The good news is that Obama does not make rash decisions. The not so good news is he

[CK_John]

tries like hell to avoid making any decisions until the very last minute. This makes him seem like a wimp.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Wimp?

Attack Syria now...and he's a warmonger. Don't attack Syria and wait for congress to weigh in...and he's a wimp.

Funny how that works.

[Just Saying]

8. He can't win with some people. n/t

[kelliekat44]

42. Well the "whimp's" decision got OBL. nt

[LittleBlue]

2. He wants this war but doesn't want to own it

If the outcome is bad, he wants someone else to shoulder the blame.

[pnwmom]

9. Why should he bear sole responsibility? The Constitution makes it a shared responsibility.

Your comment makes you sound like a tea bagger.

[LittleBlue]

13. He says he doesn't need congress

So obviously he's seeking their approval despite believing that he doesn't need it.

Therefore it's political.

I'm a teabagger? You sound like a warmonger.

[pnwmom]

17. Please point to a warmongering post of mine. n/t

[LittleBlue]

20. Please point to a post where I support teabaggers

If we're slinging insults, it goes both ways. I'm down.

[pnwmom]

22. I didn't say you support them.

I said that your wording about Obama wanting to blame others "sounded" like a tea bagger.

[LittleBlue]

27. I think you sound like a warmonger

With just as much basis. Please don't pretend that saying someone "sounds like a teabagger" is anything other than an insult.

You want insults? You got it. Continue if you must, I answered your question.

[KittyWampus]

34. I think you sound like someone who doesn't think there is an actual problem in Syria.

Now, we can debate what to do about that problem. But to deny there is a problem is ludicrous.

[LittleBlue]

36. There is a problem

It's one we can't solve with cruise missiles. You cannot solve ethnic/religious divisions with violence. I don't think anyone is even pretending limited strikes will solve their problems.

Only a political solution can resolve this.

[Just Saying]

11. He wants war?

Funny, because I never heard him say anything like that. Would you rather he make this important decision without the Congress?

[LittleBlue]

25. He says he doesn't need congress

So obviously this is not a constitutional issue, it's political. He wants political cover either way.

[Just Saying]

29. What you said was that he wants this war.

And that's just not true. What he wants is to punish the use of chemical weapons against civilians but it seems to me he's putting considerable thought and time into making the decision on what to do.

It's historically true that he doesn't need to get Congress's approval to shoot some missiles over there, but its certainly a good decision to do so. Why shouldn't Congress have to weigh in on something this important?

How do you think it should be handled?

[LittleBlue]

31. Thank you for conveying the administration's press release

I'll take that under serious consideration.

How do I think it should be handled? The same way Britain handled it: not starting another pointless conflict.

[Just Saying]

35. We are handling it as Britain did by sending it to Congress.

My thoughts are my own on this issue.

I'll take your disingenuous comments about the President "wanting this war" and the fact that you're still being critical even though he's handling this exactly as you believe he should into consideration. Speaks volumes.

[LittleBlue]

37. lol nice try. He's sending it to congress because he wants an out

not because he has to, like the UK PM is.

He wants this war badly and it's absolutely laughable to deny it. He must be avoiding war, that's why he's pushing for war, oh yeah!

[Just Saying]

39. More disingenuous comments?

So according to you, he's pushing for war but at the same time looking for an out?

Sending it to Congress by choice instead of obligation actually proves the opposite of what you claim.

To quote you, nice try!

[LittleBlue]

40. He's looking for someone to shoulder the burden

so if it ends in disaster, he's got an out: congress did it too! Have you not read anything I wrote?

[Just Saying]

41. Ridiculous!

The burden belongs to the President regardless. If the Congress votes yes and we go it will be a shared burden. If they vote no and he goes, he'll be hanging out there alone whatever happens. If they vote no and the President goes along, all the better as they can't attack him for inaction and we don't get involved in this mess.

If he truly wanted war, he could have used any number of excuses to start one with Syria well before this. The Bush people were trying to get us into one even before Obama! He isn't a warmonger and seems to be taking what's happening in Syria very seriously. Obama isn't Bush.

[LittleBlue]

43. He doesn't have to respect a no vote if he doesn't want to

He's already said he doesn't need congressional authorization. If he gets a "yes" vote, they share blame.

