This is not "Obama's war"

[Precisely]

Blaming Obama for the push to military action in Syria seems shortsighted. He gets to be the figurehead, so he takes the blame.

Does anyone really think he is completely in charge of any of this? We know how compromised and controlled our government is.

Is it possible to discuss this mess with out pointing the finger at one man, even if he is the President?

[jakeXT]

1. It was his idea to involve congress... we'll see what happens /nt

[Precisely]

6. Hoping that is a historic turn

[TwilightGardener]

2. He makes the final call. He takes responsibility, whether the plan fails or succeeds.

There are no puppet stings, he's not a figurehead. To suggest that is ridiculous.

[Precisely]

4. That may not be the right word

The presidency is not what it might have been. And yes, he takes responsibility.

[jsr]

8. Did he take responsibility for drawing the red line?

[frylock]

38. nope, he weaseled out of that..

“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line.”

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/09/04/5706398/obama-i-didnt-draw-the-red-line.html#storylink=cpy

[jsr]

3. Poor guy - hapless and powerless. He never wanted the job in the first place.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. Forced upon Him. Thrust upon Him.

Inherited?

[kiawah]

26. Interesting capitalization.... n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

17. They haz a sad for him

[SammyWinstonJack]

24. Oh he wanted it alright and for all the wrong reasons.

[Capt. Obvious]

5. Iraq wasn't Bush's war

[pscot]

7. He could just say no.

[LibAsHell]

9. Obama requested congressional approval

If he didn't, we wouldn't be dealing with any of this. If it makes you feel better, we can say "this administration" instead of just Obama, but let's not act like he is not in charge of this. Right now we've got the House, the HOUSE, likely rejecting the strikes. We've actually got Republicans on the anti-war side. If Obama dropped this thing, it'd be over.

[Demit]

10. What difference does it make?

You seem to want to persuade people to cluck their tongues and shake their heads and say, "Poor Obama." As if he didn't decide to run for president, but was forced into it.

It's his name that goes down into the history books as president. He owns this war one way or the other.

[Precisely]

13. Not that. Simply look at the bigger picture than point at Obama

"It's his name that goes down into the history books as president. He owns this war one way or the other."

That's true. Unless history shows the corporate influence on our government. Maybe this will be a turning point?

[Demit]

19. No matter how big the picture is, Obama is a willing participant.

Which puts the responsibility for the war right back into his presidential hands. The hands you seem so desperately to want to be clean.

[jsr]

20. The leader is always perfect.

It's a sad example of personality worship.

[Precisely]

21. Really?

"Desparately want to be clean"?

[Le Taz Hot]

12. Well, if he's such a helpless little piece of seaweed

maybe he should step down. He could take a nice, long rest.

To answer your question, no, it is not possible to discuss this mess without pointing fingers. HE is the one who is determined to get us in yet ANOTHER entanglement in the Middle East. HE is leading the charge or are we just supposed to ignore that?

[Precisely]

15. Good image. He's more a vertebrate

than that. What waters does he swim in?

[Carolina]

29. Love the imagery, Le Taz Hot

and your words are right on target!

He's pushing this, he's bombarding (pun intended) the media tomorrow. He has never shown such spine on other issues but for this PNAC/AIPAC plan, he's full throttle!

[Katashi_itto]

14. If a Captain runs a ship aground, it's not the navigator's fault, it's not the pilot's fault. It's

the Captain's fault. Period.

You start a war, guess whose responsibility it is?

[Precisely]

16. Another great metaphor to play with

[Katashi_itto]

18. No metaphor. Its the Captain that gets courtmartialed.

He could be off shift sleeping in his bunk. If something happens, it's his ass.

[Precisely]

22. Who owns the ship?

[Katashi_itto]

23. Whose responsible for the ship? The Captain.

[Catherina]

25. This thing has been in the making for 15 years now. Syria amped up in 2006 pre-Obama

U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show
By Craig Whitlock,April 17, 2011

The State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables.

...

Barada TV is closely affiliated with the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based network of Syrian exiles. Classified U.S. diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria. The channel is named after the Barada River, which courses through the heart of Damascus, the Syrian capital.

The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.

The cables, provided by the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks, show that U.S. Embassy officials in Damascus became worried in 2009 when they learned that Syrian intelligence agents were raising questions about U.S. programs. Some embassy officials suggested that the State Department reconsider its involvement, arguing that it could put the Obama administration’s rapprochement with Damascus at risk.

Syrian authorities “would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change,” read an April 2009 cable signed by the top-ranking U.S. diplomat in Damascus at the time. “A reassessment of current U.S.-sponsored programming that supports anti-(government) factions, both inside and outside Syria, may prove productive,” the cable said.

