Prediction: Obama will NOT attack Syria

[Cyrano]

There will be no bombs, missiles, or anything else hurled at Syria by U.S. forces.

The majority of the American public doesn't support getting involved, the British are not getting involved, and many Dems in the congress don't want to get involved.

Obama will take many hits from the neocons and the wingnuts for doing nothing, but he'll take hits from that crowd for just breathing.

What this whole issue is about right now is face saving. But no sane person would want the President of the U.S. to launch bombs on people just to "save face."

He will find a somewhat reasonable rationale for not attacking Syria.

[snappyturtle]

1. I hope you are right. If that turns out to be the case, I believe

the President has enough grace to be honest and say he was
advised to strike based on intel or whatever.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. It's late for that now

There will be a small attack on "facilities," or some such - Clinton "cruise missile" style after the embassy bombings. It will be transparently ineffective and purely symbolic.

Unfortunately, we're already into this horrible mistake, and there's no way out of the tailspin.

[Cyrano]

3. With every passing day that Obama does nothing,

the odds increase that nothing will be done and he will find a way out of this box.

[blm]

4. I agree, but, think you're wrong about the reason. Obama, Biden

Kerry and Hagel don't war in Syria and have worked hard to avoid it, especially Kerry who has personally intervened there for the last 8 years in order to prevent war there. He has been taking hits from the neocons for 8 years over the relationship he carved out with Assad.

Assad has been going off the deep end since Arab Spring. So has his wife. I think that the tough talk from US now is to make Assad see that his behavior is now so egregious that he CAN'T trust that US will not punish him at this point.

If Putin would STFU and get on the same page, a lot of this could be avoided. The other problem was that Hillary as Sec of State had ALWAYS been a hawk on Syria and has been since 2005. She never showed any sincere effort to deal with Syria through diplomacy and Assad never saw her as an honest broker. The window of opportunity with Syria for a more peaceful resolution was during the Arab Spring and within that first transformational year. By last year it became too late.

We'll see. But....like you, I'm not sure there will be any major strikes against Syria, and certainly not an invasion of Syria.

[blm]

9. Then you'll have no problem NAMING the person who HAS been preventing

war in Syria most proactively since 2005, eh sunshine?

The RW war hawks who have been itching to attack Syria sure knew who to BLAME the last 8 years.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-frequent-visitor-syrian-dictator-bashar-al-assad_690885.html

John Kerry, who is expected to be nominated as secretary of state later this afternoon, has made frequent visits to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Assad is now under fire for mass murdering his own civilians, as he fights an internal war to keep his position of power. Even Obama has called for Assad to go.

In February 2009, Kerry led a delegation there to engage Syria. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told visiting US members of Congress on Saturday that the United States should ‘move away from a policy based on dictating decisions.’ Assad's guests on Saturday included US Senator John Kerry, who headed the third delegation this week to call on the Syrian president's door as Washington reviews its policies toward countries the previous administration regarded as hostile. Assad told his visitors that future relations should be based on a ‘proper understanding’ by Washington of regional issues and on common interests, SANA news agency reported,” AFP reported at the time.

AFP followed up with this report after the visit stating that Kerry believes "Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region":

“President Barack Obama's administration considers Syria a key player in Washington's efforts to revive the stalled Middle East peace process, US Senator John Kerry said in Damascus on Thursday. ‘Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,’ Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a speech after meeting President Bashar al-Assad. ‘Both the United States and Syria have a very deep interest... in having a very frank exchange on any differences (and) agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region,’ he said in the statement.”
>>>>>>>>

[blm]

10. More blame from war hawks:

http://www.raptureforums.com/FeaturedCommentary/johnkerryassadsmaninwashington.cfm

John Kerry: Assad's Man in Washington
By Arnold Ahlert
>>>>
Whether Kerry should be nominated at all is the question we would be asking if there were any justice in the world. If Rice ostensibly incurred the wrath of Washington insiders for her lack of judgement regarding Benghazi and Rwanda, how is it possible Kerry gets a pass for his own lack of judgment regarding a host of issues, from his enduring support for Syrian butcher Bashar Assad and his belief that climate change is a "national security" issue, to his unthinkable testimony before the U.S. Congress maligning America and Vietnam vets while running interference for the Viet Cong? Kerry, it seems, cannot kick the habit of sidling up to the great killing machines of our time.

