Syria

Did Obama Just Get Lucky on Syria?

The Russian escape route may save Obama from waging an unpopular war.

|

In assessing the feasibility and probability of Russia's proposal to secure Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons, one overlooked factor should be paramount in our minds: Barack Obama is the luckiest politician on the face of the planet. If he were tied to a railroad track, the train would levitate and pass harmlessly over him. He's always the windshield, never the bug.

In this instance, Obama got himself into a box that would flummox Harry Houdini. In a procession of careless comments, he said Assad had to go and that if he ever used chemical weapons against rebels, he would face "enormous consequences."

When the Syrian dictator used them anyway, Obama was forced to prepare for a military strike that found scant public support. When he tried to gain the upper hand by asking for congressional authorization, he got an Arctically frigid reception.

So he faced two unpleasant possibilities: Congress would refuse, in which case he would look like a chump. Or it would agree, forcing him to carry out an attack that was likely to accomplish nothing except to wreck his approval rating.

But then along came the Russians to open an escape route. Acting in response to another unscripted remark, from Secretary of State John Kerry, they proposed to place Syria's chemical gas arsenal under international control. The Syrians responded by not only admitting that they had such weapons, but offering to surrender them.

The proposal sounded implausible and impractical, but it had too many things going for it to be passed up. Most importantly, it serves the interests of every important party. It spares the Syrian regime a damaging attack by the United States. It spares the rebels being gassed again. It validates the great power status of Russia—and might even win Vladimir Putin a Nobel Peace Prize.

Not least, it saves Obama from looking like an appeaser, a warmonger or an incompetent. It even allows Kerry to portray the administration as unsurpassed in its diplomatic brilliance.

"Yesterday, we challenged the regime to turn (its chemical weapons) over to the secure control of the international community so that they can be destroyed," he bragged Tuesday. He neglected to mention that when the Russians jumped at his idea, according to The New York Times, "he replied that he had merely been making a debating point."

Assad, Kerry says, caved because of the military threat. "Nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging," said Kerry. By that point, if Assad was contemplating the gallows, he probably had concluded that the Americans couldn't tie their own shoes, much less a noose.

But he may have found it harder to say no to Putin, his chief ally and his protector in the UN Security Council, where Russia had blocked action against Syria. His regime probably could survive an attack that Kerry had promised would be "unbelievably small." But its long-term prospects would be dim without Russian help.

Valerie Hudson, a professor of international relations at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, told me this turn of events could hardly be better for the president. Once the UN Security Council takes ownership of the deal, she noted, "the United States is off the hook." The heavy lifting to secure and monitor the chemical weapons stores will fall to Russia and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

While the deal won't be leakproof, she argued, that's not crucial. What's crucial is "for Assad to have no incentives to use chemical weapons, but only disincentives." The disincentives are the risk of antagonizing Putin, kissing off Russian support and uniting the Security Council behind military action.

It's an uncannily fortunate turn of events for Obama, but this is the guy who won his 2004 Senate race after his chief Democratic opponent, and then the Republican nominee, fell victim to lurid scandals.

This is the guy who got Osama bin Laden after his own experts said there was only a 40 percent chance the al-Qaida leader was in the targeted building. This is the guy who got to run against John McCain and Mitt Romney, both masters of self-destruction.

Right now, it looks as though Obama's good luck will pay off again by saving him from his mistakes on Syria. In that case, his next memoir can borrow the title of boxer Rocky Graziano's: "Somebody Up There Likes Me."

NEXT: Peter Bagge's Reason Strips Reissued in Hardcover, and He's Appearing in Person at Reason's D.C. Office Friday Sept. 13

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s an uncannily fortunate turn of events for Obama, but this is the guy who won his 2004 Senate race after his chief Democratic opponent, and then the Republican nominee, fell victim to lurid scandals.

    This is the guy who got Osama bin Laden after his own experts said there was only a 40 percent chance the al-Qaida leader was in the targeted building. This is the guy who got to run against John McCain and Mitt Romney, both masters of self-destruction.

