I Don't Think The GOP Knows What They Have Here.

[ChezC3]

As it relates to this thread I started involving the article in the thread,

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-non-msm/171992-house-might-not-vote-obama-s-syria-resolution.html

The GOP has the ability in this defining moment to turn Obama into a lame duck for the rest of his Presidency. By taking this Syria mishegoss to the floor for a vote and a successful defeat of Obama's resolution, not only will they turn him into a lame duck but they will secure for themselves both houses of Congress in 2014 and quite possibly the Presidency in 2016.

How? By showing the world that the GOP and more importantly this country is still governed by the will of the People.

The narrative? Show the world that we will not act according to how the world may view us. Not going into Syria isn't going to diminish the fact that we are still the toughest kids on the block. That all of a sudden we've become wishy washy, that we are weak -- No! What we will show the world is that the American government, its actions, the measures it takes will be an extension of the People's will. We are a Representative government and our representatives will represent us. That the only opinion that really counts, the number one priority of the government is to work for the American People.

THAT is how it should be and THAT is how the GOP will defeat Obama and those sniveling, spineless democrats -- putting them back in their proper place as the punch line of respectable people's party jokes which they've always been and always will be.

 

[Slyfox696]

As it relates to this thread I started involving the article in the thread,

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-non-msm/171992-house-might-not-vote-obama-s-syria-resolution.html

The GOP has the ability in this defining moment to turn Obama into a lame duck for the rest of his Presidency. By taking this Syria mishegoss to the floor for a vote and a successful defeat of Obama's resolution, not only will they turn him into a lame duck but they will secure for themselves both houses of Congress in 2014 and quite possibly the Presidency in 2016.

How? By showing the world that the GOP and more importantly this country is still governed by the will of the People.

The narrative? Show the world that we will not act according to how the world may view us. Not going into Syria isn't going to diminish the fact that we are still the toughest kids on the block. That all of a sudden we've become wishy washy, that we are weak -- No! What we will show the world is that the American government, its actions, the measures it takes will be an extension of the People's will. We are a Representative government and our representatives will represent us. That the only opinion that really counts, the number one priority of the government is to work for the American People.

THAT is how it should be and THAT is how the GOP will defeat Obama and those sniveling, spineless democrats -- putting them back in their proper place as the punch line of respectable people's party jokes which they've always been and always will be.

So the GOP platform should be "The President asked for the will of the people to decide this issue and we gave it to him"?

Well, in fairness, it would probably be the strongest argument they've made in years.

 

[ChezC3]

So the GOP platform should be "The President asked for the will of the people to decide this issue and we gave it to him"?

Well, in fairness, it would probably be the strongest argument they've made in years.

No, the GOP platform should be "A Government OF the People, BY the People and For the People."

Too long politicians and weak willed people have confused the fact that American's want leaders not rulers...

 

[Harshaw]

So the GOP platform should be "The President asked for the will of the people to decide this issue and we gave it to him"?

Well, in fairness, it would probably be the strongest argument they've made in years.

He didn't ask for the "will of the people" to "decide this issue." He asked for the support of Congress for a decision he's already made.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that's why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.

Over the last several days, we've heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they've agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

He has, by the way, refused to give a straight answer as to whether or not he'll still attack if Congress says no, so I don't think he's that worried about the will of the people.

 

[Slyfox696]

No, the GOP platform should be "A Government OF the People, BY the People and For the People."

I agree it should be, it's just a shame it hasn't been for far too long.

He didn't ask for the "will of the people" to "decide this issue." He asked for the support of Congress for a decision he's already made.

He asked Congress to authorize that which he supports. I'd argue there's a difference in our wording.

He has, by the way, refused to give a straight answer as to whether or not he'll still attack if Congress says no

Very true, and I'd be very much against him taking action if Congress votes against it.

 

[Harshaw]

He asked Congress to authorize that which he supports. I'd argue there's a difference in our wording.

