Breaking: Obama says he will seek Congressional authorization for strikes

posted at 2:22 pm on August 31, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The White House suddenly shifted direction on the necessity of Congressional authorization for a strike against Bashar al-Assad in Syria.  For the last two or three days, various officials have insisted that Barack Obama has the authority to order military action in response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons, but today Obama himself committed to seeking approval from Capitol Hill first:

President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, saying last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack there was “an attack on human dignity,” but that he has decided to seek congressional authorization for such a strike.

The announcement appeared to put off an imminent cruise missile attack on Syria and opens the door to what will almost certainly be a contentious and protracted debate.

Obama’s remarks came as senior administration officials were making a fresh round of calls to congressional leaders on Saturday in an effort to bolster support for a potential military strike on Syria, officials said.

The change is certainly abrupt, but hardly surprising.  When the UK’s David Cameron was forced to withdraw from the coalition, that left Obama politically exposed both at home and abroad.  With only France enthusiastic about taking part in military action, it became a lot more important for Obama to get a vote of confidence at home.  Plus, Obama’s rhetoric against George W. Bush during the 2007-8 presidential campaign made his hypocrisy on executive power painfully obvious, with even his own party insisting that he needed to get a Congressional blessing first.

That creates more headaches for Obama, however.  First, Congress isn’t back until September 9th [see update below], which means this will take a couple of weeks to accomplish — if it can be accomplished at all.  Capitol Hill might be inclined to defer to the executive, but only a handful of House and Senate members are enthusiastic about striking Syria, even after more than a week of beating the war drums.  The opposition to another engagement will be fierce, and so far the White House has given a very ambiguous and diffident picture about the goals of a military action and the ability to contain the consequences afterward. On the other hand, this point from NPR’s Frank James will be on the minds of Capitol Hill denizens, too:

Earlier this week, Senator Bob Corker advised Obama to take his case to Congress — in order to get people to act more seriously about the issue.  He’s about to get his wish.

Update: It’s possible for Harry Reid and John Boehner to arrange an early return for Congress, of course.  They’re not scheduled to be back in full session until the 9th, but that could change.


Related Posts:

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

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9

You’re not wrong. And you’ve gotten at the *real* essence of conservative critique of Obama in this situation. You don’t actually care about policy, you don’t care about Syrians and you don’t care about the deployment of our troops (as your slavish devotion to Bush despite his blatant mistreatment of them indicates). You care about the President acting like he has a massive sack (Bush pretended that all day) or whether he looks like someone who equivocates. That’s it. Nothing more nothing less. It is the main reason why this threat is entertaining. You’re all worked into a frenzy and you don’t even realize its merely about your lame desire to imagine the US as a certain kind of muscular masculine nation. Dear Jeebus, I can not wait for these boomers to move on so we can be done with this kind of thinking.

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:24 AM

I’m the one who keeps pointing out that it is the Syrian civilian population that is unarmed and needs to be armed. Buy up every black market AK globally and air drop them by the skidload in Syria to every small town, village, collection of huts, farmhouse… any place that has people and are not either under regime or ‘rebel’ control.

Gets rid of the low cost AKs globally, arms the innocent and those who are the victims, and gives them a say in their own future so that they can craft it.

This choosing sides business in Syria is plain nuts: there are no ‘good guys’ there to support. When you’re down to the lesser of evils, then support the victims. I want them armed so they can organize something different and better than the regime or the rebels… that is if you want to do ANYTHING THERE your very best option. Arm the defenseless so they can defend themselves.

Not going to get that from your standard left or right wing apparatchiks, now, are you?

The trouble is, I’m not so sure it is better than doing nothing and letting the religio-political factions fight it out, like the Iran/Iraq war. But if you WANT to do something that helps the defenseless then you want them ARMED since neither ‘side’ is going to be standing down because of what Obama does or doesn’t do. This isn’t going to work the way it is shaping up now.

Taking out the CWs just leaves the defenseless as they are. That is no solution, and will just get innocent Syrians killed by conventional warfare. So how about saying that the Syrian people get some chips in the game by handing them as much in the way of low cost, loss-leader arms as we can? That will make other low level wars a lot more expensive to do, as a side-benefit. Might even get Syria up to US levels of civilian arms! Then you can decry the relatively low murder rate in their society once they have killed off all the hot heads during the conflict…

You may not like the solution, but it is better than what Obama is proposing. Can’t say that there aren’t some people who have been proposing this for months, either, as that is the line I’ve taken ever since this started up.

ajacksonian on September 1, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Fact: Libfree thinks he should be able to stalk your kids.

