Obama advisor: He won’t attack Syria if Congress votes no

posted at 12:01 pm on September 6, 2013 by Allahpundit

He has every right to attack Syria if they vote no, deputy national security advisor Tony Blinken wants you to know, but out of the kindness of his big ol’ populist heart, he’s going to respect Congress’s wishes. Which is just what you’d expect the White House to say. Under no circumstances will they concede that he’s legally bound by what Congress decides, but per the Times, his aides consider it “almost unthinkable” that he’d symbolically defy the public’s will by ordering an unpopular attack after Congress has nixed it.

Like WaPo says, the real significance of this comment is that they’re now reckoning with the fact that they really might lose this vote.

“The president, of course, has the authority to act, but it is neither his desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him,” Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken told NPR’s Steve Inskeep this morning.

Privately, other senior administration officials have been saying the same thing for days: Absent another major development in Syria, they find it inconceivable that the president would move forward with an attack if Congress fails to authorize it.

But wait — what does O think? Is the new “we won’t act without Congress” policy something that came from the top or just an advisor spitballing over what he assumes to be true? Even Obama’s own team might be underestimating how far he’ll go in ignoring the will of the legislature. Here’s what The One himself said at today’s presser in Russia when CNN asked him if he’ll abide by Congress’s wishes:

I think it would be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate, because right now I’m working to get as much support as possible out of Congress.

But I’ll repeat something that I said in Sweden when I was asked a similar question. I did not put this before Congress, you know, just as a political ploy or as symbolism. I put it before Congress because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States. In that situation, obviously, I don’t worry about Congress; we do what we have to do to keep the American people safe.

I could not say that it was immediately directly going to have an impact on our allies. Again, in those situations, I would act right away. This wasn’t even a situation like Libya, where, you know, you’ve got troops rolling towards Benghazi and you have a concern about time, in terms of saving somebody right away.

So he’s going to Congress because there’s no pressing time consideration in this case for quick action — a claim that undermines the idea that a nut who’d use WMD needs to be punished urgently before he uses it again. But never mind that. Is he saying yes or no here to respecting Congress’s wishes? ABC followed up and asked him to clarify:

[JON KARL:] I still haven’t heard a direct response to Brianna’s (ph) question. If Congress fails to authorize this, will you go forward with an attack on Syria?
OBAMA: Right. And you’re not getting a direct response.

He can’t promise not to attack if Congress vetoes the AUMF it because, as noted above, that would mean ceding some executive authority over warmaking to the legislature. No president would do that, especially one who’s contemplating a surprise attack on Iran at some point down the line. But he can’t promise to ignore Congress and attack regardless or else Democrats in the House and Senate will feel safe voting against him, secure in the belief that he’ll do what he needs to do no matter how they vote. If he loses in Congress overwhelmingly, with bipartisan opposition, then public perceptions that the White House is defying the popular will in attacking will be even stronger. He’s got his work cut out for him as is — according to Politico, Pelosi’s expecting only 115-130 House Dems to go to bat for O when they really need closer to 200 to have a chance to pass the AUMF with marginal GOP support. If he tells Congress he doesn’t intend to listen to them no matter how they vote, who knows how low Democratic support will fall.

The new gimmick among Democrats to round up support is to pass a measure that would give Assad 45 days to sign the international ban on chemical weapons or else face attack. No one expects Assad to do it or to abide by it if he did, so all that is is a greenlight for O to strike through other means. In fact, re-read that first excerpt above (“absent another major development in Syria”) along with Obama’s comments at today’s presser and you can see the germ of the White House’s new strategy taking shape. Obama’s willing to respect Congress’s wishes right now because the WMD situation in Syria isn’t quite urgent yet. But what if, as everyone expects, Assad eventually uses gas again? Will Obama go back to Congress and ask again for approval to strike? Of course not: If there’s another sarin attack, O will strike immediately without consulting Congress and claim that repeated uses of WMD has made the crisis urgent in a way it wasn’t before. Gassing people once is fiendish but can be handled with a cautious, deliberate response. Gassing people twice is the sign of a lunatic who’s gone fully rogue and whose next move can’t be predicted. The president has no choice but to attack immediately, without congressional input. That’s what’s coming down the road, even if Congress thwarts Obama this time.

Exit question: If, by Obama’s own admission, he “could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States,” why are we intervening?


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

The jelly-fish in Armani, for an hour today, lonely and forlorn, shouldn’t.

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:08 PM

These are obama and McCain’s buddies.

Not worth one drop of blood and zero Valerie Jarret treasure.

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Obama advisor: He won’t attack Syria if Congress votes no

There will, however, be a kinetic military action north of Lebanon and east of Turkey.

