Obama hints at larger strategy to topple Assad in effort to win over Republicans

[another_liberal]

Source: The Guardian

Barack Obama portrayed his plans for US military action in Syria as part of a broader strategy to topple Bashar al-Assad, as tougher White House rhetoric began to win over sceptical Republicans in Congress on Tuesday. While stressing that Washington's primary goal remained "limited and proportional" attacks, to degrade Syria's chemical weapons capabilities and deter their future use, the president hinted at a broader long-term mission that may ultimately bring about a change of regime.

"It also fits into a broader strategy that can bring about over time the kind of strengthening of the opposition and the diplomatic, economic and political pressure required – so that ultimately we have a transition that can bring peace and stability, not only to Syria but to the region," he told senior members of Congress at a White House meeting on Tuesday.

Obama has long spoken of the US desire to see Assad step down, but this is the first time he has linked that policy objective to his threatened military strikes against Syria. It follows pressure on Monday, from senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, to make such a goal more explicit. The apparent change of emphasis appeared to resolve some of the political deadlock on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, as House speaker John Boehner and a series of other Republican leaders announced that they would back the president's call for military authorisation from Congress.

There was more good news for Obama when secretary of state John Kerry and defence secretary Chuck Hagel got a relatively easy ride when they testified later to the Senate foreign relations committee, convened in special session to discuss the issue of military authorisation.

(snip)

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/03/obama-strategy-assad-republicans-syria

---

He really wants his war that badly? He is actually willing to give the Republicans a war almost certain to be long enough to assure Democratic defeat in 2016? Who is this man?

[LongTomH]

1. Strengthen the opposition?

The opposition contains some Al Queda factions. Fact, there just aren't any good choices in this nightmare!

[another_liberal]

6. There is one . . .

We stay the hell out of it.

[questionseverything]

19. i get confused

when russia was fighting in afganistan al queda was good

then al queda knocked down towers and they were bad

are they back to good?

[another_liberal]

23. After this particular twist . . .

Nothing would seem to be impossible.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

51. The US left Afghanistan to its devices after the Rusians left.

Afghanistan was allowed to fester with its holy warriors.

Possibly AQ at the time used the adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.


Is the USA going to use the same adage in their haste to bring about endgame?

[L0oniX]

15. Hey that's it. Make friends with Al Queda. That'll work! (the stupid ...it burns) n/t

[cstanleytech]

43. Just to point something out to you all but just because Al Queda supports something does not

mean that we should automatically reverse course and not support it, if we did that imagine how easy they could manipulate events in their favor by proclaiming opposition or support for something.
Now frankly I dont see anything wrong in Assad being asked to resign (if it turns out chemical weapons were used at his command) and have the UN and Russia setup and monitor some elections that hopefully lead to peace between the two parties.

[another_liberal]

59. You don't see anything wrong in Assad being asked to resign?

Good luck with that, my friend.

As to our potentially being manipulated by al Qaeda: We are already being manipulated. We're getting the hell manipulated out of us! Only it isn't by al Qaeda, it's by the Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex in general.

[cstanleytech]

89. Nope there isnt anything wrong in requesting that he do it and if he truly

cares for his country and its people and not the power and wealth that he provides he would do so and allow elections to take place.
Elections that I will point out arent monitored by the US but rather by the UN and Russia jointly.

[L0oniX]

88. Ok then how about we support Hezbollah by helping Assad? Either way we will be helping terrorists.

[Hydra]

2. And to think, there are armchairs here who want us to believe

That what we are seeing here is NOT an obvious PNAC retread.

Deja Moo.

[valerief]

4. Old MICDonald had a war, ee eye ee eye oh...

[another_liberal]

5. He's going to bring, "Peace and stability to the whole region."

Where oh where have I heard that one before?

[L0oniX]

17. "spreading freedom and democracy". n/t

[Scootaloo]

29. Spreading it in loud, joyous bursts, all over Syria!

The liberty will fly to man, woman, and child alike, heedless of arms or station!

Oh wait, no. I'm thinking of shrapnel.

[another_liberal]

35. We're the freedom givers!

Syria is gonna to be more freer than even Iraq!

[Nanjing to Seoul]

48. "Bring it on." Waiting for that. "Coalition of the willing" is another I'm waiting for.

