One of the smartest moves our President has ever made!

[another_liberal]

The President's speech just now was a brilliant political move. He not only advanced his agenda to attack the Assad regime, he also gave himself an out, should he choose to use it, by including the Congress in his decision to strike. If the Republican House votes not to approve an attack, our President can then, should he choose to do so, cancel his decision and announce he is bowing to the will of the people as represented by their elected representatives. He has given himself an exit from the corner he painted himself into.

I do not agree with the President's decision to attack Syria, and I do not know how the House and Senate will vote, but I can only admire the deft manner in which he handled one of his most important speeches. That is the man I voted for. He was brilliant today.

[snappyturtle]

1. I'm so glad he's made this decision......finally. nt

[shenmue]

2. True

I am torn on what we ought to do. I think no matter whether we strike or not, it will be a big mess. But at least the President seems to care about the Constitution.

[another_liberal]

4. Yes . . .

It appears he does, and that is so profoundly important for us all.

[kardonb]

103. president

our brilliant president knows how to play ball ! Put it in the other court for a slam-dunk .

[Faryn Balyncd]

3. I am proud of him. And he NEEDS us to keep up the pressure to not enter another mistaken war.

[another_liberal]

6. Agreed.

I have sent an e-mail to the White House every day for the last four days. My Senators and Representative will hear from me as well.

[bluestate10]

165. I am convinced now there will be war. The war will likely be short and meet the requirements the

President has given. War is baked in at this point and the more Assad brags about President Obama going to Congress, the more the possibility approaches 100%. The USA has a lot to prove during the type of war that can be fought against the particular opponent. The CIA has surely assessed Syria's capabilities and has fed that information into the military.

[Just Saying]

5. Ditto!

I don't want us to attack Syria either although I'm very disturbed by the chemical attacks. But this move means its not all on him. Finally this bullshit Congress must take responsibility for something!

[another_liberal]

9. That is . . .

A very sweet icing on the cake!

[TexasTowelie]

52. I can already hear Boehner and Cantor

guffawing and trying to determine how to turn the responsibility back to the president.

[PDittie]

102. They don't know whether to

shit or go blind.

But I'm guessing there's enough antiwar liberals and TP types to say 'no' to a strike resolution in the House, so a week from now the talking heads will be sounding like John Kerry.

[usaf-vet]

144. i would add one point.

The moment President Obama announced he was sending it to Congress the Labor Day holiday weekend really began to suck big time for all the republican House members. No more hiding in the weeds and taking shots at the President via new releases and Fox News interviews. They are going to have to go on the record.

No matter how our representative from this WI district votes it will be a recorded vote. His opponents in 2014 from the left and right right will have him on the record. I can wait to hear the ads. Being safe in a gerrymander just got a little less safe.

So what is it going to be war or no war. For sure it is a no win for our guy hiding in the weeds.

[lindalou65]

108. I agree too

I, too, am very concerned about these chemical attacks and if Assad does not have to account for his actions, what then? How many innocent people have to die by these types of attacks before the world takes notice? I also think Obama did the right thing but am very conflicted about our choices here.

[yellowwoodII]

133. God Help Us

God help us if the United States ever has to account for all of its wrong-headed actions.

[frazzled]

7. I have a different analysis

The move was smart because no matter what happens from this point, Obama maintains the moral high ground. He has made two things clear at once: (1) that he can not let an atrocity stand, especially one that the United States (and 98% of the countries in the world) have deemed unacceptable; and (2) that he can not bypass the authority of his presidency and the democratic process.

So whether Congress votes to proceed or not proceed, Obama has made his own position clear and will win any moral argument. Despite the scurrilous talk here on DU, this man bases his decisions on principles. Nonproliferation treaties (and related treaties relating to chemical weapons) have been his cause since before entering Congress. They remain his principal motivation in this situation.

Congress may well vote not to proceed. And then we all must ask ourselves where we draw the line on what is permissible; what it would take for us to act. It's a good question that many here seem willing to toss aside in favor of isolationism, conspiracy theories, and just general stupid.

Here's how I feel. I do not want to see a military action, mostly because I'm not seeing what it can accomplish (but then I'm no military strategist; but neither I nor anyone else here has all the strategic facts at their disposal) and because I fear what might ensue. But I also can not abide the use of chemical weapons, and I will never be an apologist for a tyrant like Assad (even as I fear some of the forces that have come to align themselves with the Syrian rebels). It's a no win situation. But so is turning our backs on the use of chemical weapons, under our noses.

But please people, just because you don't want US military action, don't confuse that with support for an intolerable regime.

[YvonneCa]

11. Well said. I agree...

...completely.

[andym]

13. +1 nt.

[PsychoBunny]

15. +2

Well said and I agree completely.

