Now it is up to the Congress whether to bomb Syria. I have to say: it's a brilliant move. I don't have to love it, though...
Confused? So:
2 hours ago
31 August 2013
WTF with that Syria attack, Mr President: doing a Cameron?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Obama talks a good game, but doesn't have the balls to back up his talk.
Snoop,
It may seem brilliant, but if the Republicans are on their toes he could come to regret this.
1) Demand to know why if we are attacking a sovereign nation it isn't an act of war. If it isn't then explain what is the basis for a military attack.
2) Demand a vote(not verbal) make every Demo vote for attacking.
3) If more funding is asked for by Obama take it out of the existing budget.
Are you assuming Obama actually wants to act in Syria? I am guessing he wants to continue with the current policy of doing fuck all, while finding a scapegoat in the Congress so that he can blame someone else.
I think initially he thought he could get an easy foreign triumph (somewhat similar to Libya), but was taken by surprise by Putin, Assad, Iran, and just reality. These guys have got his measure and are not impressed one bit. So yes it's run to Congress to get me out of my own mess. What I'm saying is Congress has a great opportunity here and should use it. Go after Cong. Demos make them vote on this, a roll call vote. There is an election next year, put them on record. Vote for Obama and you vote for war. Vote against Obama and you vote against children.
Right... It's damned if you do and damned if you don't. Dems will have a problem, but the same goes for republicans.
US Internal, I agree. US external - this is really a non-partisan issue. This could have been a kumbaya moment. To me it seems that Obama lacks the leadership skills to maneuver a consensus.
Oooh, I just experienced a Rahm flashback moment.
Looks this way, certainly.
Oh, I meant brilliant in another, more Machiavellian way: he is counting on a negative vote that will allow him to do nothing, while saving face...
Yep, that's what I meant.
Possibly this is another bonus, while getting off the need to do something about Syria.
I see all you guy's points. This goes to a deep Constitutional issue that has been needed to be clarified for 50+ years. The War Powers Act was too vague and could be misused by the Executive Branch (and has been), it needs to be defined or scrapped. If Congress votes no and Obama proceeds with military action then the US has lost it's greatest power of representative government, control of the military by the people.
Putting the constitutional point, and the alleged control of the military by "the people", aside... There is zero risk of Obama proceeding if the Congress were to vote "no".
That being true, the question of attacking Syria goes beyond one country and beyond a glitch in the legislation. Maybe tomorrow... I am still preparing that darn post.
Agreed. He will say his thanks in private, that's all.
"Alleged control" may be right, but if you don't assert it otherwise it's official. I also think there now is zero risk, but I want Democrats to cast on the record votes. If they are so love the world pacifist prove it. If there are good reasons to go to war explain it and back it up.
Gideon,
The problem I see with military actions for humanitarian reasons is who decides what's a necessary case and how do these people derive their authority?
Of course it does. If Obama's argument that it's an imperative that behavior of nations beyond "accepted" conventions is compelling then why didn't he make the case for bombing Iran's nuke program.
That's an excellent question. wish I had an easy answer to that one, seeing as how the world is simply out of a single authority that could decide on a necessary case. This is, probably, why the fate has chosen US to be the de facto authority. Which is not something easily accepted by American people - for good reasons, I have to add. But here we are.
You will agree that waiting for UN or any other similar bunch of impotent motormouthes to decide on anything is futile...
Oh - that be another excellent question. And I am afraid I don't have an answer to that. The only thing is that, like with the Syrian "red line" Obama said that there will not be a nuclear Iran. Another empty promise? I don't know and don't want to say what I suspect.
" This is, probably, why the fate has chosen US to be the de facto authority" Yes, this true. Since the world (despite what is says) seems to look to us and we do have the power do a whole lot righting of wrongs, it is for this very reason that the Constitutional authority question so important here and abroad. You must ask and answer the question: Just why does the world put so much trust (de facto or not) in the US to do the right thing. To those who will say "It's because you are the only ones powerful enough", I say why are we and you are not?
Don't get me going on the UN, I'll really start blathering. I let your assessment stand.
Oh well. See the latest post. It looks like your CiC is doing his level best to stop people looking up to US as that universal authority.
One other consideration: he (BHO) had a heck of a long time to prepare the needed Congress approval (or final disapproval, whatever) in advance. He didn't, and was it because of an oversight or because he was aiming to piss as many Congressmen/women as possible off?
At the moment, the only problem I dwell on, from my corner, is that we will be dragged into this. The fallout (lit), is going to be very unpleasant...
I'm increasingly blasé regarding the theatrical machinations on the Hill.
The impact of the fallout usually depends on the winds. One must be careful taking the wind into account...
Is there an app for it?
We could be having a start-up moment...
App? It is called Weather.com or summat. And usually is correct in 25-30%% of the cases...
Oh, indeed. If Congress says no and Obongo goes ahead and the military does what he says, then they are no more than the strong arm of a monarch and deserve to be disbanded and the Pentagon turned into a homeless shelter.
No dancing please!
That I can understand.
"Pentagon turned into a homeless shelter". Why do you want to do that to the homeless, not even they deserve that.
Surely the whole country of US doesn't have that many homeless.
Seriously, if the military goes against Congress, they'll come to find their current budget cuts are puny by comparison with what is to come. And they will lose what civilian confidence they have left.
True, if you've ever been in it (I visited when I was about 13) it's very easy to get lost. It's the origin of the word labyrinth, or should be.
Thank goodness.
This is bound to happen anyway, you just wait.
Post a Comment