On this occasion we should be grateful that Obama failed.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

I have generally stayed out of the "Obama wars" on DU - I think that he is neither a great, nor an appalling president; he has done some good things but also a good number of disappointing ones.

But in the current debate about his handling of the Syria crisis, I think that his critics on DU are fairly clearly Right, and his defenders are fairly clearly Wrong.

To claim that Obama predicted the current Russian initiative, and that his attempt to pressure the Congress into launching an attack on Syria was tactical rather than genuine, stretches my credulity to breaking point.

I think it is far, far more likely that Obama really did want to attack Syria, that his going to Congress for authorisation was about domestic politics, because he knew it was unpopular, and that we should be grateful that - touchwood - it looks like he has failed.

It's... theoretically possible... that he was playing three dimensional chess and never actually wanted to attack Syria after all ("Tactics, comrade, tactics!&quot . But the other possibility looks very much more plausible.

[CakeGrrl]

1. He didn't fail. Winding down wars is not the hallmark of a warmonger.

Taking measures to stop the illegal use of chemical weapons isn't Bush-style cowboy war games.

Oh, and "no boots on the ground". Remember?

[rhett o rick]

13. "He didnt fail". And that's the most important thing. That might be

more credible if his Group would admit he fails once in a while.

[Marr]

19. +1

When you always interpret every move as a victory, eventually those claims become a bit suspect. Or outright laughable, as in this current situation.

It doesn't make much difference to me either way. I hope this deescalation proceeds apace and accomplishes what we're all hoping it will accomplish with regards to Syria's chemical weapons. Whether some politician is able to soak in glory for it doesn't interest me much.

[rhett o rick]

25. Whether he failed or won is a matter of perspective and secondary to

the desired results. Whether he was bluffing or not, to scare Assad into giving up his chemical weapons, he wont be able to use that trick again. And if he was bluffing, Cameron wont be happy because he got shut down for nothing.

[Skidmore]

23. Well, he didn't fail.

He and his team did some heavy lifting to get to this point and over a longer period of time. Too bad you need to cut him off at the knees all the time.

[TwilightGardener]

2. I think Obama did plan to attack, and still may do so.

I think he also tried diplomacy with Russia, if only backchannel. I don't think he wants to strike Syria--but he will if he believes it's truly necessary.

[seabeyond]

3. maybe he felt strongly about chemical weapons used on kids. we know he has no ulterior motive for

syrian strikes.

he felt that strongly a country using chemical weapons to kill. is that bad? isnt it a moral decision (not religious) if we stand back and watch these deaths or stand up for the innocent? one can argue that. it is not an easy answer.

but, what made obama better than most presidents or men of power and what makes him a success is his willingness to be fluid in his leadership. and that is success, not hero worship. it is a strength that maybe we could trust a LITTLE in even if we do not agree with what he is doing. that the likelihood of an ok conclusion almost always happens with this president.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. I'm sure he did. I think his cure was probably even worse than the malady, though.

I don't for a moment suggest that his motives for planning to attack Syria were other than decent.

He's clearly better informed than I am, and it may be that he was right. But, judging on the best information available to me, I think an attack on Syria would probably have done more harm than good, and I'm glad that he looks to have failed to organise one.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. Agent Defeat Weapons

[phleshdef]

4. Putin openly admits they discussed the Russian initiative last week.

So I guess your credulity just got snapped in half eh?

The Russian president said that he and President Barack Obama had “indeed discussed” such a possibility on the sidelines of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg last week.

It was agreed, Putin said, “to instruct Secretary of State [John Kerry] and Foreign Minister [Sergey Lavrov] to get in touch” and “try to move this idea forward.”

http://rt.com/news/putin-syria-chemical-weapons-669/

[Bluenorthwest]

9. But the story does not start at the G20 which was 5th and 6th September

The UK Parliament had voted against joining the strike we called for on August 29th, a week before Obama and the horrific Mr Putin had their latest get together. The war drums were already getting old when Obama finally said he'd go to Congress, after the UK voted 'no thanks, not after last time' to the DC request for strikes.
But this is premature discussion, this stuff is not yet a done deal, and frankly I don't like the luck aspects of discussing unfinished business.

