If the President were to proceed against the wishes of Congress and the People . . .

[markpkessinger]

. . . after having agreed to take the decision to Congress, merely because he didn't get the answer he wanted, I am fairly certain it would result in an impeachment effort. And in that event, much as it would pain me to do so, I would have to support such an effort. Proceeding against such overwhelming opposition would represent the absolute height of executive arrogance.

The President and John Kerry need to step back and remember that this is more than a mere executive/legislative turf war.

[ZombieHorde]

1. In my opinion,

if Congress says "no," and he does it anyway, it would demonstrate that he wasted tax-payer money just to mock us.

[giftedgirl77]

2. Clinton took action in Kosovo after Congress

told him no & after they had impeached him. However, he had NATO support.

Clinton is not the only example just the most recent. While it would be a complete dick move to do it there is precedent out there that supports the action.

[bullwinkle428]

4. That's slightly inaccurate - Rachel talked about this on her show last night.

The Senate voted "yes" on action in Kosovo, and Clinton began the airstrikes the next day. The House didn't get around to voting on it for another month, and it was a 213-213 tie. It definitely took place well after impeachment as you said, and I'm sure by that point, Clinton had little use for the House considering they were the ones responsible for the impeachment.

[giftedgirl77]

7. I may have misheard, I was listening in the

car while waiting to pick my son up from school & they were yammering on MSNBC about all the POTUS who have gone in after congress has voted no.

Their take away was it all depends on the final outcome of the bombing campaign. With all the countries staging troops in the region now this will get ugly very quickly.

[DevonRex]

10. He knew it would be voted down. So he bypassed the vote.

After it showed some success, some weasely Republicans then said of course they'd have voted for it and scheduled the vote. Still it only tied.

[HooptieWagon]

3. I largely agree with OP, with a caveat.

If Obama's limited strike is wildly successful...no civilian casualties, no shot down planes, Assad surrenders CWs and vows never to use them again...then it would be difficult to make a case of impeachment.
However, if there are civilian casualties, a plane shot down, Assad digs in his heels in defiance...then Obama has sealed his fate.
It boils down to luck, and lots of it. It would be foolish and arrogant to bet your political survival against those odds...we shall see.

[markpkessinger]

8. Good point . . .

. . . but a big "if."

In any case, I think Kerry and everybody else in the Administration would be advised to cool it with the "we can do it anyway" talk.

[HooptieWagon]

9. Very big if...

and no political cover means zero margin for error.

[Lifelong Dem]

5. If so

Then Obama would have lied about letting "we the people" decide through representatives. Which I don't think Obama will be doing - lying.

[YvonneCa]

6. They have been looking to impeach him...

...for awhile now. This will just give them one more reason (in their eyes).

[spanone]

11. don't worry, they'll find something else to impeach him over...

[on point]

12. Then rightfully he should be impeached