Why is this ridiculous? It's politics 101. One thing is clear: the people pushing war in the media and in the halls of power are the president's men. He desperately wants war for whatever reason, thought he had the cover when the Brits committed. They backed out and now he needs a new group to shoulder responsibility if this fails.

[Just Saying]

46. Yes and I addressed that in my post.

I don't see that he desperately wants war at all and you haven't proven that point. I do think he wants to punish those who used chemical weapons on civilians. The pictures out of Syria are heartbreaking. But I personally don't think military attacks in any way help the situation nor do I think we should take sides. They all suck! I can, however, understand why our government feels the need to do something.

And again, I think taking a vote to Congress when he doesn't have to is the opposite of pushing for war. Yes, if one scenario happens they will share blame, but the President is CIC and the choice is ultimately his. Don't think for a second the Republicans and others won't blame him if we go in and it's bad regardless of what Congress does! The good thing it does is not allow the Congress to call him a warmonger if he goes and a wimp if he doesn't as they'll be forced to have an opinion on the record.

I think the President is handling this the way I'd like and you've said you want. I'm not sure what else he could do to please you.

[LittleBlue]

50. Your argument is about semantics

You might as well just say Bush didn't want war, he wanted to prevent Saddam from getting WMD and liberate Iraq from a dictator.

Repeating the company line doesn't change reality: he wants war.

What could he have done to please me? Not push war, that's a starter. Stay out of it and push for a political solution as the only solution. Blowing up innocent people with cruise missiles will achieve nothing.

[Just Saying]

57. I don't think so.

What I've mentioned are the reasons they're contemplating an attack. There's never been any discussion about starting or declaring war with Syria.

Obama is not Bush.

And no matter how many time you repeat the line that Obama wants war, you haven't proven that nor do I believe it. I believe the last thing he wants or can afford is another war. I think he has any number of other things he'd rather be worrying about right now. But this is part if his job.

I've already said I don't think shooting missiles into Syria solves anything, but I think it's a very good idea to involve Congress in any decision.

[lumpy]

55. Why do you think he wants this war ? Honestly.

[chervilant]

44. The use of chemical weapons against citizens?

Why didn't we hear an outcry for intervention in Rwanda, in East Timor, in Somalia, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, or in Myanmar? Might that be because there are no economic benefits to be had in those countries? Might it be for other, less "noble" reasons?

We can oppose Assad's murderous behavior without exercising our military muscle. Whatever discretionary funds we might have available to "discipline" Assad would be better used to help resolve the Fukushima crisis.

[Just Saying]

48. I think there are certainly those who have asked for intervention in other places.

At the moment, Syria is in the forefront because of their bloody civil war and yes, likely their region. I don't think it's a good argument to say we shouldn't intervene due to the atrocities in Syria because we didn't intervene in other places with atrocities. I think we should avoid taking sides in civil wars in general particularly if our involvement would just kill more people.

If it were up to me, I'm sure I could come up with a very long list of things I'd rather spend our money on than military intervention. And if we're going to intervene I'd rather see humanitarian efforts.

When and how do you believe we should get involved? Do you disagree with the President asking the Congress to weigh in? Why do you think they're discussing intervention if it's not about chemical weapons?

[chervilant]

52. I think you missed my point.

We hear war drums selectively -- the drums are particularly loud (and relentless) when the vile corporate megalomaniacs perceive the likelihood of profit, and likely control over key resources or regions. The propaganda is already thick, and the controversy pointed.

I marched on Washington to protest the illegal invasion of Iraq. I am just as opposed to any military intervention in Syria.

As far as humanitarian intervention goes -- why should we even anticipate such an outcome, when this administration has done so little to stop the pernicious assaults on activists participating in #Occupy and other protests?

[Just Saying]

58. Certainly those who profit from war encourage it.

But that doesn't mean there's never a reason to fight. I'm not a pacifist. I too marched against the war in Iraq although I did it closer to home and got to see Dennis Kucinich speak about it.

I'm not sure the international community should do nothing when chemical attacks are being made on civilians. But, I don't think shooting missiles and killing more civilians is any kind of answer. I also don't think we should get involved militarily in Syria's civil war. Obama isn't Bush and I trust him to make better choices and not be ruled by the MIC.

