I know it’s relevant to you. You are not the world, or the American public at large, or the people of the Middle East, or the author of history. Your opinion’s different from most, and it might be worthwhile to consider that fact.
I think there is a difference between having a right and choosing to exercise that right. Obama asserts he has the right to unilaterally bomb Syria, but in view of the circumstances chooses not to exercise it. I don’t see how that binds him to never exercising that right in the future.
I can see where the right-wing commentariat sees cynicism in this - if going to Congress was such a great idea, why not do it from the outset? But I don’t think I’m being overly charitable in saying that this is a fluid situation where circumstances have to be viewed in shades of grey. After the British vote, which Obama couldn’t necessarily have foreseen, I think conditions meaningfully changed and Obama realized that a unilateral strike on his part wouldn’t have much legitimacy or political staying power. Now, some would say that the onus is on the president to magically whip up such support through sheer force of will (“leadership skills,” which supposedly Reagan had lots of and Obama doesn’t), but given that it’s by no means a clear call that bombing Syria is the right thing to do, I don’t hold it against him that he’s failed to do this.
I’d say turning at that point to Congress showed a good deal of resourcefulness and an ability to adapt strategy to new conditions as they emerge. And I don’t think this particular decision, by setting a precedent, puts any constraints on future presidential military decisions, by Obama or anyone else. Some of these decisions are more appropriately made by fiat, others by building consensus with Congress. When the Brits pulled out, this situation moved pretty squarely into the latter camp.
Obama’s definition of “imminent threat” isn’t worth jack shit. Remember the memo defending extrajudicial assassination?
Let’s see. “O” bombs , Syria of course returns fire. Some American buys the farm. USA retaliates.
U C. where I’m going with this?
Wasn’t he also a Constitutional scholar in 2007 when he said, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent?”
I’m pleased to see the President assert that he has the authority to act without Congress, since I agree – and always have – that the President has such authority. And I don’t think there’s much value in bludgeoning Obama with his 2007 contradiction; I think we should allow politicians to move from wrong to right without making it politically difficult – in other words, there should be no political incentive to cling to a wrong position solely for fear of being painted as inconsistent.
But at the same time, you cannot hold Obama’s constitutional scholarship up as some sort of immunity from critique, when that scholarship apparently delivered him to two different answers.
Are you serious? We’re talking about attacking Syria. How is that not “war”? If Congress refuses to authorize an attack, and Obama does it anyway, he’s brought the US into a war without authorization.
I certainly hope “no”. The older I get, the more I hate war.
And this just in: Speaker Boner and Rep. Cantor support Obama resolution. In other news, umbrella makers stock skyrocket on sudden advent of flying pigs…
Obama passing a ball re: go to war to Congress under Republican control is like a midget passing a ball to Michael Jordan re: slam-dunk.
You said that Obama attacking Syria despite congressional opposition would be a case of Obama “levying war on the United States.” That’s your own post, what you said.
I said that violating the separation of powers is very serious, but it is not in any way “levying war against the United States.” Not even in a far-fetched, ridiculously broad or metaphorical way.
If you’re confused by your own hyperbole to the point that you can’t remember what you actually posted, don’t make such silly statements in the first place.
Boehner and Cantor announced their support for the President. As well as being the right thing to do, it also drives a stake through the argument that they just want him to fail and will oppose everything he does.
There will be some Tea Party and progressive voices against attacking Syria, and that’s fine. But it looks like we’ll be going into this mostly united and that’s a good thing.
The AUF will pass with bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. Asking congressional approval is the right thing to do, there is no imminent threat to the US. Intervention may be a good humanitarian move, but I think it remains to be seen if there is a good party to side with. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
Of course President Obama thinks the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, all presidents do. Of course Senator Obama thought the opposite, since nearly all Congressmen do. We’ll never know until someone asks the Supremes to rule.
What will happen is that next week a select few targets will be bombed, Assad will piss and moan about it, and then the civil war will continue as before. Whether a US response is effective in deterring future poison attacks remains to be seen.
I think this is a very good move politically on Obama’s part.
The one thing that Americans are more tired of then anything else is the partisan dis-function of Washington. By seeking the advice of Congress Obama makes it look like he’s taking the high road. Particularly since his critics have been complaining about how much he is forcing things down the country’s throat and flouting the constitution.
As far as the effect of the vote, there are no good answers to this conflict, and whatever we do it is probably going to be a clusterfuck.
If congress agrees with the authorization of force, then at first he looks like a capable leader who can work with congress. Then when it all goes to hell Congress gets to share some of the blame.
If congress refuses to authorize force, then this reinforces that congress has no plan other than just reflexive disagreement with the president. Particularly given the GOPs reputation for hawkishness. Then when it all goes to hell he can say that he had a solution but was prevented by congress from putting it into action. The only thing that act against this is his statement that he believed that he had the constitutional right to act on his own. I’m not sure why he said that but it may have been to keep his options open for future conflicts.
As far as what will actually happen I’d give him about a 70% chance of getting congressional approval. If he fails then there is no way he will act on his own.
I also would give about even odds that some Republican will try to add an amendment that repeals Obamacare to the authorization of force.
He can say that, but it will also be stupid. Bombing Syria is not a “solution”. Obama said he will not use enough force to change the situation materially. This is mostly a symbolic gesture to back up his “red line” comment. If Congress approves, he’ll lob his missiles and that will be that until the next time.
Regards,
Shodan
I guess it will be a go to burn up a bunch of cruise missiles (dispair emoticon). At least I hope the targeting gets the man. We (US) just went (are going through) a couple of wars where we lost direction on exactly who the bad guy was. Bush/Chenney/Rummy did the whole, “Osama is public enemy #1”, to sudden irrevalence with the rise of Saddam “Waldo” Hussein. The timeline was chroniclesd here on the Dope - I ratholed the thread somewhere. We did get Saddam’s sons without too much delay but Pops was down the rabbit hole for 6 months or so. The trial and execution did more for the opposition that Iraq.
Eliminating Assad and chunk of the hierarchy in a strike might actually end things quickly though Libya still is still cooking along.
If we are to belive this whip count, it looks like a no-go:
Will Congress Support Military Action In Syria? A ThinkProgress Whip Count
– more at source.
That’s not the stated goal, and also will be impossible to do without very precise intelligence, or a lot of stupidity on Assad’s part. Assad didn’t survive for so long by being stupid.
Not really. That sources says 269 House members are “undecided or unknown”.
There’s an old Spanish saying about counting chickens before they hatch…
Red: Keep in mind that Obama is asking for pretty broad authority in the AUMF he submitted. It’s quite likely that many of Congresscritters will be willing to vote for an AUMF that allow him to bomb, but restricts him more than he would like even if they wouldn’t vote for his AUMF.
…and Egypt still continues without direction.
Sometimes the evil, ruthles, motherfucker dictator we know is the best option.
The opposition is not a bunch of buddhist monks and cloistered nuns. If Assad goes down, Act 2 is a nice massacre of Alawites: who do we bomb then?