The question is if Romney were elected and Syria used CW as they did. Would there be enough Dem hawks in the Senate to allow a bi-partisan military strike against Syria.
I think the House might not go along but I’d speculate that Romney could launch without an AUMF but the Republican House would not threaten impeachment if he did what they say Obama shouldn’t do.
Romney’s comment to put boots on the ground in Syria is a much more detailed red line than the one Obama expressed around the same time.
I’m sure he would have to take that one back if heaven forbid that Republican became president.
I addressed the semantic nature of what I said in post 420. Semantically “no support” means less than 50%. It’s generally understood that some support exists in just about every political position.
Not surprised you missed it - he did it during all the hubub about the shootings at the Naval Yard. I’m sure most people didn’t even hear about it - odd, that timing.
Of course it’s all for non-lethal aid - which is fine, because we’ve already been training and arming them ANYWAY…
I don’t even understand how that statute even applies to gas masks, but whatever. I don’t see a problem with this, and if Congress does, they can move to censure.
Except only about a third of Senators expressed their intent whether yes or no and those who did were evenly split around 50/50. The rest were undecided.
You’ve decided undecided means no which is a false conclusion. And you have no way to bring that false conclusion as the reason Harry Ried stopped the vote. As your cited article points out Reid said he paused the vote so Obama could address the nation first and that pause took place ‘amid’ the new twist to the discussion involving Putin and Lavrov and Kerry and dismantling Sryia’s CW aresenal.
Sorry, them’s the facts. If they weren’t you would be striking them down, one would think. It was nice of Mace to try to bail you out on the semantics diversion, however facts are facts and the facts belong to my argument.
I’m just wondering what is the point of arguing who may or may not have been embarrassed by a vote that didn’t happen when a better resolution has already been implemented by the very man who was supposed to have possibly been embarrassed by a rejection on this non-vote?
Not yet implemented, but why would Putin be embarrassed by a “no” vote for Obama in Congress? It’s not called “Obama’s Plan”, it’s called “The Russian Plan”.
This began in June 2012 when Obama and Putin met in Mexico I believe and discussed finding a way to dismantle Syria’s CW. According to Obama Putin showed no interest. Lavrov and Kerry kept the issue alive but Obama did not consider it an option unless Putin was genuinely for it. It was not until The G-20 when Putin seemed to be changing and agreed to work out a more solid plan.
Russia would know the best way of getting Syria dismantled however the idea of dismantling Syria’s CW arsenal voluntarily is no sole Russian idea. That’s a universal wish come true.
So why is that Russia’s Plan as if Obama would be opposed to it if it has a real chance of action?
Sadly I don’t control the Senate. That would be Harry Reid. It was in the papers and everything when they voted him Senate Majority Leader. And it was he who withheld the vote because there wasn’t support for it. Per the article I cited. You see, NotfooledbyW, if he had the support he wouldn’t have withheld the vote.
Or you can choose to believe Reid when he said he stopped the vote due to the new developments.
Then again, I’m still wondering why the hell we give a damn about the perceived GOP embarrassment of Obama. I mean, they wanted a vote to happen because they think it’ll be bad for Obama, they didn’t get that, and now they’re trying to spin it to make it look like not having the vote meant it was lost even though the huge development that happened made the vote irrelevant.
Oh I agree with you that we should ignore the right’s anti-Obama mythmaking on all this, but that’s just it. These myths live on and affect a lot of Americans where they are accepted as fact.
We are currently suffering right now with a myth that grew out of the Iraq invasion that affects Obama’s ability to defend the nation through military force or defend the nation by diplomatic means.
That myth is that Saddam Hussein did not cooperate with inspectors so Bush had no choice but to start a war. See how he hear it again and again in many forms.
The UN authorized the use of force. Iraq was hiding WMD from the inspectors. Iraq moved weapons to Syria. Yes we still hear that one specifically now.
Now on Syria we are hearing ‘the inspections wont work’. Assad will never give them up.
But the difference is now that a Dem is President… We can’t do anything about Assad’s use of CW on his people less than a month ago. The myth they all wanna believe is Obama is a bumbling appeaser apologist weak-kneed Terrorist/Muslim sympathizer who hates America. He is purposely destroying America. I hear it everyday on WMAL Radio in Washington DC… No matter the facts that will be where the propaganda will go. Obama is bad for America. Putin bested Obama.
KT McFarland of Fox News said on WMAL this morning that in the past ten days America **has ceased to be a super power **because that status has now been passed to Putin because of Obama’s ineptness on Syria.
They were licking their chops weren’t they to get Obama rejected by Congress to use force. The primary reason is because progressives and Tea Partiers found common cause in rejecting anything to do with ‘war’.
They ignored that Boehner and Cantor supported the President’s plan.
Boehner is third in line to the Presidency for god’s sake but we quickly degenerated to governing by mob.
But when the Putin newsflash hit the airwaves my god… It was amazing how fast the rightwing machine rebooted… Again they had some help from the lefties on that.
I appreciate that so many have acknowledged that the result so far was a great achievement for Obama.
There is not one of the Obama detractors who can explain how the threat of military force did not affect this outcome.
What if Obama came out after Assad gassed those people in August and said I will do something about this if Congress lets me? If not oh well. We are sorry those people were killed. Does anyone believe Putin would have moved on disarming Syria when he did?
He didn’t say that. Your report didn’t say he said it. Your report said Obama was losing BIPARTISAN ground and the vote was held (quoting Reid) because he wanted to allow the President to address the nation and all this commotion was going on ‘amid’ the breaking news that a diplomatic solution was newly being considered.
