Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumObama Syria Rose Garden Speech Seeks Congressional Support for the Use of Force - full remarks
NOTE: Obama's comments start at the 1:50 minute mark.
Full transcript here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/31/statement-president-syria
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)He certainly did say he would seek Congressional support. I didn't hear him say he'd wait for it.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)-snip-
... I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.
-snip-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/31/statement-president-syria
I've fixed the DU subject line.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Senior officials in the Obama administration said that President Obama may still decide to strike Syria even if Congress disapproves of military action, CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller tweeted Saturday.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-admin-officials-dont-rule-out-syria-strike
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Every time Congress (Senate and House) goes on recess/vacation the House refuses to sign onto the recess resolution that the Senate passes - but they ALL go on an unofficial recess anyway.
Volaris
(10,260 posts)Other than that, it was a good layout of where he is and what he wants to do.
It will be interesting to see if Congressional Republicans in the House Majority decide to give him the AUMF he is asking for. It will be interesting to see if they are too dumb to handle the Domestic Politics of this, or if they will tell the idiot contingent "ok, you've had your fun, now it's about global stability and the quite Republican Idea that if a President wants a War (as follows the GOP Neo-con. idea of the Unitary Executive), he pretty much gets one, so sit down and shut up. I bet they won't though...I bet they have so LOST CONTROL of their own tea-party dog that going out into the street to bring it back into the house will likely get them bit lol.
But Dems can't fuck around with this either...either you believe in a unilateral Executive or you DON'T...If I were in the Congress, I think my position would be something akin to
"You get the UNSecurity Council to set the terms of engagement, and the targets to be destroyed, and we will tell you this is a thing you an do." If it's an international problem this thing here what Syria went and did, then it has an INTERNATIONAL solution, and will require INTERNATIONAL Consensus.
I think it was a pretty good position speech on a pretty serious topic of discussion right now. I also think he should have quit talking at 7minutes30seconds, as it raises a bunch of questions that I think he might not want the International Community to actually go ahead and answer.
Other than that, I'm proud of the man I voted for today. Its been a few weeks since I have been able to say that regarding actual POLICY Positions, so I'm not unhappy.
Just my two cents, replies/critics are welcom as always, and Peace.
ON EDIT: Upon further reflection, I'm struck by the idea that this could raise a more meta-type debate about the Unitary Executive:
Either you accept that it is a Thing that actually exists (in the very best-est Nixionan sense) or you DO NOT...Either you believe that PRESIDENT Obama has the OFFICE(al) Power to put Hellfire Missiles where He wants, when He wants, and if Congress gets told about it, then we'll consider that a Professional Courtesy, OR George Bush engaged in the commencement of an Illegal War of Agression, because he didn't think he NEEDED Constitutional approval (a Declared WAR), and the AUMF he DID get was more of the aforementioned "Professional Courtesy".
And it will be interesting to see if the Professional Class of Bush-loving CONservatives in America figure that out, it will be equally as interesting to see if the Obama-hating 'Baggers FINALLY decide that Hating President Obama really is MORE important to them then defending President Jr; I want to see if they are actually willing to throw Dim Son under the bus, just to "get" Obama.
I don't think they will, and I don't think they will have to, as I don't think this President will openly defy Congress (aren't THEY lucky)...as he said himself we can kill syrian targets pretty much when we want to, there's not a window that will close on the opportunity that would compel him to act outside of Constitutional Authority.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Now let the neo-cons get you the votes needed and get the members there to vote. Now big boys, it's on you.
Volaris
(10,260 posts)I don't think the Idiot Contingent in the House GOP would Authorize this President to use the bathroom if they thought it would make them look better to the Idiot Demographic that voted them in. It WAS a good move to kick this in front of the House GOP and (their Pet in the Senate) McConnell, but maybe not for the reasons you think.
They might not let military strikes in Syria happen.
It's not too often that the Opposition to the Good get outsmarted by thier own stupidity, but we just MIGHT get to watch that happen Live, in real-time lol. and that HAS to illicit at least a smile=).
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Getting Congress to authorize it and I figured this would leave Congress with clean hands and any problems would be Obama's. This should be a joint venture, if Graham and McCann can not get the votes together to get the authorization then it will be a Congressional problem. I do agree some will vote just to have Obama fail. Like dear old Ron Paul, he would attach earmark spending for him to take home to his district and then vote against the bill, see his hands was clean on voting for spending but would tuck his tail and run home with the money and tell his constituents lol at what he got for them.
Volaris
(10,260 posts)Congress abdicating its Constitutionally Required oversight responsibility to the other 2 Branches is what keeps getting us into these kinds of messes in the first fucking place, and while it's generally considered a form of INSTITUTIONAL corruption, it SHOULD be thought of as a form of High Treason. What if the nation's Judges just collectively decided "Fuck it, we're just gonna to let Congress do whatever the hell it wants, and NOT interpret Laws, because, well, fuck it, we don't wanna anymore."?
Anyone actually think that would fly? No, me either.
And good call on the GOP hypocrisy of getting more milk from the Govt. teet, while professing to people how much they really, really hate nipples.
HatTrick
(129 posts)or, he wouldn't have risked a vote in the first place.
I really hope this can be stopped, but I fear it can't.