Obama Will Seek Congressional Approval for Military Actions in Syria

[Streak]

President Obama turns to Congress to OK strike against Syria | Fox News

Been a lot of worrying going on over this. I believe he would've made a big mistake authorizing the action in Syria without consent of Congress.

 

[jamil]

President Obama turns to Congress to OK strike against Syria | Fox News

Been a lot of worrying going on over this. I believe he would've made a big mistake authorizing the action in Syria without consent of Congress.

He still maintains that he has the authority to do whatever he wants without congressional approval. But this way he can get out from under his "red line".

 

[Streak]

He still maintains that he has the authority to do whatever he wants without congressional approval. But this way he can get out from under his "red line".

I don't think he'll do that...what would be the point of going to Congress anyways?

Interestingly Fox News has an article that claims that Presidents don't need Congressional approve and many never sought it before:

Like it or not, Constitution allows Obama to strike Syria without Congressional approval | Fox News

 

[BehindBlueI's]

He's looking for a way to punt. Reminds of some saying about one's mouth writing checks that their donkey won't cash. Or something like that.

 

[Jerchap2]

Obama angers many with reference to "my military"

Obama angers many with reference to 'my military' - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

Here is a sample of the twitter response:

"Bush says 'Our military.' 0bama says 'MY military.'. Just another indication of his arrogance and narcissism," tweeted talk show host Neal Boortz.


"Obama: 'I've had my military and our team look at a wide range of options' MY military?? MY military?? Um, who pays for it @BarackObama?" another person asked on Twitter.


"Barack Obama calls it 'my military'. His arrogance knows no bounds," said another Twitter user.


"Not surprising; it's the view of an emperor. All hail Caesar," added another Twitter user.


"Does not this make your hair stand on end?" one Twitter user asked. "If not, it should."


"Obama called it 'my military' no, it's the people's military and you're suppose to go through congress to get authority!" said Twitter user "TJ Leininger."

 

[jamil]

I don't think he'll do that...what would be the point of going to Congress anyways?

Interestingly Fox News has an article that claims that Presidents don't need Congressional approve and many never sought it before:

Like it or not, Constitution allows Obama to strike Syria without Congressional approval | Fox News

The point of going to congress is...

He's looking for a way to punt. Reminds of some saying about one's mouth writing checks that their donkey won't cash. Or something like that.

^^^THIS

He made a stupid statement during the campaign about the red line, which served him well at the time, but one that for weeks now he's been trying to figure out how to get out from under. Then finally it dawns on him. Put it on congress.

That might work for him in the US. But I've already heard pundits from the middle east say that Assad, as well as Iran, will see this as yet another example of Obama being weak.

 

[jamil]

Obama angers many with reference to "my military"

Obama angers many with reference to 'my military' - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

Here is a sample of the twitter response:

"Bush says 'Our military.' 0bama says 'MY military.'. Just another indication of his arrogance and narcissism," tweeted talk show host Neal Boortz.


"Obama: 'I've had my military and our team look at a wide range of options' MY military?? MY military?? Um, who pays for it @BarackObama?" another person asked on Twitter.


"Barack Obama calls it 'my military'. His arrogance knows no bounds," said another Twitter user.


"Not surprising; it's the view of an emperor. All hail Caesar," added another Twitter user.


"Does not this make your hair stand on end?" one Twitter user asked. "If not, it should."


"Obama called it 'my military' no, it's the people's military and you're suppose to go through congress to get authority!" said Twitter user "TJ Leininger."

I think he intentionally does that to goad people into talking about that rather than talking about how ****ed up his policy is.

 

[Jerchap2]

I think he intentionally does that to goad people into talking about that rather than talking about how ****ed up his policy is.

I think he is simply the most arrogant man alive. But he certainly does a lot to distract us.

 

[Jerchap2]

 

[elemonator]

When this goes to vote in Congress,I know it's public to see who votes yes,who votes no,does anyone know where someone could look,I will want it.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

When this goes to vote in Congress,I know it's public to see who votes yes,who votes no,does anyone know where someone could look,I will want it.

I would be shocked if McCain voted no

 

[zippy23]

Its very simple, Obama can NOT be seen as taking responsibility for anything. so this makes sense, he can blame republicans if they vote against it, or he can blame them if we go to war. Its so sad that this will be another smack down on republicans, and they will roll over again and do nothing as usual and take it so they arent called racists. Unreal

 

[Captain Bligh]

I am encouraged this is going to Congress. I hope they vote it down. I think it is not our job to be the world's policeman. If for no other reason, I am encouraged because this do-nothing Congress has not been able to agree on anything else -- perhaps there is not agreement enough to pass this either.

