The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Putin---don't play me!

    By Oxy Mora on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 12:44pm |

    Putin's now universally known initiative on chemical weapons control in Syria has, in my opinion, opened the door to essential American character traits which may preordain our getting more involved in Syria's war.

    We don't like to be lied to. We particularly don't like to be played for chumps. When we do decide to address a problem, we are impatient. We are capable of revenge, but as one pundit has put it, "...we have the watches, the Middle Easterners have the time."  We don't have the patience for cold revenge, we like ours hot. And if Putin is playing us for chumps, he has all but written a scenario for American intervention.

    What got me thinking along the line of patience was a CNN instant poll after Obama's speech which contained what to me was a curious result. In the poll (which over represented Democrats by 7 points) the CNN analysis blog stated, "nearly two thirds of those who watched the speech think that the situation in Syria is likely to be resolved through diplomatic efforts. 35% disagreed." That puzzled me for my guess would have been that people were much more skeptical of Putin's proposal. Perhaps the public has a sixth sense about the logic behind Russia's initiative. But another interpretation is that the public, for now, is engaged in wishful thinking.

    But my point here is about what follows a scorned lover, a disenchanted business partner---or in this case, having been trifled with by Vladimir. Disenchantment about a relatively painless solution is where the sleeping giant of American impatience could be awakened and result in revenge and a military strike. I think that thirty days or so of negotiating, followed by disappointment, would materially move the public's, as well as Congressional Democrats', sentiment in Obama's direction.

    I am generally biased in favor of the President. My observation is that up to the point of his speech and the surface legitimization of the Russian proposal the public's disenchantment with all things Syrian had been hung around his neck and the rope twisted  incessantly by our johnny-one-note so-called Press.   Aside from the diplomacy question, the rest of the  CNN poll didn't show much change in the public's approval/disapproval of Obama's handling of Syria. Nor did the media coverage change from the now predictable "lifelines" being thrown Obama's way.

    Using the punditry's Obama model, neither Tony Romo facing the Giants or even Henry V at Agincourt could, in narrative, be allowed to change a play at the line of scrimmage when he saw how the opposition lined up. Instead, he must be thrown a "lifeline".

    As for the pundits, Thomas Friedman came crawling into the office after Obama's speech and handed in a report entitled "Threaten to Threaten". If I were his boss and he played me by turning in what might be the worst piece of journalism in recent memory I would not only be disenchanted I would kick his rear end off the editorial staff. Trying to cut him some slack, I can make a guess that he's saying, "Obama, you are no Churchill" and possibly, "That goes for you too Vladimir." Got it. And I particularly like this: "No one, hawk or dove, wants to see American boots on the ground, under any conditions. Count me among them." Wha?

    If the American public feels "played" by Putin, they might get their dander up and in that case, the media narrative might move in the President's direction, so might move the Democrats' mood in Congress, and we might well have military intervention in Syria.

    Personally, I think diplomacy will stall. But I hope I'm wrong and that the American public's sixth and common sense about the the possibility of successful diplomacy is what the CNN poll indicates and not just wishful thinking. 

    I suppose others could have completely different interpretations of the responses to the diplomacy question in the poll. In that case, count me among them.

    Comments

    Good points: Putin.... opened the door to essential American character traits which may preordain our getting more involved in Syria's war.

    Of course after 10++ years of Muslims blowing us up, any Putin/Assad snubbing will have to be awfully extreme for any Republicans to take it as an insult to 'real mericans' and authorize Obama to be War President Syria Edition. More likely they will try to exploit the impossibility of securing Syrian WMD for partisan gain, saying Obama and Democrats are 'weak'.


    by NCD on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 1:22pm

    I agree with you on the tea-publicans' reaction to a snubbing. What remains of the Establishment Republicans would, I think, get on board the intervention train. Graham seems very happy with the new developments, thinking Obama would have to act in reaction to a snubbing---regardless of Congressional approval.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 1:30pm

    I was originally impressed with the media coverage of the Syria question. For an instant, pundits seemed to genuinely grapple with the right way to respond to the attack. But now it has returned to the usual bullshit. Forget about hard issues like civilian massacres and military escalation, it's all about favorability ratings and facile pronouncements on Obama's presidency based on the issue du jour.

