Monday Open Thread 9.16.13

We screwed up this weekend and didn’t give you an open thread. Our apologies. So I am posting the Monday Open Thread early in the morning today to balance that out a little. Have at it.

Over the weekend, the U.S. and Russia agreed to a deal on Syria and its chemical weapons. I don’t know about you, but I really do think that Obama played another one of his long game strategies here, and I think it payed off. Here is an interesting article I read on that point by Egberto Willies:

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. […]

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’.

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.

Steve Benen over at The Rachel Maddow Show blog:

Let’s take stock of what happened this [past] week: (1) the United States threatened Syria, a Russian ally, over its use of chemical weapons; (2) Syria then vowed to give up its chemical weapons; and (3) Russia has committed itself to the diplomatic process the United States wants, which is intended to guarantee the success of the Syrian disarmament plan.

So, Obama, at least for now, ended up with what he wanted, which was then followed with more of what he wanted. If this is Putin exacting revenge [as Republicans claim], I suspect the White House doesn’t mind.

President Obama himself on This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

As for the public perception of his own management of the U.S. response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, Obama said, “Folks here in Washington like to grade on style.”

“And so had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and linear – they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy,” he continued. “We know that, ’cause that’s exactly how they graded the Iraq War – until it ended up… blowing up in our face.”

[..]

Talking about his relationship with Putin, Obama said he doesn’t think his Russian counterpart “has the same values that we do” and that Putin has a “different attitude about the Assad regime.” But, he said, both countries “have an interest in preventing chaos” and “preventing terrorism.” “This is not a contest between the United States and Russia. I mean, the fact of the matter is that if Russia wants to have some influence in Syria post-Assad, that doesn’t hurt our interests,” he said.

“And I think there’s a way for Mr. Putin, despite me and him having a whole lot of differences, to play an important role in that,” he continued. “And so I welcome him being involved. I welcome him saying, ‘I will take responsibility for pushing my client, the Assad regime, to deal with these chemical weapons.'”

In the other big national political news this weekend, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers is out as Fed Chair nominee. Mr. Summers informed the President of his intention to withdraw yesterday. Obviously the White House and Summers himself did a head count of the Democrats in the Senate, and if Jon Tester is publicly against you, then it could not be good. That clears the path for the Fed Vice Chair Janet Yellen. And this also indicates the first clear victory of liberal opposition to President Obama. Liberals have opposed Obama policy choices before (public option, the Bush tax cuts), but have always lost.