Just proving that anyone, even one as astute as O'Bama, can swerve into the right answer.

From a practical perspective, it does a few things.

1) It forces the Congress, and especially the GOP opposition, to go on the record. He got tired of the same people attacking him from both sides of the issue on different days regarding Libya.

2) It sets a precedent.

3) It warns Assad that if Obama loses this vote, that there will be lots of Congressmen that have to defend that vote in the next election. So watch out for the backlash if any additional gas events happen by Congressmen desperate to defend a vote to not authorize Obama to assist the rebels.

If we are to go to war in Syria, it is ELECTIVE, but certainly not unjustified. I think Obama made the right call politically and morally here.

(08-31-2013 04:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Upset that he took away a talking point?

Absolutely nothing wrong with going to Congress to get approval. Your criticism doesn't scream credibility. This is a good thing and will probably expose some deep divisions in the GOP ranks. An ancillary benefit for O for sure. Get over it.

I actually agree. He isn't king, this is a congress decision. Hopefully congress does the right thing and tells Obama and Kerry to take a hike.

(09-01-2013 10:02 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  From a practical perspective, it does a few things.
1) It forces the Congress, and especially the GOP opposition, to go on the record. He got tired of the same people attacking him from both sides of the issue on different days regarding Libya.
2) It sets a precedent.
3) It warns Assad that if Obama loses this vote, that there will be lots of Congressmen that have to defend that vote in the next election. So watch out for the backlash if any additional gas events happen by Congressmen desperate to defend a vote to not authorize Obama to assist the rebels.
If we are to go to war in Syria, it is ELECTIVE, but certainly not unjustified. I think Obama made the right call politically and morally here.

I find it interesting that you analyze it strictly in terms of political calculation, and not with regard to whether doing it is the right thing or not.

Seems to me there are three sets of variables--congress says yes or no, Obama has the military act or not, and if we get involved it turns out badly or well.

Congress says yes, Obama says go, it turns out well--Obama takes sole credit, the media gives him sole credit, and there's a movie about how Hillary somehow helped out, to pave the way for 2016.
Congress says yes, Obama says go, it turns out badly--Obama blames congress, press blames congress, there's a movie about how congress prevented success.
Congress says yes, Obama says no go--apparently, this one doesn't exist.
Congress says no, Obama says no go--this one apparently doesn't exist, either, but if it did Obama would blame congress, the media would blame congress, and Michael Moore would make a movie about all the atrocities being committed because we didn't intervene--using footage from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Congress says no, Obama says go, it turns out well--Obama takes credit, the media gives him credit, and there's a movie about how Superman--err, Obama--saved civilization and the free world.
Congress says no, Obama says go, it turns out badly--Obama tells us that he got bin Laden, the media tells us that we are wrong and it really was a fabulous success, the Middle East falls apart, and there's a movie about how it's Bush's fault.

(09-01-2013 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 10:02 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  From a practical perspective, it does a few things.
1) It forces the Congress, and especially the GOP opposition, to go on the record. He got tired of the same people attacking him from both sides of the issue on different days regarding Libya.
2) It sets a precedent.
3) It warns Assad that if Obama loses this vote, that there will be lots of Congressmen that have to defend that vote in the next election. So watch out for the backlash if any additional gas events happen by Congressmen desperate to defend a vote to not authorize Obama to assist the rebels.
If we are to go to war in Syria, it is ELECTIVE, but certainly not unjustified. I think Obama made the right call politically and morally here.

I find it interesting that you analyze it strictly in terms of political calculation, and not with regard to whether doing it is the right thing or not.

Seems to me there are three sets of variables--congress says yes or no, Obama has the military act or not, and if we get involved it turns out badly or well.

Congress says yes, Obama says go, it turns out well--Obama takes sole credit, the media gives him sole credit, and there's a movie about how Hillary somehow helped out, to pave the way for 2016.
Congress says yes, Obama says go, it turns out badly--Obama blames congress, press blames congress, there's a movie about how congress prevented success.
Congress says yes, Obama says no go--apparently, this one doesn't exist.
Congress says no, Obama says no go--this one apparently doesn't exist, either, but if it did Obama would blame congress, the media would blame congress, and Michael Moore would make a movie about all the atrocities being committed because we didn't intervene--using footage from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Congress says no, Obama says go, it turns out well--Obama takes credit, the media gives him credit, and there's a movie about how Superman--err, Obama--saved civilization and the free world.
Congress says no, Obama says go, it turns out badly--Obama tells us that he got bin Laden, the media tells us that we are wrong and it really was a fabulous success, the Middle East falls apart, and there's a movie about how it's Bush's fault.

