I understand a general opposition to military intervention.  What I am having trouble with is the naivete on this site about the politics.

You do realize that the same people that have undermined everything Obama has done (i.e. Obamacare implementation) are the same people you are sharing your opposition to action in Syria.

Do you think these hawkish tea-partiers and red-state Dems (Joe Manchin anyone?) are really acting on principle?  No.  They (I won't include Manchin in this) have proven again and again that they are not patriots, they are political opportunists whose first mission is to see Obama fail as President.  GOP Leadership can act "responsible" and maintain the precedent of Congressional leadership universally backing foreign policy choices, knowing full well their rank and file will vote to cripple Obama.

You all do realize that Obama's second term hinges on the Congressional Syria vote?
 If Obama loses this vote, several things happen:

1) He loses credibility around the world.
2) His hands are tied for the next three years on foreign policy.
3) Like his other capitulations, this weakness only encourages his domestic enemies.

More below the squiggly.

Let's take these one at a time:

1) He loses credibility around the world.
We were told by every Republican and many Democrats in the run up to the Iraq war that not backing the President would be disastrous, that it would paint America as weak to our enemies.  So why have the rules changed?  Granted, this is a patently stupid argument.  But I feel a little like "what's good for the goose.." here.  Shouldn't we require the GOP play by the rules Bush set up?  Because the perception around the world is that this is a major shift in U.S. activity, and, Crazy, Uninformed and Idiotic House Republicans are now in charge of U.S. foreign policy.    This is not reassuring to the world and is potentially destabilizing.

2) His hands are tied for the next three years on foreign policy.

Here is the real reason they are interested in opposing military action.  

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) on Tuesday said President Obama could be impeached if he goes ahead with a military strike on Syria if Congress doesn’t approve his war resolution.

“I think he’s breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval,” Hunter told The Washington Times. “And if he proceeds without Congress providing that authority, it should be considered an impeachable offense.”

Obama's hands will be tied.  A precedent set that no President in the last 50 years has had to follow, that any action, even an air strike, without Congressional approval, risks impeachment.  There could very well be a situation where Obama needs to act immediately (say, what if an Embassy was under attack, lol) without Congressional approval.  Of course he would act, but he would risk impeachment.  Had this Congress been around for the botched hostage rescue in '79, they would have impeached Carter.  Same with black-hawk down incident under Clinton.  That is what they are setting up.  

Do I applaud Obama for restoring the rule of law to the Presidency?  I do.  But the way this works for everyone is for him to get his approval.

3) Like his other capitulations, this weakness only encourages his domestic enemies.
When will Obama/The Left learn that appeasing and playing by the actual rules only emboldens the right?  I understand acting on principle, but those principles will end up electing Chris Christie and a Republican Senate.  Think about it.

My argument, then, is that we should support Obama's request for congressional approval, because not doing so effectively ends his Presidency.  He is a lame duck 2 years early. He shouldn't have drawn the line, he made a mistake - but this is what they have been waiting for.  Obama has been a supremely competent Chief Executive.  There have been no real scandals.  And he misspoke and made a foreign policy blunder, as all Presidents eventually do.  We should rally by his side, get his approval, and then trust him to use it effectively.  

The fact that he followed the rule of law and sought approval sets a precedent.  For his Presidency to survive, he needs Congress to approve - and if you think this 70-30 judgement call is worth sacrificing any additional action on voter suppression, SCOTUS nominations, etc.  go right ahead.  But its the definition of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.



Should Congress approve Obama's request on Syria?

20%29 votes
79%112 votes

| 141 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.