Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Rescues Assad {Wall St. J. Editorial: "What A Fiasco"]
Wall St. J ^ | September 10, 2013 | Editorial

Posted on 09/10/2013 5:46:26 PM PDT by Steelfish

September 10, 2013 Obama Rescues Assad The President lets Putin outmaneuver him on Syrian chemical arms.

What could be worse for America's standing in the world than a Congress refusing to support a President's proposal for military action against a rogue regime that used WMD? Here's one idea: A U.S. President letting that rogue be rescued from military punishment by the country that has protected the rogue all along.

That's where President Obama now finds himself on Syria after he embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin's offer to take custody of Bashar Assad's chemical weapons. The move may rescue Mr. Obama and Congress from the political agony of a vote on a resolution to authorize a military strike on Syria. But the diplomatic souk is now open, and Mr. Obama has turned himself into one of the junior camel traders.

What a fiasco. Secretary of State John Kerry, of all people, first floated this escape route for Assad on Monday in Europe where he was supposed to be rallying diplomatic support for a strike. The remark appeared to be off-the-cuff, but with Mr. Kerry and this Administration you never know. In any case before Mr. Kerry's plane had landed in the U.S., Russia's foreign minister had leapt on the idea and proposed to take custody of Assad's chemical arsenal to forestall U.S. military action.

The White House should have rebuffed the offer given Russia's long protection of Assad at the United Nations—a fact noted with scorn on Monday by Mr. Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice. Instead Mr. Obama endorsed the Russian gambit as what "could potentially be a significant breakthrough." The Senate immediately called off its Wednesday vote on the military resolution. By Tuesday Assad had accepted the offer that he hopes will spare him from a military strike.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Israel; News/Current Events; Russia; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: hitlersrhineland; iran; israel; lebanon; maheralassad; obamasyria; potassiumfluoride; putinsyriacheckmate; russia; sarin; sodiumfluoride; syria; thebrotherdidit; unitedkingdom; waronterror

1 posted on 09/10/2013 5:46:26 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The WSJ Editorial Page is peevish because Obama ended up making them look like idiots as well. Here’s a lesson to be learned for Republican elites like those running the WSJ Editorial Page. Ally yourself with Obama and be prepared to get used as a speed bump for a big yellow bus marked Narcissist-in-Chief.


2 posted on 09/10/2013 5:52:26 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

With a guy like this in the WH, looks a sure bet Jimmy Carter can occupy Mt Rushmore


3 posted on 09/10/2013 5:52:55 PM PDT by bestintxas (Anyone who votes for Obama after these 4 miserable years needs to take a mandatory citizenship test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
But the diplomatic souk is now open, and Mr. Obama has turned himself into one of the junior camel traders.

That seems an appropriate job for our junior president.
(junior in terms of abilities, not responsibilities.)

4 posted on 09/10/2013 5:55:24 PM PDT by oldbrowser (We have a rogue government in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Welcome to President Fiasco’s America.


5 posted on 09/10/2013 5:55:28 PM PDT by lbryce (The 22nd Amendment Lives:1142 Days Until America's Greatest Nemesis Gets the Heave "Ho")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Whenever I see the word “fiasco,” I think of William Agee and Mary Cunningham.


6 posted on 09/10/2013 5:58:04 PM PDT by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

This was never really about gas. It was always about Iran and the need to alter the strategic equation. Iran now has access to Syrian forward bases. It can situate its mobile ballistic missile batteries and target Israel. While those batteries exist Israel cannot attack Iran’s nuclear facilities with impunity. It was thought that a hard “limited strike” would so weaken the Assad regime that the rebels would come to power and evict the Iranians. Obama and Kerry should have made it plain the real reasons and need for an intervention. They also should have addressed the legitimate concerns about the nature of the rebels, the anti Christian atrocities and the likely cost to the American people. Its been a disaster that is likely to result in Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. IMHO they will test a weapon in 9-12 months and the arguments will be over.


7 posted on 09/10/2013 5:58:17 PM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Bombing Syria instead of Iran woulda been a mistake.

The time to devolve the Syrian military was when we went into Iraq.

8 posted on 09/10/2013 5:59:26 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

“Ally yourself with Obama and be prepared to get used as a speed bump for a big yellow bus marked Narcissist-in-Chief.”

I believe that Zero rides in the short yellow bus.


9 posted on 09/10/2013 5:59:54 PM PDT by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Odumbass speaks/reads prepared statement about his fiasco!


10 posted on 09/10/2013 6:03:23 PM PDT by 9422WMR (: " Tolerance is the virtue of a man who has no convictions".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allendale

If it is about Iran, why not let the Israelis go after Iran. That has the merit of going after the cause instead of the symptom along with the additional benefit of not involving us in a civil war.


11 posted on 09/10/2013 6:03:45 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Neo-con leftsts are embarrassed for sticking their noses up Buckwheat’s butt. Too bad, so sad.


