House Vote on Syria: Obama Could Lose Big

[ElectionsGuy]

Politico Article

Main Points:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[barfbag]

Good we don't want a war. If he really wants them to support him then he needs to go around the country and get people riled up at defending the U.S. from another terrorist attack. This would put pressure on congress to support him or face losing next year.

[bballrox4717]

If Obama loses this vote, I hope he loses it big. If the people really don't want this strike, then Congress needs to send a damn powerful message, large enough to completely deter Obama from acting on his own. The last thing we need with this vote is ambiguity.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Just like the Iraq war vote, party leadership is more warmongering than the rank and file. Hilarious that the leadership of both parties is only expected to convince around 40% to vote for this in the House.

[Eraserhead]

Maybe this was Obama's plan all along. You could tell he didn't want to do this. If so, good show Mr. President.

[Mr. Morden]

Maybe this was Obama's plan all along. You could tell he didn't want to do this. If so, good show Mr. President.

The positive spin would be that this is actually all part of the plan to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again, without actually going through with an attack.

If the US and/or France actually attacked Assad with a few days of air strikes as punishment for using chemical weapons, then OK, maybe that would give Assad the message not to use chemical weapons again, because he would risk more punishing attacks from the West.

OTOH, maybe the attacks wouldn't end up hurting him as badly as expected.  And they might have knock-on effects which could rebound to Assad's benefit.  E.g., he can play on sympathy as a victim of Western agression, Iran and Russia might get more pissed off at the US, and redouble their support for him.  Hezbollah might attack Western targets, or cause more spillover of violence into Lebanon.  If the Western attack doesn't go well, then it might not end up being that big a deterrent against future chemical weapons use.

So is there a way that the West can scare Assad into not using chemical weapons again, without actually attacking him?  Perhaps.  If Obama talks tough, and goes right to the brink of war, but then doesn't pull the trigger because of the vote in Congress, then he has something of an out, and an excuse for not attacking.  But he's explicitly said that he can go around Congress if he really wants to, which he'll threaten to do if there's a future provacation.  So Congress votes down the use of force, and Obama says "OK, I won't attack now, but if there's another large scale use of chemical weapons by Assad in the future, then we'll attack immediately, without going through Congress."

The threat of retaliation is preserved, and Assad is scared away from using the chemical weapons again, because he's scared of the worst case scenarios for what might happen in a future Western attack against him....rather than being underwhelmed by an actual Western attack against him that doesn't go as well as planned.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Maybe this was Obama's plan all along. You could tell he didn't want to do this. If so, good show Mr. President.

The positive spin would be that this is actually all part of the plan to deter Assad from using chemical weapons again, without actually going through with an attack.

If the US and/or France actually attacked Assad with a few days of air strikes as punishment for using chemical weapons, then OK, maybe that would give Assad the message not to use chemical weapons again, because he would risk more punishing attacks from the West.

OTOH, maybe the attacks wouldn't end up hurting him as badly as expected.  And they might have knock-on effects which could rebound to Assad's benefit.  E.g., he can play on sympathy as a victim of Western agression, Iran and Russia might get more pissed off at the US, and redouble their support for him.  Hezbollah might attack Western targets, or cause more spillover of violence into Lebanon.  If the Western attack doesn't go well, then it might not end up being that big a deterrent against future chemical weapons use.

So is there a way that the West can scare Assad into not using chemical weapons again, without actually attacking him?  Perhaps.  If Obama talks tough, and goes right to the brink of war, but then doesn't pull the trigger because of the vote in Congress, then he has something of an out, and an excuse for not attacking.  But he's explicitly said that he can go around Congress if he really wants to, which he'll threaten to do if there's a future provacation.  So Congress votes down the use of force, and Obama says "OK, I won't attack now, but if there's another large scale use of chemical weapons by Assad in the future, then we'll attack immediately, without going through Congress."

The threat of retaliation is preserved, and Assad is scared away from using the chemical weapons again, because he's scared of the worst case scenarios for what might happen in a future Western attack against him....rather than being underwhelmed by an actual Western attack against him that doesn't go as well as planned.

Some people argued that Bush was doing that with Iraq. Instead we got a $1 trillion war.

[Supersonic]

I'm sure I read somewhere that Obama is planning to initiate strikes anyway, so long as the Senate approves the move. He's just 'allowing Congress to have their say'.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm sure I read somewhere that Obama is planning to initiate strikes anyway, so long as the Senate approves the move. He's just 'allowing Congress to have their say'.

If he does that I hope the Congress will go on to say "You're impeached!"

[Supersonic]

I'm sure I read somewhere that Obama is planning to initiate strikes anyway, so long as the Senate approves the move. He's just 'allowing Congress to have their say'.

If he does that I hope the Congress will go on to say "You're impeached!"

Oh, that would be fun.

[Lief 🗽]

I'm sure I read somewhere that Obama is planning to initiate strikes anyway, so long as the Senate approves the move. He's just 'allowing Congress to have their say'.

If he does that I hope the Congress will go on to say "You're impeached!"

They would have no grounds for doing so, but I know the teabaggers have been wanting to since they were inaugurated in 2011, so I'm sure they'll try.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm sure I read somewhere that Obama is planning to initiate strikes anyway, so long as the Senate approves the move. He's just 'allowing Congress to have their say'.

If he does that I hope the Congress will go on to say "You're impeached!"

They would have no grounds for doing so, but I know the teabaggers have been wanting to since they were inaugurated in 2011, so I'm sure they'll try.

