Can We Afford Another "Trust Me" Engagement/Strike/War?

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Methinks you hit the wrong quote button.......................

 

 

 

or you're finally agreeing with yourself.

 

.

.

 

It would appear I have hit the wrong quote button. It was supposed to be Chef's "is it to late to change it"

[DC Tom]

Let me ask you if Obama had not made that red line remark would we have to bomb someone/anyone?

 

No. Then he just could have had some junior State appointee stand up and call this "chemical weapons-like activities" and pretended nothing happened.

[B-Man]

No. Then he just could have had some junior State appointee stand up and call this "chemical weapons-like activities" and pretended nothing happened.

 

Which reminds me....................where is our previous Secretary of State (and future President ) hiding ?

 

 

 

When word that Syria was mixing chemical weapons precursors broke last December, Secretary Clinton was in Prague. She was asked by a New York Times reporter about the President's red line on Syria and gave the following response [Emphasis added]

 

SECRETARY CLINTON:

Well, Michael, those are a lot of questions, but they’re important questions and ones that are very much in on the minds of our Administration and like minded countries around the world, including the Czech Republic. Because as I alluded to earlier, the Czech Republic is widely viewed as having some of the most extensive expertise and experience with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear matters. And they have already been consulting about what can be and should be done, both at this time and post the inevitable fall of the Assad regime.

 

We

have made our views very clear.

This is a red line for the United States.

I’m not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the Assad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people. But suffice it to say,

we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur

.

 

President Obama is clearly trying to back away from his own policy, but he simply cannot claim he was making a generic statement about world norms when his own Secretary of State was referring to "a red line for the United States." And note that Clinton also said "we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur." She's not saying the world will respond. Our Secretary of State said "we" would respond.

 

And the President was saying the same thing at the time, i.e. if CW were used US military action would follow. This was clearly a US policy, not a reference to international norms.

 

It's a shame that some in the media seem willing to go along with the President moving the goal posts even when they clearly understand that is what is happening. Fortunately not everyone is falling for it.

Obama is correct to argue that the international community has long drawn a “red line” condemning the use of chemical weapons, but his point blurs the fact that his “red line” comment in August 2012 was made in the context of what it might take for the U.S. to get involved militarily in Syria. While Obama may have had some justification for drawing that line based on international conventions, the decision to tie U.S. military involvement to Assad using chemical weapons was Obama’s red line.

 

The President set a red line for this country. His claim to the contrary two days ago is simply false.

 

 

http://www.breitbart...-US-in-December

[Keukasmallies]

i believe at some point POTUS will invoke the "It wasn't terrorist-related; it was work place violence" rationale and just ignore the whole thing.

[IDBillzFan]

Let me ask you if Obama had not made that red line remark would we have to bomb someone/anyone?

 

What are you talking about? Obama never said anything about a red line.

[DC Tom]

What are you talking about? Obama never said anything about a red line.

 

He just implied - er, we inferred - it.

[B-Man]

If It Wasn’t Syria, It Would Have Been Something Else

By Victor Davis Hanson

 

 

It is very possible that the president will not obtain a join authorization to bomb Syria; if he chooses to go ahead and attack anyway, Obama will incite a constitutional crisis—the first time in history that a president has decided to go to war against the declared wishes of Congress. The public and the courts will adjudicate the legality of that act, and it would be contentious.

 

So the corner that Obama has painted himself into is now inescapable. Defying Congress will put the country into a Watergate/Monicagate mess. Not doing anything will confirm the administration’s impotence and only enhance Russia, Iran, Assad, China, Islamists, and almost anyone else who does not like the U.S. Doing something small, with or without congressional approval, will be looked upon as a cynical waste of human lives to restore Obama’s credibility, the sort of craven, immoral political act that a younger Obama made a career out of mocking. Doing something big will invite public and global outrage if only moderately successful, and doom the Obama presidency if unsuccessful.

