[DavidE]

Is it just me, or is this the most incompetent production I've seen in years?

No real solid plan, at least nothing really stated or sold to the American Public by the White House over the last year building up to this, combined with complete ineptness at the State Department. (Which I figure is because top brass there was picked more for loyalty on the great Benghazi cover up than for any professional skill.)

No real plan, no real contacts or allies, then a promise to pull the trigger, then no, then maybe, now the White House staff avoids the press and the President heads off to Sweden. Facepalming unbelievable incompetence.

 

[TommyGunn]

It isn't "just" you -- I haven't spoken to anyone who thinks O knows what he's doing in this Syria matter.

I've read or heard more than one commenter say Obama should have had congress all lined up and everything ready before pressing the button on any Syria operation. Most also say he should never have drawn any lines in the sand.

The Big O is an empty suit. There is nothing in his background that would suggest any competence in foreign affairs -- and it is showing big time right now.

 

[Diamondback]

Somebody needs to tell Boy Blunder that when he feels the need to play war, a video game will do it at far less cost in blood and treasure.

 

[stand watie]

To ALL,

ZERO has NO CLUE about Syria or much of anything else. ALL that he has done is SELL OUT to the RICHEST 1% of his DONORS; thus ALL that he cares about is MONEY & MORE personal POWER.

I have to tell you that I'm stunned that ANYBODY left, center or right still supports that "coven of kooks, weirdos, perverts and outright CROOKS".
(Except of course the FEW who BOGHT & PAID FOR Zero.)

yours, sw

 

[dfariswheel]

Obama screwed up and let his mouth get him in a corner.
This is what you'd expect from a totally unqualified, inexperienced college professor/community organizer/rabble rouser.
Most people would have at least gotten a clue after almost 6 years on the job.

However, he came up with a win-win fix.

1. Congress votes for military action.
a. It works. Obama takes all the credit.
b. It fails. Obama lays as much of the blame as possible on the Republicans. Ably aided by the press, he blames the delay for the failure and the Republicans for the delay. The dissenting Democrats will not be mentioned by anyone.

2. Congress vote against military action.
Perfect situation for Obama.
He gets out of the corner, blames everything on the Republicans for voting "No" and uses it as a political weapon for the 2014 election to try to hold off a loss of the Senate.
He'll claim he valiantly tried to save the poor Syrian people but those icky Republicans were more interested in politics and damaging him personally.
Matthews and the other usual suspects will claim the Republicans voted No and caused mass death in Syria because they're racists and hate Obama because he's black.
The dissenting Democrats will not be mentioned by the press, and the whole thing will be the fault of the Republican's hatred for The One.

 

[William R. Moore]

If you step back and look at the really big picture, it's actually kinda funny. Nothing in the Prezz's previous experience has included dealing with people who won't cave to posturing. I also don't think he has a clue how much he looks like a 5 year old when he pouts and screams. It's a crime that most of the media doesn't point his out.

Unfortunately, the entertainment isn't worth the ticket price for those of us paying the fare.

 

[IrishCop]

There just aren't any good guys in this civil war. Assad, who was once called "an agent of change" by our last Secretary of State, is a thug who was always a thug and will always be a thug. And it is likely that he DID use chemical weapons on his own countrymen.

The rebels, no matter what John McCain says, are hard corps Islamic fanatics who are closely tied to Al Qaeda, and a possibility (although pretty slim I think) that THEY used the chemical weapons on the Syrians.

The Russians are going to back Assad. Iran and a few other Arab states are backing the rebels.

And no matter what the Prez says, if we start, we aren't going to stop with air power. There WILL be boots on the ground. We've been at war for 12 years now. Our guys are getting tired. I know several guardsmen and reservists who have served three tours in Iraq/Afghanistan in the last 5 years! Guards and Reserves! Think about the active duty folks!

Any involvement in Syria, absent a clear and present danger to the United States, is a serious mistake, and can only end badly.

 

[stand watie]

IrishCop,

EXACTLY CORRECT. =====> What ZERO deserves is DUMPING out onto Penn Ave. on his pointed little head.

yours, sw

 

[Javlin]

One of the guys working for me just got back from Afganistan(400days) after two in Iraq(26yrold) and called Afganistan a sh*t hole.He had less than a 100days left on his deployment when he came back stateside which he informed me he is not allowed to work public sector for he is actually still deployed.He moved back to NC will rejoin the company there and switch to active duty Army less deploymnets.Then a fella who use to work for us is my age earlly 50's is on his 6th deployment as a Reservist ! He said this is the last one with age being part of the factor.We need to shore up or morale,morals and economy and let Rome burn over there if needed.

 

[DavidE]

The irony is that with Chechnya and Dagestan Russia has a huge priority in fighting terrorism and has done many joint counterterror exercises with us.

With that as a joint interest there is a golden opportunity to cooperate on the Mideast, but it has been a disaster there.

