Syria: who wins, who loses, whose commentary makes a lick of sense.


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.

Or maybe.

Can we please get over the silliness I’m hearing from a few quarters that President Obama had gamed out the whole Syria affair before it even happened? It’s embarrassing. […]
There’s really no reason to go down this path anyway. If you want to give Obama credit, give him credit for something he deserves: being willing to recognize an opportunity when he sees it. I can guarantee you that George W. Bush wouldn’t have done the same.  […]
In the meantime, it’s rock solid certain that Assad isn’t going to launch another gas attack anytime soon, which means that, by hook or by crook, Obama has achieved his goal for now. 

I note something here…

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.

(1) It was somewhat risky to take the plunge in 2004 in the first place, but he put himself out there.  Note that four years previously, he tried for a Congressional seat and got knocked down.  (2)  McCain and Romney were the best bets the Republican Party had.  This path of his history goes back to “recognizing the opportunities”.   Or…

And then into the partisan critics

Pat Buchanan called Putin’s op-ed in the New York Times “outstanding.”
Yeah, well, Buchanan has already come out in support of Putin — for re-orienting his country away from its Communist past and toward its Religious past… visa vie their anti-gay laws.  A real bull-wark against the corrupting West.  (as opposed to bringing us back to Kruschev?)
Rush Limbaugh believes Putin gets “American exceptionalism” better than Obama.
It’s easy when you’re writing from a position of mockery.
And The Donald thinks Putin’s “Amazingly well-written op-ed” makes Obama look like a “schoolchild.”


Then there’s…

Obama leadership? No, just being a politician going with the prevailing wind.
As far as doubt of another gas attack: if you are among the few who actually believe Assad was behind it, probably not more. If you are with many foreign intelligences that believe they are at the hands of one of the rebel factions, the Saudis, or CIA false flag, stand by for another one.

The few who believe Assad was behind it? As in 80% of the American public? The CIA conducted a false flag operation to send chemical rockets from Assad territory into rebel held neighborhoods? Exactly how did they pull that off?

Shill for MSM and MIC

Actually I think “Big Mama” is a gate-keeper, bringing this tract up to hide from the real secret.

Krauthammer and O’Reilly…  And into another funny bit of comments land which… goes nowhere real.

Well, if Obama’s getting played by Putin here (for being in part hum-strung in any hawkish move by American public opinion), at least we have McCain… McCain’s going to meet Putin tit for tat and write an op-ed for Pravda.  That’ll show Putin!

Bill Maher’s point is conflicted — it would make more sense if he dragged the concerns over chemical weapon use below “solving our own problems”…  But never mind.

Your other weird question that I can answer… “Where is the anti-war left?” — ie: no mass protests in the streets…  (answered by some Ron Paul enthusiasts with some “Turned to the anti-war libertarians now that the old communist vanguard is dying off” — no, that was actually in an article about this question) … yes, part of it was partisan (Obama, Bush) … and as we see Ed Asner battle the question about on Russian TV… you’re reminded that part of the real purpose of “marching” at the dawn of the Iraq War was the question “Have Americans gone insane?”, that the polls showing mass support are pretty much true… in the case of Syria.  — what’s the point?  (Besides which, you’re always a little squemish that you’re marching with and merging your politics with such conspiracy theorists as Ed Asner.  I suppose if the anti-war left is getting by passed, as Justin Raimando insists, by his brand of libertarians — we’ll be stuck at the same point under the coming Jeb Bush Administration…)

In other analysis…

Fringe conservative radio host Alex Jones said this week that an effort to avert a U.S. attack on Syria with diplomacy was actually a United Nations plot for the extinction of the human race, which would be replaced by “globalists” like President Barack Obama who would become cyborgs by using “life-extension technologies.”

Makes as much sense as anyone else.

Leave a Reply