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: 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 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 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.
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?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.
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?
How so?Because it undermines the credibility of the President (Obama and future Presidents) to respond to crises
Not really, but even if so, how is that embarrassing?it sets the precedent that limited military involvement must go to Congress before action (which since Jefferson it usually has not)
If Congress votes to not support a strike on Syria, why would that be embarrassing for Obama?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.
I didn't support our going into Iraq, or Afghanistan, and I don't support our intervention in Syria either.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
You were clear what you believe, but not as to why or how.I'm not really sure what to say I think I was pretty clear.
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 reduces his authority to act
And I believe you haven't thought through this well enough.I believe it will set a precedent for future President's whether it binds them or not
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.and I think I was pretty clear in my explanation of how I believe it would embarrass the United States.
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.
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 was in support of Afghanistan, but against Iraq. I am NOT supporting military strikes in Syria.
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?