Obama has no 'intention' to strike Syria if Congress says no, says aide

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Yahoo! News

Will President Barack Obama order military strikes on Syria even if Congress rejects using force? Asked that hugely consequential question on Friday, a senior White House official strongly suggested the answer is no.

“The president, of course, has the authority to act. But it’s neither his desire, nor his intention, to use that authority absent Congress backing him,” deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken told NPR.

Blinken’s comments lent weight to a New York Times report published on Friday that cited unnamed officials as saying that Obama views going to war if Congress says no as “almost unthinkable” — and even a potential trigger for impeachment proceedings against him.

A White House spokeswoman later seemed to dial back from Blinken and the Times report.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-has-no--intention--to-strike-syria-if-congress-says-no--aide-130403503.html

[David__77]

1. All the more reason to fight like hell for a rejection by congress.

The mobilization to town hall meetings, member offices, must be with the force of a general war mobilization.

[gopiscrap]

33. I totally agree

but am a little skeptical of the statement because I am sure the administration could find a way around that declaration. "New info has come to light" etc)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

53. Yeah, because the Evil Obama Empire just wants to kill people! He's just like Bush!!

[gopiscrap]

62. No I love Obama

but I do know that if the government really wants to do something some lawyer will find a way to twist the vergage of any law and figure out how to do it.

[DonViejo]

2. Asked if he would act without Congressional approval on Friday, Obama said...

he wouldn’t speculate on how he might act. He added that he took the question to Congress because Assad’s use of chemical weapons was not an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies.

Full article:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/09/06/2581091/administration-official-obama-strike-syria-congressional-approval/

[marshall]

3. That's called hedging your bet

With the outcome uncertain, it is wise to keep all options open.

[Bradical79]

6. True

It's probably smart not to make another red line type comment. A yes or no answer would either make the congressional vote a waste of time or paint him into a corner if there were some large escalation that completely turned the tide of public opinion here or internationally.

[pscot]

4. It's hard to imagine Obama defying

the will of Congress on this. The republicans are dying to impeach him, even without that.

[MNBrewer]

46. If he does, I would call for his impeachment!!

[Helen Borg]

52. Then all Republicans

should vote no.

[Myrina]

5. Riiiiight, until the next load of 'evidence' pops up and he's "faced with no alternative" ...

C'mon now, America ... this is GONNA happen.

[MissDeeds]

10. Unfortunately, I agree

I thought he sounded resolute in his press conference this morning. He'd like to have congressional approval, but my feeling is that he's going to go with or without it. I hope I'm wrong.

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. Fool me once................heh heh heh heh

Yeah, wouldn't have gone to these lengths just to be stopped in the eleventh hour.

C'mon, now. America...this is GONNA happen.

[adirondacker]

21. I think they are hedging that things are going to get worse, then they can say...

"we told you we should have intervened sooner". It will be the reason for sending MORE missiles and Israel will have an excuse to get further involved. I fear this is only the beginning...I hope I'm wrong.

[MNBrewer]

47. That's a safe bet

things will get worse regardless of what we do.

[arewenotdemo]

88. Well, considering that Obama has been waging a covert war against Syria

for the better part of two years, it's always been up to him how bad he wants things to get.

[Carolina]

54. no, TPTB will make sure things get worse

just as TPTB let 9/11 happen.

There had been chatter and warnings throughout the summer of 2001. When shrub attended the G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy in July 2001, the airspace around the summit meeting site was closed because of threats of planes being used as missiles. Then, of course, we all know about the August 6th PDB which shrub et. al. ignored and Condiliar begrudgingly acknowledged in the 9/11 hearings.

9/11 conveniently served the purpose of mobilizing the people's fear and "righteous" anger so that PNAC could go after its target -- Iraq! It already had a plan to carve up Iraq's oil fields.

Is BHO like shrub? I never thought so, though I have been mightily disappointed by his choice of advisors and cabinet members, his cat food commission, his proposal of a chained CPI for SS, his drone campaign, his lies about NSA, his treatment of whistleblowers, and now his line in the sand about Syria... But his passion for this fight, his use of prostituted intelligence, his SOS Kerry's ludicrous statements on the Hill are eerily reminiscent of the Bush cabal.

