Will They or Won't They?

[boston bean]

They = Congress

Authorize force in Syria?

3 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Will
	2 (67%)
	Won't
	1 (33%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[snappyturtle]

1. Other: I hope they don't. At this point I have no idea. nt

[rug]

2. There's no political capital to be gained by voting for it.

[leftstreet]

3. Need a list of who's up for reelection

[cthulu2016]

4. They will, but perhaps with a strange coalition

[Catherina]

5. Up in the air. The Left-Liberterian alliance just may defeat this

Juan Cole ‏@jricole 19m

Interesting possibility that a Left-Libertarian alliance in Congress could defeat Syria resolution

Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald 19m

Yes RT @jricole Interesting possibility that a Left-Libertarian alliance in Congress could defeat Syria resolution
Retweeted 77 times

If they watched the UK debate, they won't authorize. I don't think the House will authorize, it's the Senate that's up in the air.

Start calling NOW!

[spin]

6. Hard to predict. ...

The interesting thing is that both parties are divided on the issue. The majority of the American people do not seem to support any action at this time.

For some reason I keep remembering that we didn't get too upset when Saddam Hussein gassed his own people back in 1988.

Halabja poison gas attack

The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: کیمیابارانی ھەڵەبجە Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government's forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Southern Kurdistan. The attack came within the scope of the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurdish people in northern Iraq, as well as part of the Iraqi attempt to repel the Iranian Operation Zafar 7; it took place just 48 hours after the fall of the town to the Iranian forces and Kurdish guerrillas.

The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people, and injured around 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians;[1][2] thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[3] The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq,[4] was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.[5]

The Halabja attack has been recognized as a separate event from the Anfal Genocide that was also conducted against the Kurdish people by the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein.[6] The Iraqi High Criminal Court recognized the Halabja massacre as an act of genocide on March 1, 2010, a decision welcomed by the Kurdistan Regional Government. The attack was also condemned as a crime against humanity by the Parliament of Canada.[7]

***snip***

International response at the time was muted. The United States intelligence and government suggested that that Kurdish civilians were not a deliberate target, and even that Iran was indeed responsible.[13][15] A briefing paper by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated: "We believe it better to maintain a dialogue with others if we want to influence their actions. Punitive measures such as unilateral sanctions would not be effective in changing Iraq's behaviour over chemical weapons, and would damage British interests to no avail."[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

[UTUSN]

7. The House Rethugs will do whatever that will stymie and/or embarrass him the most.

They will be torn between their being both war mongers *and* isolationists, on the one hand, and their obstructionism of anything that will support him, on the other. So it's less about his evidence than it is about their being against anything he's for.

That said, he put himself in the weak position of being at their mercy. BLITZER latched on to the phrase, "rolling the dice," repeating it endlessly. The question is, what will he do if they vote against him: Proceed and be "anti-democracy" or launch a Woodrow WILSON campaign to the public.

Frankly, I cringed at the phrase, "I made a second decision." The wingnuts will make hay with that as with "I was for it before I was against it."

Speaking for myself, I smell "advisors" behind it all and have detested the advisors that ran the GORE and Hillary campaigns, and this smacks of the same thinking. If the activity is not time-limited, can happen anytime (today, next week, next month), then why not make the "second" decision FIRST instead of looking like backpedaling every day. (not a question)

[npk]

9. Good points. Republicans could vote YES and back Obama into a corner

Forcing Obama to commit to an unpopular war or force him to go against congresses decision. I think Obama used stronger rhetoric than I expected him to use today, and that has me worried that Obama might call the GOP's bluff. Either way it's a lose/lose for the US, as our strongest allies has already stated they will not support military action against Syria.

[UTUSN]

10. Another thread, plus DevonRex's post/below ("depends on Israel") have made me go hmmm

I guess I'm as waffling as I'm accusing the President's advisors of being. I was only seeing his "second decision" as being weak (besides "second&quot , but these posts are adding other views than mine:

*********QUOTE********

[font size=5](another liberal: )
One of the smartest moves our President has ever made! http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023570550[/font]

O.P. : He not only advanced his agenda to attack the Assad regime, he also gave himself an out


* (post) If Congress says no, that is not by his choice. He only went to Congress because he lacked international support. If congress says yes and he does it, it may be within US law, but would still be illegal under international law.

* (post) he screwed the Republicans. They vote no...they face the wrath of AIPAC

*************UNQUOTE*************

[DevonRex]

8. It depends on Israel. nt

[UTUSN]

11. That's a dimension, yip. I'm adding it into my post #10. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Depends on which way they straddle the fence and how well they're speechwriters can justify it.

[LittleBlue]

13. I'll go with "will"

Republicans will oppose the president until it's something deserving of opposition, then they back down and backstab the country.

They've never failed to disappoint in over a decade, and I won't bet on them now. And if by some miracle their hatred of Obama overrides their love of war, traitor Pelosi will backstab us.