Should we bomb Syria?

Just prior to President Obama making his speech about Syria, this is what the right wing was saying about him:

"If Barack Obama is going to attack Syria, he is going to do it without the support of the American people, without the approval of Congress, without the approval of the United Nations, and without the help of the British."

And now look at some of right wing posts on here and you will see that they are criticizing the President for doing what they originally wanted.

This is just another reason why there will never be a...

One factor that could complicate President Obama’s effort to win congressional authorization for his plan to attack the Syrian regime is that, despite the constitutional requirement to seek Congress’ permission before an act of war, doing so was apparently never the president’s first choice. In fact, it appears it was his last resort.

White House spinners have spent the last couple of days telling the press that Obama surprised even his most senior staff Friday night by deciding to seek congressional authorization. Before that, it is said, asking Congress’s approval was not even among the options being considered in the Syrian crisis.

It was only after it became clear to Obama that he could not win acceptance in other, preferred, circles that he chose to go to Congress. Would he have sought congressional authorization if he had won United Nations approval for a Syrian attack? Highly unlikely. Would he have sought congressional authorization if the British Parliament had voted to join Obama’s action? Also unlikely. Even approval from the Arab League might have been enough for Obama to act.
Sign Up for the Byron York newsletter!

As it turned out, Obama achieved none of those goals and decided to seek congressional approval only after failing to win the international acceptance that apparently ranked higher on his list. “Mr. Obama made no secret to aides he felt uncomfortable acting without UN Security Council backing,” the Wall Street Journal reported. “Current and former officials said his decision reflected his concerns about being seen as acting unilaterally — without political cover from Congress and without the UK at his side. Arab states, for their part, have offered little public support despite their private encouragement.”

fshnski wrote:He passed the buck.

Harry Truman's sign on his desk:

"The Buck Stops Here"

China weighed in Monday on the possibility of the United States taking military action in Syria with this quick message: Don’t.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said that Washington officials had briefed Beijing heads on the situation, and that while China was most concerned about the use of chemical weapons, the nation wanted the United States to wait for international support. The U.S. should not act alone, he said, The Associated Press reported.
Any U.S. action must conform to the dictates of the U.N. Charter, Mr. Hong said.
Meanwhile, China — along with Russia — has already made clear its objections at the U.N. Security Council to any international action that topples Syria President Bashar Assad’s government.
China’s statement comes as President Obama has put on hold for at least a week any decision on U.S. action in Syria. The United States reports that the latest death count from chemical weapons unleashed by Mr. Assad’s forces on rebel fighters near Damascus is 1,429 — and most are civilians, AP reported.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/2/china-us-dont-go-syria-force/#ixzz2dkRXFSYX
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

He passed the buck. He is in over his head.

News Buzzard wrote:Nice signature, Donzel!

Taken out of the context of applause and laughter:

"I would like to know why and what can be done about 'we, the American people' receiving some of that information more from the media. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: If you're trying to goad me into attacking the media, you're crazy. (Laughter.)

It's interesting, people get their news all different kinds of ways..."

Charles Krauthammer took to Fox News following President Obama’s statements from the Rose Garden on Saturday to slam the administration for engaging in “amateur hour” for failing to show a sense of urgency in the Syrian conflict.

The president said he would delay a strike on Syria pending authorization from Congress when members return from their summer vacation next week.

“[T]he most astonishing thing is the lack of any urgency,” said The Washington Post columnist, the Daily Caller first reported. “As you say, Congress will be back in a week. He says, ‘I can strike in a day or a week or a month,’ as if he is a judge handing down a sentence and the execution can be any time in the future. There is a war going on. Do you think everybody is going to hold their breath, hold their arms, step aside until Obama decides when he wants to go to Congress?

“Look, I think he should go to Congress,” Mr. Krauthammer continued. “I think it is absolutely necessary. But he has done no preparation. … This is sort of amateur hour. When there were the first attacks six months ago or if you like, when we had the current attacks, he should have immediately have called in the Congress the way the prime minister of Britain had called in the Parliament, had a debate and got a resolution and then went out and told the world we are going do X or we are not going to do X.”

Mr. Krauthammer added that a decision should have been made in three days, “and the world, I think, will have higher respect … [Mr. Obama] looks like a president who boxed himself into a corner and is looking for a way out.”

fshnski wrote:We are stronger when we act together. That's the new spin from the left.

He is not trying to create a imperialist presidency.  Kerry

I feel sorry for Kerry having to make excuses for obomya.

I feel sorry for the United States because this person, this person the left elected, is making us look like incompetent nincompoops.

Team-Mates John F. Kerry—and the distinguished John Edwards were elected by the Left...

Did you mean Kerry or Obama—or both?





