Why did Obama change his mind about getting Congress’ approval on Syria?
The scuttlebutt is that Obama wants to get the members of Congress on the record as voting yeah or nay:
His reasoning, according to officials who were in the room [when Obama explained his change of heart to his advisers in the Oval Office on Friday night]? He wants members on the record and on the hook, rather than simply criticizing from outside whatever action he takes.
This is congruent with what we already know of Obama. For him it’s all about political jockeying for position and his own status.
He has no idea how to make a difficult decision, but he’s helped by the fact that he has had no problem reversing himself in the past and has come to think that he will not suffer any serious consequences as a result.
He knows he can blame the Republicans, and he knows the Democrats will stick by him in the ways that count to him—on domestic issues like Obamacare and immigration, that is.
He didn’t really want to attack Syria anyway—if he does, he would be doing it mostly to save face about the red line he drew. So Syria itself is not the main issue.
His favorite modus operandi when something goes wrong for him is to pass the buck. So going to Congress at this point does just that, whether Congress ends up approving or disapproving.
I keep reading articles wondering if this will weaken Obama, but I’m not sure what they mean by “weaken.” He’s already weakened the US on the world stage, but since that’s his goal, that’s perfectly okay with him and is in fact a consummation devoutly to be wished. As for domestically, he’s not running for re-election. To be weakened, his own party would have to abandon him, and though they might gripe and grouse for a while it’s temporary and will not extend to other issues he deems important. And for him to be further weakened, voters would have to turn to Republicans in 2014 and 2016, and I just don’t see that happening as a result of Syria. Will voters even remember Syria at that point?
“He wants members on the record and on the hook, rather than simply criticizing from outside whatever action he takes.”
Because that worked so well for Bush and Congress when Iraq went south.
The GOP needs to think like activists.
That means let Obama arrange the stage and the audience, then the GOP should put on their play, with their frame and narrative, instead of Obama’s.
As I suggested in the earlier thread, Congress should make this a people’s court on Obama’s whole foreign policy and record with his Syria intervention proposal as the jumping off point. I also recommend using the opportunity to correct the record on the Iraq intervention and rehabilitate Bush’s legacy with a direct compare/contrast with Obama, but I doubt the GOP is savvy enough for that maneuver.
vanderleun:
As you know, there are very VERY different rules for Bush and Obama about that sort of thing. What Bush could never in a million years get away with, Obama gets away with every day.
He’s still voting present.
My opinion: All the Repubs should vote, “Present.” That throws the ball solidly back into Obama and the progressive’s court. Whatever is then decided cannot be blamed on the evil Rethuglicans. Sneaky and passive aggressive – yes. It was one of Obama’s favorite tools when he was a legislator. Why not use it on him?
It’s all politics, all the time.
As David Axelrod tweeted yesterday:
Principles…yeah, sure.
Congress should reject Obama’s current proposal and tell him to come up with a new one that has a real chance of success. As Obama said, he can act whether it is tomorrow or next month, there is no rush.
Obama will want the issue framed as a vote for or against the abstracted *principle* of enforcement on proscribed NBC use. Ergo, Obama stands on the principled high ground and Congress’s choice is either to join him there or pull America off of the high ground.
Instead, the GOP should stipulate the principle and frame the primary issue at bar as the effect, consequences, and follow-up.
That can break down into means/ends, costs v benefits, risks v rewards, consequences, alternatives, and what follows. Make Obama defend his plan on the details, not just the abstract principle. As part of what follows, Congress should require an explanation for how the situation reached this point.
The emergent issue shouldn’t be the principle of enforcing on NBC but rather the (in)competency of Obama’s leadership up to this point and his competency to lead going forward.
In other words, make the narrative not about whether enforcement on NBC is right or wrong, but on how Obama screwed up his and America’s leadership role so badly and question whether he’s going to continue screwing up going forward.
Ultimately, I think Congress will have to stipulate the principle, which likely means a rubber stamp of the action. But if Obama’s proposal can be made to look inadequate and ineffectual under examination, then Obama will be compelled to revise it or go forward with a weak action that has been outed by Congress as a weak action.
JJ: I like your idea!
To be weakened, his own party would have to abandon him, and though they might gripe and grouse for a while it’s temporary and will not extend to other issues he deems important. And for him to be further weakened, voters would have to turn to Republicans in 2014 and 2016, and I just don’t see that happening as a result of Syria. Will voters even remember Syria at that point?
Events have a way of cascading out of control. BHO could step in a cow pie so big that not even his sycophants and enablers in the media could cover for him. Ask Jimmy Carter.
