Obama Better Get Authorization From Congress For A Syrian Strike Because The Repugs.....

[global1]

are looking for any excuse to impeach him. If he hits Syria without their approval - we all know the next thing we will hear is serious impeachment talk.

[JaneyVee]

1. Of course he will.

[Erose999]

2. Or..... how about Obama just not strike Syria at all, and tell the House and PNAC to suck an egg?

[Cleita]

3. Not only that, when things go wrong,

and they will, he can blame them.

[Dawson Leery]

4. It could bolster Rand Paul's Presidential run.

[David__77]

6. Actually, it really could.

Rand Paul is at least saying the right things on Syria. We could lose tens of thousands of progressive-minded young people into the swamp of right-wing politics if we do not make clear our opposition to this "liberal internationalist" and "Wilsonian" nonsense. The people reject it, and we should demand that our leaders to so too. It has nothing progressive about it.

[RB TexLa]

5. He needs no such authorization. He is not declaring war.

[David__77]

7. Just like Bush with Iraq, right?

...

[RB TexLa]

8. Yes, correct

[geek tragedy]

10. Bush had Congressional authorization.

Better example would be Poppy Bush and Panama. Or Reagan and half the planet.

[David__77]

11. Oy vey. I forgot.

That is not comforting.

[geek tragedy]

12. Hard to compare an invasion with missile strikes. nt

[David__77]

15. Well now, we really don't know what to compare.

I mean, we are told no decisions have been made, but that nothing is "off the table." Back in '99, I do recall discussion of ground troops when Serbia hadn't yet given up. When nothing is "off the table," I guess it's a matter of waiting and seeing.

[Renew Deal]

13. Yes, and Obama in Libya

Bomb now, get approval later is the way it's done.

[L0oniX]

9. This is what happens when a POTUS and his party keep moving to the right. n/t

[mysuzuki2]

14. Unfortunately, the War Powers Act gives him the authority as long as he consults with Congress.

Which he has been doing. I personally think this is a bad, bad idea but it is not illegal. The repugs are against it because it is Obama. Period. If a repub was president they'd be howling at the moon for war.

[BlueCheese]

16. They won't impeach him over that.

Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2013, 12:55 AM - Edit history (1)

I can't think of any recent military action the GOP opposed. The only one I can sort of remember is when they suggested the timing of a bombing of Iraq might have had something to do with the Lewinsky nonsense.

[Enrique]

17. i agree

politically a war is good for Obama because the republicans pretty much have to support him, as much as they hate it. Just like they support him over the NSA thing.

One thing they can pray for is some kind of disaster within the war that they can turn into a scandal. That's what Benghazi was, a disaster within the Libya operation. But it didn't do the trick for the GOP, all they got was Susan Rice. They'll need something way bigger to get Obama.

[Dawson Leery]

18. The neo-con Rethugs support a military campaign against Syria.

Also, they want such power for the time when a Rethug gets back into power.