[calimary]

120. Welcome to DU, PsychoBunny!

Glad you're here! MAN I hope we proceed with the utmost caution down this messy path. Suffice it to say, we'll be kicking this one around like nobody's business! You'll get all kinds of perspectives and views and concerns here. Makes it a lot easier to step back and consider an issue more fully if you're undecided on anything. One of many things I love about DU!

[another_liberal]

18. We need to see the evidence . . .

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 05:28 PM - Edit history (1)

We need to see the evidence which so convincingly (we are told) proves that the Syrian regime is responsible. Otherwise if we take action, we may need to take action against someone else entirely.

[KittyWampus]

19. it also allows intelligence to be further vetted & highlights difference between the USA & Russia

and more totalitarian regimes.

Ideas are important too.

[ProSense]

27. Excellent, and

this is why Kerry's speech was spot on. He laid out a case for the atrocities, and definitively stated that war was not an option. Also, the UN is concluding its investigation.

U.N. weapons inspectors arrive in The Netherlands

(Reuters) - A plane carrying U.N. weapons inspectors who had been gathering evidence and samples relating to alleged chemical weapons use in Syria landed at Rotterdam airport in The Netherlands on Saturday, an airport spokesman said.

A spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said inspectors would return to the body's headquarters in The Hague. He said the samples the inspectors brought with them would be distributed between various laboratories for testing.

The inspectors left Beirut early on Saturday in an aeroplane provided by the German government, the German Foreign Ministry said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/31/us-syria-crisis-dutch-idUSBRE97U08T20130831

[bluemarkers]

57. so right!

he's pure genius!

Have you seen the rwnj cartoon of him drawing a line then walking over it? He drew the line in front of congress instead. lol

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. +1,000

Exactly.

Thoughtful post - a relief in the midst of so much bluster and silliness.

[Surya Gayatri]

78. Excellent post. You ought to re-post it as an OP.

[Igel]

94. Assumes that attribution of blame is correct.

If it turns out that Obama doesn't bomb Assad's regime because the Congress stopped him, through positive action or indifference, and *then* it turns out the sarin was of the wrong manufacture or origin so that it wasn't Assad's regime the president's "high ground" turns into "Congress saved his butt."

[frazzled]

107. But what if you'd used the Baudelaire translation

rather than the Mallarmé? Would it have made the poem less the work of Poe?

[hueymahl]

105. Great post!

[madinmaryland]

8. I don't think the President would want to lose a battle to the House over something like

this. I think he will find another out, rather than lose an congressional vote over this.

[MineralMan]

10. Yes. It is up to us to communicate our opinions to our

representatives. That's where any pressure should be applied.

Will we do that? I have no idea.

[another_liberal]

20. I will.

Consider it done.

[MineralMan]

22. Excellent! I'm working on my emails, too.

I'll send them on Monday.

[MNBrewer]

12. Is the Democratic Senate going to vote yes?

[MineralMan]

23. Some Democrats will vote yes.

Some Republicans will vote yes. Will it add up to a majority? That's the real question here. This is one that may not follow party lines, I think.

[Taverner]

14. Sigh of relief, that is for sure

[Squinch]

41. +1

[morningfog]

16. What do you mean an out "should he choose to use it?"

If Congress says no, that is not by his choice. He only went to Congress because he lacked international support. If congress says yes and he does it, it may be within US law, but would still be illegal under international law.

[another_liberal]

26. Good point.

It would indeed be another act of an "exceptional" power with a dangerously "entitled" attitude toward the rights of other sovereign nations. That is primarily why I oppose our becoming involved militarily.

[DevonRex]

62. Mind reader are you? There are aspects of this situation

that many have failed to grasp. It's beyond me why people haven't grasped them. And, it's quite often beyond President Obama why people don't grasp the whole picture. That is his major fault as a leader. OTOH he doesn't treat people like they're stupid. Unfortunately, it seems to be an undeserved compliment.

This involves Russia arming the entire region with as many weapons as they can afford to buy and with whatever types of weapons they want to buy. Russia and Iran are also allies. Iran wants to restart its nuclear program. Iran also wants to nuke Israel. And they're batshit crazy enough to do it.

This is about whether or not we say Russia is allowed to arm hostile nations to the teeth, including with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons - and the delivery systems with which to deploy them anywhere they like.

[LynnTTT]

109. Everybody knows this

We know Russia is arming the Syrian Army. We also know that we don't know who is going to be victorious. But if the chemical attacks were directed by senior Syrian authorities and that becomes public, it puts Russia on the spot and we look good.

[DevonRex]

116. But if the international community

decides to simply look the other way, despite every treaty and agreement they've signed banning chemical weapons, then Russia is empowered to sell whatever it wants to whomever it wants with no fear of reprisal.

They're playing a game of chicken. They are gambling on the US being too weak to do anything. In fact, they orchestrated much of that perceived weakness. It's the result of an op that was a long time in the making.

