He could only have misspoke if when he gives the order to the Joint Chiefs they refuse to carry it out. Do you have any source that tells you that improbability would ever happen?
In this case and if unfortunately Romney would have been elected - bottom line is a CinC named Romney could order those troops sent in without the consent of Congress. They just might not pay for it and they’d have to be out by then.
Here’s what I wanted to cite in the preceding post:
What specific actions did Obama threaten, when he made the original “red line” comment? On my reading, it was worded in a way that reserved the right to almost any action Obama chose, including:
- we’ll intensify sanctions
- we’ll more aggressively pursue measures diplomatically with the Russians
- we’ll more aggressively start to arm the rebels
- we’ll engage in limited airstrikes
- we’ll launch a full-blown invasion of your country
I think any one of these actions could have been construed as enforcing the red line.
This is why I don’t see wherein lies the “gaffe.” Now, Obama’s full-throttled pursuit of military action immediately AFTER the recent attack came to light didn’t seem particularly wise to me, especially since I didn’t believe that his original comments forced his hand. But, given that we’ve now pretty much arrived at an acceptable outcome, maybe threatening military force right out of the gate wasn’t such a lousy approach after all.
By “acceptable outcome,” I mean falling somewhere between doing nothing (which is morally objectionable) and doing something very big (which could lead to many undesirable unintended consequences).
Good comments and they support why Romney’s comment in 2012 is relevant in this discussion. Romney did precisely define that US boots could be put on the ground in Syria if it were up to him as president. And that would be to stop the spread of CW.
How many here voted for Romney but now whack Obama for preparing the US military for an air strike with no boots on the ground?
He’s swinging in the breeze because he doesn’t have any support for what he said.
He went to Putin, not the other way around. Putin hasn’t expended any political capital over something he said.
Romney would not have public or political support and the international support would be as it is today. Nothing would change.
Obama didn’t and doesn’t need support from anyone in order to launch cruise missiles. He still can launch them. Wanting support for it is one thing. He doesn’t need it though.
I dissagree domestically. There’s enough hawks in the Senate from both sides of the aisle to pass and the a House remains under Republican control.
Some TeaBaggers in Congress might not like it but they would back their freshly inaugurated candidate with open arms and bitch about opposition from the left as sore losers and telling them that politics stops at the waters edge. It would be heavily different.
Reid had to delay voting on it because there was no support. So you would be wrong.
You are truly clueless when it comes to politics. The Tea Party was aimed at replacing Republicans not supporting them. And given your sycophantic name tag you may want to dial back the politically insulting name tags. It just makes you look more foolish when you’re wrong.
actually he does need the political support for it. Congress has the power to vote for or against war as well as all the money going to the military as well as the power to impeach. If they vote no and the President launches a single missile then his career is toast.
Which is to say, his re-election chances are in peril?
Going to go out on a limb here, but I’d say his chances of reelection are non-existent. Also, I think he’s going to have a hard time getting the Republicans on his side to get his agenda through as well. I predict that the Republicans are going to fight him tooth and nail on anything and everything he tries to do.
I’m like a modern day Kreskin. Just less hair and better looking.
Your link does not say what you said it says. This statement is not true:
“Reid had to delay voting on it because there was no support.”
So please explain why you felt the need to embellish the USA Today report that came out one day before Obama’s Syria speech. That report announced five Republicans and one Dem Senator announced they would vote against the Resolution that passed committee. There is no where in your cite that says there was no support. In fact it said, those six Senators were " a strong indication that the administration’s efforts to build bipartisan support have been ineffective."
Do you see the difference?
We know there is support in the Senate by Republicans like McCAin and Lindsay Graham. And I believe if Romney were in there plenty anti-Obama Republican would feel comfortable giving the Republican president what he asked. They’d only need a dozen Dems and it would pass.
Maybe his legacy is toast maybe not. Obama’s legacy is not the issue. His opponents have dogged his red-line comment and you are trying to legitimize that dogging by claiming Obama bungled things up because he could not back up a red line in the sand because he didn’t know he could get the support needed to back it up.
That is false unless you can establish as a fact that Obama could not launch strikes if he decided to do it. You can’t establish that so your nastiness against Obama is nasty but it is baseless.
No president needs political support for ordering military action specifically of s limited resources and short duration.
I think Obama came to Congress only because he was certain enough that Putin had committed to a CW elimination plan and Assad was on board.
So you are wrong. Obama has the power to launch those strikes if he decided to. And he still may if necessary.
.
How many Tea Bag Hat wearing US Senators are there? And Tea Party mojo works a lot just to oppose whatever Obama does.
Do you know about the rift in the GOP between Tea Party conservatives and the Rhino establishmentarians. The rift that I believe settled down if the first African American president was held to one term. I hope the politics of raw hate ends soon.
That rift carries over between GOP interventionists like bomb bomb Iran McCain and the new breed of GOP isolationists like Rand Paul.
The top Republican leadership in the House including Cantor and Boehner support the strike. And you want me to believe a Romney CinC would not carry a simple majority in a GOP majority House. Come on?
And the Jewish lobby supports the strike.
GOP’ers live Netanyahu, and he wanted the US to strike.
So come on. The politics fit well for me,
To be fair, that poster also mentioned peachment. Probably a long shot but I would not describe the odds as being unbelievably small.
Tell that to Yemen. Or Pakistan.
Yes and no, but mostly “no”. I’ve pointed out several times on this MB that Obama never said he’d use force if the lines was crossed, but that is what everyone assumed he meant, and no one in his administration ever made any effort to clarify it. So, yes, I think Obama could have come out and said “Crossing the red line will now trigger a tightening of economic sanctions, a nasty letter from Hans Blixx, and a limp of coal in Assad’s stocking this Christmas”. However, his first message on what crossing the line meant was about the use of military force, so I think it’s fair to say that it was “military force” all along.
Keep these sorts of personal attacks in The BBQ Pit, not Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]