President Pulls Lawmakers Into Box He Made

[Catherina]

Interesting article

President Pulls Lawmakers Into Box He Made


By MARK LANDLER
Published: August 31, 2013

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s aides were stunned at what their boss had to say when he summoned them to the Oval Office on Friday at 7 p.m., on the eve of what they believed could be a weekend when American missiles streaked again across the Middle East.

...

He had several reasons, he told them, including a sense of isolation after the terrible setback in the British Parliament. But the most compelling one may have been that acting alone would undercut him if in the next three years he needed Congressional authority for his next military confrontation in the Middle East, perhaps with Iran.

...

Forty-five minutes later, shortly before 7, Mr. Obama summoned his senior staff members to tell them that he had decided to take military action, but with a caveat.

...

The resistance from the group was immediate. The political team worried that Mr. Obama could lose the vote, as Mr. Cameron did, and that it could complicate the White House’s other legislative priorities. The national security team argued that international support for an operation was unlikely to improve.

At 9 p.m., the president drew the debate to a close and telephoned Mr. Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to tell them of his plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/president-pulls-lawmakers-into-box-he-made.html

[BlueCheese]

1. It really was quite a reversal.

All week, the administration was making the case for strikes, and then suddenly, it's time to wait 10+ days for Congress. Clearly the British vote and American public opinion had its effect. In any case, however Obama arrived at his decision, I applaud him for his eleventh hour restraint.

This is a complicated issue, and almost any path forward has its obvious drawbacks. Do nothing in the face of a chemical weapons attack? Not ideal. Get involved in yet another Middle East conflict with no hope of resolution? Ugh. I don't think any side can be convinced that their approach is certainly the correct one.

I lean towards staying out of it right now. The situation is just too fraught with peril, even if all we do is a hit-and-run attack on what we think are purely military targets. But if we do intervene, I hope that it's with at least some semblance of international cooperation. It can't just be the United States alone. There has to be a Security Council vote showing support, even if any resolution ends up getting vetoed by Russia.

[Catherina]

4. It sure was. I think we're going to have a vigorous debate. Thoughtful points from some Congress...

Anna Eshoo and Zoe Lofgren just posted some very thoughtful points. I hope these are vigorously debated. I particularly agree with your last sentence.

[link:http://|Joint Statement from Congresswomen Anna Eshoo and Zoe Lofgren Regarding... Syria]

[Turbineguy]

2. It's a smart move because

whatever direction Congress takes, it will turn out to be the wrong one.

[LearningCurve]

3. What kind of idiot "team" is being referenced here?

The political team worried that Mr. Obama could lose the vote,

Even taking this at face value, does anyone really think Congress votes NO to bombing Syria?

[Catherina]

10. The team

Mr. McDonough and his deputy, Rob Nabors; the national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, and her deputies, Antony J. Blinken and Benjamin J. Rhodes; the president’s senior adviser, Dan Pfeiffer; and several legal experts to discuss the War Powers Resolution.

Possibly. Congress is getting hammered on twitter right now, so I imagine by phone and fax too, by regular citizens and military members who want no part of this.

Juan Cole pointed this out yesterday. I think it's up in the air.

Juan Cole ?@jricole 11h

Interesting possibility that a Left-Libertarian alliance in Congress could defeat Syria resolution

[LearningCurve]

12. Thanks for the details

Even if I grant that this article accurately represents what members of team Obama really think, I find the likelihood of any coalition with enough votes to vote NO highly unlikely. This post may come back to bite me after subsequent events, but if so, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Either way, we won't have to wait too long.

[B Calm]

35. Since when has the republican congress voted with Obama?

[LearningCurve]

36. I suspect when it comes done to war, they will

The neo-con element can't resist.

[B Calm]

37. I don't think they will! They'll be afraid to vote with Obama

for fear of being "primaried" by the Tea Bagger party.

[kentuck]

14. Left-Libertarian alliance could defeat Syria resolution?

Very possible.

A large number of Democrats will vote against it. Some Republicans will vote against it. The actual vote total is anybody's guess?

But I would guess the majority of Repubs would vote for it, simply because they want to be seen as the "strong on defense" Party. They do not want a majority of their caucus voting against "war". It's just not them. So the bottom line will depend on how many Democrats vote to defeat it.

I don't see it passing.

[Catherina]

21. You think it won't pass? I'm totally up in the air

I don't even know about the majority of Republicans anymore. The Amash Coalition seems to be growing and military people are contacting their Congressional reps with very strong hell noes.

A week ago, if you had told me we'd lose the Brits, I would have said "Get outta here!". You're probably right about the Republicans but I'm not committing to anything right now lol.

[NealK]

23. I have no idea how this will turn out either.

And I agree about what you said about the Brits. Very surprised.

[kentuck]

5. Obviously, Congress is in no rush...

Otherwise, they would all be summoned back to town.

But it is about time that they were forced to take a stand on something. They have been skating and ghosting for much too long.

But, I don't think the President had any other option? He has shown that he can play politics also.