[larkrake]

5. Clearly O forced Putin to make a stand

[deutsey]

6. At this point, I don't care if they bungled their way into this solution

or they planned it as part of playing what someone on DU called multi-galactic chess. I'm just glad it appears as though strikes are probably not going to happen, which is what I hoped for all along.

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. Of course you don't

that does seem to be the meme of those that oppose all things PBO though...

He didn't "Do" this...it was an accident! oops...

[deutsey]

30. God, you make me laugh

Probably not your intention, but you do!

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. Yeah and today...I am laughing my ass off in the faces of alot of folks around here...

that dared step to me with their inane "obamabot" and "warmonger" crud...Losers!

[deutsey]

41. "that dared step to me"

Either you are really as you come across in these posts or you're some Andy Kaufman-esque comedic genius.

Regardless, hilarious stuff!

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. Andy Kaufman?

Sure whatever you say...still doesn't mean I wasn't right. Are you one of the "sore loser" brigade around here?

[deutsey]

45. Ibby-dah?

[DirkGently]

7. He hasn't yet said he will not attack.

No, this wasn't The Plan All Along. Bit of a head-scratcher to see the desperate, screeching attempts to cram the facts into that particular fantasy.

But if we stay out militarily, it WILL be a success for the Obama administration, and for all the Democrats endangered by the crazy box they would all be painted into going through with a vote in Congress in light of the huge failure of public support.

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. It was the intended result...

you may not appreciate how we got here....but here we are.



Politics is messy my friend.

[DirkGently]

56. The stated goal was to punish Assad with missile strikes.

The stated intention was take military action in Syria without Congressional review. No mention of even a possibility of a negotiated disarmament.

So there's no way to now claim that was the goal.

The stated plan for a unilateral attack was floated, crushed by staggering public disapproval, and morphed into seeking Congressional review. Which morphed into a disarmament proposal brokered by Russia while the looming defeat in Congress was quickly put on hold.

That much public backtracking is a wee bit more than "messy." Granted, the embarassment of the public slap down will be well-mitigated if Assad gives up the chems, but the administration can't claim it achieved something it never stated as a goal in the first place.

[VanillaRhapsody]

59. The threat of such was the ONLY thing that would get Assad to play ball...

Why on earth would Assad agree to sign the Chemical Weapons Agreement without Obama's insistance....

You can deny all you want....Your embarrassment is the one I am enjoying!

[DirkGently]

61. Yeah. Nobody thinks that.

This is where the need to make everything about Obama is making for some very funny attempts to twist reality. Like yours.

LONDON | Mon Sep 9, 2013 7:22am EDT

(Reuters) - Secretary of State John Kerry was making a rhetorical comment when he said on Monday that Syria's President Bashar al-Assad would not hand over his country's chemical weapons.

Kerry told a news briefing on Monday that Assad could avoid a military strike by turning over all his chemical weapons within a week but added that Assad was not about to do that.

"Secretary Kerry was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used," a U.S. State Department spokeswoman said in an emailed statement.

"His (Kerry's) point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago. That's why the world faces this moment."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-syria-crisis-weapons-idUSBRE9880GE20130909

I think one could stretch really hard and argue that Kerry made a Freudian slip and accidentally suggested something the administration wished it had brought up before the failed war proposal was slapped down by the public and Congress.

But nobody's buying the breathless claims of This Was the Plan All Along.

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. So you seriously think they don't have a range of scenarios about what might happen

prior to doing this? Derp!

You've never heard of game theory have you?

Talk about embarrassing....

In case you don't know...

Game theory is a study of strategic decision making. More formally, it is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers".[1] An alternative term suggested "as a more descriptive name for the discipline" is interactive decision theory.[2] Game theory is mainly used in economics, political science, and psychology, as well as logic and biology. The subject first addressed zero-sum games, such that one person's gains exactly equal net losses of the other participant(s). Today, however, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations, and has developed into an umbrella term for the logical side of decision science, to include both human and non-humans, like computers.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. There are only 6 countries that haven't signed that agreement...and now there will be just 5...

but you want to deny Obama a victory over that.....good luck with that. I hear crow is really gamey...is that true?