Anyway, adirondacker, I hope you're wrong; I hope I'm wrong. Sadly though, my gut tells me otherwise and unfortunately, my gut instincts have, more often than not, been right

[adirondacker]

69. Yes, I hope we are both proven wrong. I'd be delighted to be humiliated in this case.

[IsItJustMe]

30. Things are bad there now, but sadly gonna get a lot worse

Over two hundred thousand refuges spread out in Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Hundreds of different armed groups roaming around Syria and a huge stock pile of chemical weapons.

Add on top of that all the proxy interests of the USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Russia. A true human tragedy, if there ever was one. And as bad as it is, the potential for the suffering can easily expand by an order of magnitude.

So many things can go side ways in this given situation. Be extremely careful Obama.

[snooper2]

96. I guess it kind of wouldn't be right to take wagers on this, correct?

[tarheelsunc]

7. Never mind what he says... he's already a BFEE mercernary.

Either that, or a MIC pawn or something.... at least that's what I get from browsing around here lately.

There's no doubt in my mind President Romney would have already invaded not only Syria but also Iran. At least President Obama has some measure of restraint.

[Iliyah]

8. If RMoney was Pres

we would have already been in Syria - boots on the ground, etc. The house would have overwhelmingly given approval - the US military would be there right now without UN approval just like Irag.

[totodeinhere]

18. But Romney lost to a guy who wants us to attack Syria too. Obama doesn't get a pass

because Romney would have probably been crazier.

[DFW]

50. Obama told you that face to face? That he wants to attck Syria?

He told me something different, which is why I'm asking.

[paleotn]

55. might as well have....

....he's been beating the war drum to mush non-stop for over a week. Don't tell me he has no other alternative, being forced into it by the actions of the Syrian regime. That's horse shit.

[DFW]

61. Might as well have?

He told me face to face that he felt that we had no allies in this conflict, and that whoever came out on top at the end, it would be someone who hated us, and he therefore would seek to keep the USA uninvolved if at all possible. Beating a war drum can be used as an attempt at intimidation (whether successful or not) just as much as an announcement of future action. He has plenty of other alternatives, and he is smart enough to be looking at them. I spent an hour with him, and this was one of the issues we discussed. This was not a public press conference or a hi/goodbye handshake, and it was a while back, too. He has been pondering and observing the Syrian situation for a long time now.

For that matter, I have been reading in the American press (such as I have been able to obtain online and in print over here) that an American attack on strategic Assad positions was imminent, certainly in the next 48 hours. I have been reading this for about TWO WEEKS now. I was granted the chance to talk to the man himself, and even I couldn't tell for sure what he would end up doing. I doubt he has decided definitively himself. The only thing he stated outright was that he didn't want to. And yet I read pronouncements all over the place from people who absolutely know what he's going to do and when.

Horse shit has been coming from more directions than just one.

[totodeinhere]

64. Oh come on. If he didn't want to attack Syria he wouldn't be asking Congress for authorization

to do so.

[DFW]

66. Gimme a break

It's a CYA move that obligates him to exactly nothing. It also conveniently buys time for the clamoring to die down. It also lets the crazies in Congress make more noise and make him seem measured by comparison. He has nothing to lose by asking Congress for authorization. All these attacks that are "imminent, within the next hours" have yet to materialize. I fail to see why so many are so obsessed with claiming they know he is chomping at the bit to attack, and then finding rationalization as to why it still hasn't happened, but certainly will in the NEXT few hours.

When I see a post from someone who has heard it personally from Obama in a one on one that he is absolutely determined to strike no matter what, then I'll believe he has changed his mind from what he told me. I don't discount the possibility, of course. It's not like I get invited to talk with him on a monthly basis. However, as far as I am concerned, what he said to me stands unless someone has heard from him to the contrary.

[totodeinhere]

67. You are claiming that he personally told you that he doesn't want to attack Syria. Well I could

just as easily claim that he personally told me the opposite. It's easy to anonymously make any number of claims on an Internet message board. Unless you are willing to identify yourself and outline the circumstances under which the president personally told you that then your comments don't hold any water.

I also disagree with your assertion that "He has nothing to lose by asking Congress for authorization." He has plenty to lose. Numerous commentators are talking about what a humiliation it will be if Congress turns him down. Some are speculating that if he gets turned down he will become politically weakened and become an instant lame duck with very little political power during the rest of his term. And if he gets turned down and strikes anyway the uproar would be so loud that it could very well carry over to Democratic losses in the next election and beyond. Make no mistake about it he has plenty to lose.