U.S. Decided Not to Horse-Trade With Russia on Assad - WSJ.com

I agree it makes sense to stabilize Afghanistan (Obama has pulled forces out before the surge there was completed, which hm...) and this is all just boggling to me. I hate to say it but maybe letting Al Quaeda and Hezbolllah just shoot each other is best. It is horrible for the civilians but they are getting a bad deal either way whoever is winning, maybe worse if it is Al Quaeda.

 

[William R. Moore]

Uh, Irish, Iran & Russia back the Assad regime, not the rebels. Saudi Arabia and a host of the Gulf Coast Coalition states/emirates/whatever back the rebels.

Some factions of Hezbolla are fighting on different sides, Hamas is fighting as rebels. Using the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' logic, doesn't matter much to us in the short term who ....ah, is the lesser loser and comes out on top.

However, long term, we don't need another jihadist state in that area and having a stable, hopefully less oppressive regime. I do believe that "O" blew that one by not finding a way to support the rebels early on. I'm going to be benevolent and figure that was due to indecisive dithering rather than some dark plan to get another jihadist regime in place like he did in Egypt. Fortunately, the Egyptian Army seems unwilling to let their county go down the drain.

I read a description in a book one time about a guy who "was often wrong, but never in doubt." Unfortunately, the electorate picked a guy who is often wrong and freguently in doubt and therefore indecisive. Makes me wonder exactly who really made the decision to launch the bin Laden strike.

 

[DavidE]

William R. Moore: There is a book that claims to document how it eventually happened, after several refusals by the White House to authorize the mission.

Book bombshell: Obama canceled Bin Laden 'kill' raid three times at Jarrett's urging | The Daily Caller

I read his book "The Shadow War" which is excellent, and a look at counterterror stuff in the Bush years. I may have to pick this one up too some time.

 

[IrishCop]

Uh, Irish, Iran & Russia back the Assad regime, not the rebels. Saudi Arabia and a host of the Gulf Coast Coalition states/emirates/whatever back the rebels.

Some factions of Hezbolla are fighting on different sides, Hamas is fighting as rebels. Using the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' logic, doesn't matter much to us in the short term who ....ah, is the lesser loser and comes out on top.

However, long term, we don't need another jihadist state in that area and having a stable, hopefully less oppressive regime. I do believe that "O" blew that one by not finding a way to support the rebels early on. I'm going to be benevolent and figure that was due to indecisive dithering rather than some dark plan to get another jihadist regime in place like he did in Egypt. Fortunately, the Egyptian Army seems unwilling to let their county go down the drain.

I read a description in a book one time about a guy who "was often wrong, but never in doubt." Unfortunately, the electorate picked a guy who is often wrong and freguently in doubt and therefore indecisive. Makes me wonder exactly who really made the decision to launch the bin Laden strike.

Yessir, I caught my screw-up last night. Thanks for correcting it. It's what I get for being on the net at lunch hour at work. News reports this morning of Iran threatening to kidnap, rape and "amputate" (?) children of various key government personnel should the US act against Assad just kinda rubbed salt in my wound.

I don't think this was some nefarious plan by Obama either...I believe he threw out a bluff, Assad called it, and the American people said "Hey, wait a friggin' minute!", and now he is scrambling to save face.

Heard his press conference this morning and it was disheartening to say the least. The prez hates getting asked questions by the press that his people didn't feed them...he stumbled and stuttered around the answers and came across as weak, indecisive (as you pointed out) and powerless. Move along folks...no leadership to see here.

 

[TommyGunn]

Found an analogy that completly explains Obama's foreign policy so simply even a caveman will understand it. :mrgreen:

 

[IrishCop]

Well played, Tommy...well played. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Diamondback]

Better one, so easy an AMPHIBIAN TURD could understand it:

 

[Ratfink2u]

Obama screwed up and let his mouth get him in a corner.
This is what you'd expect from a totally unqualified, inexperienced college professor/community organizer/rabble rouser.
Most people would have at least gotten a clue after almost 6 years on the job.

However, he came up with a win-win fix.

1. Congress votes for military action.
a. It works. Obama takes all the credit.
b. It fails. Obama lays as much of the blame as possible on the Republicans. Ably aided by the press, he blames the delay for the failure and the Republicans for the delay. The dissenting Democrats will not be mentioned by anyone.
2. Congress vote against military action.
Perfect situation for Obama.
He gets out of the corner, blames everything on the Republicans for voting "No" and uses it as a political weapon for the 2014 election to try to hold off a loss of the Senate.
He'll claim he valiantly tried to save the poor Syrian people but those icky Republicans were more interested in politics and damaging him personally.
Matthews and the other usual suspects will claim the Republicans voted No and caused mass death in Syria because they're racists and hate Obama because he's black.
The dissenting Democrats will not be mentioned by the press, and the whole thing will be the fault of the Republican's hatred for The One.

SPOT ON DFWheel! Since when has zero gone to congress to ask for anything? Him and his henchmen plow ahead with their own agenda like O'Bamacare. This is purely a move to have a scape goat in the wings ...

 

[DavidE]

Interesting column on the issue:

Why I

<http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/09/09/why-im-against-a-military-strike-on-syria/#more-832809>