President Obama has won

[philosslayer]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/14/politics/us-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

And to those of you who love to make all the snarky comments about "11th dimensional chess" or such nonsense, you can laugh, but the President has clearly demonstrating he's playing in a league others aren't. Syria not only agrees that it HAS chemical weapons, but it agrees to give them up. Without a shot being fired (or bomb dropped).

Game, set, match.

[Safetykitten]

1. I'll say!....Sincerely, Wall Street.

[MoonRiver]

18. Yes! I've been happily watching that nice trend.

[bhikkhu]

38. Which makes another point clear - Wall Street doesn't like war

take that any way you like but it seems to be the case, and its fine by me.

[bluestate10]

70. My retirement has done extraordinarily well since President Obama took office. So have the

retirement accounts of hundreds of millions of people in this country. You insult against the President hangs in mid-air, without form or substance.

[totodeinhere]

159. I'm happy for you and those others whose retirement funds are doing well. However

we need to note that in spite of that the gap between rich and poor in this country continues to grow. It's larger than it's been in a long time. And speaking of retirement funds, about 40% of retirees on Social Security don't have a retirement fund and depend on Social Security as their sole means of support. Yet the president seems to be amenable to imposing chained CPI on them. This is the same president whose administration has refused to prosecute the criminals on Wall Street who were responsible for the crash of 2008 that has caused so much suffering in the lives of so many.

[Kolesar]

162. Thanks for the whiney polemic

It really breaks new ground

[totodeinhere]

178. Of course this has been said before. But we need to continue to say it until something

is done about it. BTW, what is your opinion about the growing gap between rich and poor? And do you support imposing chained CPI on SS recipients? And is pointing out some very basic systemic problems in our society whining?

[leftstreet]

2. Obama & Kerry have Forrest-Gumped their way to victory

Congrats!

[mulsh]

16. do you have specific examples you can share with the rest of us?

n/t

[karynnj]

37. Not at all

They pursued diplomacy in the background, while making the case on Syria's weapons and the need for the world to respond in the foreground. From the comments of the Russians, pushing Assad to give up weapons was not on the table until 2 weeks ago.

Clearly without Obama's willingness to strike, there would have been no Russian pressure and without that pressure, there is no way that Syria would have signed the treaty. Both Obama and Kerry did more than just being in the right place when good things happened - they were instrumental.

Not to mention, it was Kerry, with Obama's ok, who reopened the push for Geneva 2 - and he and Lavrov both have - throughout the crisis - spoken of their being no military solution for the overall crisis.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

44. Yep...

... I figured that out a few days ago, too.

[bluestate10]

71. Per your view. I think the President and SOS Kerry brilliantly cornered the Russians

and republicans at the same time. Republicans now are talking down the agreement, those useless assholes.

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. Forest Gump?

You seriously think they have a far below average intelligence? Is that what you are suggesting?

But no...that's not hate at all...just "constructive criticism" right?

[Octafish]

3. Penny Pritzker says...YES!

My friends who've lost their homes, courtesy of the Banksters like her? Not so much.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

4. The snark against positive posts about Obama--quick and plentiful

Today. Amazing and disgusting. But then I see the names and consider the source.

[Octafish]

36. Thanks! Forgot to add Larry Summers.

From 2011:

Evidence of an American Plutocracy: The Larry Summers Story

By Matthew Skomarovsky
LilSis.org
Jan 10, 2011 at 19:31 EST

EXCERPT...

Another new business model Rubin and Summers made possible was Enron. Rubin had known Enron well through Goldman Sachs’s financing of the company, and recused himself from matters relating to Enron in his first year on the Clinton team. He and Summers went on to craft policies at Treasury that were essential to Enron’s lucrative energy trading business, and they were in touch with Enron executives and lobbyists all the while. Enron meanwhile won $2.4 billion in foreign development deals from Clinton’s Export-Import Bank, then run by Kenneth Brody, a former protege of Rubin’s at Goldman Sachs.

Soon after Rubin joined Citigroup, its investment banking division picked up Enron as a client, and Citigroup went on to become Enron’s largest creditor, loaning almost $1 billion to the company. As revelations of massive accounting fraud and market manipulation emerged over the next years and threatened to bring down the energy company, Rubin and Summers intervened. While Enron’s rigged electricity prices in California were causing unprecedented blackouts, Summers urged Governor Gray Davis to avoid criticizing Enron and recommended further deregulatory measures. Rubin was an official advisor to Gov. Davis on energy market issues at the time, while Citigroup was heavily invested in Enron’s fraudulent California business, and he too likely put pressure on the Governor to lay off Enron. Rubin also pulled strings at Bush’s Treasury Department in late 2001, calling a former employee to see if Treasury could ask the major rating agencies not to downgrade Enron, and Rubin also lobbied the rating agencies directly. (In all likelihood he made similar attempts in behalf of Citigroup during the recent financial crisis.) Their efforts ultimately failed, Enron went bust, thousands of jobs and pensions were destroyed, and its top executives went to jail. It’s hard to believe, but there was some white-collar justice back then.

SNIP...

Summers also starting showing up around the Hamilton Project, which Rubin had just founded with hedge fund manager Roger Altman. Altman was another Clinton official who had come from Wall Street, following billionaire Peter Peterson from Lehman Brothers to Blackstone Group, and he left Washington to found a major hedge fund in 1996. The Hamilton Project is housed in the Brookings Institution, a prestigious corporate-funded policy discussion center that serves as a sort of staging ground for Democratic elites in transition between government, academic, and business positions. The Hamilton Project would go on to host, more specifically, past and future Democratic Party officials friendly to the financial industry, and to produce a stream of similarly minded policy papers. Then-Senator Obama was the featured political speaker at Hamilton’s inaugural event in April 2006.

Summers joined major banking and political elites on Hamilton’s Advisory Council and appeared at many Hamilton events. During a discussion of the financial crisis in 2008, Summers was asked about his role in repealing Glass-Stegall, the law that forbade commercial and investment banking mergers like Citigroup. “I think it was the right thing to do,” he responded, noting that the repeal of Glass-Stegall made possible a wave of similar mergers during the recent financial crisis, such as Bank of America’s takeover of Merrill Lynch. He was arguing, in effect, that financial deregulation did not cause the financial crisis, it actually solved it. “We need a regulatory system as modern as the markets,” said Summers — quoting Rubin, who was in the room. “We need a hen house as modern as the food chain,” said the fox.

CONTINUED...

http://blog.littlesis.org/2011/01/10/evidence-of-an-ame... /

OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1679872

What's changed since then, besides the rich getting richer and wars for profit spreading 'round the world?

