Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: NOONAN: 'We've never had a presidential speech like this!' Hammer Meet Nail.

  1. #1
    Senior Member Sev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    State of Franklin.
    Posts
    9,609

    Smile NOONAN: 'We've never had a presidential speech like this!' Hammer Meet Nail.

    Another words the amateur community organizer got his ass handed to him.




    http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/201...ense-of-syria/
    Making Sense of Syria

    This is what I think we’re seeing:

    The president has backed away from a military strike in Syria. But he can’t acknowledge this or act as if it is true. He is acting and talking as if he’s coolly, analytically, even warily contemplating the Russian proposal and the Syrian response. The proposal, he must know, is absurd. Bashar Assad isn’t going to give up all his hidden weapons in wartime, in the middle of a conflict so bitter and severe that his forces this morning reportedly bombed parts of Damascus, the city in which he lives. In such conditions his weapons could not be fully accounted for, packed up, transported or relinquished, even if he wanted to. But it will take time—weeks, months—for the absurdity to become obvious. And it is time the president wants. Because with time, with a series of statements, negotiations, ultimatums, promises and proposals, the Syria crisis can pass. It can dissipate into the air, like gas.

    The president will keep the possibility of force on the table, but really he’s lunging for a lifeline he was lucky to be thrown.

    Why is he backing off? Because he knows he doesn’t have the American people and isn’t going to get them. The polls, embarrassingly, show the more people hear the less they support it. The president’s problem with his own base was probably startling to him, and sobering. He knows he was going to lose Congress, not only the House but very possibly—likely, I’d say—the Senate. The momentum was all against him. And he never solved—it was not solvable—his own Goldilocks problem: A strike too small is an embarrassment, a strike too big could topple the Assad regime and leave Obama responsible for a complete and cutthroat civil war involving terrorists, foreign operatives, nihilists, jihadists, underemployed young men, and some really nice, smart people. Obama didn’t want to own that, or the fires that could engulf the region once Syria went up.

    His plan was never good. The choices were never good. In any case he was going to lose either in terms of domestic prestige, the foreign result or both. Likely both.

    He got himself into it and now Vladimir Putin, who opposes U.S. policy in Syria and repeatedly opposed a strike, is getting him out. This would be coldly satisfying for Putin and no doubt personally galling for Obama—another reason he can’t look as if he’s lunging.

    A serious foreign-policy intellectual said recently that Putin’s problem is that he’s a Russian leader in search of a Nixon, a U.S. president he can really negotiate with, a stone player who can talk grand strategy and the needs of his nation, someone with whom he can thrash it through and work it out. Instead he has Obama, a self-besotted charismatic who can’t tell the difference between showbiz and strategy, and who enjoys unburdening himself of moral insights to his peers.

    But Putin has no reason to want a Syrian conflagration. He is perhaps amused to have a stray comment by John Kerry be the basis for a resolution of the crisis. The hidden rebuke: It means that when Putin met with Obama at the G-20 last week Obama, due to his lack of competence, got nothing. But a stray comment by the Secretary of State? Sure, why not rub Obama’s face in it.
    * * *

    All this, if it is roughly correct, is going to make the president’s speech tonight quite remarkable. It will be a White House address in which a president argues for an endeavor he is abandoning. It will be a president appealing for public support for an action he intends not to take.

    We’ve never had a presidential speech like that!

    So what will he say? Some guesses.

    He will not really be trying to “convince the public.” He will be trying to move the needle a little, which will comfort those who want to say he retains a matchless ability to move the masses. It will make him feel better. And it will send the world the message: Hey, this isn’t a complete disaster. The U.S. president still has some juice, and that juice can still allow him to surprise you, so watch it.

    He will attempt to be morally compelling and rhetorically memorable. He will probably, like Susan Rice yesterday, attempt to paint a graphic portrait of what chemical weapons do—the children in their shrouds, the suffering parents, what such deaths look like and are. This is not meaningless: the world must be reminded what weapons of mass destruction are, and what the indifference of the world foretells.

