Obama to seek Congress vote on Syria military action

[muriel_volestrangler]

Source: BBC

President Barack Obama says the US should take military action against Syria and he will seek congressional authorisation for intervention.

The US says the Syrian government carried out chemical weapons attacks on 21 August in which 1,429 people died.

Mr Obama said the operation would be limited in duration and strong to deter future chemical attacks. Congress is due to re-open on 9 September.

The Syrian government denies it was behind the attacks and blames rebels.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23916752

[uhnope]

1. PROUD of President Obama.

[Carolina]

78. Proud?!

More bombs, more death, more costs for an unknown and likely unintended result...

[Suburban Warrior]

2. Congress will approve military action against Syria

but will attach an amendment to de-fund Obamacare.

[DCBob]

5. LOL.. very possible!

[valerief]

7. Boom! And outlaw unions. nt

[classof56]

37. Boom again! And cut "entitlement programs" like Soc Sec and Medicare.

There is no depth to which republicons will not sink. Scum!

[freshwest]

72. You left out Rand's personhood and RTW bill. I think a red state outlawed talking about labor...

Of course their sponsors want a full scale war. Which they will not get.

Now that Obama said he wants a full debate in Congress, they can quit the faux peace bullshit and put their (our) money where their mouth is.

I'd love to see them screw the porkers. Even Rand bent down to kiss their boots as soon as he got elected.

Was gonna defund the VA hospitals, Pentagon, go all Ron Paul!!!! for his voters, then he folded in one week like a cheap seat.

The debate is gonna be sooooo GOOD.

[David Krout]

9. I think Congres will vote against war

Just my opinion.

[rusty fender]

39. I think that the House will vote against and the

Senate will vote for--tie goes to the runner?

[David Krout]

42. But if one chamber says no, doesn't it mean it's no?

How does it work?

[rusty fender]

46. I really don't know

I think that a tie could allow the Prez to strike Syria, but only half as hard.

[former9thward]

71. It takes majorities in both the House and Senate to approve a resolution.

So if one is no and one is yes then it is a no.

[L0oniX]

20. LMFAO

[RoccoR5955]

26. And reinstate the Bush tax cuts for the ultra rich. n/t

[Demeter]

36. You can't reinstate them. They are already codified into the Tax Code.

[yoloisalie]

31. lol

very funny, but seriously, lets not give these people any ideas.

[valerief]

3. Now, will Congress pull a Terry Schiavo return to DC ASAP to vote? nt

[rusty fender]

47. Hey, it's not that kind of emergency!

[freedom fighter jh]

4. "Will you forgo a strike if Congress disapproves?"

President Obama didn't accept questions after his speech; somehow a reported managed to slip this one in. It didn't get answered.

[Comrade Grumpy]

6. Smart move. No need for Obama to hang out on this all by his lonesome.

[DallasNE]

27. My Exact Thoughts

Kind of sets up the situation with Congress to, as my dad was fond of saying, "sh#t or get off the pot".

[andym]

8. The House won't approve anything the President proposes

on the general principle that it is from the President. So, no missile attack.

[David Krout]

10. Except for the majority of House Democrats who will vote against this war

As you will see.

[andym]

14. The GOP and Democrats will vote against this war

for quite different reasons. The Democrats for the principle that this war is needlessly belligerent, and the GOP because it the war is being proposed by the president they hate.

[southerncrone]

83. Can't help but wonder if that is the strategy

Obama is using. Anything he's for, they are automatically against, so why not use this as a reverse psychology. This makes them the ones giving war the go ahead & takes some heat off him.
I personally would like to think he is not gung-ho on any type of warring move in the Middle East, especially after all our losses in Iraq & Afghanistan.

[mzmolly]

11. As he

should.

[elias49]

12. How very sad

nt

[Arctic Dave]

13. And to raise taxes to pay for it all?

LOL, I know.

And no, I'm not high.

[Billy Love]

77. Let the rich be surcharged a 50% tax on paying for the war they want..

then they'll immediately change their mind about the war.

You know, in the name of money.