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. but they don't hate him....they "love him" right?

[L0oniX]

169. We will look at your transparency page and consider the source too.

[BeyondGeography]

5. But it was messy, plus he didn't take the all rich people's money away in the process

[LWolf]

6. Won WHAT?

Oh. Syria? You think that's all about Obama? That the world can't shit without the U.S. directing them? That nothing can happen without us?

What happens in Syria is not about Obama. It is not about the U.S.. We don't "win" anything. What happens in Syria is about the Syrian people. THEY win or lose or other.

[leftstreet]

9. +1

The Syrian people are completely ignored in this political beauty contest

[liberal_at_heart]

15. they always are. The is the problem with power struggles. It is the people who just want to

go to work and see their children come home from school alive at the end of the day that get ignored and suffer the most. They get to sit in refugee camps while the so called leaders of the world have their pissing contest.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

43. Then there's the false choice of Assad or extremists....

This may shock people even at DU but not EVERYONE in the Middle East is devout to ANY particular religion. Sure, most claim to be Muslim just like in America most claim to be Christian but they don't do all the ritual stuff. Look at how many of the "faithful Christians" here can't even tell you their particular denomination, much less where their church is, or the name of their local pastor, priest, vicar, minister, snake handler, whatever...

The original Arab Spring wanted a modern secular society that provides a good life of peace. This whole narrative that the choice is either a dictator or a fanatic is nonsense.

[Fla Dem]

153. But that's exactly what happened in Egypt

The people rose up to demand a change and overthrew Hosni Mubarak. Elections were held and Mohamed Morsi was elected and promptly filled almost all governmental positions with members of the Muslim Brotherhood. His government then proceeded to impose an Islamic-backed constitution drawn up by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The people have risen up again and deposed Morsi. New elections will be held. But will the outcome be any different? The only leaders who seem able to tamp down extreme, radical Islamic groups who would impose the most stringent of Shira law on their governments are strong armed dictators like Morsi, Assad and Saddam Hussein.

Unfortunately the "non-believers" or "less devout" do not coalesce into any type of formidable, effective or influential organization, particularly when going up against groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, al-Qaeda or other Islamic militant groups.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

164. That's the myth...

Our media is claiming that a majority of Egypt voted for the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law.

That's because under our two party system there are two choices: A or B. Winning by a plurality is a concept our media is too stupid to grasp. In actuality the vote went down like in it did in California. You split the liberal vote between everyone from Gary Coleman to porn stars and you have the minority conservatives throw in with one guy. This makes it so someone with only 25% of the vote wins as the 75 other people who ran only got 1% each.

Add to that the fact that he ran under the "Freedom and Justice Party" and NOT "The Muslim Brotherhood" and had a LOT more campaign money for ad buys and it's easy to see how he got in.

BTW: Ever notice how white people in America are convinced that other races will decent into savagery without their appointing someone to prevent it?

It's really annoying that a bunch of white males in business suits sitting around a conference table think they are the ones who know what's best for people they consider to be peasants.

[Fla Dem]

177. My point exactly.

The media did in fact show pictures of the ballots while covering the elections and they clearly showed many, many candidates for the position of President of Egypt. I saw some brief reporting on several of the candidates. I'm no champion for the corporate media, I'm just saying I was not under any illusion that the Egyptian election process was anything like in the US.

My point was, the more liberal candidates/parties did not join together to get a plurality of the vote. While the Muslim Brotherhood may only have received 25%, that was enough to win because the opposition was so fractured. I can't excuse the Egyptians for voting for a party/candidate because they called themselves the Freedom and Justice party. That would be like excusing an American citizen for voting for a Tea Party candidate because they thought the name represented freedom and equal representation for all American citizen, which we know they do not.

Not sure where the slam against white people came from. I certainly did not imply nor suggest "we white people" or "a bunch of white males in business suits" need to appoint anyone, nor have I seen anyone suggest the people of Egypt or Syria are savages. If you are suggesting it's US government officials, the last time I checked, Barack Obama was black and Susan Rice is a black female.

The US has been a reluctant participator in the Syrian civil War. It has been the government opposition in Syria that has been calling for US involvement.

Personally, I would like to see some of the leaders in the Middle East step up to the plate and take a leadership role in their own region. The Arab League has done little to pressure the radical leaders to be more progressive in their governance.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

182. The lesson learned is to unite the youth vote behind a single party and candidate.

[karynnj]

40. No, they aren't

The agreement on chemical weapons is one thing. Kerry and Lavrov also had a meeting on Geneva 2. Read their comments from yesterday. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=594108

Somehow, I think both Kerry and Lavrov are working harder for peace than people unwilling to see movement in the right direction when it occurs.

It is possible that peace talks will fail - or even that the CW agreement will fail, but it is a good moment.

[pasto76]

149. really - so they will keep living in fear of chemical weapons

you're kind of a tool.

[MH1]

12. Appparently, when it comes to Syrian chemical weapons, the world can't.

Or else why DIDN'T they shit out Assad's acknowledgement that he had chemical weapons?

Hey, I actually agree with your general point. But the point of the OP is that the end result go to a good place that no one expected it to go, and that it sure as hell didn't go without the US pushing the issue.

I would say almost anyone born in Syria in these times has already lost, in my opinion, by the way. We don't get to choose where and to whom we're born, which is why we need to have compassion on those born into rough circumstances. And Syrians are mostly between a rock and a hard place. I don't see many win-win options there, and certainly not any that the Syrians are finding for themselves at this point.

[MuseRider]

35. Perfect response.

The best I can say for Obama is he did not go ahead and unleash our weapons on them even though the support was not there. He stopped the voting for strikes for diplomacy to work and so far is holding off. I appreciate that but this is not about us as you say. Not about us or Obama or Putin but about the Syrian people. We are still involved and they are in a world of hurt.

[VanillaRhapsody]

93. No good deed goes unpunished right?

[Catherina]

39. +1 n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

79. What is it that the OP has missed?

This isn't a tennis match... It's pure war aggression, and it's about time that sanity (minus male aggression) step in and tap the usual suspects of war on the shoulder.

You don't get to loose your balls because you recognize that we must end senseless war, and you don't have to be on any "winning side" to recognize the right thing to do is to listen to "the people". In every country where there is war of aggression, the "people" are finally getting some attention with this message:

All we are saying is give peace a chance.

[DearAbby]

85. Jesus H Christ, what the hell will make you happy?

The man achieved his goals without firing one damned bullet, and you are pissing your pants over it. He didn't do it right? HE GOT IT DONE. No access of chemical weapons for either side, its a WIN WIN for the world...and you still piss? DOES HE HAVE TO WALK ON WATER to satisfy you? Obama Derangement Syndrome...here at DU.