[DFW]

70. I DID post about my meeting at the time, with photos and all

It got plenty of responses, so I hardly kept it a secret. It's not my responsibility to make sure you follow every one of my posts. Those who know me do. Those who don't, take it or leave it. Enough people here know I don't make shit up. Go on with your haughty comments if it gives you a thrill, and feel free to post about your own meeting with Obama if you wish. Don't forget to provide photos while you're at it.

We were asked to keep the contents of the meeting secret at the time, as it was off the record during a sensitive time, but since just about all of what he said at the time is now out there in public, I don't think I'm divulging anything the White House is trying to keep secret at this point.

I don't think Congress turning down an authorization would constitute a humiliation in the slightest. I think they will all be casting votes for a mixed bag of reasons from outright conscience to pure posturing, and Obama will just say, like Cameron, that if that is the will of the elected representatives of the American people, then I have the obligation to take that into consideration. Such a statesman, don't you know. If he is turned down and strikes anyway, then I agree with you that it would bode poorly for us (barring new evidence of atrocities we can't ignore, bien entendu). However, as I believe him when he said he would like to keep out of the Syrian conflict, I think he would be perfectly happy for Congress to turn him down.

*on edit--I found the link to my original post last year: http://www.democraticunderground.com/125170848 (for the record).
Now yours, please.

[former9thward]

71. Interesting you did not refer to Syria in your Obama "meeting".

Looks like the most intense discussion was getting him to sign your program sheet. Did he phone you up to ask what he should say in the Tuesday night speech? Or is that a secret?

[DFW]

72. I didn't refer to ANY of the details at the time, as requested

Nor did I list his environmental goals, budgetary goals, health care specifics (I mention some of what I told him, but not what he said), nor any of his foreign policy specifics. And it wasn't a program sheet he signed. No subject was taboo, and no program of discussion was present or necessary. It's precisely because of posts like yours that sound very much like they are from provocative Republican trolls that I respected the conditions of off-the-record at the time. Do you get your marching instructions from James O'Keefe? Or is that a secret?

[former9thward]

78. Ok you are part of his secret cabinet.

Have fun in fantasy land.

[lumpy]

81. More snark

[DFW]

85. Say hi to your buddy James O'Keefe for us when you see him n/t

Some of us still live and work in the real world. Either that, or you guys sateside are suffering worse effects from fracking pollution of your drinking water than has yet been suspected.

[snooper2]

97. You used to be good at this but you are losing your touch...

Take a couple days off, re-group, then march thward!

[former9thward]

98. Thanks for the complement and the advice.

[lumpy]

80. Snark

[totodeinhere]

73. That was over a year ago. If you had asked me then if I thought that Obama wanted to

attack Syria I would have said no. But a lot has changed since then. He has specifically advocated an attack on Syria. Since you are such good buddies with him I would think that you would take him at his word. What he is saying now supersedes what he said more than one year ago.

By the way, I did not claim to have met him. What I said was that on an anonymous Internet message board I could claim that. However, if you call shaking hands with him and exchanging a pleasantry with him "meeting" him then I did meet him at a campaign stop here in Elko in 2008. I have several photos that I took of him but none that show me and him together.

[DFW]

74. Did you chat with him for an hour? I did. I was invited to an hour-long meeting, not a photo op.

I do not interrupt vacations for photo ops (I might make an exception for Leo Kottke, but that's about it).

Trying a little too hard here? Here's another one you can tear down at your leisure: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8841671

Why it should be so impossible that someone on DU happens to know people is beyond me. Elko, NV, right? Small world. I know of a novel where the main character is in a loveless marriage with a humorless woman from a rich Republican family from Elko. Zazpiak Bat and all that (gora Euskadi, as they say in Donostia).

And it sure was over a year ago. A pre-election meeting wouldn't have happened after November of last year. Some things have changed since then. However I don't think his reluctance to be involved there is one of them. He knows that Al Qaeda is on the ground there, and I'm sure they remember what he did to their dear leader. It's not like we have less to lose now than we did then. Maybe you think Obama has devolved into a moron since the election, but I don't.