    “Luck is the residue of design”.

    Branch Rickey.

    1. Sometimes it’s just having a statistically-unlikely event occur.

    2. “Luck is the residue of design”.

      Kind of like what you get from wiping your ass after taking wet dump?

    3. Palin’s Buttplug| 9.12.13 @ 12:03PM |#

      I can’t believe this stinking pile of shit is in lie mode already!

      1. lie mode is the default. What else were you expecting. But PB is rock solid libertarian.

        1. I never wanted us to intervene in Syria. I predicted we would not, in fact.

          1. so you knew Obama’s bullshit was actually bullshit. He got bailed out. Just admit it.

          2. You’ve implied, repeatedly, that you approved of war on Syria based on the false premise that it would be cheaper than the war on Iraq.

          3. Palin’s Buttplug| 9.12.13 @ 12:25PM |#
            “I never wanted us to intervene in Syria. I predicted we would not, in fact.”

            Yeah, you were just cheerleading for the asshole in the WH.
            Nice try at sidestepping, you sleazy bastard.

      2. I can’t believe this stinking pile of shit is in lie mode already!

        What in shreekys history would ever cause you to think this?

      3. The scumbag Weigel lies like he breathes.

      4. I still find it pathetic that a guy who voted against Iraq (not sure about Afghanistan) and an ideology that stood against the war on terror for the most part, takes credit for killing Osama.

        It’s hypocrisy to no end.

        1. Especially when he didn’t even want to execute the fucking mission in the first place. He pretty much had to be dragged into executing it kicking and screaming.

        2. “It’s hypocrisy to no end.”

          Maybe so, but at least a hypocrite knows the difference between right and wrong. And in wriggling out of war, Obama’s doing the right thing.

          1. You mean he knows how to read polls. I’d hardly equate that with suddenly evolving a conscience.

    4. It’s clear that there was no plan in Obama’s current Syrian diplomacy.

      It’s been completely driven by outside events, poorly worded comments by Obama and Kerry and probably some Wag the Tail internal administration politicing.

    5. How uncannily fortunate that Obama’s opponents seem to always conveniently fall victem to lurid scandals.

    6. Palin’s Buttplug:
      “Luck is the residue of design”.

      Yeah, he’s a real genius. They often require being rescued from themselves.

    7. Yeah, scandals that Obama’s handlers dug up.

    8. It’s amazing what you can accomplish with the proper application of a corrupt media and voter fraud. Not to mention telling outlandish lies about your opponent who just happens to be a better man then the Marxist clown will ever be.

  2. John Stewart described it perfectly. We just did a Laurel and Hardy act and called it a foreign policy success.

    1. I don’t get how Obama is lucky when he and the administration couldn’t look much more incompetent. Not to mention the whole “I can go to war all by myself” crap.

      1. 1. He dodged an outright rejection from Congress.
        2. He didn’t stumble into a really unpopular conflict with no exit plan.

        1. I don’t think even casual observers think anything has happened due to him. Things are happening to Obama, not being managed by Obama. And Kerry is almost as big of a joke.

          1. I agree – just listing how it could have gone much worse for him if he had not lucked out.

          2. Luck has nothing to do with having things happen “due” to actions by the lucky person. THAT is why they’re lucky.

            1. Luck would’ve meant dodging the crap. He didn’t really do that, as people think he handled everything poorly. The fact that he didn’t catch all the hell he could’ve doesn’t make him lucky. Lucky would’ve been everyone applauding his ineptness as skill. Only total partisans would do that.

  3. Spot on Mr. Chapman. This is exactly what I’ve been thinking.

  4. the US would have never been on the hook if not for Obama’s love affair with the sound of his own voice. Putin may well bail him out in a move of convenience for everyone: Vlad loses nothing and gains from avoiding any inconvenience from a bombing cleanup, Assad is free to resume his civil war, and BO is spared looking even more foolish than he did with his empty threat.

    1. It is amazing how doing next to nothing on a nearly insignificant little country like Syria has unleashed the wingnuts into a polemical fury more fit for WW III.

