Syria: Wag The Dog

[MediumTex]

I assume everyone considers the noises about the U.S. getting involved with the Syrian civil war just wag the dog, right?

It's very convenient for the U.S. to declare that Assad has been using WMDs right when Obama is dealing with multiple scandals at home.

Maybe it's just a coincidence.

[clacy]

That was the first thing that crossed my mind as well. Obama seemed very reluctant to get involved but all of a sudden changed his mind??

Either way, it's clear that we haven't learned the recent lessons from W's mistakes.

This will probably only erode his credibility more as the American public has Middle East war fatigue.

[Pointedstick]

IMHO it's very unfortunate when Democratic presidents do this because conservatives seem to have a weak point for foreign war that liberals don't, so they're inherently worse at holding people accountable for it. And partisan rancor ensures that members of the president's own party will be more inclined to agree with what he does even if they would hate it if a member of the other party did it.

At least when a Republican president does this, the Democrats howl bloody murder. When a Democratic president does it, the response is disappointingly muddled and muted.

[moda0306]

IMHO it's very unfortunate when Democratic presidents do this because conservatives seem to have a weak point for foreign war that liberals don't, so they're inherently worse at holding people accountable for it. And partisan rancor ensures that members of the president's own party will be more inclined to agree with what he does even if they would hate it if a member of the other party did it.

At least when a Republican president does this, the Democrats howl bloody murder. When a Democratic president does it, the response is disappointingly muddled and muted.

+1

[Reub]

If he wanted to really wag the dog (and do something good for the entire world at the same time) he would take out Iran's nuclear capability today.

[Coffee]

I can't see any good that comes from this.  Maybe they're thinking that they'll disrupt the supply line from Iran to Hezbollah?

[dualstow]

Where is our Turkey thread? On second thought, there are too many things going on to follow them all deeply. IRS, NSA, Syria, Turkey... every few weeks we have enough material for a 'We Didn't Start the Fire' rewrite.

[Ad Orientem]

[Pointedstick]

I highly approve of the use of that Tintin panel in the poster. Where are you getting these from, Ad Orientem? They're kinda cool.

[Ad Orientem]

I highly approve of the use of that Tintin panel in the poster. Where are you getting these from, Ad Orientem? They're kinda cool.

From here.

interesting site...... the "dark enlightenment" essays look like they will make for some interesting reading http://matthewgleslie.com/post/31114643460/the-dark-enlightenment-the-complete-series-by-nick

[MediumTex]

Ironically, Putin may be doing some wag the dog on the other side as well, considering that he presumably wants to get something into the news to eclipse his divorce.

[AdamA]

Ironically, Putin may be doing some wag the dog on the other side as well, considering that he presumably wants to get something into the news to eclipse his divorce.

But isn't it obvious to both of these guys (Obama and Putin) that these scandals aren't going to effect either one of them?

I might be missing something, but it doesn't seem like any of this stuff (at lease as far as Obama is concerned) is going to amount to much more than a minor nuisance to his administration. 

He could probably just sit quietly in his office for the next month without responding to the press and everyone would lose interest.

[Pointedstick]

Ironically, Putin may be doing some wag the dog on the other side as well, considering that he presumably wants to get something into the news to eclipse his divorce.

But isn't it obvious to both of these guys (Obama and Putin) that these scandals aren't going to effect either one of them?

Political leaders tend to be narcissists and therefore think that everything is about them, making mountains out of molehills.

[Kriegsspiel]

I think most of what "happens in the beltway" stays in "the beltway." Most people probably don't care, the ones that live in DC do care.

[MediumTex]

Ironically, Putin may be doing some wag the dog on the other side as well, considering that he presumably wants to get something into the news to eclipse his divorce.

But isn't it obvious to both of these guys (Obama and Putin) that these scandals aren't going to effect either one of them?

Political leaders tend to be narcissists and therefore think that everything is about them, making mountains out of molehills.

Think about all of the dumb and unnecessary stuff that Nixon did based upon his narcissism.  It cost him his Presidency.

[MediumTex]

I assume everyone considers the noises about the U.S. getting involved with the Syrian civil war just wag the dog, right?

It's very convenient for the U.S. to declare that Assad has been using WMDs right when Obama is dealing with multiple scandals at home.

Maybe it's just a coincidence.

The proposed involvement seems to be minor at this point (and I've also read about some pushback from Congress).  While I wholeheartedly disapprove of any U.S. involvement in Syria, I would think Obama would do something bigger if he wanted to wag the dog.

Then again, I don't really understand (or even want to understand) politicians' motives in these these things.  So wag the dog could be right.

That was the first thing that crossed my mind as well. Obama seemed very reluctant to get involved but all of a sudden changed his mind??

A few months ago, Obama said Assad "has to go", and later drew a red line regarding the use of chemical weapons.  That hardly sounds like someone reluctant to get involved.

IMHO it's very unfortunate when Democratic presidents do this because conservatives seem to have a weak point for foreign war that liberals don't, so they're inherently worse at holding people accountable for it. And partisan rancor ensures that members of the president's own party will be more inclined to agree with what he does even if they would hate it if a member of the other party did it.

At least when a Republican president does this, the Democrats howl bloody murder. When a Democratic president does it, the response is disappointingly muddled and muted.