    For the record, I'd like to credit Acanuck for suggesting the Russian proposal two weeks ago:

    Here's an idea: instead of butting heads with the Russians over UN authorization to "punish" Assad, admit that the Syrian WMD stockpiles are the real concern. Agree to let Russia sequester them at its Tartus naval base, with the ultimate plan to destroy them. In return, the U.S. doesn't bomb, and Syria can pretend to be a responsible citizen of the world. Russia, for its part, gets a UN-mandated reason to hold on to its base. Win-win-win.

    I still think Assad won't ultimately agree, but it's the best proposal out there and worth pursuing before any other action, regardless of how it affects Obama's "cred" and other nonsense.

    PS Nice to see you back and blogging Oxy.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 1:25pm

    Thanks, Michael. And kudos to Acanuck.  


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 1:33pm

    Thanks for the credit, Michael. I’ve been in a state of bemused awe since Monday, as real live diplomats hash out details of my modest proposal.

    I ended that Aug. 30 comment with, “Call me a dreamer.” Not because the idea was impractical or impossible, but because it was so logical a solution (to me) that no one among the international high rollers would give it a second thought. Many are still looking for ways to make it fail.

    Anyway, you’re all invited to the Peace Prize ceremony (flight, meal and hotel accommodations not included; some restrictions may apply). Needless to say, I’m keeping the whole $1.5-million award.


    by acanuck on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 4:09pm

    I'll bring the peace pipe.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 4:25pm

    Hittin' the peace pipe I believe is something that can only legally be done here Mike!


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 4:50pm

    Excellent analysis. I am extremely skeptical that Putin and Assad will really get the job done, but any option that provides a possible out to military intervention is worth taking. On the plus side, the entire world is watching Putin. If Putin falters, Obama will be in the position of say,"I told you so."

    The next focus in this area should be on preventing other countries from acquiring the raw materials to produce chemical weapons.

    (Hopefully, these events have not diverted attention from the legal action that will be required to end the NSA assault on privacy)


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 2:39pm

    Thanks, mrd.

    Were you surprised by the answer to that diplomacy question?

    I also considered the possibility that "likely to be resolved through diplomatic efforts" could include, for example,something along the thread of "because even if diplomacy doesn't work, I wouldn't like being snubbed by Putin and I'd feel better about intervention.".

    May I count you among them?


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 3:05pm

    I think it's a no win situation. Russia is arming Assad and Putin is playing peacemaker We are left with 11 rebel groups who range from Middle East moderates to Al-Qeada supporters. There is no good option. Chemical weapons can pose a threat to multiple countries in the region. If Assad didn't directly order the use of chemical weapons, he is not in control of his weapons. If we can get him to give up the weapons, it is a good thing. If he backs down from giving up the weapons, then I would agree with a military action.

    My hope is that this turns into a Cuban Missile Crisis scenario where no missiles fly. 


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 3:28pm

      I'm not very hopeful that the diplomatic activity will avert war. My expectation is that the deal will fall apart, Obama will say to Congress "we tried diplomacy and it didn't work", and then the bomb 'em resolution will pass by a wide margin. I hope I'm wrong.


    by Aaron Carine on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 3:06pm

    Thanks, Aaron.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 3:23pm

    Heya, Oxy!

    I don't know what Putin's game is.  It might be simple and sincere.  "I'm keeping Snowden but here, I'll fix this for you."  In that sense, it's an expression of both power and influence.  It expresses independence but also the willingness to help and the ability to be useful.  Also, it may well be that he wants Assad in charge for as long as possible, if not forever, and knows that getting Assad away from his WMD toys is essential to that, lest Assad bring about his own demise by ultimately uniting the Western powers against him.

    If it was just a trick to buy time, a promise of disarmament as a football to be pulled away, I think you're right and the public's taste for intervenion (and definitely Congress' taste) changes quickly.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 3:20pm

    Back at cha, Michael. Yes, I think Putin wants to stretch this out, keep Assad in there for as long as possible.

    And cataloging and securing 1000 metric tons. That'll take some time.