    He will claim the moral high ground. He will temporarily reserve the use of force and welcome recent diplomatic efforts. He will suggest it was his threat of force that forced a possible diplomatic solution. His people will be all over the airwaves saying it was his deft leadership and steely-eyed threat to use force that allowed for a diplomatic break.

    The real purpose of the speech will be to lay the predicate for a retrospective judgment of journalists and, later, historians. He was the president who warned the world and almost went—but didn’t go—to war to make a point that needed making.

    Before or after the speech there will be some quiet leaking to the press that yes, frankly, the president, with so many difficult domestic issues facing him and Congress in the fall, wanted, sympathetically, to let lawmakers off the hook. They never wanted to vote on this.

    Once that was true, they didn’t. But now, having seen the polls and heard from their constituents, a lot of them are raring to go, especially Republicans. It is Democrats who were caught in the crosshairs between an antiwar base and a suddenly hawkish president. But again, a Democratic White House can’t admit it put its people in a fix like that.

    In any case it’s good for America that we’ve dodged either bad outcome: Congress votes no and the president moves anyway, or Congress votes no and he doesn’t. Both possibilities contained dangers for future presidents.

    The president will assert that as a lover of peace he welcomes the Russian move and reports of the positive Syrian reaction, that he will closely monitor the situation, set deadlines. He will speak of how he understands the American people, after the past 12 years, after previous and painful mistakes by their leaders, would feel so reluctant for any military engagement. He not only understands this reluctance, he shares it. He knows he was elected, in part, because he would not think of war as the first, or even second or third, option. But he has a higher responsibility now, and it is to attempt to warn the world of the moral disaster of the use of weapons of mass destruction. If we don’t move in the firmest opposition our children will face a darker future.

    The speech will end. Polls will be taken. Maybe a mild uptick, maybe a flatline. Probably more or less the latter—people have made up their mind. They sense the crisis has passed or is passing. They’re not keen for more presidential rhetoric.
    * * *

    Then get ready for the spin job of all spin jobs. It’s already begun: the White House is beginning to repeat that a diplomatic solution only came because the president threatened force. That is going to be followed by something that will grate on Republicans, conservatives, and foreign-policy journalists and professionals. But many Democrats will find it sweet, and some in the political press will go for it, if for no other reason than it’s a new story line.

    It is that Syria was not a self-made mess, an example of historic incompetence. It was Obama’s Cuban Missile Crisis—high-stakes, eyeball-to-eyeball, with weapons of mass destruction and an implacable foe. The steady waiting it out, the inner anguish, the idea that crosses the Telex that seems to soften the situation. A cool, calibrated, chancy decision to go with the idea, to make a measured diplomatic concession. In the end it got us through the crisis.

    Really, they’re going to say this. And only in part because this White House is full of people who know nothing—really nothing—about history. They’ve only seen movies.

    The only question is who plays Bobby. Get ready for a leak war between Kerry’s staff and Hillary Clinton’s

    An important thing. The president will be tempted, in his embarrassment, to show a certain dry and contemplative distance from Putin. The Obama White House should go lightly here: Putin could always, in his pique, decide to make things worse, not better. It would be good for Obama to show graciousness and appreciation. Yes, this will leave Putin looking and feeling good. But that’s not the worst thing that ever happened. And Putin has played this pretty well.



    There isn't anything wrong with America that liberal ideology, properly applied by government experts, can't make worse.

  2. #2
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    13,352
    The story without the pro-GOP slant..

    Obama takes Syria case to the public in White House address

    By Zachary A. Goldfarb and David Nakamura, Updated: Tuesday, September 10, 9:20 PM

    Washington Post
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...9d0_story.html


    President Obama said Tuesday he would seize one last diplomatic opening to avoid military strikes on Syria but made a forceful case for why the United States must retaliate for its alleged use of chemical weapons if the effort fails.

