Wil He or Won't He?
- Thread starter witness23
- Start date
He won't get Congressional approval, and when he doesn't get it, he won't strike on his own. If he does he'll almost certainly be impeached. He pushed the Constitutional envelope pretty far with Libya as it was, but if he asks for and doesn't get Congressional approval, and then goes ahead and strikes anyway, he's toast.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama declared, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
With Libya he really only had a day or two to put together a strike (along with European and Arab allies) to prevent a possible slaughter of Libyan civilians. In the interest of expediency in saving the lives of Libyan civilians, Obama sidestepped his 2008 statement, put that particular principle on hold, and even though the strike was understandable, he took a hit politically. But the Syrian situation, at this point, isn't even understandable.
He should have just gone ahead and done it within a few days of the chemical attack and said the military response was to prevent another imminent chemical attack. People, including our frenemies abroad, could have bought into that. But now he's red-lined himself into a corner, the time has passed for unilateral action on his part, and he has no choice but to ask Congress for approval, lest he be viewed by others around the world as even more of a weak wimpling than he already is. He can't get other countries to back his play, either. He was like 1-19 at the G20 Summit, with that perennial powerhouse France being the only one to stand by him in support of a military strike. The surest sign that I know of that you're doing something wrong is when France agrees with it, and when they're the only one who agrees, it's a lock.
Yes, mass destructive chemical weapons were used and that's bad, bad, bad. A response is warranted. But there are a million responses that can be done before a military strike is the only one left to try. If he doesn't get Congressional approval and he goes ahead with a military response anyway, he'll be viewed both home and abroad as being out of control, and dangerous. Our enemies and frenemies will exploit that. What's going on in Syria is, in the end, a civil war in a sovereign nation.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama declared, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
With Libya he really only had a day or two to put together a strike (along with European and Arab allies) to prevent a possible slaughter of Libyan civilians. In the interest of expediency in saving the lives of Libyan civilians, Obama sidestepped his 2008 statement, put that particular principle on hold, and even though the strike was understandable, he took a hit politically. But the Syrian situation, at this point, isn't even understandable.
He should have just gone ahead and done it within a few days of the chemical attack and said the military response was to prevent another imminent chemical attack. People, including our frenemies abroad, could have bought into that. But now he's red-lined himself into a corner, the time has passed for unilateral action on his part, and he has no choice but to ask Congress for approval, lest he be viewed by others around the world as even more of a weak wimpling than he already is. He can't get other countries to back his play, either. He was like 1-19 at the G20 Summit, with that perennial powerhouse France being the only one to stand by him in support of a military strike. The surest sign that I know of that you're doing something wrong is when France agrees with it, and when they're the only one who agrees, it's a lock.
Yes, mass destructive chemical weapons were used and that's bad, bad, bad. A response is warranted. But there are a million responses that can be done before a military strike is the only one left to try. If he doesn't get Congressional approval and he goes ahead with a military response anyway, he'll be viewed both home and abroad as being out of control, and dangerous. Our enemies and frenemies will exploit that. What's going on in Syria is, in the end, a civil war in a sovereign nation.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
... yes ...
Everyone with a smartphone.
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
NO.
I believe that President Obama was completely convinced that the majority of Congress would side with him on the attack and he would not need to face the decision to go it alone.
The harsh reality is starting to set in that Congessmen do what they need to do to be re-elected and really do need to heed the wishes of their constituents at times.
For that reason among others ( as Turtle covered) it appears that a resounding NO may be heading his way so he made a speech from the Summit today admitting that there was no imminent danger and that the Congressional decision would be meaningful. This strongly hints that he is now laying the groundwork for not committing public suicide and abiding by the decision that Congress makes.
An important take away from this whole process is that the American public is actually having an impact on Congressional decision making in this case. Many Congressmen have given pause to their decision as they have been overwhelmed by phone calls and e-mails which are extremely lopsided toward America NOT getting involved militarily.
I believe that President Obama was completely convinced that the majority of Congress would side with him on the attack and he would not need to face the decision to go it alone.
The harsh reality is starting to set in that Congessmen do what they need to do to be re-elected and really do need to heed the wishes of their constituents at times.
For that reason among others ( as Turtle covered) it appears that a resounding NO may be heading his way so he made a speech from the Summit today admitting that there was no imminent danger and that the Congressional decision would be meaningful. This strongly hints that he is now laying the groundwork for not committing public suicide and abiding by the decision that Congress makes.
An important take away from this whole process is that the American public is actually having an impact on Congressional decision making in this case. Many Congressmen have given pause to their decision as they have been overwhelmed by phone calls and e-mails which are extremely lopsided toward America NOT getting involved militarily.
purgoose10
Veteran Expediter
I bet he does strike. The reason? Well he has never listened to anyone but himself since getting into office. He is so stuck on himself that his belief is that everyone else is wrong and if they don't like it tough.
As far as being impeached no way. He can order a strike anytime he gets ready w/out congressional approval, every president has done it so what's the difference?
Remember Granada? Besides nobody and I mean nobody in the congress has enough guts to impeach him. What's needed is a good coating of pig guts on the steps of air force 1 and watch the show after his first step.
As far as being impeached no way. He can order a strike anytime he gets ready w/out congressional approval, every president has done it so what's the difference?
Remember Granada? Besides nobody and I mean nobody in the congress has enough guts to impeach him. What's needed is a good coating of pig guts on the steps of air force 1 and watch the show after his first step.
Fixed it for ya.
I agree with Humble. We, the people, are fed up with using our money and people to involve ourselves with problems in other countries, when we haven't enough to solve our own.
We simply can't afford what it costs us to meddle, even if we have the right - and I'm not sure we do.
We simply can't afford what it costs us to meddle, even if we have the right - and I'm not sure we do.
