Per the NY Times--no vote would be tough love for Obama, good for America

[geek tragedy]

Read what his own advisors are telling the NY Times:

Although Mr. Obama has asserted that he has the authority to order the strike on Syria even if Congress says no, White House aides consider that almost unthinkable. As a practical matter, it would leave him more isolated than ever and seemingly in defiance of the public’s will at home. As a political matter, it would almost surely set off an effort in the House to impeach him, which even if it went nowhere could be distracting and draining.

As a result, Mr. Obama would be even more reluctant to order action in the one case that has most preoccupied military planners: the development of a nuclear bomb by Iran. Any operation to take out Iranian nuclear facilities would require a far more extensive commitment of military force than the missile strike envisioned against Syria. Moreover, a rejection of the Syria strike would make Mr. Obama less likely to leave behind a robust force in Afghanistan after combat troops are withdrawn at the end of 2014.

“I think this vote determines the future of his foreign policy regardless of whether it’s a yes vote or a no vote,” said Rosa Brooks, a former top Defense Department official under Mr. Obama. “If he ekes out a yes vote, he’s beholden to the Republicans.” But, she added, “if he gets a no vote and stands down on Syria, he’s permanently weakened and will indeed probably be more inward looking.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/europe/obama-arrives-in-russia-for-g20-summit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So, if Obama loses the Syria vote, he concentrates more on domestic policy, will be locked out of a war with Iran and will dramatically lower our footprint on Afghanistan, plus he won't be "beholden to the Republicans" on foreign policy.

Sounds good to me and, well, virtually everyone who voted for him.

Sometimes leaders get saved from their own failures of judgment by the political process. This is probably such a time.

[dkf]

1. I was thinking that doesn't sound all that bad to me.

[geek tragedy]

2. It sounds bad to Bill Kristol. nt

[dkf]

3. Exactly. But he loves war.

[geek tragedy]

4. It sounds bad to Bibi Netanyahu too.

Israel may have to carry its own water for a change.

[dkf]

6. Maybe this will get them closer to a two state solution.

They have to make their own peace.

[avaistheone1]

49. It sounds bad to Thomas Friedman too.

Of course, Friedman was cheering on the Iraq invasions as well. Surprise. Surprise.

[Buddaman]

8. Agreed!!!

I'll back any decision he makes but NOW isn't the time to pull a fuckin' george shock and awe bush....

[Baitball Blogger]

5. Not that I'm in favor of a military response, but I am curious.

Would a Republican president have as much trouble selling a Bush redux as it is turning out for Obama?

I will say this about Obama's democratic way. We're all in on this decision to walk away. For better or worse.

[geek tragedy]

7. Of course not. half the numbnutz in the House still think Iraq was a swell idea.

But they're voting to prevent future Iraqs, so it's all good.

The failure of Bush in Iraq should make it more difficult to get us entangled in other people's problems.

[Baitball Blogger]

10. We should be thankful to have a president that understood that unilateral decisions

are not what this country needs right now.

[geek tragedy]

20. Well, he understands that the President can't act unilaterally

without getting Congressional okay, but he doesn't understand that the US can't act unilaterally.

[Baitball Blogger]

23. Let's be honest.

If he were a Republican president we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[geek tragedy]

25. We'd be having it, but we'd be in much more danger of losing it. nt

[barbtries]

27. probably because they got filthy rich behind it.

"half the numbnutz in the House still think Iraq was a swell idea."
why should syria be different.

[jmowreader]

47. They're voting against Obama

If it was a President McCain (who downed five planes during wartime, and he was in every one of them) or a President Romney (who fought the noble battle of attempting to convince French people to give up wine) asking for authorization to strike Syria, they would think it the most noble idea they ever heard - Sheriff bombed? Innocent women and children gassed to death? We have to stop this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! I didn't get a harrumph out of that guy.

But it's President Obama. If Obama decided to declare Reagan's birthday a national holiday they would filibuster it. They probably all think bombing the shit out of Syria is a swell idea, but they can't agree to it because GOP policy is to oppose Obama on everything.

[dkf]

9. No. Thank God the Reps are reflexive. At least they may have kept us out of WWIII.

[Baitball Blogger]

11. I hear you.

[blm]

14. Would a Democratic president have as much trouble for a Kosovo redux?

Why yes...he is, because everyone is seeing only the power of Bush's lies on Iraq.

Bush - STILL the most powerful person in the world.

[blm]

12. Congratulations to Bush for assuring the certain death of Geneva Conventions, and

using the American people to do it.

Now the war-profiteers and fascist cronies can go back to selling chemical weapons to despots they want in regions they want to control just like the good old days, but, this time they can do it openly with no accountability to those 'conventions' that slowed them down.