Kerry's lack of judgment is nothing new. For the last decade, he has been the federal government's highest-ranking apologist for Assad. It was Kerry who made numerous efforts to undermine the Bush administration's attempt to isolate the Syrian dictator after their courtship of him ended in failure in 2003. Kerry has made repeated visits to Syria, meeting with Assad five times between 2009 and 2011.
>>>>>

[blm]

11. More of what YOU call 'bullshit' because you're under informed:

See - they blame Kerry FOR working against war in Syria while YOU now blame Kerry and claim he's been rushing to war in Syria. They paid more attention (from their war hawk perspective) to Kerry's efforts than YOU did. You didn't become engaged until you heard use of force may be used in recent months.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/28/john-kerry-wasnt-always-so-harsh-to-syrian-president-assad/

>>>>
Kerry has met with Assad on numerous occasions and once lauded Assad in 2011 as being a “very generous” man, according to the Weekly Standard.

“Well, I personally believe that — I mean, this is my belief, okay?” Kerry said. “But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to — the last several trips to Syria — I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward.”
>>>

[blm]

13. "Conservative websites...mock Kerry-Assad relationship as 'bromance'

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22358514/syria-kerrys-assad-views-examined

Syria: Kerry's Assad views examined
By Donna Cassata
The Associated Press
POSTED: 01/12/2013

WASHINGTON — Sen. John Kerry has held up Syria as a country that could bring peace and stability to the Mideast and predicted that the now-disgraced government of President Bashar Assad would pursue a legitimate relationship with the United States. Those assertions are certain to draw scrutiny at Kerry's confirmation hearing to be secretary of state as Assad's brutal crackdown has plunged his country into civil war.

Conservative websites have mocked the relationship as a Kerry-Assad "bromance," seizing on comments the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman has made in speeches and during his six visits to Syria.

The politically tinged criticism of President Barack Obama's nominee fails to capture the context of Kerry's words, his more recent statements and what has been a complicated outreach to a mercurial and defiant leader. Both Republican and Democratic administrations also have struggled to fathom the Assad family, which has kept a tight grip on power for four decades and at times has cooperated with the West.
>
The observation came during an appearance before the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in which he spoke optimistically about the Syrian government and the United States making progress with Assad.

"President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had," Kerry said. "And when I last went to — the last several trips to Syria — I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States."
Kerry ticked off six requests for Assad, including purchasing land for a U.S. Embassy in Damascus and border assistance with Iraq, and said the Syrian president fulfilled all of them.

"So my judgment is Syria will move; Syria will change, as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West and economic opportunity that comes with it and the participation comes with it," he said.
>>>>>>>>>

Yeah - my claims about Kerry working to prevent war in Syria are all 'bullshit' according to someone who is so under informed on this matter and yet so dug in that they can't see straight.

[blm]

14. Jan 2005: Kerry hopeful strained ties with Syria can be improved

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6802243/ns/world_news/t/kerry-meets-syrian-president/#.UiCweDnjJ64


Kerry meets with Syrian president
Senator says he is hopeful strained ties can be improved

U.S. Senator John Kerry visits Damascus following talks with President Bashar Assad in the Syrian capital on Saturday.

updated 1/8/2005 1:01:20 PM ET

DAMASCUS, Syria — Former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry met Saturday with Syria’s president and said he was hopeful that strained U.S.-Syrian relations could be improved, provided Washington seized “a moment of opportunity” currently available in the Middle East.
The United States has accused Syria of doing too little to stop insurgents from infiltrating into Iraq to attack coalition forces. Washington also has imposed sanctions on Damascus, accusing it of seeking weapons of mass destruction and hosting Palestinian groups Washington deems to be terrorist organizations.
Syria denies the accusations but says it cannot fully control its long, porous border with Iraq.

Sen. Kerry, D-Mass., met for two hours with President Bashar Assad and then with Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa, with both meetings centering on Iraq and how to prevent militants from moving from Syria into neighboring Iraq.
“I think we found a great deal of areas of mutual interest, some common concerns and some possibilities for initiatives that could be taken in the future to strengthening the relationship between the U.S. and Syria,” Kerry told reporters after meeting with al-Sharaa.