[DirkGently]

64. Sure. Failure to get the war they wanted IS a win.

... just not for those who wanted the war.

If you want to claim that the administration is equally happy backtracking from the unilateral strike and then backtracking from the Congressionally approved strike, and then brokering a deal through Russia to get a disarmament agreement they never mentioned, great.

I think we're all in agreement the non-war result is better than what the administration asked us to approve.

You're certainly free to slide the administration's theoretical goalposts around whever you want them, if the point is maximize Obama's personal political capital retroactively, based on your personal theories as to what they "really" wanted.

But what they said they wanted was a war. They didn't get one. "No war" wins. War loses.

That's your "game theory" right there.

[LaydeeBug]

8. President Obama did not fail, he succeeded in averting a war. I don't think it was 3-d chess

I think it was playing the hand he was dealt.

And he did it very, very well.

[DirkGently]

65. I don't think averting the war you wanted to start

counts as "averting a war."

If you start with the assumption we either had to go to war with Syria or get Syria to give up its chemical weapons right this minute, okay, but where do you get that premise to start with?

[Skinner]

10. Apparently "failure" means that you didn't predict the exact outcome from the beginning.

Nevermind if the outcome itself is desirable. You need to have specifically planned for that specific outcome, and only that specific outcome in order to avoid failure.

As far as I can tell, this is the go-to argument against President Obama this week. It is also absurd.

None of us knows whether President Obama actually intended to attack Syria. I think he did intend to attack Syria. Because he sure looked like he intended to do it. Furthermore, I think it is safe to say that this outcome would have been much less likely if the United States wasn't threatening to attack Syria.

Did President Obama plan for this exact outcome? Of course not. Did President Obama create an incentive for Syria to make concessions? Of course he did.

If this deal does happen, and Syria's chemical weapons are put under international control without a single shot being fired, then President Obama is going to get some of the credit. For one simple reason: Because he deserves it.

Spin it as a failure all you like. But the bottom line would be that 1) military strikes were averted, and 2) something was done about the chemical weapons. Last time I checked, everyone here claimed that those were both good things.

[Uncle Joe]

12. I was thinking of starting an OP to this effect.

My own impression is, the moment Obama asked Congress to approve a strike, he was actually looking for a way out.

[Number23]

21. Glad to see you commenting on this.

As far as I can tell, this is the go-to argument against President Obama this week. It is also absurd.

As have been a hugely sizeable majority of the other issues that this forum has accused the President of "failing."

[Waiting For Everyman]

24. I completely agree, very well said. nt

[nashville_brook]

66. there's 2 issues here that aren't clear vis a vis what the "failure" is

If the goal was to get rid of CW...roaring success. Even if it was accidental, the better part of being good at something is knowing an opportunity when you see it.

But...

If the goal was to broaden the conflict in the Middle East, then that exercise failed. And we're all better for it. My position is that the president wasn't keen on this from the beginning, otherwise we would have used other methods for escalation. Creating a political drama only served to slow the process down.

Many here today are responding to the history of military and foreign policy interests "wagging the dog" in the Middle East...and the failure of that proposal. Placing Obama in the center of that effort is mistaken.

This discussion could provide the opportunity to shine a light on the difficulties of these relationships (military/executive/foreign policy).

[DirkGently]

68. No. One good chem compromise. One failed war.

As you correctly point out, "Obama did not plan for this outcome."

Which is a better outcome (assuming it comes to fruition) than the one he proposed involving U.S. military engagement in Syria.

Obama of course gets full marks for a good result presuming all goes as hoped -- the removal of chemical weapons *without* his proposed military intervention. That is a good thing, and I have seen no one suggest otherwise, or that it is not to the administration's credit.

He did not, however, succeed at his proposal that the U.S. could or should launch a military attack on Syria, whether to force such a compromise as is now contemplated or otherwise. The war proposal failed, thunderously.

That's a good thing too.

[tammywammy]

75. Good post.

This is a win-win, despite the protests of some on DU that it's failure.

