Will Obama go to Congress before attacking Syria?

posted at 9:21 am on August 27, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The answer to that question is … probably not.  Despite all of the handwringing by Democrats in the last administration about “imperial presidencies,” Barack Obama has exercised military powers unilaterally, especially in Libya, which was a war against Moammar Qaddafi in all but name. Based on the responses from the White House late yesterday, we can expect more of the same regarding Syria:

Carney also downplayed a role for Congress in reviewing or approving any strike plan. “I’m not going to speculate about a [presidential] decision that has not been made,” he said.

“I’m not going to itemize calls … [but] we are consulting with members of Congress,” he said.

Even less surprisingly, Obama will bypass the UN.  Neil Munro notes that Obama criticized George W. Bush for not waiting for UN approval to invade Iraq, but the actions under consideration for Syria likely fall far short of a ground assault:

The use of chemical weapons is “a clear violation of an international norm,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday.

But the international norm was adopted by “a vast majority of nations … since World War I,” Carney said.

He did not say the norm was endorsed or enforced the U.N.

When asked by a reporter about the U.N.’s role, Carney punted.

“You’re getting in to a hypothetical about a decision that has not been made. … The president is consulting with the international community,” said Carney, pointedly omitting the U.N.

The UN issue just reflects a certain amount of hypocrisy, and is the lesser concern.  The US has not ceded sovereignty to the UN; it is just a platform for multilateral diplomacy, albeit the most prominent.  Bypassing Congress on the use of military force is another matter.  The executive has the power to use military power for a limited time through the War Powers Act, which was meant for an emergency where national security is a concern, although the WPA has been used to justify all sorts of interventions over the last 30-plus years.

Libya certainly didn’t qualify as an emergency in regard to our own national security, and neither does Syria.  The Libya intervention should have been instructive to Obama, too.  Originally hailed as a success when the Qaddafi regime collapsed, it has turned into an utter disaster. We unleashed our enemies in the war on terror and provided them a failed state with which to launch offensives throughout Northern Africa.  Spreading the political responsibility for that kind of risk would have been helpful, just as Congressional authorization for invading Iraq was for Bush when the war turned sour in 2006-7. And Congress would almost certainly have provided bipartisan cover for Obama on Libya in the spring of 2011 had he asked for it.

The same is true here on Syria, although perhaps somewhat less so after getting the high hand from Obama on Libya.  Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) thinks Congressional approval would get his colleagues to take foreign policy a little more seriously, too:

Monday, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the ranking member of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, said he hoped Obama would seek congressional permission before he acted in the region. Corker also confirmed that he was in communication with security advisers at the White House who were weighing their options for military intervention in Syria.

“They do not need an authorization, but I do hope they will come for one,” Corker said Monday during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “If you look at foreign policy over the last long period of time, Congress has gotten a pass on all of these issues and the debate in Washington to me can be almost sophomoric and silly because we are not taking ownership over these decisions.”

The War Powers Resolution allows Obama to intervene in a conflict without a formal vote by Congress, but the law does require the president to get approval to stay engaged after a maximum of 90 days. Despite that, presidents have not always gone to Congress for approval after that time frame.

The WPA says 60 day, not 90; the additional 30 are for withdrawal if the President declines to consult Congress. The only two Presidents to my memory who didn’t go to Congress by that time are Obama and Bill Clinton, in Kosovo.

The White House is mulling over a plan that would involve at least a couple of days of combat against a nation which has not attacked the US, nor represents a direct threat to us at the moment.  Unlike the initial rationalization about the use of force against Libya, there isn’t a ticking clock on such action to save a population from massacre. The White House has no excuse to eschew Congressional approval that would almost certainly be immediately granted to punish Syria for the use of chemical weapons, assuming that the strike was punitive, limited, and not designed to hand Syria over to al-Qaeda. Not only is there no excuse for not seeking Congressional approval, it’s political malpractice not to seek it, especially with intervention polling so poorly among Americans at the moment.  Frankly, the go-it-alone strategy is inexplicable.