[xocet]

15. Good on President Obama. n/t

[Carolina]

79. Good?!

For what? More bombs, more death, more expense for an unknown, and likely unintended, result...

Yeah, real good of of him

[xocet]

81. Yes, the point is that there is no attack as of yet, and it might be that the

government could begin to function properly - i.e., end the unilateral approach to war that has been taken in most of the USA's recent history. It is wrong for presidents to simply unilaterally decide to attack. I don't know how it will end, but if Congress stands up and tells him not to attack - he might listen and not attack. You may think that naive, but, regardless, there is no attack today, and that is good enough for the moment.

Please elaborate on your thoughts. Would it have been better for him to simply attack Syria today? What would you have liked to have heard in his speech? I welcome your thoughts.

[warrant46]

89. Here's mine

“They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.”

― Ernest Hemingway

[xocet]

82. It is surprising that you have not replied.

At any rate, here is a list that you might find useful:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023578816

[Carolina]

85. didn't reply because

I'm taking a break from DU. It's become a waste of time "talking" to some people. I can't believe the warmongers here; plus I have had it with this POTUS. So, I have chosen to spend my time in my garden instead.

Bye, bye!

[xocet]

87. I can understand that very well. Thank you for the reply. Enjoy your garden. Bye. n/t

[iamthebandfanman]

16. 'not time sensative'

ill be sure to pass that onto the DEAD CHILDREN that keep piling up every day while our politicians who worship money and do whatever they can to make themselves wealthy at our expense decide whether or not their lives are valuable enough :p

[questionseverything]

28. same players

t was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first alerted Western allies to the alleged use of sarin gas by the Syrian regime in February.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-the-saudi-connection-the-prince-with-close-ties-to-washington-at-the-heart-of-the-push-for-war-8785049.html


Now if you don't remember him then



Iran/Contra Prince Bandar
He was exposed for his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. He had arranged $32 million in Saudi financing for the Nicaraguan Contras. Nancy Reagan used him to relay messages to the Cabinet

He was also the “bagman” for the Iran-Contra deal, transferring American money to the Iranians during this controversial episode in American history.


911/ Prince Bandar

A Saudi named Omar al-Bayoumi housed and opened bank accounts for two of the 9/11 hijack­ers. About two weeks after the assis­tance began, al-Bayoumi’s wife began receiv­ing monthly pay­ments total­ing tens of thou­sands of dol­lars from Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the wife of Saudi ambas­sador and Bush fam­ily con­fi­dant, Prince Ban­dar bin Sul­tan, through a Riggs bank account. (Jonathan Bush, uncle of Pres­i­dent George W. Bush, was an exec­u­tive at Riggs Bank dur­ing this period.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riggs_Bank
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/08/9-11-2011-201108

[questionseverything]

33. bandar now

The interviews conducted of residents, rebels and their families in Damascus and Ghouta are painting a different picture of what actually happened. Many believe that rebels received chemical weapons provided through the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. It's being reported that these weapons are responsible for last week's gas attack.

The father of a rebel who was killed in what's now being called an accident by many in Ghouta and Damascus said: "My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim. The father said at least 12 rebels including his son were killed by the chemical weapons.

Allegedly they were killed in the tunnel that was used to store the chemicals. These were provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha. He is said to be leading a fighting battalion in the effort to unseat Assad. The weapon was described as a "tube-like structure" by Abdel-Moneim.

Gavlak reports he was told by rebels that the gas "attack" was the result of rebels mishandling the chemical weapons they acquired from the Saudis. He says in the Mint Press report the following:

"They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution."

[rusty fender]

43. Holy cow!

[RussBLib]

55. if this is true....

...perhaps the inspectors that just left the country will be able to determine it. I heard that they left Syria and entered Lebanon and "will begin" to analyze the samples and readings they took. If the chemical weapons came from the Saudis, perhaps it could be traced.

I would certainly hate to think that we (Obama) could be well aware of this, if true, but would still paint the Syrians as the culprits. That's my cynical mind at work, tempered by what the CIA has been admitting to lately.

