I hope Like Crazy Congress Votes Against the War in Syria

I know Obama has the the authority to do what he wants because every other president has taken it already with zero consequences for doing so. I don't care what they did in the past. I care what Obama does today and if his administration doesn't lay out a better reason for this military action, I will be the first to condemn this use of the American military. It looks like the House does not have the votes to pass such support and that doesn't mean Obama will not act anyway. Unless a more plausible explanation comes along for why we should take military action in Syria, I do not stand with the Administration. I believe Obama is smart, he has proven a capable Commander-in-Chief, he is extricating us from the longest wars in out history, and he has no intention of getting us into another one. However, the law of unintended consequences has a lot of potential here and I see no good reason to test that law. Convince me Obama!

 

Judging the government as a whole from past experiences, you might as well acclimate your mind towards war.

 

Ain't that the truth.

 

I hope not.

 

The prospects of Congress approving this war are looking dimmer and dimmer as the days progress. If Congress doesn't approve, will Obama proceed anyway? The way the administration has been talking, it appears the answer may be "yes".

"There is no change in our position. As the president has said, he has the authority to act, but his intention is to do so with the approval of the Congress," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said. ​

​

The Obama administration has been fuzzy on that question all week. Secretary of State John Kerry has said repeatedly he is not so much as "contemplating" the possibility of Congress rejecting the use-of-force measure, because that scenario would be too "dire." ​

​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/06/obama-leaves-door-open-to-syria-strike-even-if-congress-says-no/#ixzz2e9uCpODx​

 

View attachment 1977 ​

 

Without UN support, without NATO support, without UK support, without Congressional support - I cannot imagine that he would still go ahead and do it anyway.

I sincerely hope Congress goes with the will of the people on this.

 

No president has required support of the Congress since Korea. I think we are going to do something militarily in Syria but I also think this comes down to the Commander-in-Chief's decision not the most dysfunctional congress in history's decision. I'm obviously not for intervention but if there is some type of action taken, I don't believe that it should be action by committee. I keep hoping that there is something we don't know or some greater goal involved here but I also can't sanction this war based on what I don't know. I have far less confidence in Congress than Obama. They have about a 9% approval rating for a good reason. They earned it.

 

That's exactly what it SHOULD be and that "committee" is Congress! I agree with Stu and don't think Obama will go to war without Congressional approval. As much as he and John Kerry are chomping at the bit to bomb the hell out of Syria, Obama knows this is very unpopular with the American public. Politically speaking, if he proceeds without Congressional approval and with the disapproval of most Americans, democrats will take a major hit in the 2014 mid-term and the 2016 presidential elections.

 

You need 1 Commander-in-Chief not a bunch of politicians deciding the best course of action especially this congress.

I can't figure out when you guys want Obama to lead from behind and when you want him to just lead. No matter which approach he is viewed as taking, it is never the right one. Some guys might view this whipsaw criticism as schizophrenic.

 

Nope. I just want him to do what is Constitutionally correct. Is that too much to ask?

 

Obviously, this is something that has not and does not require immediate response. In a case like that, I think it is very correct for the President, or any President, to ask for Congress to vote on military action. Especially when their is overwhelming American and World sentiment against the action.

This is not an attack on our nation or NATO or an ally we have a specific military treaty with and it is also military action that has near zero world support. That is why I think he, or any President, would be a fool to do something like this anyway if Congress votes no.

The reason Congress has such a low rating is in large part do to the fact that there is even a question of whether the resolution will pass or not considering what the vast majority of American people want.

 

One solution: Limit the number of terms Congressmen and women may serve to two terms. As it is, they have career politicians there, who serve themselves first, their party second, and the rest of us last...if at all.

 

Well, well, well... who knew that Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi were really warmongers at heart? Anyone who's been listening to them, that's who. Never trust a democrat is what I always say. Shouldn't Feinstein be arguing to take away our military's weapons instead of arming them in order to attack Syria? What a hypocrite she is. And Nancy Pelosi blows with the wind. And, of course, Barbara Boxer just blows...

View attachment 1980

 

Dont be suprised if my lot find a loophole so that they can support a war like for example supporting 3 NATO members (USA/FRANCE/Turkey)