[morningfog]

117. Not sure what you meant with mind reader comment.

As for the rest, your argument seems to boil down to: Russia is a threat via Syria, we don't see the full picture that Obama does, so we should violate international law because of the threat from Russia.

By the way, did Russia supply Syria with the gas used in the attack?

[JimDandy]

17. I do like great political moves,

especially when a Democrat makes one! And this was good constitutionally, democratically, morally and Democratically.

[Waiting For Everyman]

21. I agree. This was a very good decision.

I'm sure he didn't want to, but I think ultimately he will be glad he did it. I noticed that within minutes, McConnell tweeted his approval, which shows that this decision takes away a lot of the GOPers' fire. They will have to share responsibility for whatever is done, and that is a good thing and how it should be.

I think time is on our side, and we should not be hasty about this. I think it will give others more confidence in whatever we ultimately do.

ETA tweet:

Sky News Newsdesk ?@SkyNewsBreak
U.S. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell: Obama's role as Commander-in-Chief always strengthened when Congress is asked for support

and another similar:

Ivan Watson ?@IvanCNN
House GOP leaders welcome Obama's decision to seek authority from Congress for attack on Syria, expect to consider measure the week of Sep 9

[lumpy]

87. Re. McConnell,s remark. Obama has asked support from Congress many times and hasn,t

gotten it because McConnell swore his prime goal was to bring Obama down.

[Duer 157099]

24. I approve of this approach he is taking

Whatever the outcome, whether I approve of that or not, at least I admire him taking this route.

[Polly Hennessey]

25. Paintbrush

I agree. He gave the paint brush to congress and left himself a clear spot to walk right out of that corner. He now has cover for whatever happens. No go -- congress decided; a go ahead -- congress decided. Members of congress now hold the responsibility in their teeny, tiny hands.

[Logical]

28. I am against it but Obama did the right thing! n-t

[ucrdem]

29. Yes. My thoughts exactly, except I had a feeling it was a bluff all along.

Brilliantly played.

[msanthrope]

30. Not only that...but he screwed the Republicans. They vote no...they face the wrath of AIPAC. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. Behind the scenes he probably already has the votes.

[MzShellG]

40. If he has the votes, thats fine.

It's how democracy works.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

50. It's how Washington works. They never leave it to a vote unless they know the outcome in advance.

[MzShellG]

61. Perhaps you're right, and then again, maybe not.....

We don't know that he has the votes. That's just your assumption based mainly on speculation.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

63. He may NOT have the votes which, as others propose, gives him an "out".

[MzShellG]

69. There's no telling what the outcome will be...

But I will definitely be tuning in. Whatever the outcome, I'm willing to accept the decision.

[Doctor_J]

82. Since 91% of America is against it, if this passes We The People will know exactly where we stand

in the minds of our "representatives", including the president.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

85. People assumed a rubber stamp in Parliament too.

[L0oniX]

125. Already figured they don't give a fuck what the people think after they said no to gun control. n/t

[Doctor_J]

140. Yep. Not even control - freakin' background checks

told 85% of America to fuck off

[Erose999]

166. And some rightwing fucknut like Rand Paul will be able to say he voted against the war like a badge

of honor.

This war will not be a god damn 3 hour tour. Obama and Kerry have put the Democratic party on the wrong side. They'll get their war, it'll be as long and messy as Iraq and Afghanistan. And then the GOP can campaign against the war in 2014 and 2016.

If Obama gets his war the Dems will spend the next 10 years in the wilderness.

[tblue]

32. Wow! That's good. For now.

I've seen him say, "Wait while I decide" only to go ahead and do the thing I was hoping he wouldn't. But it sounds like this time he's giving Congress some say in the matter. Good. May cooler heads prevail.

[Fearless]

33. I'm just glad Congress will not pass such a measure.

[jimlup]

123. I'm not so sure...

What congress says and what they actually do when their feet are held to the fire are sometimes very different. I'll be curious to see how the alignment proceeds. Right now it looks like it will not pass but I'm guessing that if the administration really wants this they can start twisting arms and things will shift. At least with the dems. As for the ass-clowns (I can't call them by their chosen name as they aren't) I think they may find it politically difficult to stand in direct opposition. The people don't want this aggression but the elite power structure may and the ass-clowns always do the elite power structure biddings even if they are too stupid to know that that is what they are doing.

[quakerboy]

127. Wait.. We are going to rely on Congress to do the right thing?

I have.... misgivings.

[Fearless]

128. Even a broken clock... n/t

[NRaleighLiberal]

34. agree. k and r

[mstinamotorcity2]

146. Those look delicious!!!

got some salt and pepper and cornmeal for those green babies !!!!

[yellowwoodII]

35. Relief!

What a relief! I was so worried. If he had gone ahead with a unilateral strike, I would have had to start looking for a new political party.
Now the Congress will own the consequences. I hope that they will think twice.

