Breaking: President Obama Formally Requests Congress Approve Military Strike Against Syria

[Hissyspit]

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 08:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Reuters

@BreakingNews: White House: President Obama formally requests Congressional authorization for military strikes on Syria - @Reuters

Obama asks Congress to approve military strike against Syria

Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:10pm EDT

By Roberta Rampton and Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama stepped back from the brink on Saturday and delayed an imminent military strike against Syria to seek approval from the U.S. Congress in a gamble that will test his ability to project American strength abroad and deploy his own power at home.

Before Obama put on the brakes, the path had been cleared for a U.S. assault. Navy ships were in place and awaiting orders to launch missiles, and U.N. inspectors had left Syria after gathering evidence of a chemical weapons attack that U.S. officials say killed 1,429 people.

But Obama decided to seek the backing of U.S. lawmakers before attacking, as polls showed strong opposition from Americans already weary of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Approval will take at least 10 days, if it comes at all.

"Today I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move as one nation," Obama said in a dramatic shift he announced in the White House Rose Garden.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97K0EL20130901

[Cryptoad]

1. Does Snowden

have any leaks concerning this?

[another_liberal]

3. Ask yourself . . .

You might want to ask yourself:

"Am I being petty and self-indulgent in trivializing this moment to pursue my own agenda?"

It might be a good point to ponder.

[Maynar]

2. This won't end well

for Obama or anybody.

[DearAbby]

5. I believe this is one that will define his Presidency

I salute his courage in doing this, either the country stands with him, or they vote no confidence. Do they support the office of the President, or do they not.

[christx30]

14. We can think Obama

is a basically good guy, but still think attacking Syria is a really, really bad idea. Just because the President wants something does not automatically mean that we have to be 100% on board.
Attacking Syria is a bad idea that I cannot support.

[DearAbby]

18. So define an Atrocity

and at what point would you intervene? I believe this should be a global debate.

[christx30]

20. No I wouldn't.

You want the US to in everywhere the government is killing their citizens? Did you want us to attack in Darfur? How about Cambodia? North Korea has FAR more people than Assad. You wanna take some guys north of the DMZ? We aren't the world's police force. While things in Syria bad, it isn't up to the US military to rain freedom and democracy down on their asses. It was wrong when bush did it. It's just as wrong when someone with a D after his name does it.

[DearAbby]

29. Munich all over again.

Define what you would consider an atrocity.

[christx30]

35. There are tons.

The East German Stasi. The murders of over 30,000 under the repression of 'Papa Doc' Duvalier. The killing fields of Cambodia. Tribal warlords in Africa, with their child soldiers. Slavery that exists today throughout much of the world. I've already listed some others. The prison camps of North Korea.
This planet sucks. Political leaders in man countries are killing their people every day. Millions have died, and still millions of others probably will die through murder, neglect, and repression by selfish assholes with a cult of personality around them. It's terrible, but we can't attack every nation that's doing this.
The events are Syria are only 2 years old. The rest of the crap has been going on hundreds of years. You asked me to define an atrocity. Tell me where we should send the US military. You do realize that to stop all of this stuff, we'd need to quintuple the size of our military. And probably repress much of the planet. You want to do that?

Edited to add the Iraqi rape rooms. You glad we went in there and solved that one?

[grahamhgreen]

50. ...

[ellenrr]

33. this is the only reasoned response on the whole thread. thank you. you seem to stand alone.

I am waiting to see if you get bounced for comments like this

[lyonn]

46. Welp! I also agree

The world is full of atrocities. Do I want to die by a bomb dropped on my home, city, etc. or gassed. Gassing is such a cowardly action I agree. But the videos showing the damage done by the Syrian govt. to their own country is shocking. The Arab/Muslim countries should take Some responsibility for these type actions. No, the U.S. should not be the policemen of the world. Where is Saudia Arabia in all of this mess?

[ellenrr]

49. also over 2 million Syrian refugees, some of them have become refugees more than once.

it's heartbreaking. But no one took notice, no UN, No conference, no mass media, nothing, but a gassing produces this big hubub bec. Obama has made it a 'red line'.

[warrant46]

60. Where is Saudia Arabia in all of this mess?

Sitting on their oil billions, gambling it away in Monte Carlo, sitting on their mega yachts, directing their US puppet forces, while their numerous wives sit at home behind veils and are forbidden to drive cars.

