Obama Was This Close to Bombing Syria

The Atlantic ^ | AUG 31, 2013 | CONNOR SIMPSON

[dfwgator]

Pearl Harbor was a ‘limited strike’.

[Starboard]

We had best hope one of our missiles does not hit the Russian naval facility at Tartus. A “foul ball” like this could lead to a major confrontation.

[Cyber Liberty]

In other words, he read the polls.

I don't think that's it this time. He's bluffed his way through things that polled poorly before.

I think he figured out there was a healthy chance this could end badly, so he's making sure the Stupid Party is in line to take its share of the heat when it does. Rest assured, he'll take 100% of any credit if we get lucky.

[SparkyBass]

it is all like a bad movie...

"Mein Fuhror, I can VALK!"

[caww]

As soon as Obama moved ships was far more apparent than any words out of his mouth....His saying red line..and Putin saying he was a monkey with a gernade..were just tit-for tat games between them...the evidence will always be who is moving ships and military and where and how much...

....THAT is the unspoken “language” speaking volumes...and they are both speaking loudly.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Putin does not ‘have to’ defend Syria militarily according to their agreement...does he have something else in mind while everyone is focused on Syria?????”

Nope. For Putin this is leverage for when Syria counters against Israel. “Obama, want us to stop the war? Why don’t you NOT sell any more F15’s to the Saudis?”

[caww]

There’s enough national irons in this fire missels could go in any direction creating any illusion....they are all far too trigger happy now and none so much as Obama.

[caww]

...”For Putin this is leverage for when Syria counters against Israel”...

In part but with what plan in mind....If Syria strikes Israel...Israel will flatten Damascus....Then I think we’ll see Russia move toward Israel directly...that with Iran and Turkey along side.....

IF..and a big IF that happens...Russia will loose big time and those Putin brings with him...and it won’t be via any Military either.

[varon]

In other words, he read the polls.

Who poses the greater threat to the USA?:

Assad - 6%
Obama - 89%
Undecided - 5%

Now, our Communist-in-Chief wants to know who this Obama character is...........

[kevkrom]

“Asking” Congress is nothing more than creating a scapegoat.

I look at it from the political angle, because with Obama, everything is political. His ad-lib (deviating from the 'prompter) remark about a "red line" has boxed him into a corner. He needs support from somewhere or he needs an "out". By going to Congress, one of two things happens:

1. Congress approves the strike. Best case for Obama, as he gets to act like the tough guy, help out the al-Queda aligned rebels, and can pin any negatives on Congress because they voted to act.
2. Congress rejects the strike. In the short term it makes Obama look weak, but he then gets to campaign against Congress, which suits his political style just fine. And somehow, it won't be Congress as a whole, but the GOP members that will suffer his wrath. Also, he'll find some justification to proceed in a limited fashion, even without Congress.

[New Jersey Realist]

BS! Zero soiled his pants when he FINALLY decided to go after Bin Laden. He can’t make a decision on his own. His thinking now is let congress get the blame when the you know what hits the you know what, or better yet, blame Bush!

[MacNaughton]

17 Israel is testing missiles in the Med indicating they are on board with this reckless nonsense. They will be seen as being a war partner with the U.S. and open to whatever retaliation and/or reactions that invites.

Makes me wonder if Israel will use the raid on Syria as a diversion for a strike against Iran's nuclear sites.

I seriously doubt that Obama and his thugs have considered some of the many consequences an attack could spawn. Things could get out of control quite easily. One miscalculation. That’s all it takes.

An excellent case analysis of "10 what ifs?"

"US Attack Would Have Consequences"
28 Aug 2013
by Tawfik Hamid
http://www.newsmax.com/TawfikHamid/Syria-Assad-US-Attack/2013/08/28/id/522794

[itsahoot]

True, but it’s also called for by the Constitution.

Really fun to watch politicos from both parties argue both sides of that issue.

There is no good guys in that fight, we seem really concerned about a few hundred maybe more people killed with gas, but we shed no tears over half a million killed with machetes in Rwanda. Moral outrage is only brought to the argument when it suits some unknown need of the Establishment.