So now history is being rewritten to ignore that regime change was on the table?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

Really?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-18/politics/35271355_1_syrian-government-assets-syrian-president-bashar-al-assad-syrian-people

Syria’s Assad must go, Obama says

President Obama and European leaders called Thursday for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to resign, after months of his violent crackdown on protesters. The rhetorical escalation was backed by new U.S. sanctions designed to undermine Assad’s ability to finance his military operation.

“The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way,” Obama said in a written statement. “For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.”

Obama and Erdogan: Syria's Assad Must Go

[winter is coming]

1. Meh. It'll be yet another story tomorrow. n/t

[morningfog]

2. Regime change was an explicit goal in the Senate draft AUMF.

[pnwmom]

7. In some Senate draft that hasn't been voted on? n/t

[NOVA_Dem]

10. The VIDEO is from 4 months ago May 16, 2013 n/t

[pnwmom]

13. So? Wanting Assad to step down isn't the same as being willing

to get involved in a war to depose him.

[notadmblnd]

38. the article is dated 2011

[morningfog]

40. In the Senate draft out of the Foreign Relations Committee. The one that passed the committee.

That one.

[newfie11]

3. I am beginning to think we want a war

And will not settle for less. Now Assad must go? Where did that come from.

[JoePhilly]

5. it came from 2 years ago.

[pnwmom]

8. The OP was muddying up the waters with an article from 2 years ago,

when Obama said he wanted Assad to resign.

It has nothing to do with the current crisis.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. AHAHAHAHAHA! Like that matters.

[pnwmom]

11. Obama wasn't threatening in 2011 to attack Syria to bring about regime change

and he hasn't been threatening that now.

There's no good "regime" to change to, at the moment, since no one really wants the Taliban to take charge.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

15. The video was from May 16, 2013. Come on. At least try to be consistent.

[pnwmom]

17. Calling for Assad to be replaced is very different from being willing to start a war

to depose him.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. What do you believe that the USA is doing right now?

Is the USA funding the opposition: aka rebels?


Yes, or No?

[pnwmom]

42. There isn't one cohesive rebel group. And the strongest of the groups

is connected to al Queda, and the US has no wish for them to take control. What I read a few weeks ago was that the US had been helping more moderate groups but those groups didn't seem ready to step in yet.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Actually the war would be used to "change the momentum on the battlefield"

But the committee also voted to accept controversial amendments proposed by hawkish Republican senator John McCain that would explicitly make it a policy of the US to seek to "change the momentum of the battlefield" in ways that would force Assad to negotiate his resignation.

"It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favourable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria," said the second of two amendments proposed by McCain and Democrat Chris Coons.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/syria-senate-committee-vote-military-authorization-obama

NOT EXPLAINED -- Why a guy who apparently has the "momentum of the battlefield" on his side would risk an international intervention over chemical weapons.

[pnwmom]

43. McCain is more hawkish on Syria than Obama has ever been. McCain wanted boots on the ground. nt

[bornskeptic]

44. There's nothing in the resolution passed by the SFRC about changing the momentum on the

battlefield. The word "momentum" does not occur. Rather, the resolution emphasizes that the military action authorized would only be for the purpose of deterring use of chemical weapons. It also specifies that the ultimate goal of US policy on Syria is achieving a negotiated settlement. The text is here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/09/03/full-text-senate-foreign-relations-committee-resolution-on-syria/

[Comrade Grumpy]

39. Especially when we can just arm the rebels. Let them fight and die to achieve our ends.

[Cha]

37. Give them a break, pnwmom-not. That's all they have is crap like this.

Similar shit.. trying to equate Pres Obama to bush as fast as their little keys will let them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023620531

[JoePhilly]

46. The perpetually outraged aren't going to get a PNAC war like they hoped.

They were so sure that Obama was going to invade Syria and create a 2nd Iraq.

Now that its obvious to them that its never going to happen, they need to flip their outrage machine in a different direction.

Its fun to watch them go back 2 years, find some statement, and then scream "Ah ha!!" ... as if they broke the secret code.

[JoePhilly]

4. Regime change was not the goal of the potential strikes.

But hey, the outrage won't just make itself.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. um. The only way to get a draft AUMF out of the senate committee was to

sell your soul to John McCain --

But the committee also voted to accept controversial amendments proposed by hawkish Republican senator John McCain that would explicitly make it a policy of the US to seek to "change the momentum of the battlefield" in ways that would force Assad to negotiate his resignation.

"It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favourable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria," said the second of two amendments proposed by McCain and Democrat Chris Coons.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/syria-senate-committee-vote-military-authorization-obama

[JoePhilly]

45. And?

McCain is an ass. And that statement is so weak that its meaningless.

Look, I know that some folks are really, really upset that the President isn't going to turn Syria into another Iraq and they predicted, and prove that he's secretly an evil neocon PNAC member in the process.