     


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 3:37pm

    I read an article recently that asserted that Putin would like to see CW controlled. The contention was that one of the reasons he supports Assad is a fear that if the rebels win CW will end up in Chechnya. We'll see how it all plays out.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 4:00pm

    Isn't Friedman just wonderful!

    Oh something is happening and it is incumbent upon me to publish my wonderful thoughts about it all.

    We assume all the time that Russia is not important anymore.

    Hell it has the same mass (a maybe a tad more) as Canada; it contains a really diverse population; and it has the second largest cache of wmd's in the world.

    It seems incumbent upon US to work with Russia on a number of issues that affect our globe.

    But unlike Friedman, I do not pretend that I have read the entire file.

     

     


    by Richard Day on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 3:56pm

    Sometimes I fumble the T.V. remote---wait, is that Oliver North. He told Greta Russia was a dying country, seems their population declined last year. So no. Not important.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 6:15pm

    Oxy! So good to read you again. :) Welcome back.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 4:51pm

    Thanks, tmc.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 6:17pm

    Putin will replace Friedman at the NYT. A well constructed editorial just appeared on the NYT website, initiating a new policy of coherent and logical writing. Whether one agrees with Putin is another matter.

    The punditry doesn't have an opinion on what Putin said because it's too soon to reach a concensus but they instinctively know how to describe this major editorial event in terms of Obama's fecklessness, his loss of a "lifeline", and the obvious stealing of the Syrian narrative by our Russian adversary Obama just can't get it right.

    After more or less aligning himself with the Al Qaeda air force concept proffered by our distinguished new Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, and associating himself with many questions conveniently formulated for him by Democratic Congresswoman Sanchez and others in the House Committee hearings, Putin ends his piece of exceptional writing by trashing the concept of American Exceptionalism being based upon our military power and the willingness to use it. He failed to mention  Russia's ruthless military action in the Caucasus.

    Tea-publicans now find themselves curiously aligned with our arch enemy, Putin, as well as having new found respect for that rag sheet, the New York Times.

    But, you know what, Putin.? Welcome to the editorial board of the NYT. But no one screws around with our Exceptionalism and gets away with it.   

     

     


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 09/11/2013 - 10:03pm

    Putin maintained that the rebels used the chemical weapons, it will be interested to see if the UN report supports his position. The true Putin will be exposed to those who viewed him as the adult peacemaker.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 1:30am

    Russia’s Syria Calculus: Behind Moscow’s Plan to Avert U.S Missle Strikes.


    by EmmaZahn on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 1:01pm

    Emma, thanks for posting this. Very good piece.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 1:19pm

    You  use some interesting if twisted logic to expose the feckless and puerile nature of Amerikan Imperialism. We are constantly fed lies, half truths and propaganda by our  regime but it is Putin we need to fear being "played" by. The US and our French minions will do everything in their power to sabotage the chance of Peace breaking out in Syria and then use their propaganda machine to, shoot the messenger, Putin. 


    by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 11:00am

    Honestly, I think the probability of peace breaking out in Syria in the next 10 years is about zero. What the players are trying to do is to apply tourniquets according to their self interests, hoping there will be enough of the country left to reconstruct after the combatants exhaust their own killing instincts. As for the players I wouldn't want to spend the weekend with any of them---perhaps with the exception of Kerry's wife---so a comment like that does show a twisted mind and a feckless and puerile tendency in my personal life which is why I try to be interesting in my virtual life. Thanks for your comments.  

     


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 11:55am

    So Putin is a pure humanitarian homophobe not angling for a port while the US and the Anura are warmongers?