[a la izquierda]

36. Well, Republicans I know are bitching and moaning...

that he didn't call Congress back right friggin' now.

[99Forever]

37. I couldn't agree more.

Time to send the message to the Congresscritters, stay out of that hot mess. Not one more cent or American life wasted on the endless wars of the Middle East.

[another_liberal]

42. Unless we are somehow directly attacked . . .

The last thing we should involve our country in is a five-sided civil war in Syria. We would almost certainly do more harm than good anyway.

[SCVDem]

38. The President losing a vote in the House?

Nothing new here!

Hey Boehner, check and mate!

Time to vote with the American people you like to talk so much about.

Well played Mr President.

[another_liberal]

44. It was . . .

Stunning, indeed.

[BlueMTexpat]

39. I totally agree. This was brilliant!

Perhaps this move will also allow a little more time for real facts about who is responsible to come out.

President Obama is absolutely right that the world community (which the US had a principal role in establishing post WWII) should not allow any regime/government to use chemical weapons - or any other, for that matter - against its own people. Otherwise, the Geneva Conventions have no teeth whatsoever. But factual attribution of this event is still murky.

The Assad Regime has behaved so reprehensibly throughout the past two years that it is difficult to give them credibility for anything, but there are just too many other interested players - and different rebel factions supported by them - to take the easiest course, which is to blame the regime, without also getting input from those who are much more disinterested than the sources we appear to be relying on.

Hopefully, this will stop the corporate-controlled media themes of "Obama action/inaction" - at least, for a short time.

Now, it's time for us all to let our "critters" know how we feel.

[whttevrr]

43. So is that a no to attacking Syria?

If President Obama is for it... Congress is against it, right?

Is it time to relax yet? I really hope the Obstructionist Congress stays true to form on this. I do not want my country to drop bombs on another country.

[another_liberal]

47. Watch closely how this plays out.

We may never see such a high-stakes confrontation between the Legislative and Executive branches of our government again.

[whttevrr]

49. I'm just hoping that congress is getting an earful at home right now.

With polls being as they are, this should put a big doorstop in front of the "Let's Bomb Syria" program.

[Laelth]

77. Interesting description.

I agree that this is a high-stakes confrontation between the Legislative and Executive branches of our government, but I'm curious to know why you think we may never see such a confrontation again.



-Laelth

[another_liberal]

83. When have we seen the like of it?

This is epochal. It is a singular, deciding moment for our nation. Only the Watergate hearings and the vote to impeach President Clinton come to mind as a possible equals.

[mehrrh]

45. Obama and Syria

This was the best move he could have made -- I am so glad he is our president.
He made it known that he has principles, and so does the world -- when we threaten a rogue nation we had better follow through, or our threats are meaningless.
The Congress does not want to go on record and vote for this -- they'd rather sit by and criticize4 him no matter which way he moves, but he has tossed the ball into their court. They will have to take a stand and live with it -- just as he was already prepared to do.
If Congress votes yes, they cannot criticize him.
If Congress votes no, they cannot criticize him as being weak.

[another_liberal]

48. It was pure genius.

Whichever way Congress votes, the Republicans have just lost their best talking point for the 2014 elections.

[markpkessinger]

110. uh, maybe and maybe not . . .

McConnell is already saying that Republicans will refuse to support any military action in Syria UNLESS it includes a plan to remove Assad, in which case Congress will vote "no," and Republicans will lambaste the President for not "having the stones to finish the job and take out Assad." So yes, they can vote "no" and still criticize him for being "weak."

[Auntie Bush]

152. +! What a difference a couple days make!

From a loser no matter what to a winner no matter what! That's the President
I voted for!

[DallasNE]

46. Could Not Agree More

This should also quiet those that are always shouting that Obama will not reach across the aisle. And it has other implications. Namely, how can the Republicans shut down the government at this key time by either not passing the remaining authorization bills or extending the debt ceiling -- a worthless artifact from WW I.

Boehner quickly announced the House will take this up the week of September 9th after Reid said he was considering calling the Senate back early.

[iandhr]

51. The President has always been wary of intervention.

Thats why it has not happened yet.

He probably knows he backed himself into a corner with the "red-line" comment.


That why he wants a congressional vote. If they vote no it gives him an out.

[sweetloukillbot]

99. And I think if they start imposing regime change conditions that will sour the deal as well

He is not looking for full scale intervention - lord knows there's been several times over the past two years that various parties have been screaming for US intervention in Syria - we've had plenty of opportunities to get involved. And each time people start screaming about him being a warmongering Bush II looking to finish the job of the PNAC, it doesn't happen. But the biggest thing that has bugged me about this - and I do think something needs to be done about Assad, I'm just not sure how and by whom - is that there have been several countries screaming "something must be done - America, go take care of it!"

