Amateur hour at its best.

Leading from behind is what he is best at.

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.

Isn't that what he's supposed to do.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

Not if you have followed recent history in the last 50 years.

(08-31-2013 04:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Leading from behind is what he is best at.

Which is why it's so funny that people are defending him.

Obama is just not very smart, and not that interested in doing the job. He conned is way into a sweet deal, lots of prestige, no accounability. That's fine for him, and I understand the loses on the board being enamored with that. The issue is that his abdication of responsibility is exploited by others.

(08-31-2013 04:20 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Not if you have followed recent history in the last 50 years.

Regardless, people complain that he takes unilateral action then complains when he leaves it up to Congress. I despise Obama but he SHOULD leave it up to Congress.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

In recent history I can't think of a time congress has not authorized the request to use force by a POTUS. Two BIG questions:

1) If congress does NOT authorize use of force what will Obama do?

2) If Obama is handed an embarrassing defeat by congress will he officially become a LAME DUCK with 3+ years left in office?

Maybe we should just sell more weapons to both sides.

(08-31-2013 05:03 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  In recent history I can't think of a time congress has not authorized the request to use force by a POTUS. Two BIG questions:

1) If congress does NOT authorize use of force what will Obama do?

2) If Obama is handed an embarrassing defeat by congress will he officially become a LAME DUCK with 3+ years left in office?

I don't think Congress will approve it.

But since Bypassing Congress seems to be his standard response, he will attack anyway.

But Congress won't be back until the 9th. Meaning all the ISR/Targeting will have to be continuously revised until then, which isn't cheap.

Weren't you all just complaining a couple of days ago that Obama was going to strike without Congress' approval, something about the media covering for him, and GWBush wouldn't be able to get away with this?

(08-31-2013 04:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Isn't that what he's supposed to do.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

I'm starting to agree with you more these days.

(08-31-2013 06:30 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(08-31-2013 04:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Isn't that what he's supposed to do.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

I'm starting to agree with you more these days.

I'm more of a pragmatist than anything else.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

(08-31-2013 04:54 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(08-31-2013 04:20 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Not if you have followed recent history in the last 50 years.

Regardless, people complain that he takes unilateral action then complains when he leaves it up to Congress. I despise Obama but he SHOULD leave it up to Congress.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

Yea, but no. He is the Chief exec. He's the supposed leader. It's up to him and his admin to make the case as to WHY we should take unilateral action against a soveriegn nation posiing zerO threat to us. Thats what *gasp* leadership is about. Not leaving the decision to a body of 435 and maybe even 535 to cover your ass. What proclamation of the House or Senate created the corner he's found himself in known as the red line?

Someone, anyone, please tell me what significant issue this "Leader" has truly led on. Just one. And no, don't ask, don't give a ****, doesn't count.

Hype and Spare change. Leading from behind since 2009.

I think this is the right move for a couple of reasons.

First, it is the Constitutional thing to do.

Second, the goal here is to stop the use of chemical weapons. If no more chemical weapons are used, then we have already accomplished our goal. If more are used, then Congress can decide how to react. I think this is a great move and the right move.

If chemical weapons continue to be used, then we may decide to take some action. In that case, I would attempt to hit the military, and only the military, of both sides. The idea here is to protect the civilians. I'd hit the military on both sides. That way any chicanery is ineffective.

(09-01-2013 12:56 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-31-2013 04:54 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(08-31-2013 04:20 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Not if you have followed recent history in the last 50 years.

Regardless, people complain that he takes unilateral action then complains when he leaves it up to Congress. I despise Obama but he SHOULD leave it up to Congress.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

Yea, but no. He is the Chief exec. He's the supposed leader. It's up to him and his admin to make the case as to WHY we should take unilateral action against a soveriegn nation posiing zerO threat to us. Thats what *gasp* leadership is about. Not leaving the decision to a body of 435 and maybe even 535 to cover your ass. What proclamation of the House or Senate created the corner he's found himself in known as the red line?

Someone, anyone, please tell me what significant issue this "Leader" has truly led on. Just one. And no, don't ask, don't give a ****, doesn't count.

Hype and Spare change. Leading from behind since 2000.

He doesn't have to make a case, Syria does. Granted he got us in this mess by opening his dumb mouth but leaving this up to Congress is the right move.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

Obama is going to look really stupid if he isn't allowed by Congress to enforce his "red line" threat. It will show the world that they have him on a very short leash.

The world is already laughing at him. It's going to get worse.

When do Democrats look like anything but feckless.

Turning it over to congress is what he should do. It's what FDR did with WWII. But Obama didn't exactly do it with a "day of infamy" speech.

What he should not do is let his bulldog mouth overload his schnauzer butt with stupid "red line" comments. "Speak softly but carry a big stick" means speak softly but carry a big stick.

(09-01-2013 08:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Turning it over to congress is what he should do. It's what FDR did with WWII. But Obama didn't exactly do it with a "day of infamy" speech.

What he should not do is let his bulldog mouth overload his schnauzer butt with stupid "red line" comments. "Speak softly but carry a big stick" means speak softly but carry a big stick.

The Admin announced they will strike regardless of Congress' decision. but does leave his usual wiggle room in the wording.