    In a nationally-televised address from the White House, Obama cautiously welcomed a Russian proposal that the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad give up its entire stockpile of chemical weapons, signaling that he would drop his call for a military assault on the regime if Assad complies.

    Full video of President's speech: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv...9d0_video.html

    I think Obama is playing the GOP. He's gonna come out of this a big winner and will look like a freaking political genius both here and abroad.

    Don't despair GOP...after all, you do have 'geniuses' of your own like these three who recently embarrased the crap out of themselves and their country while in Egypt:

    Video: http://youtu.be/T0iTiCHjiNs


    Last edited by DiabloViejo; 09-10-2013 at 10:31 PM.
    If there is a dangerous forum ... that's the one. -- LWW (referring to BD NPR)

    First off ... nothing will stop ass killings entirely. -- LWW (AKA Vladimir Ulyanov, AKA WV Slim, AKA MrsLWW, .....)


  3. #3
    Senior Member Sev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    State of Franklin.
    Posts
    9,609
    Sorry to disappoint you.
    The democrat spin machine cant cover it up.
    Putin 1. Putz 0

    Every leader of every country knows it. The only people that wont admit it are the useful idiots.
    Obama may have just entered lame status.



    There isn't anything wrong with America that liberal ideology, properly applied by government experts, can't make worse.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,827
    He might be lame and he might hav gridlock but at least he duznt hav .........., or ........... [i will edit later].
    Anyhow while i woz reading Sev's posting at least one citizen of the usofa kommited suicide or woz shot dead (ie in the usofa).
    And 2 died koz of a bad health system. And 3 entered jail.
    mac.

  5. #5
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    13,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Sev View Post
    Sorry to disappoint you.
    The democrat spin machine cant cover it up.
    Putin 1. Putz 0

    Every leader of every country knows it. The only people that wont admit it are the useful idiots.
    Obama may have just entered lame status.
    Time will tell who's right.

    In the meantime you'll always have BENGHAZI, or the shoes on the desk, or some other bullsh*t to hold fast to.

    Here's some more tea party batsh*ttery for you...

    Last edited by DiabloViejo; 09-11-2013 at 01:56 PM.
    If there is a dangerous forum ... that's the one. -- LWW (referring to BD NPR)

    First off ... nothing will stop ass killings entirely. -- LWW (AKA Vladimir Ulyanov, AKA WV Slim, AKA MrsLWW, .....)


  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,827
    The usofa iz the oldest demokracy in the world. Thats why the usofa must attack syria.
    It appears that england woznt a demokracy when the usofa broke away -- probly koz the prezident of the usofa woz a king. And thusly canada and ozz aint demokracys now either.
    And greece iznt a demokracy -- or it iz but somewhere along 3000 yrs it twernt, koz it lost its (demokratik) continuity.
    In fakt obama iz wrong and yet korrekt -- none are demokracys (but praps Greece once woz, after all they define demokracy).
    mac.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,827
    Oldendays Greece had a demokracy.
    The usofa system iz different. Its more of a gridlockracy.
    Gridlockracy iz what the usofa foisted on Germany between the wars. Gridlockracy woz a boon for the chimney bizness.

    There are lots of chimneys in the usofa. And the chimney lobby iz the strongest invizible lobby in washington.
    Next time u go out check out the chimneys.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 09-11-2013 at 03:09 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    13,352
    Obama May Have Played Us All And Won In An Audacious Display Of World Leadership

    Egberto Willies
    09/15/2013
    AddictingInfo.org
    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09...played-us-all/




    Even the most ardent Obama supporter likely believed that the President backed himself into a corner with his “red line” comment. But as ABC News Chris Good stated, “President Obama’s ‘red line’ on Syria isn’t quite as straightforward as it’s been made out to be.”

