Sorry, I'm confused by the President's speech.

[MannyGoldstein]

What I think I heard was:

1. I've decided to attack Syria.
2. I *will* attack Syria
3. I'll give Congress the opportunity to agree with me before I attack.

Is that right?

If so, then it's a lot like his last speech about Spy On Everyone.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Feel free to correct what I wrote. nt

[geek tragedy]

7. He said he thought it was necessary, that he has the authority,

but that he's not going to do anything until Congress has voted on the issue.

As I said, he made you work pretty hard to lie about what he said in order to whine.

[MannyGoldstein]

36. I lied? About what? nt

[geek tragedy]

38. Obama did not say he would attack regardless of what

Congress says, as your post states, albeit subtly.

Call your Congressional Representative and complain about mean ol' Obama to them.

[Amonester]

51. Calling Congressional un-Representative and complain about anything is a waste of time, unless...

you promise to send them a few thousand bucks, and a recommendation to your Board Of Directors (if you're part of one) to do the same.

[Ghost Dog]

67. Shouldn't that be a felony?

[daleanime]

81. No, as long as their members of congress....

its perfectly legal.

[rhett o rick]

114. Not that you will listen, but the president said that those that did this will be punished.

He said he has the authority to punish the Syrian government. He said he wanted Congress's blessing.

If he doesnt get Congress's blessing, do you think he should punish the Syrian government? I know you wont answer. You have nothing but hatred to spew.

[morningfog]

105. Wow! 15 hidden posts! Quite the community standard bearer.

[QC]

149. Up to 19 now. n/t

[morningfog]

150. He's trucking for a new record.

[rhett o rick]

113. If you disagree, then put forth a decent argument. But you cant do anything but

ad hominem attacks.

If you disagree, tell us what you think the President said. I think Manny nailed it.

[Logical]

6. In other words....

"You are right and it makes me mad". LOL, I get it.

[Logical]

11. You accuse him of whining.....by whining! Classic! n-t

[Andy823]

87. +1000 nt

[FSogol]

53. +100. So true. n/t

[treestar]

15. +1

Obama is always wrong. Never seen a Democrat be so unsupportive of a Dem president.

[rhett o rick]

115. You think Obama is always wrong? I dont think so. But his neo-con view on the

middle east is wrong. His support of the Republicans in charge of the spy agencies is wrong. And his support of Wall Street is wrong. But he isnt always wrong. He likes pie.

[Pisces]

46. Oh this one can always find something to whine about. He is known for it.

[geek tragedy]

48. That train is never late. nt

[KittyWampus]

2. Why not take the night off to regroup, Manny. Even the POTUS played golf today.

[Logical]

8. Same for you! n-t

[KittyWampus]

12. just had cocktail hour!

[mike_c]

77. I'm jealous (posted from my office at 5:45 PM Saturday)....

I'm REALLY REALLY jealous.

[ProSense]

19. LOL! Obama Decision On U.S. Syria Attack Wins Applause From Skeptical Liberals - HuffPo

Obama Decision On U.S. Syria Attack Wins Applause From Skeptical Liberals - HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023572636

[unblock]

4. first, he never said a congressional "no" would idle him. second,

washington is, for the most part, incapable of saying no the the military money machine.

obama knows that as the debate plays out, defense corporations will contribute funds to key campaigns, and viola, congressional authorization.

oh, yeah, and they'll trot out some flimsy evidence and give some high-and-mighty speeches so people won't see that it's really the money behind the scenes that is controlling policy.

but it is.

[itsrobert]

29. Correct, the money will be flowing into congressional campaigns

with a little extra under the table.

[Ghost Dog]

73. Shouldn't that be a felony?

[unblock]

121. yes. yes it should.

but washington has so institutionalized corruption that there are plenty enough ways to legally bribe politicians and get the government you want -- if you're rich enough.

[leftstreet]

5. 4. I've blamed Congress for 5 years for everything

Why stop now?

[treestar]

13. So it would be better if he just did it?

Rather than consult with congress !

ODS of the president should be all powerful kind.

Confess does have a role.

[leftstreet]

16. No. (Is 'ODS' Obama Delirium Syndrome?)

I don't necessarily think Obama's ardent supporters are delirious

No, of course he shouldn't be bombing away without consensus. But he could have saved himself this trouble by not threatening to bomb to begin with

[madokie]

94. Would you point me to where Obama specifically said he'd bomb Syria

I'd like to hear if for myself. Seems many here heard it and you're insinuating that he did so give me a link if you would. I sure missed it if he actually said that and I won't believe it until I do hear if for myself.