Military strikes adverted? Win. No more chemical attacks on civilians? Win.

[kentuck]

85. Agree.

If war can be averted and Syrian chemical weapons are accounted for or destroyed, then Obama would deserve a great deal of credit, imo.

[Zorra]

11. Obama and Kerry kicked ass and took names. They did not fail. They WON big time.

Aww, you seem disappointed.

I'm sorry.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. On t he contrary, I'm pleased by the outcome.

I just think that it's more accurate to describe it as having come about "in spite of" than "because of" Obama's efforts.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm disappointed. Actually, that's not true, I do know - it's wishful thinking, rather than evidence-based, because you don't want to have to contemplate the possibility that someone whose motives were not dishonourable would disagree with you.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. How could it have happened without a credible threat from...

.. Pres. Obama?


If it was obvious we were not going to do anything then what could have possible motivated Assad to give up his chemical weapons? The goodness of his heart?

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. and you "know" this how?

disappointed that once again the "obamabots" and "bloodthirsty warmongers" (as some around here are want to call them...) were right and you were wrong...AGAIN!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. I think you're confused. You're talking to me, not to somebody else. N.T.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. Yeah I am talking to you..."Ian"

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. Except actually you're not.

You're talking to an entirely fictional person who has said all the stupid things you want them to have said, so that you can easily "win" by pointing this out.

But what grownups do is address the things the person they're really talking to has said, rather than making quotations up and assigning them to them so that they can "rebut" them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. Right...whatever you say "Ian"

I see through it....FYI

[Motown_Johnny]

16. Failed? I count 4 wins...

Chemical weapons taken out of service

No Americans put into harms way

Pres. Obama gets a big foreign policy win

War Powers Act takes a hit since he set a precedent to go to Congress for even limited military action.

[whatchamacallit]

17. Praise be!

[SomethingFishy]

20. You're right. I think the fact that the American people were against military action

by a huge margin may have been a factor in how this is playing out.

No President wants to go against 80% of his constituents. Ok, well, unless the bible is involved

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. I say it was part of the entire plan...Obama would not be looking so resolute

without the Leftwing Hate machine screaming like banshees! It was brilliant...

[SomethingFishy]

36. Yes, well, you would.

Carry on.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. You damn skippy I would...

this "bloodthirsty" "warmonger" "Obamabot" is very very happy today.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

22. you're hilarious. I came down off my mountain to say Obama F'D UP!!!

thanks for that. we needed another voice to express a virtually useless opinion about that which you clearly seem to know nothing.

[quinnox]

27. I tend to agree. I will also illustrate the worst possible reading of this whole situation

Obama was determined to start a military strike in Syria, despite overwhelming opposition from the American public. His war hawk advisors were whispering sweet words of war into his ear, Susan Rice being the main one. He was persuaded by this, and ready to launch an ill-thought out attack, that in my opinion, could have been disastrous, and led to potentially World War 3 (eventually). This would have cemented Obama as the worst president in American history. But then, an unexpected development happened. The British voted against intervening militarily. This was a miracle of sorts, and caused Obama to hesitate. He then thought once again of all the polls showing Americans strongly opposed, and considered the political ramifications more - (bad for the Democrats in 2014).

Now this is where I give Obama credit. (I know, I can hear *gasps*) He did a great thing by deciding to go to the Congress, and delaying the attack. His super cautious nature paid off. This allowed other options to rise to the surface, such as the one now being seriously considered. The Russians decided this was time to step in, and take up Kerry's offer. So, Obama was very lucky, and also gets partial credit for what happened. But at the same time, he almost committed a huge blunder, one that could have had horrific consequences for the world.

[VanillaRhapsody]

34. As I said before...this man is a pragmatist...

and an astute poker player. That's not luck...that is skill my friend. Not "partial" credit....he brokered this deal from the start...and YOU and your cohorts calling him a "warmonger" and "equal to Bush" and a Babykiller etc were all part of that plan...you all made him look good...congratulations!

Do NOT Underestimate this President...I keep warning you all...but you refuse to listen

Stay the course....and follow through if necessary...

[ocpagu]

33. I agree.

Better failing at making war than at anything else.