“I leave here with a sense that we can improve our relationship. There are significant possibilities, particularly with the elections in Iraq and the elections in the West Bank ... This is the moment of opportunity for the Middle East, for the U.S. and for the world. I hope that we would seize that opportunity.”
Assad stressed “the importance of dialogue between the two sides over all issues under discussion, especially those of common interest,” Syria’s official news agency reported.
>
In September, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling on Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon and dismantle the Syrian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah guerrilla group. Syria, with some 14,000 troops stationed in Lebanon, is the main power broker in that country.
>>>>>>>

[blm]

16. Dec 2004: Hawks beating war drums against Syria

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/6/20041206-122715-5905r/
>>>
In October of this year, U.S. intelligence sources identified three relatives of Saddam Hussein, who had fled to Syria and were funneling millions of dollars to the Iraqi insurgents through middlemen and front companies.

U.S. intelligence sources have told the authors that Syrian intelligence officials have identified targets for the insurgency, provided its members with logistical support and helped plan operations against coalition forces.

Syrian intelligence officials have allegedly shown visitors a video of the beheading of two American soldiers who were captured in Iraq, possibly in fighting near the airport in the early days of the invasion. They were allegedly beheaded by Syrian fighters working with the Iraqi insurgents. The U.S. government disclaims any knowledge of this, but two sources who say they have seen the video described it in detail to one of the authors. In a meeting with Syrian intelligence officers in which the tape was supposedly shown, said the source, a Syrian official mocked the executions by saying "this is what we do to Americans."President Bush's insistence on not compromising with terrorists has been endorsed by a majority of the citizens of the United States and by the leaders of our global allies. The president's goals in Iraq, and elsewhere in the region, will not be achieved until the Syrians are forced to halt all assistance to our enemies. To win the ground war in Iraq and the larger war on terrorism, we must stop more than two decades of Syrian complicity with terrorists. Failure at this point is not an option.
>>>>>

Yeah....Kerry working to PREVENT war in Syria since 2005 is all 'bullshit', eh cali? I just made it all up. Never happened.

[YvonneCa]

23. Kerry HAS been working hardtofind solutions...

...for Syria and other countries in the region.To dispute that shows lack of information...ignorance.

[liberal N proud]

5. Hope you are right but I fear this...

[cali]

6. That's certainly not what the administration is signalling, so why do you

believe that? What do you base it on? A "feeling"?

[Whisp]

12. You seem to be 'feeling' signals...

what form do they come in for you?
smoke? caption crawls on the news that only you can see?

[cali]

22. uh, no. try fucking listening to what admin officials and others have been saying

try looking at the movements of U.S. ships.

gad.

[blm]

47. You do that without putting what they say into historic context -

and by historic context, I mean the last 8 years of the hawks pushing to invade Syria.

You want others to believe what YOU have been saying - that this is just like Iraq and the lies told to invade Iraq.

Pretty sure Bush-Cheney didn't even take 8 days to push for a diplomatic solution in Iraq, let alone the 8 years that Obama-Biden-Kerry have taken to push for diplomatic solutions to avoid force in Syria.

[Cyrano]

15. I base it on reasoning.

Obama is not a fool. He knows he'll take crap from the Republicans whatever he does. But he still needs the Dem base because he wants the ability to influence them to turn up at the polls next year. He wants a Dem majority in the House and he wants to keep his Dem majority in the Senate.

Launching an attack on Syria won't help accomplish any of that. He's going to need every vote available.

[blm]

17. She also rejects the fact that Obama-Biden-Kerry have been against

any attack on Syria since 2005, while Kerry took it upon himself to personally engage with Assad since that time in an effort to stop Bush and the hawks (inc Clintons) from getting the war they wanted in Syria.

I think this basic lack of understanding what has been going on for the last 8 years is what drives cali's under-informed posts accusing Obama-Biden-Kerry of wanting this war and rushing into it.

I can safely claim that there isn't a person in this country who knows Assad and the situation in Syria better than Kerry and who has gone into all of these matters with Syria as an HONEST BROKER, just as he has for the last 8 YEARS.

[YvonneCa]

24. Exactly. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

8. I reject this notion that the choices are bloody attack or 'do nothing'. People are suffering and

we could take action to help them. Refugees and others. If the only action that can be imagined is to bomb, that is an admission of not only failure but of sheer ignorance.

[NuclearDem]

28. Exactly. Provide humanitarian aid to the refugees fleeing Syria.

It's the only thing we can do at this point.

[Enrique]

18. that would be quite the head fake

they've been signalling the attack is coming. When Obama signals something, he usually does it.

[Cyrano]

19. I just don't think he's prepared to

"go it alone." He's not Cheney/Bush with a "screw the world" attitude. He's far more decent than those criminal cretins.

