Criticisims of Obama re: Syria.

[UltraVires]

@John_Mace

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?

He can, but that is subject to a discharge petition by a majority vote of the House. Usually the majority members will be waterboarded if they vote for such a thing, but on an issue like this, probably not.

I agree with the opponents in the Senate. This deserves a straight up or down vote.

[Honesty]

@Magiver

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.

That’s an odd thing to say. What should direct Congress in the vote isn’t “common sense” and “public opinion” it should be about the credibility of the intelligence assessment. Public opinion is superfluous because the public is not privy to the proof the U.S government allegedly has. Would you prefer is the government did a Wikileaks-like dump and shared all evidence with the American public?

• Honesty

[Magiver]

@Honesty

That’s an odd thing to say. What should direct Congress in the vote isn’t “common sense” and “public opinion” it should be about the credibility of the intelligence assessment. Public opinion is superfluous because the public is not privy to the proof the U.S government allegedly has. Would you prefer is the government did a Wikileaks-like dump and shared all evidence with the American public?

• Honesty

The credibility of the intelligence assessment is irrelevant. If Jesus personally videotaped Assad physically shooting off the gas it doesn’t change the rational for attacking Syria.

We have no vested interest in Syria. We have no supporters in Syria. There is no “good guy” to defend, protect, or otherwise promote above the other.

As far as Obama goes he ran on a platform of getting the United States out of the region. It all comes down to a rhetorical statement he made over a year ago about drawing a red line which is a political rookie mistake. He then went on to back peddle his position with his recent statement: ‘I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line’. :rolleyes:

OK, if you didn’t set a red line and only France has set a red line what is Congress voting on again? Instead of taking his foot out of his mouth he just stuck the other one in. France is not the “world” and we’re not the world’s police force.

[DrDeth]

@Magiver

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.

Common sense? Are you talking about the US Congress? :dubious::eek:

[Magiver]

@DrDeth

Common sense? Are you talking about the US Congress? :dubious::eek:

Well you missed the 2nd part which was a lack of public support for a group of politicians that still need re-electing. Obama can do whatever he wants, he’s on his way out the door.

[monavis]

@jtgain

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.

I personally lam glad that Obama didn’t rush in, and if one is a good leader and see’s his first plan wouldn’t work it makes things easier than jumping in (like we did in Iraq). And stirring up a hornets nest. better to be wrong and try a different way, then to run head on into a greater fight.