[Kahuna]

146. Some people don't realize that certain things are said and done solely to

get a desired outcome. It may be messy at times. But the outcome is what matters. What I like about..no love about the president is his ability to filter the noise and pundits. He is methodical and pragmatic in the way he accomplishes his goals.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

160. !

Imagine being accused of trollhood for supporting a damn good democratic president, especially when he's created a real success.

[Number23]

185. You GO, Abby!! DAMN fine post

The man achieved his goals without firing one damned bullet, and you are pissing your pants over it.

Hey, why should anything change now? They been pissing them since 2008 and nary a nappy change in sight. Any wonder no one takes them even the tiniest bit seriously?

[VanillaRhapsody]

92. What has he won? Well for one making you and a number of other look rather foolish

there is that!

[LWolf]

101. OFF

It's not about me, either. I'm not competing with Obama.

The only people I see looking foolish at this point and any point are the usual suspects: those that, NO MATTER WHAT, have nothing to add to any discussion that doesn't include Obama.

[VanillaRhapsody]

103. sure...you're not....

such encouragement....

[Comrade Grumpy]

107. Best to not feed the trolls.

[VanillaRhapsody]

117. funny...trolls are often depicted as grumpy....

I am happy these days...not feeling "trollishly grumpy" at all!

[Carolina]

100. Thank you, LWolf

The Obama devotees are beyond description.

[Lifelong Dem]

110. Well Obama did lead the world in getting this ban on Assad's chemical weapons like the leader he is

Of course what happens in Syria is not about Obama. It's about the worlds security from chemical weapons. What happens in Syria is a different mission. Right now the mission is getting rid of the chemical weapons. The removal of Assad will come later.

[Skittles]

111. the simplistic thinking here is staggering

so tired of them

[joshcryer]

130. Syria is fucked but the world did follow the US's lead here.

This is objective fact. The US did something and the world responded to it with a positive outcome. Simple.

I'm as anti-nationalist as the rest of us but I can acknowledge facts when I see them.

Having Syria's chemical weapons accounted for and destroyed isn't a big deal. The civil war will last many years. The death toll will double or triple.

[rug]

7. Don't forget to vote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023657922

[Safetykitten]

8. Well, not yet at least for me...but soon I hope. Larry Summers

[cigsandcoffee]

10. Our long stated goal in Syria is to depose Assad. Entering in to an international agreement...

...with him accomplishes the precise opposite of that goal. It also undermines the rebels were supposedly arming against him. And worse, it means Assad, by remaining in power, will have actually benefited from gassing children - along with, by proxy, Russia and Iran.

I'm just not seeing that as a win - more like the most elegant backtrack possible from a badly exploding crisis. All I can say is I'm glad it is happening without more deaths on our military scorecard, but it's little consolation to know there will be more of them on others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. But you understand it

Our OP does not. In national politics he gets props, in international relations Putin gets control of the chess board this turn

[karynnj]

53. What exactly would you have wanted done given the chemical weapons in Syria?

1) An all out war with boots on the ground to take out Assad - obviously not

2) A targeted attack to make a moral point - you were adamantly against this

3) A negotiated resolution that - if all works out - eliminates their chemical weapons.

I do think that this helps PUTIN at home and internationally - both the US and Russia win. Remember even in his oped, Putin argued that Syria did not use chemical weapons. More importantly, this is a small win for the people of Syria and the world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. What I wanted was no war

That does not mean I was unaware, or dreamy as to the realities of international relations and who "won" what.

I just wish people here, like the OP, realized things are a tad more complex that tenth dimensional chess. This was seat of your pants diplomacy, and sloppy to boot. That is par for a major crisis.

[karynnj]

163. I agree and disagree

I think that seeing the world as a zero sum game between Russia and the US distorts reality. It leads to huge mistakes - like Carter/Brzezinski (and the Reagan administration) aiding the mujaheddin against the USSR. It did hurt the USSR, but there were consequences we still deal with.

On Syria, the behinds the scenes diplomacy was on target and based on the mutual interest of Russia and the US is getting rid of these weapons. For the US, it immediately replaced the need to do something military in response to the use of chemical weapons. For Russia, the threat of those weapons to them if Syria implodes is at least as great. In addition, Russia, which even now, holds that who used the weapons is not determined, is likely getting ahead of the very likely conclusion that Assad did it. Not to mention, it makes them a big player internationally - something they never regained after the fall of the USSR.

Assuming the agreement holds, there is no question that the region will be better off without those weapons.

As to war, I think the country is war weary and interceding in a limited way for a moral principle is hated by people who do not ever thing war is the answer, the realpolitik advocates who are looking just at whether the US interests are furthered and the neocons/neolibs who wanted a far greater response that results in an Iraq like regime change. This left very few people fully in favor. This was especially the case as many who agreed that a response to what Senator Kerry called a moral obscenity was needed were worried that a military strike of any size could make the overall situation worse.

I think you can make the case that this was a win/win result for both the US and Russia -- and a lose result for Assad, because it implicitly agrees with the idea that he can't be trusted with CW. You could argue that it likely DOES mean that it might mean that there will be arguments against him leaving power as the process continues, but it also likely spells out that he will be out next year - maybe through Geneva 2 or maybe through scheduled elections - or these two things may converge.

I think, for Obama, that this is a fortunate solution. There will likely be no military strike -- but no back down on his moral stance that response to chemical weapons was needed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

165. Too damn early to say if it was on target

Sorry.

And to see world affairs as tenth dimensional chess always going around one nation state is just as crazy.

I am not looking at this as zero sum, but I read foreign press, and the "winner" of this is perceived, not as the glorious US, but peace loving Putin. Reading foreign press is quite the eye opener. Of course there are our neocons spinning it the same way for their own goals.

Of course the US is saying, it was our threat of force, while kindly ignoring the Russian stick. Did I mention that was also a much less obvious threat of force?

[karynnj]

170. I actually read the foreign press as well

Of course I see the Russian implied threat -- and I see that they, as the protector of Assad, always had far more leverage than we did. Yet, in the wake of the gas use, they publicly argued first that it did not happen and then that the rebels did it - a possibility that they still insist on.

The whole point of the diplomacy WITH RUSSIA was obviously to get them to use the leverage that they have - that was never in doubt. Whether they would use it was more in doubt.