Maybe Kerry trusted the BBC—the UK's answer to the New York Times:

“One of my pictures from Iraq was used by the BBC web site as a front page illustration claiming that those were the bodies of yesterday's massacre in Syria and that the picture was sent by an activist.

“Instead the picture was taken by me and it's on my web site, on the feature section regarding a story I did In Iraq during the war called Iraq, the aftermath of Saddam.

“What I am really astonished by is that a news organization like the BBC doesn't check the sources and it's willing to publish any picture sent in by anyone: activist, citizen journalist or whatever."

Not Kerry. He has been forced into a pretty awkward position by his boss.

"I am glad the president has decided to seek congressional support for military action in Syria"------New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130831/NEWS06/130839870

All I'm hearing on this forum is constant complaining about Obama, despite conservative congressional support for his decision to consult with them on Syria. I will put more stock in Ayotte's statement than Krauthammer's.

He passed the buck.

fshnski wrote:He passed the buck.

How so?

By requesting congressional approval?

I'm no fan of this tyrant, that's for sure, but, that is the way it supposed to be done.

There is another name for a unitary executive that can make war on other nations just on his say so alone:

A king.

Now, let's see if:

A - Congress has the nuts to do the right thing and tell King Obama "NO".

B - If O-bomb-ya just ignores Congress and does it anyway, if they do tell him no.

He certainly didn't bother with Congress over Libya.

He backed himself into a corner and everybody knows it!! The only reason he is going to Congress is to protect himself, either way he is right. I guess it WAS a brilliant move after all, one that will spare him. He is brilliant very often that way, every time he makes a mistake, he finds a way to blame someone else and the liberals and the liberal media buy it.

WHL wrote:I guess it WAS a brilliant move after all......

Now you're getting it!

Obama is drawing magnificent praise from conservatives who have never said one nice thing about him! The decision whether to bomb Syria or not now becomes the responsibility of the US Congress, who represent us. He's in over his head alright!!!

That's because they are impressed he weaseled out of a predicament. That's a lot to be proud of.

Yep, the usual sleeze that he is. Says one thing and means another.

This is how whiners fshnski and WHL act most of the time:

News Buzzard wrote:Obama is drawing magnificent praise from conservatives who have never said one nice thing about him!

He is drawing praise from neo-conservatives.



I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go around bragging that the likes of McCain, Graham, Cheney and Krauthammer, just to name a few, are on your side.

Boehner calls for support of "call for action".

Pelosi takes advice from 5 year old.

Congress out then the French are out.

What with our president having received the Nobel Peace Prize and leading us in a pivot to Asia, I guess the White House wants to pretend that the humiliating debacle America is suffering — in front of the world — isn’t happening. What’s wrong with asking Congress for authorization to go to war? The Obama apologencia will tell us it is what the president meant to do all along. They will tell us things are going according to plan. What’s the rush? But no, for the first time ever, an American president is saying, “The buck does NOT stop here.”
The president is a spent force, both domestically and internationally. Congress should help by voting to cut our losses; it should resist opening the door to the uncertain consequences of a military campaign conducted, without conviction or clear purpose, by this commander in chief. If Republicans can limit the president’s authority to wander and blunder on the world stage, there is a moral obligation to do so.
Of course Syria should be viciously punished for using chemical weapons, but who trusts this president to do so in such a way that also sends a clear message to Iran? No one does. Why would they? Better to leave Iran with a modicum of doubt than let them witness any more of the tepid uncertainty, lack of conviction or absence of moral clarity from President Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/09/01/a-vote-of-no-confidence-is-in-order/

Are we actually touting Obama for following the Constitution and the Federalist Papers?  Really?  This guy has a history of disregarding the Constitution and enforcing only the laws he sees as just.  Now that it is politically convenient, he is following the law?
 
Obama never seriously considered Assad would use chemical weapons on his own people and he was talking tough when HE drew a line in the sand.  Now he has painted himself in a corner.  If he doesn’t strike he will be seen as weak.  If he does, he goes against the will of the people.  
 
At the end of last week, Obama came to the realization that the people were not with him. He never conceived that what he does may not be popular and would not get automatic support. After all, in his mind, he always knows best.
 
Now he is looking for a patsy.  He's going to try and look agreeable and diplomatic by going to Congress first then blame Republicans for not going in with him. He'll tout McCain and Graham as rational neo-cons like himself and call the rest hypocrites because they are guilty by association as Republicans who supported Bush in Iraq. He'll try to look presidential by using any executive privilege to circumvent Congress. All the while, Leftists will support Obama because, well, he's Obama.  
 
 
If Congress follows the will of the people and denies action; will he go it alone or will he pout and call Republicans obstructionists again?
 
Either way Obama comes off as weak or he will be solely responsible for getting us into another war.   Get ready for President Rand Paul and the Dems can thank Obama.