WH nat-sec adviser: Hey, Assad won’t shoot back

posted at 2:41 pm on September 9, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Originally, I planned to include this in the post about the CNN poll, but it deserves a stand-alone post for its insight into the assumptions of the White House strategic plan to deal with Syria.  Ben Rhodes, the deputy national-security adviser to Barack Obama and a public face on the push for military strikes against Bashar al-Assad,tells CNN this morning that military strikes on Assad won’t lead to any retaliation at all, because it’s not in Assad’s interest to answer back for an act of war:

Ben Rhodes, White House Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication & Speechwriting, appeared on “New Day” to talk to Anchor Chris Cuomo about the administration’s case for military action in light of new CNN/ORC poll that shows a majority of Americans are against military action whether or not Congress approves the resolution. Rhodes also confirmed that there is “no doubt” that Assad is responsible for the use of chemical weapons, and said that the President of Syria has no interest to retaliate, as the United States is “prepared for any contingency.”

“It’s simply not in anybody’s interest to invite further strikes from the United States by doing anything,” Rhodes said. “We’re going to make it very clear; we’re prepared for any contingency. Our military can handle whatever comes at us. But the fact of the matter is, we don’t think it’s in the interest of Assad or any of his allies in the region to… test the resolve of the United States by doing something after we take this strike.”

Of course, that’s what the White House hopes, and it’s the central conceit behind John Kerry’s repeated exhortations that the US isn’t declaring war on Syria.  It’s not that bombing a country that hasn’t attacked us or threatened our interests isn’t an act of war, which of course it is. It’s that the Obama administration is just betting that Assad takes his lumps rather than risk a bigger American intervention.

That is a very large assumption, however, and Rhodes’ own argument undermines it.  Syria has a close relationship with Hezbollah, a terrorist network that is certainly capable of attacking American interests in the region without getting Assad’s hands too dirty, and with Iran, which is building nuclear weapons for just such a fight.  Iran has already been caught planning a retaliation against our embassy in Baghdad, and that’s hardly the only target they can reach.

Furthermore, Assad seems to have regained the momentum in the civil war, or at least blunted that of the rebels, who have grown more divided and disorganized by all accounts.  The biggest threat to Assad’s survival at the moment is Western intervention, which removes any deterrence from retaliating after military strikes that are strong enough to damage his ability to control the country. Here again, the lesson of Libya comes into play as a cautionary tale for dictators that don’t respond to outside attack.  Assad has no intention of meeting the same fate as Moammar Qaddafi, even if the US seems to want the same end result — a failed state.  At that point, it’s very much in Assad’s interest to widen the war so as to bring Russia and perhaps China into the conflict, and probably Israel and Iran, too, which a larger American intervention would almost certainly do.

The White House might win this bet, but it’s much more of a gamble than Rhodes, Kerry, and the Obama administration are admitting.  And clearly, it’s a gamble on which most Americans don’t want to double down.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Sure…Putin will

workingclass artist on September 9, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Hey, Assad won’t shoot back

I’m not sure “arrogance” is the appropriate word to describe how the regime is behaving anymore. This is something beyond mere arrogance. I mean, haven’t they figured out that the Russians are probably salivating at the thought of testing some of their weapons systems against us?

Doomberg on September 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM

After hearing that the Obama administration believed they could flip Iran from the “seething bloodthirsty sociopaths” column to the ally column, it’s difficult to be surprised at anything they say anymore.

Alberta_Patriot on September 9, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Yeah. Throwing rocks at wasp nests NEVER result in anyone getting stung.

patman77 on September 9, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Moron.

rplat on September 9, 2013 at 2:49 PM

WH nat-sec adviser: Hey, Assad won’t shoot back

Wow, I didn’t know the production company that produced
the Monty Python movies back in the 70′s was resurrected
in DC….this Administration is simply a ‘front” for their
efforts….

ToddPA on September 9, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Most gambling like this on an international level fails. It’s like blood in the water when the aggressor sees weakness and this administration has wounded itself badly.