You could question if JUST US/Russia diplomacy could have led straight to this result, I don't see any sign that it would have from the earliest Russian responses to the claims of chemical weapons use before the US started to speak of action being needed. It also does not appear that they responded after the first US speech which mostly spoke of what had happened and spoke of some response being needed.

As to being too early - I have tried to qualify every statement with a caveat of "if it works".

I still say that the US position is better now than on August 22 - the day after Assad very likely crossed the red line. This is especially so as the exercise on chemical weapons seems to have jump started Geneva 2 - or at least made it more likely. I hope that Obama uses Geneva 2 to quietly move from military (even covert arming of rebels) to political. Remember he has slow walked weapons delivery even when he was pushed by politics to authorize them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

174. We all hope it works, at least you and I do

My answer was originally to the extremely infantile OP. I am tired quite frankly, of the cultish behavior, which is dangerous too. it was what it was, and in reality I don't think there are clear winners and losers, not yet

Russia's interest, to be crass, comes down to Tartus, ours down to Haifa, and as I have joked in the past, the spice. (Oil) the grand chess game is much older than either of the current players. The Russians do not want to be shut out off from the ME, which losing a client state could do. So yes, to a point they are ahead. But it is a matter of degree purely. And why people can say the US is ahead, the wmds will be taken away. This is the way this works.


For the moment both got what they want. That's the truth.

[karynnj]

52. Both Obama and Kerry said very clearly that that was NOT

the purpose of the targeted attack - probably 100 times between them. Kerry did say that is the goal of Geneva 2 - a transition government without Assad.

This does NOT make Assad more in control than he was before gassing people - so your logic does not follow. In addition to the CW piece, Kerry and Lavrov are both committed to Geneva 2 happening soon.

[VanillaRhapsody]

94. so you preferred he did bomb Syria?

[joshcryer]

132. Wrong. With chemical weapons out of the equation toppling Assad becomes easier.

The rebels couldn't deal with chemical weapons being used in the battlefield. Now that they're effectively out of the equation the regime is going to have to deal with a long protracted battle in which it will fall. Mainly with Assad likely going to a Latin American country to retire.

[Cali_Democrat]

166. WRONG

White House: We're not seeking 'regime change' as goal in Syria

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/318989-white-house-were-not-after-regime-change-in-syria

[DCBob]

11. indeed!

[kentuck]

14. Premature conjecture

But hopefully will be successful.

[andtheBeast]

17. He does seem to be in the driver's seat, doesn't he?

[gopiscrap]

22. Welcome to DU

[Comrade Grumpy]

26. ...and there is a lot of rough road. Dangerous Curves Ahead.

[LittleBlue]

27. How many sock puppets do you and philosslayer have?

And which account are you originally?

[andtheBeast]

30. I thought this was a messageboard for Democrats. Am I wrong?

[BainsBane]

31. It is for Democrats

What that means these days is highly contested. Welcome to DU!

[Larry Ogg]

65. The right wing authoritarian idol worshipering democrats think that it should be...

A message board where you never question what an elected democrat says or does.

Because, when they put a "D" in front of their name, like magic, a politician becomes incapable of doing anything nefarious, acting like a republican for instance, or selling out the livelihoods of your supporters to the predator class because you could never get elected without their financial help.

And because if you have a "D" in front of your name, you could never stir up a hornets nest, arm terrorist, or goto war for unjust causes while claiming your spreading Democracy; only republican politicians do that.

Other democrats think that this board is a place where you can discuss the issues, share your concerns, and occasionally find a little bit of truth, as well as some common ground.

And yes some of us tend to not be blind followers, or some politicians parrot, that just means that someone else is going to get their feathers rubbed.

[BainsBane]

91. Or people who insist on demonizing those they disagree with

None of it advances understanding or political discourse in anyway.

[VanillaRhapsody]

95. Some days its the "Hate All Democrats All the Time Underground"

[Sheepshank]

89. Seems lately that there is a pretty sizable contingent of 'dems'

...that like to insult, dissuade and muzzle Obama supporters on a Dem board...go figure.

[Skittles]

112. is it me or are they getting more obvious?

[Octafish]

161. Good question, LittleBlue.

I hope philosslayer turns out to be one of a kind DUer who adds to what we know about democracy, politics, and beating the pukes, greedheads and warmongers. Considering philosslayer has one reply in the entire thread that we know about, it's going to be hard to make that recommendation.

[AverageJoe90]

60. Welcome to DU, and I apologize for LittleBlue.

This place has been pretty divided on some issues lately, I'll be honest. We're still pretty close overall, though. Welcome to DU.

[blue14u]

144. Welcome to DU andtheBeast!!!!

I will look for you in future posts!

[CakeGrrl]

19. K/R! Assad LIED on TV, Putin had to make him cough them up.

Screw "luck".

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. You should listen to those in international relations

Oh never mind.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

123. more snark from nadin...

she knows all

sP

[ocpagu]

21. Did he?

Guess I must review the rules of the game, then...

[progressoid]

62. +1

[VanillaRhapsody]

96. Did we invade and take control of Syria? Did I miss something?

[gopiscrap]

24. President Obama will never get the due credit for all he has done

[Spitfire of ATJ]

46. Not when Conservatives are currently writing a history of his failures,...to get them to cooperate.

[Comrade Grumpy]

25. ...is a myopic statement. This is much bigger than scoring political talking points.

Obama deserves credit for not unleashing the missiles, but, remember, he had NO support for doing so. Someone upthread said the administration "Forest Gumped" its way to where it is now, and I share that assessment. This episode smells a whole lot like seat-of-the-pants diplomacy, but I'm glad it has worked out as it has.

So far, that is. This is by no means over, and in the meantime, the US is supplying insurgents in Syria. It's still our war.

[VanillaRhapsody]

97. You want to agree that the President and John Kerry are Mentally Disabled like Forrest Gump?

Is that really what you want to say? You do realize that Forrest Gump is fictious right?

[Mustellus]

28. What does the right wing call a successful diplomatic solution ????

... The waste of a good excuse for a war.

[Rex]

29. What did he win?

Why is this a game for some here?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. Hardball fans.

[Jeroen]

32. Opposing a strike was the right thing to do

And I bet that Senator Obama would have opposed a strike as well.
Yes, in hindsight he deserves all the credit and I admire his brilliant strategy.

The public was not informed of the plan and based on the information known to us, opposing a strike was the right thing to do. As it turns out Obama did not want a strike either and therefore I conclude that those in opposition where effectively Obama's strongest supporters.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. Game's not over yet, but Obama is playing very well. nt

[freshwest]

34. The bigger winner are the 98% of the world who want the CWC followed. And in a small way, Syrians.

The ground war will not end at once; but Assad will not get to use the 'poor man's nuke' on his people again.