If it hits anything Assad values, oops.

clear ether

eon

eon on September 6, 2013 at 12:09 PM

He needs to attack or he has no Squirrel for his practice of Squirrel politics. The news would swing back to the scandal cycle. We are going into Syria…God help our men and women charged with this task that they not be harmed.

Psycotte on September 6, 2013 at 12:09 PM

I hope this Peeping Tomahawk has a full melt down on TV. Lip quivering, eyes welling up, stammering about how wonderful he is but we don’t get it. Piss off you loser.

Flange on September 6, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Sorry, forgot the link

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Say, why doesn’t Obama go to the signatory Nations of the CWC to ask THEM to pressure Assad to sign on to it?

Presidents can do that, you know?

ajacksonian on September 6, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Saying whatever seems expedient politically. He is not to be trusted.

22044 on September 6, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Exit question: If, by Obama’s own admission, he “could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States,” why are we intervening?

Because Bush, and the Republican party will have blood on their hands if we don’t, and same will be blamed for World War 3 and Armageddon if we do.

And Iran needs to be shown that we’ll really deal harshly with them if they were to use their nukes when they are ready.

And Romney was going to start a war with Syria anyway.

And the Ayatolla’s now say they will do mean stuff to us.

oldroy on September 6, 2013 at 12:10 PM

“The republicans made me NOT do it. But I could if I wanted to.”

-Obama

portlandon on September 6, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Exit question: If, by Obama’s own admission, he “could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States,” why are we intervening?

“The Shadow Knows”…

/Eau de ValJar

Key West Reader on September 6, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Exit question: If, by Obama’s own admission, he “could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States,” why are we intervening?

because narcissism…

caption for the photo:
Elections have consequences: Obama’s staff at the G-20 conference served him coffee in paper cups emblazoned with the presidential seal

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2414017/Obama-plans-address-Americans-Tuesday-hes-set-lose-big-House-vote-White-House-aide-hints-wont-strike-Syria-Congress.html#ixzz2e856Y0js
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

workingclass artist on September 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Since when has King Barry been concerned about what Congress thinks?

GarandFan on September 6, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Certainly the House will say no.

mnjg on September 6, 2013 at 12:14 PM

“A Senate vote on a war powers resolution – one that’s likely to pass – is expected before then, setting up a showdown between the White House and Republican leaders on the other side of the U.S. capitol.

‘This will go down as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history,’ predicted a staffer to another Foreign Affairs Committee member. ‘Support is dwindling every day, and phone calls into our Hill and district offices are running about 100-to-1 against taking military action of any kind.’

A congressional aide to a Democratic member of the Foreign Affairs committee said that many of the president’s usual supporters are wavering.

‘When the CBC [the Congressional Black Caucus] is your only solid base, and even they won’t go out and sell the idea for you, you’re in real trouble,’ the aide said.

But Obama said he and his staff plan to ‘systematically’ speak with every single member of Congress in the coming days, with an eye toward convincing them that going after Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons will be a ‘limited’ military operation that won’t involve U.S. ground troops.

However, MailOnline has reported that a little-known Defense Department assessment from early 2012 determined that 75,000 American troops would be required to secure the chemical weapons themselves, and the facilities where they are made…”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2414017/Obama-plans-address-Americans-Tuesday-hes-set-lose-big-House-vote-White-House-aide-hints-wont-strike-Syria-Congress.html#ixzz2e856Y0js
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

workingclass artist on September 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Where in the World is Huma Mahmood Abedin?

Huma Abedin’s direct links to Moslem Brotherhood From June 2011.

Hillary’s been real quiet as well.

Key West Reader on September 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM

He’s got his work cut out for him as is — according to Politico, Pelosi’s expecting only 115-130 House Dems to go to bat for O when they really need closer to 200

Which is why you see Obama “reaching out” to Republicans. Hey Boehner, McCain, You Republicans like war right? Have I got a deal for you!

Happy Nomad on September 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM

“The president, of course, has the authority to act.”

Er, no.

War Powers Resolution Act

50 U.S.C. § 1541 – Purpose and policy

(a) Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to:

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Has Syria declared war on the United States?

No, but AQ has and it is part of the ‘rebels’ of whom we are asked to arm and assist.

Is there yet any specific statutory authorisation for airstrikes on Syria?

No.

Has a national emergency been created by an attack from Syria upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces?

Nope.

Declaring War Is One Power That The President Absolutely Does Not Have

Resist We Much on September 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Middle East Mess May Be Exactly What Obama Wants
By Doug Patton Thursday, August 29, 2013
Barack Hussein Obama is either the most inept president ever to sit in the White House or he is an enemy of the Republic. He could be both, but I defy anyone to suggest a logical third alternative.

For the last ten years, I have watched this man’s uncanny rise to the pinnacle of power and vacillated between those two choices. His inexperience suggested the former, but his ideology made me wonder what he would do when the international chips were down. I have come to the conclusion that ideology trumps inexperience. His ego is so massive, and his leftist beliefs and Muslim upbringing are so strong, that he is willing to throw our country as we have known it — not to mention any inconvenient allies — under the big international bus.

Let’s review our Middle East policy since Obama took office in January 2009. He made it his top priority to go to the region and prostrate himself before the Islamic world, bowing before Saudi sheiks and telling outrageous lies about the great and glorious history of a religion rooted in 7th Century barbarism in his now-infamous speech in Cairo.

Since then, he has unilaterally withdrawn from Iraq while perpetuating a semi-war in Afghanistan that is doing nothing but getting our troops killed a few at a time. And, of course, he has proceeded to do everything in his power to place as many crazy Muslim zealots in power as he possible can.

So now what do we have?

We have Egypt, formerly a solid U.S. ally whose leader kept the peace with Israel for thirty years, in flames and in danger of becoming a Russian ally, at best, or imploding into Islamist chaos, at worst.

Next door, in Libya, where every terrorist in the area is still laughing at us after the fiasco in Benghazi, we have replaced a tinhorn tyrant with a truly dangerous al-Qaida-run government, a scenario we are about to repeat in Syria.

Meanwhile, the calculating Shiite Ayatollahs in Iran are watching our every move and threatening to “rain down missiles on Israel” if we attack the government of their friend in Damascus, Bashar al-Assad.

Hard as it may be, try to look at the Middle East through Obama’s eyes. He thinks the United States is the problem in the region. He has stated so repeatedly, beginning with that speech in Cairo. He obviously believes the same canard George Bush kept repeating about the “religion of peace.” The difference is that Obama cannot or will not differentiate between so-called moderate Muslims and radical Islamists. Bush at least knew that when people attack us, they probably are not our friends. He also was willing retaliate against them when they proved themselves hostile.

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Exit question: If, by Obama’s own admission, he “could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States,” why are we intervening?

Wag-The-Dog

Happy Nomad on September 6, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Obama hates Israel, and he no longer has any need for the naïve liberal Jewish vote that helped put him in office — twice — so he feels emboldened to do what he wants to the tiny Jewish state. If Iran attacks Israel in promised retaliation for a U.S. strike on Syria, Israel will be forced to defend itself, possibly with nuclear weapons. Given Obama’s willingness to twiddle his thumbs and pretend to agonize over his decision to make any moves against the Syrian regime, thereby giving every terrorist mullah in the Middle East time to plot revenge, one has to wonder, will he do anything to defend Israel?

And if you think that lofty entity known as “The World Community” gets up in arms over the use of a few canisters of chemical or biological weapons, wait until you see the ginned-up outrage that will arise against Israel when they defend themselves with nukes. After all, America is still getting flak from the Left for using them on Japan 68 years ago. Such a scenario would provide Obama — not to mention a lot of cowards in Congress on both sides of the aisle — with the excuse he has long sought to abandon our only real ally in the Middle East.

Add to that the fact that the chaos this president has encouraged all across the region could drive the cost of gasoline in the United States to double digits — another Obama dream come true — and one more piece in his radical environmental puzzle slides into place.

If I could name more than a handful of statesmen in Congress, I would begin to wonder when the word “impeachment” might seriously be spoken there.

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Should Congress vote this down..prepare for the headlines.

“Obama, Bipartisan President, Stops a War.”

And the prols will thrill to the new meme.

coldwarrior on September 6, 2013 at 12:17 PM

The WaPo fools are as moronic as HA’s msng, or whatever that creep’s nom is.

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:18 PM

If he attacks after Congress votes no he owns it. He makes sure he owns nothing unless or until it succeeds.

He won’t be not doing it out of respect for Congress or the people.

Conan on September 6, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Bolton believes that this will not make it to the senate/house votes, if they don’t have enough Yeses, so as to not embarrass the oaf of the world.

Therefore, he says this will be moot at that point. He’ll just blame the congress for all that follows, or doesn’t follow, but is bad.

The NYT did a number on obama and McCain/Ms. Lindsey.

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Hillary’s been real quiet as well.

Key West Reader on September 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM

I saw the tweet where she congratulated that 64-year-old who had just finished a 110 mile two-day swim by mentioning the number of countries she visited as SecState and how she didn’t have to deal with real sharks. But other than that the world’s smartest woman seems to be hunkered down and out of the line of fire as this Syria mess blows up in Obama’s face.

He really was banking on the Brits to go along with his “plan” so that any opposition here would be blunted by talk of international cooperation. It really took the wind out of his sails when that boiled down to the United States and maybe France. Face it. The rat-eared one is out on a limb all by himself and has no clue how to back down without losing face.