[totodeinhere]

77. Talking about when I met him brings back a lot of memories.

Actually I met him twice. The first time was in January 2008. I remember I was so excited at the prospect of meeting this great man whom I believed in that I didn't sleep a wink the night before. Then I just briefly shook his hand after fighting my way to the front of the crowd but when he returned to Elko in September as the nominee I met him again and much to my surprise he actually remembered me. I was quite impressed that after eight months and hundreds of campaign appearances he would actually remember me from our first meeting and thank me for coming to see him again.

I worked hard for him. The Obama headquarters in Elko was my second home. And our work paid off. This is a deeply red area but we made progress. Bush had got 73% in Elko County in 2004 but we were able to push McCain's total below 70% which was a moral victory. And of course Obama carried Nevada after Bush had carried the state in both 2000 and 2004.

Well, I have to say that after five years my optimism and hope have been reduced to cynicism. He didn't fight for real universal healthcare as I had thought he would. He even caved on a real public option. From his choice of advisers and cabinet members to his seeming acquiescence to chained CPI, to his drones and his failure to fight the spread of the surveillance state my disappointment has continued to grow. And now the mess we are in over Syria tops it off. I really hope that you are right that in his heart of hearts he doesn't want to attack Syria. Perhaps this is another three dimensional chess game but I doubt it.

I shouldn't have questioned your claim to have talked to him but after seeing so much shit shoveled in this forum I hope that you can understand that I might be skeptical about a claim like that.

[DFW]

90. I should have considered the skepticism being prompted by the "shit shoveled" as you noted

DU has always had some of this, and I accept it, but it has grown like mold. In 2008, I broke the selection of Joe Biden as VP on here, but couldn't name my source (family I didn't want to get in trouble) at the time. I was given all sorts of hell until the announcement was made, and then got all of one apology out of 100 or so angry posts telling me how full of shit I was and that was no way it would be Biden, blah, blah. It's a unique set of circumstances that resulted in all these unusual personal acquaintances, but that's just the way it is. I come from a VERY political family. I inherited a portrait of FDR inscribed by him to my grandfather. My father was a prominent Washington journalist who was president of the Gridiron Club in DC. He knew EVERYBODY. It stood to reason his kids would, too.

As for Obama, I share your disappointment to some degree, but was resigned to his not living up to what I considered overheated expectations in the first place. I knew that he taught constitutional law on a university level. I also suspected that this meant he would have had to be enmeshed in petty university politics early on, and learned that you can't change the system overnight against long-entrenched interests that have the greater pull. I freaked when he chose Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff--not because I'm not fond of Emmanuel, but because I knew that Emmanuel hates Howard, and that it meant that Howard would almost certainly get shut out of the Obama administration entirely. That is exactly what happened. I talked to Howard in February 2009, and he took it like a trooper. He said he would set up some stuff to arrange for steady income (lending his name to a law firm, or some such), and "raise hell for causes he believes in" the rest of the time. He has done exactly that. Who knows what would have become of health care reform if Howard had been chosen as HHS secretary instead of Sibelius? Maybe nothing different, but I suspect Howard would have fought harder, as he supported the public option, and Kansas would have retained a popular Democratic governor. We took a double hit there.

I know Obama is a consummate politician, but in that closed room, with all cell phones in a bag outside the room and no press or recorders, I got the impression that he was not putting on an act. There was no crowd or camera to record it, so what did he have to gain? I'm no banker, fundraiser or political operative. I had nothing to offer him except maybe some points of view from a perspective he didn't hear from much (Democrats abroad). He was a man who had been tempered by bitter reality, but not lost his ideals. And he listened. When I told him about the discrepancy between the cost (but not the quality) of my two operations in Germany and Dallas, I got a follow up email from the White House about it. When he said he was closely watching how the Egyptian turmoil was affecting its economy, I wrote a note saying "full bellies do not tend to start fights" and handed it to him. He read it, nodded forcefully, and stuck it in his pocket. I truly don't think he has lost his humanity, and this is what lets me retain what optimism I have left. Humanity is what is lacking in people like Dick Cheney and the buffoon he used as his front man in the Oval Office. Obama and Biden haven't lost it, and I won't despair as long as I still think so, even though I never bought the three dimensional chess game theory either.

[Divernan]

91. Obama NEVER taught Costitutional Law! Why did you believe he did?

Let's get this straight! Obama never taught Con Law - only touched upon limited aspects of Con Law when he was a part-time Lecturer. And he did not partake in faculty discussions/intellectual give-and-take either.

