General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHuh? The President's Statement
He says the decision has been made to attack and that it could happen tomorrow or next week or next month. Obviously, he's not going to get a vote from Congress today or tomorrow or next week.
Seems like he left the door open to conducting strikes and then seeking a vote after the fact.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Please rejoin reality cali.
Can be a very powerful thing.
cali
(114,904 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)We are prepared to strike whenever we choose, Obama said. But he added that plans to launch an attack were not time-sensitive and that a strike could come tomorrow, next week or a month from now.
Obamas remarks came as senior administration officials were making a fresh round of calls to congressional leaders Saturday in an effort to bolster support for a potential military strike, officials said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-set-to-speak-on-syria-in-rose-garden/2013/08/31/65aea210-125b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html
Cali was 100% accurate. Now all we can do is wait to see if Obama keeps his word. I'm sure there will be an apology forthcoming
ProSense
(116,464 posts)But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And thats why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.
Statement by the President on Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023571230
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Thanks
tridim
(45,358 posts)Obama said we are PREPARED to strike as you and I just said.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)force: "President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, calling last weeks alleged chemical weapons attack there an attack on human dignity, but said he would seek congressional authorization for an attack.
The announcement puts off an imminent cruise missile strike, a prospect that had put the region on edge and stoked intense debate in the United States, where many dread getting dragged into a new war. It is not clear what the Obama administration would do if Congress declines to authorize a military operation."
Guess the Washington Post is just another Obama hater or a liar. Either way Cali's statement stands and you look like you're trying to weasel your way out of an apology.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)and the first sentence says:
President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria
and on down this
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)how dare she... she should be embarrassed
Not what he said. He said explicitly that a vote would be taken first. That there was no time frame on the action for it to be successful, according to his generals.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)from now.
B2G
(9,766 posts)This was one of the most confusing speeches ever.
WTF?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)For as long as there has been a Presidency, they have said they don't need Congressional approval for every military action. It's been an active point of contention for about 224 years now.
MH1
(17,600 posts)which is (my version): the Prez can order military action, just can't continue it more than 60 days unless it is approved by Congress. That didn't stop Clinton in Kosovo, though.
The other point was that he's on shaky grounds as far as justification, unless it is clearly an imminent direct threat to the US. Which also seems unclear in the Kosovo case.
My take from reports of the speech is that he has decided not to actually take any military action in this case unless approved by Congress. Which I consider a wise decision. Also, the "n-dimensional chess" folks could suggest that he baited the republican congress critters into calling for a vote. (Don't throw me in that brier patch ...) Now whichever way it goes, he doesn't bear the full responsibility. And again I think that's as it should be, hence the reason for wanting a vote.
blm
(113,061 posts).
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)We can't let this slide for a variety of reasons, targeted attacks, etc.
atreides1
(16,079 posts)Because no matter how targeted, civilians are going to be killed! But I guess it's just collateral damage and not worth being concerned with!
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)So unless you have some links, how do we know they want our help?
vdogg
(1,384 posts)Did you get that from his statement? All he is saying is that we have time to have an informed debate and vote prior to any action taking place. I also seriously doubt that he would be so stupid as to proceed if Congress votes against it.
mzmolly
(50,992 posts)to act, this week, next week, tonight.
That is not what he said. He said he is seeking authorization from Congress before any action. In others words until Congress returns, debates and votes, there will be no attacks.
Everyone has learned from Bushco's lies. It is the British Parliament that turned everything upside down. They demonstrated the meaning of Parliamentary democracy.
That was the best thing to allow Obama to run from his red line.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)Let those congress critters go on record. No need for him to bear the brunt of any decision.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The bit on timeframe was to make the point that the attack is not time sensitive.
His statement is rather clear: he has made the decision to use military force, but that's not enough. The People's representatives must also be involved in the decision.
MH1
(17,600 posts)is really chapping some folks' hides, I think.
(Personally I'm very relieved and maybe that's why I'm finding the reaction so amusing, when otherwise there is nothing at all amusing about this situation.)
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Either way, you have no credibility.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Zero honesty.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Oh.....wait a minute.....
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Downwinder
(12,869 posts)lamp_shade
(14,834 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)and several next week?
It might be wise to call Congress back into session quickly. Perhaps then they could also try to fix some of the other major problems our nation faces today.
I would have loved to get only 20% of the time Congress critters get off each year when I was working for a company before I retired.
Want a Job With 239 Vacation Days? Become a Member of Congress
Mara MellstrominPolitics 4 months ago
But what remains most astonishing about our representatives on the Hill is not only the quantity of legislation, but the amount of time spent working. The Congressional calendar for this coming year consists of 126 days, leaving members of Congress 239 days to perhaps tour our great nation, toy with the idea of running for higher office, and maybe visit a natural disaster or two. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's calendar releases rather embarrassing scheduling without a single 5-day work week or weekend. If you are already feeling riled up about this, I would not suggest looking at the month of August.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/38177/want-a-job-with-239-vacation-days-become-a-member-of-congress
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)I think this is serious enough to warrant calling Congress back now, instead of in a week or so.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)every single word that comes out of Obama's mouth into something negative, illegal, or part of a giant conspiracy. You may want to try and look at things from a more thorough approach instead of this nonsense.
blm
(113,061 posts).
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)...and a number of others.
Dishonest tactic, IMO
It has become a daily occurance here. Faux has nothing on this bunch.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)It's sad when it is viewed in such light.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)He says there are no time constraints on any military action. That means he can wait till Congress takes their vote.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)"President Obama said Saturday that the United States has decided to use military force against Syria, calling last weeks alleged chemical weapons attack there an attack on human dignity, but said he would seek congressional authorization for an attack."
We are prepared to strike whenever we choose, Obama said. But he added that plans to launch an attack were not time-sensitive and that a strike could come tomorrow, next week or a month from now.
Of course this wasn't enough for some. I guess the Washington Post isn't credible. And even it it wasn't, Cali reported what she read, and a bunch of people jumped in and started the usual "you're embarrassing yourself" comments.
Cali's statement is 100% accurate according to the Washington Post.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)He says that "WE are prepared to strike whenever WE choose." He also says that he's asking for Congressional approval. The WE includes Congress, which could come back for a vote tomorrow if it wanted to. Or next week, or a month from now.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)what Cali posted. It's damn near verbatim from the Post... Obviously the two sides of the issue are going to disagree on the meaning. Hence my statement in the original post I made that all we can do now is wait and see what happens.
I surely hope that Obama waits for approval but it looks to me like he's going to strike either way.
One other thing, if Obama is willing to wait a month then I don't understand how that stops Chemical Weapons. What if Assad decides to use them tomorrow? How does that "save the children"?
DearAbby
(12,461 posts)He will not condone future acts, he is ready to give the order and all preparations are on stand by to receive that order.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Like I said, you have ZERO credibility, my dear.