Update: The always-insightful Michael Ramirez offers his thoughts on this for the Investors Business Daily editorial cartoon today:

ramirez-branches

Also, be sure to check out Ramirez’ terrific collection of his works: Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion, which covers the entire breadth of Ramirez’ career, and it gives fascinating look at political history.  Read my review here, and watch my interviews with Ramirez here and here.  And don’t forget to check out the entire Investors.com site, which has now incorporated all of the former IBD Editorials, while individual investors still exist.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

No.

NotCoach on August 27, 2013 at 9:24 AM

OT: Ed, you should move the race post to “Top Picks.” It definitely deserves it and is an important topic. The discussion needs to be had.

Now about this post:
Michael Ramirez is a great cartoonist. So glad his work is shown here often.

bluegill on August 27, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Why would he?

Libya comes to mind.

He won.

He is King.

He does what he wants.

coldwarrior on August 27, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Impeachment might get him to show before Congress. Maybe.

Flange on August 27, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Military Kinetic Action V. 2.0.

hillsoftx on August 27, 2013 at 9:26 AM

No.

NotCoach on August 27, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Let me clarify. If he really wants to attack Syria in someway, then no. If he doesn’t, then yes. He could use Congress as cover for his own big mouth.

Even less surprisingly, Obama will bypass the UN.

That reminds me of the mountains of print made to promote the idea that Bush acting illegally because he didn’t seek approval from the UN. Today those same scheisters don’t even blink when Obama ignores Congress, let alone the UN.

NotCoach on August 27, 2013 at 9:29 AM

The King rules alone and without credible opposition.

rplat on August 27, 2013 at 9:29 AM

OT: Ed, you should move the race post to “Top Picks.” It definitely deserves it and is an important topic. The discussion needs to be had.

bluegill on August 27, 2013 at 9:24 AM

May God have mercy on my soul for agreeing with bluegill. :P

NotCoach on August 27, 2013 at 9:30 AM

He might — but only if he’s afraid of possible major blowback on the decision to attack.

Remember, this is President ‘Present’ we’re talking about here — Obama never does anything high-risk without having someone to front for him, so that if things go right, he takes the credit and if things go wrong, someone else gets the blame. If Obama believes an attack could result in negative consequences, he’s going to want to go to Congress to make sure if the worst comes to pass, it’s all John Boehner’s fault (and if the worse than worst comes to pass, possibly even Harry Reid’s fault).

jon1979 on August 27, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Well, Cameron has already recalled Parliament to discuss the issue.

It’s sad when your former regal rulers, from whom you broke with to establish a democratic republic, are quicker to embrace democratic process than your own, ahem, rulers.

Marcus Traianus on August 27, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Democrat Presidents have Absolute Moral Authority + permission from France.

Both of those things supersede Congress.

mudskipper on August 27, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Will Obama go to Congress before attacking Syria?

Thanks for an early morning laugh, Ed.

rbj on August 27, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Not only is there no excuse for not seeking Congressional approval, it’s political malpractice not to seek it, especially with intervention polling so poorly among Americans at the moment.

Why should Obama care what the American public thinks, or what the constitution requires?

He’s already won his last election, and now has the “flexibility” to do whatever the f— he wants, without worrying about the popularity or the legality of the action.

AZCoyote on August 27, 2013 at 9:34 AM

The subtitle ” imperial” is apropos for this President.

Informative, convincing post Ed. Yes, Obama should go to Congress. No, we have not ceded to the UN nor do we need their approval to strike rather than Congress.

Ramirez nails it, again. The executive “branch” has turned into a monster.

conservative pilgrim on August 27, 2013 at 9:37 AM

No he will not…

Just understand this basic “unwritten” principle in American politics… Presidents are not going to Congress for an air campaign where no large number of ground troops are involved…

mnjg on August 27, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Will Obama go to Congress before attacking Syria?