Obama kept his eye on the prize, saving lives, not the cheap political win. Compassion and long term goals won out this time but troubles in Syria and other hot spots demand more change.

Thanks Obama.

[VanillaRhapsody]

98. shhhhh don't bring that up...they are too busy soft insulting Obama by calling him Forrest Gump!

Just so they cannot be said to "hate" the man....

[freshwest]

115. Okay for media pundits to degrade the learning disabled? Another epic empathy fail.

Do they ever listen to the words they spew and what they really mean?

They are tearing down everything that was ever good about the USA.

I'll leave it at that...

[DontTreadOnMe]

41. The perpetually disgruntled are strong on this one....

Ever notice the tone for those against Obama. It comes across here on DU all the time now.

It doesn't matter what Obama does, you see, because "there he goes again"....

I don;t agree with everything Obama does (such as Larry Summers!) -- but I am also not paranoid and perpetually disgruntled.
There are posters here on DU where 99% of their post are something negative.

[Octafish]

45. How's Gov. Don Siegelman doing?

Once he's freed and the crooks who put him in prison are on trial, maybe I'll post something you won't find offensive.

Until then, this should cheer up those who still give a damn about justice and democracy something to think about:

Know your BFEE: Siegelman Judge is a big-time War Profiteer

[DontTreadOnMe]

48. Try going outside... and feel the sun

Step away from the computer. Have some tea.

[Octafish]

59. Thanks for the advice.

I've got some for you:

If you want Happy News, go to Corporate McPravda. If you want to learn about information that matters to democracy, read DU.

[DontTreadOnMe]

61. Do you have any more whining to do today?

You sound like a very unhappy person.

[Octafish]

64. Show where I was ''whining.'' In the meantime, I've got a question for you:

What do you think about President Obama's stated intention to make war on Syria before the Russians took up Secretary Kerry's suggestion?

[DontTreadOnMe]

69. Check and mate

you lost... go find another game.

[Octafish]

72. So, besides labeling me, you got nothing.

The reason I brought it up is that I don't play games, otherwise I'd point out you lost.

[VanillaRhapsody]

99. but you "love" Obama right?

[Octafish]

104. Voted for him twice, too.

Doesn't mean that I abrogate my responsibilities as a Democrat or as a citizen to keep my mouth shut when he and the government do wrong, does it?

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. He just "sucks" until he has handled your problem as you see successfully I suppose

otherwise why would you bring up another issue in a thread about a success of someone else's? Unless you just want to poop in a punch bowl?

[Octafish]

118. No need to put words in my mouth, VanillaRhapsody. That's a propaganda technique.

As for "My problem?" Like the rich getting richer and the middle class disappearing?

My problem? Like a foreign policy dominated by oil company interests?

My problem? Like making money off war?

My problem? Like letting war criminals run free?

My problem? Like an unconstitutional surveillance state?

My problem? Like equal justice under the law?

They're our problem, if you believe in democracy.

If you don't find them problems, you got a problem.

[Vanje]

128. +1!

I like you, Octafish!

[Octafish]

131. Thanks, Vanje! Back at ya!

I try to use every post as a teachable moment.



Otherwise, I'd have to resort to using emoticons.

[fascisthunter]

133. well done...

ahem... again.

[VanillaRhapsody]

139. I am sorry if Barack the Magic President hasn't waved his magic wand and wished them all away for

you....What were you expecting miracles?

[brush]

137. Stated intentions and what . . .

. . . he really wanted to achieve may be different. If I may use a boxing analogy — you feint with the right and throw the left.

O could easily have done the strikes under the War Powers Act like Bush/Cheney did so readily. To me it's pretty apparent that the President didn't want to go to war, which is why he flipped the script and threw it to Congress (he knew they would not vote for the strikes)? That was the first feint, which completely fooled the MIC, their congressional puppets and the war drumming media/punditry.

In the meantime he and Kerry and Rice kept up the pressure that they wanted the strikes, while the public was completely unaware that O and Putin resumed their talks of Syrian chem weapons surrender at the recently concluded G20 (it came out also that they had spoke of that a year ago at the 2012 G20).

Kerry's "gaffe of an off-the-cuff remark on Syrian chem weapons surrender was no gaffe but feint number two. It even fooled many in the press, not to mention many here on DU, into thinking it was unplanned — not.

Kerry and Obama are not stupid men. They knew the accidentally on purpose "gaffe" was the olive branch that Putin and Assad needed to get out of a sticky situation. Doesn't it seem odd that Putin would go for something like that so quickly when Russia had been staunchly against any UN resolutions against Syria. IMO Putin was also in on the "gaffe" and feinting himself.

Good result all around. It's called brilliant diplomacy, something we didn't see in the Bush/Cheney shoot-first-mission-accomplished years.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

145. thank you.

I don't believe for one second that it was "seat of the pants" or some kind of lucky break for our "idiot"president.

[brush]

151. You and me both

I am still disappointed how often that "seat of the pants" or some kind of lucky break for our "idiot president" sentiment is expressed here on DU even (the "idiot president" stuff is nothing but the kind of racism inferred with a wink and a nod that the black president is dumb and in over his head. Some of it may even be unconscious racism but it's racism nonetheless).

Meanwhile, our black president keeps displaying his unacknowledged brilliance (ACA anyone, or pull back on the unitary executive theory).

I know many righty trolls come here to do "shit-stirring" with anti-Obama posts but we are supposed to a progressive site and should know better than to join yet these posts get tremendous validation.

Very disappointing — and many of the OPs are from long time DUers.

[Octafish]

155. Troll This.

Is This Barack Obama's 2nd Term? Is it Bill Clinton's 3rd? Or Is It Ronald Reagan's 9th?

They say that elections do matter, and that there are real differences between Republican and Democratic presidents. But backing up the view to 30 years, that difference looks a lot more like continuity, both at home and in America's global empire.

By Bruce A. Dixon
Black Agenda Report managing editor

The answer is yes to all three. Ronald Reagan hasn't darkened the White House door in decades. But his policy objectives have been what every president, Democrat and Republican have pursued relentlessly ever since. Barack Obama is only the latest and most successful of Reagan's disciples.

SNIP...

In Barack Obama's case all he had to say was that he wasn't necessarily against wars, just against what he called “stupid wars.” Corporate media and “liberal” shills morphed that lone statement into a false narrative that Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq, making him an instantly viable presidential candidate at a time when the American people overwhelmingly opposed that war. Once in office, Barack Obama strove mightily to abrogate the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq which would have allowed US forces to remain there indefinitely. But when the Iraqi puppet government, faced with a near revolt on the part of what remained of Iraqi civil society, dared not do his bidding, insisting that uniformed US troops (but not the American and multinational mercenaries we pay to remain there) stick to the withdrawal timetable agreed upon under Bush, liberal shills and corporate media hailed the withdrawal from Iraq as Obama's “victory.”

