Pres. Obama Says Politics Precludes Him From Saying If He'll Strike Syria W/Out Congress Approval

[bigtree]

Talking Points Memo ‏@TPM 27m
Obama gives no "direct response" on whether he’ll act without Congress: http://bit.ly/15571U2


President Barack Obama on Friday declined twice to say whether he would take military action in Syria even if Congress rejects the resolution authorizing force.

While holding a press conference in St. Petersburg, Obama told CNN's Brianna Keiler that speculating on such a dielmma is premature at the moment because he's still trying to build support on Capitol Hill.

"I think it would be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate because, right now, I'm working to get as much support as possible out of Congress," he said.

Moments later, another reporter asked the same question, saying Obama neglected to give a "direct response" earlier.

"And you're not getting a direct response," Obama said. "Brianna asked the question very well. Did you think that I was going to give you a different answer? No."

read: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-to-reporter-youre-not-getting-direct-response

[jsr]

1. Politics Also Precluded Him From Saying He'll Cut Social Security If Elected

[tridim]

2. He hasn't cut SS. What's your point? nt

[woo me with science]

14. He sure tried. nt

[tridim]

24. Woo me...

with BS, Woo.

[JoePhilly]

26. They are angry that their predictions have been wrong.

Obama needed to cut SS to justify their outrage.

He hasn't done it, which irritates them even more.

Same is happening now with Syria. Obama was supposed to prove he was evil more than a week ago by bombing Syria without the UN report, or an official statement from Congress.

Now that Obama has waited for the UN, and is waiting for an official position from Congress, they are again, even more irritated.

[woo me with science]

28. "They, they, they."

The lying propaganda has no credibility anymore.

It's boring.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. But don't forgot ...

their end-game on all matters ... "Well ... He would have if we hadn't stopped him!!!!!!!"

Funny how their outrage can ALWAYS stop him from doing something that he never promised, but they don't like; but they can NEVER make him do anything that they want, but he never promised. I guess that means, either: it is easier to be a jerk, than constructively engage; or, they have a far greater sense of political influence than warranted.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. NO! He did cut Social Security! Last March!!!

Don't you remember when the anti-Obama wackos were going nuts about it???

Oh, what's that? they were only acting like the hair-on-fire shitheads that they are and it never really happened.

Oh, my bad.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. No …

Politics led President Obama to propose the CCPI. It was pure politics designed to demonstrate that the gop is most unserious about any negotiation on policy, or anything that he proposes about anything, on any topic.

While “pundits” on the Left have recognized and written much on this topic, and “pundits” on the right have spoken volumes on this topic, through their silence; it’s only a small segment of the left that seems to miss the point.

[woo me with science]

13. Bullshit. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. Because you say so ... Okay. n/t

[woo me with science]

18. Nope. Because we were all there. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. So were the ...

"Pundits" on the left that made note of the gambit. And so were the "Pundits" on the right, whose silence spoke volumes. And so was the leader of the gop House Campaign Committee who tried to raise the CCPI issue as an attack, who was promptly told to STFU by the gop.

Have you ever wondered what you are missing?

Self-reflection is a beautiful thing ... were practice in earnest.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Your posts always contain personal barbs and insults but never contain links to supporting

materials to uphold your claims. Even when others challenge the crap you fling, you do not offer to support your assertions, instead you make petty comments to the challenging poster. Makes you look utterly devoid of information as well as basic interaction skills.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. We've done this dance before ...

I post a thought ... You say "No supporting Link; No Validity to your thought."

I post a link supporting my thought ... You parse the link to extract an out of context segment and "announce" my point disproven.

I post another link from a different source and address how you've misrepresented my point ... You ignore it to continue arguing your same argument.

I respond make note of that ... you change the topic, usually trying to make it about ... well ... never-mind

I go out and live my real life ... You declare my not responding to you last post, proof that my point was invalid; you chased me awayyyyyy!.