[treestar]

95. You've changed the subject

So you admit now Congress does have a role?

[leftstreet]

96. So you think Obama supporters are delirious?

What a strange notion

I don't recall saying Congress did/didn't have a role

I specifically insinuated Obama has blamed Congress for his ineffectiveness for 5 years, and I wouldn't expect that to change

[immoderate]

10. Some might say he is stalling for time.

Then there are those who see this as the perfect opportunity to restore the war powers rightfully to congress, at least, rhetorically.

--imm

[pscot]

18. Stalling for time is way better

than blowing people up.

[immoderate]

44. I would have to agree...

...with that.

--imm

[paleotn]

88. I hope it's stalling for time.....

...this administration has to know that just slinging a few missiles into Syria as "punishment" isn't going to make the situation better and could very easily make it a whole lot worse. This gives Obama some maneuvering room after that whole line in the sand debacle.

I hope they're using this brief interlude to do a deal with the Russians and Assad to pack up the chems and get them out of Syria. Far fetched? Maybe, but stranger things have happened. He gives up his WMDs and we can stand down. After that, they can have their civil war without the threat of Assad using the chems or them falling into the hands of rebel religious fanatics with ties to Al Qaeda.

[morningfog]

106. It has nothing to do with war powers.

It has to do with political calculus. Obama has carried out many acts of war without congress. This one is just too unpopular to find any support under any other reasoning.

[ProSense]

17. Here:

Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I'm prepared to give that order.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.

Statement by the President on Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023571230


You're welcome.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. "but having made my decision..."

That's the confusing part. Decision to do *what*?

[Whisp]

21. One Way Manny: he has made his, now others have to make theirs.

not too complicated.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. His decision, as CIC, to do what? nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. I think your semantics are wrong.

I don't know the context to that speech, but it sounds to me that what the President has decided is *that* attacking Syria is the right thing for America to do, not *to* attack Syria - he's going to put that decision to Congress, but he's decided what he thinks Congress ought to decide.

For what it's worth, I think he's wrong. But I'm afraid it's hard to see this thread as anything other than at active attempt to find fault, as opposed to an attempt at unbiased evaluation.

[randome]

40. I think you correctly interpreted that phrase.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[ProSense]

22. Decision to assess and prepare for a strike.

It says so right in the text. Why are you confused?

[MannyGoldstein]

24. So if Congress disagrees, we won't attack?

Doesn't look like he's saying that.

[ProSense]

28. Well, then Congress could impeach him.

Do you think Congress is going to say no?

Your own Senators expressed support for a limited strike.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. Conditional support for a strike

They've not said if those conditions have been met.

I agree with them.

[ProSense]

39. "They've not said if those conditions have been met. "

"I agree with them."

And if they determine the conditions have been met, will you agree with them?

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Yes, they have.

I probably will.

[HardTimes99]

63. Congress cannot impeach a President merely over a disagreement. Nor should it. If

Congress wishes to stop a war, it can forbid all appropriations for same. Then if any President proceeds (think Iran-Contra) there are grounds for impeachment.

[MFrohike]

82. What?

What authority prevents the House from impeaching a president for any reason or no reason? Unless there's some rule of the House itself that prohibits impeachment for certain purposes, Ford's old rule of impeachment being whatever a majority of the House says it is still stands.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's a fact.

[HardTimes99]

85. Well, the Constitution may be 'quaint and obsolete' (to quote the Bush

goombah Alberto Gonzales somewhat out of context), but it prescribes impeachment in cases of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. One would have to stretch ingenuity to its limits to make a disagreement about foreign policy into a 'high crime and misdemeanor.' If anyone can do that, come to think of it, these Republican fascists can.

[MFrohike]

92. Ok

If the House impeaches the president over a ham sandwich, the impeach is still valid. That's not viewing the constitution as obsolete, but recognizing that the language is so vague as to be meaningless. We've had two presidential impeachments in our history and both were worthless. Both were an example of a House that disliked and disagreed with a president and thus sought a ridiculous pretext to impeach him. That's why I say Ford was right. Now, if you want to argue that removal requires more than a mere dispute, the historical record will support you, but not for the impeachment.

[Hydra]

25. I'm with you- the President rarely speaks off the cuff

And I respect him better when he does. That odd phrase is in there for a reason, and I suspect it's the reason you stated- "We're going to do this, but since we don't have the rest of the world agreeing on it, I'm putting Congress on the hook."

