Comments on: Why did Obama change his mind about getting Congress’ approval on Syria?

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Wed, 04 Sep 2013 18:52:49 +0000

Obama gets a big fat smile on his face whenever Americans are killed, especially by terrorists. So in causing the terrorists to resurge, he has done nothing more but produce another golf session for his own amusement.

As for Obama and the Left’s “plan to fight terrorism”…. the only ones they will be fighting are American patriots and loyalists.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 15:52:39 +0000

Harold: “Republicans might agree with the messiah that he doesn’t need congressional authorization to just bomb Syria. Then do not schedule a vote. Let the messiah do as he wishes.”

Obama and McCain are correct – in this instance, the President does not require Congressional authorization for a one-off bombing of Syria on the stated grounds.

However, I like JJ’s idea of Congress voting “present” at the end of the proceeding in deference to the President’s legal and Constitutional authority. And, Congress should fix the full political responsibility of the act on the President.

What this ‘vote’ should really be about is a people’s court that compels Obama to explain and justify – and defend – his foreign policy and his conduct thereof.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 15:43:49 +0000

blert: “Beyond that, how can we justify jumping into this filthy, ugly scrape when the fanatics proudly relate how THEY’VE been using chemical warfare?”

Obama has flipped the order of priorities. Obama’s top priority is state actors, whereas Bush’s top priority was eliminating the terrorists.

Bush, 2004:

“In the short-term, we will work with every government in the Middle East dedicated to destroying the terrorist networks. In the longer-term, we will expect a higher standard of reform and democracy from our friends in the region.”

“Every government in the Middle East”.

Said another way using the Marxist guerilla fish in water analogy, Bush intended to, at step one, poison the water for the terrorists throughout their ecosystem and then, at step two, switch out the water to a different pH.

Indeed, governments knew with Bush that as long as they were anti-terrorist that, for now at least, they could stay off of the US’s poop list. In that sense, Putin’s support of Assad on anti-terrorism grounds would have been viewed under a better light by Bush than Obama.

It worked – the terrorist networks were significantly degraded under Bush. But they have resurged since Obama changed the Presidential focus.

I’m not sure what Obama’s plan is to fight terrorists other than drone assassinations, but his priority is clearly inter-NATION-al relations over counter-terrorism.

By: NeoConScum

NeoConScum — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 14:51:37 +0000

Eric at 4:37: “..GOP..should stipulate bar, effect, consequences..”

Your lips to God and the GOP Leadership’s ears, Kid. Maybe hire Axelrod’s psychopathic amoral skills for 1-week…(-: Hey, just saying…

By: Harold

Harold — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 14:24:50 +0000

Republicans might agree with the messiah that he doesn’t need congressional authorization to just bomb Syria. Then do not schedule a vote. Let the messiah do as he wishes.

By: IGotBupkis, "Faeces Evenio", Mr. Holder?

IGotBupkis, "Faeces Evenio", Mr. Holder? — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 14:04:43 +0000

}}} He’s already weakened the US on the world stage

Only until he’s gone.

Jan 22, 2016, there’s gonna be a new sheriff in town, y’hear?

By: David Aitken

David Aitken — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 12:23:26 +0000

Congress should introduce a resolution stating that it is the sense of Congress that any member of the US Military who participates in any attack on either the Syrian government or any of the rebel groups without a Declaration of War from Congress is violating their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and will be subject to the charge of Treason.

While nonbinding, this will remind the military that the ultimate authority lies with the people, not with the president.

By: FOAF

FOAF — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 07:20:26 +0000

“Consistent with his principles”

That Axelrod is a riot, I’m tellin’ ya!

By: Matt_SE

Matt_SE — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 06:25:42 +0000

Everyone’s focused on what the republicans will do. That’s not the issue.
If enough R’s vote against the use of force, the Dems in congress will be in a bind: do they vote against their president, or vote against their base?
There were protests outside Kerry’s house, which confirmed what I always suspected; that there are some Dems that take their (admittedly naive) rhetoric seriously.
This could further hurt their chances in 2014. For further reference, see how they’ve already hurt themselves with their push for gun control.

By: rickl

rickl — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 04:35:51 +0000

Then there are all sorts of possibilities for unintended consequences.

Suppose Obama orders cruise missiles fired at Syria. They allegedly have advanced Russian anti-ship missiles. Suppose one of our Navy ships is sunk with the loss of hundreds of lives. Then what?

We still have tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan, a land-locked country that is dependent on supply lines that run through semi-hostile territory such as Pakistan. I don’t know how much clout Russia has in that area, but what if our supply lines are cut in the wake of an attack on Syria? Then what?

This situation reminds me of the summer of 1914, and seems ripe for escalation in unforeseen and unknowable ways.