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 11:55am

    Of course Putin is not pure either in thought, motive, or action. Great catch. But then, who is? To demand purity from Russia's side would be to throw up a mega hypocritical roadblock that would never be surmounted .
     If the important intention is to stop the next use of CW in Syria, Obama's stated justification for bombing there, then we should give full support to Putin's offer as being the best chance and try to make it work even if the odds are against it.  Stopping the next CW attack through diplomacy and shared international non-violent action is a far better result than a punitive attack could rationally be expected to bring about. Attempting to do so through diplomacy is far more honorable. Odds may be very long but we should be pushing for success and hoping dumb ass politics or misguided national priorities here or anywhere else don't blow up the possibility.
     Use of CW's were not and continue to not be the only motive we had for bombing in Syria. Degrading Assad's fighting capability so as to strengthen the rebels chances was and still is one intention of our policies. There are those in this country who will recognize that agreeing to Putin's offer and trying to make it work will make any bombing in Syria by the U.S. much harder to justify as anything except trying to pick the winner in that civil war or, far worse, just intentionally keeping the war going so as to weaken both sides.  Their motives are hardly "pure". They will not want to lose any marketable highly emotional excuse even though removing Assad has always been their intention and they have been pushing for air strikes all along.
     Now that becoming the airforce for the Syrian opposition is on hold and possibly ruled out fairly long term, suddenly the U.S. has started delivering arms and ammunition to the rebels. Pushing Assad further into a corner where he might die surely increases the chance that he uses CW's to survive. That is why he has them.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 1:06pm

    Russia is actively supplying Assad.There is already an outside force acting in Syria. The idea against striking Assad was that the rebels used the weapons. Now there is a rationale for why Assad would use chemical weapons.

    Without the prodding from Obama neither Assad or Putin would be talking about chemical weapons.It is likely that Russia and Iran are both partially responsible for the chemical weapons cache in Syria.

    I have more trust in the Obama administration than the Russian homophobe, but we shall see how it turns out. It will take years to dismantle the chemical weapons stocks. If any other chemical attack by Assad or rogue Syrian units, it now falls in Russia's lap.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 1:59pm

    The only sensible policy I have heard articulated, and by Kerry, is to strengthen the opposition to the point where Assad will be forced to negotiate for a new government. So, call me naive, but I'm hanging my hat on it. I think the strategy of arming the good rebels has been in place for some time, the extent of the chemical attack a wild card 


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 2:47pm

    Once chemical weapons were used, some action had to be taken. With chemical waapons on the loose, embassies, military bases, etc could be targeted.Assad had signed no agreement not to use chemical weapons. Russia actively votes againstt any action to reign in Assad while actively providing him arms. Roussia, meaning Putin, denied that Syria used chemical weapons. Isee both Assad and Putin as less trustworthy than Obama.check the record to see the roadblocks Putin reacted earlier this year in trying to end the Syrian Civil War.

    I'm happy that no missiles are flying.If Obama was the warmonger, he would have used the War Powers Act and missiles would have already flown. We have to remain concerned if Putin is in charge of this operation.we'll get to see Putin in operation again during the Olympics where he will hide the actions is government is taking against homosexuals.. 


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 4:58pm

    Over and over, you assert that Putin has raised roadblocks to peace talks to end the civil war. The Geneva-2 conference is supposed to involve all regional players. The U.S. is trying to exclude Iran, which is clearly a major player. The Russians rightly object.

    The talks were originally set for May, but then the rebels lost ground and were hoping to regain, via outside arms, some military advantage before sitting down to negotiate. They still aren't ready to. Also they couldn't even agree on who would represent their side. Lakmar Brahimi, the UN-Arab League mediator, said as much in the fifth paragraph from the end of this article:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE95O0LQ2...


    by acanuck on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 6:59pm

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/30/russia-stonewalling-at-syria-peace-talks-while-un-warns-of-spreading-conflict/


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 7:00pm

     

    Russia ‘stonewalling’ at Syria peace talks, while UN warns of spreading conflict

    That is the title of the article you present and it is a strong assertion.

     

    The Russians have set out a series of objections with the current draft. The Russians are stonewalling quite a bit,” a Western diplomat told Reuters as the talks paused for lunch.

    That is the extent to which the article supports the title. And the Russians and the "Western powers" are in negotiations. I am confident that the U.S. did not accept everything in the first draft proposal either.


    by Anonymous LULU (not verified) on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 7:46pm

    Lulu,

    First, you and I need to smoke a spleef together or something.

    Second, let's back up and agree that if it is important to accuse either side of stonewalling, then we should probably begin chronologically with Geneva 1 or whatever and work our way through.  I just am not impressed with the notion that the U.S. and not Russia has been stonewalling peace talks.  