      1. it’s amazing how someone else taking the initiative has the Obama dogwashers who didn’t want war anyway ignoring that an ex-spy, of all people, bailed out their cult figure from a major political embarrassment.

        1. Obama never wanted to strike Syria. He waited long enough to find an excuse not to.

          1. No, he merely advocated for it.

          2. He secured air time to push it. He twisted arms at the G20 and on Capitol Hill. I think he wanted it.

          3. Obama never wanted to strike Syria.

            Yeah, except, you know, for all those damn actions he took to try and get it.

          4. He didn’t know what he wanted or what to do. He stumbled around looking foolish.

            1. He was uncertain. So what? He is the anti-Cowboy who shoots first then later aims.

              1. He sure didn’t seem uncertain when he sent Kerry and other administration officials out to pound the tables and declare that America had a moral requirement to intervene, or when he booked a prime time TV spot to try to convince the nation (which was booked before the Russian proposal came out). Nor did he seem uncertain when he said that the didn’t really think he needed Congressional authorization, and all signs were pointing to him not even asking for it.

                You’re assertion is at odd with the last month of Obama’s actions.

              2. Thus proving that you know how ineffectual our leader is. I don’t know if it was your point (because you never seem to know your own points) but you can’t aim AFTER you shoot.

          5. he was pretty good at debating himself the other night. But this is what happens when someone who has never been called out for saying stupid things says something exceptionally stupid that backs him into a corner.

          6. If Obama never wanted to strike Syria, why was he running around personally pressuring members of Congress, making tear-jerky speeches about dead children and weeping fathers, why were he and John Kerry exagerrating the numbers of dead by a magnitude of three times above what even anti-Assad propaganda groups were reporting? Why was Kerry declaring Assad responsible before there was any evidence that there even HAD been a chemical attack?

            Your assertion is baldly false on the face of it. Obama wanted it bad and did everything he could to make it happen, only backing off when he realized that he faced becoming even less popular than Bush if kept trying to force the issue.

          7. “He didn’t mean to hit me!”

            You said the same tired shit when he went all-out on gun control. Derpity derp derp derp.

          8. Obama never wanted to strike Syria. He waited long enough to find an excuse not to.

            Oh shreeky you defend Obama just like a battered woman would.

            Sometimes it’s hard to be shreeky
            Giving all your love to just one president
            You’ll have bad times
            And he’ll have good times
            Doin things that you don’t understand
            But if you love him
            You’ll forgive him
            Even though he’s hard to understand
            And if you love him
            Oh, be proud of him
            Cause after all he’s just a man

            Stand by Obama
            Give him two arms to cling to
            And something warm to come to
            when nights are cold and lonely

            Stand by your Barry O
            And show the world you love him
            Keep giving all the love you can
            Stand by your man

            Stand by your man
            And show the world you love him
            Keep giving all the love you can
            Stand by your man

          9. Obama never wanted to strike Syria. And he is an ardent defender of the second amendment. Oh, and a free market fanatic. Everyone here is a right wing republican Bush fanatic.

            And you ask why we cant be friends? All I can do is laugh. It would be bad enough if you believed any of that shit, but you know fucking well they are lies. And you know we know it.

          10. BULL FUCKING SHIT.

          11. Obama never wanted to strike Syria. He waited long enough to find an excuse not to.

            I thought the line was that according to the War Powers Act he could do whatever he wanted vis a vis Syria, and was just asking Congress to be nice. I would assume that having the unchecked right to launch an attack would logically imply the right to NOT launch an attack. Why would he need an excuse for the one and not the other?

          12. He didn’t draw a red line. The world did.
            Yeah, sure. Big mouthed idiot.

          13. Palin’s Buttplug:
            Obama never wanted to strike Syria. He waited long enough to find an excuse not to.

            And, who is he giving this excuse for not striking Syria to? Why does he need an excuse?

            The American people, who 60-70% don’t want a strike, either? Or Congress, that sure has heck isn’t voting for authorization?