The President, by staying firm on this, forced Congress to agree to take a vote (something they did not want to do) and that pressure got Russia off the fence.

Oh wait ... you and others think that the Obama administration and the Russians haven't been in talks almost continuously during this entire thing, don't you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. I've never argued Obama was waving his PNAC. I've argued against it, in fact.

I'm well aware plenty of the voices arguing against the war have made this and other absurd accusations. I'll admit some of the CTs conjured to rationalize the President's ill-conceived actions were off the rails.

But the fact of the matter remains, in order to get an AUMF out of the SFRC the President's supporters had to cozy up with that chucklehead.

Oh wait ... you and others think that the Obama administration and the Russians haven't been in talks almost continuously during this entire thing, don't you?

If you're hearing arguments in other quarters you should confine your rebuttals to that conversation. I'm more than happy defend/explain/whatever any point I have made but only points I have made.

I will grant the premise Obama has been in talks with the Russians. I remain skeptical that this entire debacle was a Good Cop/Bad Cop ploy between the US and Russia with the US volunteering to play Bad Cop. Even assuming that was true Obama has Bad Copped himself into a domestic disaster.

Moreover, all the high-morality warmongering told us we had to PUNISH Assad for the moral offense of gassing people. Not killing people, period, full stop, end-of-sentence; but specifically gassing people. Had the rush to war been framed in the context of getting Assad to surrender his CWs we would have been hearing "surrender his CWs" not the jumping ahead to, "We gonna blow your shit up!"

This entire fiasco stemmed from the infamous red line comment. It would be the height of disingenuous claims to say the original proposition was, "Once Assad crosses the red line we will ask Russia to ask Assad to surrender his CWs."

That being said the OP is on the mark.

[bvar22]

48. Well Done.

[pnwmom]

6. It wasn't. Not in 2013. Obama explicitly took it off the table -- your article was from 2 years ago.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

12. Are you suggesting that President Obama was for it before he was against it?

Or, in a lame attempt to muddy the waters, are you trying to muddy the water?

[pnwmom]

14. I'm suggesting that it is a completely different thing to call for Assad to resign

than it is to start a war to depose him.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

19. See post #18.

[phleshdef]

21. Fuck post #18.

pnwmom said "start a war to depose him". Post #18 regards choosing to aide one side of a war that Assad declared on his own citizens. It has nothing to do with what the post you were replying to was saying.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. What about post #24?

[phleshdef]

26. Yea, I'm well aware of what came out of the senate committee.

That doesn't contradict the post in question though. It has very little to do with it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. It reinforces the premise of the OP.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. It has everything to do with regime change, my little chicken.

Stop pretending otherwise.

[cthulu2016]

32. DId Kerry say in opening remarks to the senate committee last week,

"Our policy on this is very clear. Assad must go"

My recollection is that he did.

[LittleBlue]

16. The true believers only fool themselves

It is absurd to think that we're funding rebels bent on regime change, that our Arab and Turkish allies in funding these rebels want regime change, but that we don't want it ourselves. Even when we've stated such in the past.

I seriously wonder what madness is required to believe something like that. Someone else compared it to the Palin cult, which seems accurate.

[phleshdef]

20. There is nothing WRONG with wanting regime change in Syria.

Some of you folks are a few steps away from signing for the Assad fan club at this point, sheesh.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

31. Please stop with the hyperventilation.

[bobduca]

34. don't forget anyone who is for peace also has a sexual fetish for shirtless putin!

I read it here first!

[former9thward]

36. Are you part of the al Queda fan club?

Because that is who would take over.

[Recursion]

22. I missed the memo. Am I not even supposed to *want* regime change in Syria now?

This gets so confusing...

[bhikkhu]

27. That was no where near a threat to go to war

...it was Obama saying Assad should resign. Which I agreed with, but that was quite awhile ago when the civil war was still a small-scale rebellion. At no point in the past couple of years have we been beating the war drum for US-led regime change; even the military has shown no interest.

For anyone interested in a refresher on the Syrian Arab Spring movement, where Assad's actions led to Obama's remarks: http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/34854/Syria-Arab-Spring/#vars!date=2011-03-15_11:42:16!.

[UTUSN]

30. Uhhh, ummmm, and the problem with "regime change" ---- IS????????1 nt

[bobduca]

33. Revisionist Present

How better to revise history than to get a jump on it and start revising what happened today?!?

[GoneFishin]

35. Just more proof that this has nothing to do with chemical weapons, and is part of

some PNAC-like plan to keep us bogged down in the middle east so the fucking petroleum companies can set more all time world history profit records.

[Uncle Joe]

41. History is alway being rewritten and its' not history until it's done.

Thanks for the thread, R. Daneel Olivaw.