Kudos to President Obama

Kudos to President Obama and his administration for reaffirming the requirement of the Executive to seek Congressional approval before engaging in hostile actions toward Syria.

I'm watching "Meet The Press" this morning and feel Rand Paul expressed many of my concerns with the scenarios that are likely to unfold. Some want to do nothing while others want to topple the regime...and everything in between. This is a very important national debate and there's no reason to rush to action.

I agree with the President that Assad and his regime should be held to account for their actions. We also have a moral obligation to partner with our allies to prevent further WMD attacks. However, I don't think packaging up Syria and handing it over to Al Qaeda/Islamist Extremists is the answer. We need to take a breath and think this thing through.

...and NO, the President doesn't "currently" have authority to launch military actions against Syria should Congress not authorize action (imo).

 

The problem I have is that we shouldn't be involved in Syria, regardless of whether or not Congress gives its approval. I hope Congress, like Parliament, says "no", but I'm afraid Obama is too gung-ho to take "no" for an answer. He's intent on showing the world that the US is still the planet's policeman and will reinforce that position by raining down retribution upon Syria. Congress needs to keep this warhawk on a short chain, but if this liberal gets his way we will probably be going to war... again.

 

I think any President would be hard-pressed to violate the War Powers Act (WPA) if Congress votes down the resolution. I really like that he's (reluctantly) reaffirming the WPA and following the process.

"We The People" need to have our voices heard through our Representatives...regardless of our political leanings or those of the current Administration.

 

I agree with having Congress vote on the issue. Hopefully, the vote will be No. If it is, I do not believe the President would go against it.

There is no good response to the situation in Syria but I still think the worst response is a military one.

 

Politically is a Win-Win-Win-Win scenario for Obama. Congress votes yes and it goes good, he's a leader; Congress votes yes and it goes bad, he can spread the blame; Congress votes no and it goes good, he showed reason and compromise; Congress votes no and it goes bad, he can blame congress. Don't you love politics!

 

Wouldn't it be something if Congress takes the action of neither voting "yes" nor "no"? Back when Hillary was running against then-Sen. Obama in the primaries, she claimed that he was "taking a pass" on tough issues by simply voting "present" (which he did 129 times). What if Congress did the same thing and neither approved nor disapproved the war?

 

That would be poetic and funny at the same time.

 

I sincerely felt this was a topic on which both the Right and Left agree. I don't see it as a "defeat" for the Obama Administration, but a show of strength. Make no mistake...Syria is a flea that the US can crush in a manner of hours should there be resolve to take that level of action.

A thoughtful debate is an acknowledgement of that strength...sorta like your dad making you go to your room and wait for him to come up with the belt. The wait is worse than the whoop'n.

I'm confident Assad will be held to account in some manner. I would like to see the Administration negotiate a deal with Russia that delays military action in exchange for a unanimous Security Council resolution of condemnation which labels Assad as a war criminal...opening the door for a war crimes trial in abstentia.

Should Assad use chemical weapons again...or be found guilty of war crimes, Russia would be obligated to support a regime change. If they continued to veto military action, we would likely have greater Allied and Congressional support for action without their support.

I'm a little surprised more of our Liberal brethren haven't spoken up in support of the President. It leads me to think they simply won't agree with Conservatives under ANY circumstances...even when it's sincere praise for the President on a subject which both Liberals and Conservatives agree.

Just ignore anyone on the Right that crows over Obama's tactical error. What's important is that he does the right thing...and he did.

 

I've simply been out of town but as I have said in any number of threads on this topic, I think nobody here wants to go to war in Syria for any reason. Although I believe that the topic of conversation should be what our individual reasons for not wanting to go to war happen to be.

For instance, conservatives like McCain and Graham who not only want to go to war with Syria but want to do it in a bigger way than Obama has even proposed. Not that Obama has laid out a plan of attack yet but clearly it will never be enough bombs and bullets for the likes of McCain. I call him the little General.

I think if you start getting into the reasons the Right and Left do not want to go to war you will see the real differences that separate the two sides even though they agree that the final outcome should be no military action.

I personally see the differences as the Right simply hating Obama obsessively even though he has a very successful track record with his use of military force. It wouldn't matter to them if Obama personally went back in time and killed Hitler, Mussolini, and single handedly defeated the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, they would find a way to criticize him for it. The Right's opinion is simply based in a seething irrational partisan hatred of the black guy in the White House and they reverse engineer their opinions from that starting point. You have to remember, we are talking about the same people that supported Bush going into Iraq and still stand by that support even though that war will go down in history as the stupidest thing this country ever did for absolutely no good reason and cost us billions, bankrupted our economy and only furthered radical Islamists goals in the end not to mention the toll in human costs on all sides.