TerryW on September 9, 2013 at 2:51 PM

This sounds like fifth grade recess.

Maybe Ben Rhodes (a history of warfare ignoramus if ever there was one) could just meet some Syrian governmental guy behind a tree after school, and the rest of us could skip the drama.

I bet German, English and Russian government idiots were all quoted saying similar stuff about each other, Serbians and Austrians before WW1 broke out.

MTF on September 9, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Ben Rhodes, failed novelist and now strategic thinker in the WH. The obvious mistake this amateur makes is not looking at an opponents capabilities, instead he is trying to read minds.
Capabilities are black and white mostly. Reading another’s mind unlikely to be successful.
From capabilities, Assad and Hezbollah in Lebanon have ship killing missiles that nearly sunk an Israeli destroyer during the 2006 Lebanon War. Assad will benefit from instant Russian intelligence reports of the location of our destroyers as well as the time of any missile attacks. Assad has advanced jet aircraft that could carry air to ship missiles. From Russian intel, Assad would know where to direct his jets to attack.

The capability is there so we should assume he will use it. Plan accordingly. If Assad struck a destroyer or sunk one, he would become the hero to the Arabs, whether they were Sunni or Shitte.

richardb on September 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Smart Power” just for mnjg

Schadenfreude on September 9, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Looks like Vlad already shot back…

Akzed on September 9, 2013 at 2:54 PM

so if we don’t do anything about Assad Iran will be emboldened to do us harm but if we do strike Assad Syria won’t do anything to harm us…there must be a way to get these muslims to take up arms against themselves and keep us out of it. Oh wait.

DanMan on September 9, 2013 at 2:55 PM

That there is some very high quality stupid.

No one, and I mean no one, should EVER assume that your opponent will not fight back. IT IS IRRATIONAL.

If the Admin was using this line with the Military, I can understand why the military types were unhappy.

Jabberwock on September 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM

This is an Onion article, right? Really. Right?

Harbingeing on September 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM

“It’s simply not in anybody’s interest to invite further strikes from the United States by doing anything,” Rhodes said. “We’re going to make it very clear; we’re prepared for any contingency. Our military can handle whatever comes at us.

Like our military could/should have handled what came at us in Benghazi? You’ll have to excuse many Americans who might be a bit skeptical on this statement.

Rovin on September 9, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Idiots regardless of party. These so-called rebels are not the free french forces or romantic belligerents of WWII. These are hardcore jihadists for the most part. These same MF-ers are the same groups that went east and crossed into Al Anbar Province, Iraq and tried to kill Americans in the name of jihad. We found foreign fighters from Syria all the time.

MoreLiberty on September 9, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Help me out here. Is this attitude more arrogant or inane? Because you don’t go into a war with a planning assumption that your enemy isn’t going to shoot back.

The sailors sitting on those ships deserve far more from their CINC than the half-assed way Obama is playing with their lives to protect his own reputation.

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM

This is beyond dangerous. These people need to be vetted and/or removed from office STAT.

53 Military plans presented to one General in 3 days. This is insanity.

Key West Reader on September 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Yeah. Throwing rocks at wasp nests NEVER result in anyone getting stung.

patman77 on September 9, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Bobby Neiling. Second grade. I KNEW he shouldn’t do that.

Paul-Cincy on September 9, 2013 at 3:01 PM

The capability is there so we should assume he will use it. Plan accordingly. If Assad struck a destroyer or sunk one, he would become the hero to the Arabs, whether they were Sunni or Shitte.

richardb on September 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Plus who is to say that it would be a shooting war? A series of global terrorist attacks on Americans and American interests might be Assad’s way of shooting back.

Happy Nomad on September 9, 2013 at 3:01 PM

we don’t think it’s in the interest of Assad or any of his allies in the region to… test the resolve of the United States by doing something after we take this strike.”

what a freaking adolescent view of foreign policy.