No need for the cheerleaders to play the Super-Obama-Who-Knows-Everything-And-Never-Makes-Mistakes card... it just looks silly and childish.

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. Its better than what you got...which is a big fat zero!

You must also not be a poker player...

[ocpagu]

54. It's not about me, is it?

Look pal, your conspiracy theory of how Obama planned all of this, or how he's able to play 2545784247 ² dimensional chess, and cheap analogies with poker game behind his actions is the kind of talk reserved for comic books.

Right now, in the real world, even the mainstream press is recognizing how this has been an embarrassment for him. I just hope he's humble enough to LEARN from it. You and your crowd trying to beatify him over his mistakes and re-write history are making no favor to his government and his voters.

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. Conspiracy theory????? An Embarrassment????

Mainstream "press" (we call that media here btw) are you watching Sean Hannity with Ann Coulter now? That is the tact they are taking....

Yeah getting Syria to agree to the CWA...is a "mistake" .....only in you world would that be the case...what color is the sky there by the way?

[ocpagu]

60. Yep. A conspiracy theory.

Really, no one is falling for that.

Yep, an embarassment.

I believe the words "press" and "media" have different meanings in English. I understand press as journalism, while media also includes entertainment, etc.

[NoOneMan]

37. And even presuming so, what would of happen if Russia didn't follow along and Congress said "yes"

No one has a crystal ball. If the corner Obama painted himself in became even more concrete, then its clear he had the wrong gambling chips on the table. Who could of stopped that momentum?

You don't draw a gun unless you intend to fire it (goes an old saying). The gun was drawn. The potential for disaster was created.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. How else would Syria have been drawn into the CWA without the threat of violence exactly?

[NoOneMan]

63. Syria is between a rock and a hard place. They are in a Civil War

Do you think they have all the bargaining power in the world? Has no other country entered into a weapons agreement without being threatened with war?

Give it a rest. This was a clusterfuck that had positive real world results by avoiding the catastrophe Obama was gambling with, and resulted in only minor embarrassment. That's is, with all else considered, a "win".

[woo me with science]

39. K&R Rewriting of history by the politically invested is a dangerous thing

and must be strongly resisted even, and perhaps especially, when it would feel good...

[geek tragedy]

42. So you think Putin and Obama are both lying when they said this

exact proposal was discussed at the G20?

[Sheepshank]

43. could you clarify what exactly is Obama's failure in this scenario?

thanks

[Donald Ian Rankin]

50. It looks like the US will not attack Syria. Obama was trying to arrange such an attack. N.T.

[Sheepshank]

58. really......?

you think this is the only scenario Obama wanted to engage in? He only wanted war?

linear thinking when it comes to war and military negotiations, is a little too simplistic.

Not buying it.

I see nothing less and nothing more than the art of negotiating by starting out with the highest possible bid.

[DirkGently]

69. He asked America for war. America said "No."

Conflating two separate things -- a discussion with Syria about its chemical weapons, and an attempt to gather political support for a war on Syria -- is a massive logical fallacy.

To the extent an agreement with Syria on chemical weapons is achieved, clearly that's a good thing.

But America was not debating how to go about getting concessions from Assad.

We were debating the administration's request that we go to war. The result was a resounding "No."

That's a failure, but it's a good thing too. America said "enough" to meddling Mid-East wars.

Two issues; two good results, but one WAS a political failure for Obama, even if one would like to imagine he was "only bluffing."

[Sheepshank]

70. A very public, loud, persistent push for military intervention, sent it's own message

...Putin and Assad certainly considered that loud public showing when making any decisions. How many times was it pointed out very clearly and very loudly that Obama was within his Constitutional rights to engage in war without anyone's ok? you don't think this played into the discussoin between Assad and Putin?

If you really and truly think that international war 'games' are played at the level of "One man says xxx and it either happens or not"...and there is nothing in between, is seriously naive.

[DirkGently]

71. I see. He was putting us all on, was he?

The President of the United States put on an enormous puppet show for the sole benefit of a failing Middle Eastern dictator, to the point of requesting Congressional approval to begin a war, in hopes he would be given the opportunity to back out of it and score a deal? He put himself and the Democratic Party into a political kill box, which threatened the credibility of the rest of his administration, and national elections for decades to come ... on a goof? A scam? Kabuki theater?

