Obama team thought Iran would not tolerate Bashar Assad's use of WMDs [W:19]

[Objective Voice]

It makes sense that the Iranian regime would oppose the use of WMDs, as they claim to have a religious edict against such and they would want to show their resolve/commitment in not allowing such things. Now we know, that religious edict is not worth crap.

Moreover, let's not forget that when Saddam was in power, he invaded Iran and used chemical weapons against the Iranian Army killing tens of thousands! I can understand why the Administration would think Iran would be nervous about a neighboring country using chemical weapons. Some memories never leave you.

 

[Objective Voice]

Taking a head-in-sand position is hardly respectable. The US president has presented an outline of the evidence in his possession, which includes recordings of Assad officers and video of preparation, deployment and after action investigation by the Assad regime.

You have a link to such information? I'd like to see it/read it/hear it.

 

[Grant]

That rather sounds like a politician.

But not a leader.

 

[Objective Voice]

Response should be immediate and overwhelming, not discussed back and forth for weeks before any action is taken. If he wanted to make a point it should have been done long ago, with contingency plans made well in advance. Now it's just political face-saving and posturing. We need warriors to fight real wars, not political wars.

He also seems to be basing his intelligence on a video he saw, much like Benghazi.

It still is not clear what Obama hopes

The problem here, Grant, is that when the President did use his powers as CinC when he used military force in Libya, he was labeled as a President who had over-stepped his authority. Threats of impeachment ensued, etc., etc. In short, members of Congress and the public complained when he exercised his legal powers as CinC w/o first obtaining congressional approval but continued to call him a weak President on foreign policy where Iran and NKorea are concerned. Now, when he wanted to use this same power against Syria but instead took the issue to Congress, people are now calling him weak and indecisive.

I don't want unilateral military action any more than the next guy, not until we have proof that it was the Assad regime that carried out the attack AND the U.N. shows itself incapable or unwilling to act against the very inhuman atrocities world leaders claim to deplore. But if Congress doesn't support this President, the message other rouge regimes or independent terror organizations may well see this as a sign of America's weakness to backup what it says it will do.

I hate that we're in this face-saving position...red line drawn...war power executed in one situation that was much less warranted but NOT used when the situation may very well be (re: violation of international law), and a Congress that itself seems split between supporting the President and doing is world image more harm than good. IT ALL STINKS! But for all the bolstering the neocons and warmongers have continued to make concerning showing "peace through strength" especially when it comes to what it means for nation states like Iran and NKorea, I'd think they'd stand behind the President instead of against him.

Again, I'm against a unilateral attack based on the evidence and information I've seen. (If folks have something more proof positive that the Assad regime authorized the use of chemical weapons I'd say such evidence could sway me.) But approval by Congress would atleast show the world we remain united firmly behind our President and that would send a strong message to those nations that would dare try something like this on their own.

 

[Montecresto]

The problem with that is the US is a representative country and Americans largely say no. And have you read any of the commentary by some of the congressmen that have been shown the classified "evidence" ? They are saying afterward that it makes them less convinced.

 

[Grant]

The problem here, Grant, is that when the President did use his powers as CinC when he used military force in Libya, he was labeled as a President who had over-stepped his authority. Threats of impeachment ensued, etc., etc. In short, members of Congress and the public complained when he exercised his legal powers as CinC w/o first obtaining congressional approval but continued to call him a weak President on foreign policy where Iran and NKorea are concerned. Now, when he wanted to use this same power against Syria but instead took the issue to Congress, people are now calling him weak and indecisive.

Obama said he was 'leading from behind' so of course he appears weak on foreign policy. That established the idea that he cannot make these decisions on his own but needs external approval and involvement. That was made clear again when he decided to go to Congress for their approval. And why he got rid of Gaddafi is still a mystery. Middle East dictators have been falling like US 4 Star Generals and there seems no idea who will take their place.

I don't want unilateral military action any more than the next guy, not until we have proof that it was the Assad regime that carried out the attack AND the U.N. shows itself incapable or unwilling to act against the very inhuman atrocities world leaders claim to deplore. But if Congress doesn't support this President, the message other rouge regimes or independent terror organizations may well see this as a sign of America's weakness to backup what it says it will do.

America has already shown its weakness under this President, OV, and there is no taking that back. All this back and forth, and lack of support from the American people, will not display strength now no matter what Obama does. It's just too late.

I hate that we're in this face-saving position...red line drawn...war power executed in one situation that was much less warranted but NOT used when the situation may very well be (re: violation of international law), and a Congress that itself seems split between supporting the President and doing is world image more harm than good. IT ALL STINKS! But for all the bolstering the neocons and warmongers have continued to make concerning showing "peace through strength" especially when it comes to what it means for nation states like Iran and NKorea, I'd think they'd stand behind the President instead of against him.

Let Obama take the fall, not the American military or the American government. North Korea and Iran will not act because they know Obama will want any excuse to demonstrate his power if he gets a do-over, and he would most likely then have large support if either of these countries did something foolish. I wouldn't make this a debate over patriotism either. That only creates further and greater problems.

Again, I'm against a unilateral attack based on the evidence and information I've seen. (If folks have something more proof positive that the Assad regime authorized the use of chemical weapons I'd say such evidence could sway me.) But approval by Congress would atleast show the world we remain united firmly behind our President and that would send a strong message to those nations that would dare try something like this on their own.

I haven't seen any clear proof either, though their have been a great deal of accusations flying around. You make a good point and maybe you're right. Honestly, I just don't know about that, but am skeptical about it happening.

 

[Montecresto]

You have a link to such information? I'd like to see it/read it/hear it.

No, of course he doesn't, but that's what he wants to believe because he believes we should attack president Assad's forces and government.