I know I'm going to get ripped apart for saying this....

[Avalux]

but I think Obama is a genius.

Who else would have been able to unite both sides of the public in saying "no" to bombing Syria?

Those of us who identify with Democrats and have supported Obama say no.

Those who identify with Republicans and hate Obama say no. (Only because it's Obama's idea, but whatever works).

Congress is in a tough spot.

Sure there are fringe neocons who want more aggressive action (stilll, they are saying no to Obama's idea), but the vast majority of the public is in the anti-aggression camp. John McCain was pelted by angry supporters at a town hall meeting a couple of days ago for chickenhawk bullshit.

I don't take any of what's going on at face value, and I don't think we will strike Syria before Assad is dethroned. I think that's been the objective all along, despite the public machinations.

And I really believe Obama doesn't care about the negativity leveled at him in this moment if he's able to meet the objective. There are no more elections in his future.

[polichick]

1. So you think Obama doesn't want to strike?

[Avalux]

3. Yes I do.

I may be proved wrong but at this moment, that's what I think. Time will tell....

[polichick]

5. Why make the pitch on Tuesday then?

[Avalux]

8. Look at it this way....

you know the neocons are still pushing their agenda, right? What if after the Assad's horrors were made public, Obama said he was against military intervention? What would Republicans have done - agreed with him? What would Rand Paul be saying right about now?

[polichick]

10. Interesting theory - I'd love to think he wasn't about the mic...

but he's been about big pharma and Wall Street so I'm not very trusting at this point.

[Avalux]

16. I'm an optimist I guess.

ACA is going to end up being a good thing for us in the long run. Right now I'm giving Obama the benefit of a doubt. Now if he actually does bomb and makes a mess over there, I'm gone.

[roguevalley]

88. I wish you were right, Avalux. but he is going to do this because he

wants it. I wish I could agree but I've old enough to see the march for war is on and it will take a miracle to stop it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. He has also been steadfastly Non-proliferation...

why is that always dismissed?

[polichick]

44. Because his actions don't always match his rhetoric.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. his language hasn't expressed his non-proliferation policies?

hmmm that's not the language I have heard....

[FarPoint]

36. Let's hope your are correct.

I myself, have always felt there was a bigger picture here.....like they say, The glove does not fit"....

Impulsively going to war does not home-in with President Obama's essence. This juror is still waiting for the story to playout.

That said....he sure is trying to sell it.

[polichick]

40. His "essence?" I've met him...

his "essence" might seem pretty chill - but a lot of his actions flat-out suck.

[louis-t]

45. They'd be saying he is a pacifist, weak, coward, communist...

and loves terrorists. If he goes it alone, they will say he is a dictator.

[Avalux]

67. You're spot on...

that's what I've concluded as well. If he took an initial stance of doing nothing, imagine what would be happening.

[treestar]

68. You may be on to something. Obama knows how Republicans react to him

If he'd said we are war fatigued and have to stay out of it, Republicans would vote for an attack, call him weak and cowardly, blah, blah. The critics from the left would join in, emphasizing the chemical attack. He knows up is down and they live only to oppose him, so to get what you want, demand the opposite.

[Avalux]

70. You've got it.

That's exactly where we'd be right now if Obama had been passive.

[louis-t]

76. Either way, they will scream for impeachment saying

"he's failing to leeeeeead!1!1!!"

[War Horse]

43. Obama is the most reluctant war monger I've ever seen N/T

[polichick]

48. Not really. He went with the Pentagon re adding troops in Afg...

instead of going with the plan Biden preferred.

Again, his actions don't always match his rhetoric.

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. Comedy Gold.

[Avalux]

4. Thanks!!

[blkmusclmachine]

6. More 11-Dimensional Rope-a-Dope Baloney.

Thought everyone got past that BS line.

[Kolesar]

15. A code-word for "I don't understand it" ... eom

[polichick]

21. More like code for "Given what we've seen, not a chance."

[Kolesar]

24. "Thought everyone got past that BS line."

blkmusclmachine, above

[polichick]

26. What I posted is how I'd read that vs your reading.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Is that why he compared Americans ignoring the gassing to Americans who ignored the Blitz?/nt

[Avalux]

11. He's out on a limb, that's for sure.

Right now, the House will end up voting No to military action. I don't care what he says if that's is the outcome.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. Ronald Reagan ignored Saddam's gassing of thousands, he might have even assisted in it

Yet ask Obama about Reagan and he grins as he heaps praise upon the Gipper as great and powerful and he never ever offers criticism of Reagan for allowing Saddam's gas attacks. So Reagan gives Saddam targeting intel which are used for gas attacks and he's Obama's hero, but those who do not want to bomb Syrians for Assad's wrongs are like those who ignored the Blitz. Reagan ignores gassing and he's great but the American public is awful for not wanting to answer death with death.
Don Rumsfeld went to Iraq to shake Saddam's hand 4 months after the largest gas attack on civilians since WW1. Far larger than what has happened in Syria. Bush made Rummy Sec of Defense and Obama kept Bush's replacement for Rummy. Close knit folks with selective outrage meters.