Great entertainment.

I wouldn't mind if Obama played golf every day and left all the decisions to Congress.

What LazyTom neglects to mention is that there have been more and more dems speaking out against unilateral action, so Obama, seeing the UK Parliament vote it down, seeks cover.

I don't think that when Congress weighs in on this that he will get his "OK."
If he goes ahead despite Congress saying no, then that might just start impeachment talk.

There is still no official confirmation on just WHO used chemical weapons. "Trust us" just isn't flying anymore, especially with this lawless administration. Polls show that the people are dead set against getting involved.

Anybody else see Lurch flailing about with Chris Wallace asking tough questions this morning?

(09-01-2013 01:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I wouldn't mind if Obama played golf every day and left all the decisions to Congress.

Only when we have gridlock in Congress. The less they "fix" problems, the fewer we seem to have and no new ones have been created.

(09-01-2013 01:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I wouldn't mind if Obama played golf every day and left all the decisions to Congress.

I've been saying this for five years.

(09-01-2013 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 10:02 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  From a practical perspective, it does a few things.
1) It forces the Congress, and especially the GOP opposition, to go on the record. He got tired of the same people attacking him from both sides of the issue on different days regarding Libya.
2) It sets a precedent.
3) It warns Assad that if Obama loses this vote, that there will be lots of Congressmen that have to defend that vote in the next election. So watch out for the backlash if any additional gas events happen by Congressmen desperate to defend a vote to not authorize Obama to assist the rebels.
If we are to go to war in Syria, it is ELECTIVE, but certainly not unjustified. I think Obama made the right call politically and morally here.

I find it interesting that you analyze it strictly in terms of political calculation, and not with regard to whether doing it is the right thing or not.

Seems to me there are three sets of variables--congress says yes or no, Obama has the military act or not, and if we get involved it turns out badly or well.

Congress says yes, Obama says go, it turns out well--Obama takes sole credit, the media gives him sole credit, and there's a movie about how Hillary somehow helped out, to pave the way for 2016.
Congress says yes, Obama says go, it turns out badly--Obama blames congress, press blames congress, there's a movie about how congress prevented success.
Congress says yes, Obama says no go--apparently, this one doesn't exist.
Congress says no, Obama says no go--this one apparently doesn't exist, either, but if it did Obama would blame congress, the media would blame congress, and Michael Moore would make a movie about all the atrocities being committed because we didn't intervene--using footage from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Congress says no, Obama says go, it turns out well--Obama takes credit, the media gives him credit, and there's a movie about how Superman--err, Obama--saved civilization and the free world.
Congress says no, Obama says go, it turns out badly--Obama tells us that he got bin Laden, the media tells us that we are wrong and it really was a fabulous success, the Middle East falls apart, and there's a movie about how it's Bush's fault.

You have to have consensus before going to war. Politics is a part of that. If Obama gets the GOP Obama-haters on record supporting the involvement, it will make it easier to achieve cohesion of the American public on this issue.

Politics is definitely part of the equation.

There is a case for military action in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, (insert name of nation here), etc.. The real question here is whether the American nation considers it to be in our interest to go to war here. Obama is consenting the representatives of the people here. Nothing wrong with that. But it IS a political question, so far as the USA is concerned.

(09-01-2013 01:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You have to have consensus before going to war. Politics is a part of that. If Obama gets the GOP Obama-haters on record supporting the involvement, it will make it easier to achieve cohesion of the American public on this issue.
Politics is definitely part of the equation.
There is a case for military action in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, (insert name of nation here), etc.. The real question here is whether the American nation considers it to be in our interest to go to war here. Obama is consenting the representatives of the people here. Nothing wrong with that. But it IS a political question, so far as the USA is concerned.

So do you see it as simply a political game, with no concern for whether or not it's the right thing to do?

(09-01-2013 02:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-01-2013 01:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You have to have consensus before going to war. Politics is a part of that. If Obama gets the GOP Obama-haters on record supporting the involvement, it will make it easier to achieve cohesion of the American public on this issue.
Politics is definitely part of the equation.
There is a case for military action in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, (insert name of nation here), etc.. The real question here is whether the American nation considers it to be in our interest to go to war here. Obama is consenting the representatives of the people here. Nothing wrong with that. But it IS a political question, so far as the USA is concerned.

