Should we be concerned about the damage to Barack Obama's presidency if he loses this vote?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I am ambivalent about the whole operation and consequently have strong feelings both ways. There is a good reason for a prohibition on chemical weapons and there was a good reason for President Obama to threaten Assad with punishment if he violated that prohibition. Does the president look feckless If he fails to act on a threat he makes?

I also understand we are a war weary nation that has been misled in the past.

[annabanana]

1. A no vote might rescue it. . . . n/t

[shawn703]

2. I can't see how listening to constituents

Would cause damage to his presidency. If he acts contrary to how the vote goes, that's a different story.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Wouldn't that be tantamount to a vote of no confidence?

President Obama said enforcing the prohibition on chemical weapons and punishing Bashar al-Assad for violating is a moral imperative. His constituents are saying it isn't.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. His constituents thought punishing Bushco for illegal war and lies and Obama said no.

He cast the no confidence vote in rejecting justice while promoting every last politician who voted for that botched war. Not one member of his administration opposed the Iraq war, Kerry was WMD yellowcake vehemently for it, Hagel, for it, Biden, for it........

[MNBrewer]

3. I'm more concerned about the damage done should he "win" it

[Autumn]

4. No he doesn't look feckless if he fails to act on this. It makes him look like he considered

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 11:04 AM - Edit history (1)

the options and changed course. That's a smart thing to do. As to damage to his presidency, that's in his hands.

[DURHAM D]

5. No, he does not look feckless.

He would seem an adult with the ability to take-in and analyze new data and is mature enough to change his opinion.

It should raise his poll numbers.

[sabrina 1]

6. Prohibition of Chemical Weapons? The US has more chemical weapons than all the countries in the

world combined. If this was a vote for 'prohibition of Chemical Weapons' EVERYWHERE, I would be 100% for it. It isn't.

It is the US, now almost alone in the world, inserting itself into the business of another country once again.

Since the US has used Chemical and Incendiary Weapons, the US, as we are now being told regularly, has no moral authority to lecture the world on this issue.

WE need the lecture ourselves and it should be done, regarding Syrian, by someone who has the moral authority to do so.

Do you think that a politician's career should trump what is best for this country? Or the lives of innocent people who will definitely die should be less important than any politician's career or reputation?

Here's how a politician can ensure that his/her reputation remains intact. Do not engage in policies that the world and the American people oppose.

It really is simple. If they don't, I am not going to worry about their reputation I am going to worry about innocent lives and what is best for this country.

[WilliamPitt]

8. No.

[reformist2]

9. I hope they vote it down - I think Obama secretly will be happy if they do vote it down.

I know I'm speculating here, but my gut tells me Obama does not want to do this. A congressional "no" will give him the cover he needs to tell the generals and military contractors and oil drillers they're not gonna get their way.

[zipplewrath]

10. Big speculation

This is a president that has chosen to use military force repeatedly over his entire presidency. I'm not sure why this one would be any different.

[reformist2]

15. Despite the objections from the left, Obama has been fairly good thus far on foreign policy.

I can't fault him for how he's been winding down Iraq and Afghanistan, even if it is taking longer than people hoped. As for the Libya operation, it did have the authorization of the UN/NATO. This Syria strike would cross a line into neocon Bush/Cheney territory.

That's how I see it anyway.

[zipplewrath]

21. Winding down?

He started out by tripling the forces in Afghanistan. Not exactly "winding down". When Biden suggested a small more focused effort in Afghanistan he chose to increase our presence there. He's ramped up the drone strikes. He sent us on a "kill mission" into Pakistan after Bin Laden. He's been killing in Yemen. He used force in Libya. He's used military force ALOT in his 5 years or so. Really, up until now, Syria was about the ONLY place he seemed to try something other than military action. Okay, and maybe Iran.

[global1]

28. I've Been Wondering If PBO Is Using Reverse Psychology Here - Anything He Wants The Repugs Vote....

opposite. So I'm thinking that he might be using that to handle this situation. If like you say he will be secretly happy if they do vote it down - then his move is to say that he wants to strike Syria - knowing that the Repugs will do just the opposite. If they do - he gets them to do what he secretly wanted and they take the heat. Maybe?????

[reformist2]

30. Yes. That's what I'm hoping. Also, he has the military-industrial complex breathing down his neck.

He can't just tell them no to their faces - he has to be more clever than that. Obviously time will tell, but every day we don't bomb Syria is a victory for peace, imo.

[last1standing]

11. Is it now the weak who are responsible for protecting the powerful?

When did we walk through the looking-glass and decide it was the weak who were responsible to protect the powerful?

It's not our job to protect the most powerful person in the country, it's his job to protect us. He is not doing his job properly when he tries to lie us into a war that a majority of nations do not support, without a plan for success or alternatives, and with no consideration for the possible ramifications of his actions.

If Obama doesn't want to damage his legacy he should stop pushing for bad legislation.

[whttevrr]

12. No. A bruised ego heals.

Dead civilians do not heal.

I want a record of every congress person and senator who vote for the bombing of Syria.