Actually, I would say the responses from the other party depends on the pretext of the intervention.  If it is "humanitarian" intervention, or can be couched in those terms, D's go along with it when it is R-initiated.  It used to be that R's were opposed to D-initiated humanitarian intervention, but lately I think they've gotten less picky, because they've decided that war is just so awesome, so who gives a crap what lame excuse is used.

If the intervention is terrorism related, the response is usually as PS states.  D's of course howl when R's propose it, and are silent otherwise.  However, when D's propose it, R's sometimes (and neocons always) will protest that the involvement is too small.

That's a good counterpoint to the conspiracy-oriented OP.

[Reub]

But isn't it obvious to both of these guys (Obama and Putin) that these scandals aren't going to effect either one of them?

Political leaders tend to be narcissists and therefore think that everything is about them, making mountains out of molehills.

Think about all of the dumb and unnecessary stuff that Nixon did based upon his narcissism.  It cost him his Presidency.

If Nixon had done one quarter of the stuff that we know Obama has he would have been impeached before he could resign.

[Ad Orientem]

Political leaders tend to be narcissists and therefore think that everything is about them, making mountains out of molehills.

Think about all of the dumb and unnecessary stuff that Nixon did based upon his narcissism.  It cost him his Presidency.

If Nixon had done one quarter of the stuff that we know Obama has he would have been impeached before he could resign.

I'm inclined to agree. Though it's worth noting that Obama hasn't done much that W didn't do first.

[MediumTex]

Think about all of the dumb and unnecessary stuff that Nixon did based upon his narcissism.  It cost him his Presidency.

If Nixon had done one quarter of the stuff that we know Obama has he would have been impeached before he could resign.

I'm inclined to agree. Though it's worth noting that Obama hasn't done much that W didn't do first.

That's how I see it as well. 

What specifically has Obama done that W didn't do as well?

Obamacare = Medicare Part D

Payroll tax cut = Series of tax cuts throughout presidency

Two dumb wars = Two dumb wars

NSA spying = FISA court scandal

Benghazi = Failure to send enough troops into Iraq to prevent several additional years of fighting

Large budget deficits = Large budget deficits

***

As far as what Nixon did, to me the more boneheaded things he did that W or Obama have not done was end gold convertibility which sent the dollar into an almost decade-long downward spiral, impose price controls (which never work), and hire burglars to break into the campaign offices of his opponent when running for re-election when the election was already in the bag.

[smurff]

Ironically, Putin may be doing some wag the dog on the other side as well, considering that he presumably wants to get something into the news to eclipse his divorce.

As well as eclipse the news about the theft ... gift ... of a Superbowl ring.

[MediumTex]

Ironically, Putin may be doing some wag the dog on the other side as well, considering that he presumably wants to get something into the news to eclipse his divorce.

As well as eclipse the news about the theft ... gift ... of a Superbowl ring.

I read an article about that story that said Putin was going to buy Kraft another ring "with his own money."

When I saw the bit about buying it with his own money I was reminded of the fact that by all accounts Putin is at least a billionaire, and probably a multi-billionaire.  To me, any time you have a career government employee turning up as a billionaire you have to wonder whether he might have used his government position to improperly obtain such enormous wealth.

[smurff]

The Patriots are doing their part to avoid an international incident.

From NFL.com:

    “It’s a humorous, anecdotal story that Robert re-tells for laughs. He loves that his ring is at the Kremlin ...”?

Source: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/06/robert- ... bowl-ring/

That ring ain't at the Kremlin--unless Putin put a fake one there for "safekeeping."
(I'm not trying to start an international incident, so in case it's not obvious, I'll  just say I'm joking.)

[MediumTex]

From NFL.com:

    “It’s a humorous, anecdotal story that Robert re-tells for laughs. He loves that his ring is at the Kremlin and, as he stated back in 2005, he continues to have great respect for Russia and the leadership of President Putin,”? a team spokesman said. “In particular, he credits President Putin for modernizing the Russian economy.”?

When I aimed my BS detector at the text above, the underlined statements caused the needle to move violently.

When I put my BS detector on the "translate" setting, here's what it spit out:

“It’s a humorous, anecdotal story that Robert re-tells because its the only way he can speak honestly about the incident without being pressured by the State Department to remain quiet. He is still pissed that he got ring-jacked by that commie thug and the idea that his ring is now on display in Putin's former thug clubhouse next to Lenin's creepy corpse gives him the willies and, as he stated back in 2005, he continues to grit his teeth and smile when the subjects of Russia and Putin come up,”? a team spokesman said. “In particular, he credits President Putin for turning the Russian economy from a state-owned enterprise model into a Putin's cronies-owned enterprise model.  He just wishes his ring hadn't gotten caught up in the wave of kleptocracy that has swept Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union.”?

[MediumTex]

I liked this part:

  “I took out the ring and showed it to [Putin], and he put it on and he goes, ‘I can kill someone with this ring,’ ”?

Remember when George W. Bush met Putin?

Presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin have met for the first time and appear to have hit it off.

They say they found the basis for a relationship of mutual respect.

At the end of their first summit meeting in Slovenia Mr Bush described Mr Putin as a straightforward and trustworthy man.

[...]

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue... I was able to get a sense of his soul..." Mr Bush said.


Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1392791.stm

Remember when Bush met Tony Blair for the first time and announced after the meeting that they used the same toothpaste?