Barack Obama doubled down on the invasion and occupation of large areas of Afghanistan, and increased the size of the army and marines, which in fact he pledged to do during his presidential campaign. Presidential candidate Obama promised to end secret imprisonment and torture. The best one can say about President Obama on this score is that he seems to prefer murderous and indiscriminate drone attacks, in many cases, over the Bush policy of international kidnapping secret imprisonment and torture. The Obama administration's reliance on drones combined with US penetration of the African continent, means that a Democratic, ostensibly “antiwar” president has been able to openly deploy US troops to every part of that continent in support of its drive to control the oil, water, and other resources there.

The objectives President Obama's Africa policies fulfill today were put down on paper by the Bush administration, pursued by Bill Clinton before that, and still earlier pursued by Ronald Reagan, when it funded murderous contra armies of UNITA in Angola and RENAMO in Mozambque. It was UNITA and RENAMO's campaigns, assisted by the apartheid regimes of Israel and South Africa that pioneered the genocidal use of child soldiers. Today, cruise missile liberals hail the Obama administration's use of pit bull puppet regimes like Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda, all of which shot their way into power with child soldiers, to invade Somalia and Congo, sometimes ostensibly to go after other bad actors on the grounds that they are using child soldiers.

CONTINUED...

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/barack-obamas-2nd-term-it-bill-clintons-3rd-or-it-ronald-reagans-9th

I voted for Jimmy Carter. Twice. When did you first vote for a Democrat, brush?

[brush]

172. Do you really want to know when I voted for a Democrat?

Last edited Sun Sep 15, 2013, 03:32 PM - Edit history (1)

I didn't vote for Jimmy Carter — try Gus Hall. Know who that is?

Your post reminds me of some words from a Billie Holiday song "Crazy he Calls Me."
Here's a link:

It goes something like this: "The difficult I'll do right now, the impossible will take a little while."

I remember early in his first term when many progressives turned against him, basically out of impatience because he hadn't gotten around to fixing "their issue" yet. Even the repugs feigned impatience also because after a few months he hadn't fixed everything Bush/Cheney screwed up, even as they attempted to block every move he made (yet he still got an amazing amount of things done, including the ACA which had eluded every president since Teddy Roosevelt).

That impatience caused us the 2010 election and the House as many of those so-called progressives deserted him and the party as they stayed home on election day because they were pissed.

He's not up for re-election again but 2014 is coming and deja vue seems to be repeating itself. I don't recall a sitting dem president ever getting so much harsh criticism from those in his own party — much of it seems to be unvarnished hatred even, I'll even go there by mentioning the "R" word. This stuff is unprecedented.

As far as President Obama, of course I voted for him twice. One thing that O supporters who seem to have turned against him forget is that being a senator or rep, and being PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF EMPIRE and all that that entails, bring vastly different forces to grapple with.

As a senator or rep one has the luxury to sit back and be in opposition, or support for that matter of US policies without being the one who has to make the tough decisions and take the kudos or consequences of success or failure. The pres has to deal with hawkish generals, their equally hawkish corporate arms manufacturers who want the humongous profits wars bring, their paid-for congresspersons and senators, and all the war-drumming punditry, not to mention blue dogs and progressives from his own party with little patience.

No one who takes the job of President thinks they have free reign to immediately to make changes to our decades (over a century really) of empire, and fomenting of coups and wars and occupations and assassinations, et al. This president with his flipping of the script on the Syria crisis by throwing it congress has shown a willingness, imo, of pulling back on the unitary executive mandate that Bush/Cheney reveled in. To me he's shown he doesn't want the "boots on the ground" macho exercises of US power that went before him. With this Syria thing he's shown how to use US power without firing a shot.

You think Afghanistan is an easy problem to solve? No country has went into there without coming out badly weakened — the Soviet Union/Russia included. Of course drones are reprehensible but I feel he's trying to extricate us from that mess with the weapons at his disposal.

As far as Africa, sure I want him to adjust our policies, to bring our whole country to an awareness that there is a huge continent across the Atlantic that attention must be paid to, that our persistence derogation of a continent because of the color of its inhabitants skin is a huge missed opportunity for trade that the Chinese are exploiting.

He has to have time. He's been in office 4-plus years. The impossible — turning around acentury of empire and fomenting of coups and wars and occupations and assassinations, et al — will take a little while. Way more than 4-plus years.

[Octafish]

173. Thanks!

Yeah, I know who Gus Hall was. I appreciate his approach to sharing wealth.

As for turning around the Empire, there's been no sign of it and we're well into year 5.

[brush]

183. Realistically that big a task . . .

. . . is going to be incremental. This pres has began something with the lessening of the unitary executive by throwing the Syria decision to congress. He's got 3+ years left. He's resisted "boots on the ground" in Libya, Egypt and Syria. Let's see if he does more.

And if we get a repug pres next you know all that's going to be reversed. We do live in the belly of the beast in a sense, just gotta hope with the browning demographics of the country that we'll get a string of dem presidents who get it.

[Number23]

186. You are very kind to respond with such consideration to anyone that uses Black Agenda Report

as a reliable source for anything other than really uncomfortable toilet paper.

By using that source, that poster has told you every single thing you need to know about them and their motives.

[brush]

187. Don't know much about that site

Last edited Sun Sep 15, 2013, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Sometimes one can rail on and on so much you began to sound like Chicken Little.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

157. really. you're not kidding.

The"perfect being the enemy of the good" is also going on...but to imply that such a hackneyed cliche is actually being taken as an article of faith and worn as a medal of progressive purity is laughed off and mocked mercilessly. It is being put into practice by people thinking simplistically and imagining themselves brilliant as gauged by the volume of their animosity.

That people don't get the concept that strategizing at very complex levels is actually a critical part of being the leader of a superpower nation is surprising. Repeatedly.

[brush]

184. I like

I appreciate your points of view, BlancheSplanchnik.

Haven't noticed your screen name before.

[Surya Gayatri]

63. DTOM, you win this thread...IMHO!

[bluestate10]

73. I'm right there with you. The naysayers are pounding the OP and questioning

his/her purity. They even attacked another newbie to DU. The naysayers are running out of ground as President Obama stacks up even more accomplishments.