 

How did Obama get himself into this mess? It was bound to happen, given his past habits. All we are seeing now is the melodramatic fulfillment of vero possumus, lowering the rising seas, faux Corinthian columns, hope and change, the bows, the Cairo speech, and the audacity of hope. Hubris does earn Nemesis.

 

1) His inclination is to damn straw men, blame others for his self-inflicted errors, and spike the ball when he should keep quiet and become modest (cf. the bin Laden raid). So in Syria we heard the same old, same old: A host of bad guys, here and abroad, wants to do nothing. Obama alone has the vision and moral compass to restore global and U.S. credibility through his eloquence; but the world disappointed him and is now at fault for establishing red lines that it won’t enforce: He came into the world to save the world, but the world rejected him.

 

After five years of this, the world caught on, and sees juvenile and narcissistic petulance in lieu of statesmanship—and unfortunately a sinister Putin takes great delight in reminding 7 billion people of this fact almost daily. In terms of geostrategic clout, Obama has nullified the power of his eleven aircraft-carrier battle groups, Putin through his shrewd insight and ruthless calculation of human nature, has added five where they didn’t exist.

 

2) Obama thinks in an untrained manner and for all the talk of erudition and education seems bored and distracted—and it shows up in the most critical moments. Had he wished to stop authoritarians, prevent bloodshed and near genocide, and foster true reform in the Middle East, there were plenty of prior, but now blown occasions

 

{snip}

 

Instead, Obama relied on his rhetoric and talked loosely, sloppily and inconsistently from crisis to crisis, the only common denominator being that he always took the path of least resistance and thus did nothing concretely to match his cadences. Usually to the degree he made a decision, he made things worse with empty, first-person bombast.

 

3) Obama cannot attract top talent. Those from prior administrations who are gifted and worked for him or who were promoted by him—Robert Gates, David Petraeus, Paul Volcker, Richard Holbrooke, James Mattis, Stanley McChrystal—either were treated badly, not fully utilized, or ended up regretting their experience. Instead a host of mediocrities are recruited on the basis of either their partisanship, loyalty or demonstrated past lightness—an Eric Holder, Joe Biden, Susan Rice, Timothy Geithner, Chuck Hagel, etc.

 

Nowhere than in the present crisis is this unfortunate trend more telling: Pro-war John Kerry has opportunistic anti-war baggage, pontificates rather than persuades, and freelances into serial embarrassments; Martin Dempsey, to his credit, cannot square the circle of being an honest man assigned to say things he knows simply cannot be true, and so pleads the military’s version of the Fifth; Chuck Hagel has not recovered from the confirmation hearings, and just wishes Syria would go away; anything that a surprisingly quiet Joe Biden says on the crisis will probably be incoherent and incendiary, and surely contradictory of some past statement; Susan Rice astutely outsourced this crisis; Hillary Clinton whose “what difference does it make?” fingerprints are all over the Syrian and Libyan fiascos wisely got out of town ahead of the posse.

 

What is now the least bad choice between terrible and even more terrible alternatives? If the congressional vote is yes, the choice is cynically wasting a few American lives for a possible point, or killing lots more people for a more possible point. Not good choices.

 

If the congressional vote is, as I hope, no, Obama should quietly (i.e., don’t blame Congress, the world, the public, etc.) back out of the bombing mode, more quietly continue the belated work of promoting a pro-Western resistance to Assad, mend fences with allies most quietly, and prepare very carefully (but without the bombast) for a real crisis on the near horizon that will need the public, the Congress, our allies, and the president’s full attention and response. In our new Vienna-summit-to-Cuban-missile-crisis era of danger, I fear our enemies and rivals are digesting the Syrian misadventure and calibrating to what degree they might soon turn our present psychodrama into a real American tragedy.

[DC Tom]

If the congressional vote is, as I hope, no, Obama should quietly (i.e., don’t blame Congress, the world, the public, etc.) back out of the bombing mode, more quietly continue the belated work of promoting a pro-Western resistance to Assad, mend fences with allies most quietly, and prepare very carefully (but without the bombast) for a real crisis on the near horizon that will need the public, the Congress, our allies, and the president’s full attention and response.