I am tired of warhawks. Why did he win a Nobel Peace Prize? Drones, wars. . .give me a break!

[another_liberal]

61. He won the Nobel Peace Prize . . .

The reason he won the Nobel Peace Prize is because the selection committee, just like most of us here, believed his campaign promises.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

66. Suckers all. Candidate Obama and President OBama aren't the same person. Sadly.

And I know the media will say Kucinich, Sanders, Warren, Grayson, Whitehouse, and Dean are all unelectable as presidents.

But Christie, Paul, Rubio, Jindal and Carnival Cruz are.

Sickening.

[MotherPetrie]

3. SCREWED.

[another_liberal]

8. Yep.

Until we're black and blue as a prison tattoo.

[otherone]

7. bring on a peace summit!

Like Jimmy Carter said to do!

[another_liberal]

11. If only we had the chance.

But things are, sadly, trending in a different direction.

[PSPS]

9. "win over Republicans" = Bush's 4th term

Virtually everyone should see Obama for the charlatan that he is by now.

[another_liberal]

13. Can he really be doing this?

I can't see the way it makes sense at all.

[Arctic Dave]

27. +1

The ultimate Trojan Horse.

Obama is no more a Democrat then I am a Martian.

[dflprincess]

44. Well Dave, men are from Mars

(and women are from Venus)

I'm sorry - I just couldn't resist. Just to be clear though I do agree with what you said.

[Arctic Dave]

47. OK, that was funny.

Good catch.

[arewenotdemo]

63. I really believe Democrats need to fully consider how this will play out politically.

It cannot end well for the Democratic Party.

I for one won't be voting War Party come 2016.

[another_liberal]

65. Exactly!

We are about to start an illegal war of choice which may well cost the Democratic Party dearly. The President, of course, has already won his last election, or he might not be so hot to start bombing.

[cui bono]

10. Wish he would stop appeasing the Cons.

How about trying to win over liberals and progressives? How about trying to actually wow us instead of throwing us a bone or two?

[another_liberal]

12. Stop appeasing the Conservatives?

That ship sailed back in 2009.

[cui bono]

21. I can dream, can't I?

*sigh*

[grahamhgreen]

56. Then he would have no base

[L0oniX]

14. LMFAO ...still reaching out to those that hate cha huh? DUH!

[another_liberal]

16. It seems . . .

That is an unbreakable habit.

[blkmusclmachine]

18. Better explanaion: BHO needs GOPee cover to enact PNAC agenda.

[polichick]

33. That's scary stuff!

[FiveGoodMen]

83. Still just playing the "good cop" to their "bad cop"

He's on their side, not ours.

Always has been.

[Ed Suspicious]

20. Always working hard to win over republicans. What a sham.

[MyNameGoesHere]

22. I will defend the president when the right makes outrageous and racist

remarks about him. I will defend him when he is treated unfairly because of racial ignorance.

I will never defend him to become the next war criminal.

[another_liberal]

26. Well said!

I feel exactly the same.

[Baitball Blogger]

24. Whaaaaa...???!!!

[durablend]

25. Still wondering

If he offered them a "grand bargain" (if not THE Grand Bargain) in exchange for their votes.

Guess we'll find out down the road...

[another_liberal]

28. Social Security . . .

Helped a lot of people, while it still existed.

[Arctic Dave]

30. Fine! Will you republicans like me now if I give a war?

[another_liberal]

37. Kiss your once treasured legacy . . .

goodbye.

[dflprincess]

45. I heard someone say that Obama is on track to have the saddest legacy of all

"what might have been".

Of course, he'll be well taken care of when he leaves office so I suppose it won't really matter to him.

[avaistheone1]

49. I doubt Obama cares about his legacy. He likely has already cut his deals for after

he leaves office - I would imagine much in the style of Tony Blair.

I think Obama has proved himself to be is an actor. He is a much different man than he told us he was when he ran for office. I have come to see there is a coldness and a recklessness there he masks well.

Yup, I got sucked in and voted for him twice. Little wonder so many of us are particularly disappointed at this moment.

[another_liberal]

62. I feel completely betrayed.

It is not an exaggeration to say that I feel completely betrayed.

[ellenrr]

67. no reason to feel betrayed. Obama is true to form.

