Suppose Congress does not approve an attack on Syria...

[Hayabusa Rider]

Will he attack anyway? If not then does he just back down entirely?

Poll is regarding the first question.

 

[drebo]

Yes, because our Dictator in Chief doesn't really care about our laws or the constitution.

The more wars he causes/continues, the more domestic freedoms he can take away.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

 

[child of wonder]

lol

Yes he probably will attack anyway though in a more limited fashion. I can't imagine he'll do nothing.

 

[Jaskalas]

Not sure this is fit for a poll.

Merely our expectations on what the President might do.

 

[brandonb]

Seeing that every single one of our elected officials needs to be approved by a foreign interest, and that foreign interest wants this attack to happen. They will vote for it. It will never come back as a no....

If it does, it will be a day of great joy in my world to know that my government isn't as corrupt as I think it is. But the chances of that happening would be next to 0%. And since Obama will likely face assassination if he doesn't attack by this foreign interest, he will move forward regardless if congress votes no.

But again, it will never come to this.

 

[Vic Vega]

...

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I suspect he will go forward no matter the vote. The war dawgs are howling.

 

[dank69]

Of course. The next step will be getting the Marshall Law he has always wanted.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Of course. The next step will be getting the Marshall Law he has always wanted.

So shall we put you down for a "yes"?

In all seriousness, has Obama or Kerry said they would be bound by such a vote?

 

[waggy]

I was thinking he would. BUT he was just on TV and said that the reason he went to congress is because there was no clear proof that there was a immanent threat to the US.

He now has NO wiggle room IF congress says no. He can't strike.

 

[Incorruptible]

Knowing that moron it won't surprise me if he attacks. He has already shown himself to be a warmonger and neo-con and he believes he has the authority as well. What's despicable about him and his cronies is he was meeting with axelrod and other morons and using this for political points. If congress says no then he can blame the gop and if it's approved he can still blame them.

It's disgusting he would try to score political points after innocent people are being killed.

 

[CrackRabbit]

So shall we put you down for a "yes"?

In all seriousness, has Obama or Kerry said they would be bound by such a vote?

No they haven't, which worries me a bit.
But I'm hoping that he is using congress as an 'out' to back down from the whole situation without losing as much face.
My bigger worry is that congress votes 'yes' and Obama is forced to proceed with the actions he has painted himself into a corner with.

Any way you slice it the outcome is bad for the US. But a 'no' vote with Obama backing down is less bad than any of the other outcomes.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

If he did could he be charged with treason for knowingly providing aid an comfort to al queida?

 

[Doppel]

If he gets senate approval after it does a full vote but not house approval I leaning slightly toward no, but there is a decent chance he will. If both senate and house vote no I am strongly of the opinion he will not attack.

I voted no in poll.

It takes a special kind of maniac to ask for congressional approval, not get it, and go ahead anyway. Obama is not strong enough for such things. He does not make waves and would lack the personal strength to go against the crowd to such a degree.

 

[dank69]

If he did could he be charged with treason for knowingly providing aid an comfort to al queida?

Not if the comfort he provides has VD.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No they haven't, which worries me a bit.
But I'm hoping that he is using congress as an 'out' to back down from the whole situation without losing as much face.
My bigger worry is that congress votes 'yes' and Obama is forced to proceed with the actions he has painted himself into a corner with.

Any way you slice it the outcome is bad for the US. But a 'no' vote with Obama backing down is less bad than any of the other outcomes.

Obama doesn't rule out action contrary to Congressional approval.

It doesn't sound like he's bound by anything other than what he considers his personal opinion of what is right for America.

Then we bring in an analogy to WWII which he carefully states isn't an analogy. There was a great debate about what role (if any) the US should have played in WWII, but an abstract "well it's the right thing to do so do it" isn't sufficient argument for bombing.

Anyway, he puts forward an argument for ignoring Congress. Interesting.

 

[nextJin]

So shall we put you down for a "yes"?

In all seriousness, has Obama or Kerry said they would be bound by such a vote?

No, Rand Paul specifically asked that question and Kerry dodged.

 

[woolfe9998]

Obama doesn't rule out action contrary to Congressional approval.

It doesn't sound like he's bound by anything other than what he considers his personal opinion of what is right for America.

Then we bring in an analogy to WWII which he carefully states isn't an analogy. There was a great debate about what role (if any) the US should have played in WWII, but an abstract "well it's the right thing to do so do it" isn't sufficient argument for bombing.

Anyway, he puts forward an argument for ignoring Congress. Interesting.

Your linked article says that he may order a strike without public approval, not without Congressional approval. Did I miss something?

 

[nextJin]

I hope everyone realizes his real reasons on asking for Congressional approval. It has nothing to do with the Constitution or will of the American people. It's a political move which takes literally any scenario off his shoulders and places it on Congress.

When looking at every single issue and future issues that arise he now has an out, no matter how they vote. There is no situation forseen that would come back and hit him directly.

 

[woolfe9998]

I give it a 90% chance there will be no strike if Congress votes it down.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Your linked article says that he may order a strike without public approval, not without Congressional approval. Did I miss something?

Watch the video

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

also page 2 of the article at the end

 

[Agent11]

I don't think Obama has the testicular fortitude to go through with it without congressional support.

Such action would embolden Russia, which believes it is in the right, and I think Putin scares Obama.

 

[waggy]

also page 2 of the article at the end

yeah


The White House has asserted the authority to act against Syria even without permission from Congress, and Obama today did not rule out proceeding on his own, disputing comments from deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken, who earlier Friday told NPR that it's "neither his [Obama's] desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him."


BUT he also says that he can not say for sure that Syria is a threat to the US. so i don't think he can.

I don't think Obama has the testicular fortitude to go through with it without congressional support.

Such action would embolden Russia, which believes it is in the right, and I think Putin scares Obama.

i agree. I don't see him doing it without congressional approval. I also think Putin scares obama. but hell..Putin scares me.

 

[woolfe9998]

also page 2 of the article at the end

I can't watch the video as I have no sound on the work computer. However, I do see that remark at the end. I think he's just keeping his options open. I still seriously doubt he will strike if Congress votes it down.

Then again, Congress may well vote yes, in which case we'll never know.