I sincerely hope you have some kind of a life and this is all just fun and games for you. Cause if you’re for real, its so sad….

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Facts hurt eh?

CW on September 1, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Libfree I prefer adults not seek their sexual pleasure from kids…thus I detest you. You gross me out.

CW on September 1, 2013 at 10:36 AM

CW on September 1, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Wait, so can you explain what this fantasy of there being two of me does for you?

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:37 AM

I’m the one who keeps pointing out that it is the Syrian civilian population that is unarmed and needs to be armed. Buy up every black market AK globally and air drop them by the skidload in Syria to every small town, village, collection of huts, farmhouse… any place that has people and are not either under regime or ‘rebel’ control.

Gets rid of the low cost AKs globally, arms the innocent and those who are the victims, and gives them a say in their own future so that they can craft it.

Fine sure, whatevs, but can’t private money do that? Why does the state have to be involved?

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Speaking of hypocrites….

Syria Intervention Would Reaffirm Obama’s Biggest Flip-Flop

He was explicit in 2007 that Presidents don’t have the authority to act unilaterally except to stop ‘an actual or imminent threat’

sentinelrules on September 1, 2013 at 10:39 AM

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:24 AM

We don’t particularly care about Syrians, true. Why should we? Because of a “lame desire to imagine the US as a certain kind of muscular masculine nation”? It seems that those on the left are more concerned about that, that we have to be seen as interfering for purely “humanitarian” reasons. That’s the policy question.

We do care about our deployment of troops – which is why we’re quite concerned about his behavior and motives about this. He brought this up, so forgive us if we’re not eager to be dragged into his mess. That’s the political question.

Jeff Weimer on September 1, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Shoot in ten days Obama can create 4 or 5 scandals to take the attention away from Syria! What ever happened to Benghazi investigation?

Herb on September 1, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Libfree I prefer adults not seek their sexual pleasure from kids…thus I detest you. You gross me out.

CW on September 1, 2013 at 10:36 AM

And I prefer to interact with adults who are not living under some paranoid delusions and using strangers to work out deep seated emotional issues/trauma. Might I suggest a licenses mental health professional rather than the HotAir message boards?

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Wait, so can you explain what this fantasy of there being two of me does for you?

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:37 AM

So this is where you go when hit with the truth?

Whimsical on !!

CW on September 1, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Slave

Bmore on September 1, 2013 at 10:41 AM

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Trolling troll is having trouble seeing how Dems refusing to vote to support their Dear Leader is a no-win lesser of two bad options problem for most Dems in Congress. In fact, they must also refuse to support what their 2004 Presidential candidate wants to do.

It also cannot see the difference between supporting serious substantive military action against a Saddam who was in long time defiance of UN resolutions, who tried to assassinate an ex-US President, and who was routinely shooting at US military aircraft on the one hand, and on the other hand not supporting ineffective face-saving frivolous non-UN or ally supported “surgical” strikes whose only purpose is to send a “message” to an Assad who, has never directly threatened the US as Saddam had.

Not to mention that those who supported action against Iraq pay attention to the lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan. Among which are that attempts to militarily influence events in the Muslim world in an attempt to create a better life for the people who live there are futile. They hate us no matter what we do or do not do.

And then there is the fact that the rebels and insurgents fighting Assad are allied or affiliated with militant Islamists and al Qaeda.

And so on and so forth.

Iraq in 2003 and Syria in 2013 are completely different situations WRT to both US interests and our relationship to those nations.

Trolling troll is blinded by its hatred of Republicans and “conservatives”, its bigotry, and its obsession with trolling.

farsighted on September 1, 2013 at 10:42 AM

prefer to interact with adults
libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:41 AM

So your previous revelations about the joy of 40 year olds making it with minors was just B.S.?

CW on September 1, 2013 at 10:43 AM

It seems that those on the left are more concerned about that, that we have to be seen as interfering for purely “humanitarian” reasons. That’s the policy question.

Who “on the left” supports invading Syria? Again, Democrat and progressive are not the same thing. The “humanitarian” war is an invention of post World War II liberalism but (and this will shock your mind) the people who now call themselves conservatives were huge backers of those types of wars from World War II until the Clinton Administration..and then they got back into it under Bush.

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Me recounting a sexual experience I had at the age of 17 (and of legal age in the state of Texas at the time) with an older guy somehow proves that I “stalk” children? Again, you’re fracking nuts dude.

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM

It also cannot see the difference

farsighted on September 1, 2013 at 10:42 AM

It refuses. It really is not that bright.

CW on September 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM

You know, since Russia has a vested interest in supporting Assad because of agreements with Syria to build a gas pipeline and to secure a warm-water port of consequence, then why not have the Russians root out the Muslim “rebel” enablers, who may themselves be capable of delivering gas/chemical attacks?”

not a bad idea.

Why are we blowing funds and jeopardizing our military assets–troops and materiel— to insert ourselves in a civil war, which is, in fact, a proxy war for hegemony in the ME? Let the Russians and the rest of the Arab coalition waste their treasuries in order to be king of the hill.
The reason Syria exists for the regime is politics,little else. Syria is the greatest diversion ever for Benghazi,irs,nsa,name your summer scandal.

At least, Assad is not asserting Islamic expansion as he holds on to power.
Uhh… Assad has many shia to deal with in Syria. Let’s not forget Iran has many Shia as well,much of the rest of the mid-east–80-% are sunni. We already have videos of terror types now in Syria stopping trucks and shooting drivers for being shia instead of sunni. So I would not discount the religious aspect of Syria and all of the mid-east for that matter. Its always behind everything.

Russia is willing to engage in a proxy struggle for power in order to expand its energy sources. Unfortunately for us, we have a “president” who will not allow us to develop and/or export our own energy.
Great point and done on purpose by the regime to bump up the importance of islam and the mid-east.

onlineanalyst on September 1, 2013 at 8:30 AM

rodguy911 on September 1, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Again, you’re fracking nuts dude.

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM

You’re so dishonest. Thanks . We both know what you’re really made of…character ain’t it.

CW on September 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM

So freak- who brought their sexuality to Hotair?

CW on September 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM

And I prefer to interact with adults who are not living under some paranoid delusions and using strangers to work out deep seated emotional issues/trauma. Might I suggest a licenses mental health professional rather than the HotAir message boards?

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:41 AM

I think you are the one that needs professional help to work out the damage done to you by being molested as a young child.

Step one, say to yourself, -”it’s not my fault”.

slickwillie2001 on September 1, 2013 at 10:48 AM

the people who now call themselves conservatives were huge backers of those types of wars from World War II until the Clinton Administration..and then they got back into it under Bush.

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Um, the people who call themselves liberals (progress has little to do with the Left) were all gung-ho about the wars Clinton wanted, but not so under Bush.

Haiti
Rwanda
East Timor
Bosnia
Kosovo
Somalia

and, why, yes, Iraq.

sentinelrules on September 1, 2013 at 10:48 AM

You’re so dishonest. Thanks . We both know what you’re really made of…character ain’t it.

CW on September 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM

When you say “you’re so dishonest” do you mean me, or the other me who you think posts as me? Or is there a third me whose posts only you can see?

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:49 AM

sentinelrules on September 1, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Quite right. Most liberals are horrible hypocrites on the issue of war.

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM

You can be sure that any time Obama refers to the Constitution he is being cynical. So when it became clear he would actually have to lead (not “from behind” the British and French) he panicked and chose to hide behind Congress.

Pest on September 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Fine sure, whatevs, but can’t private money do that? Why does the state have to be involved?

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Great idea! I’ll kick $25 into the kitty!

Mind you, Obama would have to say nothing on it or allow it as an explicit part of his foreign policy, but as long as its done at a low level and under the table, its no problem.

Because of the transportation capacity that governments have, they can get a bulk discount… for smaller outfits the cost will go up as the amount of arms go down over time: a single mass buy gets you a lot more than dribs and drabs over months and months. Very few corporations can purchase millions of AK’s at a drop and do the hauling away in a couple of days time. That comes out to about a half billion in arms, and then when you get done with transportation costs, overhead, and the like, you are hitting nearly a billion. Most companies don’t have that to drop at a moment’s notice.

Why do you need corporations to do that when you can get International ANSWER and its like to foot the bill? Or if you like the idea, YOU could start up a lovely non-profit with that as its goal. Maybe do those bake sale thingies that the Left is always crowing about what they hope the USAF ends up doing.

Just has to be done fast, on the sly, in large quantities, delivered quickly, and without letting on to Obama that this is happening. I’m not the one who thinks this is the BEST plan, but it is better than what is being proposed. If you like it you can pass it on! I don’t have any inroads with companies or the capacity to form up a corporation to keep track of it. You, with all your background, do. Right? A bit of fundraising for ‘human rights’ work in Syria… because the right to keep and bear arms is a human right built on the positive natural right of self-defense… and you are set!

So there you have it: libfree willing to let companies figure out global human rights in a civil war.

Soon: letting individuals figure out their own healthcare without the help of government, because why should government do all that for you?

ajacksonian on September 1, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Sorry for the dp… HA glitch.

ajacksonian on September 1, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Quite right. Most liberals are horrible hypocrites on the issue of war.

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Yes, even your beloved PROGRESSIVE, Bernie Sanders, who supported the Serbia/Kosovo bombing.

sentinelrules on September 1, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Who he is:

But I have a hard time getting too upset about a 45 year old guy and a 16 year old guy having sex. Maybe its because when I was under 18 (17 to be exact) I had a bit of an affair with an older man (early 30s)…and it was AWESOME. Its exactly what I wanted, I pursued it, he was smoking hot, I was 17 and (as most of the male posters will attest to) extremely interested in having sex. I wasn’t abused or exploited. And there’s no question that a year earlier I would have been just fine as well. Because by 16 I was, at least in terms of my sexual desires, really, really clear what I wanted. I think most 16 year old boys are. Like…how does a “vulnerable” 16 year old find their way onto a gay sex chat-line anyway?

libfreeordie on November 20, 2012 at 6:16 PM

I just think we’re doing the wrong thing having a moral panic over a 32 year old and a 16 year old.

libfreeordie on November 20, 2012 at 6:16 PM

I think 16 should be the age of consent when it comes to sexual activity. I think 18 for voting. I think 21 for gun ownership, alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana (which should be legal).

libfreeordie on November 20, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Fact: Libfree thinks he should be able to stalk your kids. That is an undeniable fact. Anyone who knows this guy- you are warned.

CW on September 1, 2013 at 10:30 AM

 proves that I “stalk” children? Again, you’re fracking nuts dude.

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Get the difference in what I posted and what you claim I posted? Yes you’re dishonest.

CW on September 1, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Libfreakily you advocate for the desires of people who want to have sex with minors. Facts are facts. You can spin, lie, and rant but that is a fact. You support it.

CW on September 1, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Laters!!

Be whimsical!

CW on September 1, 2013 at 11:00 AM

But he’s NOT acting like Bush – Bush went to Congress (and allies) as a matter of course.

Jeff Weimer on September 1, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Not only that, GWB never advocated the use of military force just to “send a message”. He never proposed attacking a country that has not threatened us, much less doing it in a a completely ineffective way that would accomplish absolutely nothing militarily. Further, GWB had a large “coalition of the willing” that included Britain, Spain, and Italy. Comrade O has only an increasingly tepid France.

Further, the only reason why the second (uneeded UN resolution) was not passed was France’s lack of support. Russia and China were willing to abstain, not veto the resolution. Not so this time. One or both of them would veto. And Britain would probably abstain. I guess that makes of those countries “hypocrites”, too.

GWB carefully and painstakingly built a coalition over a period of six months. Comrade O was ready to “go it alone” after a week. He has no UN support of any kind in the form of prior resolutions. He has little Congressional support. He faces broad bi-artisan opposition. Public opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to this. And he has no coalition of the willing to speak of.

farsighted on September 1, 2013 at 11:00 AM

CW on September 1, 2013 at 10:58 AM

The age of consent for sexual activity in the majority of U.S. states is 16. So I guess all those folks “stalk” kids too…..Why do you always beclown yourself?

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Here is another of the many analogies that can be drawn between what GWB and what Comrade O is doing.

People who own firearms are taught to never, ever point a loaded firearm at someone in a threatening way unless they are prepared to pull the trigger with intent to kill. And you definitely do not fire “warning shots”. In fact, you can be prosecuted for doing so, as a recent case showed.