[Tx4obama]

6. The New York Times article left something important out about the U.S. Congress regarding LIBYA

On March 1, 2011 the U.S. Senate approved by unanimous consent a resolution in regards to Libya

A March 2011 DU OP here: http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x717373

And also check out all the all comments on the 'above' link too with info.


Also: http://www.demconwatchblog.com/diary/4441/what-was-the-senates-intent

[Coyotl]

7. Change 101: Russia FM: Military Strike on Syria without UNSC Approval Is Act of Aggression

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014582394

[Catherina]

22. I just read and recced both, Thank you n/t

[Coyotl]

8. Change 102: Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014581935

[Tx4obama]

11. That OP article was locked because it is not a reputable source. n/t

[Coyotl]

19. All that means is that one person on DU would not allow the discussion of the facts.

[Raksha]

34. It is a reputable source, if a somewhat obscure one.

I've been spreading several versions of it on Facebook today, including on a Syrian partisan page. Hopefully the U.N. inspectors will be able to corroborate the story.

[kentuck]

9. Also, in regards to Russian veto...

The Russians have been trying to play the good guy by sheltering Edward Snowden and letting the world know how the US has been spying on the whole world. They want to appear to be the moral nation, not like the US.

But if they veto a bill to do something about gassing women and children, they lose that "moral" argument.

So there is a lot of international intrigue and politics behind this whole matter, in my opinion.

[DeSwiss]

15. If they lose the moral argument, they don't lose it to US.

Not as long as we keep droning kids and holding innocent people prisoner.

Not to mention killing our own citizens without a trial or even due process.

[kentuck]

17. No. They are playing to international cameras.

They just don't get to sit up on the pedestal either.

[DeSwiss]

18. Everyone knows who they are.

And everyone's playing to somebody's camera.

That's the problem.

Too many are worried about how things look, rather than how, and what they really are.

[NealK]

26. +1

Well said.

[Catherina]

20. What moral argument?

I'll spare you the video but the reverse is raping women and children, beheading priests, lining children up in front of a firing squad and shooting them. All of it filmed and promptly uploaded to youtube. Not to mention the filmed cannibalism that was uploaded by the rebel commander himself and murdering a 14 year old atheist boy for insulting the prophet Mohammed because when some rebel asked him for a free cup of coffee, he joked and said "Not even for the Prophet Mohammed if he comes back".

I think we lost the moral argument when we dumped tons of napalm on Vietnam.

There are two sides here. We're only getting one.

Did you manage to catch the House of Commons Debate? Half the debate was that the US had no moral argument to make and no intel to back up the hypocrisy. The ongoing birth defects from our chemical use in Iraq came up too. White phosphorus used in Fallujah.

The US has a known record of vetoing Israel's use of chemical weapons at the UN.

What moral argument?

I think there's a lot of intrigue too but on the worldwide stage, when it comes to losing a moral argument, we lost it long ago. I think Iraq was the nail in the coffin.

[NealK]

27. "I think we lost the moral argument when we dumped tons of napalm on Vietnam."

I'm afraid that you are right.

[fujiyama]

29. I don't think anyone is viewing the Russians as "playing the good guy"

Sheltering Snowden was a smart move politically and played to the Russian (and world opinion) of the US being a rogue imperialist power. It was partly for domestic consumption and to thumb its nose at the US (and I say this as a Snowden supporter). No one for one second can believe with a straight face that Putin gives a shit about government transparency or that he was making some bold philosophical statement about privacy and government spying when the Russian government gave Snowden asylum.

Anyone that pays any attention to world politics knows that Russia is playing to protect its own strategic interests in the region. The Assad regime wouldn't get on board with a pipeline that would weaken Gazprom's stranglehold on European energy needs. That and the Russians do have genuine fears of an Islamist/Jihadist led government coming into power in Syria if Assad were to fall (something the West should be concerned about too). Syria (and more prominently Iran) are the two major chess pieces (you could say the Queen and King) of the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Russia.

That's another major reason NOT to get involved in the mess. We've been the de facto Saudi bitch for over twenty years now. Every move we've made in the region has strengthened them and the result has simply been them spreading their radical Wahhabi philosophy throughout the world. I find it incredibly sad what's happening to civilians in Syria, but there are other countries in the world that can act if it is indeed, such a great moral imperative to do so.

[Savannahmann]

13. Five minutes after he finished speaking I was typing a letter to my reps

It took five minutes to start because the dog wanted out. It was sent to both Senators and my Congressman's Washington offices.

[DeSwiss]

16. Box?

Seems more like a minefield to me.

K&R

[NealK]

24. K&R

Thank you for this post, Catherina.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. I thought it was funny for a different reason...

No-one apart from Skinner and EarlG know who's alerting on what when it comes to every post, though I think it's safe to say call other DUers obnoxious dumbshits and it's likely someone will alert and just as likely the post will be hidden

[David__77]

32. There is lack of integrity about it, for sure.

Some people want a war juggernaut, unstoppable and unquestionable.

[Maedhros]

33. "The terrible setback in the UK parliament."

Strange. I look at that as a great victory.