He just kept backing down until ... he won?

This is maybe the saddest hyper-partisan Obama scheme hatched yet.

Why not just settle for the truth -- Obama didn't have the support for the war he requested, and wisely leapt on an opportunity for a face-saving compromise?

That's a good result. It's just not magic. Because Obama is not magic.

[Sheepshank]

72. Running from one extreme statement to another in an incredulous tone doesn't create validity

the hyerbole doesn't make the case you are trying to make.

Political negotiations are not black or white, negotiations are NEVER yes or no. If you haven't figured that out yet in the years Obama has been in office and the things he has pulled off even after a crap load of whining on DU, then all I can say is willfull blindness cannot be cured.

[DirkGently]

73. The extreme position is the notion Obama didn't adjust

his plans. That is a ludicrous, zero-sum fantasy concocted from some kind of neurotic pit of romantic personality worship.

He asked for war. He did not get, and was not going to get war.

THAT means, something did not go his way.

It doesn't mean the proposition of a non-war compromise with Syria is not a good thing, or a foreign policy success, at the end of the day.

It is good, if it continues. But that's going to have to be enough. Because it simply is not the case that Obama was "not really" pushing for a war he did not get. If that makes him a horrible, weak, failure of a President, that's on the extremist Obama partisans, not on the rational world.

[Sheepshank]

74. Ahh I see you position

and again your extreme interpretation has led you to think that most O supporters assume that this was all planned and executed to perfection. I think you are wrong.

Seriously, reading comments here and in my own case, I believe that negotiations are fluid. Taking advantage of a situation that arises along the way is ALWAYS part of being flexible and realizing a new advantage as it arrives. Attempting the set up the situation that is advantageous requires the acknowledgment that there are two paths to the outcome and further negotiations takes that into consideration.

I can tell you that Assad had to be convinced that military action was going to be inevitable before he would consider any other offers. I honestly don't know if it was planned or not for Kerry to throw out his statement. Being flexible enough to recognize the advantage and changing course to take advantage of it, is very good...don't you think? If this were Romney, would he have waited to see where things were panning out? Would he have recognized this new angle of negotiation, would he have even wanted to recognize there was a way out of war?

For all the times the same regulars on DU have tried to belabor the "Obama is bad because he is now doing xxxxx meme" and as rarely as they have panned out, I wonder at what point they will finally acknowledge Obama's leadership and negotiation skills, and ability to actually get shit done.

[DirkGently]

76. Backing down & negotiating was the right thing to do.

Asking America and Congress for a reckless military excursion into Syria was not, and it can't be rewritten as a good idea in the event he gets Assad to cough up the weapons.

Don't misunderstand: If we get to a non-military solution for Syria's chemical weapons, that's great, and Obama is smart to pursue it, but it doesn't retroactively make Obama's original suggestion we begin an illegal and ill-advised bombing campaign in Syria a good call.

The bottom line is that America didn't buy the proposition that we as a country had to take control of Assad's chemical weapons, by military force if necessary, and it still doesn't. It was 1) a horrible idea and 2) a political failure.

Such a political failure, in fact, that Obama has put himself and the Democratic Party in a very tight spot. If he strikes now, without the support of Congress or the public, he'll be seen as a maniac, and the party will be pummeled as the foolish war hawks many see Republicans as being going forward.

Threatening yet another illegal Middle Eastern war was a bad call. Moving on diplomatic negotiation when that failed was the right reaction to its failure.

Another thing underying all of this is the proposition that Syrian chemical weapons were really what Obama was after. We know for a fact that rightwing hawks like McCain are committed to toppling Assad, chem weapons or no. So that motivation exists, and it's not clear to me that sudden concern over chemical weapons was not partiall pretext.

Bombing a bunch of runways and Command / Control centers as Obama requested would affect much more than chemical weapons.

