I think O's plan is to gut the unitary executive theory and enforce the war powers act.

[Windy]

He will not strike if congress votes no. He will if congress votes yes. If the vote is no and nothing is done, and Assad uses chemical weapons again, especially after the UN report is issues, the international community may join in doing something. I hate to say I think he is playing multi-dimensional chess, but I think he is. After he responded to a question in the press conference today regarding what he would do if congress said no, and that he took the matter to congress for a reason, I got to thinking...
I couldn't understand, given what I thought were his principles, why he would go into Syria without the authorization of counsel and why Kerry and Hagel, given their background in Vietnam would go along. I think there is an overall strategy in play. He knew going into this (as I know and I'm not as intelligent as he is) that the vote wouldn't pass the house. The tea party faction will not go along with him because its a measure that Obama wants, and the democrats won't go along because they don't want war...and he knew that the citizenry would be dead set against it. This is his opportunity to enforce the war powers act that has been gutted not only by bush but by previous presidents.

I really hope I'm right...

I honestly can't imagine where his head is otherwise.

He is no dove, and we can get into a discussion of drone use, killing OBL and the idea of taking action in the event of an imminent threat, but I do believe that there is a rationale here. No potential imminent threat to the US, then take it to congress. He's setting a precedent that will effect other presidencies in the future. If he is successful, it will be maybe the most significant part of his legacy as president.

[formercia]

1. This has been my Gut Feeling too.

Cassius Clay would be proud.

[leftstreet]

2. What would stop the next POTUS from doing it?

[Windy]

6. Precedent.....

It reinforces the war powers act which has been the law of the land that other presidents have "overlooked." I think, at least I hope, the legal scholar in him is coming through.

[BlueStreak]

32. When was the last time a Republican president was concerned about that.

The only thing that would keep a POTUS from asserting unitary powers is a Constitutional amendment.

The only thing that would prevent a POTUS from acting under the War Powers Act would be Congress rescinding that law.

Anything else is a delusional attempt to rationalize Obama's actions while ignoring the obvious -- that this is all about protecting the Security Industrial Complex. They didn't lift a finger about the previous allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria. It was only when there came an uproar about the Security Industrial Complex that the war drums started beating so loudly as to drown out Snowden's revelations.

It is not complicated. That is what s happening here.

[targetpractice]

3. The opposite of Hanlon's razor, perhaps?

Hanlon's razor states: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Obama's razor might be: "Never attribute to incompetence that which is adequately explained by good will."

Good post... I think he must realize he setting a precedent. I think the senate resolution that forces diplomacy for 45 days is good scenario, although every day without peace is tragic for the Syrians.

Upon edit: turned off italics.

[Precisely]

4. That would be Cheney's plan

[Windy]

7. Cheney's big goal was to cement the unitary executive theory.... what are you referring to?

What part of the scenario I painted sounds like a Cheney plan?????

[Precisely]

12. Sorry. I misread. I hope you're right too.

[reformist2]

5. I hope you're right, and I do think you're right, BUT... our role in this game of multi-level chess

...is to threaten to end our support of Obama if he goes through with bombing in the face of a congressional thumbs down, and make it clear that we wouldn't be all that troubled if he were impeached, even. In other words, we need to keep protesting this as if Obama really means to go through with it.

It's not just Obama playing multi-dimensional chess, we're ALL playing now.

[Windy]

8. agreed.... nt

[NuclearDem]

9. He was planning on going on into Syria

Then everyone raised hell, and seeing how unpopular it was, he sent it to Congress so they could bail him out.

This isn't nth-dimensional chess, this is whiplash.

[bemildred]

10. I have toyed with that idea, but ...

a.) as the other fellow mentions you have to consider Hanlon's Razor
b.) you have to worry about confirmation bias, he's our guy, we elected him
c.) it seems like a bit of a stretch to get to from the facts, to me

So I'm still just toying with it.

[Scootaloo]

11. When it comes to the president's plans...

I say that I know what I'm hoping for, and I have no idea what I should expect.

