It would be a foolish thing to go into Syria, but then again John Kerry is a foolish man.
Yeah, won't happen.God I hope they attach the authorization to a bill to repeal obamacare and outlaw abortion just to watch democrats stroke out.
he's right... Congress with vote "yes" to military strikes.
all good points.... but I don't see congress.. either house... rebuffing El Primo when he wants to bomb something.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.
It would be very interesting to see Republicans stand up and say that they no longer want to help eliminate WMDs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, it's just two "me!" "me!" parties jockeying for a sense of relevance in a mire of their own making.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.
Sadly, if there's one thing this president excels at is not being presidential.Making threats/promises isn't too presidential unless there is a solid enough reason behind them to follow though on them.
And we've yet to hear the evidence why, precisely this is in our national interest at all.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 suppose it's possible if the "friendly" in each were one and the same.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.
Ever the goober: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
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.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
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?