The US military is a loaded weapon. You do not use it to fire warning shots. Especially when doing so creates s state of war with a nation that has not threatened you.

GWB understood this.

Comrade O would fail basic firearms training. He should never be permitted to own a firearm.

farsighted on September 1, 2013 at 11:11 AM

This is it. It’s all over. Obama has flapped his mouth off for the last time. He has lost all respect in the World. His military leaders will no longer take his orders. The Democratic party is starting to isolate him and the MSM is throwing him under the bus. He was a young inexperienced politician that made the same mistake of many political young. He went off the teleprompter and began to believe in his manufactured greatness. All that is left is the need for an exist strategy from the White House. Impeachment is not an option. The Democratic party would never survive that the only two presidents to be impeached were consecutive Democrats. Still believing that the next Democratic President should be the Wife of one of those two. If Hillary Clinton were elected she would not last 6 months until the movement would be a foot for her to be the Third consecutive Democrat to be impeached.

So what’s it going to be for an exit strategy.

Impeachment? Not likely. The rules of impeachment are designed by politicians for the protection of the politician, NOT for the easy removal of a politician.

Heath reasons? Expectable idea. Pick you illness.
1.Sickle Cell Anemia? Good choice.
2.Lung disease. From Smoking and drug use.
3.Drug use
4.Bad liver from Drug use.
5.Nervous breakdown. Real possibility.
6.Not eligible to be president. Still possible.

Let him be in isolation and go golfing at a $$Million dollars a day for the next three years.
I guess that might work, after all it would still be cheaper then one month involved in Syria.

jpcpt03 on September 1, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Obama’s Syrian adventure is a continuation of the Benghazi operation, using Turkish allies to support the rebels in Syria. The so-called ambassador, Robert Ford, appears to be little more than an activist and fund-raiser.

US policy appears to be to hand over Syria to the Muslim Brotherhood, regardless of what the UN, Congress or Russia says. That worked so well in Egypt didn’t it?

Here is the write-up from the Profiles In Courage award winner and non-ambassador Ford: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Events-and-Awards/Profile-in-Courage-Award/Award-Recipients/Robert-Ford-2012.aspx

As far as we can tell from the internet, his bravery amounts to posting critical commentary of Syria on Facebook and being attacked with eggs and tomatoes while in the country. He also helps to raise money for the Syrian American Council, here at home.

The non-profit raises money for humanitarian aid, but specifically the Free Syrian Army.

Why was a US diplomat using Facebook to support a rebellion? What is the official position of the US Government on regime-change in Syria?

Not defending Syria, but that is not how effective diplomacy can work. There is no diplomacy in place, clearly. No channel for negotiations. So even if force is used, Assad will not know what US demands are, beyond general aspirations for “dignity”.

virgo on September 1, 2013 at 11:37 AM

How utterly idiotic. How many Democrats voted against the authorization of force in Iraq?

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Better yet, how many Democrats voted for that authorization of force in Iraq, and then soon reneged on said votes purely for political gain?

F-

Del Dolemonte on September 1, 2013 at 12:21 PM

he age of consent for sexual activity in the majority of U.S. states is 16. So I guess all those folks
“stalk” kids too…..Why do you always beclown yourself?
libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM

The simple fact that this reprobate sodomite even has to mash this matrix of words into its terminal is an utter condemnation of its worldview.

Murphy9 on September 1, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Either way, a political party that uses something like this for political gain is horrible.

Wagthatdog on September 1, 2013 at 10:01 AM

The 2004 election would like to have a word with you….

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Bwahahaha! You certainly don’t want to go there.

1. Your party’s “candidate” that year ran as an alleged “war hero” from a war your Party helped to lose. A war that your Party then trashed for decades. I won’t even go into how his “war heroism” was a complete sham.

2. One of your Party’s official organs, al-Associated Press, successfully sued the Bush White House to force them to release Chimpy Bush’s complete military history. And then immediately conspired with your Democrat “candidate” to successfully keep his military records a secret.

3. Many of your Democrats, who just 2 years before had voted for the use of force in Iraq, did a 180 and said they were “wrong” to do so, solely for political gain. Why do they hate America?

4. F-

Del Dolemonte on September 1, 2013 at 12:29 PM

You care about the President acting like he has a massive sack (Bush pretended that all day)

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Please give us several credible, multi-sourced examples of Bush behaving in such a manner as President.