[SwankyXomb]

63. If the sarin used came from the Saudis,

then it came straight from the US stockpiles.

[EVDebs]

54. Thank you for posting this !

[DallasNE]

34. Two Issues Here

I'm sure arms shipments have been speeded up in response to the ongoing military action and that is a different issue from the response specific to the deadly gas attack. Besides, this decision quietly allows the UN inspection team to conclude their work which should be a key component in the final decision. Plus, this takes balls because Obama could well see Congress vote down his request. But I think it is a brilliant move that could be far reaching and even impact the debt ceiling.

[ellenrr]

17. you're in deep denial if you think congress will not approve.

hey, this is the US, not the UK

[andym]

19. Not really

The GOP House hates Obama, many would like to impeach him if they could only figure out a reason. They will not vote to support their "faux" commander in chief. Many Democrats will urge UN action only and not vote for unilateralism. No approval from Congress.

[iamthebandfanman]

21. i doubt itll pass

but itll be way closer than you think

[totodeinhere]

25. Here's another theory. If the GOP thinks that an attack on Syria will backfire on Obama, then

they will vote for it. I see a coalition of Dems and Republicans pushing through a narrow approval.

[ellenrr]

70. fine. let's re-visit this on Sept 10th. Anyone care to put some $ down?

I guess that's logistically impossible.
I'll have to settle for a "told you so"

[andym]

92. I am willing to wager. So far my scenario looks right: 199 against and 49 for War in the House

according to ThinkProgress as of 9/5:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/09/02/2561371/congress-support-military-action-syria-thinkprogress-whip-count/

149 Republicans and 50 Democrats likely to vote NO=199
36 Democrats and 13 Republicans likely to vote YES = 49

This is turning into a rout and the GOP House members really do hate Obama. Look at this for confirmation:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3594757
Congressman demanded that Obama ask Congress, then says that by asking Congress, Obama is wasting precious time. Wonder how that ex-marine will vote?

An "I told you so" would be a fine wager here, if you still think you're going to win.

[ellenrr]

93. yes, it looks like cynical me is wrong on this one. glad to be wrong. nt

[andym]

94. My guess was also based on cynicism, just with different assumptions

I think if a President McCain was in office, war resolutions would already have passed Congress just like in Iraq. Anyone protesting would have been branded unpatriotic. And the attack would have been a broad one, designed to destroy Assad. However, I'm not sure Congress would have been in the equation in that scenario. The USA still loves projecting its military power, have no doubt about that. Your cynicism regarding aggressive USA military action is justified, it just must be tempered by cynicism regarding domestic conflict between the two major political parties.

And the matter at hand, truly isn't settled yet: even though a majority of the House as of today opposes the strike, it's possible that arm-twisting by the leaders of the House could change the outcome.

[ellenrr]

95. yes, it's fascinating to watch the party dynamics on this one

anti-war dems who want to support the president.

I've been watching Fox News to see how conservatives who want at all costs to undermine Obama, but who also love war, - how they contort themselves to resolve this.

[Hoyt]

30. I think they will give him authority to do what he thinks necessary, just like bush.

Hope he uses the authority wisely.

[ellenrr]

69. they will give the authority bec most members of congress receive BIG BUCK$ from the people

that make the weapons which will be used on Syria. I mean, come on, what fun is it to have all these cool toys, if you don't use them?

[totodeinhere]

18. He should not be asking for congressional authorization to attack Syria.

He should have announced that he will not order an attack on Syria.

[uppityperson]

22. Good. Now I am imagining Congressional Obama haters' conundrum.

Support Obama and bomb as they want, or be typical "no" and not get to bomb.

[Lasher]

23. I like this development.

GOP chickenhawks were all set to make a big issue of what Obama's handling of the crisis in Syria, no matter what he might do. Actually, they have already doing it. Now Congressional Republicans must either bless his proposal or STFU about it. Even if it's mostly Democrats who vote nay in a rejected proposal, it would be hard for Republicans to find traction for an argument that Obama should illegally defy Congress and attack Syria anyway.

I don't think Congress is going to authorize an attack on Syria, and I pray that I'm right.