     


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 7:50pm

    My point must not have been clear. What I was saying is that the headline was misleading and the mere fact that Russia proposed changes to the initial draft during negotiations does not make the case that they were stonewalling anymore than if the "Western powers" found some objections and wanted some changes, which I presume they did.

     


    by Anonymous LULU (not verified) on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 8:05pm

    Got it. . .headlines can be troublesome indeed. wink


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 8:13pm

    LULU has it exactly right. I cited that article from June of this year to show that Brahimi (who is intimately involved in monitoring this process) agrees that the Syrian rebels can't get their act together, and basically are stalling peace talks. A statement by an anonymous diplomat, from an unidentified Western country, blaming the Russians for stonewalling counts for approximately nothing. Liechtenstein? Andorra?

    Second, there's the spin involved. As most of you know, I have worked in the newspaper industry for three full decades. Here's how it works: a wire-service story comes in. An editor can choose the Syria story he/she wants to run from as many wire services as the paper subscribes to (these cost-conscious days, it's probably two or three). You choose where to place the story; maybe it's Page 1, maybe Page A27.

    Then you write the headline. In this case, the Post chose an anonymous quote several paragraphs down to frame the story. Reading the Reuters story without considering the head, I find it unbiased reporting. But as LULU noticed, the bias comes in when deciding how to headline it.

    I happen to be very familiar with the National Post, founded 15 years ago by Conrad Black as a conservative rival to Canada's flagship national paper, the more-or-less liberal Globe and Mail. It is no surprise that the Post tweaks its coverage, and its headlines, to the right.


    by acanuck on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 10:42pm

    Thanks

    Russia shipped weapons to Syria delaying peace talks


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 8:17pm

    Talk about spin! Did Kerry actually warn Russia not to "hurt Israel's strategic interests?" What a total tone-deaf dick.


    by acanuck on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 10:49pm

    Without the US, I'm sure Putin would have gotten Assad to sign the chemical weapons ban.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 12:14am

    Oxy,

    It is so wonderful to see you post again, and forgive me for not letting you know sooner.  Here's my take, that I've been itching to express, on what has happened in the last couple of days.

    On Sunday and Monday, the sentiment in the MSM and even here I believe was that goofy Obama and Kerry really mucked things up.  Students of history should recall how efficiently the Bush Administration got us into the war in Iraq.  Style points and 2.50 now (geez) get one on the subway.

    Here's how I see what has happened.

    On Sunday, the choice facing the American People was either to bomb or not to bomb.  On Monday, after the "gaffe", and since that time, the choices on the table have dramatically shifted and essentially place this Putin character into check.  That is, the choices now are internationally recognized elimination of Syria's poison, or a military response.  I'll take that deal if I'm the one playing the game.

    Finally, one of the things I don't really love about public sector collective bargaining is that public sector unions in this country generally do not have the right to strike.  No leverage often equals no contract.   Simply put, it is downright overly simplistic (altruistic?) to refuse to acknowledge a simple truth, and that is that but for Obama's threats of force, Syria and Russia would never have budged.  Yes, sometimes it really is a nasty world out there.  Oh were it otherwise.

    Addendum: I wrote previously and was never convinced that, when push came to shove, the Congress would vote against the president.  But now consider how much more difficult it will be for those in Congress to vote against a resolution to take action if, in fact, the proposal on the table doesn't bear fruit.  That, coupled with one or more op-ed from a Putin, makes this a very different ballgame indeed.


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 7:57pm

    You really should get that itch looked at bslev. No one that I know of is saying that Assad is offering to give up his CWs because he is a humanitarian, he has decided that they are more a liability than an asset. You seem to be pushing the propaganda that Amerikan Imperialism and murderous threats are the positive force  involved here.  CWs in Syria is not the prime mover in this conflict they are just another lever that the West is using for regime chamge. FYI the US still has over 3000 tons of CWs and we signed the CW ban almost 15 yrs ago.


    by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 9:17pm

    So Russia and Putin are the positive forces here?