    The President’s exact words were “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, ” …“ That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” The press along with most interpreted this to mean military action. The President did nothing to dissuade that belief. In fact he sent out John Kerry with an almost definitive statement that leads everyone to believe America was gearing up for a strike. In fact he even sent the navy in a poised position to attack. It was all a Bush-like action.

    The Left-Wing blogosphere along with most war weary Americans went berserk. Suddenly, the President changed his stance and decided to have Congress vote on authorizing a strike while still reserving his right to strike irrespective of Congress’ decision.

    It seemed as if he was trying to convince Congress to give him the approval in earnest. But even as he tried to convince Congress that this would be a surgical and rather minimal strike, it ‘leaked’ that the strike plans were much more extensive than previously advertised. That would seem like a sabotage of a ‘yes vote’ in Congress domestically, while scaring the hell out of the Russians internationally. After-all, there would be a good chance that the Russians would lose their only naval base in the region.

    After the President got back from Russia where the President had some talks with Putin, Secretary of State Kerry had a news conference where he let it ‘slip out’ that Syria could only avoid an attack if they gave up their chemical weapons. Russia gave support to that statement faster than bloggers even noticed it was a statement of consequence.

    President Obama never wanted war if it could be avoided. This is the man that said the following in his speech against the Iraq War on Oct 2, 2002.

    "After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

    What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

    What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

    That said, the President needed all sides to believe that he could be as reckless as Bush was. In doing so, the Russians were bound to use any opportunity or window to grab on to. Secretary of State Kerry gave them the necessary nugget.

    From dire straits to possibility, was this all luck? For those who refuse to acknowledge the accomplishments of this President irrespective of the head winds from an intransigent and irresponsible Republican Congress, the answer is likely yes. Deep thinkers are likely to see this as a chess match and not simply luck in retrospect.

    In one chess match the President was able to make the rank and file Republicans seem like doves, the neocons look reckless, the Tea Party wing seem like flip flopping buffoons all while potentially shutting down Syria’s use of chemical weapons without firing a shot or dropping a bomb. The Right Wing would have none of it. They are so filled with that disease, that mental disorder called hate that they would rather praise Putin as he ‘played Obama’. Remember, to the right, everything Russian is sooooo evil that even Obama’s “Czars” means he’s in league with the dirty commies.

    Here is the reality; the only ones that weren’t played in this whole scheme were the President and his administration. This President is so self-assured that unlike many he is capable of taking a barrage of incoming missiles without responding. He keeps his eye on the ball. That is real leadership. One hopes that as he approaches the twilight months of his presidency, he will use this same technique for middle class centric issues, immigration issues, and other Plutocrat busting issues.

    Now, it’s possible that our deal with Russia to have Syria sign the international chemical weapons ban will fall through. Russia, though, is now on the hook for Assad’s actions so it’s unlikely this will happen but there’s no guarantees in international diplomacy. But no matter what Obama’s critics claim, Syria, for the first time ever, has not only admitted to having chemical weapons but is also entertaining the idea of disposing of them. That, alone, is a significant achievement. And if Assad follows through? Obama will have shown that he can play chess on the world stage with the best of them. Is it any wonder his detractors are screaming foul?
    If there is a dangerous forum ... that's the one. -- LWW (referring to BD NPR)

    First off ... nothing will stop ass killings entirely. -- LWW (AKA Vladimir Ulyanov, AKA WV Slim, AKA MrsLWW, .....)


  9. #9
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    13,352
    But, but, I thought that Obama was a traitor for arming Al Qaeda? That's what conservatives and Fox "News" keep telling me and they NEVER lie! I'm willing to bet that Fox "News" does NOT cover this development.

    The end of the rebel alliance?

    Tensions escalate in Syria, as self-declared jihadists say Western-backed moderates may be used against them.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...428835847.html
    If there is a dangerous forum ... that's the one. -- LWW (referring to BD NPR)

    First off ... nothing will stop ass killings entirely. -- LWW (AKA Vladimir Ulyanov, AKA WV Slim, AKA MrsLWW, .....)


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •