Skip to main content

View Diary: No Blank Check For Obama (22 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Obama is human - of course there is no blank check (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    protectspice

    No one can come up with a plan for attack that would go through Congress without serious debate and concerns.. including revisions.

    Funny.. how most don't seem to recognize the "plan" will probably go out the door shortly after the shooting begins, as with most of these kinds of things.

    They will give him what he wants which is a response.. the details still to be worked out and frankly I am not certain he cares too much about them cause he knows it all will change after the first shots are fired and the Syrians respond.

    Will he go back every time that happens and ask Congress for further support for his next steps? I seriously doubt it.. his approach is to get them all-in on starting it.. then he will handle as Commander-In-Chief.

    Let them debate and wring their hands over "this and that" aspect of this. Of course there are many risks and uncertainties. What he want is for them to sign on beforehand and he will get that..  most of the other details will not matter so much once the shooting and response/counter-response mechanism kicks in.

    •  Bush was able to get resolutions (4+ / 0-)

      that amounted to blank checks. The draft submitted by the White House was written along the same lines as the AUMF for Iraq.

      •  yes.. but that is very different.. (0+ / 0-)

        Hussain/Iraq/ is not anything like Syria.

        Syria is an argument far different. Truthfully the really surprising thing was the British Parliament..

        after all the British should remember WWI and then the fear at the start of WWll that the Germans would use airplanes and gas-bomb major cities at the start of the war.

        US didn't intervene in WWll to stop Hitlers atrocities. Our resolve is just not the same in these kinds of things. So, your point about Iraq is relevant, but not comparative.

        He wants Congress to come along beforehand. He will get that. But not without lots of hand-wringing. Then after shots break out.. let's say Syria launches cyber attacks and some other responses.. well - he will do what he needs to then and probably put some sort of reporting back after-the-fact plan in place with Congress and the people.

        So.. will congress define the general level of intended attacks? sure. Will it matter much ion the long run? Nope - and that's because Obama wants a limited involvement and that will be consistent with what Congress comes up with.. in spite of McCain (and other's) wishes for this to be broadened in a way that could increase the likelihood of Assad going down.

        More interesting to me.. is the seeming problem of agreeing to leave him in power and then a defacto subsequent working relationship with someone who chemical attacked their people.. if we really stood for what we say.. we would have to be unequivocally for regime change.

        Therein lies the real problem.. reminds me a bit of the unwillingness in Vietnam to go North across the parallel..
        if we are for what we say - we should take him out. this small wrist slap wont work .. even if we obliterate his air fore and naval base.

        Personally, I think the French planes should make the jaunt across the sea and be backed up by our logistic support. They have some old scores to settle and wouldn't mind being the tip of the spear for this.

        Nevertheless.. given who they are and what this is about, one can expect a very robust debate and hand-wringing over what to do... and that's not even considering the current state of our politics.. add that in and one can expect lots of political grandstanding, posturing and arguing.

        •  I don't really think that there (3+ / 0-)

          is a whole lot of difference between Iraq and Syria. They are both about the same geopolitics in the ME using similar justifications for intervention. The only significance difference is that the hysteria from 9/11 has died down.

          •  that's the difference. if this was war it would (0+ / 0-)

            be different. But it isn''t.

            This is more like Bosnia. That is what makes this more controversial.. the further away from a clear national security interest.. the harder these things become to defend, and the less likelihood of sailing through congress.

            A fair disagreement.

            I think congress-critters feel more comfortable voicing dissent and concern about these kinds of actions as opposed to ones where an argument can be thrown at them for being weak on defending America. I don't really see that present in this case nearly as much as the hyped up -they-might-mass-destruct-thing (esp after 9/11)  Iraq matter.

          •  sorry - I meant to say "ground war" involving (0+ / 0-)

            us troops on the ground.

            I am essentially agreeing with your last point:

            "The problem with Syria is that very few people see it as a threat to the safety of the American public. That is really the only sure fire convincing argument for an act of war. "

            all of Iraq's build up was a huge propaganda effort which lead to many not wanting to appear weak about this.. that is what got Hillary in trouble, among other political calculations she was making..

            this just is not present here.

            •  That is why I think that Obama (0+ / 0-)

              is putting his eggs in the wrong basket.

              •  well.. it is certainly a reason for robust debate (0+ / 0-)

                and lots of political grandstanding..

                it is the kind of issue the politicians can afford to be vocal about and most will predictably voice what you might expect given it is coming from their mouths..

                So, I am expecting anything other than  a blank check here.. lots and lots of speeches about this and that.

                then a close vote as it is less likely one will be deemed "unpatriotic" if they vote against this, especially since it will likely be over degree of action.  But he will get congressional approval for some sort of action on the grounds that the world must know that chemical weapons are just going too far.. just like a tactical nuke would be if they used one of those on their own people.

        •  good comment (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AnotherAmericanLie, FG

          and I don't really know what we can do that doesn't cost huge sums of funds and blood.  A  couple of missiles will have some impact though.  I read some of Syria's current press releases to be  pretense that they don't care.

          But also, Obama IMHO is not just going after Assad.  In fact primarily his goal is something else.  He is trying to prevent dictators and militants around the globe from thinking that producing, trading and using chemical weapons are no longer going to get them in deep trouble internationally.

          I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

          by Satya1 on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 11:23:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  we should also quit setting new arms sales records (0+ / 0-)

            every year to Countries all over the ME and especially the biggest funder of terrorist activities, the repressive Saudi regime.
            http://news.antiwar.com/...

            The new figures released in a study for Congress show several records being smashed in 2011, with the US selling $66.3 billion in weapons abroad, a record itself, but also by far the largest single year increase ever, over the $21.4 billion in 2010.

            The sales amounted to about 78 percent of all foreign arms sales on the entire planet.
            The second place arms dealer nation is Russia, which sold less than $5 billion themselves.

            Much of the arms sales were to Saudi Arabia and other members of the GCC, which have been heavily increasing their military spending in recent years, nominally to “combat Iran.” The Saudi deals alone amounted to $33.4 billion, which by itself would have been the record for single largest year of arms sales by any nation.

            (emphasis mine)

            without the ants the rainforest dies

            by aliasalias on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 06:29:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Jack Goldsmith, former Bush admin lawyer (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Richard Lyon, aliasalias

        and now a law professor, agrees with you that the draft Syria AUMF is very broad:

        http://www.lawfareblog.com/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site