Obama's Speech: 'One of the most important Rose Garden addresses in history of modern presidency'

[kpete]

War and peace in a democracy
Sunday, September 01, 2013 | Posted by Liberal Librarian at 7:30 AM

.................

President Barack Obama conducted one of the most important Rose Garden addresses in the history of the modern Presidency.

Taking the baton from his Secretary of State John Kerry, he again laid out, in forceful, passionate language, the situation as it was in Syria. He explained that the intelligence community had concluded with great certainty that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical attacks in contested areas of Damascus the week before. He passionately argued that American values and national interest dictated that Assad's regime be punished militarily for the use of those chemical weapons against civilians. He stated that the military had assets in place and was ready to go at any time.

And then he did something no modern president had done. Even though he believed he had the authority to act, he knew that this was a divisive issue, and that the people's representatives had to join in the decision. He called for Congress to debate and vote on a resolution granting him specific authority to militarily strike Assad for violating international treaties banning the use of chemical weaponry, some of the oldest weapons conventions in international law. He had heard the rumblings from Congress saying that he had to seek approval before any strike, and agreed.

..............................

In one Rose Garden statement, Barack Obama brought these issues into sharp focus. He's not just Commander in Chief; he's President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. That democracy deserves to have its voice heard. Life and death cannot be decided by his fiat; the overpaid and reticent members of Congress have to be forced to accept responsibilities they have long shirked. There is no escape for them; they will choose either action or inaction, and own their decision. And that's as it should be in a democracy. Just as Congress voted for the AUMF after 9/11, under which the drone program operates, so must Congress have a voice in an action which promises so much peril. Syria is not Libya; a hornet's nest awaits, and the people's representatives should own the consequences, as the Constitution stipulates.

What the President did was call the nation to a serious discussion of what constitutes the national interest. I only hope that this so-far feckless Congress is up to the gravity of the situation.

MORE!
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/09/war-and-peace-in-democracy.html#disqus_thread

****************

STEVE BENEN:

It’s one of those terrific examples of good politics and good policy. On the former, the American public clearly endorses the idea of Congress giving its approval before military strikes begin. On the latter, at the risk of putting too fine a point on this, Obama’s move away from unilateralism reflects how our constitutional, democratic system of government is supposed to work.

MORE:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/31/20273174-congress-be-careful-what-you-wish-for?lite


*******************

President Obama (I know some here think I do not like him) has renewed my faith with this historic decision. I am hopeful, but I will still be watching. I am not an anarchist (as some here may think), I am an archivist (that is what mr. pete calls me). I am many other things too, mom, daughter, friend, art activist and bla, bla, bla, bla, bla., etc. etc.

Mostly, after 62 years on earth, I want peace,
just peace,
kp

[NYC_SKP]

1. Recommended. (nt)

[Ninga]

2. Yep, I am in the John Lewis camp of thinking on this topic. nt

[pscot]

3. Why can't we all just get along?

[ProSense]

4. A precedent is set. n/t

[Igel]

5. Not a binding one.

He said he had authorization. He's very clear on that point. He doesn't need Congress. It's not even clear he's all that interested in what Congress says. He's doing something nice.

But he wants us to have the debate. Perhaps he thinks Congress'll back him up and he can do what he wants with Congressional imprimatur. Perhaps he thinks it'll gain time so that the "high confidence" intelligence sources will change their minds so he won't have to strike. Perhaps something else will come along rendering all of this moot. Perhaps during this time he can convince the citizenry (or a sufficient polling sample) to side with him so he'll be doing the politically popular thing that he wants to do anyway.

Who knows? I don't particularly care. But it's not a binding precedent and, to be honest, it's not an especially meaningful precedent because there are all those possible competing rationales. "Respect for democracy" is fine, but when it comes to political expediency it actually counts for little.

However, if Congress says "no" and he says, "I am bound by Congress' decision because I can't attack Syria without Constitutionally-required Congressional authorization" then a real precedent will have been set. One that the next president can ignore, of course. But it's a meaningful precedent.

If Congress says "no" and he says, "I have all the authorization I need under the Constitution," then it's just status quo--whether he continues "but I've decided not to bomb" or whether he continues with "and I've decided to let'm rip."