12 posted on 09/10/2013 6:11:45 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
I think of Stanislaw Lem!


13 posted on 09/10/2013 6:13:16 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

Israel cannot go after Iran. As long as Iran has mobile missiles situated in Syria, Israel would suffer a devastating counterattack from those missiles if they attacked Iran. Iran has purchased state of the art Chinese mobile ballistic missiles which “Iron Dome” cannot stop. Also it is very doubtful that Israel has the conventional capability to effectively attack and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Even if the US military were fully involved any attack would have the potential to be a US Navy disaster. The Iranians have fortified the Persian Gulf with shore to ship missiles. Our big blue water ships would be at grave risk in the narrow confines of the Persian Gulf. As terrible as it will be, IMHO Iran will now get its nuclear weapons.


14 posted on 09/10/2013 6:13:43 PM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bestintxas
With a guy like this in the WH, looks a sure bet Jimmy Carter can occupy Mt Rushmore

LOL Priceless. Or at least worth the price of my monthly ComCast bill.

15 posted on 09/10/2013 6:17:06 PM PDT by Veto! (Opinions freely dispensed as advice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: allendale
Israeli General Giora Eiland disagrees with you.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu planned airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear program, but called them off following a request from United States President Barack Obama, General (res.) Giora Eiland has reportedly revealed.

The Mida website quoted statements reportedly made by Eiland, the former head of the National Security Council, in a closed conference on defense.

According to Eiland, “The Prime Minister thought that we had reached the point where a decision had to be made on Iran, and he planned an attack.”

“In principle, Israel does not need American authorization for military action, unless the Americans demand unequivocally that we refrain from an action,” he continued.

That is what happened in this case, he said. Netanyahu presented his plan to American leaders, and was told that it was not acceptable to them. This led him to shelve the plan.

16 posted on 09/10/2013 6:21:23 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; All
a Congress refusing to support a President's proposal for military action against a rogue regime that used WMD

I refuse the premise...and am disgusted that the mainstream media does, too. Assad is a bad man, I agree; but there are reports that the rebels were the ones using gas to kill children they had kidnapped!

Why the hell should we believe Obama that the Assad regime was responsible for that gas attack??

Can we not remember that it was one year ago that Team AssClown was blaming Egyptian and Benghazi attacks on a youtube video?????

They are LIARS.

17 posted on 09/10/2013 7:05:22 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I have a feeling Kerry won’t be around long. I feel Obama will demand he resign as “ FAA guy” for his own stupidity


18 posted on 09/10/2013 7:10:02 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allendale
[This was never really about gas. It was always about Iran and the need to alter the strategic equation.]

I thought Obama was going make that the thrust of his speech but, alas, it won't all fit on a bumper sticker.

19 posted on 09/10/2013 8:22:16 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

According to the article General Eiland was referring to a purported plan scheduled in September 2012. Since then the strategic reality has changed. No one more than the Israelis themselves recognize the dilemma they face. Unless Assad is overthrown and the Iranians are forced out of Syria, an Israeli attack on Iran is not feasible. Also even if Assad is removed, The United States would probably still oppose an Israeli attack since it would be very difficult to defend the Navy ships in the narrow Persian Gulf. Also Israel would remain somewhat vulnerable to ballistic missiles launched from Iran, but “Iron Dome” would be more effective against those long range missiles. They could not defend however from short range modern missiles launched from Syria or Lebanon. Very difficult time in the Mideast with no easy solutions. However while Iran may have won this round, the Israeli are intelligent, innovative and resilient. There will be more to come.


20 posted on 09/10/2013 9:18:16 PM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: allendale
Nothing's changed. He gave the speech in August of this year and indicated Israel is willing to go after Iran now.

Here's another link for you with more detail showing that your thesis is wrong -

Since the cancellation of the planned Iran’s nuclear program has continued to progress. Today, argues Eiland, Israel again faces a difficult choice. “Time has passed and we stand before exactly the same decision, with less time. ” He added, “The lack of resolution is dramatic.”

21 posted on 09/10/2013 9:24:59 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

Well we’ll see. Always felt that Netanyahu would never leave office before he took definitive action against the Iranian threat. However stand by the thesis that the strategic reality has shifted in the last year and Israel cannot now attack Iran with impunity. They may ultimately decide that they must, but they risk a terrible counterattack. Also it is by no means certain that if Israel attacks alone, the mission would be successful. A failed mission would be a disaster.


22 posted on 09/10/2013 9:33:05 PM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

Thanks Steelfish. Amateur Hour continues:
Kerry, of all people, first floated this escape route for Assad on Monday in Europe where he was supposed to be rallying diplomatic support for a strike. The remark appeared to be off-the-cuff, but with Mr. Kerry and this Administration you never know.

23 posted on 09/12/2013 1:55:25 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's no coincidence that some "conservatives" echo the hard left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson