Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

[Jredbaron96]

Obama: US should take military action against Syria - CNN.com

President Barack Obama said that the United States "should take military action against Syrian targets" in a Rose Garden address Saturday. However, he said he would seek congressional authorization when federal lawmakers return from recess.
The president appealed for congressional leaders to consider their responsibilities and values in debating U.S. military action in Syria over its alleged chemical weapons use."Some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment," he said. "Today I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are united as one nation."

Obama is now seeking Congressional approval for strikes against Syria.

Thoughts? Comments? Another date, my love?

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Obama: US should take military action against Syria - CNN.com



Obama is now seeking Congressional approval for strikes against Syria.

Thoughts? Comments? Another date, my love?

I'm glad this issue will now go to Congress. The truth is I, and so many others, have no idea what the right move is but by putting it to Congress, it does make it more of a national decision. Hopefully this issue can be taken care of quickly, no matter how the issue is decided.

 

[Sherman123]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

I think he is making a mistake. The embarrassment from a Congressional defeat could be extraordinary. There is ample precedent in history for a limited military intervention without Congressional authorization going all the way back to Jefferson. If he thought it was necessary (and I agree that it is) he should have taken quick and decisive action.

 

[Redress]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

I think he is making a mistake. The embarrassment from a Congressional defeat could be extraordinary. There is ample precedent in history for a limited military intervention without Congressional authorization going all the way back to Jefferson. If he thought it was necessary (and I agree that it is) he should have taken quick and decisive action.

I would tend to suspect his vote counters tell him he will get approval or he would not have gone this route. To my mind it is almost a nobrainer. It is the right thing to do to make sure that the message goes out that if you use chemical weapons, the cost will outweigh the benefits. That can be done with simple limited military strikes.

 

[Higgins86]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

I think he is making a mistake. The embarrassment from a Congressional defeat could be extraordinary. There is ample precedent in history for a limited military intervention without Congressional authorization going all the way back to Jefferson. If he thought it was necessary (and I agree that it is) he should have taken quick and decisive action.

I agree it will be struck down because of partisan issues/ political moves liek it was in the House of Commons. I think Obama is trying to back off from this issue and getting struck down in congress gives him an excuse.

 

[DDD]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

I agree it will be struck down because of partisan issues/ political moves liek it was in the House of Commons. I think Obama is trying to back off from this issue and getting struck down in congress gives him an excuse.

I think so too. That is exactly what I thought.

We could be wrong though.

 

[lizzie]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

I didn't support our going into Iraq, or Afghanistan, and I don't support our intervention in Syria either.

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

I think he is making a mistake. The embarrassment from a Congressional defeat could be extraordinary. There is ample precedent in history for a limited military intervention without Congressional authorization going all the way back to Jefferson. If he thought it was necessary (and I agree that it is) he should have taken quick and decisive action.

I don't understand why the President should be embarrassed because Congress votes against what he'd like to see them say. Why would that be embarrassing?

If anything, I think this is very much a move to AVOID embarrassment. If Obama strikes without Congressional approval, it will be viewed quite unfavorably. If Obama doesn't strike, then his "red line" comment, which has been blown way out of proportion in my opinion, then becomes the embarrassing moment.

I think this move takes the burden off Obama and puts it onto Congress.

 

[Sherman123]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

I would tend to suspect his vote counters tell him he will get approval or he would not have gone this route. To my mind it is almost a nobrainer. It is the right thing to do to make sure that the message goes out that if you use chemical weapons, the cost will outweigh the benefits. That can be done with simple limited military strikes.

My fear is that his uncertainty is getting the better of him. I think people in his administration (Kerry, Rice, etc) are far more enthusiastic about military involvement than he is and I wouldn't be surprised of the bellicose rhetoric we've seen the past week or so has mostly been independently leaked as opposed to White House policy in an effort to shape the narrative over Syria and back him into a corner. The plodding nature of our shift towards Syria has been odd and I worry that he is using Congressional authorization as a procedural crutch to either delay a decision, provide political shielding, or take his administration off the hook for US action. I just can't imagine there is a strong majority in the House for these and I fear embarrassment as Congressional Republicans reflexively vote no and choice liberal contingents rebel to combine for a humiliating Cameron-esque defeat. What that would do to our position in the wider region and in the face of a challenge from Russia I can't begin to imagine.

Doing nothing was something I'd disagreed with for a long time but to come to the brink of intervention and to arouse all manner of opposition and to prove incapable of action is a terribly dangerous precedent to set.

 

[Sherman123]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

I don't understand why the President should be embarrassed because Congress votes against what he'd like to see them say. Why would that be embarrassing?