Stand still there Bashir, let us blow a few holes in you so we can restore our credibility or something…..

ted c on September 9, 2013 at 3:01 PM

The sailors sitting on those ships deserve far more from their CINC than the half-assed way Obama is playing with their lives to protect his own reputation. Happy Nomad on September 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Especially the corpse-men.

And the guys on those ships that go underwater.

Akzed on September 9, 2013 at 3:02 PM

The Adults are in charge.

Or something.

Del Dolemonte on September 9, 2013 at 3:03 PM

In other words, they’re so dangerous that we need to intervene…but they’re too meek to actually shoot back at us? That makes no sense.

changer1701 on September 9, 2013 at 3:04 PM

War is hell about drawing a red line, well it was an offhand comment, really, and it’s not OUR red line anyway, it’s the international community’s red line, so we’re going to bomb them … no, we’ll go to Congress and ask for permission … not permission, actually, more CONSULTING with Congress, for just a little strike, and then we’re gone, that’s it, NO MORE violence after that, period, end of story, full stop.

Paul-Cincy on September 9, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Assad may not shoot back… but we can be assured that the “moderate” forces we’re supporting will be shooting back at America at some point should they succeed in Syria.

mankai on September 9, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Just ask Trayvon.

rogerb on September 9, 2013 at 3:06 PM

They won’t hit back. Just like this kid.

Flange on September 9, 2013 at 3:07 PM

The kiddies are playing Deputy again.
Bendover Rhodes has been playing Deputy ever since he got that tin Honorary Marshall badge at Frontier Town.

Buttercup on September 9, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Assad should don a hoodie, pick himself up some skittles and just say he was goin’ for a walk.

ted c on September 9, 2013 at 3:09 PM

This is an Onion article, right? Really. Right?

Harbingeing on September 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Hey, come on, what’s the problem? The smartest kids in the room know what they’re doing. Of course the evil, rogue, Hitler-ish, Saddam-esque, meanie bad dude would sit on his hands and take a few rockets up his arse. It’s not like there’s any inviting targets off his coast, off his eastern border, or southwest border.

smfic on September 9, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Seriously. It is time to vet Obama and his entire senior administration officials. Starting to think he’s confounding our Military on purpose…. But he’s making himself look so stupid.

/Damn, hard to think about…

Key West Reader on September 9, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Was this guy foreign affairs advisor to Hirohito in December of 1941?

“We’ll just bomb them and degrade their abilities. No way are they going to strike back.”

DarthBrooks on September 9, 2013 at 3:12 PM

I seem to remember Ben Rhodes from somewhere. Wasn’t he the guy put in charge of orchestrating the doctoring of the CIA assessment of the Benghazi attack? Yes, yes it is.

So we have a guy who worked very hard to cover up something that did happen by changing the evidence so it looks like more something that would never happen, and now he’s out there now saying something that quite likely could happen would never happen.

They’re just begging to be proven wrong in very dangerous ways. This is insanity writ disastrous.

Dusty on September 9, 2013 at 3:12 PM

MSNBC anchoress: on the current events ~ “Do you think Russia and Syria have any credibility at all on this suggestion to turn over the chemical weapons”? (paraphrased but close to word for word)

Rovin on September 9, 2013 at 3:12 PM

“It’s simply not in anybody’s interest to invite further strikes from the United States by doing anything,” Rhodes said.

Desperate people do desperate things.

Obama is trying to join a pissing match, the world knows he sits down when he pees.

portlandon on September 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM

The Assad army is the most cowardly army when faced with a greater force… Yes they will not shoot back… Israel air bombed Assad nuclear facility in 2007 and not a single shot was fired at their warplanes… In the last two years Israel air bombed few military sites and military convoy in Syria and not a single shot was fired at their warplanes… If you thought that Saddam army was a bunch of cowards then wait and see the incredible cowardice of Assad army…

mnjg on September 9, 2013 at 3:15 PM

It’s not that bombing a country that hasn’t attacked us or threatened our interests isn’t an act of war, which of course it is.

I think everyone is forgetting this part and it is a very important part. We will be declaring war on a sovereign country.