            Who the hell is this excuse for? The only person I can think he needs to give this excuse for not striking Syria to is himself, since he’s been talking about wanting to bomb them for weeks now. I assume he’s let himself down.

          14. So, Obama was lying to us when he said bombing Syria was a moral imperative?

      2. Since so many of them championed our Iraq adventures it has been somewhat amusing to see their sudden embrace of non-interventionism and other interesting developments (I have seen Republicans on the airwaves urging us to take the matter to the International Court of Justice).

        I actually think liberals and Democrat pols come out comparatively better on this, since, unlike most conservatives and Republican pols during Bush I and II’s Iraqi adventures significant numbers of Democrat pols and liberal commentators immediately pushed back against Obama’s intentions to strike.

        1. Well, as I have long said, Democrats are a lousy opposition party. It is the one thing Republicans do expertly – well, they fall in line behind a GOP big spender when one is in the White House too.

        2. I. E., Obama wants to privatize Fannie/Freddie. I expect the GOP will block his efforts on that as well.

          1. So you say. Where is the legislation? What members of Congress is he working with? Who will be sponsoring? What are the details of his proposal?

            Or, did he just shoot off his mouth before a tee-time?

        3. “I actually think liberals and Democrat pols come out comparatively better on this, since, unlike most conservatives and Republican pols during Bush I and II’s Iraqi adventures significant numbers of Democrat pols and liberal commentators immediately pushed back against Obama’s intentions to strike.”

          Except for one problem, among the most vocal voices in Congress opposing military action in Syria there was only 1 Democrat (Grayson) and the bulk of the Republicans were not around during the Bush years (Paul, Amash, Cruz. etc.)

          1. -among the most vocal voices in Congress

            That’s quite a qualification there!

        4. I actually think liberals and Democrat pols come out comparatively better on this,

          Well, I’m sure PB agrees with you, but I don’t think anybody who doesn’t lean pretty far left will.

        5. BS. 40% of House Dems and 60% of Senate Dems voted for the Iraq action. I could make the counter argument that at least the Republicans have learned their lesson from Iraq whereas all of the Lefties that protested Iraq have been slow to get going against Syria because He Who Cares Has Wept.

      3. Syria insignificant. Well, that little slip tells all I need to know about your grasp of geo-politics in that region.

        Syria, you dipshit, takes Turkey and Iran right into the calculation. To say nothing of Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

        And Kerry was about as clueless as you seem to display.

        1. And I say ‘dipshit’ with respect. Of course.

        2. I think what he meant to say was that the PEOPLE of Syria are insignificant, in an “it doesn’t matter if we kill them” sort of a way.

  5. -“Not least, it saves Obama from looking like an appeaser, a warmonger or an incompetent. It even allows Kerry to portray the administration as unsurpassed in its diplomatic brilliance.”-

    You can polish a turd all you want, it’s still a turd.

    1. …but it’s a SHINY turd.

    2. How does having Putin save his bacon save Obama from looking like an incompetent, again?

      1. BO still looks incompetent…he’d look substantially MORE incompetent if Congress, including a significant number from his own party, voted down the use of forec in Syria.

        Putin’s initiative, at least to this point, has spared the president that humiliation.

  6. “Did Obama Just Get Lucky on Syria?”

    Yes, but he’s dumb enough to keep trying for a disaster.

  7. Obama is ‘lucky’ in that the media will go to absurd lengths to cover for him.

  8. Wouldn’t luck imply he gained something though?

    His foreign policy polling is at its lowest rating ever. Unless of course we are going by the same logic that says the stimulus was a success (unemployment is down, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE!), then I don’t think he received a net gain in this whole debacle. He lost a ton of clout and political capital at home and abroad.

    1. Yes, Syria is a devastating mistake. Why, I can’t think of any foreign policy disaster like it this century.

      1. LOOK OVER THERE!

      2. Palin’s Buttplug| 9.12.13 @ 12:37PM |#
        “Yes, Syria is a devastating mistake. Why, I can’t think of any foreign policy disaster like it this century.”