On the other hand, I didn't support the Iraq War then and I do not support an attack on Syria now. I obviously don't have the same irrational obsessive hatred of Obama tainting my opinion that some here do so I believe that given my consistent anti-war stance and the fact that my opinion isn't based on emotion, I can objectively express my reasons for not wanting to go into Syria and I have in other threads. Feel free to look them up. There is no point in rehashing them here since they were ignored in the other threads and would most likely be ignored again in place of name calling, childish insults, and pathetic responses by the same people letting their emotions dictate their opinions.

Now you have the feedback you sought from the "Left". Let's see what YOU do with it.

 

I think you're missing the point. It's not about who wants to go to war or not...or to what extent; it's about what process we follow (as a Nation) to come to that decision. The end (as you suggest) does NOT justify the means.

In this particular case, the process outlined in the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act specifically requires that the Executive take no action without prior Congressional approval. Congress can define the resolution as broadly or narrowly as they choose. At that point, after the vote, offensive action, and it's extent, is either authorized or not.

Personally, I agree with President Obama and SoS Kerry that the Assad regime must be held to account for their actions. If Congress approves military action, I support the Administration. If Congress supports a diplomatic solution, I support the Administration. Whatever the outcome, I support the Administration...and the process.

Joe..."Obsessive Hatred" of President Obama is in your mind, only.

Of course, rational disapproval of "Progressive" (aka. destructive) initiatives are VERY real.

 

John McCain is an Idiot!

He says that if Congress doesn't authorize military action after the President has made a commitment, it would be..."catastrophic".

That's just Nuts!

First off, the President needs to learn to keep his mouth shut when it comes to threatening military action. Secondly, only Congress can authorize military action in this situation...and we're stepping through that process.

I wish John McCain would define what "catastrophic" result will occur if Congress decides not to take military action. We're a strong country...we don't have to prove it at each drop of a hat.

 

I was responding to your paragraph....

I'm a little surprised more of our Liberal brethren haven't spoken up in support of the President. It leads me to think they simply won't agree with Conservatives under ANY circumstances...even when it's sincere praise for the President on a subject which both Liberals and Conservatives agree.

If you read what I wrote and consider what you expressed here, it might be clearer to you what I was referring to in my post.

P.S. You can seriously NOT see the obsessive hatred of Obama by anyone in this forum or to the Right of the political divide? Seriously? Nobody? I either find that hard to believe or question your powers of observation.

 

Please provide one quote where Obama actually threatened military action. He certainly hasn't ruled it out but threatened? When and in what context were these threats made? And how did anything he said make the situation worse in your opinion? I'm just not seeing it.

 

I never said that President Obama "made matters worse" with his comments...he simply wrote a check with his mouth that his ass can't cash. I give the President credit for acknowledging his mistake and asking Congress for authorization.

Early on, folks wondered what "exactly" President Obama meant by the term "Red Line". Everyone seemed to agree it meant military force would be used if the line was crossed, but the president (at the time) never described his intentions beyond the use of the "Red Line" metaphor.

When the line was undeniably crossed in August, President Obama called for military action. I would suggest that both the common understanding of the term "Red Line", coupled with President Obama's response once the "Red Line" was crossed, indicates what he meant by the term...when he said it.

In April 2013... http://www.cnbc.com/id/100675986

 

Don't underestimate Syria. It's no "flea". They have an excellent anti-air defense, for example.

 

(he-he-he)...you're funny!

 

Dunno what this has to do with anything...

 

Another interesting perspective...

 

Not quite sure what this has to do with anything and I'm sure there are a lot of statistics out there.

Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged, college-educated residents of rural America. Whites were significantly more likely to own firearms than members of other racial groups. Men were more likely to own firearms than women.
http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/acquired.htm

 

Honestly, isn't the case BO makes, for taking action in Syria, the exact same case Republicans, dimocrats & the world intelligence community made for taking action in Iraq? The delivery is a bit different but the underlying argument is exactly the same. Heck, John Kerry even (mistakenly?) used photos of dead Iraqis (victims of gas attacks by saddam) to shore up his plea for support on this issue.