Johnnyreb on September 9, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Starting to think he’s confounding our Military on purpose…. But he’s making himself look so stupid.

/Damn, hard to think about…

Key West Reader on September 9, 2013 at 3:11 PM

He’s following Alinsky all the way down the line

The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed.

faraway on September 9, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Why do these administration hacks insist on treating Assad et al. as rational actors?

Did you know that Iran would be so horrified by the use of chemical weapons in Syria that it would join the rest of the world in condemnation? So says Samantha Power.

I don’t understand why any congressperson would vote to support Obama. Do they really have confidence that these naive and moronic Obamaites will be able to manage the potentially horrific consequences of their quick little “shot across the bow?”

This will not end well.

Meredith on September 9, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Ben Rhodes, the deputy national-security adviser to Barack Obama and a public face on the push for military strikes against Bashar al-Assad,tells CNN this morning that military strikes on Assad won’t lead to any retaliation at all, because it’s not in Assad’s interest to answer back for an act of war

‘Cuz, like, um, ya know, this administration has been 100% correct each and every time we have assessed this reformer Syria’s Hitler.’

- Ben Rhodes

Resist We Much on September 9, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Wasn’t he the guy put in charge of orchestrating the doctoring of the CIA assessment of the Benghazi attack? Yes, yes it is.

Dusty on September 9, 2013 at 3:12 PM

What Ben is saying is that… if Assad does strike back we will lie about it and cover it up. Wink wink.

faraway on September 9, 2013 at 3:17 PM

mnjg on September 9, 2013 at 3:15 PM

CRUNCH

There, I stepped on it. Carry on, Merry Krewe!

Key West Reader on September 9, 2013 at 3:17 PM

we don’t think it’s in the interest of Assad or any of his allies in the region to… test the resolve of the United States by doing something after we take this strike.”

Just strike everything after the first three words. Wow wow wow, fifth graders, indeed.

MTF on September 9, 2013 at 2:52 PM

This

dogsoldier on September 9, 2013 at 3:19 PM

The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed.

faraway on September 9, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Wow. Just. Wow….

Key West Reader on September 9, 2013 at 3:19 PM

air bombs…not cake bombs or fuzzy kitten bombs but air bombs, the most lethal type of commotion ever imagined!

DanMan on September 9, 2013 at 3:20 PM

OT: George Zimmerman taken into custody. Via Drudge

portlandon on September 9, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Our warheads will be inscribed with “Neener Neener”, I’m rubber your glue or the old win win “I know you are but what am I”.

Buttercup on September 9, 2013 at 3:21 PM

This will not end well.

Meredith on September 9, 2013 at 3:17 PM

No, it won’t. Assad is not the sort that will back down.

dogsoldier on September 9, 2013 at 3:22 PM

No one, and I mean no one, should EVER assume that your opponent will not fight back. IT IS IRRATIONAL.

Jabberwock on September 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Well, you can assume that if you make sure to totally take him out right at the beginning.

Just ask Trayvon.

rogerb on September 9, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Object lessons are lost on these folks.

GWB on September 9, 2013 at 3:23 PM

OT: George Zimmerman taken into custody. Via Drudge

portlandon on September 9, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Don,

As of 3:20 p.m., no arrests have been made.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/george-zimmerman-taken-into-custody-after-incident-with-gun-police-say/-/1637132/21851424/-/tlxm3oz/-/index.html

dogsoldier on September 9, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Jabberwock on September 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM

I’ve been using a different term. Nutcase.

dogsoldier on September 9, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Good god these people are so stupid they’re dangerous.

I have a deep sense of foreboding about our immediate future.

bobcalco on September 9, 2013 at 3:25 PM

“It’s inconceivable”.

LtGenRob on September 9, 2013 at 3:27 PM

No, it won’t. Assad is not the sort that will back down.
dogsoldier on September 9, 2013 at 3:22 PM

LOL…

mnjg on September 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM

And with this statement, Ben Rhodes confirms that his primary qualification to be deputy National Security Advisor is that his brother is the president of CBS News.