[scarletwoman]

53. One of the smartest moves? He had to cover his ass, that's all.

I think that, like David Cameron, Obama assumed there'd be all kinds of support for a military strike on Syria. When that support didn't materialize, he realized he'd have to ease up on the throttle.

I'll give Obama credit for realizing that he was on thin ice and backing up a bit, but he put himself there in the first place with all his stupid and irresponsible bluster about "the Assad regime must go" and "red lines".

I certainly hope that Congress gives him a resounding "No!"

[DrDan]

101. agree completely - had his bluff called and this was the way out of a mess - at least he took it

[MFrohike]

54. A slightly different analysis

If either chamber fails to pass a resolution approving the use of force, any use of force in the "punishment" vein is blatantly unconstitutional. It's not a brilliantly planned exit, it's mandatory. Not only that, unless there was an imminent attack coming on America/Americans/Israel, it would be a political failure of the highest order.

Cheers to him for making the obviously smart move, but don't overstate it. He avoided problems by not being dumb, not through brilliant political creativity.

[DearAbby]

55. Not an out...a show of unity

This vote will be a game changer. I find it brilliant because once and for all, the Iraq fiasco will be debated, out in the open. This is the country's coming to Jesus moment. How can we as a country stand on moral grounds, when we are harboring our own war criminals?

I agree an atrocity has been done. Obama was not only speaking to the people of the country, he was speaking to the world. Obama is going to make a global case. This is why I elected this man. A global debate should be welcomed. But first we need to air out some laundry of our own. I also welcome the debate, just like the President.

[eissa]

56. And if they call his bluff

and authorize war? He will have thoroughly sullied his legacy. I wouldn't blame the Nobel Prize committee in demanding that peace prize back.

We're going to bomb people for bombing people. Makes so much sense.

[LuvLoogie]

98. Authorization for an attack is not a directive to make an attack.

It doesn't require the President to attack. Those who would "call his bluff" would have to explain a vote against raising the debt limit. They would have to justify crippling the government and Commander in Chief after authorizing military action.

[Carolina]

134. Thank you eissa

I don't see brilliance or strategy in this at all. BHO drew his red line in the sand and wants someone else to blame if he has to back down because Congress says no. OTOH, if they say yes (heaven forbid, but Congress seems to get a hard on for anything military despite its Obama hatred), we may end up in yet another wasteful war.

Frankly, I think it's a damn shame we have to hope Congress will do the right thing and thwart BHO

Frankly, I think it's a damn shame we have a POTUS who keeps proposing things that the people are against from a chained CPI to bombing Syria

[PatrynXX]

58. Kinda hard for me to sit here when someone has a video of 400 dead children

We would seem hypocrites for those killed at Sandy Hook if we did not try. Hopefully Congress will give it a go. Unless you wanna see how it feels like to get burned. As for the speech. 36 min late ouch. and ho hum biz as usual

[JackRiddler]

93. Are you also going to bomb the Congo?

[Schema Thing]

113. are there good targets?

there are certainly good targets in Syria.

[PatrynXX]

170. Don't know

Do they have chemical weapons

[Enthusiast]

59. K&R.

I know. It comes as a shock when an elected representative does the right think. Color me shocked.

[AsahinaKimi]

60. I would be curious to know how the party of "NO!" will vote on this one..

Any Predictions ??

[totodeinhere]

67. I predict that it will be a close vote in both chambers.

There will be coalitions from both parties supporting it and opposing it. Whatever the result is it will be a bipartisan result.

[AsahinaKimi]

70. wow! For

once right!

[another_liberal]

118. I saw a comment . . .

I saw a comment that claimed Speaker John Boehner has said the House will only deal with the question of attacking Syria about a week and a half from now, when they would have returned to Washington normally. If Boehner follows through on that he will shoot the Republican Party in the foot yet again. Republicans can't stick their heads in the sand and hope this decision will just go away in a week or so.

The Speaker is, if that report proves to be true, acting like the pitiful coward we have always thought he was. His passing on a chance to have input on whether this country should go to war will not be well received, even by Conservatives. If he does find the courage to hold a vote in the House on attacking Syria, I can not pretend to know how it will be decided. If, on the other hand, Boehner appears to be dodging his responsibility to hold a vote on the question, I'm certain he will lead the Republicans into serious defeat in 2014.

The American people demand real leadership on this one. They do not want war, and they will be in a mood to punish hypocrites who deceptively lead them into one more pointless war.

[felix_numinous]

64. K&R!

[totodeinhere]

65. I disagree.

If Congress does not grant authorization to attack Syria that will be interpreted as a defeat for Obama because his request was denied. Prime Minister Cameron is being widely derided for his "humiliating" defeat when the parliament failed to approve of an attack on Syria. It would be no different for Obama. And if Congress approves the attack that doesn't let the president off the hook either. When Congress passed the Iraqi War Resolution did that let Bush off the hook when everything fell apart in Iraq? No it did not. The same applies this time.