Humanitarian intervention is what I said I wish would happen, not what I think ever will.

[chervilant]

59. Well, I AM a pacifist.

So, we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for chatting with me.

[Just Saying]

60. Thank you! n/t

[lumpy]

51. Do you presume to know what Obama thinks about anything ? Most likely he is fully aware he

owns all his actions just like most people should.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. He is a careful, thoughtful man, who thinks things through.

Many people prefer the shoot-from-the-lip style, which is certainly not better.

He may seem like a wimp, but he certainly is not.

[KittyWampus]

4. "Proceed, Governor".

[SidDithers]

14. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[Squinch]

19. Exactly!

[Surya Gayatri]

5. You know, you can't have it both ways. "Not rash"

means consulting and waiting until the jury is in.
When push comes to shove, he moves.

[treestar]

6. You see people as "wimps" for getting information first

Did you like Bush? He didn't bother with that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. It's a smart political move by a smart politician. Spread the responsibility and/or blame.

[DearAbby]

10. Wimp?

Obama isnt a wimp, but he does believe in the Constitution, this is a way to unite this country behind him. The GOP will have to vote to support a man they spent 5 yrs trying to destroy. And he has already communicated to the world, his threshold has been passed. He is making the case globally, that a civilized people do not stand by when atrocities are openly committed. It is an opening to a global dialog. I welcome the debate, as he does. And that is the point of the constitution, checks and balances...lets lay the cards out on the table, what kind of world do you want to live in?

It's not a wimp who opens such dialog, it's a leader. Incredible courage.

[postulater]

16. I'm proud of him today.

[DearAbby]

26. So am I

[lumpy]

53. A thoughtful post. thanks

n

[1-Old-Man]

12. Looks to me a lot more like backs down in the face of public scrutinity.

[lumpy]

54. He dealth us a lesson hopefull we have all learned.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Yeesh

The flailing from some of the haters who demanded precisely this is amusing to say the least.

Pathetic, CK John.

[Just Saying]

18. Yesterday he was being compared to Bush

And people were screaming that he should be calling Congress back from vacation. Today he's a "wimp" for taking this to Congress.

Shouldn't attacking another country be given every consideration? If that's last minute or wimpy to you, then I hope our President is both.

[Squinch]

21. He also just saved the 2014 election.

[spanone]

23. it makes him look like someone who actually discusses and thinks about the repercussions of actions

[graywarrior]

24. I've learned to reserve judgement before commenting on Obama

He usually makes his critics look like idiots. And he's no wimp, BTW.

[HooptieWagon]

28. His problem is he's become toxic.

With all the recent foreign policy blunders...forcing down Morales' plane, over-reaction to Snowden, and now Syria....combined with throwing partners under the bus who have done his bidding....no one wants to cooperate anymore. Plus all the lies inre spying he's been caught in....he's got some bad Karma going. He made his bed, now he's got to lie in it.

[watercolors]

30. He is a great chess player, knows his moves!!!

[bunnies]

32. I just read that same sentiment on FR.

Gross.

[MzShellG]

33. Nomatter what he does, someone will always put a negative spin on it....

I think Pres. Obama is doing the right thing and making wise decisions. At the end of the day, he can't please everyone.

[johnd83]

38. Wimp?

He has taken some serious risks when he thinks it is the best option. If some people think he is a wimp that is their own mistake.

[AtomicKitten]

45. He looks thoughtful.

Governing by the seat of one's pants is what makes one look stupid.

[lamp_shade]

47. Hey John, wherdja go?

[David__77]

49. Actually, he made the wrong decision.

And I was actually swindled for a moment by the "going to congress" distraction. But in reality, the key thing is that Obama has said that his decision was that he DOES want to go to war against Syria. He just wants a rubber stamp on that decision. That is disappointing, but I hope he can be forced back from the brink.

[lumpy]

56. Some of us would like to see a change of goverment in Syria including Obama, I imagine.

Doubtful he wants to go to war just to be going to war unless there are good reasons. Maybe he does want a rubber stamp on the decision to retaliate, maybe not. I don't know and nether do you.
To ask Congress to be involved is the right decision. Some Congress people would like all out war, some prefer limited strikes, some want to wait and see, some rather ignore the whole thing.
What will be will be.