Once again, Obama’s pattern of hiring people who are worse at their jobs than he is comes back to bite us.

northdallasthirty on September 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM

What Ben is saying is that… if Assad does strike back we will lie about it and cover it up. Wink wink.

[faraway on September 9, 2013 at 3:17 PM]

I’d laugh, but you’re likely right about that.

Dusty on September 9, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Watching that was like watching the political interview equivalent of a 30-second clip of a Miley Cyrus video.

No info voters in da house!!

WhatSlushfund on September 9, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Syria must be the 57th State…right Rhodes?

workingclass artist on September 9, 2013 at 3:34 PM

The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed.

faraway on September 9, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Wow. Just. Wow….

Key West Reader on September 9, 2013 at 3:19 PM

What if those “charismatic radical organizers” are named Cruz, Paul, Lee, Limbaugh, Levin, etc.?

either orr on September 9, 2013 at 3:34 PM

I forget where this rule falls in the list of The Rules of Warfare, but it goes like this:
If the enemy is in range, so are you.

Missilengr on September 9, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Watching that was like watching the political interview equivalent of a 30-second clip of a Miley Cyrus video.

No info voters in da house!!

WhatSlushfund on September 9, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Obama will do an incredibly small twerk.

faraway on September 9, 2013 at 3:35 PM

What if those “charismatic radical organizers” are named Cruz, Paul, Lee, Limbaugh, Levin, etc.?

either orr on September 9, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Alinsky’s book had a few loopholes :)

faraway on September 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

What if those “charismatic radical organizers” are named Cruz, Paul, Lee, Limbaugh, Levin, etc.?

either orr on September 9, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Let me add Palin, West, Carson, Gowdy, Walker and Martinez to that list. Feel free to add more names as appropriate.

either orr on September 9, 2013 at 3:38 PM

The White House might win this bet …


No … they will NOT

They are betting the Russians will not use the naval forces they have deployed to shoot down any cruise missiles U.S. ships launch.

They are betting the Assad regime will not take a “Use it or lose it” approach with regard to their CBW
(Note: Talking about surrendering the weapons is NOT quivalent to having given up the weapons.)

They are betting that with three weeks notice and counting, Iran has not already begun preparations to “strike back” – some speedboats, some missiles, lots of dead sailors.

All because we have come to the penultimate moment of …

SHart Power™

PolAgnostic on September 9, 2013 at 3:44 PM

What a load of b.s. Either the administration really is that stupid, or they are convinced the American people really are that stupid. I don’t know which is worse.

mbs on September 9, 2013 at 3:47 PM

So glad that our nation’s security is in the hands of a creative writing major with no government/military experience before he rose to power (on the strength of his brother’s position as head of CBS News?)

PattyJ on September 9, 2013 at 3:51 PM

mnjg on September 9, 2013 at 3:15 PM

While I understand it’s on a different scale than the U.S. or Isreali military forces, I imagine the FSA etc. would disagree with your assessment…

cs89 on September 9, 2013 at 3:52 PM

WH nat-sec adviser: Hey, Assad won’t shoot back

Does Obama hire anyone other than fools?

RJL on September 9, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Jabberwock on September 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Yep. As a young lad I disliked fighting and would rather walk away but I never lost a fight once I got into one. If you put me into a position that I had to fight then I fought to win.

chemman on September 9, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Ben Rhodes, White House Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication & Speechwriting

Deputy National Security Advisor for Speechwriting? Just WTF is that?

Trafalgar on September 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM

I’m sure Obama is completely prepared to lose another Ambassador or two to terrorists. Other than that, there will be no retaliation for attacking Syria. This country is being led by morons. What is wrong with us that we put up with it?

Deano1952 on September 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Obama is trying to join a pissing match, the world knows he sits down when he pees.

portlandon on September 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Putin will pee between the wires of the electric fence but Obama has such a weak stream he will certain hit the wires of the electric fence.

chemman on September 9, 2013 at 4:08 PM

And if Barry and company gamble and LOSE, what then? Will Barry resign?