And no, the aircraft carrier landing doesn’t count, because even Chrissy Matthews praised his macho-ness for that!

(Starts another flea-powered sundial)

Del Dolemonte on September 1, 2013 at 12:31 PM

This is it. It’s all over. Obama has flapped his mouth off for the last time. He has lost all respect in the World.

jpcpt03 on September 1, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Whatever chance he might have had to build a “coalition of the willing” has vanished because no state leader respects him, trusts his judgement, or fears him. His foolishness and arrogance will cost him whatever little respect he had left.

After drawing his “red line” a year ago, and pretentiously talking about his “calculus”, he should have worked hard to build a coalition and make plans for what to do if Assad crossed the line. Instead he lazily did nothing. He could have put teeth in his threat by building a coalition over the past year and leaving little doubt about what would happen if Assad crossed the line.

The response could have been pre-approved, immediate, and effective. The planned response could have immediately targeted whatever WMD caches we knew about before they could be relocated. At the very least he could have determined what could and could not be done and found away to mitigate his mistake in issuing an ultimatum, so as to avoid embarrassments like this.

Of course, that would have taken a lot of hard work and planning, Comrade O did not have the time, apparently, or he was lazy. After winning the election he rested on his laurels, and played golf. If he did not have the time to follow through as he should have he should not issue threats and ultimatums. To lead the world one must demonstrate leadership and earn the respect, and if necessary the fear, of other world leaders.

The community organizer failed to do that. The Amateur failed miserably.

farsighted on September 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Who “on the left” supports invading Syria? Again, Democrat and progressive are not the same thing.

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:43 AM

If they don’t support invading Syria, how come they aren’t holding huge demonstrations?

There was one in Boston yesterday. Only had 100 people there. And most of those were Syrians!

Incomplete

Del Dolemonte on September 1, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Democrat and progressive are not
the same thing.

The former is a slave to its colossal ignorance and the later advances its anti-human nature.

Congrats on being party to both.

Murphy9 on September 1, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Quite right. Most liberals are horrible hypocrites on the issue of war.

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM

It’s amazing on what we agree on.

After Bush went out, the antiwar movement went out like someone flipped a lightswitch. And it stayed off for pretty much until right now.

MelonCollie on September 1, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Yeah, Assad has chemical weapons. Saddam didn’t. Or he like disappeared them or something….
libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:31 AM

As another poster said, the Kurds would like to have a word with you….

And you might want to read a history book before YOU comment.

Maddie on September 1, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Fine sure, whatevs, but can’t private money do that? Why does the state have to be involved?
libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:39 AM

You don’t mind if I copy/paste that into the next abortion thread, do you?

Maddie on September 1, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Yeah, Assad has chemical weapons. Saddam didn’t. Or he like disappeared them or something….
libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:31 AM

As another poster said, the Kurds would like to have a word with you….

And you might want to read a history book before YOU comment.

Maddie on September 1, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Another irony is the troll accuses other people of “intellectual dishonesty” all of the time.

Almost all evidence indicated Saddam still had chemical weapons. Most prominent Dems, maybe all, thought so, too.

There was virtually no one arguing that Saddam did not have chemical weapons. He had had them for a couple of decades and he had used them many times. And he refused to produce credible evidence that he no longer had them. On the contrary, he stonewalled.

Where there were doubts and what was considered unknown, which is a problem in and of itself, was whether or not he had biological weapons, and how far along he might be and how hard he was trying to produce a dirty bomb or a basic nuke.

Virtually no one was arguing that we should not use military force to disarm and topple him because he did not have chemical weapons. That was assumed by everyone including Dems.

The issue was whether or not using military force was the way to deal with the situation when we did, or whether we should wait longer for the UN inspectors to play what amounted to a shell game with Saddam.

AFAIK very few Dems opposed sending a couple hundred thousand troops and associated equipment to the region to make the threat credible. In the hope that Saddam would stop playing games. The question was whether or when to use them.