Well, yes, there's a difference in our wording -- your words describe something he didn't say. He did not ask for the "will of the of the people" to "decide the issue." Those were your words. What he asked for was the support of Congress for a decision he said he's already made, not that he merely "supports." Why he called it "authorization," I have no idea, because in the same statement, he said flatly he already has the "authority."

Very true, and I'd be very much against him taking action if Congress votes against it.

Then we would agree.

 

[Slyfox696]

Well, yes, there's a difference in our wording -- your words describe something he didn't say. He did not ask for the "will of the of the people" to "decide the issue." Those were your words. What he asked for was the support of Congress for a decision he said he's already made, not that he merely "supports." Why he called it "authorization," I have no idea, because in the same statement, he said flatly he already has the "authority."

Here's Obama's exact words:

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.


Over the last several days, we’ve heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they’ve agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

...

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.

TRANSCRIPT: President Obama?s Aug. 31 statement on Syria - Washington Post


His words seem much closer to what I said, do they not?

 

[Harshaw]

Here's Obama's exact words:


TRANSCRIPT: President Obama?s Aug. 31 statement on Syria - Washington Post


His words seem much closer to what I said, do they not?

No. Here are the words immediately precedeing that:

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I'm confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I'm prepared to give that order.

Also:

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.

At no point did he ask for the "will of the people"; he asked for the approval of Congress. He didn't say it would "decide" the issue; he's already made his decision. And his subsequent refusal to say whether he'd honor a no vote only strengthens the notion that he's made his decision.

 

[Slyfox696]

No. Here are the words immediately precedeing that:

He decided the US SHOULD take, not would take. I've decided the US should have stricter gun control, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. And he will give the order, we presume, only if Congress gives him the authorization to do so.

Also:

Yes, he believes he does have the authority. And yet, he's not exercising it. Instead, he's:

"I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress."

At no point did he ask for the "will of the people"; he asked for the approval of Congress.

And he acknowledged Congress as the American people's representatives. C'mon now, you're a smart person, you know his words are very close to mine.

He didn't say it would "decide" the issue; he's already made his decision.

And his decision was to seek authorization from Congress.

 

[ChezC3]

I agree it should be, it's just a shame it hasn't been for far too long.

I concur wholeheartedly...

 

[Harshaw]

He decided the US SHOULD take, not would take. I've decided the US should have stricter gun control, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

YOU have no authority to implement anything, so it doesn't matter what you've decided. Obama is the commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States, so his decision makes it happen whenever he wants. I don't even know why you would attempt such an analogy.

And he will give the order, we presume, only if Congress gives him the authorization to do so.

And why on Earth would you (not "we," you) "presume" that when he will not give a straight answer on that question, and when he's said he believes he has the authority to do it anyway?

Yes, he believes he does have the authority. And yet, he's not exercising it. Instead, he's:

"I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress."

Which he may or may not follow, because he explicitly says he has the authority to do it anyway.

And he acknowledged Congress as the American people's representatives. C'mon now, you're a smart person, you know his words are very close to mine.

Well, yeah, being a smart person, I see that his words are very different from yours, and it baffles me that you continue on this path.

And his decision was to seek authorization from Congress.

No. His decision is made. He's just waiting to see if he gets support from Congress.

If Congress tells him no, and he backs down, then it is as it should be. But I certainly have no confidence that he will. If he intended to, he wouldn't have a problem with saying so, and he wouldn't have undercut his own aide who said that was his intention:

"The president of course has the authority to act" even if Congress does not support his plan for a military strike on Syria, White House deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken host Steve Inskeep earlier today.

But Blinken also said of the president that it is "neither his desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him."

...

On Wednesday, , the president said he did not ask Congress to authorize the use of force against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime "as a symbolic gesture," but added that "I always reserve the right and responsibility to act on behalf of America's national security."

Update at 10:35 a.m. ET. Obama Is Asked About Blinken's Comment:

At a news conference now underway in St. Petersburg, Russia, a reporter just told the president that one of his advisers said today that it's "not your intention" to strike Syria if Congress opposes such action.