[rocktivity]

42. Yes, the Rope-A-Dope Kid has struck again.

He's made fools out of the Bush II regime by solving the a fraction of the time problem without firing a shot, and the Russian government gets the blame if anything goes wrong. Not that I believed for a second that he was serious about going in.


rocktivity

[DFW]

49. Game? Agreed. Set and match? A little premature, I fear

As long as a couple of million Syrians are in tents in Jordan, Iraq and Turkey and their relatives back home are getting massacred, I'd say there are a few loose ends to tie up before we can sit back and congratulate ourselves for a job well done.


Still, we are back from the brink, and it's a start. I've said all along that getting involved militarily is something Obama never wanted to do, and he has managed so far not to. I emphasize "so far." Assad can be trusted to do what he wants, not what we want, and as long as uncle Vladimir covers Bashar's ass, he'll do it.

As for "seat of the pants diplomacy," rather than sniff at it with disdain, I'm all for it. Being flexible in fluid situations is what I expect a president to do. Sticking to pre-conceived rigid principles that allow for no quick reaction to sudden changes is what I expect Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to do. If the wind direction changes, it's the foolish sailor indeed that insists on staying the course and capsizing.

[BumRushDaShow]

50. K&R

[go west young man]

51. We saw the same "Obama is a genius chess player" posts

every time he sat down with the non negotiating Republicans. People all over this board said he's bringing them to do his bidding in a round about way. Yet here we are in 2013 and the Repubes have blocked everything he wanted passed. Meanwhile we true liberals said he needs to fight them tougher politically. Granted he's made some progress in the areas of equal rights and figuring out ways to get money to the lower echelons, but as a whole he lost tons of ground that could have been gained.

This side step into Syria has long been planned by the establishment. Wesley Clark has pointed it out to us all.

We've been arming and providing information to rebels for a year so obviously the coming fight was planned for. The real lucky genius of Obama is that the fight has been taken away from the neocons who wanted it. Not because Obama meant to do so but because that's just the way it panned out. The enemy he managed to defeat indirectly is the enemy amongst us, the neocon chicken hawks that run the MIC, AEI, The Carlyle Group and such. They wanted their 2nd big war and it didn't arrive. I think they also wanted Obama bogged down with a war so he couldn't get any further political agenda off the ground and ended up with a divided base so they have a shot in 2014 and 16. However, the game is not over and those pesky rats are still running all through the woodwork so I wouldn't give Obama a pat on the back just yet. There is way too much distorted information out there.

Simplistically one could say Obama has won politically at home. Globally is another story. The BBC has called it a win for Putin. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24033622 Check the first snippet from the NY Times.

As someone else said, Obama and Putin may take the credit politically in their respective areas of the world, yet the real victims are the Syrian people.

These Obama cheer leading threads and posts that are plentiful here lately don't do much for getting Obama more kudo's from the true liberals amongst us. His overall agenda has been mainly centrist. He allows more for conservatives than he takes for us liberals. He could do with a much bigger leftward tilt. With the 3 years years left in his presidency maybe he can surprise us. Change takes time but the changes America needs are massive and the rest of the civilized planet is pulling away in all areas.

[tblue]

152. Love Wes Clark.

Obama has won alright. He's won Democratic support for Republican policies. The celebrating is all the proof you need.

[deutsey]

54. If that's what he did, bravo

Seriously.

Personally, I think an unexpected and viable way out arose and he and Kerry took advantage of it before Congress could vote. Nothing wrong with being able to think on your feet and take advantage of opportunities, imo. It's better than the "my way or the highway" Bush mentality.

But either way, strikes were averted for now and that was the outcome I was hoping for.

[Jessy169]

55. Obama says if diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act

Despite all those DU'ers and so many others who have consistently accused Obama of being a warmonger and traitor to the cause of peace. Good job, Obama. It must be tough to see so many of your so-called "supporters" lose faith in you so fast and resort to attacking you in a split second.

[totodeinhere]

56. No, President Obama has not won. The international community has won assuming that this agreement

holds up. And most importantly the Syrian people will have won if this eventually leads to a peace agreement with the rebels. This isn't just about Obama. Without the Russians putting the pressure on the Syrians Assad would have never agreed to anything. And after all it was the British parliament that first said no to a violent military solution at a time when Obama and Kerry were calling for force. To give Obama all the credit when so many other players were involved smacks of jingoism to me. The world doesn't revolve around the United States and its leaders.

[VanillaRhapsody]

102. Wouldn't want to give the man any credit...that would be just terrible...

he might be encouraged to do more....can't have that!

[totodeinhere]

116. But I didn't say don't give the man any credit. I said don't give him all the credit.

Why are you trying to argue with me based upon something I didn't say?

[VanillaRhapsody]

140. funny how someone was here giving some credit...and you came along to make sure it wasn't "too much"

[totodeinhere]

141. Just trying to be honest and realistic. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

142. just trying to "kinda bash"...not full on...just soft bash...

[totodeinhere]

143. Saying that more than one person deserves some of the credit for this is not bashing anyone.

To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

[VanillaRhapsody]

176. Then maybe that deserves its own thread...

to suggest that no one can discuss giving this credit without mentioning anyone else is what is "ridiculous".

[totodeinhere]

179. Giving credit to only one person when more than one deserve credit is

intellectually dishonest.

[VanillaRhapsody]

180. NO I would say insisting that others recognize who you believe deserves credit...

when they are giving credit to whom they believe deserves it ..is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty...

Just sayin'

[L0oniX]

57. So what's happening on The Voice, Jersey Shore and Dancing With the Stars?

[demwing]

58. Apologies to the Jury

Last edited Sat Sep 14, 2013, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

for wasting your time.

I agree my post was juvenile. In my defense, I didn't feel the OP deserved anything more.

I'm thankful for the unanimous jury decision, but realize it wasn't done in agreement with what I wrote, but in respect for free speech. What good is free speech when it only applies to content with which we agree?

To show my appreciation, I'll engage in a little self regulation. The post didn't make DU a better place, so I'm removing it myself.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Attn DU: A serial alerter has been removed from the game for 24 hours, adjust your plans accordingly

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
At Sat Sep 14, 2013, 02:47 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Bog, Bog, Bog.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3667740

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Ugh. This is the level of discourse now? Enough if the 3rd grade commentary.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Sep 14, 2013, 02:52 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't understand the post and I don't understand the alert. Who said what about whom? What a waste of time. The urge to alert on things that make one uncomfortable is to be resisted.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't think it is in my purview to hide something because someone thinks the level of discourse isn't high enough even if I was want to do that.