[leftstreet]

9. He could REALLY unite people by threatening to bomb Canada!

[cali]

12. the sky is green.

I don't think President Obama would purposely set this up. It weakens him far too much. If what you posit is true, than why the enormous effort to get Congress to vote affirmatively on the AUMF? Why the intense lobbying of allies?

I don't see the imminent "dethroning" of Assad.

There may be no more elections in Obama's future but he still has 3 more years as President.

[Avalux]

19. How does it weaken him if he gets the desired outcome?

Are you privy to inside information about clandestine operations inside Syria? The effort with Congress and lobbying allies are required to pull this off.

[cali]

28. first of all, if it's his desired outcome, why take such a risky

byzantine and time consuming route to get there? He could have achieved the same thing by walking back from his red line or stalling until the U.N. report was issued?

Your asking me if I am privy to inside info is amusing considering that you're pretending to know the most inner thoughts of the President.

And it's obvious how he'd be weakened politically:

<snip>

A 'no' vote would be a "catastrophe" for Obama, said David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official who is now president of Garten Rothkopf, an international advisory firm.

"It would ratify the perception of him as a lame duck at one of the earliest points in recent presidential memory," Rothkopf said. "He would appear to be weakened and unlikely to get much done during the remainder of his term."

"I think a 'no' vote would be a huge slap at the president," said George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. "It would seem to tie his hands."

It would hurt Obama even more if many Democrats - members of his own party - vote against him, which at the moment seems likely.

<snip>

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/us-syria-crisis-obama-consequences-analy-idUSBRE98605620130907

Your op is ludicrous on its face.

[Avalux]

31. What would he get done anyway with this Congress?

That whole lame duck bullshit doesn't wash in the current political environment. Have you forgotten the pledge to obstruct everything Obama wants to do?

And if you're trying to convince me I'm wrong, insulting me is not the way to do it. I thought we might have a discussion but I guess not.

[MNBrewer]

29. I don't think that's his desired outcome at all

When it comes to Syria, I think he wants to let loose the missiles of war and cry "havok". Can nothing he says be taken at face value?

[Avalux]

33. Face value politics is a misnomer.

Nothing is every at face value, never has been in the good ol' US of A.

[MNBrewer]

37. I'm cynical, but not that cynical

I believe that there are rare exceptions to that rule... maybe they prove the rule, come to think of it.

[sabrina 1]

75. All he had to do was to announce, the truth in fact, that there is evidence now that he did not have

initially that casts doubt on who was responsible for the Chemical Weapons attack.

Then he could have said we would like the UN inspectors to return and finish the work they began by inspecting the rebel sites so that we know, beyond any doubt, what happened.

He could also remind people of the WMDs that weren't there and add that we 'do not want to make such a tragic error again'.

About 90% of the World's population would give him a standing ovation if he did that right now.

The fringe elements would shouted down to the point where no one would hear them. There will always be a fringe element, but they have taken over this country over the past decade.

There is no need to play any convoluted games with this. He has the support of a majority of sane people on the planet who no longer trust the US with these matters after what they have witnessed in Iraq and elsewhere.

[Kolesar]

13. Bill Press9/3:It was a brilliant move. And the right move to make – legally, morally and politically

It was one of the biggest surprises pulled off by any president.

The entire nation tuned in on Saturday afternoon to hear President Obama announce his plans to bomb Syria in retaliation for Bashar al Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Instead, we heard the president say he had made his decision to launch a military strike against Syria – but he wouldn’t do so until Congress had a chance to debate it and vote up or down.

It was a brilliant move. And the right move to make – legally, morally, and politically.

Legally, as constitutional scholar Barack Obama himself has argued, no president has the authority to take our nation to war without the support of Congress.

Morally, we don’t want any president making that unilateral decision. Unlike Syria, we are not a dictatorship.

And politically, Obama puts Congress to the test. They demanded a chance to vote. Now they’ve got it. They say they’re tough on national security. Now they have a chance to prove it.

Members of Congress are now like a dog who finally caught the car. They don’t know what the hell to do. But, whatever decision they make, President Obama did the right thing in calling for their vote.

https://www.facebook.com/BillPressShow

[polichick]

14. But whose idea was it to go to Congress...

Wasn't there a big argument about it?

[Avalux]

17. Thank you for posting this!

I hadn't seen it. Bill Press and I are thinking along the same lines.

[Kolesar]

22. Dear Congress: Here is a monkey to wear on your back

You're welcome!

