So this afternoon, President Obama called their bluff and said he will do what the American people and Congress want: debate and vote on the measure on Capitol Hill.
In an afternoon appearance in the Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said he had decided that the United States should use force but would wait for a vote from lawmakers, who are not due to return to town until Sept. 9. Mr. Obama said he believed he had the authority to act on his own, but he did not say whether he would if Congress rejects his plan.“I’m prepared to give that order,” Mr. Obama said. “But having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interest, I’m also mindful that I’m president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”Going to war with the support of the people’s representatives, he added, “I know the country will be stronger.”The president’s announcement effectively dared Congress to either stand by him or, as he put it, allow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to get away with murdering children. By asking lawmakers to weigh in, he is trying to break out of his box of isolation of the last week, in the face of deep skepticism at home and around the world about the strike. His decision indicates he does not want to go forward without Congress and the American public.
So now this becomes Congress's problem, more specifically the GOP's problem. They will have to go on record on Syria and bear responsibility for its future, which is exactly what they were attempting to avoid.
President Obama has outsmarted them yet again...and he's listening to the American people, who want debate before any military action. Now he looks like the reasonable grown-up in the room.
Your move, Republicans.
Posts
9 comments:
And when the House kills the AUMF and Obama attacks Syria anyway, what then? Will you still be a die-hard Obot or will you finally come around to reason?
If Congress doesn't pass the AUMF, I doubt President Obama would proceed with military action absent some kind of attack on US air/sea forces by Syria.
"I have decided that the United States should take military action
against Syrian regime targets," Mr. Obama said, appearing alongside Vice
President Joe Biden. "While I believe I have the authority to carry out
this military action without specific congressional authorization, I
know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our
actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because
the issues are too big for business as usual."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579046902682624072.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
Try again.
The use of "should take military action" is why he is coming before Congress: to make the case for "should". He also believes he has the authority to do so.
He is coming to Congress anyway because it's the right thing to do.
You might try reading the quote in your comment more carefully. President Obama's comment that "(w)e should have this debate..." indicates that he plans on discussing the issue. If he loses the debate, it would be very risky politically for President Obama to proceed after Congress refused authorization for the use of military force. (Much less risky to simply strike now, under the "easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" logic.)
Also, please note my use of the word "doubt" - all I'm saying is that I very much doubt that a skilled politician would proceed with a military strike despite Congress having denied permission to proceed. Even George W Bush wouldn't be that stupid - he'd listen to Dick Cheney and strike immediately.
Now, if the Syrians are stupid enough to launch some missiles at ships or airplanes in the area (such as when they shot down that Turkish F-4 last September - President Obama would undoubtedly order immediate counterstrikes. A Gulf of Tonkin-style incident is less possible these days than in the 1960s (what took years to be uncovered in the 1960s typically takes hours in today's connected world), but provocative actions by US military assets in the region could draw a Syrian response.
This seems like a face-saving measure aimed at allowing the US to back out of ordering a unilateral military strike in probable violation of international law. I could be wrong, but I remain doubtful that President Obama would bother with seeking Congressional approval unless he planned to follow that advise.
At least Zander has the grace to keep his "I've got nothing other than arguing the semantics of the word 'should' at this point" response to one sentence rather than four paragraphs of obvious bullshit from RepubAnon.
Neither one of you responded to the second question about still supporting Obama if he went ahead and attacked Syria, either. One of you ignored it completely and the other added another hypothetical (a Syrian counter-attack) as a deflection.
I will pose the question to you both again: Should Obama attack Syria after losing the Syria resolution, will you still be a die-hard Obot or will you finally come around to reason?
I will add two additional questions: What does your big pundit brain tell you about how liberals will turn out in 2014 for Democrats in Congress who vote for the authorization? Everyone running in 2014 now has to answer how they would vote re: Syria. Who do you think the answers, or lack of answers, will hurt more, Democrats or Republicans?
Oh, for heaven's sake - i said it would be very stupid for President Obama to attack Syria (absent some serious provocation such as an attack on US forces by Syria). I said that a unilateral military strike would probably be in violation of international law. Do you seriously consider this the blind support of an "O-bot" for any action President Obama would take?
Just to be clear: No, I don't support a unilateral US military strike in Syria. I think that any military action would be disastrous, let alone unilateral US military action. I think that the scope of the disaster would be so severe that is would hurt all Democratic candidates in 2014, and would result in the Republicans taking the Senate and widening their control of the House. I think the Republicans would then impeach President Obama for ordering the attack after Congress rejected it - and I think that there'd be enough disgruntled Democrats that the impeachment would succeed.
I also think President Obama is smart enough to realize this, and won't be so stupid as to proceed down that path.
Is that clear enough for you?
I'm going to have to say that while I don't quite see the President then invoking the War Powers Act as quite as apocalyptic as RepubAnon, that it would be devastating in 2014 for morale on the left, and would present a host of problems.
And yes, I would be sorely, massively unhappy with the decision. We as a coalition of liberals would then have to deal with it, but the damage would be immense.
So there's hope for this place yet.
I will be holding you to this statement should Obama continue down the path that most of us believe he is going in. I do hope RepubAnon is right that Obama will not go there, but frankly I've been massively disappointed in him for five years now and I'm not seeing anything that makes me think this will be any different.
And yes I think Obama would be impeached and removed from office if he attacks Syria after a no vote on military force and would deserve to be.
Post a Comment