That being said, I'm not sure who the bog comment is being aimed at. I'm sure it is a reference to a theory without substance but I'm not sure if it is the OP or what the OP is saying is wrong. But that is immaterial.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Being immature doesn't seem hide-worthy.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: if we're going to start hiding posts for being juvenile, we're going to have to hide a lot of posts.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cui bono]

66. Really? What did he win exactly? What competition did he enter?

Seeing everything as black and white is not befitting of a place that is supposed to be about real discussion of policy and events.

What is the point of using that heading? What were you trying to accomplish by doing so?

[SidDithers]

67. DU rec...

any post that generates this much screeching from the perpetually outraged gets a rec from me.

Sid

[bluestate10]

68. You have pissed off the purists of DU. To them, President Obama is a disappointment

who they wasted there vote on. To me, President Obama is the best President of my lifetime and the best since Truman.

[RetroLounge]

81. There, Their, They're, you'll feel better soon.

RL

[GeorgeGist]

147. Harry knew how to win!

Hiroshima 150000 dead
Nagasaki. 75000 dead

[uppityperson]

76. Tell us how you feel about drones.

[cyberswede]

80. ...and how do you feel about libraries?

[uppityperson]

83. Aw dang, I missed her reply.

[cyberswede]

84. It was lame...

She just said it was an odd question and asked how you feel about them. She must be tired.

[uppityperson]

87. Well, there is always hope for the future.

[cali]

77. he survived. and yes, that's winning in this instance

but let's be honest: the plan is Russia's and the U.S. is dropping conditions like force being included in a U.N. resolution, something they said was a must.

[RetroLounge]

82. Does he get another Nobel Peace Prize?

RL

[Phlem]

106. nice.

-p

[thelordofhell]

86. And now watch as all the republicans vote for the authorization of bombing strikes

They're already trying their damnedest to say this whole disarming thing is a failure for the President

[ZombieHorde]

105. I don't know if this was the plan from the begining,

and if it was then it was a big gamble with other people's lives, but I am really happy with the current result.

[Walk away]

108. And the best part is that he had to stand alone without his own party...

and the American Taliban (the GOP) to back him up.
George Bush get thumbs up from everyone in Congress on both sides of the aisle and drags us into hell...Obama stands on principal and resets the use of chemical warfare in Syria while Democrats treat him like Stalin.

[grahamhgreen]

109. Just remembered he won by listening to progressives, and I'll give him a win, thus far.

[Scurrilous]

119. K & R

[Owl]

120. Won what?

[mwrguy]

121. Putin versus Obama is like Pee Wee herman fighting Mohammed Ali

Ludicrously out matched.

[Cha]

122. Did you mention chess?!

MT @buffaloon Russia hands #Syria CW plan over to US http://bit.ly/181DHKz TY SuperNinja Chess Master pic.twitter.com/n6cyGfAZUP

11:02 AM - 11 Sep 2013

Obama SuperNinga Chess Master!


http://theobamadiary.com/2013/09/14/a-tweet-or-two-2/

Thanks philosslayer

[stupidicus]

124. sorry you didn't get the war you wanted

maybe next time

[philosslayer]

125. *sigh*

Still don't get it, do you. It was called a "bluff". And it worked. No one (sane) wanted a war.

[stupidicus]

188. right

like someone that thinks it figured out what at leadt Putin and Assad didn't has any standing to be judging what others do and do not understand.

If you support the use of such "credible threats" then you support them becoming more than that if need be.

[morningfog]

126. I think the people of Syria and the world won a reprieve from new US war.

Obama did not get many of his stated goals. No punishment against Assad being the biggest one.

It is looking like a deal to totally degrade the chemical weapons is happening. That is goo news for everyone involved.

[joshcryer]

134. Nah, Syria is going to have a very bloody and nasty civil war for years.

Nothing much has changed for the people of Syria except that they don't have to worry about being gassed on a large scale. They can and will still be shelled indiscriminately and hit with incendiaries.

Assad won't survive the war in the end. The US will continue to arm and train the rebel groups and it is only a matter of time before they win.

[fascisthunter]

127. he won? And what of the rest of us

I thought, considering what the overwhelming amount of sentiment of his most ardent supporters was, that he had no such influence. Sad to see it only exists on a global scale and not so much a national one...

..but Wall Street... not so much.

[joshcryer]

129. The President is defacto dictator of the military.

It sucks but that's how the constitution is set up.

People want to extend the Presidents absolute power over the military to the legislative and judicial areas. That never works in practice.

I think the Presidents threat of force was what brought Russia to the table on this issue. I don't think he should've threatened force, but then, I'm not President and maybe I'm naive.

[fascisthunter]

135. nah, you're not naive

[Skip Intro]

136. Looks to me like self-delusion has won. n/t

[intersectionality]

148. This is a bit premature, considering we're arming the rebels

You know... so, shots are being fired with American arms. Arming insurgents is always the first step before we bomb the hell out of some poor country, and I'm just not sure how you can dance around claiming a victory in a situation that will only be clear with hindsight. Would it really be surprising to anyone who has followed the past 5+ presidential administrations that the details won't take 1+ years to come out without a whistleblower? Currently, Syrian rebels are denying that any CIA assistance has come while CIA agents are anonymously saying they are arming Syrian rebels. But, by all means, continue celebrating a victory this administration has not yet completely negotiated while leaving all options on the table for the foreseeable future.

[valerief]

150. Is Syria still selling oil in euros? nt

[onlyadream]

154. But what if

What if the question that started this diplomacy was never asked? Thats what I want to know. Did we fall into this through sheer luck, or was that questiona plant?

[Sunlei]

156. not over untill it's over. Nerve wracking time now where *anything* could happen.

President Obama is awesome, I'm glad he steers the ship!

[JEB]

158. Was it not SoS Kerry's snarky comment that started the ball rolling?

Snark has its place. And I say that with absolute sincerity.

[Cali_Democrat]

167. This thread is AWESOME!!!!

The perpetually outraged are throwing a temper tantrum....just like I knew they would after the deal was finalized.

Good times.

Good times.

[DCBob]

168. I really dont get the goofy chess comments the bashers keep bringing up.

What the President is doing is nothing particularly complicated or requires a great deal of intelligence. He's simply trying to uphold a long standing international law by the use of force, if necessary. This is SOP IMO.

[Melinda]

175. What the fuck has he won? Is there a prize for playing war? What's the prize for killing?

Your world seems very small. And your OP sucks.

[Generic Other]

181. Actually the American people won

100:1 against war according to calls to congressional offices. Nevertheless, he can have the credit. Who cares ultimately? They will simply try again next month, next year, next president...