 

Does anyone honestly expect Obama to do that? Or is it more likely he'll just blame Parliament?

[OCinBuffalo]

Let me ask you if Obama had not made that red line remark would we have to bomb someone/anyone?

That's not the question.

 

The real question? Where are the idiots who told us:

1. Obama has plenty of executive leadership experienece because: he runs a campaign?

2. Obama has no need of real foreign policy experience because: the world loves him?

3. Obama has no need of real military experience because: Colin Powell likes him? Did you see those 8 generals on the stage in Denver? Problem Solved!

 

I'll tell you: walking around like nothing has happened, as if they shouldn't be held accountable for their idiocy.

 

They will never admit to saying all this crap, because they never admit to anything. All they do is try to "pivot"...to Gay Marriage, to Global Warming...to anything.

 

The trouble for them is: those days are over. All of these wedge issues have expired. And, that DNC consultant was right: Obama, and the "Squirrel!" people, are doing irreparable damage to the Democratic Party.

 

Tell me that the stereotype of "leftist = kitty" hasn't been reinforced by this guy, 10x over. Hillary is being royally screwed by this, and you can damn well bet she knows it. That's why she's hiding. She's in a bunker someplace ordering room service every day, and howling at the TV.

 

Meanwhile, her potential competitors, like Rand Paul, are out in front, talking about the issue and trying to lead on it....because the incompetent boob in the office has no clue what to do, and therefore will do what he always does: base it on politics.

Edited September 7, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Keukasmallies]

This pretty much says it for me: POTUS is just in over his head and doesn't yet understand his predicament.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/opinion/castellanos-gop-obama-syria/

[B-Man]

I’m still struck by the president explaining to the world on Friday, in Russia (of all places), that “I have a well-deserved reputation for taking very seriously and soberly the idea of military engagement.”

 

I suppose he meant it as a letter of recommendation on his own behalf to the Nobel Prize Committee that he get to keep that inexplicable “peace” prize of his.

 

 

 

 

I'll help Syria if the U.S. attacks, says Putin in chilling threat to Obama as G20 summit breaks up in acrimony

http://www.dailymail...d-s-regime.html

 

 

Not a lot of nuance, in that message

 

 

 

.

Edited September 7, 2013 by B-Man

[Chef Jim]

In the past few decades the US has embraced its pussification by promoting things like metro sexuality and shows such as American Idol. We've vilified the strong and made heroes of the week. All whike Russia was kicked to the curb as a super power but maintaining their macho attitude and wanting nothing more than to be the super power they once were. I agree with John McCain. When I look in Putin's eyes I see the KGB. I'm concerned.

[....lybob]

I’m still struck by the president explaining to the world on Friday, in Russia (of all places), that “I have a well-deserved reputation for taking very seriously and soberly the idea of military engagement.”

 

I suppose he meant it as a letter of recommendation on his own behalf to the Nobel Prize Committee that he get to keep that inexplicable “peace” prize of his.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.dailymail...d-s-regime.html

 

 

Not a lot of nuance, in that message

 

 

 

.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-5-199004-Russia-flayed-over-attack-threat-to-Saudi-Arabia may you live in interesting times.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Reductio ad Obama: The logic of the president’s incapacity to lead..

by James Taranto

Obama loves to speak in the first-person singular; he seems oblivious to the obnoxiousness of his habitual references (including one in today’s press conference) to “my military.” But suddenly it’s a matter of whether we mean what we say.

 

It’s the same dodge as “I didn’t set a red line.” In reality, as we noted Wednesday, Obama did introduce the idea of “a red line,” and his subordinates later affirmed that he had thereby set such a line. Obama is using the first-person plural to obscure what he’s really doing by asking lawmakers for approval: demanding that they say that they mean what he said. He blundered into a policy by speaking carelessly, waited months before thinking through its implications, then made a decision.