Water wars will be next on the list for the fascists - no Democratic US president and the military will ever be allowed to stop them.

[dkf]

13. That's ridiculous. This belongs in an international court, not in the court of the US deciders

[blm]

15. That will not happen ever again.

The widespread use of chemical weapons to wipe out the citizens of a town is, as of now, deemed acceptable by Russia, China, Iran and many British and American people.

Why would you expect an 'international court' to say differently after this?

[Maedhros]

46. Take your false equivalency and shove it.

Nobody is "deeming acceptable" the use of chemical weapons, and to accuse posters here of such an attitude demonstrates sheer ignorance.

[blm]

51. I was being facetious - point being that the bottom line to forced inaction

does carry consequences, too. And, if 1400 can get wiped out by a chemical weapon attack with no consequences, then what do you suppose 2000 or more will get?

Targeted strikes won't be perfect, but, no one cam claim that inaction will have a perfect result, either.

[geek tragedy]

18. International courts are a joke and not an effective argument against military strikes.

What "international courts should decide this" really means is "it's better that nothing be done than the US doing the wrong thing."

[dkf]

21. The US cannot be expected to be the sole enforcer of international treaties. That is ridiculous.

The wars would never end.

[geek tragedy]

22. That is the argument.

The US has to be willing to let some problems go unsolved.

[totodeinhere]

42. That's right. We have got to come to terms with the fact that sometimes a bad thing happens in this

world and there just isn't anything we can reasonably do about it. I think this is one of those cases.

Meanwhile, we should be concentrating on fixing the bad things that happen in our own country. There is something that we can do about that.

[deurbano]

48. Or bad things in the rest of the world we can do something about (with positive results)...

Like, assistance with disease prevention.

[geek tragedy]

16. If the Geneva Conventions depend on the US illegally bombing other countries

they deserve to die.

[blm]

30. Then put Clinton on trial for Kosovo.

Perhaps it is time to stop calling his a 'successful' presidency.

[geek tragedy]

31. Kosovo was a success, but is as outdated of a model

as the Marshal plan.

[blm]

50. Because weapons and their operators are dumber now?

Dumber president?
The number of media outlets?

[geek tragedy]

55. The US is weaker relative the rest of the planet

in just about every metric.

Also, Al Qaeda wasn't the alternative to Slobo.

[blm]

56. What makes you claim that AlQaeda is the alternative here?

You think Obama and Kerry and Hagel didn't weigh this factor when they decided to work to strengthen the moderate forces that are the dominant ones? Granted they don't get the media attention that Al Qaeda gets, but, that's not much different than the media here always replaying TeaParty Republicans while they ignore moderate Republican voices.

[JoeyT]

52. Bush isn't the one that was supposed to be prosecuting Bush's war crimes.

Nor is Bush the one that tries to pressure countries that get too loud about it to back off.

Bush buried the Geneva Convention, but he had a lot of help from future administrations that refuse to hold him or any of his cronies responsible.

[blm]

54. I concur - and it will always be that way as long as Bushes live.

Poppy certainly never wasted a moment of his time in the 60s and 70s. He was known during the Nixon years for using blackmail schemes that HE constructed against members of his own party if they intended to vote differently than he wanted them to vote. That benign, wimpy presence act has always been just that....an act. There will always be elite factions at the NSA and the CIA that are loyal only to BushInc. The entire security and intel network was developed by Poppy and he even handled the outsourcing and privatization of most of the duties at firms with longtime loyalties and ties to HIM. No 'president' will ever gain full control of the NSA and CIA - it is not structured that way. Unless, of course, that president is a Bush or a close crony.

[freshwest]

57. OTOH, Obama and Kerry have been proven truth tellers now:

The Chemical Weapons Convention that 189 nations are signed onto is doing its job well. All nations signed on are working to destroy their stockpiles, stop the use and production of WMD. That includes chemical, nuclear, biological and radiological weaponry. It is this convention that created the framework for the intelligence to let all of the world see there is a better way to live.

Tax dollars spent for peace and justice. The progress is astounding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

Bolstering Obama and Kerry's case, this just came from of all places, IRAN:

Iran ex-president says Syria government launched gas attacks: news agency

(Reuters) - Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said the Syrian government, a strong ally of Tehran, had carried out chemical weapons attacks against its own people, the semi-official Iranian Labour News Agency reported on Sunday.

"The people have been the target of chemical attacks by their own government and now they must also wait for an attack by foreigners," Rafsanjani said, according to ILNA. "The people of Syria have seen much damage in these two years."