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 10:49pm

    The idea that the warmonger Putin is a peacekeeper is a farce.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 12:35am

       I know Putin is a bastard, but in this matter he is being a peacekeeper and a positive force. Even Stalin did one positive thing i.e. beating Hitler.


    by Aaron Carine on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 9:01am

    I think my reluctance to grant him peacemaker status has to do with the fact that he is supplying Assad while criticizing others for getting involved in a civil war. The other thing, I'm not sure of is whether missiles would have actually flown. Telegraphing the possibility of missiles, Obama gave Congress the ability to voice an opinion. Once Obama defaulted to Congress, it was clear that the brakes would be applied on aggression.

    We shall see whether Putin puts up roadblocks to removing the chemical weapons. The weapons are being moved around the country as we speak and it isn't clear that Russia is willing to erect any penalties if Syria doesn't comply with chemical weapons removal.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 9:30am

    Hey, bslev, its good to be back. And thanks for your comments.

    I absolutely agree that the threat of force produced the movement from Putin.

    I still don't understand Putin's swipe at Exceptionalism. Makes sense if the whole exercise was a trial balloon of sorts so they could judge response from the general public as well as from the factions in Congress.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 9:45pm

    I'm not sure I understand why he thought he would get traction from the exceptionalism critique either Oxy.  I hope all is well. 


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 9:53pm

    Maybe he just thought it was time somebody said it.


    by acanuck on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 10:52pm

    Maybe so but I see a disconnect between the timing of his critique on that basis and his goal of winning the hearts and minds of the American people.  


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 11:22pm

    Bruce, I'm coming  to the conclusion that Putin is trying to quantify the Obama mediocrity meme both in relation to the tea-publicans (who may hold the balance of power in any vote in the House) and the punditry class---or as Egan put it in his NYT 0p-ed, the "gaseous class".

    So it's the heat of the criticism, not so much the specific objections to his editorial, that is in play in Putin's strategy.

    Thus far the media response to Putin's editorial has,imo, been mildly critical, but with no bite. Mendez's "vomit" comment and Boehner's "insulting" response don't qualify for national outrage. As far as the tea baggers are concerned, if Putin can trash their core doctrine of American Exceptionalism and instead of disagreement they double down on the Obama criticism, he can pretty well count on them to oppose intervention regardless of Assad's continuing horrific attacks on citizens and hospitals.

    I'm not unmindful of the fact that attacking Exceptionalism knocked out half of Obama's rationalization for a military strike.  


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 10:43am

    How would you feel if people, uh, said.....


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 9:57am

    It was Obama's elitist use of the Exceptional Amerikan meme that gave Putin the opening  to challenge this dangerous arrogant notion just like Kerry's offhand bluster about Syrian CWs opened the door for a peaceful countermove from Syria. Amerikas leaders  must be lead to a time-out like angry royal children with destructive toys. Some of the reactions to these challenges to our authoritarian nature are telling. Those who buy into the myth must rally around the flag and seek ways to discredit the messenger no matter how much truth the message contains.


    by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 10:50am

    At lest get the spelling right.Amerika brings up memories of a novel and miniseries depicting a demoralized US population after a Russian takeover which is especially humorous given Vlad the homophobe's involvement here.

    The spelling you want is Amerikkka which gets that ominous feeling I think that you want by combining America with the KKK.This is also humorous given that a Black President is currently in office. I wonder if Obama eats frog legs?


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 11:50am

    On a more serious note, Obama backtracked after getting a sense of the reluctance of the American people to back his hand in Syria. The attempt to cast Obama s a dictator fails. He put the matter into the hands of a very dysfunctional Congress.The end result is that missiles are not being launched into Syria.

    Do you think the general Russian public knows the full history of Asssad and would back arming him if they did? Putin may be closer to the warmonger an interloper into Syrian affairs.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 2:28pm

    I and others have been spelling Amerika this way long before you saw some mini-series and this spelling separates the American Continent from the arrogant country we inhabit.  I don't know about Zero eating frog legs but the French seem to be gorging on Freedom Fries  these days.


    by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 6:28pm

    Did you ever consider that, like with most slurs, using it might turn off a lot of people to any argument you might make? They figure you're prejudiced, basically because using slurs is what prejudiced people do.