The war-policy decision is truly wandering now and I am happy with that.
The best the RW could do was to counter with clowns like Rumsfeld.

[Avalux]

27. Yep! There are DUers agreeing with Rand Paul over this.

Who would have ever thought that would happen?

Obama is smarter than all of them, and is using their "black is white" philosophy against them.

[morningfog]

25. He reserved the right to strike without congress.

He did not say he was bound by their vote. And he went to congress because it is so unpopular domestically and internationally.

[Avalux]

55. Of course he did. Why would he say "I'll listen to whatever Congress wants"

He went to Congress to put a monkey on their back.

[Little Star]

80. And his good buddy Cameron went to parliament for the same reason. Gimmeabreak......

They both just love losing in front of the world.

[Nevernose]

71. He has to say that, diplomatically

It's part of "all options are on the table." Practically Diplomacy 101.

[Surya Gayatri]

86. Thanks for this, Kolesar. Bill Press has a pretty incisive mind

and some unexpected insights. I used to listen to him via streaming, but can't seem to find him anymore.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. I like that thought - but I think it's about as likely as believing Bush and Cheney intentionally

fucked up U.S. foreign policy so badly that they ended up turning Americans against war while greatly reducing America's ability to intimidate with the threat of military force. George W. Bush and Richard Cheney were really anti-imperialist in disguise.

[Avalux]

20. Not really.

To believe that, I'd have to believe Bush and Cheney rate the same as Obama in relation to Maslov's heirarchy of needs. They do not.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. I don't believe it either, of course - I just don't find either scenario likely

but the law of unintended consequences did result in the Neocons doing more to turn the American people against war than the peace movement could have ever have dreamed of. Not long ago a President with some skilled rhetoric could have convinced the country to bomb and invade Tahiti - Now even a limited military strikes is hard to sell. I think this is a good thing

[Avalux]

34. It is a good thing.

I am honestly surprised so many people are against it.

[cali]

52. It's Maslow not Maslov

and your use of the hierarchy of needs in the context you're using it, makes no sense.

[Avalux]

59. Well aren't you the superior one.

Oh the horror of a typo! You must really hate Obama. Give it a rest.

[cali]

66. a typo? v and y are just so close together.

and your use of the hierarchy of needs in such an erroneous way sure isn't a "typo"

[Avalux]

69. v and w are just so close together as well. n/t

[question everything]

30. And meanwhile, while every politiican maneuvers, children and innocent civilians

get killed and exiled.

Nice game we play.

[MNBrewer]

38. Perhaps the Democratic Party should nominate Clark Kent next time

[LittleBlue]

32. Ahahahahaha, good one!

Oh man, my sides are hurting! Keep 'em coming

[cali]

41. I think it's interesting: it demonstrates the extremes some people

will go to in order to keep their belief in the President, intact.

[n2doc]

39. This concept has been proposed by others

The Washington Post, in a somewhat sarcastic op ed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023594092

[ocpagu]

42. Stop making a Messiah out of him. He just wanted war and fail at that because OTHERS opposed.

[Avalux]

49. What are you trying to say, because it doesn't make sense.

If you're bashing me as an Obama worshipper (WTF), give it a rest. But I'll let you explain before I make an assumption.

[rug]

47. He should come out for Social Security cuts. We'll all be rich.

[Avalux]

50. You may have something there....

how else to get an obstructive Congress to do what he wants? Up is down, black is white. It's how Republicans roll, and I've been saying for years and years that we need to beat them at their own game.

[CakeGrrl]

51. I think there's something to your theory. After all,

despite what's expressed here, he actually knows better than ANYONE that if he says "zig", the GOP/Tea Party/RWNJ knee-jerk impulse is to "zag".

And despite the derision expressed about his 'chess game', he thinks far longer-term than the reactionaries shouting and flailing on the sidelines.

Why would a warmonger wind DOWN Bush's wars? Anyone who thinks you can just do a cold stop is naive, and I challenge them to navigate the geopolitics and Washington politics to make it happen that quickly.

[cali]

56. sheesh. this is just absurd.

I don't think the President is a warmonger. I take him at his word here that he believes that a military strike is needed against Assad's forces for the reasons he's repeatedly enunciated. I disagree with him, but this is just convoluted, patents ridiculous theorizing.

[DrDan]

53. wow . . . . but not unexpected

we strike without congressional authorization - OBAMA's A GENIUS!

go to congress and get a strike vote passed - OBAMA's A GENIUS!

go to congress and have it denied - OBAMA's A GENIUS!

have it passed by the senate and rejected by the house - strike anyway - OBAMA's A GENIUS!

ignore the situation - OBAMA's A GENIUS!

[Avalux]

54. I feel sorry for you.

All you're thinking about is how much you don't like Obama and the people who think he may not be a warmonger.