Happy Nomad on September 6, 2013 at 12:21 PM

The Daily Mail says Obama said the opposite. So which is it?

MobileVideoEngineer on September 6, 2013 at 12:22 PM

It is very possible that the president will not obtain a join(t) authorization to bomb Syria; if he chooses to go ahead and attack anyway, Obama will incite a constitutional crisis—the first time in history that a president has decided to go to war against the declared wishes of Congress. The public and the courts will adjudicate the legality of that act, and it would be contentious.

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Words That Should Never Be Used Together

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!

Resist We Much on September 6, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Why hell no he won’t attack . . . because then he can blame the decision on congress, which is wonderful because 98% of the people agree with congress. This one is going to backfire on you Obama.

rplat on September 6, 2013 at 12:24 PM

So the corner that Obama has painted himself into is now inescapable. Defying Congress will put the country into a Watergate/Monicagate mess. Not doing anything will confirm the administration’s impotence and only enhance Russia, Iran, Assad, China, Islamists, and almost anyone else who does not like the U.S. Doing something small, with or without congressional approval, will be looked upon as a cynical waste of human lives to restore Obama’s credibility, the sort of craven, immoral political act that a younger Obama made a career out of mocking. Doing something big will invite public and global outrage if only moderately successful, and doom the Obama presidency if (as) unsuccessful.

One can not invent this in fiction.

“The world will love the US under Jesus obama”. My schadenfreude overfloweth, cheering sheepleton of the world!!!

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:24 PM

How did Obama get himself into this mess? It was bound to happen, given his past habits. All we are seeing now is the melodramatic fulfillment of vero possumus, lowering the rising seas, faux Corinthian columns, hope and change, the bows, the Cairo speech, and the audacity of hope. Hubris does earn Nemesis.

– VDH, the Brilliant

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Some hawk said that this morning, too. I can’t remember who it was. Pete King keeps coming to mind, but he’s big into a utilitarian POTUS when it comes to military action so it would be weird. Anyhoo, it was voiced by a congressman this morning.

Resist We Much on September 6, 2013 at 12:25 PM

1) His inclination is to damn straw men, blame others for his self-inflicted errors, and spike the ball when he should keep quiet and become modest (cf. the bin Laden raid). So in Syria we heard the same old, same old: A host of bad guys, here and abroad, wants to do nothing. Obama alone has the vision and moral compass to restore global and U.S. credibility through his eloquence; but the world disappointed him and is now at fault for establishing red lines that it won’t enforce: He came into the world to save the world, but the world rejected him.

VDH, you magnificent mind!

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:26 PM

After five years of this, the world caught on, and sees juvenile and narcissistic petulance in lieu of statesmanship—and unfortunately a sinister Putin takes great delight in reminding 7 billion people of this fact almost daily. In terms of geostrategic clout, Obama has nullified the power of his eleven aircraft-carrier battle groups, Putin through his shrewd insight and ruthless calculation of human nature, has added five where they didn’t exist.

VDH – Putin, the other thug of the world, gloats…because…yes, he can…he is a lucky bastard. He’s got obama.

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:27 PM

These freakin progtard Democrites in charge have done everything wrong – just short of sending a freakin “Save the Date” invitation to these a$$hole terrorists letting them know whats coming for them.
(credit goes to Miller for that punch line)
.
Maybe in their dysfunctional, deluded minds they feel a surprise strike maybe isn’t”fair” to the opposition.

FlaMurph on September 6, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Bolton believes that this will not make it to the senate/house votes, if they don’t have enough Yeses, so as to not embarrass the oaf of the world.

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Interesting since I think he needs those votes so he can kick the ground, bluster a bit, and blame NOT bombing Syria on Congress. What does he say Tuesday night? I want to kill Syrians but there are not enough votes in Congress for AUMF?

Or does he just bomb before Congress has time to vote. This weekend? Monday? With the speech on Tuesday explaining why it was so super-important to kill Syrians that he had to go it alone because it was taking Congress too long to act. That seems more plausible than a “never mind” if the votes are not there.

Happy Nomad on September 6, 2013 at 12:28 PM

No American blood for Arab natural gas!!

Robert Jensen on September 6, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Pic of the Day: The Red Lines Obama Ignored

Pass it around. It’s important.

Resist We Much on September 6, 2013 at 12:29 PM

This is what happens when you let a petulant child play with guns.

kingsjester on September 6, 2013 at 12:29 PM

i have called everyone of the R senators offices in their home state strongly voicing my objection to endorsing a resolution enabling the incompetent barack obama to start WW3. let’s stop it in the senate so it dies.

mccain
flake
graham
kirk
burr
chambliss
corker

gracie on September 6, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Happy Nomad on September 6, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Yep. If he has made promises to the Bro’hood, he certainly cannot go back on them, now.

kingsjester on September 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Face it. The rat-eared one is out on a limb all by himself and has no clue how to back down without losing face.

Happy Nomad on September 6, 2013 at 12:21 PM

I dunno… I’ve been hearing for quite some time that there are 3 women who control Obama. Hillary, Huma and Valerie. If that’s true they are some seriously deranged nappy headed hoes.

Key West Reader on September 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM

2) Obama thinks in an untrained manner and for all the talk of erudition and education seems bored and distracted—and it shows up in the most critical moments. Had he wished to stop authoritarians, prevent bloodshed and near genocide, and foster true reform in the Middle East, there were plenty of prior, but now blown occasions: a) the “good” war in Afghanistan could have earned his full attention; b) the “bad” Iraq War was won and needed only a residual force to monitor the Maliki government and protect Iraq airspace and ensure quiet; c) the green revolution in Iran was in need of moral support; d) Qaddafi could have been continually pressured for further reform rather than bombed into oblivion; e) postwar Libya needed U.S. leadership to ensure that “lead from behind” did not lead to the present version of Somalia and the disaster in Benghazi; e) long ago, the president could have either kept quiet about Syria or acted on his threats when Assad was tottering and the resistance was less Islamist; f) he could have warned the one vote/one time Muslim Brotherhood early on not to do what everyone in the world knew it would surely do; g) he need not have issued tough serial deadlines to Iran that we have not really enforced and probably have no intention of enforcing.

Instead, Obama relied on his rhetoric and talked loosely, sloppily and inconsistently from crisis to crisis, the only common denominator being that he always took the path of least resistance and thus did nothing concretely to match his cadences. Usually to the degree he made a decision, he made things worse with empty, first-person bombast.

But, good/brilliant Sir, your premise is wrong.

This is NOT what obama wants. obama only cares about two things, and focuses on them like the most transparent laser in the world, for those who can see it. He has fooled the rest of the world like no other ever will/could:

1. Himself, the narcissistic sociopath that he is.

2. Furthering his muzzie brothers.

He doesn’t give a damn about anything else. To him bodies, dead or alive, are just statistics, like they were for Stalin.

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Showdown Over Ground Troops: McCain Says Impeachment On The Table For Obama

Sure, Senator Senile, sure. You’d lead the charge, too! ///

Resist We Much on September 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Senate Committee members who voted for Syria Intervention received a lot of campaign money from defense contractors…waaay more then those who voted against it.

McCain – $176,000

Rand Paul – $17,000

*facepalm*

workingclass artist on September 6, 2013 at 11:20 AM

FLASHBACK: Odious To The Nose Of Liberty: ‘Lawmakers Who Upheld NSA Phone Spying Received Double the Defense Industry Cash’

Treasonous bâtards.

Resist We Much on September 6, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Interesting since I think he needs those votes so he can kick the ground, bluster a bit, and blame NOT bombing Syria on Congress. What does he say Tuesday night? I want to kill Syrians but there are not enough votes in Congress for AUMF?

Or does he just bomb before Congress has time to vote. This weekend? Monday? With the speech on Tuesday explaining why it was so super-important to kill Syrians that he had to go it alone because it was taking Congress too long to act. That seems more plausible than a “never mind” if the votes are not there.

Happy Nomad on September 6, 2013 at 12:28 PM

That makes sense to me. I could see him saying that new intel came to him over the weekend and the window to strike was closing and he needed to act.

MobileVideoEngineer on September 6, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Happy Nomad on September 6, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Yep. If he has made promises to the Bro’hood, he certainly cannot go back on them, now.

kingsjester on September 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM

KJ, didn’t you post something coming out of Egypt showing Obama as a Mo-Bro? I know it was in an Egyptian paper but all I saw was a photo, no translation?

He’s covering up something huge.

Key West Reader on September 6, 2013 at 12:32 PM

One takeaway from President Obama’s news conference at the G-20 summit

1. What will Obama do if Congress doesn’t sign off on military action?

He still won’t say. With lawmakers expressing deep skepticism about signing off on military action, the big question is what Obama will do if Congress doesn’t pass a resolution to approve a strike. Asked repeatedly Friday, Obama wouldn’t tip his hand. ”I think it would be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate,” he said. Obama has said he is not required to get the approval of Congress, and he’s keeping alive the possibility that he would act even if they don’t approve. Here’s the issue: If Obama says whether or not he would proceed with an attack after a failed vote, he could change the way the vote is likely to play out in advance. He needs to make members feel that “yes” or “no” votes are consequential. If he says he is going to act anyway, it could give cover to lawmakers on the fence to vote “no,” since action — which polls show is unpopular — would come even without their approval. If he says he will not act without Congress, Obama is leaving his next move entirely in the hands of lawmakers and limiting his flexibility.