 

[Que]

Can anybody tell me why we MUST take part in this? I just don't get it. We'll bomb them and then pay to repair everything. Again, I just don't get it.

 

[bingley]

"Obama: 'I've had my military and our team look at a wide range of options' MY military?? MY military?? Um, who pays for it @BarackObama?" another person asked on Twitter.

This is an example of people seeing what they want to see. From the context it's clear he means "my military team" and "our team." In other words, he checked with two groups of consultants.

 

[Jerchap2]

Its very simple, Obama can NOT be seen as taking responsibility for anything. so this makes sense, he can blame republicans if they vote against it, or he can blame them if we go to war. Its so sad that this will be another smack down on republicans, and they will roll over again and do nothing as usual and take it so they arent called racists. Unreal

Spot on. It is classic, what Rush calls his "Limbaugh Theorem" -- the man can never be seen as governing, only campaigning and saying what people want to hear. All the diatribe about what he wants and what he will fight for and what he is against. Meanwhile, his policies that cause misery are not attached to him, they are blamed on Congress, or Wall Street, or the Chinese, or...on and on. If he made the decision on his own, he would own it, no way around it (well, possibly the MSM would find a way to spin it). As you say, he will take it to Congress and how ever it turns out he will find way to blame the Republicans, and the media will parrot it. It is disgusting. As are many of the Republicans in Congress these days. No spine whatsoever.

Can anybody tell me why we MUST take part in this? I just don't get it. We'll bomb them and then pay to repair everything. Again, I just don't get it.

A lot of people in various forums on INGO have been arguing that we should not be there. Rand Paul has been saying that as well. We don't really know which side is the "bad" or "good" side, relatively speaking, we are not there for regime change, and since both sides hate us, many are saying that we should just stay out of it and let them destroy each other. I think this POTUS is trying to follow through on a stupid statement he made rather than manning up and admitting it was a stupid thing to say. It could result in lots of death and destruction just to save face. IMHO, if we do go in, it could be the fuse that lights what is already a powder keg and have a series of unintended consequences that nobody will be able to control.

 

[Jerchap2]

This is an example of people seeing what they want to see. From the context it's clear he means "my military team" and "our team." In other words, he checked with two groups of consultants.

It may be clear to you, because that is, as you say, you seeing what you want to see. It is far from clear. What I see is consistent with over five years of arrogance and narcissistic behavior from a man who thinks he is a king instead of a president.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I know some are not going to agree, but this is the PERFECT maneauver for him!

He gets to say that he is ready to go, but pass/share the responsibility with Congress. As the House of Representatives is under the control of the opposition party this will put them in a heck of bind trying to later criticize him for action they authorized (if such occurs.)

Yes, he was less than wise painting a "red line." This gives him a fair way out to the world. It also gives him a way out to the American people. They may or may not agree but it is cover for failure act (presuming Congress says NO.)

And in all fairness this is the way it should always work when time allows. We live in a country of many viewpoints and all should be heard when a potentially major decision is going to affect us and the world.

Now, regarding Drone strikes...

Or Libya...

Or NSA spying...

Regards,

Doug

 

[Twangbanger]

We "must" participate in this, to show the world "we care." Warn them for two weeks that we're going to do it, then after everything important has been moved/hidden, launch a one-day strike which hits nothing of military importance, hold a press conference, say it shows the resolve of the civilized world that "aggression will not stand," and sink into the background, leaving the same people in power and madder at us than ever...while Raytheon/GD/Lockheed get contracts to replenish the Tomahawk inventory back to snuff.

Fortunately, it looks like Obama has seen the error of his ways, and will punt to Congress and hope against hope that Boehner will be unable to hold his "coalition" together, as usual. Nothing will happen, and it'll be a win-win for him...he gets what he ultimately wants, but gets to share any negative criticism with Republicans.

As for the part about paying to fix everything back up again, if it were to happen, that's just the good ol'-fashioned capitalism of the military-industrial complex at work. SOMEBODY will get a contract to perform all that rebuilding work. Somebody gets paid to tear it down. Somebody gets paid to build it back up. The House always wins, coming and going. And don't you know, the Halliburtons / Blackwaters / Xes of the world have the best record in the American corporate sphere of "hiring diversity," "championing Science/Technology/Engineering/Math graduates," and "supporting military employees?"

Are you going to argue with that? I know a heck of a lot of minority or not-minority, ex-military or lifelong civilian, engineering or otherwise types who would welcome the above exercise of American power with open arms. "That's a funded project, baby!"

 

[mrjarrell]

The real winner and power behind the throne.

It's well past the time they were broken up and defunded.