And let's not forget you intermittent, but wholly inaccurate, whining about how I interact ... I'm pretty certain that anyone reading this thread will recognize the pattern, I have laid out.

So ... I offer you, today, the same suggestion/advice that I offered last time you got all whinny ... simply, spare yourself the vapors;JUST PLACE ME ON IGNORE. Thank you.

{I know ... I know ... "You don't tell me what to do ... I'll slam me head against that wall as often as I like ... You are not the boss of me" ...)

[Marr]

40. Actually, you make a claim, post a link that disproves your claim, then

cry that someone actually read the link and cited it to counter your claim.

What you seem to call "parsing" other people call "reading".

[Puglover]

39. Let me sum up the post that just responded to you Blue.

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)

You win.

[woo me with science]

17. +1000000 Remember this gem from the campaign?

David Axlerod was asked by a panel to describe Obama's plans for Social Security. Mind you, this was during the election campaign, when one would think voters have an even greater expectation than usual of forthrightness and information from the candidates they are evaluating. Yet when asked about Obama's plans for the bedrock social safety net of this nation, Axelrod flat-out *refused* and then added this condescending swipe:

“I’ll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table, we’ll have that discussion."

Obama campaign refuses to disclose plans on Social Security, says discussion belongs with senators
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021483594

Debating Social Security: If Not Now, When?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101643786


This administration needs a serious reminder that they work for us, and not the other way around.

[Thinkingabout]

3. I am waiting for Ingram, Rush and Hannity to jump on this somehow. They are going to have a few

Moments of "victory" and then total defeat when they realize they have been had. Obama will be working under the cover of Congress, if things go badly he can say he was not able to get authority and if it turns out good then he can say this wait bought him some extra time.

[davidn3600]

6. Nobody blames congress in situaitons like this...the buck stops with the president

[Thinkingabout]

7. Not this time, it will be just like Cameron, if Obama does not get authorization it will be I

Vote d against it before I voted for it, it will stay with the presidential candidates for a long time.

[davidn3600]

8. American people and the world does not want us to bomb Syria

You are looking hard for a political division here where there isn't one. Both sides are against this strike.

[Thinkingabout]

9. Do you really think striking Syria was the action Obama wanted to take on the first report

Assad gassed his people? Did he act at that time, nope. Do you really think this an easy decision for him at this time, nope. All the blowhards running around saying Obama is not strong enough must have forgotten he gave the go ahead on bin Laden and forgot he sent strikes on Libya. I don't like wars either, we were lied to before the invasion of Iraq and we are tired of fighting. This is nit for political division and ergo Congress has to work this time.

[davidn3600]

10. Most Americans simply don't care

If Assad did gas his people, I think Americans would still be against striking....especially striking unilaterally.

Whatever evidence we have, go to the UN or the international courts. Present the intelligence to Russia and China. Show the world what the madman is Syria is doing. Don't just say, "Trust us" and start bombing the place to shit. No one trusts this country after we've lied so many times in the past. After 8 years of Bush...America's "word" isn't good enough anymore even though he's not president anymore. That damage to our reputation will take generations to repair.

You are looking for a political victory. That isn't going to happen when you have an issue where Rand Paul is saying the same things as Alan Grayson.

[Thinkingabout]

11. Action will not come from the UN since Russia will never agree and I understand without other

Countries backing off there may not be anyone to take a stand for the people of Syria. What I don't understand is why should the US have a big division on this issue when most do not want to get involved and with Obama asking Congress I don't think Obama wants to makes a decision to strike. The invasion of Iraq has left a big hole. I was not for the invasion of Iraq because Iraq kept the lid on Iran, that is gone now.

[totodeinhere]

36. Attacking without the approval of the UN would be illegal. If Russia and China block UN action

that's just a part of the process. After all the USA has blocked the UN before too. But the fact that the Russians block the UN from acting does not give us leave to break international law. It is not the place of this country to make unilateral strikes against other countries without UN approval unless it's in self defense. If the Russians block action then so be it. We can say we tried but the Russians blocked us so therefore there is nothing more we can do about it. Sometimes bad things happen in this world that we can't legally do anything about and this might be one of those times. But at any rate we are not the world's policeman.

