Kerry’s Accidental Proposal

by JASmius

Whether the Obama Regime is deliberately orchestrating the Syria fiasco to advance its mission to decimate American credibility, power, and influence in the Middle East and around the globe, or they really are the foreign policy equivalent of the Apple Dumpling Gang, the practical effect of its flailing, confused, contradictory, incoherent case-changing (sorry, -building) for launching some kind of token military action against Bashar al-Assad's government for its alleged August 21st chemical weapons attack against the Damascus suburb of Ghouta has been to hemorrhage public support of which they never enjoyed all that much to begin with:

President Barack Obama faces a “tall order” in convincing Americans on Syria with nearly 60 percent who say they want their member of Congress to oppose the use of military force there, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

With Obama set to address the nation Tuesday night to advocate U.S. intervention against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime, just 24% of Americans believe military action in response to Assad’s reported use of chemical weapons is in the United States’ interest.

More ominously for Obama and his allies, opposition to military action only has grown since the president first sought approval from Congress and since the administration began waging an intense campaign to win congressional support. Congress is expected to vote on authorization this week but the timing is uncertain.

I've made no secret that I reside in the "revolutionary" camp versus the "incompetent/O is in over his head" camp.  There are a number of reasons for this, which I have discussed on the air at length over the past week, but the most straightforward one is this: I cannot believe that anybody or bodies could possibly be this inept.  Nobody, in an honest attempt to make the best possible case for a pathetically weak policy choice, would say in consecutive sentences that if Assad doesn't turn over his chemical arsenal by the end of the week the U.S. will take "decisive" military action, but that action will simultaneously be "unbelievably small," as Lurch Kerry did yesterday.  Obamunists are not nearly as smart as they think they are, but this would make Forrest Gump look like Spock of Vulcan.  Even the Boston Balker isn't that noodleheaded; he was quite obviously told to go out there and say what he said, perhaps word for word, in order to make the United States into a laughing stock on the world stage, while somehow still maintaining Godbama's impenetrable self-image as humanity's demigod. 

Consequently, one can definitely infer that this supposed, belated pro-war PR campaign was only for show and wasn't seriously intended to drum up public support that, again, wasn't there to be had in the first place.

This, in turn, does much to explain the acute lack of martial enthusiasm in the House, and why Dirty Harry suddenly got cold feet on an AUMF vote:

The Obama administration’s efforts to sway Congress to support military airstrikes against Syria suffered further setbacks Monday, raising serious doubts that the president will be able to muster the necessary support in either the House or Senate. 

Three additional senators, Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., announced their opposition Monday, eliminating three potentially critical votes for the administration... 

Additional Red State Democrats, including Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Begich of Alaska, remain undecided. Both senators are up for re-election next year in states that Obama lost in the past two presidential elections.

Ditto John Hoeven and Johnny Isakson, along with Mitch McConnell.  If the Regime's congressional strategy was to ram an AUMF through the Senate so as to blackmail House 'Pubbies into following suit, that gambit is now on life support at best.

So what does a god do when his infallibility is in imminent danger of being sorely tested?  Get lucky, of course:

The government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Monday said it welcomed a Russian proposal to avert U.S. military strikes by having Damascus turn over control of its chemical weapons to international monitors.

The statement by Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem in Moscow offered the first indication that a diplomatic solution may be possible to the international standoff that has evolved since apparent chemical weapons attacks on rebel-held suburbs outside Damascus on August 21… 

Moualem said Syria “welcomes the Russian initiative,” but did not say whether his country would agree to what Russia was asking. “We also welcome the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is trying to prevent American aggression against our people,” Moulaem said. 

Hours earlier, in London, Secretary of State John F. Kerry sketched out a similar transfer-of-control scenario, then dismissed it, after being asked by a reporter whether there was anything that Assad could do to avoid an attack. “Sure, he could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay,” Kerry said. “But he isn’t about to.”

So technically Mr. French proposed the internationalizing of Assad's chems first, then immediately reversed himself, while the Syrians haven't yet agreed to the Russian version of the proposal, which they will if Moscow is serious about it, for obvious reasons.  As will the White House, for reasons equally as obvious: O gets to surrender to Putin on behalf of the U.S. without having to launch any military action, "unbelievably small" or otherwise.

And, thus.....

President Obama on Monday took a sharp turn away from his “red line” threat to Syria on the eve of taking his case to the American people, saying in an interview with Fox News that he’s open to negotiations on an alternative plan that could avert a military strike… 

“We will pursue this diplomatic track,” Obama told Fox News. “I fervently hope that this can be resolved in a non-military way.”…

“I welcome the possibility of the development,” he said. “We should explore and exhaust all avenues of diplomatic resolution to this.”  

He said the U.S. should be able to get a “fairly rapid sense” of how serious the proposal is. “We are going to be immediately talking to the Russians and looking for some actual language they might be proposing,” he said.

Puts a whole new lens on the doctrine of "pre-emption," doesn't it?