Are you accusing me of being a spinmeister? Seriously? Just because we disagree on whether or not a No vote will end up being politically damaging. You asked for a prediction and that’s exactly what I provided. No spin. Just a prediction. And where was I crowing?
I think that you are totally wrong that a No vote will be devastating. Going ahead without congressional approval would have been devastating. I have been pondering this and I expect a Yes vote anyway.
No. To be a spinmeister you have to have influence/be able to be widely heard. But you listen to them.
I think if the vote is held soon - say in the next week - it will not pass the House. The idea that Obama would then attack anyway is pure conspiracy theory nonsense: I would expect that the House would then vote to impeach, on the basis of the President specifically and blatantly acting contrary to the Art I, Sec 8 powers that Obama asked them to exercise. I would add that if Obama did act contrary to a vote in Congress, he should be impeached and convicted.
OTOH, if the vote happens in a few weeks and there’s more time to make the case for intervention, I think the AUMF might just pass in a squeaker.
Have we met? How do you know who I listen to? I haven’t watched or read a single editorial about this. I read a couple headlines and thought “wow, that was a very shrewd political move.”
High ranking House republicans are on record as saying the president doesn’t need Congressional approval for action. I don’t think the Republicans could muster enough votes to pass articles of impeachment.
You’ve implied yourself that the Syrian War is escalating (e.g. 100,000 in two years), why wouldn’t those deaths continue to intensify during the 2014? You don’t need to watch an episode of Reading Rainbow to imagine Syrian government gassing his people again. You also need to be a genius to figure out that this will be an issue - if the war escalates - during the midterm season.
[QUOTE=Werekoala]
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?
[/QUOTE]
(bolding mine)
:rolleyes:
On the first point, it doesn’t matter. If Obama went ahead and bombed Syria without a vote in Congress, then there would be grousing and comparisons to Kosovo, Libya, Desert Fox, Panama, and other non-authorized limited wars. But once the President asked Congress to vote, the legislative rubicon has been crossed.
On the second point, I bet some members of congress would change their minds if the President specifically was denied permission after he decided that he didn’t want to ask for forgiveness.
I don’t think enough Republicans want to set a precedent that the president needs permission from Congress to act. The Rand Pauls of the House Republicans are a distinct minority.
I think you missed an important word in parentheses.
My thoughts - If it was an actual National Security issue, The President has the power to act unilaterally under the War Powers Act (of disputed constitutionality - see other threads). War and threats happen much quicker now with things like missiles and terrorist acts rather than hoisting sail for a few weeks journey.
I don’t see the imminent threat or condition that would justify our greater involvement. Sarin gas or other gases are just not that big a threat to our national security. Other threads have pointed out that the equivalent load of HE would do the same amount of destruction with lingering effects to those injured in an attack (if you survive nerve agent exposure - you’re likely to fully recover unlike having your legs blown off). Nerve agents are tough to deploy reliably.
I am in favor of continuing sanctions and arming/training of rebel factions. It sucks to be a Syrian but a few cruise missiles aren’t going to end things tomorrow. A quick hit on Assad and the much of the government hierarchy might do it but intelligence is hard.
More gas attacks and the resulting bad PR might get Putin on board (unlikely) or at least neutral.
Has he invested a lot of effort and influence in this issue?
Even if he has, that still doesn’t strike me as particularly negative or weak. Of course I expect presidents to invest a lot of effort in the things they believe in.
Were they gung ho about the attack? Admittedly I don’t make a huge effort to know the details on these things but I didn’t have the impression that they were gung ho about attacking without congressional approval, just that they were gung ho (I guess I’ll use the phrase) about attacking, and maintaining they didn’t necessarily have to ask, but not actually saying they were going to attack without asking.
I do tend to read it the same way others have said on here–he’s not actually that eager to attack at all, and has found a way to not-have his cake and not-eat it too.
I don’t think so. I’m not willing to “presume” that he is going to abide by the decision if the vote is “no”. All it will take is one more suspected use of CWs (or some other trumped up charge), and the missiles will fly. No further requests from Congress for approval.
Pretty sure I’m not a leftie poster, but I think Obama will not attack unless he gets the go ahead from Congress. That’s the point of asking for approval.
They will *never * issue a flat out “go ahead”. They will allow the possibility that, given certain conditions, he might. And they will make sure that the decision is his, so if things go good, they had his back all the way, and if they go bad, no fingerprints.
The use of “presumably” you see in that post signals “I know this is an assumption one might question.” Hence it makes little sense to ask why I assume it–I already marked it as an assumption I know some might not agree with. Furthermore it was clearly not necessary for me to support or defend that assumption in the context of my post, since, as you will recall, I was simply describing a scenario which Terr said would show the president weak, and I believed would not show the president weak. In that scenario, the president backs down if the vote goes against him. Hence, in that scenario, it makes perfect sense to say he “presumably” will back down–that’s the scenario we’re discussing!
OK, in that case I think you’re wrong saying it makes Obama look strong. He insisted that we must do something-- that there was a red line, and Syria crossed it. He’ll look weak if there is a no vote because:
He made a very bad political calculation, calling for a vote he wasn’t 100% sure he’d get.
He doesn’t have the political capital to get Congress to support his foreign policy.
He might look “morally strong”, but he’ll look politically weak.
Obama isn’t the comparable figure to Cameron, Boehner or Reid is. Cameron is supposed to “run” parliament–the PM’s office directly manages the legislative process in the Westminster system. For Cameron to lose that vote shows that he doesn’t have control of his coalition in exactly the way that Boehner looked weak when the farm bill got shot down by members of his own party (or when he violated the Hastert Rule to pass the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012). It’s a demonstration that he can’t pass the bills he wants to pass, that his soldiers don’t do what he tells them to do. Reid doesn’t suffer so much from it because it’s Republican filibustering preventing him from passing bills, but he still kinda looks kinda weak because he “should” be able to get something through, somehow.
Obama is much less vulnerable to Congress voting “no” to bombing Syria because no one thinks that Obama controls Congress, and whether you blame Republican obstructionism or Democratic incompetence, it’s still not Obama’s fault. It’s not a demonstration that he can’t get what he wants out of them–he hasn’t been getting what he wants his whole time in office. If Congress votes no, it’s a face saving way for Obama to back down, in a magnificant display of respecting the separation of powers (after Bush was criticized for not doing so via signing statements), and that’s what he’ll do.
As I said, I don’t understand this (your) way of seeing it, and to me, it looks like a sign of strength, not weakness. To me. I was explaining how things look to me when certain things happen, while acknowledging that this is not how things apparently look to most people for whatever reason. Let’s put it this way: The main idea of the paragraph I typed was “I will never make a good politician.” Would you like to debate that proposition?
I think you are overlooking one very likely scenario:
The Senate votes “yes” on Obama’s proposal, the House votes “no” and they are unable to reconcile. To put this in Iraq war terms, the House produces a Levin Amendment and that fails in the Senate, as the original Levin Amendment did.
Yep. If he ends up going for it anyway, that will disconfirm this interpretation, but til then, this sure is how it seems to me as well.