I'm fine with it though- Congress is supposed to decide these things anyway. If they say no and the President does it anyway...well, there won't be any spinning it.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. If so, the thing strikes me as just weird.

Maybe it's brilliant, but it could backfire big time, and prolongs the gnashing of teeth

[Hydra]

56. I agree, at first blush it's a weirdly presented speech

It almost sounds like "I'd like to make it clear that I'm not soft on military matters, and I'm perfectly fine with doing this...in fact, I was going to...but let's do the legal niceties, just to make this look more legit."

Considering how tone deaf Washington is, it might just be a weirdness from the echo chamber sending a message to us.

[pnwmom]

72. Decision on what he believes is the right thing to do.

The next step is to persuade others and to get authorization.

[HardTimes99]

61. We're not the world's "oldest constitutional democracy". Unless you exclude

Great Britain which has us beat by some 100 years (dating from 1688 and its Glorious Revolution).

[Benton D Struckcheon]

65. They don't actually have a written Constitution, ya know,

so technically he's correct.

[HardTimes99]

69. "Words, words, words" as Hamlet once said :) Now we're talking a

written Constitution? OK. I had always been taught that the UK had an unwritten Constitution, making the King or Queen a 'constitutional monarch'.

[ProSense]

74. Details. LOL! n/t

[Fuddnik]

93. From past observations.

When they position the military, they use it.

[rhett o rick]

117. Why dont you add your take on this? It's easy to cut and paste. Tell us how you feel. nm

[randome]

26. Of course you're confused. The loyal opposition is supposed to always object.

Who really gives a shit if he changes his mind as he assesses the situation? You think he should play politics with this decision? Maye he should say "I'm sorry, I have reservations but because I said something different at the beginning, I'm going to barrel straight ahead anyways!"

In addition to changing his assessment, I think he saw an opportunity to give back some of the power that Congress, in its infinite stupidity, ceded to the Executive Branch.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

32. So Obama's letting Congress decide

That's good.

[randome]

35. That's where the power to declare war is supposed to reside.

Make them do their goddamned jobs, for a change!

As CIC, however, Obama is responsible for doing what he thinks is best. But if the vote is strongly against attacking Syria, I think he will see a consensus in that and give in to it.

At least I hope that's how this all shakes out.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

68. Obama's oath of office requires him to be responsible for...

....first protecting and defending the Constitution, not "doing what he thinks is best". The Constitution gives the power to make war to Congress. And just in case you think POTUS has that power in case of imminent threat to the U.S., you'll have to demonstrate that Syria is an imminent threat to U.S.

[randome]

78. Congress gave away that power. Maybe this is the first step toward forcing them to take it back.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

89. Congress can't "give away that power"

Unless they want to call a Constitutional convention and amend the document.

[morningfog]

107. He is playing politics with this decision.

[itsrobert]

27. Totally correct

We will attack regardless of what congress decides. You are no fool.

[Maedhros]

34. I'm glad Obama is seeking Congressional approval.

We'll see what he does with the result. I am categorically opposed to a U.S. military strike in Syria.

If he defies Congress and attacks anyway, like with Libya, then there should be consequences.

[randome]

60. There could be political consequences but not legal ones.

A Democracy is not the same thing as Majority Rule. Obama should do what he thinks is best regardless of the politics involved.

Of course he is a politician so...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Maedhros]

120. International law is pretty clear about dropping bombs on countries that haven't threatened you.[n/t

[BlueStreak]

71. But that's the point. Is he?

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 11:15 PM - Edit history (1)

He is evidently keeping his options open for a few days by lobbing it over to Congress. But did he say he would abide by Congress' decision (if they ever agree on anything), the way that David Cameron did?

[Maedhros]

119. I'm hoping he does, but I'm not holding my breath.

He defied Congress with regard to the Libyan bombing.

[BlueStreak]

122. In the case of Libya, there was genuine multi-lateral support

I was in favor of the Libyan operation. I could see a scenario that had a chance of success and it didn't see the risk was too high. In this case, it is just the opposite. I don't see any military scenario that doesn't make matters even worse, and there is absolutely no multi-national support.

[greytdemocrat]

43. I tend to agree...

This just puts it off awhile.

Unless he changes his mind.

[MindMover]

31. No, this President said, I will give this congress enough rope to hang itself ....

here ya go fellas, make a decision to rid the world of the butcher of Damascus or let him continue murdering his citizens, you choose....