[kelliekat44]

84. So what. One defeat does not a disaster make. I really hope the Congress votes against Obama.

That's what they have been doing all along.

[fadedrose]

66. Some fault lies with the UN

They somehow have to be persuaded to change their charter so as to include the treatment of insane killers running countries.

It's not enough to go in with food for starving people, medical care, or help for refugees. Find the core of the problem, discuss it and decide what must be done to combat madness...

[markpkessinger]

71. Great! So he's a master at poltical gamesmanship . . .

. . . But do you think it will make him, and by extension the country, to be seen as any less hypocritical than he is/we are in the eyes of the rest of the world?

[Doctor_J]

74. if he is a master, then why has his presidency been one long string of

Republican policies

[markpkessinger]

88. I wasn't actually making that claim . . .

. . . but rather was just parroting the rhetoric back at the OP. (And I agree with you 100%, btw.) The point I was trying to make -- in an admittedly rather oblique way, is that the larger -- indeed, INFINITELY larger -- question here is whether there is any justification for U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war (I don't think there is). Instead, we have this thread, with people as giddy as 'tweens at a Justin Bieber concert over the President's political maneuvering -- which is a pretty trite concern in the scheme of things if you ask me.

[Doctor_J]

92. Yeah, half the Greatest page is vanity threads cheering his speech

Kind of discouraging. I remember when the party stood for something besides a cheering section. It was healthy then, not on death's doorstep like now.

[lumpy]

95. Obama's Republican policies ?Oh that's why the country is in such a mess.

n

[Carolina]

135. Thank you

People are acting as tough this is so brilliant. Sheesh, we're talking about death and destruction here. We're talking about unleashing another Shock and Awe with no after plans and an obvious dismissal of the unintended consequences which have accompanied all our military actions from Korea to Iraq.

Meanwhile, here at home, we are going to hell, rotting from within. This country's sad legacy is that a gun or a bomb solves everything

[uponit7771]

159. OBama = republican = right wing bullshit

[Doctor_J]

161. really? can you point me to a right wing site that says he's a

Republican? Or that he is too conservative?

Thanks in advance.

[uponit7771]

162. Yes, plenty of winger mems that claim Obama is just like Bush

[another_liberal]

121. I'm afraid . . .

I'm afraid the World will never forgive us for what we have already done, at least it won't in our lifetimes.

[MindMover]

72. BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT

[MyNameGoesHere]

73. Ugh. Yeah!! He did what he is supposed to do

after rutting around like a warmonger in heat for a few days. I tire of being the moral conscience of politicians. Aren't they mature enough to do it on their own?

[BlueStreak]

148. Even Bush sought Congressional approval

OK, he lied like crazy in order to get the vote passed, but at least he put Congress on record.

My prediction is that there are enough GOP Hawks in the Senate and Obama will twist enough Dem arms to get rather easy Senate passage. The House will not pass this -- at least not at first. The Teabaggers will tie it to the debt ceiling and Obamacare repeal. The GOP loves its arms merchants, so something will pass. I bet Obama has to give up chained CPI or some other false linkage to get this.

Here's a concept. How about we temporarily increase the taxes on defense contractors to pay for this bombing operation? I wonder how much they'd like it then.

If this drags on beyond the next two weekends, there will be another Miley Cyrus incident or something else that will sent this whole Syria thing to the back pages.

[mountain grammy]

75. Thank you, Mr. President! I agree and approve.

Now, if you can get the dysfunctional teabagger idiots to do their jobs. Yeah, you, Louie Gohmert, ya moran!

[gopiscrap]

76. I agree

[Ocelot]

79. That's what it's all about, right? Covering Obama's ass.

He not only advanced his agenda to attack the Assad regime, he also gave himself an out, should he choose to use it, by including the Congress in his decision to strike.

Wow, he's so slippery and conniving, it's just so DREAMY the way he'll do anything to get what he wants. Rah, rah, sis-boom-bah!

Reminds me of a previous "crush" I had on someone named Dick Cheney (oh god, I just threw up in my mouth a little when I typed that).

[Doctor_J]

80. As if he won't be blamed when it turns into another quagmire

The BOG has become decoupled from reality. But they're happy in la-la land, they get a lot of rec's. I guess that's good.

[Ocelot]

90. The BOG is now using dirty tricks to silence dissent

I was blocked from posting on a thread which was very briefly in Greatest Threads but apparently started in the depths of the BOG. The host who blocked me, "Cha", said that I had no right to comment on a thread that was started in the Barack Obama Group, even if it was now in Greatest Threads (neat how that works, huh?) I did post an Abuse alert and sent the situation to the Moderators.

Pretty desperate when they have to use such dirty tricks to enforce their agenda.

