If Congress votes NO on Syria, should President Obama bomb them anyway??

[kentuck]

Or should he give Congress a second chance to get it "right" and call for another vote?

Or should he work to get more international support?

Or should he just accept the wishes of the Congress and explain to the people that "they talk the talk but they don't walk the walk"?

Or should he just keep the threat alive by announcing that regardless of how the Congress votes, he still retains the right to bomb Syria unilaterally if he decides it is a security threat to our country?

The President has a lot of options left in the toolbox.

If the Congress votes YES, then his options are somewhat limited.

He can follow the wishes of the Congress and bomb Syria at any time.

Or he can state that he alone will choose when an attack is warranted. It may be tomorrow? It may be next week? It may be next month or next year? It will depend on the actions of Bashir Assad. This is a threat he can keep close to his vest and only use it if it is absolutely necessary.

Just because the Congress may vote YES, does not mean the President has to start bombing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. He shouldn't bomb them whether it's yes or no.

Getting involved in other peoples' civil wars is downright stupid and immoral.

[zbdent]

2. I say, let them say "No" and thus any deaths be on their heads.

ANY deaths.

They blame Democrats for the occupation of Iraq, despite the fact that "The Decider" is the one who decided to invade and occupy Iraq. It's "the Democrats' fault", because they didn't "kowtow to our enemies and make nice with the terrorists" ... (as it was pushed back then).

[quinnox]

3. He would look like a rogue leader who didn't care about the wishes of his people so I really doubt

he would do that.

I think even if the Senate passes it but not the House, Obama would back down and say it is the will of the people. So he needs a slam-dunk in both chambers of Congress and it to pass both.

[on point]

4. No

[Zorra]

5. Depends ~ are we talking about bombing Congress or Syria here?

It's a tough call, but there are a few folks in Congress I really like.

[kentuck]

6. Actually, I would prefer the former.

[David Krout]

8. Your comment just earned the NSA right to open your emails nt

[morningfog]

11. And your response did the same.

Oh, shit, so did mine.

[newfie11]

7. No

[1-Old-Man]

9. Your postings are my favorites. They provoke thought.

Just from reading your title a thought popped into my head but on reading the posting itself it was clear that we were both on the same track. The question can be answered easily enough by looking at the words themselves. An authorization is not a mandate.

And then there is the more practical answer. If the Congress votes No but the President goes ahead anyway then I would expect his immediate impeachment and would in fact support it. I say that because no President who acts independently and in direct contradiction of the expressed will of the people should be allowed to stay in Office.

[kentuck]

10. Thank you.

I agree with your comments about impeachment.

[AsahinaKimi]

12. no.

eom.