "Who do you want to answer the phone at 3:00 AM".

I think Obama did the right thing, congress needs to vote on this. Let this "do nothing" congress take the responsibility!

[ocpagu]

67. Well...

...I guess it really doesn't matter if he's being a moron or a genius if a war is what he's seeking.

[davidpdx]

69. I don't necessarily see it as brilliant rather than an astute way to get out of the corner

he painted himself into. The vote of the British Parliament was one factor that probably convinced him to go to Congress. I think if Congress says no (which I believe they will), Obama could send Carter in as an envoy to try to broker a deal. Given this is what most people want, I think it would be a wise move. I also think Obama should go back to the UN and ask for a resolution calling specifically for peace talks by all sides. There is no way Russia and China are going to veto such a resolution since he'd be giving them exactly what they want. In exchange Obama should ask Putin to put pressure on Assad to come to the table.

[dickthegrouch]

72. He must also insist that Congress fund any military action

40% tax hike on the congress critters voting for would be a GREAT start.

[gulliver]

73. It's going to work out fine.

Obama is a steady hand on the wheel. He does things carefully, and they work.

[Phlem]

74. "Politically Brilliant"

In that case my 6 year old can run the US better than he can.

-p

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. anyone that would say that is obviously suffering an acute bout of

ODS. Take some aspirin...it'll be alright.

[Phlem]

80. Oh, OK then.

you must be with the "every things just fine" club then. Sorry I decline the invitation into your cult.



-p

[LWolf]

76. brilliant...

I guess, if "brilliant" means "willing to use propaganda to further his agenda."

Here's my answer to his "question:"

1. The United States is not the world's police force, judge, or jury.

2. The UN is, when those roles are needed.

3. Violence is never the solution.

4. We need to clean our own damned house.

[Llewlladdwr]

79. I don't see how this helps the President at all.

It's my understanding the President intends to take action against Syria regardless of how Congress votes. That being the case, how does this put any pressure on Congress at all? Every single one of them can vote no safe in the knowledge that the President launches an attack anyway.

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. and if its not helping him personally...hmmmm there must be another reason...

oh yeah....maybe to show OTHER dictators from deciding to do the same what will happen...but that's just me..

[Llewlladdwr]

82. How does asking Congress for authorization accomplish this?

Especially if Congress says no? Then the president either backs down (and looks weak) or goes ahead anyway, in which case why ask in the first place?

[VanillaRhapsody]

83. then it still must be a moral decision.....

because it is not benefitting him...he is also doing what those on the Left that opposed him wanted him to do first...so he is doing that...so again I ask...why would he do this if not because his soul tells him he must?

[CakeGrrl]

84. Then you are MISunderstanding what the MSM is speculating about

He has the ability to take action.

He did NOT say he would. He has maintained that no decisions have been made.

What he has done is to give the debate time to occur, the evidence of genocide to be compiled.

All the yammering heads in Congress who said they'd better be consulted? Put up or shut up.