[DrDan]

57. you are simply full of it - when did I say I did not like Obama

I voted for him, I contributed, I worked on his campaign

take it elsewhere

[Avalux]

60. Then why the snarky post?

If I misinterpreted what you said I apologize.

[DrDan]

63. my post is a comment on Obama supporters - not Obama

some supporters will go to any extreme to defend an action rather than give it critical thought

[Avalux]

65. Ahh I see....

the snark is aimed at me. C'est la vie.

[SammyWinstonJack]

78. heh

[mick063]

58. I'm looking for GD and ended up in the BOG.

Is DU suffering from technical difficulty?

[DrDan]

61. col (chuckled out loud)

[xfundy]

62. Next, he should suggest pot be made illegal

all over the nation. Congress, feeling their newfound oats, would cut all laws against the indigenous plant.

[Avalux]

64. They'd have to....

otherwise they'd violate their pledge to obstruct everything. Agreeing with Obama will cause god to smite them with lightning bolts.

[mick063]

73. It would actually be a brilliant move.

Force their hand. Obama calls for legislation, the "deny everything Obama" House comes out opposed, and the Democrats are instantly on the right side of the next big wedge issue.

[Avalux]

72. Have you read this??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023617516

[whatchamacallit]

74. So... would it still be a genius move if congress did his bidding and authorized the attack?

He'd either follow through with an attack he doesn't really want, or tell the world "Oops I was only kidding".

[Sanddog42]

82. Actually, yes.

He could use the fact that he has the authorization to attack to bolster non-military options. (The way Bush said he would do when he was authorized to wage war on Iraq.)

Meanwhile, Republicans would be split between those enraged that Obama got something he wanted and those secretly gladdened by the prospect of more war. The fracture would decimate support for the Republican party in Congress.

[whatchamacallit]

84. Eh...

sure...

[Sanddog42]

92. Yup.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

77. If he ends up not bombing I'll give him credit.

Putting it in the hands of congress was a good political move by a President who hasn't really played the political game all that well.

[sibelian]

79. It takes a supergenius to seem clever whether or not you get what you want.

Alternatively it's just nice to think that he's a supergenius. Makes you feel nice and cuddly.

[Marrah_G]

81. OFFS

~double facepalm~

[Dems to Win]

85. Obama doesn't have elections in his future, but other Dems DO.

While listening to Obama's speech saying he wanted Congress to vote, I had the similar thoughts to those you've outlined here. A No vote from Congress would be a way to save face and refrain from bombing Syria, a very unwise move.

Now, though, I don't think so. The Obama Admin is pulling out all the stops to get Yes votes. They are sure acting like they want Congress to vote Yes.

If this is all an act, they are putting a lot of their political allies in a bad spot. Senator Barbara Boxer will not get my strong support in the future due to her support of this Syria war; it has really disappointed me. Pretty much broken my heart.

If Obama doesn't really want to strike Syria, this charade of a Congressional vote is a mean trick to pull on his friends.

[MH1]

87. I'm going to wait to see how it plays out, but I think yours is one of many valid theories.

The one thing I know for sure about this situation is that there's a lot I don't know.

I think it's possible that Obama really did foresee the "if Obama's for it we're against it reaction" (gee what a surprise that would be ... not like it's ever happened before ...).

I also think it's possible that he genuinely feels that we should strike Assad's capability to deliver chemical weapons, but also that this situation warranted consulting Congress.

I also think it's possible he's merely been reacting to the political winds, hence the initial call for a strike (when so many were crying "Chemical weapons!! what about your red line?", then after some raised a stink, the decision to consult Congress. I tend to think this is the least likely, but not utterly impossible.

[Avalux]

90. You're right there is a lot we don't know.

And knowing that, none of us can say with any certainly what the motivations are; I am choosing to believe that Obama will do what is best for the greater good in this situation. When I say the greater good - I mean the world.

[davidpdx]

91. I take a bit more moderate view

I think given his hand and the vote in GB he did what he felt he had to, which is to go to Congress. Arguing over the whole thing is moot point because Congress WILL vote no.

Some people have used the time honored "oh, Obama will look weak". How many times have we heard that over the last almost 5 years? If I had a dime for every time on DU said that I'd be sitting on an island sipping drinks. The Republicans have made it their specialty to obstruct Obama. First it was "we are going to make Obama a one term president", now it is block everything, cut everything, and repeal Obamacare. Anyone that can't see that is dumb.

[reformist2]

93. I hope you're right, but it's waaay too early to be giving him credit for multidimensional chess.

I'll wait until all is said and done, and we haven't dropped a single bomb on Syria. Then I'll think about whether Obama planned it out that way all along. And something tells me Obama himself would want us to distrust him anyway - it would all be part of the game, you see?