LOL.

France is all for it. That’s all that matters to a Dem.

farsighted on August 27, 2013 at 9:39 AM

My local rag, the St. Louis Post-Disgrace, is in full cheerleading mode for military action. That they spent the entire 8 years of GWB’s presidency in hysterics over militarism and imperial presidents means nothing.

To hell with Obama and to hell with the press that supports him.

RobertE on August 27, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Frankly, the go-it-alone strategy is inexplicable.

Putin hasn’t and won’t give him permission to strike, so, no need to go to Congress. Fo’ show.

BKeyser on August 27, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Has anyone seen Cindy Sheehan lately? Can we officially call her just an anti-Bush hag and admit that she was never really an anti-war person? Code Pink hags are in the same boat.

Flange on August 27, 2013 at 9:45 AM

jon1979 on August 27, 2013 at 9:30 AM

“my fellow Americans, ummm, I have ordered an air strike and a cruise missile strike against targets in Syria…and, umm…unfortunately many many civilians have been killed…but while tragic, umm, it is something I had to do, and my armed forces, well, they did all they could muster to make sure as few innocents were killed as was possible…seriously. They all look alike out there. Kafias, hijab, burkhas that sort of thing.

“There are those on the Right, umm, the bitter clingers, who will say I acted with impunity, ummm, and a disregard for the Constitution, but I had little choice in the matter, ummm, for you see, the Republican House and those Tea Party fanatics in the Senate would have frustrated my goals, my aims, my mission, and umm, the ultra-conservative puppet of the corporations, John Boehner, and ummm, the cowardly dingy Harry Reid would have over stepped their bounds in forcing me to follow to the letter the War Powers Act, and would have just made a mockery of my national mandate to be your President, ummm, in charge here, at the White House, and ummm, prevented my ability to call upon my armed forces to do my bidding.

“So, you see, ummm, going to Congress or even the United Nations, would have been a waste of time and energy, umm, as neither truly understand the glory, the majesty, the audacity of my Presidency.

“And, lastly, I’d like to give a shout-out to my allies in Syria…Allahuakhbar, bros. Keep the faith!”

coldwarrior on August 27, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Congressional approval for gop… you betcha or all hell breaks loose

Congressional approval for dems…meh

That’s all we need to know

Unstinkingbelievable

cmsinaz on August 27, 2013 at 9:46 AM

We’ve become addicted to war…

PatriotRider on August 27, 2013 at 9:47 AM

How many Americans will he get killed this time?

joekenha on August 27, 2013 at 9:48 AM

And, if afterwards it’s discovered that Syria did not use chemical weapons, will Congress have the guts to impeach him?

OldEnglish on August 27, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Not our fight, none of our business,…but we support the AQ rebels and provide our enemies with weapons and logistical support???

Putin seems like the reasonable one…can’t believe I’m saying that…

PatriotRider on August 27, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Will Obama go to Congress before attacking Syria?

The answer to that question is … probably of course not.

Fixed for accuracy.

The Self-Exalted Absolute Totality God Of Everything For The Rest Of Eternity does not bend to the whims of mere mortals. Rather, He creates their whims, and smites them with His mighty fist if they do not whim as He wills.

Wen trying to determine what The One will do in any circumstance, remember that first and foremost he is a delusional narcissist who is convinced he is both divine in nature and incapable of error. The concept of “advise and consent” is not merely anathema to him, but utterly alien; it simply is not part of his reality tunnel.

As for “Democratic hand-wringing”, that only occurs when the President is someone who they believe does not share their Utopian dream of a socialist Radiant Future. Their conclusion otherwise is that “it’s in the name of the Cause”, hence their silence.

I’m sure they’d rather see an all-out U.S. attack on Israel, but they’re willing to grant The One silent support on this just to keep him in office a while longer. And to avoid any chance of “discrediting the brand” before their Goddess, Hillary The Magnificent, can ascend the Throne Of All Worlds.