(Reporting By Yeganeh Torbati, Editing by William Maclean and Andrew Heavens)

Read more:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-syria-crisis-iran-rafsanjani-idUSBRE98007R20130901

That was posted by Sand Wind here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=582703

That thread should be Rec'd to the Moon by those who have repeatedly called Obama, Kerry, the USA government and its intelligence forces a bunch of warmongering liars.

Want world peace and Obama's agenda on equality and the social safety net to advance?

Rec the thread since they did not lie, did not try to cowboy us into a war.

There is an outbreak of sanity in Iran today that is happening only because we have a President who didn't run for office by singing 'Bomb Iran,' nor a Christian Dominionist like Palin or the Pauls, bent on destroying Muslims.

The Iranians suffered the worst number of casualties in modern history through Sarin by Saddam Hussein through his Neo-Con pals in the GOP. They have been arguing with Assad for a long time and giving him money.

Our votes for Obama and Kerry are justified by the 'enemy.'

I'm not seeing this a loss for Obama, as opposed to what geek tragedy may be saying. The truth is out - Obama and Kerry told the facts and did not want a war for profit or conquest..

I've seen Obama stake out unpopular positions so horrifying to our base, that their screams ignited similar protests from the right. Then the GOP had to back down from positions that Obama could not get them to give up otherwise.

Since the GOP wanted us to bomb both Syria and Iran as part of their PNAC list, with Obama playing the bad guy, no party will touch those ideas again. Obama has a limited time in office and has always stated he is laying the groundwork for what will happen when he's gone.

It's not about ego with Obama or those who seek to save lives. It's about saving lives. Obama has united us in this way the only way that 'sides' ever unite with common cause, and both sides took the bait.

JMHO.

[Cha]

61. Thanks for your post, freshwest.. and the link

to Sand Wind's OP. Which I did Rec, thank you very much!

[ocpagu]

58. Oh, please. You're describing Superman, not the US government. No heroes here, pal. n/t

[blm]

59. I doubt the next group of victims of chemical weapons are looking

for help from Superman.

[ocpagu]

60. Yeah, they are desperate asking Obama to save them by striking them with missiles... n/t

[blm]

62. Oh, I didn't know the plans called for striking villages and towns.

I only heard they were targeting airfields and weapon plants. Oooops...My mistake.

[Thinkingabout]

17. I actually see this as a way out for Obama, he did not jump when the report went out Assad had used

Gas and all the talk was about him not taking action. When the UK voted down taking action it left the US holding the bag for the world. Obama can not claim he did all he could and has sent Kerry out to sell the strikes but the Congress has voted down the possibility and he will abide with their decision. Here is the cover he may have preferred but could not say and he would have fallen victim to many attacks. I don't think after the invasion on Iraq on false intelligence many Americans are tired if protecting the world. I heard one representative say this morning Obama did not act swiftly enough but when he took action in Libya he was criticized for not getting Congressional approval. I think the messed up invasion has turned Americans from wanting to go from war to war. Take your cover, President Obama, enjoy the luxury afforded to you. The GOP can not say their colors don't run, well now they are in the same book as Democrats.

[geek tragedy]

19. I think he's being honest here--he's a true believer in non-proliferation

and enforcement of such norms.

But, the US as the unipolar enforcer of such norms is no longer a workable model.

If world consensus (by actions not words) is to let Syria burn, that's the decision the world has made.

[dkf]

24. Which is funny because we have all the WMDs. Seems hypocritical doncha think?

But maybe that's typical of his mindset. Look at the NSA...US govt has access to everything, the people are kept in the dark. We have the WMD, nobody else does. Ruler of the world I guess.

[geek tragedy]

26. Possession and use are two different things nt

[rhett o rick]

28. So what is the statute of limitations on use of chemical weapons?

Are we forgiven for their use in Vietnam? How about our use on Iran via puppet Hussein? Shouldnt we agree that our use of phosphorous bombs and shells would also qualify as chemical weapon use?

We are in no position to judge. And we arent. We are using Assad's use of chemical weapons as justification for furthering our agenda in the Middle East. Ask McCain, Graham, Lieberman, Kristol, or any of the neocon's that would love it if we expanded the civil war.

[geek tragedy]

29. I have been arguing that our official position on Syria's use of chemical weapons should be

"so what?"

That's the honest position, and the sensible one for us to take.

Whether Assad gasses his own people doesn't affect jobs in the US.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. That doesn't seem like a morally tenable position.

I don't know what the answer is but 2,000,000 displaced Syrians and 100,000 dead ones shouldn't be dismissed with a casual "so what".

I assure you when I leave my home today I will see at least one homeless person. They have no effect on my life. Should I say to myself their distress should be dismissed with a casual "so what".

[geek tragedy]

34. I see dozens of homeless people every week where I live.

I don't bankrupt myself trying to save them.

Sure, feel bad, but we're not in a position to do any good, so it really doesn't matter how we feel.

