DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
I believe all of you have not stop and thought through the President's actions. He made a very brilliant political move in dealing with the GOP and those Tea Party losers. He tested the waters about a strike. The Republicans in Congress started shouting out that he needed their approval; going to far as to threaten him with impeachment if they weren't given control of the final decision. The president does not need Congress's Approval on this unless it leads to a very long conflict (i.e. the Iraq War with G.W. Bush).
The President turns a no-win situation, politically speaking, into a 'call the Republican's Bluff'. In essence, they now own the problem whether they want to or not. Before he made this decision, the Republicans were ready to act in one of two ways:
A ) If the President decided to attack Syria, the Republicans would have bashed him non-stop until the election for having done it and being against the action.
B ) If the President decided not to attack Syria, the Republicans would have bashed him non-stop until the election for not having done something.
So the President went to Congress and allow them to decide. Which makes those Republicans whom bitched last week for this specific action look like fools. Even worst that they can not thank the President for this action if there tweets are any indication. That just shows he called their bluff. So what is the no-win situation now for the Republicans that allows the President to look good politically?
1 ) The Republicans authorize the President to take military action. If it is successful, everyone will remember it was the President's idea to ask Congress (even though he didn't have to) in the first place. Even more so that Republicans actually got something accomplished in Congress given their 15 successful votes on bills this year (normally its 190-260)!
How is this a no-win for the GOP? They demanded Obama come to them for AUMF prior to action. He did. The mission is successful. President Obama and Democrats can tell the tale as it was Obama calling their bluff and the GOP bending to his will. The GOP can tell the tale as it was their forcing Obama to follow the Constitution (regardless of whether or not you believe it was necessary, this will still be the claim).
quote:
2 ) The Republicans authorize the President to take military action. The whole thing goes south faster than you can say "Hillary has two terms in the White House"! The President asked Congress, and Republicans responded with the course of action. The GOP is looked upon as foolish and stupid to having taken this course of action.quote:
The GOP isn't giving the course of action, but authorizing the President to use our Armed Forces. If the mission is a failure, it won't be the GOP that gets the blame. It will be the creators of the military strategy/plan we used. None of our elected leaders will likely be in charge of creating that. How is it that the GOP would be to blame anyway (considering that there will likely be Democrats also voting in support of authorization)? Giving Obama the green light to act isn't forcing Obama to act. He will still have the choice to act or not. If it goes bad, how does it bypass the Democrats and President Obama and fall on the GOP?
quote:
3 ) The Republicans do not authorize the military action. Either because they came to an agreement or failed to do even that! It sends a message to every future evil person with WMDs that the USA will not deal with them swiftly and completely. In addition, the rest of the world takes an even more diminished view of America being a good place to visit, spend money or invest. Oh, and they'll be responsible if Syria uses ANOTHER chemical weapon's attack.
According to Obama, he has all the authority he needs for military action. If the GOP does not authorize and President Obama does not use the authority he claims he has, then he'll also be sending that message, won't he?
You also forgot one:
4) The GOP does not authorize military action against the Assad regime. It turns out that the rebels were the ones to blame for the explosions. The GOP did the right thing. If Obama directs military action in defiance of the GOP's refusal, he'll have attacked the regime for using chemical weapons they didn't use, not punishing the actual ones responsible. That would also send the message that you can use WMD's and the US will not deal with you swiftly and completely as long as you can control who the US thinks did it.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: President Obama Looks to Congress Now On Syria - .gif){kind=avatar}
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread