For the BOG~ "On Syria, Obama had to go to Congress" By E.J. Dionne Jr.

[Cha]

snip//

"In seeking congressional authorization for military strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, President Obama is not weakening presidential power and is not looking for an out to avoid a war he doesn’t want. He is doing what is absolutely necessary in a democratic republic. He is rallying consent for a grave step and for what was always going to be a controversial decision."

snip//

"Gaining democratic consent is especially important for an action that has very large long-term implications and clearly divides the country. Yes, the president did not seek congressional backing for his Libya policy. But in Libya, the United States was acting in support of allies. “Leading from behind” was a controversial phrase, but it did convey correctly that the United States was not acting alone or even as the lead power. In this instance, the United States is the main driver of the policy, and support from allies may be limited to France and a few other nations. A congressional stamp of approval would give the action the constitutional and global legitimacy it would lack if it were the decision of only one person. The delay created by seeking congressional support has the additional benefit of giving Obama more time to rally support around the world."

end snip//

"Reluctantly, I think the president is right to strike against Assad. It’s widely said that Obama’s own words declaring a red line have boxed him in and that he has no choice but to act. That’s true, but insufficient. Obama spoke those words precisely because the use of chemical weapons risks, as he put it on Saturday, “making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons” and “could lead to escalating [their] use.” He had hoped that his words would be enough to deter Assad. Unfortunately, that wasn’t true.

I use that word “reluctantly” because, like so many who believe the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, I am wary of military intervention in the Middle East. But because of what Obama said and, more important, why he said it, I think we have to act in Syria."

There's much more..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/09/01/on-syria-obama-had-to-go-to-congress/

h/t TOD http://theobamadiary.com/2013/09/01/chat-away-220/#comments

this is E J Dionne's opinion.. that doesn't mean everyone has to share it. I just wanted BOG members to read his calm analysis. Something different than accusations thrown at Kerry and the President.

Again, for those who missed it in the caption.. [font color=blue]This is the Barack Obama Group [/font]

[font color=blue]BOG[/font]

[Thinkingabout]

1. It appeared to me Boehner was leaning for Obama tp make the complete decision and allow Congress

Members to criticize or take to the credit of this decision. I have had a RW tell me Democrats voted to go into Iraq thereby trying to remove GOP responsibility. I can't say I am pleased we have been pushed in Syria but it has not been a good choice and I don't like having to take action but we will have to handle this problem. I like Obama getting authorization from Congress, let them stick out their necks also.

[Cha]

2. I know, Thinkingabout.. it's an impossible situation from

my non vantage point. I do think that Kerry and PBO have the knowledge and intelligence to make informed decisions and I hope all of them together, including Congress and the rest of the world, will be able to come to what is best for the Planet.

[sheshe2]

3. Many state that this is war.

It is not. The President has said there will be no troops on the ground. I have seen cry's of more "shock and awe". Again not true. This President is not Dick Cheney or his puppet Bush.

Do I want to proceed into Syria? No. Yet our inaction could be devastating and far out weight our action.

It is time for Congress to step up to the plate. They need to take responsibility for this Nation and its people. They are duly elected officials. It's time they do their job. It's past time they take up this the issues that press upon us. Stop dumping it at the Presidents feet. This Congress and Senate have a voice and a responsibility.

Thanks, Cha!

[Cha]

5. I think they're considering a strike

against another country an act of "war", she. But, whatever it's called it will be letting Assad know that you can't use chemical bombs on your own innocent people and expect the world to stand by. That is if the majority agree. And, like you pointed out, she.. it won't be boots on the ground and it will be based on reality. Not some made up shit from the bush=cheney group that wanted to go to war on Iraq since 2000.

From E.J. Dionne ..

"... It’s widely said that Obama’s own words declaring a red line have boxed him in and that he has no choice but to act. That’s true, but insufficient. Obama spoke those words precisely because the use of chemical weapons risks, as he put it on Saturday, “making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons” and “could lead to escalating use.” He had hoped that his words would be enough to deter Assad. Unfortunately, that wasn’t true."

The President feels so strongly about this. My hope is that it gets resolved with Assad getting the message that the World says NO to Chemical weapons on innocent people and anybody really. And, without the mideast blowing up. Big Order, I know.

[sheshe2]

6. Yes they consider it that way,

because they are determined to spin this in the worst possible way.

That's why the shock and awe comments piss me off so much. They want to equate Obama to Bush/Cheney. They piss me off!

I agree,

"The President feels so strongly about this. My hope is that it gets resolved with Assad getting the message that the World says NO to Chemical weapons on innocent people and anybody really. And, without the mideast blowing up."

[Cha]

7. Yes, there is that. They do

want to equate President Obama with the bushcheney crowd because they're not capable of knowing the difference. And, they want everyone to be on the same level of ignorance.



http://theobamadiary.com/2013/09/01/chat-away-220/

PBO she

[gopiscrap]

4. Yup I agree

[Hekate]

8. "An even bigger test for the Republicans" -- I think so as well

I am with DJ in hoping the GOP can rise to the occasion -- but that really is a tossup, given the chancre of ODS that afflicts them.