timberline on September 6, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Nowhere than in the present crisis is this unfortunate trend more telling: Pro-war John Kerry has opportunistic anti-war baggage, pontificates rather than persuades, and freelances into serial embarrassments; Martin Dempsey, to his credit, cannot square the circle of being an honest man assigned to say things he knows simply cannot be true, and so pleads the military’s version of the Fifth; Chuck Hagel has not recovered from the confirmation hearings, and just wishes Syria would go away; anything that a surprisingly quiet Joe Biden says on the crisis will probably be incoherent and incendiary, and surely contradictory of some past statement; Susan Rice astutely outsourced this crisis; Hillary Clinton whose “what difference does it make?” fingerprints are all over the Syrian and Libyan fiascos wisely got out of town ahead of the posse.

VDH…and Samantha Power, the Bradley Manning-look-alike, is at the worthless Arabic UN, when she’s not vacationing in her Ireland.

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Pic of the Day: The Red Lines Obama Ignored

Pass it around. It’s important.

Resist We Much on September 6, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Nearly a year later and we still don’t even know who made those red lines. Most open and transparent administration in history my eye!

Happy Nomad on September 6, 2013 at 12:34 PM

VDH – Putin, the other thug of the world, gloats…because…yes, he can…he is a lucky bastard. He’s got obama.

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Попался

workingclass artist on September 6, 2013 at 12:34 PM

One takeaway from President Obama’s news conference at the G-20 summit

1. What will Obama do if Congress doesn’t sign off on military action?

He still won’t say. With lawmakers expressing deep skepticism about signing off on military action, the big question is what Obama will do if Congress doesn’t pass a resolution to approve a strike. Asked repeatedly Friday, Obama wouldn’t tip his hand. ”I think it would be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate,” he said. Obama has said he is not required to get the approval of Congress, and he’s keeping alive the possibility that he would act even if they don’t approve. Here’s the issue: If Obama says whether or not he would proceed with an attack after a failed vote, he could change the way the vote is likely to play out in advance. He needs to make members feel that “yes” or “no” votes are consequential. If he says he is going to act anyway, it could give cover to lawmakers on the fence to vote “no,” since action — which polls show is unpopular — would come even without their approval. If he says he will not act without Congress, Obama is leaving his next move entirely in the hands of lawmakers and limiting his flexibility.

timberline on September 6, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Opps…forgot link here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/06/five-takeaways-from-president-obamas-news-conference-at-the-g-20-summit/?wprss=rss_congress

timberline on September 6, 2013 at 12:34 PM

What is now the least bad choice between terrible and even more terrible alternatives? If the congressional vote is yes, the choice is cynically wasting a few American lives for a possible point, or killing lots more people for a more possible point. Not good choices.

If the congressional vote is, as I hope, no, Obama should quietly (i.e., don’t blame Congress, the world, the public, etc.) back out of the bombing mode, more quietly continue the belated work of promoting a pro-Western resistance to Assad, mend fences with allies most quietly, and prepare very carefully (but without the bombast) for a real crisis on the near horizon that will need the public, the Congress, our allies, and the president’s full attention and response. In our new Vienna-summit-to-Cuban-missile-crisis era of danger, I fear our enemies and rivals are digesting the Syrian misadventure and calibrating to what degree they might soon turn our present psychodrama into a real American tragedy.

Good advice, alas…the narcissistic egomaniac will take non of it.

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Senate Committee members who voted for Syria Intervention received a lot of campaign money from defense contractors…waaay more then those who voted against it.

McCain – $176,000

Rand Paul – $17,000

*facepalm*

workingclass artist on September 6, 2013 at 11:20 AM

FLASHBACK: Odious To The Nose Of Liberty: ‘Lawmakers Who Upheld NSA Phone Spying Received Double the Defense Industry Cash’

Treasonous bâtards.

Resist We Much on September 6, 2013 at 12:32 PM

priorities being what they are…

workingclass artist on September 6, 2013 at 12:36 PM

My biggest problem with the reporters was asking a question that they knew he wouldn’t answer.
They should have asked if he believes he has the authority to strike if congress says no, but that takes too much thought for most journalists.

questionmark on September 6, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Obama is such a fluking ussy. He’s saying this now to allow him a way out once congress votes his warmonger azz down.

jawkneemusic on September 6, 2013 at 12:36 PM

How long have we had presidential seal paper coffee cups…and how much do these cost the tax payers?

workingclass artist on September 6, 2013 at 12:37 PM

If we attack Syria without congressional authorization and in violation of the War Powers Act, would it not be an act of State Sponsored Terrorism by Barak Obama?

meci on September 6, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Of course he won’t attack if he doesn’t get political cover. Prezzy Red Line doesn’t do anything that isn’t politically expedient.

neyney on September 6, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Syria Strike plans have changed over 50 times in the last 2 weeks?