I do not know what Syria is 'about', but I am sure there is more to it than chemical weapons. And when the dust settles I want to know who to blame for this mess we are painfully crawling into.

For all we know this could be about the Iran-Syria-Iraq Pipeline. No one is telling us the truth about this "kinetic military engagement".

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. Nnnnnnope.

[bigtree]

16. no

[SidDithers]

17. Congress doing their job is not damaging to Obama's presidency...

it's Congress intentionally not doing their job that's been most damaging.

Sid

[Andy823]

25. +100 nt

[whatchamacallit]

18. Afaic he destroyed his own reputation long ago

This latest nonsense just reinforces my opinion.

[polichick]

39. True - and along with it, he destroyed the hope of a new generation of voters...

My own hope is that the youngest voters don't give up on politics altogether, but just get smarter about how to change things.

[Iggo]

19. Not one bit.

[The Straight Story]

20. No, it would damage the RW more than anyone

They are already using Iraq as an excuse, which means they are admitting it was a mess. Now they are criticizing Obama for not acting alone after they said if he did it would be unconstitutional. Then they have said it was important that he act and if they don't act it just makes them look even more stupid and confused.

Obama played them well on this. Either way he wins on the political spectrum (which means little as far as he is concerned since he is not running again, but has put a nice spotlight on the rw idiots).

[Savannahmann]

32. I disagree.

I think the Republicans are going to vote down the middle, some for and some against. That will leave the vote for action in the Democrats ballpark, and we'll vote it down, especially in the House. Then when we point fingers at the Republicans who refused to vote for it, they'll just sit back and examine their fingernails and say. "The Democrats voted overwhelmingly against action."

We end up looking like we won't support the President, and he's a Lame Duck before the midterms. If we vote for action, then the Republicans can wash their hands of it, and walk away innocent when we get embroiled into another long term conflict in the Middle East. An idea that is polling somewhere above the sewer.

[AngryAmish]

22. There will be more damage to his presidency if he wins the vote.

If he goes there he will have permanently lost the American people.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. I'll support a bridge to nowhere if it helps the politicians I am supporting. But I'm not going to

kill people for it. The only argument I hear that probably is true is that if the President losses the vote - it might weaken his position. But the facts remain the facts. The Syrian civil war is largely an ethnic/religious based civil war. Taking sides on this is very dangerous for the entire region in the world. Either we intervene only enough to harden positions - or we intervene enough to tilt the balance to the side of forces who if they are successful will almost certainly engage in atrocities against he Christian, Alawite and other monitories. Or we intervene so little that we have no real impact but still kill a whole bunch of people. And just what is the point of that?

[polichick]

24. If he goes through the proper channels, he'll be fine.

[JustAnotherGen]

26. Nope

[Hell Hath No Fury]

27. The single WORST reason to bomb the fuck out of a country is --

to "save face" for Barack Obama or any other American president.

There are other ways to deal with Assad.

[alsame]

29. I'm concerned about my country and

its citizens, not any particular presidential legacy.

[840high]

34. +1

[durablend]

31. No

The fact that the president has a sad isn't my primary concern.

[backscatter712]

33. He'd have brought it on himself with all the Red Line rhetoric. n/t

[mazzarro]

35. And so what?

So am I to assume and accept that the more foreigners/so called terrorists/bad people his administration kills the more profound his presidency?

[fredamae]

36. No. A decision not to intervene

would make him a wise man. People understand circumstances change and change rapidly in "war situations"-being open and Willing to change ones mind, especially in the face of those who Will call him "weak/chicken/gutless" etc.
To follow the will of the majority of we, the people, would in fact be an act of a Great and Wise leader. imo.

[bemildred]

37. Boy do you have it backwards. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. He may have to trade in his comfortable cowboy boots for loafers.

[HooptieWagon]

40. The bigger concern....

...is the damage done to the Democratic Party "brand" by Democrats supporting Obama's rush to war, in the face of unpopular public opinion. Could lose us '14 & '16.

[rug]

41. No. That is the least of this whole clusterfuck.

[annabanana]

42. The ENTIRE media sure seems intent on insuring that damage!!

I haven't seen such a load of crap on my TV since 2003.

[bluestate10]

43. No. nt

[2naSalit]

44. Seems to me that

the intent to disenfranchise the 99% is the endgame scenario. We're apparently destined to become serfs in the eyes of all who would rule the planet. What will be done in our name and with our paltry incomes is the will of the 1%, they have been planning the dismantling of our republic for decades and have made damned sure that they have it all. It is all about all the resources and making us pay the price for everything - soon it will be the air we breathe. I lost all "hope" a couple years ago and I don't know if there's any way we can change the crash course we are on... maybe aliens from outer space come and clean our clock...? Maybe all peoples just stop doing anything that benefits tptb or...? I think the days of human domination are rapidly coming to an end... and that will be a benefit to all other species on the planet as far as I can tell.

Worry about POB's credibility? I'll get to that when I manage to stop puking and laughing at the same time, with any luck I might die first... I don't care to be a member of the human race if this strike bs happens, and it probably will whether we try to stop it or not because, Israel and the 1%... but that's just my insignificant opinion, you know?