[dipsydoodle]

24. This means September 9th earliest

which is when Congress reconvenes.

[ellenrr]

86. congress is coming back tomorrow to meet in committee

[kpete]

29. very good news

peace and hope,
kp

[quadrature]

32. what is Obama offering the Republicans?

I don't see them doing this for free

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. The chance to look important

That helps sitting members in their next election. Judge the feeling of your voters right (I'd say most Republican voters would be OK with an attack, because the average person doesn't automatically turn against their usual feelings just because the guy in charge of the other party supports it), and you get to pose as the responsible, grown-up politician who takes tough decisions, rather than your untested opponent.

[RussBLib]

35. Obama will make Congress do SOMETHING

I prefer this route than Obama going it alone and having the GOP immediately initiate impeachment hearings. After Obama's team consults with Congress, Obama still believes he has the authority to act, which I agree with.

And from a different angle, I saw a quote up on the screen of Al-Jazeera America TV (which I am enjoying watching) and the graphic, with quotations marks, read, "WE ARE PREPARED TO STRIKE WHENEVER WE CHOOSE."

Sort of reminds me of what they call ... what's that again ... "terrorism?"

We can strike when we choose to strike. And we will be watching you, because we have eyes and ears everywhere. Which is true. Our frikkin' military and navy practically covers the globe, on the ground and in space.

Obama is no Bush. For that I'm glad.

[jenmito]

40. Very smart move. Not only did he just make sure Congressmen's votes are on the record, but he's

squashing any criticism of him being a "dictator" or whatever. By letting Congress check his power, he just check-mated them. Well done, Obama!

[adieu]

41. I'm hoping that Obama is

playing the 3-D chess and be "for" a strike into Syria and then have the GOP who will always go against his wishes to vote against such a strike. He can then shrug his shoulders and say, "Congress didn't want me to do it," and stay "pro-military" while wiping his hands clean of any mess necessary.

It's a gamble, because if Congress decides to vote for such a strike, then he is obligated to conduct one. Perhaps then he can delay it as long as possible.

I'm not fantasizing this as a fetish for Obama. I'm fantasizing this because I really don't want to see the US in yet another military confrontation anywhere in the world.

[MindMover]

45. It will not be a confrontation, it could be an annihilation .... of this murderous regime

[Comrade Grumpy]

53. Annihilation by pin prick? We're talking limited missile strikes.

[MindMover]

61. The conversation is continuing and lms was and still is an option ... however

we also have drones and piloted aircraft with many different capabilities ,,,, that could wipe out this regime without botg ....

[adieu]

56. You think it'll just like that?

Assad dies. Everybody nearby just look around, shrug their shoulders and go back to work?

Assad gone will mean Iran will toss a few in Israel's direction, which will initiate counter strikes. Russia will throw her weight around just to show they're not going to be pushed around. China has no dog in the fight, but could provide fuel to the fire just to get everyone else into a deeper lose-lose situation.

Al-Qaeda, which wants Assad gone, won't be able to stabilize the country and various sects will try to take over. More destruction, more turmoil, more warfare.

But those who died of chemical gassing are avenged, right?

[MindMover]

59. Yea you are right on all your ASSUMPTIONS .....

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 04:24 PM - Edit history (1)

ASSUMPTIONS .... just like the worlds powers were when they could have put a stop to that Hitler guy ....

way back in the 30's, that is the 1930s and then of course the 40's came along .... and the rest is history....

but of course those who died of chemical gassing were not avenged,

all 6,000,000+ million of them .....

No, you are right not to use what is our moral responsibility to use ....

and continue to watch the people of Syria be murdered by the butcher of Damascus ....

[adieu]

76. You have your assumptions, I have my assumptions

So far, I'm far more in the right than you are.

There are claims that it was the rebels who accidentally released the chemical weapons. Claims made by the rebels.

Assad had run Syria for a long time with nary a peep with regards to taking over the world, much less the Middle East.

Since 1945, the US has been 0 for what, 15? with regards to military efforts. We lost (either tactically or in the eyes of the global community) in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Iran...

