He isn’t damned at all.
The whole concoction is bogus; the purpose of these strikes has nothing to do with Syria or Assad. In fact, if you wanted to do something with minimal effect it would be to fire a few missiles into a situation already so complex and fucked a few more explosions won’t make a whole heap of difference.
Obama is all about a domestic agenda, and this serves plenty. Just none of them for the benefit of the people.
He had John “The Old Grump” McCain and his Side Kick, Graham, on his ass about not doing anything in Syria. BFD. If you think the heat is too hot for him, then tell him to get out of the kitchen. We’ve poked a stick into that hornet’s nest too many times as it is.
I’m upset about the lack of clear policy. Is the use of chemical weapons an authorization for military strikes? If no, then WTF was the Iraq fiasco about and why are we concerned about Syria? If yes, then why is there even a debate?
I realize that Iraq was Bush and this is Obama, but a leader needs to be a leader and speak for the United States. There needs to be an “Obama Doctrine” on what states can do with chemical weapons regarding possession, use, etc. Lobbing cruise missiles is not the answer.
The difference between Iraq and Syria is oil. Or more specifically, Kuwaiti oil. We had a vested interest in it.
I think it’s now becoming clear why Obama felt he needed to go to Congress for approval. Securing Syria’s chemical weapons seems to be a critical issue, especially for Israeli security. The estimates are that it will take 75k well trained ground troops to accomplish this. The current resolution seems to permit the use of such forces (see second page of first link), but whether that provision survives in its final form or a resolution for the use of force even passes remains to be seen.
However if you look at things from the Israeli point of view, I think some trepidation about the situation is understandable. Certainly you have to assume Assad’s stock pile could easily be put on Katusha rockets or maybe even RPG’s - if they aren’t already set up to be delivered that way (don’t really know anything about delivery systems). And even if that’s not an issue, it’s not like there’s any shortage of people itching to blow themselves up.
So to the uninformed observer, it seems like the argument in favor of ground involvement at this point is fairly persuasive and will be yet another criticism he’ll have to deal with - and probably the most damaging and damning yet.
Yes, the use of chemical weapons is an authorization for military strikes. We drew that line in the sand long before Obama came to power. The difference with Iraq is that the only time Saddam ever used chemical weapons was decades ago when we gave them to him. Mere possession of chemical weapons, without actually using them, is something we ought to discourage, but which does not justify military action. And just having had chemical weapons at one time, but then destroying them at the UN’s directive, but keeping poor records of the destruction, certainly does not justify military action.
Did you miss Buck Godot’s post about Jim Inhofe, Republican Senator from Oklahoma? (Or perhaps you lump GOP Congresspeople in the comedian category with Coulter and Limbaugh. 
)
This isn’t apt. Opposition to war is based on risk-reward tradeoff; one can against argue an intervention because of the risk but once the risk has been taken, want a full reward. This was especially clear in GWB-the-Lesser’s War, which was stupid to start, but then stupid to continue with inadequate occupation forces and governance.
(ETA: By “stupid” I mean stupid if American, Iraqi and/or world-wide well-being is the motive. The war may have been “smart” for politically-connected corporations and Friedmanist experimenters.)
Yes but if we go after the nerve gas then we’re actually going up against Assad and the rebels.
The whole thing is easily glossed over by secret agreement. Assad admits that upon investigation one of his units in charge of the gas was under attack and appeared to be losing so they did what was necessary to retain control of it. Apologies made with a promise to shore up security with conventional weapons and more personnel. Those in charge will face some kind of tribunal blah blah blah.
do you have a link for that? Weren’t there a lot of civilians injured in the attacks and isn’t that a big part of the reason for the outrage? So was Assad moving his chemical weapons into the Damascus suburbs for storage?
edit: or were you posing a hypothetical - you lost me.
If this has “nothing to do with Syria and Assad” and it’s about his “domestic agenda” then who are the “plenty” who this strike “serves”?
I guess what I don’t understand is why the President is trying to get permission for airstrikes in the first place. It seems like all it does is make it a bigger issue. I seem to remember a lot of situations where the President just launches airstrikes without Congressional approval. . .Libya in 1986, the cruise missile attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, the missile and drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan. We do it, it happens, and then nobody cares very much in terms of public opinion.
So it seems like all this call for Congressional approval is doing is raising the stakes and making it more controversial and raising the specter of war. The President should have just ordered air strikes and gotten it done, it seems to me. Then most people wouldn’t be talking about it much anymore.
I’m not sure I understand your question. Both Assad and the Rebels are going to want to possess the weapons. Remember what happened after the Gulf war before we put boots on the ground? The weapons dumps were unguarded. We’re probably still paying for that mistake.
Yep, it happens quite frequently. Obama didn’t ask Congress to participate in bombing Libya. Oddly, I don’t think GWB did any bombing w/o Congressional approval, but Clinton and Reagan did.
What’s going on here is Obama doesn’t have any support to speak of in the “international community”, so he’s looking for some support at home and (probably) cover in case things don’t go so well.
And I agree-- this is making the whole thing seem like a way bigger deal than it usually is. From my perspective, that’s a good thing, because the bigger deal it seems to be, the more the American public is against it.
Not only that, when congress comes back with a “No” vote, Obama’s politcal capitol will be spent.
Or folks will blame the GoP.
No, people will (correctly) assume that Congress is unable to get anything done in a bipartisan manner. It will lead to their ouster in 2014, especially if the Syrian Civil War intensifies and certain if Assad uses chemical weapons again.
Except in this case we’re getting “No’s” from BOTH sides of the aisle.
In both houses. Obama is gone is a couple of years but those in Congress who wish to get re-elected will vote with both common sense and public opinion solidly behind them.
Is this something that will be filibustered and require 60 senate votes?
Obama can’t get his own party to back him, and people are going to blame the GOP? Unlikely.
jtgain: Rand Paul has threatened to filibuster, but I have seen that Democrats who plan to vote “no” will still vote “yes” to an open vote in the Senate, so unless RP can keep going for days on end, I can’t see this being hung up, procedurally, there.
As for the House, I think there may not even be a vote if it’s sure to fail. Not sure on how that works-- can the Speaker just refuse to bring it to the floor for a vote by himself?