[another_liberal]

70. I heard the President speak in person in 2008.

The man I heard then was promising to end our wars, not continue the old ones as long as possible and start an open-ended new one.

[ellenrr]

71. I understand, but words mean nothing. Obama is a great speech-maker, but we must

look at deeds not words.
entire books have been written on things that Obama promised, and then did the opposite.

[another_liberal]

72. Sad, yet . . .

Quite true.

[ellenrr]

74. I think not necessarily sad, if it means that more people

are waking up to the fact that politicians won't save us.
We have to save ourselves.

[FiveGoodMen]

85. Can you be more specific about HOW we save ourselves?

[ellenrr]

94. the first step is to stop looking to leaders to save us.

2nd is to join an organization or movement that is fighting from the grassroots - example there is a lot of direct action going on around foreclosure defense, which we don't hear about, bec. naturally the media doesn't cover it.

as chris hedges says, the only thing that will stop the fascist juggernaut is direct action, civil disobedience, and people being willing to go to jail.
No, I have not yet gone to jail.

as long as people think voting is the only useful act they will take, we can bend over and kiss our a__ good-bye.

[btw, haven't been here long enough to know what is allowed and what isn't-- perhaps denigrating "the vote" is not. we shall see.]

[another_liberal]

60. It doesn't seem to matter to him now . . .

That much is certain.

[FiveGoodMen]

84. And there it is: The REPUBLICAN pout.

They all do it.

[bowens43]

31. our president a war monering ass kisser....

[daleo]

32. It's not necessarily about regime change

But it's about regime change.

[another_liberal]

34. Just a few days of cruise missile strikes, folks . . .

Nothing to worry about. It'll be done in no time. Just a warning shot across the bow. You can all go about your business. Nothing to see here. Just move along now. That's right, nothing to see.

[arewenotdemo]

64. It's ALWAYS been about regime change.

From the first weapons shipped from Qatar and Saudi Arabia to the rebels.

Just like it was in Libya.

[ellenrr]

68. yep

[Sand Wind]

36. Two years he say that, and not only he did nothing to help, but he was a nuisance

To the opposition. So now Saoudia Arabia are taking things in hand, and you will come bitching because Wahhabism will be everywhere...

[another_liberal]

38. He was what he was . . .

He is what he is.

[adirondacker]

39. Change the name, and Hope noone notices the similarities. nt

[cosmicone]

40. Obama has been a major disappointment n/t

[another_liberal]

41. Maybe so . . .

But this move is not so much a disappointment as it is a desertion.

[Doctor_J]

42. When will he try to win over Dems?

He seems to have a version of battered wife syndrome.

[olddad56]

46. If he wants to win over the republicans, why doesn't he just guarantee a half a million body count?

[FiveGoodMen]

86. You don't know what might have been said in secret meetings...

[jsr]

50. Disgusting, but not surprising.

[morningfog]

52. MISSION CREEP before it even begins.

[DJ13]

53. I think its wrong to assume Obama cares if a Dem wins the WH in 16

Our party's leadership seems more aligned with the Reagan wing of the GOP than with anyone from our own party's history.

I could see Obama having more in common with Christie than with a Democrat.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

54. Keep an eye on this one folks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-syria-crisis-obama-intelligence-idUSBRE97Q0S820130827

Tue Aug 27, 2013

"The options that we are considering are not about regime change," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. "They are about responding to a clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons."

We haven't even attacked yet and they're already changing their story. Is anyone going to be surprised if we put boots on the ground? I wont be.

[ellenrr]

73. I agree they are changing the story, as now the story is "regime change" even tho previously (just

a day or so ago) it was "no regime change". but that is par for the course.

I don't think they'll put (many) boots on the ground. I think they will continue to arm the rebels and let them fight the war by proxy.

The preference is for drones and other kinds of warfare, so mostly about 99.9% of the dead are "them" not "us".
Putting boots on the ground ( in any significant #) would arouse public opposition. But as long as "they" are dying, people in the US don't seem to care too much.

[ellenrr]

77. OTOH - Kerry said, "no option off the table"

"Kerry refuses to rule out use of troops in Syria"

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0903/471833-unhcr-syria-refugees/

--
if this were't so tragic this would be funny:
In one sentence Obama calls for "broader strategy" and the next for "limited"

"President Barack Obama on Tuesday promised a “broader” strategy in Syria while asking for quick congressional approval of military action."