"Freedom is on the March"

[grahamhgreen]

51. The Iraq war was an atrocity. Torture is an atrocity. We have NO RIGHT screwing up another country.

Vietnam was an atrocity.

[indepat]

54. Recent OP indicated 6.5 million in Vietnam were killed, maimed, or made homeless by U.S.

military actions. But thankfully, those 6.5 million did not die or get maimed or be made homeless in vain, for the U.S. was trying to stop the scourge of the spread of godless communism. Had the dominoes begun to fall, it would have been lights out all over the world, a Katy bar the door incident, so to speak. The fact that Ho Chi Ming threw the Chinese communists out of Vietnam after having gotten rid of the imperialistic French colonials and the U.S. does not impugn the righteousness of the U.S. cause or the validity of the falling dominoes theory.

[raindaddy]

55. At what point do we intervene....

on our own behalf and stop believing that spending twice what the rest of the world spends combined on ways to kill people has changed a damn thing? I can think of a hell of a lot of ways we could actually do something to make this a better country and a better world with that kind of money.

I voted for Barack Obama for his vision and his ability to communicate it not for his George W. Bush imitation.

Might be an interesting study to find out what percentage of so-called bad guys and what percentage of innocent civilians take the brunt of these attacks.

Would also be interesting to find out how many politicians would be so quick on the trigger if one of these third world countries had the ability to return the favor.

[delrem]

27. How can you imagine that the issue is "do you support the office of the pres, or not?"

That's .... the peak of delusion.

[wordpix]

69. no his presidency is already defined - way too passive except for

getting OBL.

On the environment, supports nuke and oil industry, asking for $30+ billion in taxpayer guaranteed loans for new nuke plants and continuing deepwater drilling after BP blowout.

On war, has delayed getting out of Afghanistan to 2014 for no good reason.

On Koch bros., has not gone after them despite their dumping coal waste on Detroit R. banks without a permit and causing air and water pollution in Crossett, Ark, creating a cancer cluster.

Cost of health insurance is sky high.

And the rich keep getting richer while most of us plebes continue to make the same $ we made years ago.

[Snoopy 7]

36. Are you kidding me?

They don't care about the political outcome this is what he will seek upon his departure of the Presidency:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/22/1233110/-DOJ-Asks-Court-to-Grant-Immunity-to-Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-for-Iraq-War#

that story is horrible and they dumped it last FRIDAY, news dump day when no one is listening, Friday is the day you should be watching/googleing the news...

[24601]

38. It ends well for the rule of law - unless Congress votes no but the President orders an attack

anyway. The President should have asked for a vote prior to using force in Libya. The wild card is that the issue reaches the courts which determine that the 1974 War Powers Act is an unconstitutional infringement upon the President's Article II Authorities.

The Constitution's Article I delegates Congress the sole power to declare war. But equating declaring war and authorizing military force hasn't occurred.

[egold2604]

4. He knows the party of no will not vote for anything he wants

[lib87]

12. Yep!

Plus plenty of his own party do not want to engage in direct military aggression either.

[delrem]

28. Well, the R's can always filibuster it....

[24601]

39. Senate rules do not permit a filibuster of a WPA debate.

[grahamhgreen]

52. What I wouldn't give for a little honesty.

[ellenrr]

66. except they are-

the only bipartisanship is on imperialism

[Historic NY]

6. On boy Bonhers is now getting brown stains..

because he actually has to do something. Obama didn't promise a rose garden, he sent them a show down , debate.

[Bucky]

9. I don't think this was Obama playing politics. I think he was following the law.

[Blue Idaho]

15. This could be huge for the President and for America.

It's nice when doing the right thing also gives the President a political advantage. If the congressional cowards refuse to hold a vote they will look light terrible lightweights right before they want to pretend they are budget tough guys. I they vote yes, they own whatever happens as much as the President. If they vote no it allows the President to step away from the red line and they still own the results as much as anyone.

Although he may not be doing it for political advantage, he will still end up with one.

[Tumbulu]

25. absolutely ! Well said

this is his most brilliant move to date.

[mulsh]

7. that low murmur you may hear is

congressional republicans around the country saying "shit!"

[lyonn]

47. That's how it felt when Obama asked for a vote!!!

It's about time we put ball in their park. Imagine, the repubs not being able to vote again in the House against Obama Care!! And must show their "Cards".