        Shreek, if your self-delusion weren’t so amusing, it would be insulting.
        It’s one thing for you to fool yourself about how stupid you are and what you ‘really meant’ when you posted those other lies and the constant stream of lies and misdirections about the asshole in the white house.
        It’s another to presume that anyone here is fooled by your mendacity.

      3. Shriek, shriek, shriek. Iraq, unlike Syria, is a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention?

        Why do you approve of Western nations forcing treaties on brown people?

      4. holy shit, shreek is off the meds again.

        1. The Progs have gone completely dissociative. ‘Disingenuous’ is in the rear view mirror; we’re headin’ straight towards full-blown psychotic. I mean, North Korean state media levels of fantasy.

          It sort of reminds me of episodes of Doctor Who when something happens to fry the Daleks, and they sort of spin around and freak out, firing shots off at random and making panicky sounds.

          1. Taxate! TAXATE! TAXATE!!

    2. you misunderstand. He DID gain something. American looks even less significant on the global change. Fundamental transformation. What do you think it meant?

  9. Chapman, you fail to recognize the brilliance of this administration. I have it on good authority from my progressive acquaintances that this was the Obama plan all along. He has the power to levitate trains himself, you know.

    1. I have it on equally good authority that President Obama could actually have disabled every chemical weapon in Syria and caused Assad’s head to explode just by snapping his fingers, but chose not to so that other people could try learning how to solve problems without him.

      1. Yeah, it’s not like he’s vain or anything.

    2. No, that was Jed Bartlet…

  10. One less war, that’s really what matters.

  11. Does it not matter at all that this “handover of chemical weapons” is hugely unlikely? Saddam played games with weapons inspectors for 12 years, and he wasn’t fighting a civil war. Are all the Al Qaeda types going to honor a ceasefire and watch convoys of trucks carry chemical weapons to Russian ships on the coast? Somehow, I think not.

    1. It’s hugely unlikely that Assad even used the chemical weapons in the first place – this is international political theater. I imagine someone will produce a pile of chemical weapons and then destroy them in order to show a level of seriousness, and Assad will play a Hussein-style “maybe I have them and maybe I don’t” game for as long as he can.

      The important thing is that Putin has now personally offered to “guarantee” that Assad won’t use chemical weapons. If Assad does use them, Russia gets egg on its face, and since Russia is Assad’s only significant backer, Assad should know better than to bite the hand that feeds him. The actual handing over of the weapons really doesn’t matter – it’s Russia setting limits on its support for Assad that matters.

      1. You nailed it right on the head. This is all a big geopolitical theatrical shell game.

      2. At this point, Assad probably doesn’t need to use them. He’s still got artillery, armor and an air force. All of which he can use with impunity as long as the Russians block any move to intervene.

        1. Exactly – Putin makes it look like he’s helping Obama out of a tight spot, when really he’s essentially slamming the door on future US involvement in the situation knowing that Assad is very unlikely to use chemical weapons again.

  12. “It validates the great power status of Russia — and might even win Vladimir Putin a Nobel Peace Prize.”

    Everyone will know if he gets the prize it will be because he stopped the united states, specifically it’s president, from engaging in illegal aggression that would escalate an already horrible war. A terrible embarrassment for us. Putin punks Obama again. What a surprise.

    “Not least, it saves Obama from looking like an appeaser, a warmonger or an incompetent. It even allows Kerry to portray the administration as unsurpassed in its diplomatic brilliance.”

    Nice try Chapman, but no one believes any of that. He is a warmonger and an incompetent, that has been on full display through this whole debacle. The Russians are getting the credit for this.

    1. Some people believe it. See above.

  13. Menendez says Putin op-ed made him want ‘to vomit’ (Video)

    Shouldn’t you be out boning underage Dominican hooker?

    http://thehill.com/video/in-th…..z2ehLdr8Hn

    1. Nothing was proven. Nothing!

    2. He is still looking for a replacement pimp donor to fly him down there.

  14. Come on. Luck has always played a factor in important events, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even in science, where the discovery of penicillin By Alexander Fleming came about only because he left a petri dish open by mistake. What matters it the ability to see what “luck” just presented to you, and then take advantage of it. Let’s hope the President does.

