Obama administration doubles down on Syria attack post GB decision

[cali]

The Obama administration laid the groundwork for unilateral military action in Syria, a shift officials said reflected the U.K.'s abrupt decision not to participate and concerns that President Bashar al-Assad was using the delayed Western response to disperse his military assets around the country.

The push for a quick international strike to punish Syria appeared in disarray on Thursday, after British lawmakers defeated a government motion in support of military action rejected. The vote in the House of Commons was 285-272.

Officials said Mr. Obama is prepared to act in coming days without Britain, noting that unlike U.S. involvement in the 2011 military operation in Libya, the options under consideration in Syria are smaller scale and would not require a coalition to be effective.

"Here, what's being contemplated is of such a limited and narrow nature that it's not as if there's a similar imperative for bringing in different capabilities from different countries," a senior administration official said. "We believe it's important that there be diplomatic support from key allies, and we think we're getting that."

<snip>

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579042913385135196.html

[dkf]

1. And is he preparing to act without Congress and without the American People?

Is he going rogue?

[cali]

2. the iindications are that he is prepared to act unilaterally

the fig leaf (and it's microscopic) appears to be that the administration has "diplomatic support" from allies for a military strike.

[Purveyor]

9. The teabagging House of Reps are already working on the articles of impeachment if he does

act without congressional support whether valid or not.

They have wanted 'something' to impeach and this just may be the doozy.

Of course he would never be convicted by the Senate but at least the t'baggers would have their official 'impeachment' for the record books.

[Xipe Totec]

3. The world stage is suddenly awash with testosterone.

Maybe what we need is pictures of Obama shirtless on horseback to close the macho gap.

[jsr]

10. Better yet

[The Straight Story]

4. Why the heck not? Since assad can gas his own people and get away with it

Why can't Obama do what he wants and get away with it?

Who is going to do anything about it? The UN? They might pass a strongly worded resolution. The UK would vote to vote later. Russia would complain and then putin would grab some vodka and go bear riding for the cameras. Israel won't say jack.

[G_j]

5. why?

what is the fucking rush ?

[HooptieWagon]

7. No. The public is sick and tired of endless wars.

And with all the lying and spying, the public isn't inclined to give Obama the benefit of doubt. His imperial presidency schtick has lost the trust of the American people.

[frylock]

11. that's a pretty signifigant swing from the 9% that currently support our involvment..

good luck with that.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Occupy Satire?

I've not met one person here in Oregon who believes bombing them is a good idea at all. I doubt he'd be believed if he 'made a case' because he has endorsed the 'case' made by Bushco as having been legal and it was all lies, Obama's standards are lower than the people's standards.

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. So... you're thinking what? 80/20?

[cali]

16. 9% support a military strike, so no it's unlikely he'll get

majority support let alone 75%- particularly if he acts unilaterally.

[reformist2]

8. So, what are they hanging over Obama's head to make him act so rashly?

[BlueCheese]

14. God, I hope we don't do this.

I don't understand the rush. Why can't we wait for a UN report and Security Council meeting? It's not like Assad is going anywhere.

I don't seriously think Obama has secretly been replaced by Kong or Kodos or other alien pod person, but he's certainly acting like it.