Oh Brother…

workingclass artist on September 6, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Why hell no he won’t attack . . . because then he can blame the decision on congress, which is wonderful because 98% of the people agree with congress. This one is going to backfire on you Obama.

rplat on September 6, 2013 at 12:24 PM

we’ll see. and a plurality want obamcare overturned and if the pubs try it then THEY will be in trouble in 2014 (so say CW). yes, its a bizarro world.

t8stlikchkn on September 6, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Snowden to the left of us…Greenwald to the right of us…
stuck in the middle with Preezy Snoop Drone McBombypants…
*facepalm*
workingclass artist on September 5, 2013 at 12:55 PM

WCA, you magnificent bastige.
Endless forwards……

Tenwheeler on September 6, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Key West Reader on September 6, 2013 at 12:32 PM

I read it, too, but, I did not post it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/03/egyptian-newspapers-explosive-allegation-president-obama-is-a-secret-muslim-brotherhood-member/#

kingsjester on September 6, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Syria Strike plans have changed over 50 times in the last 2 weeks?

Oh Brother…

workingclass artist on September 6, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Want to know why?

Every time the Admin opens their yap they give specific information as to what targets they are going to strike, etc.

The regime moves the stuff. The NSA finds out where.
Wash, rinse, repeat…..

You can’t make this stuff up.

Tenwheeler on September 6, 2013 at 12:45 PM

By the way, the Seal Team that took out Bin Ladin will be on a maneuver in a helicopter on __/__ at 00:00 those great guys….
Sheriff Joe

Tenwheeler on September 6, 2013 at 12:47 PM

These guys are on a daily basis as bad a Michael Douglas outing his now-estranged wife as the source of his throat cancer…..

Tenwheeler on September 6, 2013 at 12:48 PM

He opened his mouth, drew a red line, talk4ed tough, now he is really looking for a way out without totally embarrassing himself and without firing a missile or bullet.

rjoco1 on September 6, 2013 at 12:48 PM

This wasn’t even a situation like Libya, where, you know, you’ve got troops rolling towards Benghazi and you have a concern about time, in terms of saving somebody right away.

Or, going to sleep (and letting Patriots Die), so you can be fresh for a campaign in Vegas. We’ve got it Barry. Everyone has priorities.

Rovin on September 6, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Exit answer:

Because Obama rules on feelgoodery, not common logic.

Look at the mess he’s left for black Americans. He thinks $9,000 reparations to every black person will serve the white man and bring things equal rather than helping the black community to help themselves.

patman77 on September 6, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Syria Strike plans have changed over 50 times in the last 2 weeks?

Oh Brother…

workingclass artist on September 6, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Military: ‘We’ve changed our military plans 50 times.‘

State Dept Spox: ‘There is no plan to put boots on the ground at this time.‘

Will there be a plan to put boots on the ground in the military’s 60th iteration? 72nd? 89th?

Resist We Much on September 6, 2013 at 12:51 PM

I put it before Congress because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States.

If we are not under threat, then bombing Assad is wrong without the backing of the international community. We are not the world’s policemen.

txhsmom on September 6, 2013 at 12:58 PM

The only Exit Strategy that Obama is concerned about with respect to Syria is finding a way to extricate himself from his earlier red line comments.

PackerBronco on September 6, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Bambi’s goal this last week is to have the Senate pass a resolution, have the House vote against it and then say: “I can’t do anything because congress is divided and its the fault of the Republicans.”

Then he’ll breath a sigh of relief that this problem is behind him. Screw the Syrians.

PackerBronco on September 6, 2013 at 1:06 PM

If there’s another sarin attack by aQ, or a different fundie group, or a third party, or even by assad, O — supported by the azzhats McCain and Corky the pig (thus, establising bipartisanship for the media) — will strike aQ’s enemy immediately without consulting Congress or perhaps even knowing the source of the sarin attack

amplified for clarity

kunegetikos on September 6, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Exit question: If, by Obama’s own admission, he “could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States,” why are we intervening?

Operation obamaEgoFark

Schadenfreude on September 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM

If we are not under threat, then bombing Assad is wrong without the backing of the international community. We are not the world’s policemen.

txhsmom on September 6, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Obama’s not proposing bombing Assad. That would be regime change. Oh no! Obama’s proposing and killing OTHER Syrians to send a message to Assad for killing Syrians.

See how brilliant this plan is?

Happy Nomad on September 6, 2013 at 1:16 PM

He has every right to attack Syria if they vote no, deputy national security advisor Tony Blinken wants you to know, but out of the kindness of his big ol’ populist heart, he’s going to respect Congress’s wishes.

It’s all about saving face.