I'd hope you're right, but I'm not going to expect anything.

I also wish there was a way to do this without making our country - once again - look like a ravening beast in a very weak cage when it coems to foreign policy.

[Lucinda]

13. I agree. Hope we are right.

knr

[Yo_Mama]

14. Regardless of his planning, he is doing the right thing

And you are right that it will have far-reaching repercussions for the future, and that it is a very healthy thing.

I also think that taking it to Congress shows how serious he is and will give him more muscle on the international diplomatic stage. I also think it puts pressure on Assad to behave, because Congress can change its mind on this one if more develops.

[JackRiddler]

17. Preparing the next war is the "right thing"?

[Yo_Mama]

25. By putting it up to Congress he is doing the right thing

Constitutionally, he has to ask Congress to authorize it. But beyond that, I believe he is doing the RIGHT thing morally.

Also, while I am not for war with Syria, I also do not believe that the family of nations can afford to ignore the use of chemical weapons.

[Blanks]

15. He did point out not too long ago that the republican controlled congress opposes everything...

...that he comes out in support of. After all the ACA came from a conservative think tank and still every republican voted against it.

Whether that's his plan or not, if the republicans vote against war in the house - they may come up short on campaign funds. If they vote for war they may have some explaining to do on the campaign trail.

Could be win/win - if you consider going to war winning. Of course the best part is that either way the president has gone to congress before authorizing military force, and I believe that's a good thing.

[Yo_Mama]

26. But the population is strongly against this move

It's more like those who do vote for it are going to come up short on the campaign trail. That is clearly why Congress is trying to avoid the vote, and they clearly are.

[JackRiddler]

16. Keep telling yourself that.

A war faction decided to take the opportunity of the "red line" atrocity to push for the usual U.S. aggression on some distant nation that poses no threat to the U.S. This happens without fail every two to five years and until now has always resulted in a new U.S. war.

Obama, though clearly noncommital on Syria, decided to pimp the proposed war, just like every president has pimped wars. It's a standard part of the job and contributes to "legacy."

This time, however, the usual PR campaign for humanitarian mass murder has run into an unprecedented set of snags. No one believes the lying fuckers of the U.S. government, because they have seen too many lying fuckers of the U.S. government telling the exact same lies too many times before. Everyone is tired of the costs perpetual war, after 12 years of catastrophic wars for vague reasons that Obama, unfortunately, has done little to end (even while starting or escalating new ones).

This may turn out to be great news for Americans and for the world. Maybe sanity is coming to the U.S. Maybe we will remember this as the time when we started to liberate ourselves from the dominance of the MIC that eats 50+ percent of the federal discretionary budget. Of course, it will only happen with a popular mass resistance movement.

We need to fix Detroit, not Syria. Ending the perpetual war might mean money for fixing this fucked-up country.

We need to stop dictating to a region where the US government not only has no business, but has committed far greater crimes, killed more people and done more damage than Assad has.

You want to intervene constructively in Syria? Convene a peace conference with Iran, Russia, Saudi (unfortunately) and the EU.

You want to help the middle east? Arrest the Bush regime architects of aggressive war and put them on trial. Confess and apologize for past U.S. crimes. Suspend all U.S. military aid to any country there, including Israel. Pay reparations to all the countries you've attacked. Or at least offer cash to countries that hold legit, internationally monitored, peaceful, unfixed elections.

[AverageJoe90]

22. I like some of your ideas, but there's just one problem:

Sadly, it's doubtful that Iran will be willing to negotiate, even if their new leader does seem to be not as crazy as Armored Dinner Jacket was.....

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. Well said. Thanks for saying it so clearly and forcefully.

[HangOnKids]

37. Great Post!

"This time, however, the usual PR campaign for humanitarian mass murder has run into an unprecedented set of snags." In a fucking nutshell. Thanks Jack.