"I don't think that's exactly what he said," Obama responds, as he again declines to give a yes-or-no answer about what he will do if Congress turns him down.

Update at 10:22 a.m. ET. Will He Go Ahead If Congress Says No? Obama Doesn't Directly Answer:

Asked , whether he still might order strikes against Syria even if Congress does not give him the green light, Obama says he knew it was "going to be a heavy lift" when he asked lawmakers for such authorization. Then Obama says it would "be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate" about what would happen if his request is rejected.

Obama Has No 'Intention' To Strike Syria If Congress Says No : The Two-Way : NPR

 

[head of joaquin]

It would be like the tea party occupation forces in the House to take action that harms our country in order to win some political points against Obama. Indeed, that's all they've ever done.

 

[ChezC3]

It would be like the tea party occupation forces in the House to take action that harms our country in order to win some political points against Obama. Indeed, that's all they've ever done.

Only the Unthinking Left would consider NOT putting troops in harms way as detrimental.

They've been a thorn in the side America long enough...

 

[specklebang]

I'd have to say that the "will of the people" is the last thing anybody in Washington DC will care about.

Right now, there's a bunch of favor trading going on to bend the will of the politicians, not the people.

This from HuffPo, hardly a tool of the right
The American People Really Don't Want To Bomb Syria (POLLS)

But I assure you that your Fearless Leaders don't give a rat's ass about "man in the street" opinions. They have bigger fish to fry. How much will Lockheed donate to their next campaign. What color should I paint the ceiling of my new mansion? Will Bechtel give cousin Harvey that management job? Will I vote for Ed's ethanol subsidies? They're much too busy.

 

[aberrant85]

The GOP has the ability in this defining moment to turn Obama into a lame duck for the rest of his Presidency. By taking this Syria mishegoss to the floor for a vote and a successful defeat of Obama's resolution, not only will they turn him into a lame duck but they will secure for themselves both houses of Congress in 2014 and quite possibly the Presidency in 2016.

How? By showing the world that the GOP and more importantly this country is still governed by the will of the People.

The GOP might want to take the time between now and the vote to really think this through.

Yes, voting against a resolution would harm the President's standing. If he doesn't strike, he'll be seen as weak with Congress. If he does strike, he'll open himself up to violations of Congress's authority and will be threatened with impeachment.

But the GOP has to take the long view here, and a lot can change between now and '14 or '16.

For instance, if the GOP shoots down the resolution and Obama backs down, they might start to gloat, take a hard line on the budget, the debt ceiling, and other domestic issues, and risk overplaying their hand. Shutting down the government out of the thrill of having defeated Obama will backfire like it did in the 90's.

In addition, knowing that shooting down the resolution will weaken Obama might open them to criticism of playing politics over national security and international affairs. If the resolution is defeated by the GOP and Assad escalates the conflict with more atrocities, it will look like Congress tied Obama's hands and weakened the US in the eyes of the world.

On the other hand, if they shoot down the resolution and Obama still strikes, the GOP will need to restrain itself from leaping to an impeachment. They will not have much of a leg to stand on because Obama can claim legal standing for action even without the resolution, and the Senate will not remove him from office. It will mean months and months of political posturing, distract Congress from all legislation, and just make people sick of them. It will backfire on the GOP just like Clinton's impeachment.

There are multiple risks for backing Obama, but there are as many risks opposing him. And the intentions of their actions now can take on a whole new perspective in 1 or 3 years time.

Nobody should be doing a jig here. They're standing on a minefield.

 

[head of joaquin]

Only the Unthinking Left would consider NOT putting troops in harms way as detrimental.

They've been a thorn in the side America long enough...

I love it how conservatives have to reverse themselves and pretend they didn't support what they did. During Bush's vanity wars, conservatives argued it was unpatriotic and "soft on terrorism" not to put boots in Iraq. And now they argue the opposite

Tea partiers don't care about the country -- they just want to attack Obama, as your OP shows.

Total intellectual bankruptcy.

 

[ChezC3]

I love it how conservatives have to reverse themselves and pretend they didn't support what they did. During Bush's vanity wars, conservatives argued it was unpatriotic and "soft on terrorism" not to put boots in Iraq. And now they argue the opposite

Tea partiers don't care about the country -- they just want to attack Obama, as your OP shows.

Total intellectual bankruptcy.

IF you have any evidence that what you've said applies to me, than by all means, share. If not, please avoid making broad generalizations which give the implication of my inclusion. If you're trying to implicate me in that which you have no proof you're showing you're clearly off the mark. If you're not trying to implicate me than your comments are clearly off topic.

 

[head of joaquin]

IF you have any evidence that what you've said applies to me, than by all means, share. If not, please avoid making broad generalizations which give the implication of my inclusion. If you're trying to implicate me in that which you have no proof you're showing you're clearly off the mark. If you're not trying to implicate me than your comments are clearly off topic.

No, I'm entitled to make broad generalizations about conservatism. There's a sameness to it. If you want to claim you're not a conservative that's you're prerogative

 

[ReformCollege]

No, I'm entitled to make broad generalizations about conservatism. There's a sameness to it. If you want to claim you're not a conservative that's you're prerogative

There you go using that word entitled again..... What will progressives come up with next? Entitlements to heroin?

 

[ChezC3]

No, I'm entitled to make broad generalizations about conservatism. There's a sameness to it. If you want to claim you're not a conservative that's you're prerogative

It is a hallmark of the Unthinking Left to cry about what they think they're entitled to. If I wanted to have done anything, I'd have done it. Like I did.

 

[nota bene]

He didn't ask for the "will of the people" to "decide this issue." He asked for the support of Congress for a decision he's already made.



He has, by the way, refused to give a straight answer as to whether or not he'll still attack if Congress says no, so I don't think he's that worried about the will of the people.

I don't think he is. Or about the Constitution either, sadly.

 

[Slyfox696]

YOU have no authority to implement anything, so it doesn't matter what you've decided.

So what your saying is that a decision is not the same thing as an action. I decided, but do not take the action. Thank you for finally seeing my point.

Obama is the commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States, so his decision makes it happen whenever he wants. I don't even know why you would attempt such an analogy.

Because I thought it'd help you understand that making a decision is not the same as taking an action? Your words above seem to suggest you do understand it. So now you just have to put aside your adversarial attitude and admit I'm right.

And why on Earth would you (not "we," you) "presume" that when he will not give a straight answer on that question, and when he's said he believes he has the authority to do it anyway?

It is "we" because Obama has given no indication he will strike without Congress and we both think he'd be wrong for doing so. So it is "we".

Which he may or may not follow, because he explicitly says he has the authority to do it anyway.

But instead he's asking for the will of the American people through their representatives. Would it really kill you to admit I was right, when it's very clear I am?

Well, yeah, being a smart person, I see that his words are very different from yours, and it baffles me that you continue on this path.

His words are incredibly similar to mine. Give up the argument and just admit I am right.

No. His decision is made.

And his decision is that America SHOULD strike, not that America WILL strike. That's very clearly what he said. Do you not understand the difference between the words "should" and "will"? Do you not understand the difference in meaning between "decision" and "action"?

 

[Harshaw]

So what your saying is that a decision is not the same thing as an action. I decided, but do not take the action. Thank you for finally seeing my point.

Because I thought it'd help you understand that making a decision is not the same as taking an action? Your words above seem to suggest you do understand it. So now you just have to put aside your adversarial attitude and admit I'm right.

OK, look. I explained why your analogy was a bad one. Your "decisions" can NOT be implemented into action. His can.

Pointing that out is not "adversarial." I think you label strong opposition to your posts "adversarial" as a ready-made excuse to disengage when you're fully underwater, and this gives me no reason to amend that thought.

It is "we" because Obama has given no indication he will strike without Congress and we both think he'd be wrong for doing so. So it is "we".

No, it is not "we." It is you. There are not many people at all who make that presumption. You do not get to label your preferred way of looking at it as fact.

I pointed out copious numbers of times when he's hedged on that very question, to the point of contradicting his own adviser on it. That is no reason to "presume" he'd go the way you're saying.

But instead he's asking for the will of the American people through their representatives. Would it really kill you to admit I was right, when it's very clear I am?

No, he's not. He's asking for the approval of Congress. (In fact, he made a separate appeal to "the American people.") It's what you're choosing to label as "the will of the people" in order to hold on, stubbornly, to your original statement.

His words are incredibly similar to mine. Give up the argument and just admit I am right.

I will not give up the argument, because you are not right.

And his decision is that America SHOULD strike, not that America WILL strike. That's very clearly what he said. Do you not understand the difference between the words "should" and "will"? Do you not understand the difference in meaning between "decision" and "action"?

You know, it's always amusing when you start moaning that I'm being "adversarial" in the same post where you write things you'd call "hostile" or "belligerent" or whatever if I said them to you. I think an impartial observer might see it as a sign that you're losing the argument.

I already said that if Congress votes no and he backs down, then he will have bowed to the will of . . . well, not just the people, but almost literally everyone else in the entire world. But he said several times his decision is made; it only remains to be seen if he backs down from it. And despite everything that you apparently wish to read into it, what he has said indicates at the very least he believes he's authorized to do it if Congress votes no. He refuses to say he won't if they do, so your presumption is unwarranted.

I disagree with you strongly. I believe you are wrong. I will not say otherwise just to make you feel better.

 

[Slyfox696]

OK, look. I explained why your analogy was a bad one. Your "decisions" can NOT be implemented into action. His can.

Pointing that out is not "adversarial." I think you label strong opposition to your posts "adversarial" as a ready-made excuse to disengage when you're fully underwater, and this gives me no reason to amend that thought.

So you don't understand the words "decision", "action" or "adversarial" now. Got it.

No, he's not. He's asking for the approval of Congress.

Who are the representatives of the will of the people. Just like Obama said in his speech I already posted for you. It just kills you to admit I was right, doesn't it?

I will not give up the argument, because you are not right.

I believe you won't give up the argument, but only because it kills you to know you were wrong and I was right and you think continuing to argue will somehow magically make you right. Here's a hint. It won't.

At the end of the day, I posted Obama's own words for you. Your response to that is to pretend not to know the meanings of words or quibble in technicalities. You've lost. The weird part of it is, I don't even know why you've put yourself in a position to lose. It's in plain black and white what Obama said, and we already agree Obama shouldn't act without Congress authorization now that he's asked for it. Why you insist on arguing a clearly false position, one that is basically irrelevant, is beyond me. Whatever soothes your ego, I suppose.

I was right and I've proven it with Obama's own words. There's nothing you can say which will change that.

 

[Harshaw]

So you don't understand the words "decision", "action" or "adversarial" now. Got it.

Who are the representatives of the will of the people. Just like Obama said in his speech I already posted for you. It just kills you to admit I was right, doesn't it?

I believe you won't give up the argument, but only because it kills you to know you were wrong and I was right and you think continuing to argue will somehow magically make you right. Here's a hint. It won't.

At the end of the day, I posted Obama's own words for you. Your response to that is to pretend not to know the meanings of words or quibble in technicalities. You've lost. The weird part of it is, I don't even know why you've put yourself in a position to lose. It's in plain black and white what Obama said, and we already agree Obama shouldn't act without Congress authorization now that he's asked for it. Why you insist on arguing a clearly false position, one that is basically irrelevant, is beyond me. Whatever soothes your ego, I suppose.

I was right and I've proven it with Obama's own words. There's nothing you can say which will change that.

OK, so you used 206 words to say "yuh-HUH!!" in a tone which you'd call "hostile" if I were saying it to you.

You said nothing new here. I've already responded to all of it. Others can read it if they want to. If you have something new to say, let me know.