But this will be an even bigger test for Republicans, many of whom questioned the patriotism of Democrats who did not support President Bush during the Iraq war. There is also a genuinely anti-interventionist spirit within the libertarian wing of the party that was largely suppressed during the Iraq conflict and has come back to life under Obama. This view is represented most forcefully by Sen. Rand Paul, and it needs to be heard.

If this debate is carried out in good faith, as was the debate before the first Gulf War under President George H. W. Bush, it will strengthen the country. We often forget that the votes in the House and Senate over our response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait were closely divided. Yet the nation was more united because Americans knew their views had been forcefully represented in Congress. If, on the other hand, this Syrian debate is used by a significant number of Republicans for the main purpose of undermining Obama, the rest of the world will know how degraded our democracy has become. Call me naive, but I honestly think that most Republicans do not want this to happen and will rise to the seriousness of the moment, whatever their views.

[Cha]

9. I'm not as optimistic as EJ Dionne but that

would certainly be ideal!

"Call me naive, but I honestly think that most Republicans do not want this to happen and will rise to the seriousness of the moment, whatever their views."

[hopemountain]

10. ^^^all of this above^^^

thanks for the great posts and exchange on e.j.'s opinion piece. i agree with all that every one of you put forward. thank you. i cannot believe some of the stuff i read on other threads in du - i don't believe the half of them to be voting americans of any party.

[Cha]

11. I know what you mean hopemountain..

I hope the debate is rational when congress comes back into session and I hope the number is low for those who want to make a name for themselves by gushing ignorant bullshit.

[lamp_shade]

12. A very good article. I'm bookmarking it for future ref. Thanks.

[Cha]

13. I thought so, too.. lampshade.

A calm sensible analysis from EJ Dionne.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Will it hurt Democrats in 2014 to support Obama on bombing Syria?

50% of the US public support a cruise missile attack. But it seems to me that Republicans may be better able to vote for bombing, because their constituents are more likely to support bombing (if anyone knows of a poll that gives the Democratic and Republican voter support for cruise missiles, please link) - historically, Republicans are more in favour of bombing. Yet I doubt that many Republican voters will switch to voting Democratic over this. Are the congressional Democrats going to have to vote against Obama to preserve their seats?

[Cha]

15. We'll see about that won't we. For now Pres Obama has made

his case. And, now it's up to Congress.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. But a House or Senate further into Republican hands

would make it harder for the president to enact his agenda in his last 2 years. I certainly don't think he can rest now and say "it's up to Congress".

What is your feeling for how Democratic voters feel about military action?

[Cha]

17. This isn't over yet.. We still have a ways to go before

everything is out in the open. We'll have the debate when Congress gets back from their vacation.

The tea leaves are a little difficult to read now. But, call me crazy, I'm just not worried about Congress going further in the gop.

We'll see what happens when the debate is over and the votes are in.

[freshwest]

19. Boehner is in favor of action and if he's following the Hastert rule, has the votes. He says he's

leaving after the 2014 election anyway, so he may not care what the baggers think.

The most interesting thing I've come across is that the Arab League is now negotiating with Assad's replacement, the Syrian National Coalition. They sent in people to monitor his abuse of citizens since the Arab Spring and did not like what they found.

The asked Assad once more to quit doing what he was doing in 2012 and when he continued, in March of this year they suspended him from the Arab council.

The same thing happened to Quadaffi because of his actions against the Arab Spring protestors in Libya. They removed him from his seat and later gave it to the interim government there.

In neither case does the Arab world feel invaded by the USA. They have asked Kerry to remove Assad for them as they do not act militarily as a group yet.

It's still a miserable thing all around, that Assad did not break his father's own genocidal pattern and do something to improve Syria. It may be that he could not do anything but stay in power.

The Russians think he is still in charge according to a new Putin interview, but facts on the ground say otherwise.

[Cha]

20. Did not know this, fresh.. thank you for all

Last edited Thu Sep 5, 2013, 05:49 PM - Edit history (1)

the information..

"They asked Assad once more to quit doing what he was doing in 2012 and when he continued, in March of this year they suspended him from the Arab council."

As Senator Warren says "We are in a state of flux."

[freshwest]

21. YW. The links to that are in my Journal. Do you have the Warren link? I saw a post somewhere that

she and Sanders voted in favor. Thought to myself, oops, she's going to get thrown under the bus. But in a video of Sanders on the Ed Show he was going the other direction.
Even though he did vote for it, IIRC. I'd like that link if it's fresh on your mind or in your posts. TIA.

[Cha]

22. I'll have to look. It was from a Boston Herald

article where Markey was saying he would vote for a limited strike and Elizabeth said we needed a plan.

Now I see Markey voted "present".. I say we are in a state of flux.

All I ever saw of Sanders was that he acknowledged that assad was chemical bombing innocents. More flux.

[Cha]

23. Here it is, fresh..

"But Warren — among a chunk of the Bay State congressional delegation weighing in on a possible strike against Syria — did not commit to what action the Obama administration, if any, should take, including whether U.S. troops should be deployed.

“What Assad has done is reprehensible. It violates international law, and it violates the law of humanity,” she said. “But it is critically important that before we act that we have a plan, a goal and we have a reasonable way for ensuring that goal. I think we’re now in a state of flux.”

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/08/markey_backs_surgical_strike_in_syria_warren_hesitant

[Cha]

18. ..