And since she’s no longer “part of the team”, if he bilges it, they can present her as a “sensible alternative” to the electorate. “The true Democrats are now in charge; everything will be made right again.”

They’ve sold this brand of snake oil before, and people do keep buying it.

And Islamists aren’t the only ones who can “take a long view”, you know.

clear ether

eon

eon on August 27, 2013 at 9:52 AM

With public approval ratings of Congress running between slim and none, the LAST thing that they want to do is to have to put their names on a decision like this, whether it’s For or Against. They’re thrilled and grateful any time that President Jarrett is willing to bypass them.

Congress is a clown-car full of gutless pukes.

bofh on August 27, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Libfree, Verba, Sesqui, Chump, lostfatherland…uhh…how best to phrase it…is this the Hope or the Change?

Bishop on August 27, 2013 at 9:53 AM

joekenha on August 27, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Robert Stephen Ford was recalled as ambassador to Damascus…for his personal safety…though he still holds the title.

At least this time we won’t lose an ambassador because of some anti-Mohammedan video…

BTW, now Kerry wants to send him to Cairo…

coldwarrior on August 27, 2013 at 9:54 AM

It make no sense that Assad would use CW…the only one that benefits are the AQ rebels…this whole thing stinks to high heaven…I’m going with the probability of a false flag operation backed by dear leaders CIA…

PatriotRider on August 27, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Peace Prize!

WisCon on August 27, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Let’s face it. Obama is not functionally equipped to deal with the decision making process, he never has been and he never will be. Therefore, he will not make a decision. And by not making that decision, he is by default letting the status quo continue. Someone else will be forced to make the decision for him. My money is on Valerie.

Johnnyreb on August 27, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Why would he start now?

HotAirian on August 27, 2013 at 10:01 AM

OldEnglish on August 27, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Funny thing, that.

Back in the day, when Clinton was still President, Kerry was one of those who was voracious in his 100% faith that Saddam had all manner of WMD…and was gonig to use them at any time…and helped push that topple-Saddam at any cost bill through Congress, helped make ending Saddam’s days a federal law…

This week, the very same John Kerry says he is 100% certain that Damascus used WMD.

When G.W. Bush decided to take out Saddam…using WMD as one of several reasons…Kerry was fighting tooth and nail to stop Bush…was for it before he was against it and all that.

Why would anyone, Theresa included, trust one damn thing John Kerry has to say on any subject. Even those things that are seared into his memory, like Nixon almost personally ordering him to invade Cambodia a full two months before Nixon took office?

So…impeachment?

Not gonna happen. Tooo many on Team Obama willing to take one for Barry.

Besides, Barry can always do what he does best…blame everybody else…say he was duped, misled…and that he is but a poor Black man being scapegoated by Whitey.

coldwarrior on August 27, 2013 at 10:02 AM

It make no sense that Assad would use CW…the only one that benefits are the AQ rebels…this whole thing stinks to high heaven…I’m going with the probability of a false flag operation backed by dear leaders CIA…

PatriotRider on August 27, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Assad is not in control of all his army of what is left of it… His army is a bunch of gangs and not all of them take direct orders from him and follow his orders… So it is possible that one of the army gangs decided to launch the chemical weapons attack without Assad ordering the attack…

Also contrary to what you hear Assad is not winning… It is a stalemate in Syria, a war of attrition… Assad kicks the rebels out of one neighborhood and they take over another neighborhood the second day if not the same neighborhood that they were kicked out from previously… So yes Assad or one of his gangs may have very well launched chemical weapons attack hoping that this can change the equation on the ground for their favor…

mnjg on August 27, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Has Obama determined that it was in fact the Assad Regime that used these weapons? Or was it Al Qaeda?

Has there been definitive proof presented?

… This is really gonna get bad. Don’t forget, Obama has relieved most of our most decorated Generals of duty in the last 5 months. Why?