“It is something limited. It is something proportional. It will degrade Assad’s capabilities,”

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/09/03/obama-promises-broader-syria-
strategy/#ixzz2dvPVyqoz

Somebody should tell this guy that limited and broad are opposites.

[arewenotdemo]

79. In response, Kerry told Corker: “Let's shut that door now as tight as we can".

At this point, I absolutely despise John Kerry.

He's a talking head, floating on a sea of Iraqi, American, and soon, Syrian blood.

[karynnj]

92. -as in no troops on the ground is being asked for

as he explained 3 times. What is your problem with that?

[karynnj]

91. He then immediately corrected himself - saying to close the door on that speculation

He was answering a hypothetical from Menendez as to whether any future condition would ever lead to boots on the ground. He then gave a VERY limited exception - of troops being used to control a cache of chemical weapons if AQ was likely to gain access to it. Although Kerry did not say this, I think this actually is something that Obama would not need a resolution for -- it is precisely what the 2001 Afghanistan vote on terrorism was for.

He then walked this back at least 3 times saying that they were ok with a resolution that did not allow boots on the ground.

[grahamhgreen]

55. HAHAHA of couuuuuuuurse!

[olddad56]

57. for many, Syria will be the beginning of the end of the illusion that .....

there are two major political parties in this country.

[ellenrr]

75. I hope you are right, altho, frankly, I think people should have got this about 20 years ago-- n/t

[markpkessinger]

58. And there we have it

And notice the deafening silence from the Amen Chorus.

[another_liberal]

76. If the President follows through with that course of action . . .

I'm pretty certain that if the President follows through with that course of action, we will likely still be fighting in Syria close to or actually during next year's elections. That will mean goodbye to our Senate majority.

[truthisfreedom]

69. What if Obama threw a war

And nobody came? I think that's the plan I'd use if I was the pres. Set up the plans for a war so debilitating that Assad won't risk even a few days of it. Let's call it Shock and, umm... AWW!!!!!

[workinclasszero]

78. Nope..no regime change..not takin sides...shoot off a few missiles only..mission accomplished

(with teabaggers in a backroom somewhere) BOMB BOMB BOMB...Syria! Boots on ground...make it safe for oil companies and defense contractors to move in.....10 years or sooo......

Sorry I don't trust the President and or SoS on this matter anymore and it pains me to say that.

[another_liberal]

82. Did you hear what Representative Alan Grayson asked Sec. Hagel yesterday?

Grayson questioned whether the administration's version of Syrian military communications right after the big gas attack had been altered make it seem they were not surprised by what had happened. The point being, Grayson claimed, that the original communication did actually suggest that Syrian authorities were very surprised by what had happened. Hagel dodged the question as best he could:

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/5/rep_alan_grayson_on_syria_congress

The part with Grayson's question begins at about thirteen minutes into the Democracy Now video.

[Brigid]

80. Notice how Obama doesn't give a shit how we Dems feel.

Last edited Thu Sep 5, 2013, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)

I am beginning to wish that I hadn't voted at all in the last two elections. I used to disagree with George Carlin when he said he didn't vote, but now I understand. And I sure as hell want my campaign contributions back. I am so disgusted right now, I literally don't know what to do with myself.

[another_liberal]

81. It is still far better to have Democrats in charge, despite everything.

Willard (Mitt) Romney would have gone to war with Iran during his first 100 days. By now he would be building special prisons for war protesters and considering a declaration of nation-wide martial law.

[FiveGoodMen]

87. It'll take the Dems just a LITTLE longer to get there

but we'll wind up in the same hell.

[karynnj]

90. It may be that he wants a resolution to pass -- and there there are too many Democrats

unwilling to vote for ANY resolution. Therefore, he needs to get more Republican votes.

However, he does not have to do anything more in Syria than he was willing to do in the first place. Remember that Bush honored NONE of the things he allowed to be included in the IWR. Had he honored all of them, the IWR ironically would have stooped him from going to war.

However, here, Obama is STILL speaking of a limited attack and pushing for a political solution.

[another_liberal]

93. I don't know about that . . .

Have you noticed the President's face lately. That is a very angry-looking man.