Obama going to Congress might have been the best political move

[gopiscrap]

of his Presidency!

First of all, I truly feel that by doing this he staved off impeachment. I could just see the repukes salivating and going after him for unilaterally going into Syria, although it never was a problem to them when fucking George Bush was in office.

Secondly, it may have the added benefit of dividing the repukes in Congress. I can just see them scratching their heads thinking "god damn it, I love war and the profits it gets my friends, but if I vote for this, then I am agreeing with Obama and I can't do that." What a goper to do?

Third, it might reassert the checks and balance system that we supposedly have in this country. It might curb some of that unilateral shit presidents have been doing.

Fourth, if this goes wrong, he's got some cover.

[immoderate]

1. Good points!

I will ponder them.

--imm

[gopiscrap]

2. thanks

[greenman3610]

3. or, he might know that he doesn't have the votes

and can say, oh well, I tried.

[gopiscrap]

4. Yeah I was thinking that was possible also

[Skink]

5. If Bush were in office all kinds of people would be saying we

have to strike and the benefits hugely outweigh the risks.

[Blue Idaho]

6. Further benefits...

If these modern day John Bircher's vote in favor of going into Syria - they own the consequences. If they vote against it - they also own the consequences. Either way they lose the ability to sit on the sidelines and carp about what the President did. If they refuse to act they look like weaklings just before they start whining about the budget - strengthening the President's position.

We win because for once the government actually functions as advertised.

[Thinkingabout]

7. Having Congress to authorize a strike is brilliant, Obama has put out he is willing to strike

And if Congress votes to authorize he can say he was authorized to do so, if no then any unintended consequences will be shared. I find it interesting the RW talking point is Bush invaded Iraq because the Democrats voted to do so even though we know the Democrats was in the minority at the time.
When Boehner was all too eager for Obama to by pass the Congress voting it was a sign to have them vote, this way the decision to or not is on their hands. He has them over a barrel with no place to turn.

[freshwest]

8. Less political and more moral. What do Americans want? Their representatives know their will.

Does America want to get out of NATO, the UN (that's where some of the RW ire on this is based, as NATO is a creation of the UN) and become isolationist?

Is there a middle ground that is workable and moral and respects the right of the American people and those we have signed treaties with, who expect us to act?

Let the people speak. They elected the Congress to do their will. It's the most moral thing to do.

If folks don't like what the people they elected do in this matter, GOTV and get someone who will.

So many of the RWers say now they are anti-war. Will they be so when the pork barrel is gone?

Rand Paul sold out to the pork when he got elected, almost immediately, just like his daddy did when his district got some pork.

This could be a wonderful opportunity. The MIC is entrenched in this country because of jobs paid for with government money.

Will the Tea Party see their way past the Koch money, their contracts with various defense and other suppliers of weaponry, and vote to move that money to keep their voters in jobs doing more peaceful things?

The things they resisted all this time, infrastructure and green technology?

Will they divert the money for those jobs to helping people and cleaning up pollution?

Or will the flim flam this and hide behind political rhetoric so more?

They have the majority in 'the people's house', the House of Representatives.

Let them represent their voters and keep us out of this war, or shut up, please.

Obama is making the moral choice again. And he is not the president of half this country, but all of it.

Now the half that opposes him and his policies, can put their money where their mouths have been.

They have done nothing to improve the lives of most Americans, the Democrats and Obama have done it.

Time to show what they really believe in. Show the world the beauty or the ugliness of their beliefs.

In a public debate, on the record for the whole world to see. I welcome this!

[rug]

9. I thought this was about gassing civilians.

[Blue Idaho]

10. Or is it about

Bombing and killing people in a country that has done nothing to us?

[rug]

12. It is about that but this thread is appears to be about intramural Congressional politics.

[Blue Idaho]

14. That is a very fair point...

I may be as guilty as anyone of thinking of the internal dynamics but in a democracy aren't there always political consequences to any international involvement?

I'm not trying to be argumentative - just asking...

[rug]

16. Always. It just strikes me as odd given how he phrased the issue.

Justice and security require we act.

Now it's up to Congress.

He can blame the republicans either way.

Politics bathes in cynicism daily but it has not yet become cynicism itself.

(Disclaimer: I don't think the U.S. should attack at all. I don't care how it's stopped or who gets the credit but it should be stopped.)

[MNBrewer]

11. Who was gassed should be irrelevant.

If it's really about international norms.

[rug]

13. I don't get the glee, then, about brilliant political moves.

If this is all a political game and Congress denies the authorization and the President does not act, he is countenancing what he calls both a threat to national security and a war crime. Assuming he believes what he said. At that point, who's snookered whom?

[MNBrewer]

15. I don't get it either

I AM glad that he knuckled under to public and congressional pressure to take this issue before Congress, for a number of reasons.

I hope Congress votes the war down.

If the US is serious about punishing war criminals, we should sign onto the World Court and send a few of our own war criminals to the Hague, before we start looking into Syria.

But the recent immunity granted to our war criminals puts the lie to the idea that our nation really cares about war crimes as crimes against humanity.

[kentuck]

17. It was "political" all along...

...ever since the President used the "red line" comment. There have been 100,000 people killed in this civil war in Syria and many of them were women and children. War is ugly. Is this last 1000 more ugly than the first 99,000?

Republicans chose to make it political. So the President is playing the game. You want to play politics, we'll just have a vote on it. We'll see if you can put your money where your mouth is?

At the same time, he reserves the right to attack under the War Powers Act.

What can the Repubs do? They have been calling Obama weak and ineffective. How can they possibly vote against a strike against Syria?

Their only hope is that enough Democrats will vote against it that a majority of Republicans will not have to vote against it. Then they can argue that their Party wanted to strike Syria but the majority of Democrats stymied them, along with a few Republicans.

No doubt about it. It's politics.

[gopiscrap]

18. Everything is always about politics

no matter what it is.