Key West Reader on August 27, 2013 at 10:05 AM

How many Americans will he get killed this time?

joekenha on August 27, 2013 at 9:48 AM

We’ll never know. Under Bush the media posted hourly KIA repots, under O’boy…….crickets.

antipc on August 27, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Is Congress, with a veto-proof majority, going to pull funding for whatever military action he undertakes without Congressional approval?

Is Congress going to impeach him and remove him from office?

Is the Supreme Court going to declare his actions unlawful and unconstitutional and order the troops home?

The answer to all of the above questions, with 100% certainty, is “no.” Therefore, Obama will not seek approval from Congress, and there is no consequence to his not doing so. Just as has been the case with all of his other “executive actions.”

Oh, and the War Powers Act is quite clearly unconstitutional. Congress cannot delegate to the executive branch a power that the Constitution specifically delegates to the legislative branch. Congress is the sole body with the power to declare war. The Constitution does not say “except for the first 60/90 days.”

Shump on August 27, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Questions Congress should demand answers to- PRIOR TO MILITARY ACTION.

1. What good is a campaign that is pre-advertised as being of 2-3 days duration?

2. What objectives are to be accomplished (i.e. what is the end state)?

3. What follow-on objectives are to be accomplished?

4. How does this further the national interest?

Bottom line- The administration can’t answer any of the questions above. This is about a filthy rat-eared coward who drew a red line last year over use of chemical weapons. We’re going to be bombing now for no other reason than a thin-skined follower has to try and salvage some credibility for his failed dictatorship.

IMO REGIME CHANGE NEEDS TO BEGIN AT HOME! IMPEACH NOW!!!

Happy Nomad on August 27, 2013 at 10:14 AM

How dare they defy our Dear Leader!

Little Boomer on August 27, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Cowboy diplomacy…

fortcoins on August 27, 2013 at 10:17 AM

It’s Syria. The muslim factions there are evil…all of them. We need to get any Christians and Jews that are left out-and let the remainder destroy each other.
That is ALL we should do.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 27, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Will Obama go to Congress before attacking Syria?

Does it really matter? It’s not as if Boehner and McConnell will have anything useful, tempering or wise to say.

You’ll just get a bunch of platitudes and demurrals about how they are “concerned” but support the president’s decision.

Marcus Traianus on August 27, 2013 at 10:19 AM

coldwarrior on August 27, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Pathetic, isn’t it.

OldEnglish on August 27, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Will Obama go to Congress before attacking Syria?

First is his golf day, than a campaign speech in Las Vegas, then onto San Francisco, he will make a reference to hunting down terrorists and bring them to justice like he did with Saddam, then a meeting with Kerry as soon as he gets off his boat, then a meeting with Homeland Security, then golf, another speech, dialogue about race, Beyonce night at the White House, comment on Trayvon Martin, meeting with Holder about Texas voter law, another fund raiser in New York, Kerry comes off boat and makes a statement that they are reviewing all the details, Obama states he is on top of the situation, then plays golf, is concerned that unions are not being treated fairly, tours a wind farm, sends a memo to the UN apologizing for saying WMD’s were used without proof, makes a speech saying that the use of chemicals will not be tolerated and when they have proof and identify the specific parties, action will be swift and executed with precision, just like he did when he hunted down Saddam…and the list will go on and on and on and on…

right2bright on August 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM

It’s Syria. The muslim factions there are evil…all of them. We need to get any Christians and Jews that are left out-and let the remainder destroy each other.
That is ALL we should do.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 27, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Unfortunately a lot of the Christians in Syria are very much anti-American and anti-Israel… They are faithful followers of the Baath party…

mnjg on August 27, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Saddam=Bin Laden, oops

right2bright on August 27, 2013 at 10:26 AM

mnjg on August 27, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Okay-then we leave them.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 27, 2013 at 10:27 AM

I think he will go to Congress. That way, when it turns our badly, which it will, he can say, Congress agreed too! You always go to Congress when you want to share the blame. Neutralizes the issue in the 2014 elections, and EVERYTHING is about the 2014 elections. He wants to be dictator in chief his last year.

