2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumObama May Have Played Us All And Won – That Is Leadership
Even the most ardent Obama supporter likely believed that the President backed himself into a corner with his red line comment. But as ABC News Chris Good stated, President Obamas red line on Syria isnt quite as straightforward as its been made out to be.
The Presidents exact words were We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,
That would change my calculus. That would change my equation. The press along with most interpreted this to mean military action. The President did nothing to dissuade that belief. In fact he sent out John Kerry with an almost definitive statement that leads everyone to believe America was gearing up for a strike. In fact he even sent the navy in a poised position to attack. It was all a Bush-like action.
The Left-Wing blogosphere along with most war weary Americans went berserk. Suddenly, the President changed his stance and decided to have Congress vote on authorizing a strike while still reserving his right to strike irrespective of Congress decision.
It seemed as if he was trying to convince Congress to give him the approval in earnest. But even as he tried to convince Congress that this would be a surgical and rather minimal strike, it leaked that the strike plans were much more extensive than previously advertised. That would seem like a sabotage of a yes vote in Congress domestically, while scaring the hell out of the Russians internationally. After-all, there would be a good chance that the Russians would lose their only naval base in the region.
After the President got back from Russia where the President had some talks with Putin, Secretary of State Kerry had a news conference where he let it slip out that Syria could only avoid an attack if they gave up their chemical weapons. Russia gave support to that statement faster than bloggers even noticed it was a statement of consequence.
President Obama never wanted war if it could be avoided. This is the man that said the following in his speech against the Iraq War on Oct 2, 2002.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. Thats what Im opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
That said, the President needed all sides to believe that he could be as reckless as Bush was. In doing so the Russians were bound to use any opportunity or window to grab on to. Secretary of State Kerry gave them the necessary nugget.
From dire straits to possibility, was this all luck? For those who refuse to acknowledge the accomplishments of this President irrespective of the head winds from an intransigent and irresponsible Republican Congress, the answer is likely yes. Deep thinkers are likely to see this as a chess match and not simply luck in retrospect.
In one chess match the President was able to make the rank and file Republicans seem like doves, the neocons look reckless, the Tea Party wing seem like flip flopping buffoons all while potentially shutting down Syrias use of chemical weapons without firing a shot or dropping a bomb. The Right Wing would have none of it. They are so filled with that disease, that mental disorder called hate that they would rather praise Putin as he played Obama.
Here is the reality; the only ones that werent played in this whole scheme were the President and his administration. This President is so self-assured that unlike many he is capable of taking a barrage of incoming missiles without responding. He keeps his eye on the ball. That is real leadership. One hopes that as he approaches the twilight months of his presidency, he will use this same technique for middle class centric issues, immigration issues, and other Plutocrat busting issues.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Now the true believers are saying that the president is liar and that is a good thing....wow...amazing
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Since when was lying a trait considered part of leadership?
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)I would bet that Obama gambled that if he became hawkish an opportunity for a non violent solution would present itself to prevent an attack.
This would mean that if he lost the gamble he would have had to go through with the attack even though it was not what he really wanted.
It was a risky gamble but so far he seems to have won it.
So it wouldn't have been a lie, he would have attacked if there had been no alternative, but he calculated that being seriously willing to go through with an undesirable act would bring on a more desirable result.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Do you realize how silly that sounds?
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Doesn't even make logical sense.
LiberalFighter
(50,921 posts)Most of the cards that he is playing with are already faced up so people like Assad, Putin, and others see them.
He is President of the United States. He had bin Laden and many others taken out. He has access to drones.
Other cards can be determined by what is known.
Communications from Obama and Kerry to Assad, Putin, and others.
The risk is on those that try to gamble with him.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)It's pathetic. Occam's razor is gathering rust for lack of use.
Pisces
(5,599 posts)He has warmongers on record against military action. Oh boo hoo, he had to play tricks on people to actually get something done.
It is really despicable that people would rather he be some inept loser, than a brilliant man. Occam's Razaor indeed. He is
the luckies bastard on earth who happens to constantly bumble his way to winning 2 Presidencies and a slew of other things on
his agenda with a radical right that would rather oppose everything on its face than actually govern this country.
That seems more unrealistic than what you are proposing.
But, please, continue with your unmitigated disdain for a President that is accomplishing shit by any psychological means necessary.
I am sure that you are use to such truth tellers in politics. If its is going to accomplish disarmament, peace, ending wars etc
Tell me a lie!!
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)So I'm not going to. Just... wow.
sadness.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)haven't succeeded in spinning it the way you want you keep trying.
appacom
(296 posts)Love and respect me some chess-playing Obama, and I ain't even going to try to explain. Educate yourself.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that those here screaming bloody murder.....were all PART of the plan from the start! That they literally set the scene to make him look all the more resolute standing up to them....exact words I used......It was an amazing sight when I thought about how he just used their own "hair on fire" to his advantage! Touche...Sir....touche indeed!
dkf
(37,305 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)So maybe he was going to strike, I mean he was really going to do it!!!!