    Myself, when I see someone using it, I tend to suspect they must have just come out of  hibernation or a coma they've been in since 1970.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 7:36pm

    Why am I not surprised  that you take offense at my calling Amerika out for its failings. Amerika, Right or Wrong or Amerika Love it or Leave it are probably more to your liking. When the good old USofA starts to live up to its lofty rhetoric and stops spreading murder and mayhem I will change my spelling.  Your use of the words , slur and prejudice is pitiful, I have contempt for this country and its policies.  BTW, the spelling comes from the '60s not the disco and Me Generation '70s.


    by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 09/14/2013 - 12:18pm

    You telegraph your contempt for the United States. What I was questioning was your use of the term Frogs to describe the French. It ranks with redskin, spic, etc in being offensive. You seem obvious to that fact. Frogs is a label that I would expect to come from the typical "ugly American", a wingnut bigot, not someone who criticizes the United States for not living up to it's best ideals. 


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 09/14/2013 - 2:56pm

    BTW, someone who awoke from a coma in 1970 would be stuck with memories of the 1960s..


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 09/14/2013 - 2:59pm

    Many in America, who lived during the draft period,  know for a certainty, America had become and is still unrepentantly, a practicing adulterous, wh..... only the blind, covers over her sins. ...America is like some harlot; who paints herself up as something to behold and when the makeup is removed, she's ugly, As white washed graves, full of worms and disgusting things.  "Be prepared to drink the cup of wrath America", The blood of all those you've murdered will be avenged, despite your claims of exceptionalism. Hyprocisy is not a virtue and it is no excuse, to claim you were better than most. So before you try to remove the splinter from the eyes of other leaders, remove the rafter from you own eyes.


    by Resistance on Sat, 09/14/2013 - 5:53pm

    BTW, the spelling comes from the '60s

    I know hon, I was there, did my share of the SDS meetings as a teenybop. BTW back atcha: there was no such thing as Disco in 1970! (Nor in '71, nor in '72, nor in '73....for that matter; maybe like 10 people were using the term in '74...) There were things happening in 1970 like this, though.

    This reply of yours has just made it worse: you sound like poser who doesn't really know the culture you supposedly admire and from whence you borrow. Betcha even have a Che T-shirt. You really don't know how ridiculous you sound to Boomers, do you?  It's a slur, it was meant as a slur as used in the late 60's and early 70's, and you are using it as a slur. Ineptly. because it is long past its date of expiration, long past even ironic uses and parody.

    Back to my actual point in asking you if you ever thought about how you might get better results for your arguments if you didn't use it. You did answer me here by basically implying that you post on the internet to express contempt and outrage about the U.S., not to communicate with anyone or to try to change anyone's attitudes, but just to shriek and rant in obsolete rhetoric, obsolete rhetoric which sounds ridiculous to many ears.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 09/14/2013 - 6:23pm

    Amerika fit then and it fits now and if my using this little device causes you and some others to squirm it is just as effective now as it was then. I'm sure you thought you were a fiery radical in those long ago days but you seem more like a Love Me I'm A Liberal type. I'll leave the changing of attitudes to the PsyOps teams, I'm merely stating my opinions. You do seem to be showing your insecurities by fixating on my little rhetorical device when you could be advancing your hawkish Syria agenda.


    by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 09/14/2013 - 9:22pm

    Causes bemusement and even laughter rather than squirming. Causes whatever else you write not to be taken seriously.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 09/14/2013 - 9:43pm

    …and this spelling separates the American Continent from the arrogant country…

    Oh. that's your reason? I've got a more precise method for you: refer to the country as the United States, the US, or USA.

    Glad I could help. (Lecturing people at DagBlog about American Exceptionalism is like going to an Astronomy conference and explaining how there's not actually a dark side of the moon. Sheesh.)


    by Verified Atheist on Sat, 09/14/2013 - 4:10pm

    But Pink Floyd, man!


    by Donal on Mon, 09/16/2013 - 10:48am

    Makes sense if you think of it more as a letter to the world than just to us. Criticizing us in our paper of record is a way to enhance his status --- bearding the lion.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 5:00am

    Definitely he's elevating himself.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 9:58am

    A little something to add to the mix here.  Albert Brooks answers Putin as Obama.


    by Ramona on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 12:01pm

    I saw that. Very funny, as was Jon's routine on "Vlad". What an example of exceptionalism is Russia.