Should we let a couple hundred thousand troops — and associated tanks, helicopters, planes, and ships — sit in the region, most in the desert, on a war footing for another six months to a year in the hope that Saddam would finally come clean and cooperate after twelve years of refusing to cooperate and obstructing inspectors? Or should we finally pull the trigger when we did after twelve years of playing games with him.

farsighted on September 1, 2013 at 3:07 PM

It helps to read a whole thread before you comment…

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Yes, it does. You should try it, ClueFreeAndWhine.

dogsoldier on September 1, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Trolling troll is blinded by its hatred of Republicans and “conservatives”, its bigotry, and its obsession with trolling.

farsighted on September 1, 2013 at 10:42 AM

It just consumes obama shit.

Schadenfreude on September 1, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Yeah, Assad has chemical weapons. Saddam didn’t. Or he like disappeared them or something….
libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Into Syria, you know-nothing slave and racist dummy extraordinaire.

Schadenfreude on September 1, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Quite right. Most liberals are horrible hypocrites on the issue of war.

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Mirror, mirror on the wall…at least once in a while you do tell the truth.

Schadenfreude on September 1, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Fine sure, whatevs, but can’t private money do that? Why does the state have to be involved?

libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:39 AM

HAHAAH…please add this to the list of saved quotes for the living birth defect.

I agree lib. Now follow this logic on health care, WIC, section-8….

You are just too easy….exposes the lowered standards of college today.

ClassicCon on September 1, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Finally Obama made a smart move. The ONE coalition that our modern day Patton-Lite does have it RINOS plus Democrats–really birds with slightly different feathers. Together RINOS plus Democrats will vote for this asinine attack and REPUBLICANS ALONE WILL GET BLAMED FOR ITS DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES.

MaiDee on September 1, 2013 at 5:24 PM

jpcpt03 on September 1, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Yours is a very optimistic post(to non-socialists). I like it.
Unfortunately, I fear that all Obama has to do is flash his smile, go into campaign mode(which he will already be in to promote Obamacare – hell, what he’s been in since 2008) placing blame on everyone except himself and his party, and the no-brainers will swallow it all.
Like I said, I like your post. Mine is just sadly more realistic.

Sterling Holobyte on September 2, 2013 at 1:48 AM

If Obama had several allies going along with his “plan” then it seems likely he would have proceeded on the grounds that ‘we’re not leading it’. What seemed to happen in Libya.

Now he sees that his drawing a line has elicited an action that he thinks means he has to do something. Since he only has one ally and the other significant ally (UK) has declined to participate, he is finding himself in the position of leading the charge, like it or not, intended or not.

Take unilateral action and the consequences are all his. Since he is unlikely to do what may be needed to end the situation (i.e. invasion — I think we’ve kind of had enough of those for now), he is faced with ultimately futile actions that won’t really change the situation. IOW he will own the outcome and I think it likely that he and his advisors do not see a good outcome from it and lots of potential bad outcomes (which could impact the Democrats).

So he switches to an alternate path – put Congress in the position of approving or not approving the proposed action. If they approve, then they share in the blame (and Republicans would have to vote in favor to pass the House, so the blame may be deflected mostly onto them). If they don’t, then “my hands are tied” and if there is any fallout he has the chance to deflect it onto the Republicans because “they chose to tie his hands”.

I do not see any desirable path on direct intervention in Syria that would be acceptable to the US public.

Russ808 on September 2, 2013 at 2:44 AM

Last week:
 

Yeah lets return to that time in U.S. history when private charity offered modern healthcare services to a significant portion of the population through donation alone. Good times rogerb, good times.
 
libfreeordie on August 28, 2013 at 3:13 PM

 
This week:
 

Fine sure, whatevs, but can’t private money do that? Why does the state have to be involved?
 
libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 10:39 AM

 
Trollcot.

rogerb on September 2, 2013 at 7:15 AM

rogerb on September 2, 2013 at 7:15 AM

Happy Labor Day My Friend! ; )

Bmore on September 2, 2013 at 10:33 AM

rogerb on September 2, 2013 at 7:15 AM

You’re saving that for the collection, right?

Maddie on September 2, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Hey y’all. Hard to say. He’s admitted he’s a troll (even on this thread a couple of pages back):
 

Sometimes I’m in a more whimsical mood, sometimes I just like to tease folks.
 
libfreeordie on September 1, 2013 at 9:53 AM

 
I do think he’s a true believer, so that aspect may help.
 