Perhaps I'm being naive. If I'm wrong, so be it.

[tridim]

36. You're not wrong. You're describing the man as most Democrats see him.

He's not Clinton either, thank gawd.

[KittyWampus]

20. I sincerely doubt Obama is all about "saving face".

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. The empire not attack?

That be a first in modern history.

[tridim]

38. Add it to the list of MANY firsts this amazing man has achieved. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Yeah sure

Waiting for Kerry to prepare us for the upcoming glorious war

Sorry, when it comes to war and peace...

[tridim]

43. Sounds like he prefers diplomacy to strikes...

As does Obama.

No missiles have been fired.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Hum, hum

[tridim]

45. Why don't you trust good Democrats? Or listen to what they say?

What is wrong with you?

[kenny blankenship]

25. He's getting lots of support from Republicans

and you know how important that is to him, so who knows? Sure, it's dumb move, but reason doesn't always rule when the love of Republicans is on the line.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114514/syria-2013-polls-say-republicans-most-supportive

[bowens43]

26. I hope youre right

[Dreamer Tatum]

27. Unfortunately he HAS to attack. It's about Iran, Russia, and China.

Which is why he was an absolute moron (not an "11th level chess player" ) but a MORON
for wasting a threat on Syria.

[Puzzledtraveller]

30. Yup, Mr. Redline has to eat this one.

[Cyrano]

31. Strong words.

Even a president is allowed to make a mistake. Taking the oath of office doesn't endow anyone with super powers.

And as far as mistakes go, it would be an immense mistake if he actually does attack Syria.

[Dreamer Tatum]

35. Of course he's allowed to make a mistake.

But there is a contingent who will bend every mistake into some supposed masterstroke. It's reaaaaaaaaaly simple: if we say we will act in international affairs, then we have to act, lest our position in other delicate matters lose credibility. If we say we will act on Syria under a specific condition and then don't do it, how credible is our pledge to protect Taiwan, for example? Not at all.

[Cyrano]

40. I guess we'll just have to wait and see

I'm no Nostradamus, but I truly believe he'll find a way to not attack.

[Dreamer Tatum]

41. It would involve the opposite of what they're doing today.

Today they seem to be doubling down on claims of hard evidence. And even Pelosi is in the war fold.

I guess she'd say we have to attack them so we can know whether they gassed their own people.

[Puzzledtraveller]

29. I bet he does.

He has to now.

[leveymg]

32. All he has to do is to announce that there is insufficient evidence for an authorized launch and

release the intercepts. Simple, really.

[blm]

48. And when the 'intercepts' prove it was directed by Assad's team, then

what? I am certain that the intercepts prove the gas did not come from rebels. Pretty touchy subject, though, given the focus on NSA spying.

I just don't believe that Obama-Biden- Kerry want the war that some here are claiming is no different than Bush.

I have never seen evidence of that from any of them, and have seen plenty of evidence over the last 8 years that they did NOT want to use military force in Syria.

[leveymg]

49. Add this point: the evidence points to an unauthorized launch by a local unit commander.

Nothing specific has yet been released by the Administration to prove that this was planned and executed at the command level. It appears to have been a variation of the Gen. Jack D. Ripper scenario in Dr. Strangelove - a war created by one crazy or overzealous officer.

[morningfog]

33. He will. It is a done deal. It will be US and France.

[cali]

34. Striking Syria Still Seems A Question Of When, Not Whether

Though in any military action aimed at Syria, it appears the White House is determined to go ahead — most likely within the next few days and most likely with missile strikes.

We'll be following the news throughout the day and over the weekend. As Friday dawns, here's where things stand:

— Evidence. The White House is expected to release, perhaps as soon as today, a declassified version of the intelligence it has been giving to members of Congress to support the case that President Bashar Assad's regime last week used chemical weapons to kill several hundred people and wound even more.

, NPR Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman said it's his understanding that a lot of that evidence "is circumstantial." It includes videos of Syrians who appears to have symptoms you would expect victims of a chemical weapons attack to suffer.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/30/217132270/striking-syria-still-seems-a-question-of-when-not-whether

[Taverner]

37. I hope so. I think he's smart enough to understand nobody will support it.

[fadedrose]

42. He might tell the truth

that he mispoke about the red line because he thougt that his opinion was shared by most of the world, and that he was wrong.

[BumRushDaShow]

46. The speech had all sorts of exit options. nt