[MisterP]

18. naw, they know there won't be a big backlash because of Dem cognitive dissonance like this

I mean, they're doing this at the expense of becoming a global laughingstock? of blowing all their political capital on saying "we'll do this no matter what, and don't forget HITLER!"? by publicly pushing for something with 10-25% approval? through baldfaced lies that fool only the truly lobotomized?
they can take the unitary executive apart in other ways, and show no sign of being motivated to do so

[Windy]

19. Not in the political climate that this president has had to deal with from the beginning

Only something drastic could cause such "bipartisanship" by the congress and the people of the country as a whole. I guess only time will tell.

[philosslayer]

20. I wholeheartedly agree

As I've said before, I think my President is by far the most intelligent President of my lifetime, and one of the smartest we've ever had. Its been painful and discouraging watching him being disparaged, doubted and demeaned on this board. The analogy is overused, but from the beginning of his term he's being playing chess while everyone else (Dems AND Republicans) have been playing checkers.

Over the coming weeks, watch and learn.

Thanks for this post. You explained it better than I could have.

[HangOnKids]

38. I am so glad he's being playing chess

Is that like being playing golf, or being playing scrabble?

[MNBrewer]

21. It's always gotta be some kind of chess game, doesn't it?

Maybe he just got backed into a corner and took the only rational way out.

[Yo_Mama]

27. That's my guess, but what matters is that he is doing the right thing NOW.

[bhikkhu]

23. That's one reason I think its ok either way the vote goes

I'd say a "no" might be worse for Syria, maybe, but who knows. There's probably no happy ending there that we could arrange in any case.

But I don't see any downside to him making the case to congress and letting them decide (while they are also being intensely lobbied by their own constituencies), and abiding with their decision. That's the way democracy is supposed to work, and how it very seldom has for a long time now.

[kentuck]

24. I hope that is his plan.

There is no imminent threat to our country. The House of Repugs would not hesitate to impeach him for such a violation.

I hope this is a precedent that is set. Either way, a yes or no vote, will be better than what we have at the present. That would not be a bad legacy. He could help return us to our Constitution.

[Nevernose]

28. Agreed (n/t)

[snappyturtle]

30. I think the powers that be want to attack Syria.

The President is in a bad position but can save face if
Congress votes "No" by abiding by its decision.
However, if that happens, I also believe there will be
another chemical weapon attack in Syria after which
we will 'have' to attack. The President will come out
looking good and tptb will have their thirst for war
quenched...win...win. imho

[dflprincess]

31. The problem with chess is that it's a game where the pawns are sacrificed

to protect the royalty.

[Hekate]

33. We all have a lot riding on the outcome, and there's so many moving pieces

Earlier this year PBO told Congress they needed to take back some of the powers ceded to his office. He told Congress we shouldn't be on a permanent war footing. He said this in a speech in front of the whole country. I believe this background informs what he is doing now.

Now he is handing the Syria mess off to Congress and telling them: Do your job, why don't you?

What's happening now is not a pretty sight. This evening one commentator after another declared that the whole thing is a debacle for President Obama. Putin can hardly wait for a bad outcome; McCain has never met a war he didn't like; the American people are Not Happy at the prospect of military action.

However Rachel Maddow, over the past few days, has refrained from announcing that this is Obama's Debacle. She's had a lot to say, but she seems to be waiting for events to unfold before rendering a judgment. I like that about her. She's big on context and history.

This is one of the few times I find myself holding my breath on an outcome.

Thanks for your post.

[Cha]

34. Don't hate to say it, Windy..

Those have been my thoughts, too.

Mahalo for your post.

[pansypoo53219]

35. meanwhile the media + congress natters.

spy sats are keeping an eye on syria + assads chess moves. the CIA in country is working.

[davidpdx]

36. I think Congress will vote no

and Obama will back down. Whether anything is done after that, I don't know. The international community seems to want to sit back and do nothing. If we don't attack, the biggest bluff maybe seeing whether the international community (the UN, Arab League, NATO, etc.) actually step up and offer solutions and help (other than military ones).