Otherwise he’s not worth much time or effort (as usual) since he’s finally admitted he’ll whimsically flee the thread when dumb conservatives counter him. It’s comical to consider another statement in light of that:
 

Engagement would be responding to the substance of my claims in ways that illustrates you understand the argument and can defeat it with your own.
 
libfreeordie on January 9, 2013 at 1:25 PM

 
Indeed.

rogerb on September 2, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Like a pod of orcas batting a seal around.

nico on September 2, 2013 at 12:07 PM

If ordered to deploy, it may be time for the military in general to consider the legality of such orders. The military may have to do something like what happened in Egypt.

Since the president is acting outside of the law, he has to expect opposition outside of it. Not recommending this, but once you erode the rule of law in the way that he does, he can’t expect opponents to limit themselves.

Even if congress approves, what they will be asked to approve is likely to be so amorphous that blame can be shifted in undefined directions, as unpredictable events unfold.

How do you get from nine percent in favor of military strike to a clear majority of national support? What miracles of statemanship are we going to witness when Congress reconvenes?

virgo on September 2, 2013 at 1:48 PM

He blinked.

neyney on September 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Have we gotten to the point that we can do a bit of speculation? There are two parts of this equation that are very interesting. First, Arab States led by the Saudis are building a coalition to attack. Second France is not yet out of this. Now, “The What If” the Arab States get it together and France goes it alone with the Arab States go ahead, and find the Smoking gun of chemical use, which is most likely being used by both sides. I just can not imagine the WH briefing if this be made so. This would definitely be an opportunity missed by the Miss-direct, run and hide, cover your own a$$ President.

Recap: The Arab States form a Collation, France Goes it alone as a World Leader, Finds the WMD from Iraq MADE IN Saudi Arabia and shipped to Syria by the Russians.

jpcpt03 on September 2, 2013 at 2:49 PM

jpcpt03 on September 2, 2013 at 2:49 PM

At this point the world is looking for leadership. Which obviously Obama cannot provide. He is not a leader. He is an empty chair as Eastwood said. Valerie Jarrett is not elected and should not be waging war in the Middle East.

I hate that we need to look to anyone to lead the world, but it is better than Obama/Jarrett leading the world.

If we (America) wants to be the leader we have to elect one. And I don’t’ think our election system can be trusted anymore. There is some reason that the Democrats are terrified to make people show ID to vote. There is some thing up with that. Every American has ID. And showing it should not be a hindrance of any kind, or even unfamiliar. Our elections are compromised.

I don’t want to follow Obama into a chemical war with Syria. I don’t trust one thing he says, I don’t trust our media to tell one piece of truth about anything to do with Obama or his minions in government right now.

It is far, far, better to face the truth that we are not ready or able to lead on Syria, or anything else, until we can trust our government and media and most importantly our election system.

I honestly do not trust American government anymore at all. There may be some way to still trust in the American people, but if the American people really did vote for this government, there is not. If the election system is so flawed that showing an ID is controvesial, then we will not be worthy to lead the world ever again.

If the 2012 election was fair. Then we are a morally lost nation forever. Let the world burn with out our help.

petunia on September 2, 2013 at 4:38 PM

just like his voting record in congress, present.

phatfawzi on September 2, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Probably already stated but

Obamas going to congress just brings out the most zealot republicans like McCain and Graham
Do you see any democrats in the proceedings

Its a trap dumbasses, so the republicans can appear to be the war mongers

What a douche, obama is more worried about the percieved ramifications for the 2014 elections or his legacy or shall I say it third term

audiotom on September 3, 2013 at 1:13 AM

Just a summary of what is happening:

The left-wing idiots demonized Bush for attempting to help people in the Middle East, but going about it in a way that would bring stability and sustainability.

Obama spoke off teleprompter and said something idiotic. Now he wants to send a message but not actually make a commitment because he shot off his idiotic mouth but wants to pretend he didn’t.

He also is fighting a guy that Pelosi, Kerry and himself loved back when they attempted to undermine Bush by getting close with Assad. Bush was right then about who Assad was and Pelosi, Kerry, and Obama were idiots.

Today these idiots want to help Al-Queda beat their previous BFF, but not in a way that will help Syrians.

If it goes to hell, which it will, the Democrtas will pretend their cozying up to Assad to hurt Bush, Obama’s idiotic statements, their completely making public their strategy, and forcing us into a corner that hurts us no matter what we do….they’ll pretend that it is all Republican’s fault.

Democrats are evil.

GardenGnome on September 3, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9