So do you see it as simply a political game, with no concern for whether or not it's the right thing to do?

This could be a distraction from all of his scandals and while we're distracted he just might try to slide some other stuff past us while we're not looking.

I love it.

Obama threatens to attack and everyone crys foul and that only Congress should make the decision. Now he lets Congress and the same people are complaining that he is passing the buck.

Some people are never satisfied.

I still fail to see how launching 200 Tomahawks at Syria is going to eliminate the use of Chemical Weapons against civilians unless the goal of the strikes is regime change.

Someone is going to have to explain the targeting, strike and exit strategies in detail before the Vote. Unlike the last few times we have launched Tomahawks on PR Strikes the Syrians have weapons and allies willing to fire back or target other nations.

Just doing some scenarios this weekend show things could get out of control real quick if this attack goes forward.

I suggest instead of punishing Assad for crossing a Red Line then International Diplomacy focus on removing Chemical Weapons from Syria. UN demands that both the Rebels and Assad surrender the chemical munitions to UN Inspectors . Violators get a trip to The Hague. Can't see how the Russians or Chinese could credibly oppose this.

Putin is calling Obama's assertion that Syria used chemical weapons nonsense. He's telling our Nobel Peace Prize winner to grow a brain cell or two.

Isn't it possible that the rebels captured some chemical weapons and gased people just to escelate the war?

Why isn't that being considered?

(09-01-2013 02:26 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  This could be a distraction from all of his scandals and while we're distracted he just might try to slide some other stuff past us while we're not looking.

There's precedent for that view. Keep your eyes and ears open.

Still, sending this to Congress is exactly what the Constitution requires.

(09-01-2013 02:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I love it.
Obama threatens to attack and everyone crys foul and that only Congress should make the decision. Now he lets Congress and the same people are complaining that he is passing the buck.
Some people are never satisfied.

Wrong.

It's what he should do now. It's what he should have done before Libya. There's this thing called the constitution that kinda sorta requires it.

By the way, it's what Shrub did before Afghanistan and Iraq. And people criticize him and call those "illegal" wars because he did not get UN approval, except in sort of a convoluted way (relying on a prior resolution). Nothing having the binding force of law requires UN approval.

The only illegal war so far is Libya. If congress votes no and Obama still goes, it will be two.

One other point is that there is a difference between illegal and stupid. What Shrub did was not illegal but it was stupid. Never fight a war you don't intend to win, much less two at the same time. If Obama gets involved, but not in to win (as appears to be the plan), it will be a stupid mistake.

I think I've been pretty consistent with my comments. If you can find an exception to that, point it out. Never fight a war you don't intend to win. Treat your friends better than you treat your enemies. US military intervention is justified, even unilateral US military intervention, where there is a material threat to the US or its citizens or interests. If military intervention is justified, then intervening with overwhelming force with no-holds-barred rules of engagement is justified. If going to that length is not justified, then no military intervention is justified. If the use of overwhelming force is not justified to protect significant US interests, then take it to the UN.

In this case, applying those principles, this looks like one to take to the UN.

(09-01-2013 02:58 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I still fail to see how launching 200 Tomahawks at Syria is going to eliminate the use of Chemical Weapons against civilians unless the goal of the strikes is regime change.
Someone is going to have to explain the targeting, strike and exit strategies in detail before the Vote. Unlike the last few times we have launched Tomahawks on PR Strikes the Syrians have weapons and allies willing to fire back or target other nations.
Just doing some scenarios this weekend show things could get out of control real quick if this attack goes forward.
I suggest instead of punishing Assad for crossing a Red Line then International Diplomacy focus on removing Chemical Weapons from Syria. UN demands that both the Rebels and Assad surrender the chemical munitions to UN Inspectors . Violators get a trip to The Hague. Can't see how the Russians or Chinese could credibly oppose this.

Yep.
Only problem is that Obama had to go and run his mouth and now he's being called on it.

How is this Obama's fault.

The enitre Middle East was destablized because Bush took out Iraq.

Iraq was the lynch pin that was holding Iran in place. Once we took them out, Iran was free to control the entire region.

Osama Bin Laden got exactly what he was hoping for when Bush invaded Iraq.