[Ocelot]

49. "The butcher of Damascus"

"Freedom fries"

"Smoke 'em out of their holes"

"Aluminum tubes"

"Clear and present danger"

Got any more good ones? You really should be over at Fox News, you know.

[MindMover]

50. If pictures taken of innocents suffocating from gas, do not convince you that he is a butcher then

I really do not know what will ... maybe your own experience can enlighten me to this kind and gentle dentist from Damascus ...

[zeemike]

80. So what would that make us then

when we mow down civilians by the thousands?....is butchery in the name of freedom OK with you?...so maybe Assad is doing it for freedom too.

But this is classic Bush talk...the bad guys are not just bad, they are the worst people that ever lived on the face of the earth...which is supposed to make us so revolted we will give them permission to do what ever they want.

[MindMover]

84. So you are stating that this butcher will place civilians in military targets, much like

Hitler did ....

[MyNameGoesHere]

90. So those bombed weddings and such from drones with the dead kids.

That makes Obama the butcher of Washington? I would agree, let's see if you do.

[Ocelot]

131. Only a complete idiot would think Assad is behind the gas attacks

As the evidence continues to come in the blame points further and further away from Assad.

You do realize that factions of the Syrian rebels opposing Assad have pledged allegiance to AL QAEDA?

In an interview with a UAE newspaper, Abu Ahmed, a man identifying himself as the Al Nusra military commander for the Hasakah Governorate, described the organisation's goals as deposing Bashar al-Assad, and then establishing a state under the Quran and sharia. Alcohol, tobacco and entertainment considered immoral would be banned, but the rules would be introduced gradually and after giving people advice first.

Members of the group are accused of attacking the religious beliefs of non-Sunnis in Syria, including the Alawis.

Members of the group have referred to the United States and Israel as enemies of Islam and warned against Western intervention in Syria. Syrian members of the group claim they are only fighting the Assad government and would not attack Western states. The United States accused it of being affiliated with al-Qaeda in Iraq; in April 2013 the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq released an audio statement affirming this connection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front

[link:http://|
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/al-qaeda-links-cloud-syrian-war-as-u-s-seeks-clarity-on-rebels.html

Now go ask Karl Rove for some new talking points, you've exhausted your old ones.

[MindMover]

133. So the entire intelligence community is wrong .... BS

[Ocelot]

139. The stupid is strong with this one (n/t)

[MindMover]

140. You can call me anything you want, the facts are irrefutable .....

[Ocelot]

141. You haven't presented any facts, only spew

When you can provide some links to credible sources to back up your incredible statements, then we can talk about facts.

[MindMover]

142. This is just the latest ..... dipstick

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425981/Senior-Syrian-military-chiefs-tell-captain-fire-chemicals-or-be-shot

[Ocelot]

143. Fail

Crap article based on hearsay among unnamed individuals. If you're feeling confident, try posting this as an OP and see how far it gets...

[MindMover]

144. and your strawman arguments and disinformation is more real .....

go dig up another source that refutes an entire intelligence community and now a majority of world powers ....

[Ocelot]

145. That's "are more real", Curveball...

Sorry but I can't waste my time with you anymore. Ignored, go troll someone else.

[MindMover]

146. May your gods be with you and your regime ..... on the way out ....

[Ocelot]

147. Yep, you want exactly what Al Qaeda wants

Gotcha. Buh-bye!

[MindMover]

148. You and your Alquaeda can go FYourself ... you will see who gets who ...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

59. Anyone sufficiently outraged to want military action should call 1-888-550-ARMY (2769).

Cyber-recruiters are standing by.


http://www.goarmy.com/talk-with-us/phone.html

[MindMover]

79. Been there, done that ....

[AnotherMcIntosh]

109. Do it again if you are sufficiently outraged.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. Here's what I think he means - completely different to yours.

1) I have decided that attacking Syria is the right thing to do.
2) I am not a dictator
3) I urge congress to give me the go-ahead to attack Syria.

For what it's worth, I think he's wrong, but I think your attempt to find fault with him betrays a lack of objectivity and fairness.

[Ocelot]

45. Yup, exactly

He's run out of ideas to dodge the inevitable NSA backlash, so his Hail Mary pass is cribbed in desperation from the Dubya playbook. War does complement Spying on Everyone so neatly.