Or he just said he would and it was a bluff.
We'll never know, but if it was a bluff it was a good one!
lumpy
(13,704 posts)Assad had options also. Call Obama's bluff, hold on to his chemicals, hold his breath and pray; listen to Russia and stop to think about it.
Meanwhile Assad readied for possible attack, he must have taken the threat seriously.
If agreements hadn't been made after every effort by US and Russia, but only gotten worse, Obama would have had to make surgical strikes IMO. I don't believe it was a bluff.
Obama would have to beholden to his word that he meant business.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Obama was going to start 2nd Iraq war in Syria were wrong on a massive scale.
Those are the facts.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)do you mean the 3rd?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Around here, the prediction was that Obama would start a 2nd Iraq war, with the Bush fiasco being counted as the first.
My sense is that many here decided to not count the first one simply because it was rather tiny in comparison, and the intent of the prediction (relative to Syria) was to make a connection to a 10 year multi-trillion dollar mess, not a comparison to a rather quick 100 days war that was, generally speaking, a "victory".
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Putin and Assad just found that out the hard way.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,921 posts)will he continue to scowl and try to act macho? Or will he be more friendly with Obama?
rug
(82,333 posts)Maven
(10,533 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)By my reckoning we don't expect anything to change for 9 months, and there will be a lot of Miley Cyrus stories to divert our attention by then.
But there is no question Obama accomplished his main objective, which was to change the subject from NSA abuses.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And no one wants to admit it.
RC
(25,592 posts)The amateurs at the White House cant even get out of their own ways and that includes the guy at the top. His indecisive dithering is once again on full display for all the world to see. He has no articulated policy on Syria, no military plan except firing some cruise missiles at inconsequential targets and no end game for this face-saving gesture.
http://allthingspoliticaltoday.com/the-pretend-peace-plan/
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)-snip-
According to a senior Senate aide, Obama told Democrats that he had asked Kerry to reach out to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and offer the diplomatic solution.
"He mentioned that that occurred during the G-20 meeting (a year ago), when he met with (Russian President Vladimir) Putin -- that he would assign Kerry to discuss diplomatic alternatives," added Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.).
A senior administration official confirmed to The Huffington Post that Obama and Putin first discussed the concept in Los Cabos at the G-20 in June 2012. After the first plenary session, while world leaders were mingling, Obama and Putin went to a corner of the room and spoke for nearly half an hour about Syria.
-snip-
Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/john-kerry-syria-solution_n_3901863.html
Pisces
(5,599 posts)spew their garbage and hate. It's a mystery why some want to believe the worst. In their estimation Obama is just
the luckies SOB on the planet, Putin is a brilliant mastermind and Fox news is fair and balanced.
You have some of the best posts on here. I don't know how you keep it up instead of getting frustrated with the noise
that continues on this board, but I'm glad you don't.
Keep fighting the good fight.
SamReynolds
(170 posts)And most of it devoid and irrespective of the facts at hand. You know, when I find an opinion piece that dwells so very much in the gaps of the story rather than on the facts, just 'makes shit up' about people not 'getting out of their own ways' or calling otherwise thoughtful actions 'indecisive dithering', it tells me everything I need to know about the author.
This piece of crap came from someone who's always had a chip on his/her shoulder about Obama.
Find me a piece by the same person that praises him without any backhanded bullshit.
Ohhhh... you can't? Gee, color me shocked.
RC
(25,592 posts)Why ain't I surprised? Practice willful blindness much?
I didn't attack the 'messenger', I attacked the message and the author. I also posted a challenge to prove my point. My point stands proven.
Project much?
RC
(25,592 posts)My point stands.
I was the one to ask "What facts?". I also left you a challenge you can't touch, but you really want to save face, don't you?
Sad.
RC
(25,592 posts)What is wrong with the information provided in the link? Other than you disagree, you never said.
What facts are wrong and what are the missing gaps at the link?
lumpy
(13,704 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)about his repeatedly putting Social Security on the table. Him pushing the Chained CPI. His appointing Republicans and DLC types. Larry Summers, you gotta be kidding me. Extending bu$h's tax cuts. Some of bu$h's tax cuts are still in effect for the well-to-do, even though they were all set to expire automatically in 2010. Then there is the TTP. Obama even admires Reagan, the guy who started all this financial mess. Obama is no Liberal and it shows. Oh, and don't forget the drone strikes in countries we are not at war with, double strikes and all. Including taking out two American citizens, without any Judge or jury, just an executioner, on his say so.