[Bucky]

8. Well, that actually IS how the Constitution says it's supposed to work.

Personally I'm on the fence about this. Assad's regime is composed of mass murderers. There should be a precedent set saying people who do what he did have to go, or at least be punished.

On the other hand, the people that will probably replace them will make Egypt's Morsi look like Mahatma Gandhi. And the bombing we'll do there won't really hurt the actual murderers, just their neighbors back home in Damascus.

[DWinNJ]

17. Hopefully this is saber rattling on the presidents part

and we can make some diplomatic progress before congress votes

[Bucky]

37. Sadly, I don't think sabre rattling is going to do much good here.

We're going to bomb Syria and we'll kill some people on one side, most of whom won't be the gas attackers, and then the war will continue.

[Thinkingabout]

53. We have tried diplomatic reasoning for a couple of years or longer, tried to get Russia to assist.

Even through the UN but Russia does not agree. I hate wars myself and wish Syria could work their problems out but did nit get results. I think the problem is the chemical warfare which has been around for a hundred years. Assad knew better than the chemicals but choose it anyhow.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

42. And this is why we need an International Criminal Court.

Or let the Arab League settle it.
Or let the UN work.
Haven't we had enough of this crap?

[Bucky]

45. I think there is an International Criminal Court. But the UN won't handle this.

This war has been going on for two years because Russia's veto in the UN.

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. Ok...so Congress will now debate this , right?

I listened to the speech this afternoon, Eastern time, thought what I heard was he was going to let Congress debate
any proposal.
Congress is on vacation, no???

[NaturalHigh]

11. I hope Congress (both parties) will have the sense to vote no.

I worry that Republicans will vote to authorize because they enjoy a military outing, and Democrats will vote to authorize because they don't have the backbone to tell the president no.

[Heather MC]

48. Repugs will vote yes because their War Master will tell them to vote yes

Dems will Vote yes, because of the same dayum thing smh

[Billy Love]

13. REEEEEJJJJJJEEEECTTTTTEEEEEDD

Sorry, Obama, but the Syria thing - you must leave it alone and let it resolve itself.

There is no justification for an U.S. interference with the civil war.

I hope every single Democrat in the House and Senate rejects Obama's request.

I hope the Senate and House doesn't even bother coming in until September 9th. By that time, it would have been resolved

[Iliyah]

30. Nope it won't be over

but who cares anyways, let them deal with it and hell if they want to gas each other, so be it cause they are already killing each other alongwith families.

Since the USA is already helping with money, aid and volunteers at all the refugee camps in the other countries that they have fled too, that should be enough support. Several volunteers that I know have left to help.

I hope the debates are informative but knowing gopers it gonna be crazy talk and repeated here . . and as mentioned on another thread I have reservations about a dictator that uses chemical weapons on his or her people.

[ellenrr]

32. how about chemical weapons on another people?

are you ok with that? Like Fallujah?

[warrant46]

62. Yes how about that !!

Napalm and cluster bombs work so much better. Since the US sold the Saudi princes 650 Billion Dollars worth of CBUs expect to see some of these bad boys soon. And Napalm--- well when they scream before dying you can smell "Freedom" in the air.

[SDjack]

19. If Pres. Obama declares war without Congressional resolution, that would give GOP dominated House

the legal basis to impeach him. What a mess that would make -- a war and impeachment simultaneously.

[cheapdate]

21. That's not at all how I would frame the situation:

"...to seek approval from the U.S. Congress in a gamble that will test his ability to project American strength abroad and deploy his own power at home."

As I see it, it's neither a "gamble" nor a "test". It's what the president decided and it was the right decision.

[William769]

22. Locking.

Duplicate. See original here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=581913

[William769]

23. Thread unlocked.

I apologize for any inconvenience Hissyspit.

William769

[Tx4obama]

24. Below is a link to the 'document' that Obama sent on over to The Congress

AUMF Resolution Text: Text Of The Use Of Force Resolution

Here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/164538584/AUMF-Resolution-Text

[Tumbulu]

26. Most brilliant move to date

I am impressed!

[Celefin]

31. Finally.

Seems the delays caused by the UN inspectors and the UK vote gave somebody enough time to cool down and think things through. Now let's have that debate that's been talked of so much. Let's have congress do its job for once, they can't weasel out of this one. Watching the republicans will be interesting - they were so close to a ton of sweetest anti-Obama ammunition they could almost smell it. Now they'll have to own the decision and it's a win-win for Obama.