[n2doc]

47. If he goes ahead after congress says no, he will confirm all the righties delusions

They already think he is a 'dictator'. I can't see him doing it against the will of congress and the american people. I suspect great pressure (aka $$$) will be put on congress to vote yes, just like in the NSA funding votes. In the end the MIC will be getting 'supplemental' funding to pay for this, and everyone else gets screwed.

[iandhr]

52. No he did not say he will attack.

[Little Star]

55. He most certainly did say that earlier this week......

[iandhr]

57. Yes

But know is he saying that he will wait for authorization for congress.

In his statement today did he say if he would go without congress

[freedom fighter jh]

66. I didn't hear him say either that he would or that he would not go w/o Congress.

That would seem to mean that he's leaving open the possibility that he will.

[Little Star]

76. You only said "No he did not say he will attack." Now you want to talk about...

something completely different? ok.

He was going to go without congress too, but then so many congress members said he need to wait for them and only then did he say that he will wait for authorization form congress.

I can understand why so many are confused because his plan has kept changing when he runs into road blocks. I for one am glad that he is finally going to wait for congress's input. He shouldn't have to bear all the burden. Those congress critters need to be on the record.

But he was going to go it alone this very weekend, with or without other countries and without approval from congress, yes he was.

I never could understand what the rush was.

[Richardo]

54. poor lil Manny

There there. At least you admitted it this time.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

58. Maybe he can single payer healthcare passed this way?

He actually voted against going to war with Iraq.

[truebluegreen]

128. Not that I didn't appreciate it, but he voted against going to war with Iraq

when his vote meant nothing, i.e. before he was in national office.

[Bradical79]

62. Pretty sure he said we should take military action

Not would or will. Sounds to me like he will seek congressional approval and won't take military action without it.

[freedom fighter jh]

64. Almost

In #3, I didn't hear the last three words.

[pnwmom]

70. You need hearing aids.

But I doubt they will help someone with your problem.

[jsr]

75. Good thing you're not confused by the wording of the resolution

which says "Limited - Only missiles will be used", like right here somewhere:

(a) Authorization.- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of Chemical Weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to:

(l) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any Weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such Weapons; or

(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such Weapons.

[iamthebandfanman]

83. Congress approved of the war in Iraq

so i think IM the one confused as to how them approving this time would make any difference or gain any support from anti war folks on DU?

[BuelahWitch]

135. Different time, (largely) different Congress, different President

We were still gung ho, rah rah, patriotic due to 9/11 when Congress voted to go to war in Iraq. A great many of the current Congressional delegation were not present at the time (nor was Senator Obama) and of course, no one dared vote against Junior Bush, because it would look unpatriotic to do so (although some brave souls did).

On edit: when I say "we" I meant the country as a whole, not DU nor most of the local Democrats I know.

[spanone]

86. we hear what we want.

[Just Saying]

91. Perhaps you should read his actual words

Instead of twisting them and adding negative spin.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets

So he said he decided we should take action. Not that we must or will.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.

Entire transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/31/statement-president-syria

So, he doesn't say he's going to attack regardless. On the contrary, he made a point that he wants the American people involved in the decisions thru their representatives in Congress.

Perhaps it's hard to find reasons to attack Obama since this was actually a really good move that many of his opponents here at DU were asking for, but you tried, didn't ya?

Even more interesting is that you seemed to agree with the move earlier today:

MannyGoldstein (22,915 posts)
5. I guess he caved to Republicans again.

But this cave I like.
You can have this sig too! Info here.

It's still negative towards the President but you were agreeing, right?

Edit to add link to DU post above: http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023570419

[MannyGoldstein]

97. Deciding as Commander In Chief has a pretty important meaning, no?

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

It's not like Joe Blow's taking a position.

For the record, I'm in favor of taking significant punitive action if it's demonstrated that Syria used chemical weapons.

[azurnoir]

98. actually I think you're right and if I'm reading this correctly

Obama doesn't need Congressional approval unless he were to commit ground troops or remember Libya?

Yet in 2011, the administration took military action in Libya without any congressional approval, prompting the Republican-led House of Representatives to vote to rebuke the president.

In its legal justification for action in Libya, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) argued that Congress' authority to declare "war" was limited by the definition of war. "This standard generally will be satisfied only by prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period," the OLC wrote.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57600702/can-obama-strike-syria-without-congress-consent/

what consulting Congress does however is give Congress critters of all stripes an out for the 2014 elections, they can say I voted NO

[Just Saying]

100. He doesn't have to go to Congress

And said as much in the speech I posted above. But he's choosing to give voice to our reps on this issue.