PattyJ on August 27, 2013 at 10:29 AM

How dare they defy our Dear Leader!

Little Boomer on August 27, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Well, according to Chris Matthews that would make them racist.

Happy Nomad on August 27, 2013 at 10:35 AM

I think he will go to Congress. That way, when it turns our badly, which it will, he can say, Congress agreed too! You always go to Congress when you want to share the blame. Neutralizes the issue in the 2014 elections, and EVERYTHING is about the 2014 elections. He wants to be dictator in chief his last year.

PattyJ on August 27, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Bush went to congress and it didn’t help him, they just pretended not to have voted the way they voted…

right2bright on August 27, 2013 at 10:35 AM

I think he will go to Congress. That way, when it turns our badly, which it will, he can say, Congress agreed too! You always go to Congress when you want to share the blame. Neutralizes the issue in the 2014 elections, and EVERYTHING is about the 2014 elections. He wants to be dictator in chief his last year.

PattyJ on August 27, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Are we sure he has the votes for congressional approval? I think he goes to Congress if he wants to dodge the issue. President Red Lipstick Redline backed himself into a corner at the very least. He could use Congress to avoid smearing the lipstick line.

NotCoach on August 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM

OT but hahahahahahahahaha!

Shy Guy on August 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Ed, you used the il Duce picture and then had to ask that question?

Kafir on August 27, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Does just asking McCain and Graham count?

jake49 on August 27, 2013 at 10:55 AM

He will go before Congress when he has Republicans or Bush to blame for something…

albill on August 27, 2013 at 10:58 AM

No he won’t, but it will be his undoing.

The White House is mulling over a plan that would involve at least a couple of days of combat against a nation which has not attacked the US, nor represents a direct threat to us at the moment.

Assad is the type of monster who will unleash everything he has if he sees his power being stripped. Zero needs to chew on the political backlash. He will be blamed for thousands of dead.

dogsoldier on August 27, 2013 at 11:00 AM

He checked up on Boehner’s ‘rone level. So, no.

Mr. Arrogant on August 27, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Oh, and the War Powers Act is quite clearly unconstitutional. Congress cannot delegate to the executive branch a power that the Constitution specifically delegates to the legislative branch. Congress is the sole body with the power to declare war. The Constitution does not say “except for the first 60/90 days.”

Shump on August 27, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Exactly. It seems that they have redefined war with the War Powers Act.

Constitution, Article I, section 8:

The Congress shall have power…
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

War – definition:

1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

4. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier’s business.

5. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

So, when the War Powers Act says,

The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

The Act is in clear violation of the Constitution. Therefore, it is null and void, since that is the supreme law of the land, and no amendment has been passed taking that section out.

Patriot Vet on August 27, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Just remember, President Obama is a hypocrite, liar and cheat. The law means nothing to him. So of course he won’t go to congress.

sadatoni on August 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM

abide by SALT by using the weapons instead of deactivating them.
no american bloodshes

dmacleo on August 27, 2013 at 11:28 AM

The War Powers Resolution allows Obama to intervene in a conflict without a formal vote by Congress,

Not according to the Vice President. At least that was his stance against Bush and bombing Iran.

Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.

The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.

So I guess he will be OK with the GOP pushing for impeachment if The One does the same thing.

I’m sure he has ‘evolved’ over the years./

There is also this bit, which is even more interesting-

Biden said the best deterrent to prevent pre-emptive military action in Iran is to make it clear, even if it is at the end of his final term, action will be taken against Bush to ensure “his legacy will be marred for all time.”

One can only imagine what he means by that, but it doesn’t really take that much imagination. Libtards are the ultimate example of switch hitters. Pun intended.