[Hekate]

153. Complain to Skinner in Ask the Administrators if you feel the Group rules are unfair. nt

[lumpy]

97. Startling ! How could you ever admit to having a crush on Dick Cheney. Gag...or was that

sarcasm ?

[Ocelot]

100. Haha honest question, so I'm forced to give an honest answer:

NO crush on Dick Cheney here, it should be obvious! And please don't remind me that I just said that (I really hate the recent trend toward ambivalent sarcasm, yet I'm now guilty of it myelf).



[link:|
]

[another_liberal]

111. You had a "crush on" Dick (The Dick) Cheney?

As far as I am concerned, you are free to post just about anything you want; however, you would be best served if you never, never again repeat that statement, not even purely in jest.

[nolabels]

154. Mice hardly survive long in house when it's occupied by a full herd of ally cats

And although it's kind of cruel to watch, it's only wonder how a Mouser can find so much fun as it continues to bat it's prey around for endless hours.

[another_liberal]

155. Herd of alley cats?

More like a herd of heartless, murdering greedheads.

Animals are guiltless. Their cruelties are practice for survival and profoundly natural. They can hardly be compared to our contrived, premeditated butcheries of our fellow human beings.

[nolabels]

168. I was trying to use a metaphorical analogy

I would highly agree with you on how many of the followers in the Cheney faction could be classified as heartless, murdering greed-heads. What was trying to get at is whenever a new poster comes in who may or may not be right wing bent disruptor they will often get tested here. If they don't pass the smell test then that herd of alley cats start to pounce (which seems to make perfect sense to me). Having a crush on Cheney would probably be somewhat of clue to that idea no doubt

[another_liberal]

169. Now I do see your point . . .

An apt analogy it is.

[Booster]

81. My gut tells me that if he had attacked w/o the approval of Congress,

they would have moved to impeach him, so, yes, I'm glad he made the smart move to include them in his decision. His entire time as President has been "damned if you do and damned if you don't", so this was brilliant on his part.

[Chemisse]

86. This is as it was meant to be - let Congress weigh in on acts of war.

And by doing this, Obama is now extracting himself from the really tight spot he was in.

[Chemisse]

89. Oh, and a round of popcorn for everyone!

Watching Congress figure out how to posture over this will be highly entertaining!

[Oakenshield]

91. Heh...

Please proceed Congress. Politically, it's something of a win-win for the left.

[blue14u]

96. One thing is certain

the shift from other issues was fast! If you want to quiet
the people, mention WAR!

Now we will be using our energy to battle this out until
we finally go bomb them. I believe eventually we will. The
big oil, corporations, war mongers and "masters pulling
the strings will say so. This looks like a temporary "wait a minute".

I am happy the POTUS is waiting for congress to decide.. I can't see
how this will help them in the least with public opinion, (not that they care what we think) if they give a go ahead. There is too much anger toward them.

Again, I am skeptical of why all of a sudden we must act on war?

What are they up to, and what will they be hiding and doing while we
are saturated with news of war?

Wake up, and pay attention as much as you can. We the people need to think this through.
THINK of the consequence's and THINK about what is really going on here. It's not just black and white. It's not......

[gopiscrap]

167. Good post welcome to DU

[pasto76]

106. You REALLY 'dont know how the house will vote"?

please. dont bullshit me. Every republican will vote NO.


this 'out', as you call it, bowing to the will of the people...

fast forward two months from now when the tea party and ilk is using THAT EXACT SAME WORDING to slam the president about not repealing obamacare or a thousand other tea party ideas.

'will of the people'. Do you even know what gerry mandering is? do you know that candidates for the house on the Dem side received a MILLION MORE VOTES than the republicans, but the republicans still control the house?

'will of the people' HA! Your kneejerk reaction will be to call me a warmonger or something right. Sorry to disappoint. I just really dont like your baseless 'reasoning'. This isnt your weeknight crime drama where you 'figure out the plot' and feel smart. This is the real world, and real lives on the line. and Congress is the furthest body, right now, to decide on any of this.

I trust the president. I am under oath to obey his orders. He doesnt need to input of LUNATICS in the House to give him the OK.

[another_liberal]

112. You think . . .

You think President Obama should ignore the House of Representatives and order attacks on his own authority alone?

[MNBrewer]

122. I believe you are also under oath to defend the Constitution

The Constitution provides war declaration power to the Congress, not the President. The President may be your CIC, but he has no constitutional authority to declare war.

[Bigredhunk]

114. up

[Billy Love]

115. I know which way my Representative is voting. She is with Barbara Lee.

No justification for war. Therefore, she is voting no.

[ecstatic]

119. I don't think this is a game for him

to be honest. Even though I strongly disagree with him on this, I think Pres. Obama sincerely believes there should be an intervention based on the evidence he's seen. However, I think his CoS convinced him that striking without authorization would be wrong. I also think that he believes (wrongly) that the GOP will be united behind his plan.