I don't believe he would ask for authorization and then ignore it.

[azurnoir]

111. IMO he's giving them a political out eta

this is not a popular move with the US public, and the next elections are right around the corner -so to speak

remember Obama's 'red line' speech, looking at the big (international) picture, in this case Russia, China, and Iran he's damned if he doesn't because he'll look like a wimp or a guy that can't put 'his money' where his mouth is if he doesn't, however on the domestic front he's damned if he does, because this is a less than popular move and remember elections

seems like the perfect way out to me and a brilliant move

[truebluegreen]

129. Does morality or even practicality / efficacy fit in there in any way?

Doesn't sound like it. "...a political out...elections...look like a wimp...perfect way out...brilliant move...."

All posturing.

This is no way to run a foreign policy.

[azurnoir]

136. wellwe're told the morality is attacking Syria to punish Assad

and I'll predict that if it indeed happens what the wording will be is that we're attacking Assad, as opposed to Syria

now about the political considerations

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023576131

as to our foreign policy as far as I can see that is how we've always run it, lots of posturing, the last POTUS that I remember running foreign policy on moral grounds was Jimmy Carter

eta Congress is due back in session on 9/9 the decision making will then take place in the day or 2 after that

[truebluegreen]

138. Don't care what we are told, since I don't believe a word of it.

If "morality" in politics meant fomenting peace and stability and sustainability for everyone I'd be fine with it.

Since that is not the case and instead it is all about power and advantage and money, I would just as soon they dropped the pretense and said so.

ETA: the good news is, with the naked lying and hypocrisy evidenced in the last decade, many people here and around the world are beginning to see.

[Just Saying]

99. Absolutely and it's his decision to make.

But while he said he made the decision that we should take action, he also made the decision to let the people's representatives have their say and explained why. So why is your OP so negative?

You seemed to think this was a good idea before and I agree. It gives voice to the American people as well as forcing the Congress to put up or shut up. I really don't believe he will attack if they vote no. At least, not for this incident.

I can respect that you disagree with his administration on many issues, but isn't your knee jerk reaction claiming this is bad just the other side of the "Obama apologists" you talk about?

I also fear that proving anything to you is virtually impossible as you don't seem to have much trust for any part of our government. What proof would move you?

I'm torn as I don't think we should sit back and watch people be gassed but shooting missiles into Syria seems like an incredibly bad idea all around.

[David__77]

102. You're wrong on #3, partly.

He is giving congress the opportunity to agree or disagree. "Sources" in the administration stated that they will not be bound by the vote, unfortunately. We can hope that congress says "no" and that the administration is compelled politically to abide by that. We can hope that if congress says "yes," other factors will intervene to ensure that there is no attack.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

103. He said, "Either attack or treaties mean nothing" (even though Syria never signed).

Neither has North Korea or Egypt.

[morningfog]

104. That's it. This is his war, by god, and he will have it.

People praising it are at a loss. He is is so eager to start this, an keeps getting declines to join. Congress cannot make it legal under international law anyway.

[morningfog]

108. The fix is in. He wouldn't have given this speech of the votes

haven't already been counted.

[bvar22]

112. I got that feeling too.

*

[woo me with science]

116. +1

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

110. OBAMA BAD BAD BAD!!!!! OH NOES!!!!!!!!

[rhett o rick]

118. Give him some slack, he isnt always bad. Maybe just his neo-con view of the middle east.

Kill, kill, kill was what the Republicans want.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

126. What neocon view of killing?!? That is bullshit and you know it!

[rhett o rick]

130. The jury is still out for me. But I give him credit for taking this to Congress. nm

[SidDithers]

123. Yes. Apparently you are...nt

Sid

[L0oniX]

124. Don't worry. The worshippers will hold your hand and walk you to the pulpit where you can be saved.

The worship is way too thick and totally off the chain. It's making me sick. Time to change my voter registration to independent but then maybe I'll just never vote again.

[Egalitarian Thug]

125. K&R If only... n/t

[Zorra]

127. Well...best to keep 'em guessing. nt

[QC]

132. Looks like you were right.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/01/obama-strike-syria-congress-kerry

[gulliver]

134. Maybe you shouldn't listen to speeches.

Confusion is uncomfortable.

[MannyGoldstein]

137. Nah, it keeps life interesting.

Anyway, it looks like I was at least mostly right.