Obama knew arming rebels was useless, but did it anyway

[Pointedstick]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014 ... ss-anyway/

What’s worse: Launching a disastrous military campaign under false pretenses to achieve goals you wrongly believe are attainable? Or launching a disastrous military campaign you know is doomed in order to help your party win an election?

I ask in light of today’s New York Times story about how President Obama asked the CIA a while back whether arming rebel forces – pretty much the agency’s signature strategy — had ever worked in the past.

He was told that it almost never has.

But then in June, once the political pressure for intervention in Syria got too great, he did just that — sending weapons to rebels fighting the Syrian military.

Yes: He knew better, but he did it anyway.

[Benko]

By any means necessary.

[I Shrugged]

I give him a little credit for at least asking the question. 

[Pointedstick]

Would this be an example of sogginess?

Because I really liked your use of that adjective.

Definitely! Just doing what he felt would be popular. Which is ironically what everyone clamors for after a president who ignores what people want and does what he thinks is right. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Worst job in the world. Well, maybe second worst after white house press secretary.

[I Shrugged]

I've been observant of second term presidents since Nixon.  I can't recall any that didn't seem lame.  Yet, it seems Obama might be the lamest since Nixon.  Maybe this is recency bias.

[MachineGhost]

I've been observant of second term presidents since Nixon.  I can't recall any that didn't seem lame.  Yet, it seems Obama might be the lamest since Nixon.  Maybe this is recency bias.

Historically, great progress happens in lame duck Presidencies with a split Congress.  So if the Republicans ignore the Tea Party wingnuts and finally play ball with Obama, his legacy is assured.  As much as I sympathize with some Tea Party sentiments, not compromising is causing more economic damage than passing imperfect legislation.

[WiseOne]

I've been observant of second term presidents since Nixon.  I can't recall any that didn't seem lame.  Yet, it seems Obama might be the lamest since Nixon.  Maybe this is recency bias.

Historically, great progress happens in lame duck Presidencies with a split Congress.  So if the Republicans ignore the Tea Party wingnuts and finally play ball with Obama, his legacy is assured.  As much as I sympathize with some Tea Party sentiments, not compromising is causing more economic damage than passing imperfect legislation.

YES!!!

It would also help if Congress would decide to go back to work and vote on whether to send troops to Syria & Iraq.  Although I do blame Obama for the current mess, I blame Congress even more.  The President isn't supposed to wage war without a mandate from Congress, but what can you do when they go and take a two month vacation!!  I heard they actually plan to work a grand total of 13 days from now until January.  It remains to be seen whether they'll take up this issue or not.

Nice work if you can get it.