DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
I think you accidently forgot a "/quote" in here somewhere. So if I'm misunderstanding what I think was your post, my apologizes ahead of time.
None needed. If I did fuck it up, it wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last, regardless of how hard I try to not make a formatting error. 
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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).
The GOP thought to lash at the President the previous week when he was seeking to get a real consensus of diplomats from around the world on just what sort of military action to take with Syria. The use of WMDs on troops during an act of war is one thing; using it on civilian populations....even during a war....is considered by most to be an evil action. An evil action left unopposed let alone strike against simply emboldens the evil-doer to do it a second time. An maybe even against more targets.
Its a no-win for the GOP as they believed in conditions 'A' and 'B' above. They have used this tactic a number of times, and frankly I'm sure the President is tired of the B.S. by now. They (the GOP) want to play President and feel like big shots on something that could be important in the future of Democracy for the world. Do you wish to argue they have decided to 'let bygones be bygones' about the last election; or do you think they are still butt-hurt for losing by a wide margin?
Their actions to demand the President to give them 'authorization' was a bluff. An the President called them on their bluff. Now they have to decided on a course of action to which the President can simply play the same game back at them. An some in the GOP I am sure have realized the 'large egos but no wisdom' Republicans (and more deeply the Tea Party) have shafted things for them.
Large egos?!? I a politician?!?!? Say it ain't so, Joe(ther)!! lol
I disagree their demands were a bluff (MoveOn.org agrees that the President requires Congressional authorization, and they are hardly aligned with the GOP). More on this below...
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
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.
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?
Who started the Iraq War under former President George W. Bush? A) President George W. Bush, B ) The Republicans that controlled the House and Senate in Congress or C) The Democrats who were in minority in both the House and Senate of Congress? You might think its 'A' but its really 'B'. Since we are not entering into a civil war, this would not technically be a 'Declaration of War' but a 'Military Engagement' (just like the two Iraq and one Afghanistan Wars). The only people truly clueless of this knowledge are conservatives. An what did conservatives do in the last election? VOTE REPUBLICAN.
The course of military action resides with the President. An I'm sure Republicans are doing damage control right now to devise a way to authorize such military action, but limit in dozens of ways. How tough will it be for the average political hack to spin that those limits cost the President more problems than they helped? Realize that the President does not have average people working for him. That means the Republicans are in quite a pickle as to how to set limits without looking like idiots if the whole thing goes south. I'll give you an easy way to understand just how tough of a situation the Republicans and their Tea Party lackeys are in: Give me the Powerball numbers for Wednesday Night's drawing before said drawing so that I win the Powerball Jackpot. Must be easy for you, right?
The course of military action does not lie within the President's authority in every situation. It is very clear that there are a very limited cases where the President doesn't need Congressional authority or DoW to send in troops. More on this below...
You might want to go back and check into the votes for AUMF for Afghanistan and Iraq. It wasn't a strict party line vote.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
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?
No, President Obama has all the authority granted to him from a document that I *KNOW* you have heard of: The US Constitution. This process that the President has entered into is simply calling the GOP's bluff and then forcing them to 'put their money where their mouths are' before the President or Democrats act on such a bill/measure.
Please cite.
quote:
Even if Congress says 'no', the President could still conduct military strikes if he believes that inaction placed American citizens or assets in even more danger than before. That is his right as a President! There maybe political fallout for such an action all the same.
Isn't it the political fear card that Republicans and Tea Party members use on conservatives that says "if you don't agree with me, this [insert doomsday level like event] will take place? They did it with their case for the Iraq War, with re-election G.W. Bush over Sen. Kerry in 2004, with the ARR in 2009, the ACA in 2010, re-election of President Obama in 2010 and the hundreds of other events since about the mid-1990's. But if a Democrat uses the same tactic just once, its just 'wrong' by conservatives. Do you understand the hypocrisy on display here with the GOP?
The political fear card? I'm honestly at a loss for how that applies. Please explain and I'll have no problems addressing your claim.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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.
NOTE: #4 is one DS presented and was not in my post.
And this is what is called 'EVIDENCE'. Something that has been as verified as possible with the intelligence community in the world. The same group that knew Iraq didn't have WMDs in quite the scale or scope that President G.W. Bush made to the American people shortly before invasion in 2003. An where were all the conservatives in the nation calling for impeachment of the former President G.W. Bush at the time after it was pretty well understood that Iraq didn't have WMDs in even the remotest of levels that the President said existed? You could drop a pin in that room and hear the echo from 100 miles away!
The nation knows that a chemical weapon was used. An the person in control of those weapons was Assyd (spelling?). Now if the rebels got hold of this weapon, why is the intelligence community not speaking up about it anywhere? Don't you think the intelligence community would like to gain their credibility back with the people of the world after the disaster of the Iraq War? This should be a no-brainer. An do you really believe the White House has stopped its investigation to whom really used that chemical weapon like the former Bush White House did with Iraq in 2003? I would be surprised if they stopped such an investigation and instead kept it going to make sure they had rechecked and three times more, checked everything for accuracy.
I am still not sufficiently convinced that it is known who set off the CW. You can make all the accusations and stuff about Iraq 2003 you want. That's fine. You have that right, and you aren't wrong in doing so. But, isn't it a smarter move to hang back a second and make 100% sure before going ahead (you know, like what we didn't do in Iraq 2003)?
quote:
Many conservatives believe the President will strike Syria regardless of what Congress decides. And like the million other times, they are basing this accusation on....WHAT....CREDIBLE.....INFORMATION? FOX News? Hannity? Limbaugh's Rants? The few hundred talk radio stations that have very little journalistic integrity to begin with? These are the same folks that do not understand the theories behind Climate Change & Evolution, Stem Cell Research, The Moon Landing, or what the word 'Liberal' actually means. Basically, they have pass judgment on someone BEFORE they even entered the room as a jury and well before any evidence was presented.
Good Lord. That's a whole bunch of mud-slinging BS that truly has no merit in this thread.
I do not believe the US has the authority to decide to go into Syria, militarily. At least not at this point. Even if we know for 100% certain that Assad's regime used CW against civilians, we still do not have the authority. If Congress grants the President the authority to use military force, I still don't believe that the US, as a nation, has the authority to go into a sovereign nation. Now, if there is a UNSC resolution authorizing military force, that's a different situation, as the UN, ostensibly, does have the authority to decide if outside military force can be used.
I said it before. I believe Bush & Co. I thought all the contrary articles were political games from those opposing Bush. I supported military action in Iraq because I believed Bush & Co. and felt that there were WMD still in Iraq. Had that been so, we truly wouldn't have needed any UN authorization to go in and oust Saddam, as we could have relied on the 1991 Peace Agreement ending the Persian Gulf War. Iraq would have been in breach of that agreement, and we could have gone in at any time.
Edited to fix a formatting error...
< Message edited by DesideriScuri -- 9/2/2013 4:19:19 PM >
_____________________________
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 - 
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