The best we can hope for at this point is for him to be fully revealed to be the unserious and hapless actor on the world stage that he is, for all to see, and to then be the object of derision and/or scorn by most people by the end of his term, all without too much harm to anyone, particularly Americans.
Eric said:
the GOP should stipulate the principle and frame the primary issue at bar as the effect, consequences, and follow-up
Sounds good, but nuanced and complicated. Kerry and Hagel will be appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tomorrow, and I’m worried that Rand Paul will grab the spotlight. And he doesn’t do nuanced and complicated.
Ann,
If Paul sets the agenda by attacking the principle – which a libertarian would do – that’s Obama’s frame.
It should be an examination of objectives and a rational matching of means to ends.
The US will be weakened, his party will be weakened; But, Obama will never be weakened – he is, and will always be – the first “black” President of the US. Nothing else matters, give the guy a prize.
There is so much that can go wrong by our intervening in Syria that its a classic example of Murphy’s Law. Syria is a battleground between Sunni hegemony and Shia hegemony. Since its obvious that the Saudis and the Iranians are the main players behind the ‘rebels’ and Assad even Team Obama must see the danger of military involvement. Otherwise, while it may all be about about BHO’s domestic agenda, its a fool’s maneuver. Meanwhile, Russia makes mischief and Putin dances a jig over BHO’s perceived indecision.
BTW, I agree with the idea that the majority of republicans simply vote present, while explaining that they can not support intervention but do not wish to tie the president’s hands. Throw the hot potato to the left and the likes of McCain and Graham and take 10 steps back. (And resist the urge to smirk.)
I wrote to my esteemed Senator Feinstein with a list of about 14 questions. The GOP should certainly ask some of them starting with 1. By what authority? (show proof of criminal behavior by Assad) 2. What U.S. national interests are at stake?. 3. How does the contemplated action serve the U.S. interests? My list to Feinstein goes on with such questions as how do we know that Assad authorized chemical weapons? Will the American people see the proof? Who benefits from our actions? What result do we ultimately envision from our actions? How are we guarding against unintended consequences? And so forth.
Then I would suggest that the House pass a straigh forward resolution authorizing the President to use force in the pursuit of U.S. National interests; and requiring that he certify that our national interests will be served by whatever action he takes. Further that he annunciate the goals of his actions..
They do not have to just roll over and play his school yard games.
A simple no vote is called for.
I have yet to see any proof that Assad sinned.
Instead, I hear the same reverb cranked up — echoes of the Winter Soldier don’t persuade.
Sarin is so toxic that it’s impossible to stand unprotected around the afflicted… or to dress the dead.
Yet, all of the agitprop has the Islamists doing exactly that.
Spiking the samples with Sarin is what I’d do if I were an Islamist.
Beyond that, how can we justify jumping into this filthy, ugly scrape when the fanatics proudly relate how THEY’VE been using chemical warfare?
What of the EARLIER false flag operations?
The anti-Assad forces have been trying to paint him as a violator for some months now.
This was a ruse that was used in Bosnia, too. The Muslims mortared their own women — and then blamed the Serbs.
With both sides lying pathologically, what’s the point?
Our ordnance can’t IMPROVE anything.
The downside is vast.
Wrote to Speaker Boehner suggesting a resolution authorizing use of aggressive force against the Syrian regime once the President certifies to the Congress and the American people that his action are necessary to serve the national interest of the United States; and specify how the national interest will benefit from his proposed actions.
I also suggest that Congress require in the authorization that he identify the cost, and the funding source, before he undertakes any action.
I stated to the Speaker that the President has put the U.S. into a “damned if we do, damned if we don’t situation.’ Congress does not have to roll over and play the dunce for him. Force him to stand by his rhetoric, or shut up.
His position–or more accurately his waffling– is not popular. There is no reason to let him off the hook.
McCain and Graham’s drivel on the subject should be laughed out of town. The prestige of the United States does not ride on the Obama’s tongue. If they had any sense their line would be, “The President can speak, but he cannot act without the approval of Congress. This is not a Dictatorship, and the world should understand this by now. When the U.S. interests are threatened, we will speak and act as one.”
Karl Denninger pointed out the other day that, since al-Qaeda is a declared enemy of the United States, and at least some of the rebels are affiliated with them, attacking the Syrian government is an act of treason, whether Congress authorizes it or not.
Sorry, But No (Syria)
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.
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.
“Consistent with his principles”
That Axelrod is a riot, I’m tellin’ ya!
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.
}}} 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?
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.
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…
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:
“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.
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.
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.