Putin is the one who really deserves that Nobel Peace Prize, By K.T. McFarland, Published September 10, 2013, Fox News
In one of the most deft diplomatic maneuvers of all time, Russia’s President Putin has saved the world from near-certain disaster. He did so without the egoistical but incompetent American president, or his earnest but clueless Secretary of State, even realizing they had been offered a way out of the mess they’d created.
The eventful day started out Monday morning with the Obama administration making a full court press for an American attack on Syria: lobbying members of Congress, scheduling an historic series of presidential interviews with top news anchors, and sending Secretary Kerry to London to persuade our reluctant allies to scramble their jets, too.
Then Secretary Kerry made an off-hand comment that the only way an American attack would be called off is if the Syrians turn over all their chemical weapons to an international body. Then he added, “but that isn’t going to happen.”
[...] The fact is Obama seemed headed for an attack on Syria that no one wanted and few thought would succeed. Most thought it would only end in disaster, either with the U.S. drawn into an attack/retaliation cycle of escalation that could go on for years and spread into a regional war, or result in the overthrow of President Assad by an Al Qaeda affiliated rebels.
While the Russians may have toyed with the idea of letting American get bogged down in yet another losing Middle East war, they didn’t want to risk a war that might pull them in, or lose control of the Assad government to radical Sunni jihadists.
So Putin stepped in and threw Obama a lifeline.
For a few hours it seemed Obama might not grab at it. But he has, and will no doubt claim full credit for it being his idea all along.
[...] But the world knows that Vladimir Putin is the one who really deserves that Nobel Peace Prize.
It turns out that leading from behind left a big opening up front. Putin stepped right in. And Obama still hasn't figured it out.
An easy ploy, address the argument with "FOX is bullshit" and move on. Upon further examination are there nuances? FOX affectionate toward Russia and Putin, in fall of 2013, while arguably noteworthy in not being thought a FOX policy bias that is widespread, might mean the anomaly is siginificant. But is this aimed less as a love-in for Putin and more directed to the FOX contentions at the time that besides being a black man Obama was clueless and inept to need Russian largesse - a Russian, or somebody, to set him and his administration straight and to prevent a war quagmire in Syria?
While the evidence presented in the item is scant, another nuance might be consideration of the messenger beyond the message, and to consider intervening concerns. I.e., the "Where Are They Now" dimension of analysis. This link.