So, you’re responding to the fictional post Honesty would have made if she had in fact held the beliefs you attribute to her.
I don’t think that Honesty was endorsing that idea, just describing it.
This was a politically genius move by Obama.
I think that there will be a close vote allowing force and it will be very bi-partisan on both sides.
As I said in the OP, if it will be a yes vote, it will be hugely beneficial to Obama. If it will be a no vote, he will suffer politically.
I’m not sure about that. He avoids a clusterfuck and can blame Congress for being obstructionist and inhumane.
Tell that to Cameron, who’s damaged goods now.
I agree. McCain and the other hawkish Republicans (the ones calling for intervention) look like real idiots in not even being able to get their party to vote for a mild response. Any new gas attack will be the fault of the Republicans. The isolationists will fight more with the interventionists, and the already tattered Republican reputation for strength in national security matters will fall further.
An invasion for non-existent WMDs is fine, but a response to real ones is not?
If the Republicans in Congress had any brains at all they’d vote for, so I predict they will vote against.
One more time…
What other way is there to interpret that when (combined with prior posts by H.) they have practically salivated at being able to paint Republicans in a negative light no matter the outcome of this fiasco?
100,000 dead and she wants the war to “kick into a higher gear” - is there any other way to read that than to flat out state she wants more deaths because Republicans won’t “align” with Obama to strike Syria (as if Republicans ran all of Congress, or as if limited missile strikes would actually stop/solve anything)? And that it’ll make for some GREAT attack ads in 2014?
I’m not putting words into anyone’s mouth here, unbelievers, that’s an exact, unmodified quote. And yet for some reason you refuse to read it, or worse yet understand it. Honesty is hoping for partisan politics to lead to more death so her party can use it against her opponents next fall.
If you can’t see that, well I’m forced to conclude you’re arguing for the sake of argument and aren’t interested in any honest discussion of the matter.
I say GOOD DAY.
You can read it as predicting, but not hoping for, escalation. Why don’t you let him clarify?
Different political system so you can’t really compare the two, IMO.
Anti-Obama Congressmen could make way more political hay if he went at it alone and without their permission. They were whining about that all last week. Now it’s on them.
They don’t have to vote against it, and the Dems don’t have to vote for it. All they have to do is craft a “Yes, repeat, no” resolution that strictly forbids intervention except in the case of any number of plausible developments. Shit gets better, they get the credit, shit gets worse, Obama gets the blame.
Aside, has Hilary said so much as one word on the subject? A silence that speaks volumes.
Most likely, the Republicans will offer an amendment that automatically defunds Obamacare if he does bomb, if he doesn’t, or if he takes a shower. Priorities, people, priorities.
Obama’s finger is on the trigger. Anything that doesn’t say “pull it tomorrow” is a vote against.
This I don’t get, and it is why I would never make a good politician. To me, a move like this makes the politician look strong, not weak. He made good argument (let’s say,) he had the strength of character and conviction to put it to the vote, and again (presumably) the strength of character and conviction to abide by the result of the vote. I can’t see this as a lose for the president in question. He did the right thing, stood by his convictions and the constitution. What’s weak about this?!?!
Who says it has to be true, or even plausible?
Why are you assuming he will abide by a “no” vote?
Think about it - does it strengthen a President to lose a vote that he invested lots of effort and influence in? And in this case it is even worse, because Obama and his administration, including VP, sec of state etc. were all gung-ho about the attack without a vote in Congress, then did an about-face about the vote (about faces certainly do not project strength). After that, to lose the vote would be devastating politically. But of course you get damage-control spinmeisters right now trying to preempt that by crowing about Obama’s brilliant political move.
Yes, it will be “brilliant” - but only if he gets a “yes” vote. A “no” vote will damage him.
A lot of leftie posters are convinced that in case of a “no” vote Obama will back off the attack on Syria (see MeanOldLady in this thread and septimus in another one). Don’t know what makes them so sure.
Terr, I swear, if he walked on water you’d say it’s because he can’t swim.
Well, I certainly hope he will. But Kerry was particularly evasive on the talk shows today about what Obama would do if the vote was “no”, and Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t think he needs authorization from Congress to act.
Many people here have said that there is no way Obama will use military action if Congress votes “no”. I disagree. I think this all part of a political strategy. He throws it to Congress to get the onus off him. When they vote it down, and I believe they will, he gets to criticize them (meaning Republicans, of course) for letting innocent people die. Syria will see this as a sign of weakness and gas more people. Obama will then act on his own and paint himself as the hero, acting in spite of the Evil Obstructionist Republicans. Pure political theater, and it will work.