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

[fskimospy]

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

It seems unlikely, since Obama was openly cracking jokes about him at a press conference not very long ago.

Also, why would Putin scare Obama? Putin should scare common citizens, as he apparently has few compunctions against arbitrarily jailing people, murdering them, etc. In terms of what Russia can do on a country to country basis? Not much to fear.

 

[Incorruptible]

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.

obama would like to but it would be very difficult without congressional support. Putin does scare obama and is willing to speak out against himand it just shows how think skinned obama is.

 

[Sonikku]

He'll just say the red line for him was crossed, but it apparently wasn't for congress and as much as he disagrees with the voice of the people, he will respect it. Gets him off the hook and makes him look presidential.

 

[werepossum]

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.

I thought that as well, initially, but think about it. Although Obama ran on ending the Iraq war, he allowed it to end on Bush's timetable. He surged troops in Afghanistan when needed. And he attacked Libya, assisting the rebels and our European allies in overthrowing Qadaffi. Does he really need to establish his/our willingness to strike other nations right now?

Conventional wisdom is that if you make a threat and don't follow through, you lose credibility for future threats. As a principle that is undeniably true, but increasingly I'm thinking that in this specific instance we actually lose little credibility by not striking.

And morally the situation is so muddled that I don't think anyone can predict ahead of time whether the moral high ground is to strike at Assad for using chemical weapons, both because it may well turn out this was a rebel operation (or accident) and because the number of people killed by WMD is probably 1% or 2% of the total civilian death toll.

 

[Linux23]

What would Bush do?

 

[kage69]

What would Bush do?

Break out the coloring book and Legos, while Cheney invades Turkey?

 

[woolfe9998]

I thought that as well, initially, but think about it. Although Obama ran on ending the Iraq war, he allowed it to end on Bush's timetable. He surged troops in Afghanistan when needed. And he attacked Libya, assisting the rebels and our European allies in overthrowing Qadaffi. Does he really need to establish his/our willingness to strike other nations right now?

Conventional wisdom is that if you make a threat and don't follow through, you lose credibility for future threats. As a principle that is undeniably true, but increasingly I'm thinking that in this specific instance we actually lose little credibility by not striking.

And morally the situation is so muddled that I don't think anyone can predict ahead of time whether the moral high ground is to strike at Assad for using chemical weapons, both because it may well turn out this was a rebel operation (or accident) and because the number of people killed by WMD is probably 1% or 2% of the total civilian death toll.

I completely agree with the underlined conclusion, for the reasons given. Obama, Bush, Clinton, GHWB, Reagan, all have demonstrated that the US will use its military when it finds what it considers to be appropriate justification. We can back out of this one and I doubt anyone will consider us toothless. If they do so, it would be at their own peril.

Obama's redline remark didn't even guaranty the use of military force. It arguably implied it based on the context of the remark but there's wiggle room there. Loss of face would be minimal and containable.

 

[nehalem256]

What would Bush do?

Hoodwink the idiot Democrats in congress into approving his war?:sneaky:

 

[kage69]

...and I think Putin scares Obama.

lol, sure he does.

I think you're confusing disappointment with fear. Obama described Putin as "a bored kid at the back of the classroom" to everyone. Yeah that's just dripping with fear and uncertainty.

Doesn't sound like Putin bothers him at all, one on one. He's tried to connect with Putin several times personally, despite the Russians going out of their way to be dicks to him since Day 1, but was rebuffed. But I'm sure he's quite exasperated with Putin's UN song and dance though, who isn't (besides Iran, NK and Syria anyway).

If you want someone who is probably genuinely afraid of Putin (and his dog), talk to Angela Markel. I bet she'd rather have another Dubya back rub then hang out with Putin.

 

[88keys]

What would Bush do?

Tell the public that Syria has nucular WMDs

 

[Fern]

I voted "I have no idea", but IMO he damn well better not. If he does I'll support those calling for impeachment.

As regards Obama now saying he doesn't have to follow Congress's vote - If I were House Speaker Boehner or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and heard that remark I'd be mad as hell and tell Obama there will be no damn vote until agrees to follow it. That or threaten impeachment if he doesn't.

Fern

 

[LightPattern]

"Yes"s just edging out the "No"s at this point.. wow.
I agree with those saying Congress voting him down is the only good out for him and he's walking that path now.

 

[AmdEmAll]

Oh he will.. forces much higher than Obama have made the decision a long time ago.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Here's one of our experts


Yeah same old

 

[Balt]

If Congress says no, I think he'll actually be relieved and call it off. IMO, he's looking for any way to avoid having to live up to his "red line" threat.

I'm fine with that. The farther we stay away from that mess, the better.

Unfortunately, I think there's a good chance Congress will completely ignore the fact that it will serve no purpose (and that most Americans are against it) and go ahead and approve it anyway.

 

[yllus]

No, he won't go against Congress.

 

[Agent11]

Obama's playing coy with the press corps is not endearing him to them either.

 

[sportage]

Ask yourself, what would McCain do?
McWar wouldn't have given our citizens the opportunity to chime in.
Nor congress.
We'd have been dropping bombs and troops weeks ago.
Or, Obama could follow the Bush Cheney war book. Lie.

I just read that if Bush was in office, we wouldn't have this problem.
Yeah right...
If Bush were still in, we'd all be unemployed and up shit creek without a paddle.
Syria would be the least of our problems.
.
.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I don't really understand the rationale behind an attack on Syria. We condemn people who use chemical and/or nuclear weapons, especially on civilians, I get that bit. So...to punish people for that we tell them it's okay to kill civilians with explosives and bullets? What are we doing, teaching them how it's supposed to be done?

 

[Engineer]

We may just find out....internal polling suggests that the House is trending against action in Syria at a 6 to 1 ratio.

In this case, I hope the House wins (based on above) and Obama listens.

 

[Agent11]

Does it strike any one else as ironic that the tea party, 49 members of congress, could be partly responsible for defeating the Syria vote?

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is also considered a no vote with 68 members.

 

[LightPattern]

Does it strike any one else as ironic that the tea party, 49 members of congress, could be partly responsible for defeating the Syria vote?

Maybe in siding w/ the Libertarians, the Tea Partiers will adopt more of their ideas?

 

[monovillage]

If Congress doesn't approve the Obama plan he would probably pull a Bill Clinton and bomb a few "chemical sites" the way Clinton bombed the aspirin factory in the Sudan in 1998.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2004/03/khartoum_revisited_part_2.html

 

[boomerang]

On a related note, if Congress turns him down and Obama does it anyway, will Congress vote to impeach him?

I say no.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I think he will back down and claim that Congress does not approve.

IF he would have gone without Congress; he would have instead of making the statement about getting approval