The Congress, through Rep John Boehner, repeatedly stressed that the President must consult with Congress before carrying out a military strike again Syria as punishment for its use of chemical weapons in an attack on August 21. The situation has now dramatically changed since the President announced he would seek legislative approval for any such action, placing responsibility for the decision to attack, or not to attack, squarely on Congress. I suspect this is going to put Congressmen, who would normally sound like hawks, in the position of now sounding like doves.... If they do not support a strike on Syria it will send a very unfortunate message to the Iranians, the Russians, and others, about the capacity of the U.S. to assert itself on the world stage, at this point. I don't doubt that we are weaker now than say 15 years ago: two largely failed wars and the enormous resources they consumed, rapacious greed leading to an economic collapse, now coupled with a willingness on the part of many in Congress to weaken all the institutions of the country, including the military, through budget cuts, have combined to produce that result.
But V, you are forgetting one very important item. It was Obama who drew the line in the sand. Now that he issued the warning he doesn't have the where with all to make it happen. He should have known that if you issue a warning you'd better be willing to carry out the threat. Just another typical Obama move of shifting the blame for his own mistakes.
Ok wait, I don't normally think this site is the perfect forum for political rhetoric but I'm going to add my 2 cents here. Have you seen this video? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=235940599886723
Every case FOR this war could have been made about the Iraq war. Even if wmd's weren't found, they new Sadamm was gassing people. Same as this. Another interesting fact is how Kerry voted against the first gulf war, and Obama voted against the war in Iraq. How they say this is such a priority is beyond me.
We have two,problems here: 1. It appears that there are no "good guys" involved as major players in Syria. We ahve the Islamofascists vs the Baath fascists. Perhaps we should, as Sarah Palin said, "Let Alalh sort them out." 2. We have a pusillanimous jellyfish for a President, who never accepts blame or responsibility when things go wrong. Everything is either "Bush's fault" (after five years of being in charge or "Congress' fault." He never seeks compromise or reconciliation with the opposition. I think that he grew up with a doting mother who always blamed somebody else whenever "poor, little Barry" got into trouble.
The red line was use of chemical weapons, which the whole world knew Assad possessed and might decide to use. The red line was intended to act to deter their use. The justification, now, for a one time strike would be to punish the regime for using chemical weapons, and to demonstrate that a red line established by the President has meaning. If there is no response now, the ability of the U.S. to respond to provocations will be perceived as diminished, encouraging others, like Iran, to continue on their path to nuclear weapons. It was a mistake to pass this decision to Congress: I suspect the President knew it was, the moment the words were out of his mouth.... He was OK in a situation requiring stealth, and got Osama; but, in this very public decision making setting, he has gotten "wobbly" as Margaret Thatcher used to call those who had trouble making up their minds. France, who had indicated their willingness to act in concert with us, has now been left hung out to dry.... People are right to consider the consequences which can flow from taking any action at all, but must also consider the consequences that will flow from taking no action. I expect a "no" vote in Congress.
Syria created the ultimate damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. I don't see any positive outcome no matter which way we go. All the politics aside, it's not going to be positive for the US. Maybe, just maybe, we will start to see the light that the Middle East will always be a battle zone. They have been fighting there for as long as there have been civilizations in that part of the world. No matter who we side with, it will be wrong and put us even further into a no win situation.
The President is taking pains to make it clear we are not siding with anyone in the civil war, that we are seeking to punish a violation of the treaty banning the use of chemical weapons- in effect for nearly 90 years, with few violations. Yet, his decision to take this to the Congress continues to appear a serious mistake- for the timing, if nothing else, with the forum of the G-20, hosted by Russia, giving President Putin a forum in which he can flex his country's muscles, very publicly. Last night, for example, he told the dinner audience that they could (and should, of course) discuss the Syrian matter over dinner. Putin has engaged President Obama in a contest of sorts with Russia, who also has something to defend, the country's reputation as an ally. Russia has backed Syria no matter what Assad has done or not done, and has now thrown down the gauntlet; if the U.S. attacks Syria, Russia may choose to defend it with its most modern weapons. Three Russian warships have been dispatched to the Eastern Mediterranean, and Putin is talking about completing the setting up of the S-300 missile defense system, one of the most sophisticated Russia's got to offer its favorite customers . This is playing serious hardball, and is designed to test President Obama's nerve. Other Russian ships, if tasked to do it, could shoot down many of the missiles fired at Syria from our ships and submarines; these, as I understand it, are principally for electronic surveillance, but they could determine the trajectories and alert the targets of an imminent strike. There would not have been time for Russia to take this action if the President had not decided to delay launching a strike, to give time for legislative action. Now, the potential price of that action has just gone up....
So now the amateur in the White House has backed himself into a real corner. If he does take any military action he risks a direct military confrontation with Russia. Putin is a former KGB agent and I really don't expect him to back down. If Obama doesn't take any action then the US becomes a paper tiger that has the mullahs in Iran licking their chops. Again, Obama becomes Jimmy Carter II.
Dont tend to get into the 'political' stuff and was against going to Syria until I heard this morning that Iran is threatening American citizens with death and threatened to kidnap, rape, and murder one of Obamas daughters! Dont care for Obama one bit, but threaten ANY ONE of Americas children, and all bets are off! Just my 2 cents (that are only worth a penny)....