As I posted elsewhere on DU:
As to the oft touted claim of "constitutional law scholar" He was NEVER a constitutional law professor or SCHOLAR, never published a scholarly paper, and wasn't on tenure track. If one is hired to teach the introductory, basic course on constitutional law, one could fairly describe oneself as a constitutional law professor. And to be a constitutional law scholar, one has to not only teach the ENTIRE Constitution, but also publish learned papers in professional journals and participate in law school conferences on constitutional law. Obama did neither. Constitutional law is such a basic part of the law school curriculum that it is a required class, and is only taught by a faculty member in the tenure stream - never by an "instructor". Obama was hired part-time by the University of Chicago law school to teach ONLY classes related to race.

For 12 years, Obama was a part-time lecturer - that's the lowest level of teacher at any law school or university - below Full, Assistant, Associate, Adjunct and or Visiting Professors - at the private, conservative, elitist, University of Chicago. Lecturers are not on a tenure track. He never taught the basic, traditional course in Constitutional Law, required of all first year law students, and covered in detail in state bar examinations. He was a part-time instructor at that: "Mr. Obama was working two other jobs, after all, in the State Senate and at a civil rights law firm." The Chicago law faculty is full of intellectually fiery friendships that burn across ideological lines. Three times a week, faculty do combat over lunch at a special round table in the university’s faculty club, and they share and defend their research in workshop discussions. Mr. Obama rarely attended, even when he was in town.. . . While most colleagues published by the pound, he never completed a single work of legal scholarship. . . .Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any."

At the school, Mr. Obama taught a total of three courses, ascending over the years from lecturer to senior lecturer. His most traditional course was in the narrow constitutional area of (1) DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION of constitutional law. His (2) VOTING RIGHTS class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on (3)RACISM AND LAW. Mr. Obama had other business on his mind, embarking on five political races during his 12 PART-TIME years at the school.

Note that the school had almost no black faculty members, a special embarrassment given its location on the South Side. Its sleek halls bordered a neighborhood crumbling with poverty and neglect. In his 2000 Congressional primary race, Representative Bobby L. Rush, a former Black Panther running for re-election, successfully used Mr. Obama’s ties to the school to label him an egghead and an elitist and to defeat him. One might consider Obama the token black at the school, particularly since he was only assigned to teach race-related topics.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Very interesting article on his years as a part-time instructor at the University of Chicago Law School. He was a popular teacher, but refused to intellectually engage with his fellow faculty. One sentence particularly sticks with me as showing that even at the beginning of his political career, he identified his future success and power as dependent upon wealthy whites. This came after his first political race wherein he was defeated 2 to 1 by black voters when he chose to primary a black Congressman.
"Before he helped redraw his own State Senate district, making it whiter and wealthier, he taught districting as a racially fraught study in how power is secured."

For those not familiar with Obama's first foray into politics, it was a primary race for the U.S. Congress. His opponent:
Bobby Lee Rush (born November 23, 1946) is the U.S. Representative for Illinois's 1st congressional district, serving since 1993. The district is located principally on the South Side of Chicago with its population percentage being 65% African-American, higher than any other congressional district in the nation.

A member of the Democratic Party, he holds the distinction of being the only person to defeat President Barack Obama in an election, as he did in the 2000 Democratic primary for Illinois' 1st congressional district. He continues to serve as Congressman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Rush
http://rush.house.gov/about-me/biography

[DisgustipatedinCA]

87. And the chat you want to brag about has very little to do with today

Obama has stated his desire to attack Syria militarily. Your cotillion is over, but we're still on the cusp of warfare.

[lumpy]

79. Thanks for the reminder. Of course people here are going to question your vercity. They have lost

the ability to trust anyone, an important ingredient of being a thinking human being.

[former9thward]

84. And some people can't see thru bullshit.

An important ingredient of being a thinking human being.

[DFW]

86. I suppose you're right and I should have expected it.

But for many years on DU, I had laid out the unusual circumstances as to how come I know some special people, and didn't expect a bunch of anger-driven trolls to come out and start blasting away after all these years. I have been chronicling the ongoing family friendship with Helen Thomas right up to her passing this summer, and never caught any crap from anyone about it's being made up (last chapter on that one in about a month, by the way). Same goes for other political figures and non-political figures. Skinner certainly didn't give me any shit when I sent him a card made out to DU for me by Stan Lee.