...

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-04-17/world/35262231_1_syrian-opposition-diplomatic-cables-syrian-authorities

The files show that up to $6.3 million US was funnelled to the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based dissident organization that operates the Barada TV satellite channel, which broadcasts anti-government news into Syria. Another $6 million went to support a variety of initiatives, including training for journalists and activists, between 2006 and 2010.

Asked point-blank by reporters whether the United States is funding Syrian opposition groups, State Department spokesman Mark Toner told a news conference Monday, "We are — we're working with a variety of civil society actors in Syria with the goal here of strengthening freedom of expression."

...

Toner insisted the financing is not aimed at overthrowing Assad's rule. "We are not working to undermine that government."

...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/04/18/syria-united-states-backing-wikileaks.html

Like any corporation, the US has 10-year, 15-year plans. Obama didn't put this into play but if he willingly plays the part, he's assuming responsibility as per his job description.

We need to change the system, not the figureheads.

Here's what our little neocon friend Farid Ghadry, leader of the opposition Reform Party of Syria & known as the Syrian Chalabi, said in 2007. Same script over and over again.

“We are calling all Syrian opposition groups together for a national conference to create a parliament in exile and draft a new, secular constitution for Syria,” said Ghadry. “Then, take people to streets. Some people get killed. The international community gets further angry at the regime. Then, have NATO forces protect a safe zone in northern Syria,” on the border with NATO member Turkey. He grinned and concluded, “This way we will move right away into Syria.”

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/farid-ghadry-syrias-chalabi-from-washington-to-damascus-by-salim-abraham/

The Bush administration has also met with a rival Syrian opposition group led by Farid Ghadry, a secular figure who met Cheney in July and his daughter, Elizabeth Cheney, then a senior State Department official, in March 2005, according to Ghadry, who lives in Washington. He said he argued at the meetings for massive U.S. funding for the Syrian opposition, as well as covert CIA actions, to topple Assad's government.

Ammar Abdulhamid, a Washington representative for the Front who attended the meetings, said the White House had become more receptive to the Syrian branch of the Brotherhood because the group recast itself as a moderate movement that focuses on human rights and accepts Israel's right to exist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/world/africa/26iht-syria.3674073.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Here's that despicable Farid Ghadry briefing a rightwing think tank last year. It's the same Chalabi script.

"Less than one week after the United States accused Syria of allowing terrorists to enter Iraq and Saddam Hussein's henchmen to leave it, Farid Ghadry informally unveiled his Reform Party of Syria. He used the occasion of the American Enterprise Institute's second to last weekly briefing on Iraq—a series the institute organized to coincide with the war—to go public with his opposition efforts. Ghadry—who plans to announce a Syrian government in exile in the coming months—asked the panel of Washington hawks, from the audience, the question on everyone's mind: 'What about regime change for Syria?'"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/07/982846/-Reform-Party-of-Syria-is-neo-con-astroturf

[Precisely]

40. Thank you

[JackRiddler]

27. Who cares? Why does this matter?

I even agree with you that he's not completely in charge.

Why not?

What's stopping him from standing up and stopping the war?

No excuses. No one made him become the president.

[HooptieWagon]

28. He makes the decision, its his war.

Syria didn't attack us, Obama is the aggressor. If he proceeds without authorization, this will forever be his legacy.

[LittleBlue]

31. He's not running for reelection

Why would this be forced on him?

[madamesilverspurs]

32. Welcome to DU

where NOT trashing Obama will get you pounded.

[JackRiddler]

33. Fallacy.

The administration should stop the wars. These are the wrong, it has nothing to do with Obama per se.

[Precisely]

41. He gets to be everyone's whipping post

[liberal_at_heart]

34. oh there's plenty of blame to go around but the President does not escape blame.

[Abq_Sarah]

35. Even if he is President?

Are you trying to say President Obama is a victim?

[cali]

36. I don't agree that the President is just a figurehead

He wields an enormous amount of power, and ultimately the buck stops on his desk.

[L0oniX]

37. Oh great ...just what we need ...a POTUS that is not in charge ...when it is convenient?

"Does anyone really think he is completely in charge of any of this?"

[Precisely]

39. Yes, Obama has great power and No he is not a spineless victim figurehead -- or a saint.

He is a man in the office of president who has many other interests than his own commanding his command. Maybe Carolina put it better than the OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023628422#post29

[treestar]

42. I think he's in charge

It's chemical weapons he and the rest of the civilized world object to.

Some people don't care about that and hide behind "anti-war." Well then, they are against the war taking place in Syria and use of chemical weapons in that war. And should have more concern about that. Instead they hide behind silly theories that it did not happen or someone else did it or it's not Americans dying, so who cares?