dagblog - Comments for "Rebels call chemical-weapons deal 'slap in the face'"

Clearly there's similarity

Flavius — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 03:20:13 +0000

Clearly there's similarity between Obama's handling-or at least presentation -of the Afghanistan surge (we're sending more troops, but only 30,000 and they'll come home in a year) and the "Red Line" (we're going to punish Assad but in a very limited way).

We can't know the reason, only speculate. But we can definitely identify the syndrome.

Henry Ford II said "Never complain, never explain" . But he wasn't facing a mid term election.

"The house of Lords

Flavius — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 02:28:39 +0000

In reply to Yeah, even the White House

"The house of Lords

throughout the War

Did nothing

in particular.

And did it very well"

Great sequence here. I don't

Oxy Mora — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 00:57:42 +0000

In reply to It's good enough for me! Your

Great sequence here.

I don't think I look for the Savior, or Daddy and in that sense I might be as circumspect and happy in my skin as you are in those fine comments. I'm more in the camp of projection---(what Freud said) unfilled ambitions. But because those may have come from my father, back to square one.

I am intrigued with the ad hoc model, what history shows about it, and isn't it odd that in a culture which seems to love the Alfa male model of instant assessment and quick action (Air plane pilot model or anything Eastwood) there is disdain for any shooting from the hip by O---most likely he's not alfa enough to begin with.

I always saw myself as the pilot model but, for example, the Navy, when I filled out applications at OCS in Newport for assignments and requested carrier pilot training in Pensacola, sent me to Accounting in San Diego. That might have been related to my occasional confusion on right vs. left which led me on one occasion to march my squad into a fence.

The deal is a slap on the

moat — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 00:48:32 +0000

In reply to Rebels call chemical-weapons deal 'slap in the face'

The deal is a slap on the face of the rebels but the vague language about "transition" was already that slap.

With all that has happened since the last chemical attacks, how could a rebel there not think the "international" goal is about replacing the Assad regime with a "better" one rather than working to remove the function from the organizational chart?

In the end, the US policy toward Assad is much like the Russians:

Dammit, why do you have to be such a clueless stumblefuck?

It's hard to say what would

Aaron Carine — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 21:59:36 +0000

In reply to It might not seem like much

It's hard to say what would have happened in 2003 if Congress and the public had been opposed to war.

It's good enough for me! Your

artappraiser — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 21:32:28 +0000

In reply to It might not seem like much

It's good enough for me!

Your comment reminded me of what is really at the center or my own approach to politics. I have always thought people expect too much from presidents. I only expect lackluster mediocre presidents, and am pleasantly surprised when they rise above that. It is good enough for me to know that a potential president will appoint left of center Supreme Court justices, everything else after that is gravy. What drives me nuts is the delusions that they are not mediocre, but heroes, like the Saint JFK or Saint FDR thing. Because to me that is looking for a daddy that can make everything better and take care of everything. To me, that kind of thinking causes many of our problems (for just one example, absolves people from informed voting for Congressional reps, it's like the president daddy will take care of it all.)

good points!

artappraiser — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 21:30:39 +0000

In reply to I still believe the man

good points!

I still believe the man

ocean-kat — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 21:25:46 +0000

In reply to Yeah, even the White House

I still believe the man himself is much humbler about his own capabilities than his major fans.

In most ways I agree with you. He knows he's not playing 8th dimension chess. He is humble about his mistakes, abilities, and he is willing to look at the realities of situations without exaggerating his, and America's power. But I think he did have an overwhelming belief in his rhetorical skills that exceeded the most awestruck obamabot. There were so many references during his first term of him reassuring dems taking political risky votes with, "Don't worry, you've got me speaking at campaign events in 2010." Same with his attempt to get Susan Collins to sign onto the ACA, "I'll have your back, I'll protect you." I think he truly believed in the power of his voice, perhaps justifiably, and that it would last forever, definitely erroneous. Inspiring speeches only work when you're unknown and can be all things to all people. Once you take actual positions and have the responsibility to accomplish them, inspiring speeches lose their power.

It might not seem like much

Verified Atheist — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 21:07:57 +0000

In reply to That we've averted war(at

It might not seem like much to those of us not in that arena, but to Obama's credit, he's allowing Putin and the domestic opposition to stop him. Bush, McCain, and Romney most likely wouldn't have. That's hardly high praise, but it is something worth remembering.

Yeah, even the White House

artappraiser — Fri, 20 Sep 2013 20:48:03 +0000

In reply to That we've averted war(at

Yeah, even the White House admits to the major reporters that have high level access that this has not been Obama playing 8-dimensional chess. David Sanger @ NYTimes, today:

For Mr. Obama, it is a shift of fortunes that one senior American diplomat described this week as “head spinning.”

In their more honest moments, White House officials concede they got here the messiest way possible — with a mix of luck in the case of Syria, years of sanctions on Iran and then some unpredicted chess moves executed by three players Mr. Obama deeply distrusts: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and Iran’s erratic mullahs. But, the officials say, these are the long-delayed fruits of the administration’s selective use of coercion in a part of the world where that is understood.

The thing that bothers me about Obama fans who like to prop up a mythic brilliant chess playin' Obama is not the need for role model & idol worship. What upsets me is that they are not taking the right lessons away from it as to foreign policy by any president. (Lessons that I suspect will probably end up being in Obama's presidential memoirs, by the way. And by the time those come out, the Obamabots will forget that they thought he knew exactly what outcomes would be and instead will be lauding him for being honest about making mistakes. Another by the way: I still believe the man himself is much humbler about his own capabilities than his major fans.) One of them is that threat of force is a tool that can throw a helpful monkey wrench in stalemated situations but that it must be used extremely carefully and rarely. But the main one is that "wait and see what serendipity brings while you play diplomatic-and- economic cat-and-mouse" is a much discredited but actually time-tested successful modus operandi; there are thousands of examples in history books.