And if some people have lost the ability to trust anyone, they will live out lonely angry lives that are reflected in the tone of their posts on here. It's a pity things on here have degenerated to the point where such distractions mar and blur rational discussion, though. It's more like what I imagine Freeperland to be, and I expected, naïvely perhaps, DU to have risen above that from its inception.

[former9thward]

92. Dude you are pretending to be a consultant to the President.

You are not. Obama has meetings with all sorts of people all of the time. It is what you do when you are the Party leader. I have been involved in politics all my adult life and met all sorts of people but I don't pretend to be a confident of them. I have seen the type of person you are around political leaders. I just have to shake my head.

[DFW]

93. I'm pretending no such thing. You got nothing better to do than this?

I was invited down there for a one-shot hour with him so he could have a give-and-take with overseas Democrats. There are lots of us, but I am a friend of some DNC people (e.g. Andy Tobias), and I was in the States when it was convenient for their scheduling. I sure as hell wasn't going to blow off a day of my vacation to dun down to DC for another photo op. When the invite came, I made sure first it was for something substantive. As it was just before the election, a condition was to keep it off the record until after the election. I asked stuff, he answered. He asked stuff, I talked. No pretense of consultancy whatsoever. But I did get the chance to talk with him at length and get an idea of where his thoughts were on certain issues. When people who have never talked to him say they know where he stands on those issues and it's nowhere near what he told me, I think I have the right to say so without getting jumped on by a bunch of armchair warriors, especially if they're on my side (ostensibly). I do have some people on my speed dial that I talk with on a regular basis back Stateside. Obama is obviously not one of them. I realize that DU has earned a rep for being a low-level mudslinging arena in recent years. I sure as hell don't feel any obligation to join in, but I don't appreciate being used for collateral damage, either.

Dude.

[Carolina]

56. I agree, totodeinhere

that's why we keep ending up with the lesser of TWO EVILS!

And for those who say BHO doesn't want to attack Syria, I have one big question: When have we seen him fight for something so hard, with such fire in the belly, as he has for this?!

He brought this situation on himself! He has never shown such zeal for more progressive causes like a public option. From his choice of advisors and cabinet members to his cat food commission, to his proposal of a chained CPI for SS, to his drones, to his lies about NSA, to his treatment of whistleblowers, to his line in the sand... he no longer deserves a pass. He is showing his true passion in this fight for war and deserves the unrelenting whirlwind of opposition from all sides that he now faces.

That Romney might have been worse doesn't matter. We did not vote for another deadly, destructive, bankrupting war!

[lumpy]

82. Yes, he brought this hate upon himself for trying to stand up for a principle, believing in the

signed agreement for non-toleration of chemical weapons use against populations.
These countries have signed acknowledgement that Assad is responsible for using Chemical weapons against Syrian people and should be held accountable. Not all the countries listed are signers to the 1926 agreement. Who knows what the ultimate decision will be when the time comes to do something if the UN agencies drag their heals.
So we are not completely alone in this endeavor to halt use of chemical weapons.
France
Italy
Japan
Rep.Korea
S.Arabia
Spain
Turkey
U Kingdom -This announcement was just a few days ago.

[Carolina]

95. Yes, BUT

we dictate to others while committing atrocities ourselves or turning a blind eye when either a puppet (Saddam in 1988) or an ally (that bully nation Israel) do so.

As for chemicals, consider our use of depleted uranium in Iraq. We have no moral standing and our principles are selective and selectively enforced!

[David Krout]

19. Romney would have convinced Republicans and naive Democrats to vote Yes

Like Bush did.

[warrant46]

39. naive ex Democrats Like (I) Conn Liebermann

Like something that floats, he promptly popped to the surface on MSNBC and FOX to broadcast his take.

[Munificence]

29. Right

So you are trying to pull the "if card". Come on, we all got sold a bill of goods and "change" and you are gonna pull Romney into this? Is this your justification to say "Well Romney would have already been bombing, at least it has been delayed by a month or so".

Get real.

[AverageJoe90]

43. Sad but damn true. Not to mention how many of the Repugs that were.....

around in 2003 who were all gung-ho for Iraq are now supposedly wanting to stay out of Syria. All I can say is, we know for sure that many, if not most of the Goppers have ulterior motives, and are NOT acting out of altruism(*Especially* not guys like Rand Paul and his ilk). And conversely, I would say that most Democrats opposed to the war, and even many *for* it, ARE acting out of a sense of genuine concern for the welfare of the Syrian people.