I have posted segments of the report you cited to show you that I am stating the facts. I know who controls the Senate. Let’s have some pertinent support for your argument.
OMG. Seriously? SERIOUSLY? You think Reid delayed a vote asked for by the President because of something OTHER than not having the votes to pass? I’m actually embarrassed for you at this point.
Obama still says the missiles are an option. cite: “If diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act,” Obama said. “The international community expects the Assad regime to live up to its public commitments.”
Looks like he needs that vote. Wonder how well Reid is doing with it? I’m guessing he’s got his broom out and is looking for a rug as we speak. By Christmas nobody in the news will be able to find Syria on a map.
Here’s another positive outcome of the Admin’s Syria drive"
The US Public’s desire for diplomacy over military action is on the rise amongst Republicans.
Thirteen Years ago Americans were questioned to make a choice for diplomacy or war. This war had looking forward at the time the prospect of using tens of thousands of ground troops for an invasion. Here are the poll results about a month before the decision was made to invade Iraq.
The question asked in a CBS Poll at the end of February:
“Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?” (Total) (Republicans) (Democrats)
Take military action fairly soon: 35% 55% 23%
Give weapons inspectors’ time: ** 60% ** 38% 75%
Much of that increase must be Republicans acquiring a distaste for military action and getting a bit thirsty for diplomacy. While Republicans have been high-fiving themselves to senseless hysteria over Syria something bigger is going on with Iran and it involves more diplomacy.
Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran nevermore.
Here’s more long term positive results from the Admin’s Syrian Drive and the way they did it. Calls for bombing Iran will get harder for McCain and all the Republican critics of Obama for leaning weakly and appeasingly toward diplomacy.
Here’s why because this just happened:
How do Conservatives pivot back to warmonger status against Iran after they actively denied the CinC the authority to punish Syria for actually using weapons of terror against its own citizens?
Timid Progressives also might come around to understand what Obama actually did by calling for air strikes on Syria and then accepting a diplomatic solution when those who mattered finally came around and agreed to do what Obama wanted.
This may play out all the way to Tehran… with Putin helping out all the way.
And Syria’s CW’s locked up or destroyed by November next year.
Guess what happens in the US in November next year.
Its early but if Obama needs an AUMF he’s likely better off if it is obvious to the entire world that Syria is not dismantling it’s CW or actually uses them again;
There is only four percent separating those willing to give the President authorization to those who would still oppose it with the opposing view on top. That certainly could move specifically if Assad actually gasses some women and children again.
Here’s a rightwing link but According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll :
Would you be one that responds to a pollster that you ‘don’t back the plan’?
Sorry, I’m going with what Reid stated until someone can prove that he said something not seen anywhere yet in print or on camera. The world gets pretty effed up if we don’t stick to credible cites and actual statements from the people involved.
And it is highly believable beyond a shadow of a doubt that the newsflash of a diplomatic solution and the upcoming speech by Obama are very credible reasons to cancel a procedural vote to start debate. This was not even the actual vote of the entire floor. And the legislation passed in committee was written before the diplomatic breakthrough was revealed. Of course those reasons mattered highly to Senator Reid.
Your being embarrassed means nothing to this discussion.
Again, what big huge GIANT diplomatic story broke between the Monday of that week before the schedule vote, and Wednesday after the delay? In some small part of the back of your mind, don’t you think that the very strikes we were voting on would have been affected by the fact that Syria essentially gave up without a fight, completely removing the need for a strike?
If you want to believe the worst, I can’t stop you. But it is absolutely not unreasonable to think that Reid delayed a vote because of the new developments.
Obama is saying that because the threat of strikes, coupled with the secret negotiations that have been going on for a year, forced Syria into a deal.
Look at it this way, what does Obama gain by saying (even if he’s lying) that strikes are an option? He gains the threat of force, the leverage that provides, and the fear of Syria and Russia that the US might attack.
What does he lose by saying that (even if he’s lying)? Nothing if the deal is made (it was), and credibility if the deal is not made. Since we all know that Syria just bought into the CW treaty, and UN inspectors are detailing the CW, and even Assad himself has admitted he has them and given details of what he has and where, it looks like Obama loses nothing by continuing to stay strikes are on the table. He knows he’ll never have to strike now, but it projects the image of a forceful and decisive upper hand. Leadership, basically
Its nice to win a war with violence, but its even better to win one with just the threat of it.
If you’re so obsessed with what Obama is saying, then pay attention to this: Obama has said over and over that he doesn’t NEED Congress’s approval. Your interpretation is wrong. He simply WANTS their approval but he has said he will go on to strike if he feels its necessary even if he doesn’t get the GOP House to vote yes. You keep thinking that he needs it when we all know it was a calculated ploy by Obama to force the hawks in the GOP to either side with him or look like cowards through their vote. Therefore, your premise is wrong, he doesn’t need the vote at all, but it would be nice if the GOP would stop being anti-American for a second and stop siding with terrorists to support our president.
You are right about one thing, however the reason is not what you think. By Christmas nobody will give a damn about Syria because this president has successfully threatened his way into forcing Syria to give up its CWs and make Russia side with the US in the UN against Syria. By Christmas the process to take and eliminate Assad’s CWs will be in full swing and it will no longer be news to the conflict-hungry media, and certainly FOX will no longer cover it because it was a successful diplomatic victory for Obama