    1. “What matters it the ability to see what “luck” just presented to you, and then take advantage of it. Let’s hope the President does.”

      He’s still claiming he’s gonna march down the street at high noon.

    2. By the way, an interesting read on all the bungling and near misses during the Cuban Missile crisis that only go resolved by good fortune:

      http://www.archives.gov/public…..siles.html

      “In the Cuban Missile Crisis, good luck substituted for good information and good judgment, hardly a model of policymaking to celebrate or recommend.”

    3. Luck has always played a factor in important events, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis.

      Yes, but wouldn’t it have been better if the Cuban Missile Crisis never happened at all? Similarly, wouldn’t it have been better if Obama and Kerry weren’t such stuttering clusterfucks that they got us into this situation in the first place? They almost blundered us into a war. Forgive me for not applauding them for blundering us out of their own mistake.

      Even in science, where the discovery of penicillin By Alexander Fleming came about only because he left a petri dish open by mistake.

      Alexander Fleming noticed the possibilities of his own lucky break. Barack Obama didn’t even realize that there was an opportunity to do this until Putin came up with the idea. If Alexander Fleming had given the dish to a friend who realized the possibilities, then no one would remember Fleming’s name, except as a textbook footnote. The friend would have gotten the Nobel and the credit for discovering penicillin. That’s essentially what happened here, so why should I credit Obama?

      1. What movie are you running in your head, Irish? I never said credit Obama with anything. In fact, all you did was repeat what I said when I indicated that what was important was recognizing what luck put in front of you, and then taking advantage of it, ala Fleming.

        Don’t credit Obama with anything if that makes you feel any better. The point is that this is not the first time luck has played a role, nor will it be the last.

    4. What matters it the ability to see what “luck” just presented to you, and then take advantage of it.

      By that standard, I’d have to give credit to Putin. He’s the one who took advantage of the situation to come out looking like a statesman.

    5. I’ll grant luck is an underplayed factor in history. Lots of military battles played out because of luck. Lots of teams get lucky in sports.

      You have to be lucky to be good and good to be lucky. Luck is by design. All that.

      But in this case, luck bailed Obama out not by design but pure, well, luck!

  15. Does this question have to seriously be asked?

  16. Dictators don’t hand over weapons for nothing. My guess is that in return the Russians promised defense from all external attacks as well as access to conventional weapons.

    While perhaps he can’t use CW, with US backed down and now protected by Russia Assad can do pretty much whatever he wants without repercussion.

  17. “The proposal sounded implausible and impractical, but it had too many things going for it to be passed up. Most importantly, it serves the interests of every important party. It spares the Syrian regime a damaging attack by the United States…”

    There are a couple of problems here.

    1) Assad is reportedly refusing to hand over any chemical weapons unless Obama publicly repudiates any use of violence against his regime.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..47312.html

    From Obama’s perspective, that may seem like requiring him to make an ass of himself–he might rather go to war.

  18. 2) Avoiding an attack by the United States is not Assad’s primary concern.

    Those who ignore recent history are doomed to make asses of themselves. I remember when it seemed like Saddam Hussein must have WMD because if he didn’t, then there was no reason to subject himself to an American attack…

    That turned out to be baloney. The fact was that Saddam Hussein had more threats than the United States to worry about. He had to worry about Iran and his other neighbors, and he had to worry about opposition within his own country and possible coups from his own military.

    Hussein judged being seen as weak because he capitulated to the United States as more of a threat than the U.S. was–and guess what? Assad is even more under siege from his enemies than Saddam Hussein was.

    Assad’s people are in open rebellion, and part of his military has already turned against him. In other words, Assad already has a sword hanging over his head by a thread, so it’s entirely possible (like Saddam Hussein) that Assad doesn’t see the United States as his biggest threat. In fact, he may see capitulating to the United States as a bigger threat than cooperation.

    And then what does Obama do? Do you think Russia is going to abandon their ally if Assad refuses to capitulate?