    I was there about 10 years ago and I don't know if things have improved or not, but it was pretty gloomy.

    It took about three hours to get served in a restaurant, the hotel was mobbed with hookers, you had to keep both hands on your fanny pack at all times. Going onto the Kremlin grounds I was picked by the guards for extra treatment---must have been the aviator shades.

    But oh, the museums and art! Swan Lake in an Opera House, The modern dance troupe at the Bolshoi, and singing at the Mariinsky and, briefly, under wand of Director Valery Gergiev---who is buddies with Vlad.

    If Vlad really wanted to get into the hearts and minds of Americans he should make an appearance in the U. S.House of Representatives and invite the tea baggers over to watch the modern troupe at the Bolshoi, (the baggers are probably burned out on Alvin Ailey) and then on to the Mariinsky for a performance of Wagner.  


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 2:03pm

    We could use a little of that culture here, ourselves.  Not that I'm saying we're not exceptional. . .


    by Ramona on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 2:35pm

      It looks like we are going to be spared a war in Syria after all. But the United States is still on shaky legal ground in using the threat of force to change Syrian behavior. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter says you can't use force unless there is an armed attack against a member of the United Nations.


    by Aaron Carine on Sat, 09/14/2013 - 6:25pm

    looks like we are going to be spared a war in Syria after all

    I don't really see it like that; not necessarily. For now we are spared what the U.S. Sec. of  State called an "unbelievably small" strike on Syria. And the U.S. Congress is spared from voting on it.

    But after all kinds of wrangling at the U.N.  lasting maybe months, we move on to the trust but verify stage. Where footsie can be played with U.N. inspectors. (I.E.: Sorry, we can't let you go there, there or there, there's rebels threatening your safety.) I'm not predicting he's going to do the same thing, though he has much more reason to play the Saddam playbook with U.N. inspectors, as he has actual WMD's and he has a civil war going on as an excuse. But you will have the McCain Russia hating types and other hawks on Syria screaming all the time that he's evading, Russia's evading, whatever. And calls to lob punishing missiles (like Bill Clinton did at Saddam) when he misbehaves.

    That's why Putin wanted the threat of force out of the U.N. agreements. So when/if the dust ups happens, U.S. would have to start with the U.N. (But who will be in our Congress then, and further down the road, who will be the President?)

    Then's there's the problems as to actual movement and disposal of the weapons during a civil war.  As this NYTimes article explains quite well, that would require lots of "boots on the ground." The U.N. doesn't have those troops. Who is going to offer them, Russia? No way. Not just because others would cry foul, but because the Russian public doesn't want their troops to be involved in another Afghanistan or Chechnya either. So I see a situation where Assad doesn't dare use those weapons, but neither are they secure. Getting them secure is one of the main reasons that all of this is happening, no?

    Call my crazy, but I can more easily foresee a situation where Obama and Putin get together on a drone target list for jihadis in Syria (so that they can't access chemical weapons) than I can see them getting all of those chemical weapons secured and destroyed in short order.

    I am keeping fingers crossed that all of this leads to a serious downgrade in the civil war there, if not an end to it. (So that it's more like Iraq or Libya, best one can hope for, I think. Where at least some of the refugees risk return.) Otherwise it looks to me like it will be a major international point of extreme argument and threats of a larger war for a very long time.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 09/14/2013 - 7:21pm

    Obama confirms that use of force by the U.S. outside of the U.N. will remain on the table (and that will now apparently be without Congressional approval):

    Obama welcomes Syria chemical weapons deal but retains strikes option
    US and Russia reach Geneva agreement to destroy Syria stockpile by mid-2014 but differ on steps to be taken if plan fails
    By Paul Lewis in Washington, theguardian.com, 14 September 2013

    [....] However, Kerry argued that military action could still be be taken without the backing of the UN or US Congress. He said such action could be taken "with a decision by the president of the United States and likeminded allies if they thought that was what it came to".

    Obama, who was briefed on the talks by his national security adviser, Susan Rice, reiterated that stance in his statement, saying that the diplomatic breakthrough was the result of "credible threat of US military force" and adding: "If diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act." [....]


    by artappraiser on Sat, 09/14/2013 - 9:38pm