We also know the CIA is training Syrian rebels. So the notion that Obama rattled the sabre and thereby accomplished his goal is questionable. It's just as possible that he tried an avenue to get the U.S. into a hot war and just overreached.

Be interesting to see how "fluid" things get as these negotiations go forward. What Syria offers. What the U.S. demands. Obama certainly tried to keep the threat of a strike alive in his speech last night.

[Sheepshank]

78. "Obama certainly tried to keep the threat of a strike alive in his speech last night. "

do you think this posturing was for the benefit of the US community or for Assad? Keeping pressure on the madman reminding him of his demise is the only thing keeping him from continuing his actions and (a la Zimmerman), believeing he is bulletproof and can continue with impunity to escalate his actions.

[DirkGently]

80. I do not think U.S. threats are the sole power in the world, no.

That is the foolish premise of PNAC and neocons that Democrats have rightly claimed to reject.

Keep in mind this threat we are making is illegal under international law. Sure, some would like to see it, but there's always someone who wants more weight on one side of a war or another.

I heard non-Assad backing Syrians on NPR this morning who didn't want a U.S. strike, because they believe it just escalate the chaos and destruction.

Who are we, exactly, to tell everyone, in and out of Syria, that things will be just as we want them, or Tomahawks will rain from the sky?

From where do we get the assumption we can even accomplish such a goal through such means?

If Assad doesn't do what we want, we're going to ... what? Mess up his military so somehow just chems are hard to use, but not so much that Al Quaeda-backed rebels win the war?

The notion that America's choices are to make war or do nothing or encourage the use of chemical weapons is a fraud. We are not the country that must always use military force to remake the world as we see fit; other countries' voices be damned.

We are not neocons.

[Sheepshank]

81. looks like my assertions were not too far off the mark after all

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023640803

[DirkGently]

82. Youch. Not a credible source, to say the least.

That's maybe the funniest variation on a very sad OMIGOD EVERYTHING IS GOING JUST HOW OBAMA PLANNED IT theme, as attempted to be bolstered by the observation that just AFTER the gigantic public backlash against the strikes, Obama spoke to Putin about diplomatic alternatives.

Doesn't work, unless you let the OP get away with the oh-so-subtle attempt to slip "weeks ago" in for "last week."



That idea is also completely undermined by the State Department's hurried statement that Kerry's off-the-cuff about disarmanament was meaningless rhetoric. That was the administration -- Obama -- reeling Kerry back in.

[Sheepshank]

83. see you are back to the extreme...

it's pretty clear you have your own agenda here and NO has said this was the only and workable plan of action that was so preplanned it was destined to work....have they? The comments are that this scenario was the best outcome from previous deiscussions and negotiations, public statments, and actions taken to date. I don't think it was all happenstance. I think much of it was delierately put out into the public forum for Assad to see. It's very clear to everyone (except those that only want to create the appearance of stupidity and dumb luck) that Assad may or may not have reacted in a manner that was being manipulated via discussions. God, you seem bitter at having Obama not look like a total loser.

[DirkGently]

84. You cited an OP that claimed Obama planned it all.

Which is a ridiculous premise.

Obama looks good to the extent he is now embracing diplomacy. He looks bad to the extent he called for another illegal war in the Middle East to begin with. Those are the facts, love 'em or leave 'em.

The rest of the motivations and agendas and bitterness you are projecting from yourself onto the world, I'm afraid.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. He may not have "failed" but, thanks to the Brit Parliament and the polls, we won.

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. Thanks to the Brit Parliament?

Say what? Are you another one of the Brits on the board around here...I sense there is a cadre of them...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. The Brit parliament voted against the war.

My mother was born in Leeds. My grandmother in County Mayo. I was born in Los Angeles.

[Rex]

67. He didn't fail, he went before Congress.

Just ain't so this time. Now the last guy...OH YEAH...had unilateral written all over his greasy face!

NOT Obama!

Sorry, just not true.

[cleanhippie]

77. If say that avoiding war through diplomacy, be it accidental or not, is NOT a failure.

It's a WIN for Humanity.

[great white snark]

79. Yep, that's step one. Step two will be you taking credit for the outcome.

How does President Obama always turn his detractors into spoiled children?