[Thinkingabout]

37. Did the US have approval from the UN before invading Iraq? Actually a 1925 Geneva Treaty against

using poison gas has been broken. I don't know where the legal restrictions lie here.

[totodeinhere]

41. We did not have UN approval and Bush's war was illegal. But the fact that war criminal George Bush

illegally invaded Iraq doesn't give Obama the right to illegally attack Syria.

And yes, using poison gas is prohibited by several international conventions. But our country is not the enforcer of those conventions and if a country breaks those conventions that does not give the USA leave to unilaterally attack that country. The international community is the enforcer, not the USA.

[bigtree]

4. .

[Catherina]

5. Really? Well then politics preclude me from what's saying what's on my mind too n/t

[woo me with science]

20. My sentiments exactly. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. So you place ...

Posting Privileges over Principle?

{Thanks, Sid}

[pnwmom]

15. It would be stupid for him to say one way or another because it could affect their votes

and it could bind him under future circumstances that are still unknown.

[Cha]

22. Yes, pnwmom, exactly. As Senator Warren said

last week.. "We are still in a state of flux."

[JustAnotherGen]

27. +1

[bigtree]

29. I think the 'bind' on the president is a tenuous one, if there is one

I'm more concerned with giving our elected representatives flexibility than I am in allowing the Executive what amounts to a blank check.

It isn't as if there's a limiting line of accountability from Congress to the president. That control they have is a complicated gambit of allowing or withholding defense funds. That's where the check on that presidential authority lies.

What I, personally, would look for in a president is one who understands that he takes a nation to war, not just his administration. Having Congress assume initial responsibility for waging war is an integral and vital facet of our democracy.

That initial recognition by the president of that responsibility of Congress to initiate warring should be* more than some political formality. However, as we've seen in many unilateral uses of force by the Executive over the course of history, Congress is loath to deny funding for an operation that's underway; for a mission where troops have already been committed to the field.

All our contemporary CiCs have had to do is make a unilateral declaration that their actions are in defense of 'national security' or in response to some 'threat' or the other against the U.S. or our interests. That's the reasoning the White House has decided to promote for their military ambitions in Syria. By declaring that attacks within Syria are in our 'national interests', and pose a 'threat' to our nation, the President and his deputies are declaring themselves above and beyond the initial judgment of Congress of whether their mission has merit and is supportable. For many folks out here, that's just a slippery slope to war.

That may well suit those who are firm in their belief that military force is imperative, yet, it is a stance which flies in the face of the overwhelming rejection of military strikes from a majority of Americans polled and a majority who have bothered to tell their Representatives and Senators where they stand.

As far as I've understood the President and his SoS, they believe they have that authority already, so I'm a bit puzzled why there's some question out there about whether he'll buck the judgment and vote of Congress and invade anyway.

I just know that the President needs a constant and vocal reminder that there are a majority of us out here who don't agree with his stance and would appreciate if he would tell us up front that he'll respect the judgment of our elected officials and not rely solely on his own determination - his own decision - that we should go to war with Syria.

I don't want the Executive to have flexibility beyond the will and reach of Congress to easily initiate war.

[markpkessinger]

23. NOW he decides to become Mr. Savvy Negotiator? n/t

[NuclearDem]

31. Mr. President, this is a really, really, really easy question.

The answer is no. If Congress does not give you authorization to attack, the answer is no.

The only time the answer would ever be yes is if Syria directly attacked the US. Which it has not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. I'm not saying force is justified in this instance

"The only time the answer would ever be yes is if Syria (or another nation) directly attacked the US."

But that's never been American policy.

[NuclearDem]

35. I know, but in this situation especially

Given how enormously unpopular it is and how much of a wreck our economy's in, the answer simply cannot be yes short of an actual attack.

Of course, I know that won't stop it at all.

[Dawson Leery]

38. kick