[another_liberal]

130. Congressional Repbulicans . . .

From what I've read so far, Congressional Republicans want either no attacks (Rand Paul and his ilk) or a much more robust and open-ended intervention (McCain and Graham) such as our initial efforts in Afghanistan.

Watch the Sunday morning talk shows. I imagine plenty of Republicans will be on hand there.

[ecstatic]

149. what did they say?

I woke up too late, but I just saw Kerry kick some ass on CNN.

[another_liberal]

151. They're all over the map.

I think every possible position has been staked out by some Republican or other. All, of course, think the President is handling things badly in some way.

[Chaco Dundee]

124. I have to agree

Once you are in that corner,and you find that lifeline,you might look like you missed embarrasment,but all who followed the true run up to to this point only shake their heads.

[another_liberal]

145. It was a sudden change.

Not exactly the U-turn I would like to see, but quite dramatic nonetheless.

[Liberal_in_LA]

126. praise for obama in DU! Thank u

[ocpagu]

129. Sorry if I offend anyone by saying this...

... but if a warmongering strategy to share responsability with the congress for starting a war is "one of the smartest moves" Obama has ever made, I think it's time to start having second thoughts...

[another_liberal]

131. It certainly surprised me.

I expected the missiles would be flying and bombs falling by now. The fact President Obama showed real flexibility and allowed himself at least a potential way out of this trap gives me some hope we may not attack after all.

[ocpagu]

132. I understand your point and I actually agree that's a good thing to have more time before an attack.

It's just that I believe the real right thing for Obama to do is not even considering an attack in first place.

[another_liberal]

137. I also think our attacks will do more harm than good.

And that is putting it mildly.

[Carolina]

136. Thank you, ocpagu

Yours is a voice of reason here.

As I have said up thread, I cannot believe people are cheering about what they perceive as brilliance when we are talking about war here... death, destruction and further depletion of our treasury. Another war in the ME with no after plans and no regard for the consequences of yet another intervention. These alleged smart people are either willfully blind or just plain ignorant of American history!

[cpwm17]

141. Yep, and US Congress also has the responsibility for declaring war

it's not part of Obama's job description.

[grahamhgreen]

138. Smart is not shooting off your pop gun cuz tommy told you too.

[another_liberal]

139. By "tommy" you really mean . . .

I wonder if by "tommy" you really mean "Bibi?"

[LukeFL]

142. The only people who had no faith

In him were the ones here and the tight wing. During the past week I have seen in this website such dirty attacks on the president that it was hard to tell apart from the crazy website. Everyone here forgot the reasons why they supported and voted for the president - even comparing him to bush.

I hope it is a lesson for them to finally realized President Obama is a compassionate caring guy who truly will never make a decision as important as this without judgement and analyzing the consequences.

He not only poke republicans in the eye but a bunch of haters here too.

Next time believe in the guy.
He is NO BUSH.

[another_liberal]

143. Presidnt Obama also managed to destroy the Republicans' best talking point for 2014.

Now they are madly scrambling to discover how their wealthy masters will want them to handle this challenge from the President. Watching the news should be more fun for awhile.

[Doctor_J]

156. I remember. he said he would support labor. he said healthcare reform

would include a public option. He said nafta would be renegotiated. He said social security cuts were off the table. He said the Bush tax cuts would expire. That's why I voted for him. Ouch.

[CakeGrrl]

157. Give him a Congress that isn't a collective ineffectual POS. -nt

[Doctor_J]

158. The congress made him offer ss cuts?

The congress made him ignore the Wisconsin teachers? The congress made him choose arne Duncan? Will the passage of tpp and keystonexl also be completely out of his control? And how many democrats in congress does he need? He had big majorities in 2009.

I would have more respect for the BOG if they would admit, "yes, he is a Reagan republican and that's what I like about him".

[uponit7771]

160. So you're implying congress had NOTHING to do with the offer!? REALLY?!

[Hulk]

147. K & R

Whatever that means. If it means..."I agree 100%", then that's my message.

The man is brilliant. I was hoping he would do something like this. Had he unilaterally made the decision, the reich wingers would be jumping all over him for the rest of time.

Good move, President!

[another_liberal]

164. Hear! Hear!

He made me proud of him.

[riqster]

150. One for the Constitution.

And great entertainment in store for us all, watching the Dance of Elephantine Weasels! The Reeps are gonna tie themselves in knots trying to step around the rhetorical land mines.

[bluestate10]

163. I don't approve of it, but there will be war now unless one event happens.

That event is that Putin agrees to largely abandon Assad. I don't think that event will happen. So we will have war. The USA has many reasons to want war, I think the reasons given are smokescreens for larger objectives that will be born out or not born out by war.