[CountAllVotes]

9. This game of chess B.S. is wearing thin

Very thin in fact in case you have not noticed MISTER PRESIDENT!

[dipsydoodle]

11. That was the question he wouldn't answer after the G20 meeting

when asked by reporters.

[dixiegrrrrl]

35. All he has left is Congress.

Only half the G-20 countries support him
The UN is not supporting him
Americans are not supporting him

For once, I don't mind sending a a big NO to my states Repub. Congressmen.
It will interesting to see if they are more for war than they are against Obama.

[cui bono]

12. So... it will be purely unintentional.

[Javaman]

13. Until congress comes out and says no.

I don't believe anything.

[monmouth3]

14. Where is Joe Biden on this? He usually is right there with the Pres. but does seem quiet..nt

[GeorgeGist]

16. the punchline

A White House spokeswoman later seemed to dial back from Blinken and the Times report.

[arewenotdemo]

17. Serious questions which I'll attempt to word in such a way as to not get them hidden.

Thank you in advance, jury pool!

Assuming that he loses (and loses big), just how clueless could Obama actually be on this? Did his staff never present him with the ream of polls that showed that a large majority of Americans of every political stripe DID NOT support military intervention in Syria? Did he think that proof of a gas attack...to be shared in secret committee only, apparently...would be enough to banish doubts about the wisdom of supporting the rebels when the American public reads of their atrocities on a regular basis?

Or was Kerry so enthusiastic that he finally convinced Obama that he'd be able to close the deal with Congress?

[totodeinhere]

20. I vehemently oppose attacking Syria. But having said that, sometimes

real leadership means having the courage to do what's right regardless of what the polls say. There have been plenty of instances in our history when a president went against the polls and was ultimately vindicated.

[markpkessinger]

23. But I think the instances where a president acted against the polls . . .

. . . were, in most instances, cases where the opposition wasn't nearly so overwhelming as it is in this case.

[daleo]

31. How many of those involved war, though?

[dixiegrrrrl]

36. But in this case, it is just not polls.

Only half the G-20 countries support him
The UN is not supporting him
Americans are not supporting him.
All he has left is the unfortunatel precedentof Iraq ..and Afghansitan.. that Bush left for future Presidents.

[totodeinhere]

40. Yes I know. There is widespread world wide opposition to a military attack. n/t

[Carolina]

57. if real leadership means having the courage

to what's right:

why didn't he fight the banksters and Wall Street with the same level of zeal after all they are 'terrorists' who brought this nation to its knees

why didn't he fight for universal healthCARE (not insurance) or a real public option to counter the private profiteers

why is he pushing the TPP

From his choice of advisors and cabinet members to his cat food commission, to his proposal of a chained CPI for SS, to his drones, to his lies about NSA, to his treatment of whistleblowers, to his line in the sand... BHO has shown a lack of courage to do the right thing over and over, not to mention reneging on too many campaign promises to count.

[totodeinhere]

63. "Leadership" is a neutral term. A president can lead us in what you would consider a good

direction or a bad direction but it is leadership in either case. Bush "led" us into an illegal and wrong headed war in Iraq. Most of us can agree that it was bad policy but nonetheless he was leading. It's just that he was leading in a bad direction.

[Carolina]

68. you post specifically

concerned a leader going out on a limb to do the RIGHT thing!

But you can twist it accordingly

[lumpy]

83. It is hard to do a damn thing when (Congress) is dedicatd to fighting every damn proposal that a

President puts forth. You listed your dislikes, doesn't mean you are joined by every American with the exception of hide bound GOPers.

[markpkessinger]

22. I hope that is true . .

Kerry's rhetoric on the subject has been quite reckless and intemperate.

[FiveGoodMen]

24. The road to hell is paved with no 'intentions'

[Jefferson23]

25. They are all over the place..international norms, our national security threatened, Assad

and the Hiltler comments from Kerry.

Don't do it Obama, I don't give a damn why you end up backing down..just don't do it.

[Windy]

26. I believe that his plan is to gut the unitary executive theory and enforce the war powers act.

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.