 

He believes he has the authority to carry out that decision on his own, but apparently is unwilling to do so unless Congress affords him political cover.

I’m beginning to think that this President Obama fellow just isn’t up to the job.

 

 

.

[Koko78]

 

I’m beginning to think that this President Obama fellow just isn’t up to the job.

 

But hey, at least an inexperienced idiot like Sarah Palin isn't a heartbeat away from the presidency!

 

FORWARD! YES WE CAN!

[B-Man]

 

Is This Why Obama Decided to Go to Congress?

 

President Obama did not seek Congressional approval for military action against Libya, and until last weekend, he was firmly on course to order some sort of reprisal against the Assad regime in Syria without going to Congress. Then, on Saturday, August 31, Obama suddenly and unexpectedly reversed course, announcing that he would ” seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.” Since then, there has been much speculation as to why Obama changed his mind.

 

I think we now have the answer. You are no doubt aware of news reports of threatened retaliation by Iran and others in the event of a Syrian strike. In the most horrifying instance, Iranian cleric Alireza Forghani–who, there is reason to believe, spoke with the approval of Iran’s rulers–vowed that in case of an attack on Assad.

 

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported more threats:

The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria, officials said, amid an expanding array of reprisal threats across the region.

 

These threats have been reported publicly only in recent days, but when would they have become known to President Obama? On September 5, the Daily Caller reported that Forghani issued his statement “last week.” The date when our intelligence agencies intercepted the Iranian message on Iraq has not been publicly reported, to my knowledge, but the Journal said yesterday that it was “intercepted in recent days.” So the timing fits: it seems probable that Obama became aware of the threats of retaliation that have been reported (and, perhaps, others that have not been made public) last week; likely, late last week.

 

Isn’t this the most plausible explanation of why Obama changed his mind about Congress? If sending a few cruise missiles into Syria was a symbolic act, without serious consequences, like blowing up an aspirin factory in Sudan, then Obama was happy to go it alone. But if there was a possibility of major blowback, not just from an isolated terrorist or two but coordinated by Tehran, the situation would have seemed entirely different. In the event of a significant retaliatory response, Obama would not want to be out on a limb by himself on Syria. Rather, he would want it to be clear that the Syrian intervention was a decision for which the entire U.S. government was responsible, including some Republicans (like, say, John McCain). This conclusion is even stronger, given the risk that a significant retaliation traceable to Iran would escalate tensions with that nation and could lead to a broader and far more substantial conflict. In this event, Obama most certainly would not want to be seen to have triggered the conflagration by himself.

 

 

 

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/09/is-this-why-obama-decided-to-go-to-congress.php

[DC Tom]

He believes he has the authority to carry out that decision on his own, but apparently is unwilling to do so unless Congress affords him political cover.

 

That's the problem right now in a nutshell.

 

And guess what? Any way that works out, Obama's just castrated the presidency, both nationally and globally.

[B-Man]

• Hey, guess what President Laser-like Focus is up to today
  

• Reid faces double-digit Democratic defections on Syria strike measure. ..........................................I stand by my advice to the GOP: Not one Republican should cast a vote until all the Democrats have done so.
  

• BUT OF COURSE: Liberal Activist Ed Asner Explains Hollywood Silence On Obama, Syria: They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black.’
  

 

 

.

Edited September 7, 2013 by B-Man

[TakeYouToTasker]

Makes sense. Hollywood loves Brown on Brown violence.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

I’m still struck by the president explaining to the world on Friday, in Russia (of all places), that “I have a well-deserved reputation for taking very seriously and soberly the idea of military engagement.”

 

I suppose he meant it as a letter of recommendation on his own behalf to the Nobel Prize Committee that he get to keep that inexplicable “peace” prize of his.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.dailymail...d-s-regime.html

 

 

Not a lot of nuance, in that message

 

 

 

.

 

At least you know where putin stands on an issue....