Rosco T.
(6,496 posts)"Make me"
and so it was
Cha
(297,206 posts)who know him very well were thinking he had a plan behind this. But, I see your point.
KSK(africa) @lawalazu
PBO Lucky ScoreCard
2008 Ele.
Economy
Somalia Pirates
#Obamacare,
Bin Laden
Somalia pirates
DADT
DOMA
Al Qaeda henchmen killed
46 Retweets 18 favorites ReplyRetweet
http://theobamadiary.com/2013/09/14/a-tweet-or-two-2/
I would add the 2012 Election.. and everything else he's accomplished..
We'll Keep This List Going. Here are 221 Obama Accomplishments, With Citations! He's Done Plenty
http://pctcblog.com/index.html/obama.html?utm_content=buffer2ce73&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer
Mahalo for your OP..
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"People kind calling me luck/Funny, the harder I work, the luckier I get!" {heard that on my daughter's play-list}
This kind of analysis can't go well, because it requires that most will have to acknowldge they aren't as analytical, informed and politically skilled as they tell themselves that they are ... even after witnessing the same kind of play, at least twice before.
tweeternik
(255 posts)SamReynolds
(170 posts)It was close though. I really liked the fact that Clinton was as shrewd and potentially ruthless (confirmed by wikileaks) as anyone else on the list, but Obama had that 'I got this' feel.
K+R. Thanks for posting.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)strikes if a deal was not reached.
Meanwhile, the Combustible Hair Club made wild predictions about how the President wasn't just going to launch strikes, he was going to INVADE Syria and start a 2nd Iraq style war ... a war that would expand and include Iran and Russia.
The Combustible Hair Club was wrong. Very, very wrong.
And now they are very upset that the President didn't prove them right.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)I'm skeptical--I still think he screwed up and then did a really good salvage job--but I'm very willing to admit it's possible that Obama did have a strategy here that ended up panning out.
What I'm *not* willing to believe is that the "Let's-Bomb-Syria", "You're-Hitler-If-You-Disagree" crowd was in on it when they were cheerleading.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)How do you know you aren't being played? How do you know he isn't pretending to be a centrist-disguised pragmatic liberal who is lulling you into a state of love and trust before sinking the knife in deeply? If Obama is playing everyone, how could anyone know what his motive is or trust him?
Or maybe he just fucked up and came out lucky on Syria
MADem
(135,425 posts)the Syria issue. They've had meetings about it for the last couple of years now, coordinating responses with the Arab League and others, and they even had discussions with the Russians as long as over a year ago.
This isn't a new "get up to speed" event for them--they know the deal, they know the drill. It's their critics that are trying to get on the learning curve...
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Yep! It was ALL a secret plan!!!
"Playing" the British Parliament to resoundingly Shout "NO!!" to another Rush-to-War was tricky,
and maneuvering Putin to pull his chestnuts out of the fire at the last minute was especially devious,
one might say difficult for a rational person to believe.
[font size=3]
One thing I DO know,
those of us who consistently STOOD UP for
International Diplomacy and International Law Enforcement in dealing with Syria (or anyone else)
Did NOT "play" anybody,[/font]
and have been consistent, honest, and up front all the way.
We have no need for excuses, fanciful rationalizations, tortured mental gymnastics, sophistry, revamping of History, or apologies.
We WON!
Is having a President who "plays" people NOW a "Good Thing"?
So was Obama also "playing" us about the Public Option, re-negotiating NAFTA, making EFCA the Law of the Land, Transparent Government, Protecting Whistle Blowers, Bailing out Wall Street, labeling GMO foods, and being a Friend of LABOR too?
...because I feel "played" on those issues.
You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)If things are going bad, don't fret because wheels are in motion behind the scenes, and the plan is moving forward on a level that mere mortals can't comprehend. If things are going good, it's because his brilliant plans have come to fruition. See? Nothing to worry about!
Whisp
(24,096 posts)being so much smarter than Obama you would definitely be smarter than Hillitary - i'm sure you will win and then get to sit in the Big Chair and do your good works.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Igel
(35,300 posts)That's the claim, at least.
Why, how Machiavellian of you.
You want an autocrat. Do we have an Autocratic Party?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and I can already see the reaction to this line:
They are so filled with that disease, that mental disorder called hate that they would rather praise Putin as he played Obama.
sad and hilarious.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)he sure can make the fools dance the crazy dance they know the steps to so well after all this time and the many 'scandals'.
gotta love it.
Thank you, Mr. President for being the cool dude you are. You are Always the smartest man in the room and make these fools look like idiots. You don't intend to do that, because that isn't what you are about, it's just a nice bonus for some of us onlookers.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Never Let Them Know What You Are Thinking.
Sam