[tweeternik]

41. Agreed Windy.

At least that is my "hope". I do not agree with the "this IS gonna happen" opinion being expressed by some on this board. Let's see what happens. I'm still thinking "Obama's got this".

[AverageJoe90]

44. That's what it seems, too.

Remember the concerns over Libya, btw? Despite the setbacks, including Benghazi, we managed to do quite a bit better over there than many here feared we would.

[davidpdx]

48. I agree and unfortunately it will be telling the rest of the world they need to get up off their ass

and help. We may not be liked for it, but we would be less liked if we launched an attack. I don't like acting like it isn't our problem, but it may be time we signal to the world that we can't bail people out anymore.

[paleotn]

58. No he's not. ....

...I'm so tired of that crap. He's obviously "red lined" himself into a political corner. One day he seems to be trying to extricate his administration fro this mess of his own making. The next he doubles down, jumps back into the hole and starts digging again.

Don't get me wrong, I love the guy on many issues, but on this one, their recent actions and rhetoric look like desperation. What he really should do is take the political hit from backing down after all the bluster, cut his losses and move on. Unless one or more of the Syria players does something incredibly, ridiculously stupid in the coming weeks, he needs to back burner this as soon as possible after the inevitable no vote by Congress.

[NeoConsSuck]

27. The strike was predetermined..

and it kills two progressive birds with one stone.

I was reading an article at Yahoo Finance and I agree with it 100%: The pukes will give him permission to strike Syria if he is willing to make concessions on the debt ceiling (cuts to social programs). So we get cuts to social programs (which Americans don't want), war with Syria (which Americans don't want), and restore all funding to the MIC, since we are 'at war'.

We have money for eternal war and war toys, but food stamps for the unemployed?

[dixiegrrrrl]

38. The Pentagon just admitted it has a $93 BILLION "contingency war fund"

for this fiscal year.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023613421

[Little Star]

28. Having no intention today doesn't equal no intention tomorrow.

[DFW]

65. Very true

But I'll take the "no intention" today, and go nuts IF it changes tomorrow, not beforehand.

[Hulk]

32. Good!

Just good.

And with the way the teabaggers will vote against ANYTHING he asks for, there is an extremely good chance we will NOT bomb Syria. Then we can get down to discussing how we can really and honestly help Syrians.

[Carolina]

59. Then, Hulk, maybe we can get down

to discussing how we can easily and honestly help AMERICANS!

[truth2power]

34. He (Obama) probably already knows that the fix is in, and that

Congress will say yes.

More bafflegab.

[blkmusclmachine]

37. Suuuure, he wouldn't ...

[Kablooie]

42. If he did order an attack against Congress's no vote an impeachment might be valid.

The legality of an attack without Congressional approval is debatable but to wage war against a Congressional denial seems clearly unconstitutional.

[marble falls]

45. I really hope this is just an end run by th President to force Syria off the table and out of the...

way of two more year too accomplish a lot.

[davidpdx]

49. I strongly believe Congress is going to vote no

It maybe a split with one chamber voting no and the other one voting yes, but it won't matter since it has to pass both. The last time I saw a head count based on the number of no votes, the yes votes would have to sweep the undecideds.

[paleotn]

60. I do as well....

It's inevitable in my opinion. His own party is split. The Rethugs aren't going to give him a win on anything and have probably enjoyed the last week or so of the Obama admin failing around, twisting in the wind. Other than McCain, they've been unusually quiet on this. Like the old adage about not intervening when an opponent is injuring himself.

[arewenotdemo]

89. Agreed. And Dems shouldn't worry about "wounding" him politically.

They should do the right thing and listen to their constituents.

The wound was entirely self-inflicted.

[tularetom]

51. Could it be the long awaited and much discussed umpteen dimensional chess?

A misdirection move to get congress to do exactly what he wants and vote against bombing Syria just because they believe he wants to do it.

[99th_Monkey]

75. I'll believe that when I DON'T see it. nt

[Quantess]

76. Okay... here's to hoping.

It's not too late to just call the whole thing off.

[INdemo]

94. Whether or not there is a rejection or not

Where in the Hell were all this brain dead f&^king Republicans' political maneuvering when Bush was "gathering" support to go into Iraq(Bush didn't care whether he had support or not he was going) ..And idiots like Chuck Todd saying Obama political future is at stake with this Syria issue.
I have often wondered if President Obama was a Republican would he be hated as much by these idiots just because he is black?