N/A Posted September 1, 2013 Report Share Posted September 1, 2013 President Obama is asking the House to authorize the strike. This can only be a win for President Obama. Look at all it will do for him: 1) Libertarian and no-to-anything-President-Obama-wants Republicans will fight with traditional hawkish Republicans over an authorization, and it could get nasty. 2) If the House does approve it, then they also own anything that goes wrong. 3) If the House does not authorize a strike, and President Obama does not do one (he might still though), Republicans will own any problems in Syria going forward from not acting. 4) Speaker of the House will be under much stress in the vote. An authorization probably will not get a majority of Republicans, so he will have to break the Hastert Rule (Republican rule, set by Speaker Hastert, that no Republican Speaker of the House will bring up legislation unless a majority of Republicans will support it) and pass it with Democrat and a minority of Republican votes. That would probably cause problems for Republicans in primaries this Spring, as Tea Party activists will probably demand that candidates pledge not to support Boehner as Speaker. Pledges not to support their current Speaker of the House would make Republicans look more dysfunctional to general voters, and no pledges might mean some current Republican house members get voted out in primaries to be replaced by more extreme Republicans that might fail in general elections. 5) If only a minority of Republicans authorize it, or if there is no authorization, then Republicans look weak on national security, one of their defining positions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted September 1, 2013 Report Share Posted September 1, 2013 Fairly amazing how liberal this board is all the time. Acting like this is a win for the president is hilarious. The guy set a red line and was building a coalition without congress, but when it all goes to ashes he pulls an about face and puts it on congress. Do you, or anyone else, honestly think the president wouldn't have authorized a strike if he could have found any countries willing to support him? He certainly did with Libya. After England turned us down we were left with 1 ally-France the abdicators. His red line statement was absolute horrible diplomacy. His indecision showed weakness. His inability to get any allies shows the state of the world in regards to another U.S. operation. His nonsense that the war powers act grants him the authority to make such a strike is questionable, at best. The fact he wants to bomb another country without proper evidence is disheartening for a Nobel laureate. Trying to paint this as a win for the president is ludicrous. This only came to be because of public pressure and the English vote in parliament, which was another embarrassment for the administration, and lack of any support from the world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 Seems like it's mainly politics. Obama wants to force the GOP to declare themselves in advance. Militarily and pragmatically, Obama should just launch an attack. I can understand waiting on international collaboration, but not the GOP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleNinja Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 Fairly amazing how liberal this board is all the time. Acting like this is a win for the president is hilarious. The guy set a red line and was building a coalition without congress, but when it all goes to ashes he pulls an about face and puts it on congress. Do you, or anyone else, honestly think the president wouldn't have authorized a strike if he could have found any countries willing to support him? He certainly did with Libya. After England turned us down we were left with 1 ally-France the abdicators. His red line statement was absolute horrible diplomacy. His indecision showed weakness. His inability to get any allies shows the state of the world in regards to another U.S. operation. His nonsense that the war powers act grants him the authority to make such a strike is questionable, at best. The fact he wants to bomb another country without proper evidence is disheartening for a Nobel laureate. Trying to paint this as a win for the president is ludicrous. This only came to be because of public pressure and the English vote in parliament, which was another embarrassment for the administration, and lack of any support from the world. It's not hilarious. It's redickaluss. Even if every last thing in the OP was accurate how in blue hell is it even remotely a GOOD thing??? Even if it is a 'win' for the president, how is it a win for the rest of us? No one wants us to have anything to do with Syria. Why can't that be enough for this power-hungry motherfucker? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzTitan Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 If he doesn't get congress approval, then I don't agree that is a win for him. If he doesn't act because of that, then at best it means his threats to enemies are meaningless, which is a pretty embarrassing outcome for him. But it seems like he'll act regardless. This appears to be mostly a way to get a bit more time, perhaps to lobby international support, with a chance of achieving political support at home. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 Obama has all the support he needs. The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committe has already been quoted as saying its a slam dunk and called for solidarity. Now the Saudis are coming out in favor of military action as well. Personally I don't feel like the U.S. should do anything unless it's part of a broader U.N. or NATO initiative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 Obama has all the support he needs. The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committe has already been quoted as saying its a slam dunk and called for solidarity. Now the Saudis are coming out in favor of military action as well. Personally I don't feel like the U.S. should do anything unless it's part of a broader U.N. or NATO initiative. Calls for solidarity wouldn't happen if there was actual solidarity. It's by no means a slam dunk. In Desert Storm we had UN authorization and a thirty nation coalition. In the second Iraq war, we had a 30 nation coalition, which was approximately the same as Afghanistan. In Libya we had 26 other nations supporting us in some manner. This campaign has two backers: France and the Saudis. Several credible sources have stated the evidence does not match with US intelligence, including UN diplomats and inspectors (I will link if asked). At least this delay will allow more information to be brought to the table. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtenn Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 The Republicans love attacking people, they'll authorize. In fact, they will probably claim that the attack and the authorization were their ideas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 2, 2013 Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 Calls for solidarity wouldn't happen if there was actual solidarity. It's by no means a slam dunk. In Desert Storm we had UN authorization and a thirty nation coalition. In the second Iraq war, we had a 30 nation coalition, which was approximately the same as Afghanistan. In Libya we had 26 other nations supporting us in some manner. This campaign has two backers: France and the Saudis. Several credible sources have stated the evidence does not match with US intelligence, including UN diplomats and inspectors (I will link if asked). At least this delay will allow more information to be brought to the table. I'll guarantee you he gets the votes he needs for this. Republicans have no choice. They cannot appear weak on National Security as it's the cornerstone of their message. The issue here is another invasion which nobody wants and both sides no it. As long as Obama frames this as a strategical strike then it's going to pass and quite easily at that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/A Posted September 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2013 Opinion pieces out today that give another big win for President Obama. House Republicans pretty much have to scrap plans to argue for larger spending cuts etc. and will instead have to go along with a stop-gap measure to keep the government spending as-is for at least a few more months. They will also likely not be able to push for anything to raise the debt ceiling and will just have to do it as it always has been done - no demands. All that will be put on the shelves because of the Syrian vote. And imagine the ones that had a bunch of Tea Party people demanding, and them likely agreeing to fight on those issues, in all the town hall meetings recently. Now they will have to play dead on those issues, again right after they likely agreed they would fight on them just last week in town hall meetings, right as primary season is coming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2013 Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 Jesus fucking Christ. Does anyone really think Obama is going to go to war with Syria because he thinks it will score him political capital or will look like a political win? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2013 Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 Note: I am completely opposed to action in Syria. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter Posted September 3, 2013 Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 Jesus fucking Christ. Does anyone really think Obama is going to go to war with Syria because he thinks it will score him political capital or will look like a political win? It wouldnt surprise me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted September 3, 2013 Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 Jesus fucking Christ. Does anyone really think Obama is going to go to war with Syria because he thinks it will score him political capital or will look like a political win? Seems like the OP is all for it. It amazes me how many liberals bashed the last regime (myself (non Democrat/Republican) included) and are now silent on this issue, just like they were with Libya except this is much more of a powder keg. Where have all the anti-war people gone now that a Democrat is in office? Anyone who looks at this and sees a political winner is a buffoon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 3, 2013 Report Share Posted September 3, 2013 It amazes me how many liberals bashed the last regime (myself (non Democrat/Republican) included) and are now silent on this issue, just like they were with Libya except this is much more of a powder keg. Where have all the anti-war people gone now that a Democrat is in office? Are you kidding? You don't see the difference between Bush invading a country for no valid reason vs Obama presumably launching a few cruise missiles in response to the use of WMDs on civilians? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.