Launching an attack that will cost billions without even the slightest shred or figleaf of Congressional authorization is not grounds?  Sigh.  Obama is President, not Emperor, even if his sartorial choices lean in that direction.   Still, he likely wouldn't be convicted in the Senate, even if the House did impeach him, tho unlike what happened with Clinton, both votes would not be party line affairs.

[barfbag]

I'm sure I read somewhere that Obama is planning to initiate strikes anyway, so long as the Senate approves the move. He's just 'allowing Congress to have their say'.

If he does that I hope the Congress will go on to say "You're impeached!"

They would have no grounds for doing so, but I know the teabaggers have been wanting to since they were inaugurated in 2011, so I'm sure they'll try.

If Obama goes to war without congressional approval, then he should be removed from office. There's no partisan way about it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I can't imagine Obama is going to do this without the support of Congress having asked for it.  Not without NATO or the UNSC with him either.  He just seems to have really misjudged this.  Now Obama is out on a ledge by himself, and has just spent the past few weeks pushing Russia into being even more supportive of Syria in anticipation of a possible attack.  We should have focused on working with others to pressure Russia to stop supporting the regime, others to stop supporting Al-Nusra, and back a diplomatic solution to end civil war. We might be getting somewhere instead of just trying to do something on chemical weapons that won't really solve the larger issue but all that's more difficult now.  It's a real shame.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

WaPo says 222 are already no or leaning no.

[barfbag]

I can't imagine Obama is going to do this without the support of Congress having asked for it.  Not without NATO or the UNSC with him either.  He just seems to have really misjudged this.  Now Obama is out on a ledge by himself, and has just spent the past few weeks pushing Russia into being even more supportive of Syria in anticipation of a possible attack.  We should have focused on working with others to pressure Russia to stop supporting the regime, others to stop supporting Al-Nusra, and back a diplomatic solution to end civil war. We might be getting somewhere instead of just trying to do something on chemical weapons that won't really solve the larger issue but all that's more difficult now.  It's a real shame.

We shouldn't go it alone either. Bombing Syria won't do anything.

[Blue3]

People understand that this is a resolution, and resolutions are powerless, right?

[Joe Republic]

Obama should have taken a leaf from his predecessor's book and found a bunch of made-up intel to whip up the people and Congress into a frenzy.  Tell 'em Assad is threatening to pour sarin into our own water supply or something, and our troops will be in Damascus before you know it.

[barfbag]

Obama should have taken a leaf from his predecessor's book and found a bunch of made-up intel to whip up the people and Congress into a frenzy.  Tell 'em Assad is threatening to pour sarin into our own water supply or something, and our troops will be in Damascus before you know it.

That would be lying. Obama needs to rally people to wave the flag and get us riled up to defeat evildoers. No one misunderestimates the U.S.

[Associate Justice PiT]

People understand that this is a resolution, and resolutions are powerless, right?

     Strictly speaking, yes. In reality, you don't get on anyone's good side by calling for a resolution and then ignoring it if you don't get the answer you want. Obama would be rather foolish to go ahead without Congressional approval.

[barfbag]

People understand that this is a resolution, and resolutions are powerless, right?

     Strictly speaking, yes. In reality, you don't get on anyone's good side by calling for a resolution and then ignoring it if you don't get the answer you want. Obama would be rather foolish to go ahead without Congressional approval.

He would be but he opened his mouth too soon. Obama gives lots of speeches and gives no resolutions.

[politicallefty]

I hope this does go down in a decisive defeat. If the President goes ahead after Congress has refused authorization, I'm actually one to believe he will have committed an impeachable offense (and I'm someone who voted to reelect and has otherwise supported this President). Without Congressional approval, the President does not have power to authorize an attack on Syria.

[TNF]

Here's hoping Congress votes this down.

[politicallefty]

But why apply a different standard to Obama than other presidents? Clinton had no authorization for Kosovo or Iraq, HW had none for Panama, Reagan none for Libya or Grenada. I expect the House would probably impeach him if only to help their fundraising, but when the GOP tried against Clinton, the backlash led to the extremely rare case of president gaining House seats in his second midterm.

I'm not applying a different standard. All of the actions you mentioned were also beyond constitutional authority. The problem is the War Powers Resolution, which delegates far too much power to the President. (The only unilateral action by the President that I can imagine is only one of self-defense.) It should be far more restrictive upon presidential war-making powers. As I already said, I think President Obama was right to go to Congress. And it is Congress that must ultimately decide upon the President's proposal. I do not believe the President has any authority without Congressional authorization.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I hope this does go down in a decisive defeat. If the President goes ahead after Congress has refused authorization, I'm actually one to believe he will have committed an impeachable offense (and I'm someone who voted to reelect and has otherwise supported this President). Without Congressional approval, the President does not have power to authorize an attack on Syria.

But why apply a different standard to Obama than other presidents? Clinton had no authorization for Kosovo or Iraq, HW had none for Panama, Reagan none for Libya or Grenada. I expect the House would probably impeach him if only to help their fundraising, but when the GOP tried against Clinton, the backlash led to the extremely rare case of president gaining House seats in his second midterm.

The difference is that Clinton's media team successfully portrayed it as being about Clinton's sex life and not his breaking the law by lying under oath.

It would be kind of hard for Obama's people to effect the same result in this circumstance. What I am sure of is that the Democrats would force their people to stay loyal through the fundraising and thereby kill it that way.