The modern world no longer need military actions to effect change. Change will and must come through diplomacy. The only people who want military actions are those in the MIC.

[MindMover]

44. Three words, BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT

[Robbins]

48. Obama

This is mart move by him.

If Congress votes no which Is possable he has cover not to act.

If congress votes yes then congress' hands are all over this. They can't claim abuse of power to start impeachment.

I disagree with Obama and oppose action

1:We are not the world's policeman
2:We need to stop getting involved In middle east conflicts
3:Getting involved could help assad and al queda
4:The rebels for most part aren't much better than assad
5:We are still In afghanistan
6:The strike could lead to attacks on Israel
7 uttin In Russia hates obama and loves assad.Russia isn't going to just sit back and do nothing

[24601]

88. If impeachment was the goal, there was already use of Military Force without compliance (with the

Powers Act) from the Libya goodwill bombing campaign.

Removing Q-daffy helped put more weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda adherents. Removing Ass-ad's regime also boosts two AQ affiliates.

[George II]

49. Once again Obama makes the CORRECT decision, but I'm sure the right and DUers will still...

....be pissed off and find fault with this correct decision.

[potone]

50. Somebody please explain this to me

I missed his speech so maybe he explained this. What I don't understand is why he didn't wait for the UN inspectors' report. If the evidence for chemical weapons is so strong, why not wait? Wouldn't that strengthen his position?

[RussBLib]

57. This gives the inspectors time to finish their report

...so an attack now is not overly rash. He did mention in this speech that this would give them time to finish.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. Congress is not going to vote before the 9th of September

so the report may well be available by then.

[Jeneral2885]

51. Let see if they are as smart as the British parliament

and say no thanks, war will create a bigger mess

[Coyotl]

52. Enough time for the story to change many times.

Also, this allows time for the UN to do its work and for a lot more facts to be gathered.

[Ash_F]

58. Is he looking for an out?

Seems like it.

[ellenrr]

68. Damn, I wished he looked for an out before he did drone strikes.

[iandhr]

60. He has always been wary of intervention in Syria.

I think he wants an out. If congress votes no he can say something like "The United States is horrified by the events in Syria but as the leader of a democracy I honor the decision of my elected legislators though I disagree their choice"

[AsahinaKimi]

64. I would be curious how the party of "NO!" will vote on this one.

Anyone have any predictions?

[freshwest]

73. No idea, but maybe this will make M$M dump Cheney and the rest of media war brigade.

This will be a defining moment for America. Let the people speak.

Put them on the record. Let them own it. I've got a box seat here at DU.

[Maedhros]

66. Obama deserves credit for this decision.

It's what people were calling for, and he listened.

Hopefully, Congress says "no."

[David__77]

67. The heat is on congress to vote "no" and on Obama not to do this regardless.

It's good that's he has overriden some of the more maniacal figures in his administration. Congress must have the courage to say "no!" And, regardless, Obama must find a way out of this.

[HereSince1628]

74. Congrats Mr. Obama. You've found America's EXIT STRATEGY FROM SYRIAN CRISIS!

And if it turns out to not be an exist strategy, you've surely found a path that spreads responsibility for American action to representative government.

It may mean Assad gets to keep killing his countrymen, but I see this as a victory for American democracy.

[AKing]

75. Had Obama not sought Congress approval,wingnuts would be drawing up the impeachment papers

as we speak. Smart move by the Pres to not allow these lunatics the chance to cripple his presidency

[cstanleytech]

84. Agreed and it places the whole mess in their hands to

so if they vote yes and it goes wrong the egg is on their faces.

[ellenrr]

91. yeah real smart. smart move to involve the US in a war even the generals don't want

[Le Taz Hot]

80. And since Congress is a majority Repubican

and Republicans never met a war they didn't like, I'm thinkin' it's a done deal or else Obama wouldn't have put it out there. Once again, Obama goes to the REPUBLICANS for support. Color me surprised. Not.

[ellenrr]

90. Boehner and Cantor have said they back the president.

will congress pass?
yes it will.