Is President Obama hoping that Congress rejects authorizing use of force against Syria?

[Freddie Stubbs]

It's been a year since President Obama's now famous "red line" comment. It seems that he now regrets this.

Remember, he didn't ask Congress for permission to intervene in Libya's civil war.

The first time that Syria was accused of using chemical weapons, the Obama administration announced that the United States would begin providing aid to Syrian rebels. That was more of a slap on the wrist rather than than knock out blow.

Now President Obama is proposing air strikes. Air strikes of limited duration. No boots on the ground. And here's the real kicker: Nothing that would change the balance of power in the civil war.

Obama can't just sit on his hands. It will make him look like his word means nothing. But perhaps he sees that our military options are no-win situations. If we don't strike hard enough, we will look weak. If we strike too hard, the rebels may take control, another undesirable outcome.

So, what does he do? Punt. Let Congress (the House to be more exact) say no. That way he save some face and say that he wanted to act, but couldn't because of Congress.

[PoliticAverse]

1. Apparently no, based on how hard the administration is pushing to win the vote.

For example:
http://wkzo.com/news/articles/2013/sep/05/obama-cancels-trip-to-california-next-week-to-work-on-syria-vote-white-house/

[cali]

2. There's absolutely nothing to indicate that. To the contrary, the admin

has telegraphed that they're not bound by a no vote in Congress.

Libya was sanctioned by the U.N. and it was a NATO operation, thus the comparison isn't apt.

[dkf]

3. In all honesty I think that was Hillary Clinton's red line.

It's not in Obama's instincts to create lines like that, IMO.

It was Hillary who wanted to go in earlier.

I feel kind of bad for Obama.

[Dems to Win]

4. While listening to Obama's speech saying he wanted Congress to vote,

I had the same thoughts you've outlined here. A No vote from Congress would be a way to save face and refrain from bombing Syria, a very unwise move.

Now, though, I don't think so. The Obama Admin is pulling out all the stops to get Yes votes. They are sure acting like they want Congress to vote Yes.

If this is all an act, they are putting a lot of their political allies in a bad spot. Senator Barbara Boxer will never get another dime from me due to her support of this Syria war; it has really disappointed me. Pretty much broke my heart.

If Obama doesn't really want to strike Syria, this charade of a Congressional vote is a mean trick to pull on his friends.

[HooptieWagon]

5. Good question.

And I don't know the answer. It is possible Obama is looking to Congress to rescue him from the corner he painted himself into. This would explain the dusting off of the thoroughly-discredited Iraq war justifications BushCo used.
OTOH, it does seem Obama is trying to carry out the wishes of MIC, and Saudi and Israeli lobbyists.

[RobertEarl]

6. He can't lose

House says no, they shut up about making war. McCain for instance gets it shoved down his throat.

Even if he launches a few missiles, as long as Russia doesn't respond, he's in the clear with a big FU to the chickenhawks of the pubbie klan.

If Russia does respond the chickenhawks will eat their words and demand Obama bomba a few few more.

[bemildred]

7. I think it's Kabuki Theater, but I'm not sure how the script reads yet.

What you suggest is one option, but there are other possible - more cynical - endings too.

I am struck by how Bush-like this all is, how it contrasts his words in election time and his actions now. What you think he is up to depends on which of those Obamas you believe in.

Yet it is quite unlike him to be so politically incompetent. Hmmmm. I'm stumped at the moment.