Because it undermines the credibility of the President (Obama and future Presidents) to respond to crises, it sets the precedent that limited military involvement must go to Congress before action (which since Jefferson it usually has not), and after coming to the brink of intervention it boosts Assad, Russia, and their regional allies who can be more confident that the US is a defanged power after Iraq. All of those things in my view are bad and embarrassing.

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Because it undermines the credibility of the President (Obama and future Presidents) to respond to crises

How so?

it sets the precedent that limited military involvement must go to Congress before action (which since Jefferson it usually has not)

Not really, but even if so, how is that embarrassing?

and after coming to the brink of intervention it boosts Assad, Russia, and their regional allies who can be more confident that the US is a defanged power after Iraq. All of those things in my view are bad and embarrassing.

If Congress votes to not support a strike on Syria, why would that be embarrassing for Obama?

 

[Captain America]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Way to go Obama. For a while there I thought he was having an intellectual breakdown.

It didn't take 5 minutes before the right wing media, who we're criticizing him for NOT going through congress, started criticizing him for deciding TO go through congress.

I just snickered. They are so predictable, huh?

Anyways, kudos Obama.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Re: Oba should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

I didn't support our going into Iraq, or Afghanistan, and I don't support our intervention in Syria either.

I was in support of Afghanistan, but against Iraq. I am NOT supporting military strikes in Syria.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Appo

Obama: US should take military action against Syria - CNN.com



Obama is now seeking Congressional approval for strikes against Syria.

Thoughts? Comments? Another date, my love?

Impeach him now before the peace prize president sparks world war.

 

[Objective Voice]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

I think he is making a mistake. The embarrassment from a Congressional defeat could be extraordinary. There is ample precedent in history for a limited military intervention without Congressional authorization going all the way back to Jefferson. If he thought it was necessary (and I agree that it is) he should have taken quick and decisive action.

I disagree.

The War Powers Act does give the President limited authority to use the military in situations where hostilities exist abroad but in particular when our national security interest are at stake. Of course, not all "hostilities" or situations where our "national security" is in question are clear cut. Nonetheless, the War Powers Act does give the President the authority to commit military forces for a limited time without a congressional declaration of war.

For my take, I think he did the right thing by not taking unilateral action. Moreover, with all the clamoring by some members of Congress saying "he's weak" on the one hand and that "he's usurping the Constitution" on the other, but more importantly not having broad international support nor a U.N. resolution condemning Syria's use of chemical weapons, I think the President essentially put Congress, the international community and the Syrian regime on notice that if this happens again he will act on his own. But in the meantime, he's willing to give Congress time to review the evidence and deliberate, the UN inspectors time to complete their investigation and the world-at-large time to find their conscience, i.e., "If you don't want the U.S. acting like the police of the world, you'd better step up to the plate".

 

[Redress]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

My fear is that his uncertainty is getting the better of him. I think people in his administration (Kerry, Rice, etc) are far more enthusiastic about military involvement than he is and I wouldn't be surprised of the bellicose rhetoric we've seen the past week or so has mostly been independently leaked as opposed to White House policy in an effort to shape the narrative over Syria and back him into a corner. The plodding nature of our shift towards Syria has been odd and I worry that he is using Congressional authorization as a procedural crutch to either delay a decision, provide political shielding, or take his administration off the hook for US action. I just can't imagine there is a strong majority in the House for these and I fear embarrassment as Congressional Republicans reflexively vote no and choice liberal contingents rebel to combine for a humiliating Cameron-esque defeat. What that would do to our position in the wider region and in the face of a challenge from Russia I can't begin to imagine.

Doing nothing was something I'd disagreed with for a long time but to come to the brink of intervention and to arouse all manner of opposition and to prove incapable of action is a terribly dangerous precedent to set.

That does not really fit though. Obama made the threat. Syria apparently used chemical weapons. Investigations happened. We reached a point of confidence in the intelligence, we start to move to act. The timeline fits for this being a straightforward thing. Sure, it is possible all these other scenarios are true, but there is no real evidence to support them, and mostly they are just what people think could be true based on their own pre-concieved prejudices. In the long run we are just speculating on an absense of evidence, which is pretty worthless.

 

[Sherman123]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

How so?

Not really, but even if so, how is that embarrassing?

If Congress votes to not support a strike on Syria, why would that be embarrassing for Obama?

I'm not really sure what to say I think I was pretty clear. I believe it reduces his authority to act, I believe it will set a precedent for future President's whether it binds them or not, and I think I was pretty clear in my explanation of how I believe it would embarrass the United States.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Because it undermines the credibility of the President (Obama and future Presidents) to respond to crises, it sets the precedent that limited military involvement must go to Congress before action (which since Jefferson it usually has not), and after coming to the brink of intervention it boosts Assad, Russia, and their regional allies who can be more confident that the US is a defanged power after Iraq. All of those things in my view are bad and embarrassing.