And everyone knows it. Especially our enemies, foes, and friends in the world, who are all taking notes. They will plan accordingly.

farsighted on September 6, 2013 at 1:21 PM

I put it before Congress because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States.

Emphasis is mine.

Obama often made comment like this one. That is the comment actually honestly reflects his intellectual, inability to remember his previous lies (or perhaps audacity in telling public “I’d lied and you idiots either didn’t pick up my lies or let them slide for weird reason”), or his “I don’t give a f..k about US” mind, and/or his hyped eloquence (a result of the quality mentioned prior to this one, perhaps?).

vnohara on September 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Barky’s next plan is to ask Congress to pass a law which states he never mentioned a red line with Syria.

Bishop on September 6, 2013 at 1:23 PM

I still think he regrets the whole “red line” thing, and that he’s looking for a way out if he can get it. Taking this to Congress allows him two wins.

1) If Congress votes no, he can back out, saying “well, I have to follow Congress on this one”, even though in his heart of hearts, that’s what he really wants to do.
2) It will be easy to blame the GOP for this defeat, so he can hammer them on that in 2014. The line from Schultz is what the rest of the left media and the White House will be saying. “We lost this resolution because the warmongers on the right refused to help a black President”. This becomes a double whammy if things get worse in Syria. It doesn’t matter what he wants, it only matters what he can use as a political weapon.

Chris of Rights on September 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Will there be a plan to put boots on the ground in the military’s 60th iteration? 72nd? 89th?

Resist We Much on September 6, 2013 at 12:51 PM

If they keep going at that pace, the 89th iteration might be boots on the WH lawn :)…oops…

jimver on September 6, 2013 at 1:41 PM

I could not say that it was immediately directly going to have an impact on our allies. Again, in those situations, I would act right away. This wasn’t even a situation like Libya, where, you know, you’ve got troops rolling towards Benghazi and you have a concern about time, in terms of saving somebody right away.

Is he kidding? Troops have been “rolling” all over Syria for 2 years. Is there any part of Syria where troops haven’t rolled to? How is not impacting our allies? Isn’t one of the main concerns the refugees pouring out of Syria into allied countries? The only difference here is the British are not on board.

Rocks on September 6, 2013 at 1:52 PM

These guys are on a daily basis as bad a Michael Douglas outing his now-estranged wife as the source of his throat cancer…..

Tenwheeler on September 6, 2013 at 12:48 PM

ZING!

*snicker*

workingclass artist on September 6, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Barky’s next plan is to ask Congress to pass a law which states he never mentioned a red line with Syria.

Bishop on September 6, 2013 at 1:23 PM

I think he will appoint Whoopie Goldberg as the New Word Czar to splain to the American People that this isn’t really a War War

workingclass artist on September 6, 2013 at 1:56 PM

He says he won’t defy Congress if they vote no. Another weasel worded dictum because he won’t allow the vote to take place if he doesn’t have the votes.

Corky Boyd on September 6, 2013 at 2:57 PM

I put it before Congress because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States.

Hasn’t Obama just admitted that none of the conditions for unilateral action under the War Powers Resolution exist?

Barnestormer on September 6, 2013 at 3:25 PM

I could not say that it was immediately directly going to have an impact on our allies. Again, in those situations, I would act right away. This wasn’t even a situation like Libya, where, you know, you’ve got troops rolling towards Benghazi and you have a concern about time, in terms of saving somebody right away.

And yet, just a few days into that conflict, the rebels were poised to march on Tripoli, and Obama had already said Qaddafi had to go. Qaddafi’s troops weren’t rolling towards Benghazi until roughly 1 month later – 1 month of dithering, with 0 congressional authorizations and several international resolutions and stern letters. I believe at one point they were actually forming a committee to run the warKinetic Military Action, though I’m not sure if that ever got off the ground. Perhaps some of the members had scheduling conflicts, or maybe there was some difficulty crafting an eloquent mission statement. My guess is they were waiting for the latest version of Robert’s Rules to make sure everyone was on the same page. You can’t rush these kinds of things, or you risk giving the dictator cause to object when he looks carefully at the minutes. And then where’s our credibility, huh wing-nuts? You incurious simpletons probably never even gave that a second thought.

It’s almost as if back then, he was living in some kind of magical fantasy world that only a very mediocre law student could devise. What a stark contrast to the hard-headed realism we’re seeing from him today. Today, he’s clearly learned from his mistakes, and has identified the top priority for our national interest: hit Assad just hard enough not to get laughed at by him and everyone else on the planet.

Emphasis on the word “identified”. Progress on achieving this objective is a bit slow, but hey, Rome wasn’t built in 45 days.

RINO in Name Only on September 6, 2013 at 3:51 PM

…what a hawk!

KOOLAID2 on September 6, 2013 at 7:29 PM