If there were a viable plan to achieve an effective remedy, it would be one thing. But the alternatives are doing nothing, doing something meaningless yet counterproductive, or doing something really stupid.

[rhett o rick]

35. Maybe "so what" is not the best answer. But spending 200 million on bombing Syria is

sure the hell not the right stand.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. There is a continuum between bombing someone and callous indifference/nt

[totodeinhere]

43. Humanitarian aid to the refugees is a good thing. I hope that we can all agree that the world

should be looking out for the plight of those refugees as best we can. But there is no such thing as a humanitarian bombing. We need to employ only peaceful means in an effort to help the refugees.

[Iliyah]

44. Well right now its "so what", "who cares"

and "its not my problem", and I read a poster state "we have nothing in common them".

[rhett o rick]

36. I misunderstood. nm

[whttevrr]

33. I would like the precedent.

It would be nice to get back to having elected representatives actually considering the will of the people who voted them into office.

I do not want any President to have Carte blanche in launching "kinetic military engagements." I want my country to have a deliberate and vigorous debate before we as a country commit to an act of aggression towards another country. The euphemisms suck. When you launch a missile or bomb at another country it is an act of war. And it just so happens, our Constitution has a solution for this!

Yup.

Even has a name: "The War Powers Clause" ... huh... who knew?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

And, the framers of our Constitution apparently never saw a semicolon they didn't love. Anyways...

Yeah... debate that shit! Engaging our military apparatus should not be a convenient solution. It should be an abject pain in the ass to accomplish.

[Mellow Drama]

38. My brother says this is all due to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

If it weren't for George Bush then this wouldn't even be an issue. doesn't that make sense?

[geek tragedy]

39. Yes, Bush showed us the folly of overseas adventurism, nt

[Demeter]

40. Even without context, bombing Syria is stupid

with the context, it's suicidal AND opens the floodgates for WW3.

[dem in texas]

41. Your brother is right

When we invaded Iraq, it was based on lies. Now people are afraid that the same thing will happen and we will be in Syria for ten years. Personally, I think we should do something, Assad is on a killing spree. All the other countries want to. but are too chicken to say so or to offer help. They think that if they stand around, the US will do the job for them. Now it looks like Congress is not going to approve the President's request. Obama should then throw it over to the UN. Nothing will happen there and Assad will think we are chicken and order more poison gas to kill more people. Plus, it will send a message to other dictators that they can use poison gas and get away with it.

[glowing]

53. I'd rather look like the chicken in this case, rather than

a greedy empire crushing agent, policing the world.

There are way too many elements mixed into this world wide focused game of chicken and red lines. Syria is not just sitting alone in its little Civil War... We have CIA in country providing training, weapons, havoc for the "rebels". We have Al Queda as the STRONG arm of the fighting rebels (and many coming in from outside regions, supported by various elements in the area who wish for control over oil and access). We have Russia and China and Iran very threatened by yet another invasion of Western Troops. And for all the nasty misdeeds by The Assad Regime, they are "secular". The opposition has a strong extremist Muslim element.

And all these military strongholds were strategically placed among civilian population centers. The bombing of these installments will create "collateral damage". This could create more death and maiming than what has happened this far. And in the bonus, we could create WW3 for the world to needlessly endure with far more powerful, dangerous weapons.

What I fear is some sort of "false flag" type of initiative to push people into outrage and need for reprisal. The plans for invading Iraq were on the Preaident's desk far before 9/11 happened. And they used the attacks to dismantle our constitution, invade a country illegally, torture, spy, indebt us to extremes.

Sorry, but you can't spend the last few years keeping people in "austerity" and then start up another costly war. It's time to fix this country before we run around pointing weapons and throwing out rhetoric of moral superiority... Hello, Gitmo is still opened and the prisoners are on a hunger strike. We have people dying from lack of health care. We have 1 out of every 4 children living in poverty and still more living in financially insecure homes.

Not until we fix our country, do we have the right or authority to intervene by bombing the shit out of them. How fast do we make more enemies when a school is blown up by a bomb with USA written on the side? How many more extremists do we create? Are we ready for the pictures of parents crying and screaming, holding their dead, bloody child? Didn't we get enough of that already.

War has got to stop! We don't need to solve our problems at the end of a weapon. We have knowledge and technology that could make this world a more harmonious place to live for all of its inhabitants. It's time to change the MIC industry from being a profitable cash cow! It's time to stop being the biggest producer of weapons and arms for other countries to buy or to obtain under "friendly" treaties. (Like Pakistan having Nuclear weapons... That was such a wonderful idea, right?)

[Rebellious Republican]

45. No it does not make sense. Your post that is.

Care to enlighten us with some details?