This situation in Syria has been going on for about 30 months, with Obama's "red line" having been crossed on multiple prior occasions, so will you please define, for us, exactly what constitutes a "crisis". Something that involved the death of four U.S. personnel in Libya was not a crisis, so why is the civil unrest (and associated deaths of foreigners) in Syria a "crisis" for the U.S.?

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

I don't have much faith in Congress to vote this down. The nepotism in our government is so high right now that they can't be trusted to make the decision based on what is best for this country.

Of course Obama wants war. The POTUS is a puppet at this point, he proved that when he signed the Monsanto Act. Anyone willing to give immunity to a corporation is not trustworthy. His decisions will be based on what his puppeteers want, same as with Bush.

 

[Redress]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Because it undermines the credibility of the President (Obama and future Presidents) to respond to crises, it sets the precedent that limited military involvement must go to Congress before action (which since Jefferson it usually has not), and after coming to the brink of intervention it boosts Assad, Russia, and their regional allies who can be more confident that the US is a defanged power after Iraq. All of those things in my view are bad and embarrassing.

It really doens't though. There is still enough precedent that a president can if he chooses not seek congressional approval. This does not signify the president has to seek approval, only that in this case he chose to.

 

[Sherman123]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

That does not really fit though. Obama made the threat. Syria apparently used chemical weapons. Investigations happened. We reached a point of confidence in the intelligence, we start to move to act. The timeline fits for this being a straightforward thing. Sure, it is possible all these other scenarios are true, but there is no real evidence to support them, and mostly they are just what people think could be true based on their own pre-concieved prejudices. In the long run we are just speculating on an absense of evidence, which is pretty worthless.

We didn't need the investigations they were a pretext for building a coalition. Our intelligence report for the use of chemical weapons was completed well before UN investigators entered the country. The timeline was elongated because the President was not willing to engage in an immediate strike in the days following the attack, instead favoring a stronger pretext and coalition. That is something people can disagree on as far as the right course is concerned (I think it was a mistake) but the real issue is now that we've come to a head and so much expectation has been generated around a US attack to do anything but launch some sort of action risks seriously damaging our credibility. I'm convinced that whether or not we act is being closely watched in the Kremlin, in Beijing, and across the wider region. I think a Congressional defeat is eminently possible and so it was a mistake to purse it, especially since it was unnecessary.

 

[Slyfox696]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

I'm not really sure what to say I think I was pretty clear.

You were clear what you believe, but not as to why or how.

I believe it reduces his authority to act

No, it doesn't. If I'm a boss of a company and I ask my employees their opinion on a certain decision, does it reduce my authority to act? Of course not. And that's when there is a clear power difference between me and my employees, which does not exist between President and Congree.

I believe it will set a precedent for future President's whether it binds them or not

And I believe you haven't thought through this well enough.

and I think I was pretty clear in my explanation of how I believe it would embarrass the United States.

But that wouldn't be an embarrassment on Obama, which is how I took your original statement to mean. Oh, and I don't think it would be an embarrassment to the USA either.

 

[Captain America]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

I'm not really sure what to say I think I was pretty clear. I believe it reduces his authority to act, I believe it will set a precedent for future President's whether it binds them or not, and I think I was pretty clear in my explanation of how I believe it would embarrass the United States.

So, in short, you are saying Obama should thumb his nose to congress, the majority will of Americans, several super powers across the globe and just go ahead and bomb the **** out of Syria for some kind of John Wayne type bravado, ego, thing?

Do you oppose Obama going to congress? Do you support Obama's desire to get into it with Syria?

 

[Sherman123]

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

It really doens't though. There is still enough precedent that a president can if he chooses not seek congressional approval. This does not signify the president has to seek approval, only that in this case he chose to.

I'm not claiming that this is an iron writ that will bind all future President's. It isn't. But it will be used as a precedent for those who seek to prevent such a military action and may be used as pressure to halt such activities before they start. Clinton did not seek authorization for Kosovo, but I wonder if a future President would be able to get away with doing the same. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Either way the precedent is unnecessary. Moreover if he is defeated it will be almost unprecedented.

 

[Redress]

Re: Oba should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

I was in support of Afghanistan, but against Iraq. I am NOT supporting military strikes in Syria.

I was right with you on the first two, but I disagree on Syria, assuming limited strikes. I think it is appropriate to ensure that the use of WMD type weapons, chemical, biological, nuclear, should provoke a response that makes their use more costly than any gain from using them. I think that is in our best interest. I would actually think the case for military strikes is more of a slam dunk than pretty much any other case in the last 20 years or so(assuming the intelligence is correct of course).