Why Obama went to Congress. (A side-theory)

[cthulu2016]

Background: I was fooled. I thought the going to Congress thing was an exit strategy from a hopeless policy, and applauded Obama for its imagination and civilizing effect. (As regular GD denizens know.) But from what followed from the WH and from Kerry, I quickly saw that I had erred... but I really wanted to admire the move.

I think Obama went to Congress primarily because the the dada performance-art "strikes in search of a non-symbolic purpose" charade was getting bad reviews. The obvious reasons for things are usually the reasons.

But there is seldom only one reason for any decision, and the administration can walk and chew at the same time.

So a side-theory, in addition to that...

Congress is where Obama policies go to become more conservative.

The whole McCain/Hillary/Obama/Kerry/AIPAC center-hawk core of American policy want big-time intervention (without boots on ground) in the Syrian conflict. Obama couldn't announce that unilaterally. Too tough a sell. (I am not saying it is a bad idea or a good idea, BTW. It is what it is.)

But going to Congress allows for negotiations with Republicans and, Voila! Regime change and rebel-arming and changing the dynamics on the ground are now the mission.

And bi-partisan.

Now rewind a week and imagine Obama saying, out of the blue, "There was this gas attack and it's terrible so I am unilaterally instituting missile strikes to destroy the Syrian air force and also about hundred other things with a policy of intervening in a civil war to effect regime change and shape the next government of Syria.

That would have been hard to swallow in one bite.

[MotherPetrie]

1. Hammer, meet nailhead.

[leftstreet]

2. Yep. DoublePlusBonus - Obama isn't responsible

The Congress made him do it!

He just went to them to be a fair and judicious leader, but they forced him to turn it into a for-real war, but what could he do because it's for the children that's why!

[zbdent]

4. Well, that's the tact the Repug apologists take with Bushr43 (remember him?) ...

The big bad Democrats forced him to invade and occupy Iraq ... because they didn't say "NO!"

[kentuck]

3. What if Congress votes NO?

Is that out of the realm of possibilities?

[cthulu2016]

6. I think it probably is out of the realm

I don't recall congress ever rejecting one of these loyalty oath deals. Have they?

[ProSense]

5. "Why Obama went to Congress. (A side-theory)"

"Congress is where Obama policies go to become more conservative.

We want big-time intervention (without boots on ground) in the Syrian conflict. Obama couldn't announce that unilaterally. Too tough a sell. (I am not saying it is a bad idea or a good idea, BTW. It is what it is.)"

Does that mean all the demands that he go through Congress backfired?

ACLU Urges Obama to Obtain Official Congressional Authorization Before Taking Military Action

WASHINGTON – In a letter sent to the White House today, the American Civil Liberties Union urged President Obama to refrain from initiating military action in Syria until Congressional votes have occurred in both chambers, authorizing such use of military force.

While the ACLU does not take a position on whether military force should be used, the organization has consistently insisted, from the war in Vietnam through both wars in Iraq, that Congress give advance authorization for the use of such force.

“Before any decisions are made regarding U.S. military action, the president, according to our Constitution, must obtain congressional authorization for use of any military force,” said ACLU Washington Legislative Office Director Laura W. Murphy. “Mere consultation between the White House and certain congressional leaders does not provide sufficient authority to the president to unilaterally use any military force. Floor debate should commence as soon as possible and certainly no later than the date on which Congress reconvenes.”

“Use of military force by the administration in Syria in the absence of congressional action would strike at the very heart of the fundamental principle of separation of powers that is at the core of the Constitution,” says the letter, signed by Murphy.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-urges-president-obtain-official-congressional-authorization-taking-military

Congress, be careful what you wish for

By Steve Benen

<...>

Over the last several days, members of Congress have spoken out with a variety of opinions about U.S. policy towards Syria, but lawmakers were in broad agreement about one thing: they wanted President Obama to engage Congress on the use of military force. Few expected the White House to take the requests too seriously...Because over the last several decades, presidents in both parties have increasingly consolidated authority over national security matters, tilting practically all power over the use of force towards the Oval Office and away from the legislative branch. Whereas the Constitution and the War Powers Act intended to serve as checks on presidential authority on military intervention abroad, there's been a gradual (ahem) drift away from these institutional norms...until this afternoon, when President Obama stunned everyone, announcing his decision to seek "authorization" from a co-equal branch of government.

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.

Arguably the most amazing response to the news came from Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterintelligence & Terrorism, and a member of the House Intelligence Committee:

"President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents. The President does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria."

This is one of those remarkable moments when a prominent member of Congress urges the White House to circumvent Congress, even after many of his colleagues spent the week making the exact opposite argument.

- more -

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

Crash Course: A Guide To 30 Years Of U.S. Military Strikes Against Other Nations
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/crash-course-a-guide-to-30-years-of-us-military-strikes-against-other-nations.php

[cthulu2016]

8. Not at all. It turns out the world is not a two-character

Punch-and-Judy puppet show.

All sorts of people have their own thoughts and motives.

For instance, a person could have wished for Congress to be consulted while not viewing that as a stratagem to achieve a specific policy result, but rather because it is what they think.

I would say that anyone who wanted it to go to Congress because they assumed it would be blocked there was a poor judge of American political realities, but that wasn't the only conceivable reason for wanting Congress consulted.

[ProSense]

9. Like I said,

"I would say that anyone who wanted it to go to Congress because they assumed it would be blocked there was a poor judge of American political realities, but that wasn't the only conceivable reason for wanting Congress consulted."

...it backfired.

[Erose999]

7. "We want big-time intervention (without boots on ground) in the Syrian conflict" - You keep using

that word "we". I do not think it means what you think it means.

[cthulu2016]

10. Edited in a way I think you'll agree with

[Erose999]

12. Well I agree with you that it was easier for Obama to get his war by going to PNAC Inc. (aka Congres

s). And it will make the reps accountable to their constituents for their votes.

Supposing our local tea-bagger House rep in my district (Paul Broun Jr, aka the "science is sent from hell" guy) votes for the war it'll pretty much destroy his current Senate campaign, which he's leading among the Rethug candidates.

On the other hand, I'm afraid the Dems will fare much worse because association with Obama and his party will be association with the war no matter how their individual votes fell. I'm afraid this will be seen as the "Democrats war" and it'll be a taint on all offices in my state.

[KittyWampus]

11. Assad's back is getting closer to the wall every day. He WILL kill more civilians. He's going

to take as many souls with him into whatever afterlife does or does not exist.

Now, rethink your theory.

Maybe, just maybe, Obama and Kerry are really, truly trying to prevent the upcoming massacres they see close on the horizon.

Do I support intervention? No. It's too late. It should have been done immediately after Damascus. But that was politically impossible.

So we should wait until the next large scale massacre.

Last Edit- and I am not trying to appeal to anyone's emotion. I am begging DU'ers to stop the cheap shots and really THINK about what a tyrant who is losing would do.

[sendero]

13. If Assad..

... TRIED he could not kill as many civilians as we killed in Iraq. Nice try. There is NO justification that you or anyone else can manufacture that would justify getting involved in Syria.

[KittyWampus]

14. be prepared to witness a bloodbath as Assad gets even more desperate. With or without intervention.

And apparently you can't read. Because as of now, I do NOT support intervention.

It's too late.