Patriot Vet on August 27, 2013 at 11:31 AM

The president should not go before congress prior to a sustained campaign intiation. He should report to congress shortly after it begins and outline the scope and objectives of the campaign.
it should not be a limitied strike, but a sustained campaign. The eyes of the world are watching including Iranian eyes.
The campaign should target air defenses, command and control elements, chemical munitions production storage capacity, air and artillery elements used to deliver chemical munitions.
The campaign should not have a set instone duration. The mission is complete when the objectives of the campaign have been met.

paulsur on August 27, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Has anyone seen Cindy Sheehan lately? Can we officially call her just an anti-Bush hag and admit that she was never really an anti-war person? Code Pink hags are in the same boat.

Flange on August 27, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Hadn’t you heard? Cindy is running for Governor of California now! She wants Moonbeam’s gig…

Del Dolemonte on August 27, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Will Obama go to Congress before attacking Syria?

No but he’ll make a surprise appearance on SNL to announce it.

Oldnuke on August 27, 2013 at 11:37 AM

No. Obama, the emperor, hates his people.

The Congress are wussies and he hates them too. However, obama has total disregard for the US people.

He might not even care about the U.N., cheering idiotic fools of the world. May he destroy all your Utopian ideals, maggots of the world.

Schadenfreude on August 27, 2013 at 12:02 PM

I saw this on the American Thinker website comments section and thought it was so good as summing up this disaster of a POTUS that I had to paste it here:

“As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron.
H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Prescient wasn’t he?

neyney on August 27, 2013 at 12:04 PM

obama looks like Mussolini and Lenin in that picture.

Trolls, are you protesting the war in Syria, you hypocritical swine?

Schadenfreude on August 27, 2013 at 12:09 PM

obama makes GWB look mild.

Schadenfreude on August 27, 2013 at 12:10 PM

you should listen to the msdnc hacks now….they are so nonchalant about dear leader going to war and doesn’t need approval from congress…he’s justified doing what he needs to do..he was ok on libya, kudos to him

the same people who cried outrage that w better get approval from EVERYONE before striking ANYTHING…

DISGUSTING

cmsinaz on August 27, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Stay the heck out of that ceaspool called Syria. Somebody tell this imbecile that Syria is not Lybia and the ramifications in that region (if he really bombs Syria ) are far wider than in Lybia’s case. An idiotic move like this would suck in Iran, Lebanon (by proxy Hezbollah) and of course, Israel. For chrissake, let them sort it out by themselves, let them kill each other, exterminate each other, whatever rocks their nutjob boat, keep them crazy and busy there, in their land…why should we have to do it for them when it clearly looks like they are more than capable of doing it themselves.

jimver on August 27, 2013 at 12:14 PM

obama makes GWB look mild.

Schadenfreude on August 27, 2013 at 12:10 PM

stranger yet, he makes GWB look like a genius. now, that’s a bit of a blow for ‘the smartest man on the planet’.

jimver on August 27, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Will Obama go to Congress before attacking Syria?
Right now I’m leaning toward yes. Russia and China have already said, “No, no. Spank Barry!” Now he hates that sh*t but at the same time Putin and the Chicoms are nothing to take lightly. Its just he’s in the middle, well whatever the hell he’s doing, and doesn’t want to be seen as weak.
He’ll need somebody (congress) to, “hold him back” so he can look bold and yet remain the spineless coward he is. So I say we’re one memorable speech batted by the donothingcongress from Barry getting to keep his ego up and skirt down.

onomo on August 27, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Two turds and the left cheers.

Schadenfreude on August 27, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Why would he?

Libya comes to mind.

He won.

He is King.

He does what he wants.

coldwarrior on August 27, 2013 at 9:25 AM

And with just a touch of grumbling and feigned outrage here and there, CONgress pretty much lets him do what he want.

hawkeye54 on August 27, 2013 at 12:27 PM

1. What good is a campaign that is pre-advertised as being of 2-3 days duration?

Happy Nomad on August 27, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Absolutely nothing – except to allow Assad to brag about having resisted “Western Imperialism” after the limited airstrikes are over.