I'd love to see them debate the funding in the light of the impending government shutdown... there is so much opportunity to set all the right precedences on a lot of issues here.

And well, yes. Stay out.
Or own it collectively.

[unhappycamper]

34. The President's Authorization to Use Military Force is still in effect.

As is his Nobel Peace Prize.

President Obama is on a roll: Afghanistan (still trying for a SOFA), Lybia, Pakistan, Yemen and now Syria.

[ellenrr]

40. Glenn Greenwald in the guardian:

The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald writes that if Congress goes against the president on Syria, he may well just ignore it.

What makes the celebratory reaction to yesterday's announcement particularly odd is that the Congressional vote which Obama said he would seek appears, in his mind, to have no binding force at all. There is no reason to believe that a Congressional rejection of the war's authorisation would constrain Obama in any way, other than perhaps politically. To the contrary, there is substantial evidence for the proposition that the White House sees the vote as purely advisory, i.e., meaningless.

Recall how - in one of most overlooked bad acts of the Obama administration - the House of Representatives actually voted, overwhelmingly, against authorizing the US war in Libya, and yet Obama simply ignored the vote and proceeded to prosecute the war anyway (just as Clinton did when the House rejected the authorization he wanted to bomb Kosovo, though, at least there, Congress later voted to allocate funds for the bombing campaign). Why would the White House view the President's power to wage war in Libya as unconstrainable by Congress, yet view his power to wage war in Syria as dependent upon Congressional authorization?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/01/obama-congress-syria-authorization

[warrant46]

63. And that is the problem

[CanonRay]

41. Smart move

and if we have to depend on Congress to agree to go war, we've fought our last war. Yeah!

[Xolodno]

43. Wow! Expected to find out we already launched some missiles....

...but instead, the President punted to Congress.

Guessing he realized most Americans are war weary and too many Congress members would pounce on this. So make them own it, if it goes good or ill.

This also sends a message to the world...the USA is tired of fighting your battles for you. If the Arab states want this resolved, they have air forces (supplied by the USA) that can handle this, they have armies that can intervene (equipped and trained by the USA) and even some have missiles that can be launched against Syria. Do it yourself. I'm sure if they requested logistical support from the USA they would get it.

If they won't do it....

Tell Russia and Iran to end this. They have the military capabilities to take care of this. Shoot...Russia could nuke a few Al Qaeda controlled areas and all they will get is "Public International Condemnation".....and nothing else. And in the back channels, get high fives for wiping out a world scourge.

If it does go to approval....then, he can claim public support. And if the general populace still hates it...he can blame Congress...which is already unpopular.

....This isn't the first time the USA has let something this atrocious go unpunished. Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq chemical attacks on Kurds & Iran, etc.

I hate what happened in Syria ten thousand percent...but I also recognize that this has been brewing long before the USA was founded. This is one fight you are going to have let all sides have it out until they lose all taste for war.

Best thing we could do, is provide humanitarian assistance to the refugee's and even help refugee's escape when possible. Sucks for those who are unable to get out...but what can you do? Aside from sending missiles at their enemies which could also hurt them or earn further reprisals.

[blkmusclmachine]

44. There's MONEY to make in Syria, dammit. We're going in!!!

[Steerpike]

56. George Orwell said this on War

“The war, therefore if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that the hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that is exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This--although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense--is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.”

[Nihil]

68. Excellent quote - thanks. (n/t)

[Brigid]

57. Aw, shit. Here we go again.

[NorthCarolina]

58. If and when Congress does vote, will it be a recorded vote?

Or is it more likely they will use the 'unanimous voice vote' tactic? I hope it is recorded so the public is fully aware of those voting 'yes'.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

59. Dear President Obama,

Why?
Signed,
Dyedinthewoolliberal

[Marrah_G]

61. He should return his nobel peace prize, today.

Or maybe he could give the prize money to the families of the women and children he is about to order killed in the name of peace.

[Still Blue in PDX]

64. Right on. nt

[hollowdweller]

65. Cost should have to be offset with cuts.

Maybe to other parts of defense budget?

[WhoWoodaKnew]

67. There must be important info that we're not privy too...

cause non of this shit makes any sense.