GarandFan on September 9, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Deputy National Security Advisor for Speechwriting? Just WTF is that?

Trafalgar on September 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM

In general, knowledgeable on the ME. And in particular a specialist on Syria.

Just ask him. Anything goes in this Admin.

Jabberwock on September 9, 2013 at 4:12 PM

mnjg on September 9, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Yep, they’ll lay down and play dead like they are doing with the Rebels. Weren’t you the one saying that the 100,000 or so dead in Syria was proof of their willingness to use chemical weapons. Create and existential threat and I wouldn’t bet the mortgage that Assad will roll over and play dead.

chemman on September 9, 2013 at 4:12 PM

What does it say that, after years of denouncing the part of the Bush Doctrine that argued ‘we have to fight them over there so that we don’t have to fight them here,’ Obama is left with sending out his political brain, David Axelrod, to sell Syria intervention with this:

‘[We have to] tak[e] the war to Syria so we don’t have to fight it on our shores.’

- David Axelrod, Meet the Press, 8 September 2013

Seriously, do you think that the rest of the country has fallen down the rabbit hole with you? If so, lay off the White Rabbit, dude.

Resist We Much on September 9, 2013 at 4:18 PM

O__o

o__O

O__O <—– there's nobody home, folks

exodus2011 on September 9, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Obama hits new low on foreign policy in CNN polling

‘…a new national poll indicates the president’s approval rating on foreign policy has hit an all-time low. And only three in ten approve of how he is handling Syria.

Only four in ten approve of the job Obama is doing on foreign policy, with 57% of those questioned giving the president a thumbs down. The 40% approval rating on foreign policy is Obama’s lowest level ever on that issue in CNN polling.

“President Obama’s approval rating on foreign affairs has continued its steady decline – from 54% in January to 49% in April, 44% in June, and just 40% now,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “This may be a troubling sign for a president who in past polls had always scored his highest ratings for his handling of foreign affairs.”

Specifically on Syria, only 31% of the public approves of the president’s policies and actions, with 63% giving him a thumbs down.

Resist We Much on September 9, 2013 at 4:31 PM

This is the guy whose brother is a bigwig at CBS news, right?

Blaise on September 9, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Ben Rhodes, the deputy national-security adviser to Barack Obama and a public face on the push for military strikes against Bashar al-Assad,tells CNN this morning that military strikes on Assad won’t lead to any retaliation at all, because it’s not in Assad’s interest to answer back for an act of war

It wasn’t in Assad’s interest to use chemical weapons and take a high risk of bringing the U.S. down on him either and yet the administration that you belong to claims with certainty that he did.

VorDaj on September 9, 2013 at 4:37 PM

same rhodes whose fingerprints all over benghazi talking points.
yeah hes trustworthy

dmacleo on September 9, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Watching The Five on Fox. Utterly out of character, Kim Guilfoyle just eviscerated Obama over Syria, and did it quite perfectly. Paraphrasing: Obama is getting slaughtered on this because he lacks any credibility after the parade of liars and lies on Benghazi. No one believes him anymore.

Jaibones on September 9, 2013 at 5:46 PM

OK here’s the deal. You, the pres, vice pres, sec of state, def sec etc sign resignations and agree to forfeit you pay and retirement if there is ANY retaliation for a strike against Syria. If there is the resignations and forfeitures become effective immediately.

rjoco1 on September 9, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Obama is surrounded by IDIOTS!

IF the US attacks Syria, then ANY attack on ANY US facility or citizen anywhere in the world becomes fair game! IF Assad survives, then we will be looking at this NEW threat until he finally leaves. Which will likely be far after Obama has left office.

“Meet the new Assad, same as the old Sadam”

As created by the historical illiterate, B. H. Obama.

Freddy on September 9, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Assad is fighting for his life, Obama for his reputation, so it’s likely that Assad will retaliate against US interests wherever he can.

The Obama presidency may then end as Carter’s did, with an old-fashioned hostage-crisis.

virgo on September 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM