John Kerry: ‘We Are Not Going to Lose’ Vote Authorizing Syria Military Action'

[Dooble]

Thank you for your strength & courage during these dangerous times, Mr. Secretary.

John Kerry: ‘We Are Not Going to Lose’ Vote Authorizing Syria Military Action - ABC News

 

[reinoe]

At first I wanted this vote to be a no because going into Syria would be stupid. Now I want it to be a no vote so that Kerry can have egg on his stupid face.

 

[The Cat]

It would be a foolish thing to go into Syria, but then again John Kerry is a foolish man.

 

[GPS_Flex]

It would be a foolish thing to go into Syria, but then again John Kerry is a foolish man.

Principles, ethics and perspectives are like the wind among most political enthusiasts, particularly when power is a factor in any of the former.


He does look more foolish than most political slime-balls though, doesn't he?

 

[Fisher]

God I hope they attach the authorization to a bill to repeal obamacare and outlaw abortion just to watch democrats stroke out.

 

[TiredOfLife]

God I hope they attach the authorization to a bill to repeal obamacare and outlaw abortion just to watch democrats stroke out.

Yeah, won't happen.

 

[Thrilla]

he's right... Congress with vote "yes" to military strikes.

 

[GPS_Flex]

he's right... Congress with vote "yes" to military strikes.

I'm not so sure. I'm very interested in which democrats will vote for/against it because an election is coming up, and many of them recently ran campaign strategies where they incessantly bashed Bush and Republicans for their handling of similar issues. Seems like it might be tough to support something that's even worse than what you were just railing on a few years ago. Some might consider it hypocritical and others, like me, might have trouble telling the difference between Republicans & Democrats. They just seem to reverse roles on international security issues when power changes hands.

 

[Thrilla]

I'm not so sure. I'm very interested in which democrats will vote for/against it because an election is coming up, and many of them recently ran campaign strategies where they incessantly bashed Bush and Republicans for their handling of similar issues. Seems like it might be tough to support something that's even worse than what you were just railing on a few years ago. Some might consider it hypocritical and others, like me, might have trouble telling the difference between Republicans & Democrats. They just seem to reverse roles on international security issues when power changes hands.

all good points.... but I don't see congress.. either house... rebuffing El Primo when he wants to bomb something.
democrats already have MSNBC selling how this decision is very different from Iraq... it's a marketing campaign to separate Obama from bush and give Democrats cover., most likely to preempt the points you touched on.

I think it'll pass the Senate easily... Reid is already on board, so are key Republicans.
it can potentially get dicey in the House, but i think there are enough votes in the bag already to pass it.

if you can't tell the difference between the 2 factions of the one party we have...well... good for you, you're paying attention :thumbs:

 

[Utility Man]

It would be very interesting to see Republicans stand up and say that they no longer want to help eliminate WMDs.

 

[aberrant85]

I'm so pumped to see how this goes down! Congress could very well smack this down. That's what makes it so interesting! There is no longer a pro-war party vs. an anti-war party.

 

[aberrant85]

The longer the debate lasts, though, the tougher it will be for Obama. Without the urgency to act fast, the Republicans might settle back into their usual intransigence.

 

[Moot]

140 bipartisan signatures and counting from congress? Why demand Obama get congressional approval if they aren't going to approve it?

Anyway, Obama doesnt' need their authority to do a limited strike. There is too much precedent going back to Truman for presidents to conduct limited miltary action.

But if congress does vote no, then Obama will have an out not to strike Syria and save face. The decision might also depend on what the French and UK Parliments vote as well. I think the UK will be making a second vote now that the UN report is out.

 

[GPS_Flex]

It would be very interesting to see Republicans stand up and say that they no longer want to help eliminate WMDs.

I think you need to revisit your perception of Republicans and more likely your understanding of history. Republicans don't want to eliminate WMD any more than they want to eliminate guns. Good luck supporting this argument.

 

[GPS_Flex]

140 bipartisan signatures and counting from congress? Why demand Obama get congressional approval if they aren't going to approve it?

Anyway, Obama doesnt' need their authority to do a limited strike. There is too much precedent going back to Truman for presidents to conduct limited miltary action.

But if congress does vote no, then Obama will have an out not to strike Syria and save face. The decision might also depend on what the French and UK Parliments vote as well. I think the UK will be making a second vote now that the UN report is out.

At least you understand that this potential war action is all about Obama saving face and remaining macho. Maybe he should take his shirt off as he asks for congressional votes.

 

[aberrant85]

Anyway, Obama doesnt' need their authority to do a limited strike. There is too much precedent going back to Truman for presidents to conduct limited miltary action.

The precedent is there, what's exciting is the prospect of restoring the precedent to Congress. When was the last time we actually declared war? 1941. Not many people like to have the President, whoever that is, have the ultimate say in whether we go to war or not. A restoration of the responsibility of Congress to declare war over the President might lead a long way to our extraction out of the Middle East.

At least you understand that this potential war action is all about Obama saving face and remaining macho. Maybe he should take his shirt off as he asks for congressional votes.

I must admit that Obama would probably not have advocated a strike if it hadn't been for his very un-politick "red line" declaration. If he hadn't said that, though, he'd face criticism from all angles for being unresponsive to a chemical attack. This is a very gray area in a lot of ways.

 

[GPS_Flex]

I must admit that Obama would probably not have advocated a strike if it hadn't been for his very un-politick "red line" declaration. If he hadn't said that, though, he'd face criticism from all angles for being unresponsive to a chemical attack. This is a very gray area in a lot of ways.

Yes, but the "red line" declaration was Obama refusing to not look macho. This is the use of a mistake to cover for another mistake, all because Obama has no realistic international strategy. A nuke free world is a happy place befitting Disney but unbefitting a US president yet this seems to be the sum of his international strategy, now that his "sit down and negotiate with the enemy" strategy failed.

 

[aberrant85]

Yes, but the "red line" declaration was Obama refusing to not look macho. This is the use of a mistake to cover for another mistake, all because Obama has no realistic international strategy. A nuke free world is a happy place befitting Disney but unbefitting a US president yet this seems to be the sum of his international strategy, now that his "sit down and negotiate with the enemy" strategy failed.

The declaration might have simply been Obama hoping that the threat of retaliation would be enough to prevent Syria from using CW, allowing him to act tough but send a signal that we wouldn't respond unless you did something really stupid.

 

[GPS_Flex]

The declaration might have simply been Obama hoping that the threat of retaliation would be enough to prevent Syria from using CW, allowing him to act tough but send a signal that we wouldn't respond unless you did something really stupid.

Making threats/promises isn't too presidential unless there is a solid enough reason behind them to follow though on them. As has been pointed out, we (the USA) aren't the world police so we shouldn't be policing the world or attacking other countries unless it's clearly in the national security interests of the US. I'm not sure how we can condemn the Iraq war on one hand yet condone our Libya, Syria and Egypt actions on the other.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I'm so pumped to see how this goes down! Congress could very well smack this down. That's what makes it so interesting! There is no longer a pro-war party vs. an anti-war party.

No, it's just two "me!" "me!" parties jockeying for a sense of relevance in a mire of their own making.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Making threats/promises isn't too presidential unless there is a solid enough reason behind them to follow though on them.

Sadly, if there's one thing this president excels at is not being presidential.

As has been pointed out, we (the USA) aren't the world police so we shouldn't be policing the world or attacking other countries unless it's clearly in the national security interests of the US.

And we've yet to hear the evidence why, precisely this is in our national interest at all.

I'm not sure how we can condemn the Iraq war on one hand yet condone our Libya, Syria and Egypt actions on the other.

I suppose it's possible if the "friendly" in each were one and the same.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Thank you for your strength & courage during these dangerous times, Mr. Secretary.

John Kerry: ‘We Are Not Going to Lose’ Vote Authorizing Syria Military Action - ABC News

Ever the goober:

 

[Brooks]

The president absolutely hopes this is voted down because, despite shirking the responsibility, he's still linked to the decision.
Just as when he anncounced his red-line, he hoped it would never be crossed or, if crossed, never proven. He has never made a pro-active decision in regards to foreign policy.

Imagine if a year ago his macho red-line announcement was "Chemical weapons are the red line for me. If Syria uses them I will not hesitate. I will ask congress what I should do."

 

[a351]

The president absolutely hopes this is voted down because, despite shirking the responsibility, he's still linked to the decision.
Just as when he anncounced his red-line, he hoped it would never be crossed or, if crossed, never proven. He has never made a pro-active decision in regards to foreign policy

A black and white statement that falls flat on its face. The series of strikes aimed at Al Qaeda in both Yemen and Pakistan in particular come to mind, as does the assassination of Al Awlaki.

 

[American]

Thank you for your strength & courage during these dangerous times, Mr. Secretary.

John Kerry: ‘We Are Not Going to Lose’ Vote Authorizing Syria Military Action - ABC News

Dear Mr Dooble:

I want you to know, that I all but gave up, until I read your post. It gave me the courage to carry on in the face of opposition by the anti-war neocons. Thanks, you're the bestest.

Regards,

Secretary of State John Kerry