• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama has painted himself into a corner

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
By Thomas Lifson
August 28, 2013

Not only is there no outcome of an attack on Syria that would benefit the United States, President Obama has already denied he has the authority to take such action. It takes ineptitude of historic dimension to fashion such a no-win situation in world politics.

President Obama has already said a president can't take military action without congressional approval, and Vice President Biden has stated that it would be grounds for impeachment. During the 2007 presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama stated to the Boston Globe:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

There is no real wiggle room here, in the words "actual" and "imminent." There is no credible claim to any threat to the US. Secretary Kerry's speech yesterday was full of moral posturing but no claims of threat.

There is no shortage of people willing to remind Obama of his self-proclaimed obligation to seek congressional approval for action against Syria. More than a score of members of Congress have already done so. And on his left flank, Obama faces the pacifist and anti-imperialist wings of his base, already enraged over the NSA abuses. They made the same claims against Bush, so have their ammo stockpiled, to use a metaphor painful to them.


Read more:
Blog: Obama has painted himself into a corner


It's actually too late for Obama to act. Will Obama's inept actions trigger disastrous attacks on Israel?
 
=Wehrwolfen;]Read more:
It's actually too late for Obama to act. Will Obama's inept actions trigger disastrous attacks on Israel?

Is that all that counts? Israel?
 
By Thomas Lifson
August 28, 2013

Not only is there no outcome of an attack on Syria that would benefit the United States, President Obama has already denied he has the authority to take such action. It takes ineptitude of historic dimension to fashion such a no-win situation in world politics. .....

I would absolutely agree that Obama has boxed himself in rather well.

Where I think slightly differently is, where the benefits for the US are concerned. Now that he has talked in a loud voice, he has to use his stick. Anything else will cost us in later conflicts. So considering where we are, there is a benefit.

There is a second benefit, however. The UN proposed R2P for very good reason and it is highly important to have precedent of enforcement.

It is sad, that it is not being done by the neighbors in Europe, Turkey and Arabia. But at least some of them will not sit on the free riders' fence and will participate.

Where I am not sure is how hard one should hit.
 
By Thomas Lifson
August 28, 2013

Not only is there no outcome of an attack on Syria that would benefit the United States, President Obama has already denied he has the authority to take such action. It takes ineptitude of historic dimension to fashion such a no-win situation in world politics.

President Obama has already said a president can't take military action without congressional approval, and Vice President Biden has stated that it would be grounds for impeachment. During the 2007 presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama stated to the Boston Globe:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

There is no real wiggle room here, in the words "actual" and "imminent." There is no credible claim to any threat to the US. Secretary Kerry's speech yesterday was full of moral posturing but no claims of threat.

There is no shortage of people willing to remind Obama of his self-proclaimed obligation to seek congressional approval for action against Syria. More than a score of members of Congress have already done so. And on his left flank, Obama faces the pacifist and anti-imperialist wings of his base, already enraged over the NSA abuses. They made the same claims against Bush, so have their ammo stockpiled, to use a metaphor painful to them.


Read more:
Blog: Obama has painted himself into a corner


It's actually too late for Obama to act. Will Obama's inept actions trigger disastrous attacks on Israel?

I "liked" this because I agree, not because I like anything about it.
I support Obama and voted for him twice. Would vote for him yet again.
But I think his moves concerning Syria, Russia, and Iran are all foolish and incorrect.
He has lost sight of the only objective that matters which is stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
Regardless of political views, we simply can not do that without Russia's help. Therefore, sometimes what is right is not as important as what is necessary.

All our focus should be on preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Not only will they use it, but the entire region will and already has begun seeking their own nuclear weapons.
Syria is a distraction and nothing more.
Obama is failing.
 
I "liked" this because I agree, not because I like anything about it.
I support Obama and voted for him twice. Would vote for him yet again.
But I think his moves concerning Syria, Russia, and Iran are all foolish and incorrect.
He has lost sight of the only objective that matters which is stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
Regardless of political views, we simply can not do that without Russia's help. Therefore, sometimes what is right is not as important as what is necessary.

All our focus should be on preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Not only will they use it, but the entire region will and already has begun seeking their own nuclear weapons.
Syria is a distraction and nothing more.
Obama is failing.

Obama is in a position where upon he's damned if he does, or damned if he doesn't react to the Syrian violations and use of poison gas. Meeting the common ground is not easy. Should he have reacted sooner? Smarter people say yes. Individuals have to decide that on their own whether Obama is right or wrong in his decision to act now at this late date?
 
Back
Top Bottom