Just like Clinton’s limited airstrikes paradoxically helped to IMPROVE the local political support for Saddam Hussein.

SubmarineDoc on August 27, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Asaad has hidden the chemical stuff in very highly populated places already. He is smarter than obama, and he is a real dummy, compared to his vicious father.

Schadenfreude on August 27, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Will Obama go to Congress before attacking Syria?
Right now I’m leaning toward yes.

Not that Congress will have any say in the matter. Barry just wants to let them know he’s doing it, and CONgress’ place is to cheer his decision in thunderous applause.

hawkeye54 on August 27, 2013 at 12:29 PM

No, He won’t go to Congress;

But he might invite the weeper to dinner, to make sure that he will keep all the few evil TEA party types quiet.

LegendHasIt on August 27, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Whatever he does or doesn’t do, please stay off of the golf course during the crisis, huh?

Amazingoly on August 27, 2013 at 12:52 PM

No, He won’t go to Congress;

But he might invite the weeper to dinner, to make sure that he will keep all the few evil TEA party types quiet.

LegendHasIt on August 27, 2013 at 12:37 PM

I don’t think he’ll go to Congress either, but that’s fine with me. He will own this monumental clusterfack in the making. Problem is I’m afraid he will draw Israel and Iran in, Lebanon fo sho. And Vladimir and the Chinooks are not extremely exhilarated either…Obozo might be on his own for the first time in his entire adult life :), little puffin Cameron doesn’t count, as for Hollande,…well, if he commits his ‘fierce French warriors’, now that might be a game-changer :), but I don’t think he will…as things look, not even Valerie can save him from himself now…though, on the other hand I kinda wonder who is making the Syria attack call for him this time…

jimver on August 27, 2013 at 1:07 PM

There you go. Boehner, the #1 democrat in the house just said to come before congress before any military action. Rinos just in time to the rescue. “We’ll cover for Barry. You won’t be able to get anything accomplished because of those racist old GOPers” sniff lick. Sniff lick.

onomo on August 27, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Obama and Hillary can’t be bothered to defend Americans in Benghazi while under attack yet this sorry Muzzie president wants to commit American lives to help his Muslim brotherhood! What a traitor! He should be impeached!

Marco on August 27, 2013 at 1:43 PM

CowboyRodeo clown diplomacy…

fortcoins on August 27, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Fixed.

HiJack on August 27, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Asaad..is smarter than obama.

Schadenfreude on August 27, 2013 at 12:28 PM

You don’t say.

HiJack on August 27, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Good Lord! O’Reilly is on supporting action against Assad because it is absolutely without doubt that Assad is a war criminal and absolutely responsible for the gas attack, which absolutely happened. And we have to intervene for humanitarian reasons and American exceptionalism.

claudius on August 27, 2013 at 8:07 PM

If the Obama Claque goes through with this Supreme Folly of attacking Syria they’re hopelessly beyond instruction and de facto brain dead.

Iraq. Afghanistan. Libya. Egypt.

Have they not heard of these disasters?

It’s as if Obama wants to sow chaos.

(To disguise something else..?)

profitsbeard on August 28, 2013 at 4:04 AM

Okay,so we have a bunch of Muslim American-hating extremists offing each other in Syria and we want to stop them? Pure lunacy.Stay out of Syria.Not another drop of American blood should be shed for people who want us destroyed.Go ahead and send McCain and Graham if you must but no others!

redware on August 28, 2013 at 7:43 AM

The US “ambassador” to Syria, Robert Ford, had to leave last year due to security threats. This had something to do with his open support of rebels demanding the removal of Assad. He secretly met with them again in Syria earlier this year, as did McCain.

Diplomats don’t normally advocate for the ouster of their hosts. This must be “smart power” in action again.

Has any thought been given to what may happen to Americans and other western citizens in Syria if US bombs are dropped, without diplomacy, with out UN resolution or without the approval of the US Congress?

virgo on August 28, 2013 at 12:02 PM