    Obama isn’t out of the woods yet.

    1. *EDIT*

      “In fact, he may see capitulation to the United States as a bigger threat than [refusing to cooperate].”

      You knew what I meant!

      1. All true. Plus, by tying Obama up in knots and otherwise humiliating him, he makes himself look powerful and in control.

        Like the stimulus, like Obamacare, Obama got what he wanted in the short run, but it only means more and bigger problems later.

        1. Yeah, that’s like getting a photo op with a major world leader.

          If Obama and Putin are having a summit over Assad, then Assad must be a very important big, BIG man!

  19. Just another way Obama reminds us of Hitler.

  20. Chapman claims that Putin’s proposal “saves Obama from looking like an appeaser, a warmonger or an incompetent. It even allows Kerry to portray the administration as unsurpassed in its diplomatic brilliance.”

    What the fuck is he smoking? When Mr. Magoo steps off the ledge and is saved by a fluke from fall to his death, he doesn’t look smart or competent – just lucky. This whole Syria debacle has made Obama look even more bungling and pathetic than usual.

    1. I don’t think the world is used to dealing with the President of the United States as a Mr. Magoo.

      People may have made fun of Bush, but I don’t think anyone thought the Cheney Administration was oblivious (or blind as a bat).

      They’re dealing with him like a child. This is so embarrassing for us. It’s one thing to lose international prestige because you made some mistakes (ethical and otherwise); quite another to lose prestige because you reelected a bumbling, blind fool.

      They must be thinking: “The guy that wore magic underwear would have been better than this.” Obama’s so pathetic, he has to be shown what’s in his own best interests. That’s the hardest people in the world to negotiate with–the people who don’t even know what’s in their own best interests.

    2. Don’t ignore the Obama partisan’s ability to spin this. Particularly the partisan’s in the media. I’m sure Maureen Dowd is submitting a column as we speak.

      Look at PB’s comments above. They’re absolutely ridiculous by any rational standard, but that’s not the standard that counts.

      1. Wow, just wow. Ok, apparently I was wrong. Maureen Dowd published an Op Ed yesterday that was damning of the administration. I’m pretty amazed that someone as partisan as Dowd would blast Obama that hard.

        Some choice quotes:
        “Now, when it is clear Obama can’t convince Congress, the American public, his own wife, the world, Liz Cheney or even Donald “Shock and Awe” Rumsfeld to bomb Syria – just a teensy-weensy bit – Pooty-Poot (as W. called him) rides, shirtless, to the rescue, offering him a face-saving way out?”

        ” Just as Obama and Kerry – with assists from Hillary and some senators – were huffing and puffing that it was their military threat that led to the breakthrough, Putin moved to neuter them, saying they’d have to drop their military threat before any deal could proceed.

        The administration’s saber-rattling felt more like knees rattling. Oh, for the good old days when Obama was leading from behind. Now these guys are leading by slip-of-the-tongue.

        Amateur hour started when Obama dithered on Syria and failed to explain the stakes there.”

        ” Obama’s flip-flopping, ambivalent leadership led him to the exact place he never wanted to be: unilateral instead of unified. Once again, as with gun control and other issues, he had not done the groundwork necessary to line up support.

        The bumbling approach climaxed with two off-the-cuff remarks by Kerry”

  21. Putin just saved Obama’s sorry a$$.

  22. Those who don’t believe that this was Obama’s plan all along are clearly just racists.

  23. Lucky? What an utterly ridiculous analysis.

    He showed himself to be a pathetic spineless non-leader who ended up getting totally owned by Putin. Putin’s ‘solution’ made a mockery of Barry’s idiotic posturing and is not a solution at all – there is no way on God’s green earth to execute some kind of international chemical weapons inspections and removal operation in the middle of a civil war.

    The only people who are hailing this as some kind of genius move are hardcore partisan Democrats who would quite happily eat the shit out of Chewbacca’s ass and tell you it tasted like sweet butter.

  24. While the deal won’t be leakproof,…

    Maybe a chemical weapons deal should be leakproof.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.